Group pitting of 17 Dopers who think Spaniards are cowards

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@The Gaspode

Well, well.

And even though some take offense at being lumped together with obvious morons, such as Maud’Dib, Brutus and SlyFrog, well that’s the point, isn’t it? Just because some posters voice an opinion in expletives and an inflammatory style, doesn’t make ‘your ilk’ any better.

I’m gonna start a list too. You and Aldebaran are on it, but that is as far as I want to go. I’m not going to waste my valuable time looking for witches.

As for those who deride me for my lack of sympathy for the Spanish people (which isn’t true) and question my love of democracy, I would would have wished to hear from you whenever Sharon and Israel get bashed around on these boards which is quite common. Sharon was the clear and democratic choice of a people who are the most experienced in dealing with terrorism. The pain and suffering of Spaniards and Americans alike as a result of terrorism is no match for that suffered by Israelis. Funny how every fuckin time an Israeli child is targeted for being blasted to smithereens the justification for the Israeli response is challenged. I haven’t heard you crying tears for them. I’d say you and Aldebaron are being more than slightly hypocritical.

[mascaroni]

@The Gaspode

On preview, Mascaroni, true enough, regarding people from both sides of the political scale trying to score points. But my beef in this is calling a people I know and love cowards, appeasers, or implying that they’re giving in to terrorists. That’s so blatantly ignorant, that I don’t know what they’re doing in a place like this.
I do have a suspicions though, that had PSOE been in power, and the table reversed, voting the conservative People’s Party (not popular, BTW) into power, some of our more vocal conservatives would not be posting in those threads. That’s pure speculation, on my part though, but I think that the fact that socialdemocrats came into power plays a part in it all (think of socialdemocrats as proponents of the welfare state, not socialism).

I have to admit being disappointed with the election result, not because of any idealogical bias, but because there will be the perception that AQ have been responsible for the change of government. While I strongly resent charges of cowardice against the Spanish I can understand ‘heat of the moment’ statements in the immediate wake of the election.
Over here in the UK it is unlikely that any similar pre-election attack would have much effect because both major political parties hold a similar line over Iraq/AQ etc.

[SlyFrog]

[qoute]Claiming that Spanish voters are “pussies” just because they exercised their democratic freedom and voted for a government that won’t kiss George W. Bush’s ass is the second-most clueless thing I’ve read all week.[/qoute]

Once again, as stated in the actual thread, if you are going to change what the other person said, you might as well just argue in your own head with what you assume the other guy said and be done with it.

Those who changed their vote because of the bombing, which, according to the shift from pre-bombing polls to election results were quite a few (I’ve seen reputable estimates of at least 9% - see the thread before playing the innane “cite” game that the pseudoacademics around here love so much), are cowards.

No one is cowardly because they don’t want a government that supports George Bush, or the Iraq war, or tariffs on steel, or the price of bananas. Oh, of course, I guess that was your strawman (and the strawman of a ton of other frothing Euros), and not the actual argument that was made.

[Debaser]

The Gaspode paints with to broad a brush.

goheels in particular is owed an apology. As is, I suspect many others of the ‘17’ who haven’t found this thread yet to defend themselves.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Coldfire

Great. Which is why countries from all over the world responded to 9/11 by saying, “Sorry, America - we don’t really feel all that empathic towards your plight. After all, you guys DID endorse slavery for an awfully long time. Ta now.” :rolleyes: And again, grienspace demonstrates that the level of empathy a nation (fuck, an entire continent) can expect depends on how well said nation has behaved during the past, oh, 700 years. All of this of course by his own very objective standards.

Yeah, not withstanding your sarcasm,you will recall, America has been criticized numerous times for squandering European empathy . It would appear that those of your stripe feel that empathy must be earned in the case of America but Spain gets a free ticket.

It’s certainly worse than locking up random Muslims without due process, or without charging them with anything! :rolleyes:

More sarcasm. Okay, but the term “random Muslims” is just not correct and completely misleading. Do you think American soldiers are idiots ? If random was the correct label, There would be a significant number of women prisoners in Gitmo.

[mhendo]

@SlyFrog

Those who changed their vote because of the bombing…are cowards.

You condemn yourself further with every post.

[furt]

@The Gaspode

Of course, some posters are desperately trying to make this into some kind of partisan issue.

That would be you, Amigo.

Instead of dealing with all seventeen as individuals, you decided to lump together in a party people who had views that differed from the OP, even when they explicitly explained where they differed, because their take on it wasn’t close enough to yours. When informed of your error, you denied it and continued to issue smears.

This thread is a monument to sloppy thinking, blurred distinctions and the willful spreading of ignorance.

[Charlie_Tan]

Irony, was it, KidCharlemagne? Are these quotes supposed to be read as irony too?

@KidCharlemagne

I can’t help but think that a lot of the arguments raised in this thread are really reactions to the OP’s unnecessarily harsh condemnations of the Spanish rather than the content of the argument.

Regardless of what 90% of Spain thought of the PP’s handling of Iraq, the majority still wanted them in power…until Thursday. Hell, one could reasonably argue that AQ elected the PSOE with its proxy swing vote and that they timed the attack to do just that. IMO, those who reversed their votes because of the bombings are essentially negotiating with terrorists, i.e, “Stop bombing us and we’ll put someone in power who we know will pull the troops out of Iraq.” I think its a short-sighted move.

[Coldfire]

@grienspace

Yeah, not withstanding your sarcasm,you will recall, America has been criticized numerous times for squandering European empathy . It would appear that those of your stripe feel that empathy must be earned in the case of America but Spain gets a free ticket.

My stripe? What the fuck?

I’ll have to simplify my terms, I suppose. grienspace, why did you feel it necessary to bring up the Inquisition in response to The Gaspode lyrical words about Spain? And would it not have been just as tacky, had a Spaniard (Dutchman, Swede, Brit, whatever) countered post-9/11 support for America with the notion that the US was once a bastion of slavery?

The point is: you don’t lash out at a nation in distress. Yes, the US has come under great international criticism since 9/11. It doesn’t change the fact that tears form in my eyes every time I see the horrific images of the Twin Towers collapsing. And any criticism I had on the US around 9/11, would have been easily overwhelmed by the absolute trauma of what happened in NYC and Washington.

“My stripe” are decent people who’ll know when it’s time for criticism, and when it’s time for support. What fucking stripe are you?

Okay, but the term “random Muslims” is just not correct and completely misleading. Do you think American soldiers are idiots ? If random was the correct label, There would be a significant number of women prisoners in Gitmo.

No shit, Sherlock. Look up “hyperbole” at your earliest convenience, please.

[SlyFrog]

@mhendo

You condemn yourself further with every post.

No, you do. Wow, that accomplished a lot.

[lucwarm]

I’ve been thinking about the situation in Spain, and I have a hypothetical question.

Suppose that there had been no election and instead the government had announced “In light of the recent terrorist attacks, we have reviewed our current foreign policy and decided it would be best if we withdrew from participation in the American occupation of Iraq.”

Would it be fair to accuse the Spanish of cowardice under such circumstances? Would it be fair to accuse them of anything negative?

[SlyFrog]

@lucwarm

I’ve been thinking about the situation in Spain, and I have a hypothetical question.

Suppose that there had been no election and instead the government had announced “In light of the recent terrorist attacks, we have reviewed our current foreign policy and decided it would be best if we withdrew from participation in the American occupation of Iraq.”

Would it be fair to accuse the Spanish of cowardice under such circumstances? Would it be fair to accuse them of anything negative?

At first blush, I think the answer is no. Choosing to leave Iraq is a policy decision, and you might reasonably believe that Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. You might also state that you have no reason to help another country fight terrorism, even if Iraq is part of the terrorist problem.

It is being bombed, calling your leadership murderers because of the bombing, and changing your vote that makes you an appeaser.

[Genghis_Bob]

When (please, God) George Bush is voted out of office in November of this year, will AQ congratulate themselves for having chased him out?

Probably so, I think. But they’ll be deluded. Many votes will be for John Kerry (or Ralph Nader), many will be against George Bush. But it’s presumptuous to ascribe a single overwhelming national “motive” to the aggregate individual decisions of millions of people voting their consciences.

Just so with Spain. The government’s policy with respect to Iraq and the US was hugely unpopular, which alone was probably enough to tip the balance. And the incoming government would have been remiss in not committing to a reversal of the much-maligned policies of their predecessors.

Terrorists aren’t stupid - I’m sure they knew they could make hay with the timing of their attack. They will probably use the Spanish election results as a recruiting tool - “look what we’ve accomplished”. It isn’t true, but that won’t stop them from using it.

So, yeah, there are as many reasons for the change in governments in Spain as their are voters in Spain. And, yeah, AQ will take whatever advantage they can out of the perceptions (right, wrong or whatever) they can foster about Spain’s response.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think **GoHeels ** is getting a fair shake here. His posts doesn’t strike me as Spain-blaming, they represent, if anything, a detached analysis of the way the situation will be viewed, and used, by the various parties.

[KidCharlemagne]

@The Gaspode

Irony, was it, KidCharlemagne? Are these quotes supposed to be read as irony too?

I can’t help but think that a lot of the arguments raised in this thread are really reactions to the OP’s unnecessarily harsh condemnations of the Spanish rather than the content of the argument.

No, the irony is that you don’t recognize that the above quote supports what I’ve said. Still waiting for an apology.

And Coldfire, I’m really surprised you laud as lyrical a post that so clearly misattributes statements to a mass of posters. If anything, you should be condemning it.

[World_Eater]

@Mehitabel

Ho-kay. I write something heartfelt that shows why I might feel a certain way about civilians faced with mindless terrorism, and people want me DEAD? Three years on the SDMB and that’s never happened, and here in one day I get threatened by World Eater and Aldebaran. But obviously I’m over-reacting, since not a single mod has made a peep about either incident.

A threat? Please feel free to point out how I threatened you. :rolleyes:

[Tabby_Cat]

As much as I would like not to post in the Pit, being such an emotional section, I feel I should clarify my position.

With respect to the word “pussy”, perhaps it was inflammatory, and unnecessary. In place of it, I suggested “people willing to capitulate to arm-twisting”.

That said, I stand by my opinion that the Spanish people who changed their votes based on the bombing should be labelled as such. They were swayed by the violence used against them, and did not stick to their principles, whatever they may have been.

Now, I also understand that the bombing might have “brought home” the point that supporting the Iraqi war might have real consequences, which caused people to reconsider their choice in voting. As for their rationale, perhaps they never imagined that such a terrorist act could have happened on their soil.

Without emotion, should such a concern be valid? People seem to think that since the bombing would not have happened had Spain not be involved in the Iraqi war, that Spain should not have been in the war in the first place. Using that as a rationale to go to war, certainly, is cowardice - They will go to war, but not if they get hurt. The fact remains that some votes were swung by the bomb. Even if they argue that it was merely the degree to which they would tolerate the Iraqi war, it still amounts to a changing of position based on a terrorist act.

Perhaps it is a failure of the democratic process, as much as it is of human nature. It remains that this was a vote based on emotion, and not of principles and logic. The bomb did nothing to change the principle and logic of the situation, the Spanish people surely would have known that supporting the war would result in an increased probility of terrorist attack. In that sense, the bombing only confirms that fact. Why should the votes have changed?

My only rationale is that for those people who changed their votes, either they didn’t want another attack to take place (keep their heads down, if you will), or that they didn’t believe that a terrorist attack could have taken place on their soil (of such magnitude).

This smacks of “contructive liability”, if you will. The change in the vote was constructed from nothing that the government did, but rather of a random event.

To use an analogy, If I hit someone intending to kill him, and he dies, people would say I should be charged with murder. If he does not die, would people say that I should still be charged with attempted murder, or of battery, which has a lesser sentence? In both cases, I intended the same thing, so the “vote” should still be the same, should it not?

Similarly, the government stance did not change at all. Why should the vote change? Simply because something physical happened? From this, I say that the people who changed their vote because of a physical occurance without government intention people who do not vote according to strong principles, or “cowards”, to use the (slightly) less inflammatory term.

That said, the extent of the government’s shifting of the blame for political gain was very regrettable. I do not blame the people that changed their vote based on that. At first, I thought that the ETA could be reasonably blamed for the bombing, but further evidence changed my mind. You will see that I have refrained from posting in that thread since. In any case, since it is impossible to differentiate the swing voters, I will not generalise them any further.
That is my opinion. If you think that it is worth flaming, please do so. I have read many of the opinions on this board, and many I agree with, and many I do not. Perhaps my opinion, and how it is formed, is not satisfactory to you. I invite you to change my mind.

[Coldfire]

@KidCharlemagne

And Coldfire, I’m really surprised you laud as lyrical a post that so clearly misattributes statements to a mass of posters. If anything, you should be condemning it.

I spoke of the OP’s “lyrical words about Spain”.

If you’re trying to demonstrate the OP is wrongly accusing you of something, it might help if you didn’t do the same thing to others, Kid.

[Charlie_Tan]

@furt

Instead of dealing with all seventeen as individuals, you decided to lump together in a party people who had views that differed from the OP, even when they explicitly explained where they differed, because their take on it wasn’t close enough to yours. When informed of your error, you denied it and continued to issue smears.

Yeah, starting seventeen pit threads seems like a good idea. Please understand, I didn’t pit seventeen people for their agreement with the OPs, I did it because they all voiced an opinion, in smaller or larger degrees, that the Spanish caved in to terrorists or helped AQ get an advantage/recognition/whatever.

The board is so slow now, It’s impossible to reply to each and every poster in a coherent way, rest assured I’ll be back tomorrow.

[Ale]

@Tabby_Cat

Spanish people surely would have known that supporting the war would result in an increased probility of terrorist attack. In that sense, the bombing only confirms that fact. Why should the votes have changed?

What part of “90% of the Spanish population was AGAINST the war” don´t you understand?

[KidCharlemagne]

@Coldfire

I spoke of the OP’s “lyrical words about Spain”.

If you’re trying to demonstrate the OP is wrongly accusing you of something, it might help if you didn’t do the same thing to others, Kid.

Good dodge. How’s this?

Do you agree that in the same post that Gaspode waxed lyrical about Spain and that was entitled “Group pitting of 17 Dopers who think Spaniards are cowards,” that he also inappropriately cited 17 people as believing such?