Group pitting of 17 Dopers who think Spaniards are cowards

[World_Eater]

@Tabby_Cat

Thus, perhaps it would be better to say that they are cowards for bowing to external pressure, rather than following the democratic process and voting for what they thought was best.

<throwing arms up in the air>

This was about as democratic as it gets.

[sailor]

@Tabby_Cat

If they quit because they are tired of the risk, then they are simply voting to eliminate the risk. They are not voting due to the killings, but rather, they are voting as to the risk of the killings.

It is differentiated from Spain in the sense that the people were otherwise content to continue with the risk, but for the actualisation of that risk (bomb).

You have to be joking. Does anyone else take this crap seriously? Or am I missing something? Can someone draw me a diagram?

[KidCharlemagne]

@Coldfire

Did it never occur to you that I simply don’t KNOW whether his 17 names are all worthy of the criticism voiced in the OP? Do you think I have all SDMB posts relating to last weeks tragedy in Madrid memorised? TG pitted people based on 3 or 4 threads, of which I glossed over one or perhaps two. I voiced no opinion because I simply do not know whether the OP is accurate.

Well, since you asked the question and it’s unrelated to the other arguments, I’ll answer it. Yes, I would have expected you to be reasonably familiar with a thread in which you posted 23 times over quite a short period even if you glossed over all the other posts.

[Tabby_Cat]

@sailor

You have to be joking. Does anyone else take this crap seriously? Or am I missing something? Can someone draw me a diagram?

Allow me to elaborate.

If Israel were to vote to allow the PLO to have land to stop the killings, their intention would be to stop the risk of further attack. They feel the that the current policy is not worth it, and decide to try to reduce the risk of further attack.

Will of the people => Do not accept risk, change it.
In Spain, the people (arguably) desire to vote for the PP, thus acknowledging the risk of attack by AQ, and accepting it. If they did not think otherwise, the polls would not be so close. However, an external event changes the vote.

Will of the people => Accepted the risk at first, but change their minds due to bomb attack, effectively capitulating to AQ.

Other possible reasons include
Sudden realisation of the risk (support Bush and think that AQ won’t target you? Right.)
Thinking that it won’t happen to you, but it does, and AQ call your bluff. You chicken out.
Accepting the risk, but getting intimidated by AQ and deciding that the risk isn’t worth taking any more.
I hope the point has been made clearer.

[SlyFrog]

@mhendo

The problem for you, however, is that you are the one claiming that people changed their vote out of fear. You have no way of knowing who those individuals “wandering the streets screaming and calling Aznar a murderer” were going to vote for before the bombing. They may well have been hardline PSOE supporters, whose votes were in no way changed by the bombing. Or they may even have been supporters of the almost 100 other parties that ran candidates in the electiion, ranging from old fashioned falangist and fascist parties, to old fashioned communist and socialist parties, to single-issue groups like the Cannabis party.

Remember, i never claimed that dissatisfaction with Aznar’s lack of straightforwardness was the only reason for shifting votes. I never even said it was the main one. All i said was that this provides at least one counterexample for all the morons who are calling the Spanish cowards and appeasers as a result of the election. You continue to insist that you know what was going through the heads of Spanish voters on Sunday; i continue to insist that you can barely keep track of what’s going through your own head.

Fine. “But on election day voters expressed anger with the government, accusing it of provoking the Madrid attacks by supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which most Spaniards opposed. . . . ‘I wasn’t planning to vote, but I am here today because the Popular Party is responsible for murders here and in Iraq,’ said Ernesto Sanchez-Gey, 48, who voted in Barcelona.”

Changing Vote Because I’m Scared

Here’s a socialist newsite that contains both of our points:

“The massive turnout was in large part the result of a surge of last-minute voters, who reacted to the Madrid bombings, and to the initial, entirely unsubstantiated claims of the government to have definitive proof that the culprits were from the Basque separatist ETA, by resolving to vote the Popular Party out of office. As evidence mounted that seemed to point to Al Qaeda, the conviction grew among broad masses of Spaniards, who had opposed the war from the start, that Aznar?s support for the US invasion had heightened the threat of terrorist atrocities and politically implicated the government in the tragic loss of life that occurred on Thursday. . . . Throughout Saturday, March 13, angry protests against the Popular Party escalated. Some 5,000 people gathered outside the PP headquarters, shouting, ‘Our dead, your war!’”

Changing Vote Because I’m Scared

(As an aside, let me question people’s belief that the government willingly “lied” about ETA involvement, but for some reason released information on the Al-Qaeda tape the morning of the election. Seems odd to me.)

Sure, there may have been some voters swayed because of the purported cover-up. I’m willing to bet, big time, that far more were swayed because of the occurence of the bombing itself. That is cowardice.

[SlyFrog]

@mhendo

The problem for you, however, is that you are the one claiming that people changed their vote out of fear. You have no way of knowing who those individuals “wandering the streets screaming and calling Aznar a murderer” were going to vote for before the bombing. They may well have been hardline PSOE supporters, whose votes were in no way changed by the bombing. Or they may even have been supporters of the almost 100 other parties that ran candidates in the electiion, ranging from old fashioned falangist and fascist parties, to old fashioned communist and socialist parties, to single-issue groups like the Cannabis party.

Remember, i never claimed that dissatisfaction with Aznar’s lack of straightforwardness was the only reason for shifting votes. I never even said it was the main one. All i said was that this provides at least one counterexample for all the morons who are calling the Spanish cowards and appeasers as a result of the election. You continue to insist that you know what was going through the heads of Spanish voters on Sunday; i continue to insist that you can barely keep track of what’s going through your own head.

Fine. “But on election day voters expressed anger with the government, accusing it of provoking the Madrid attacks by supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which most Spaniards opposed. . . . ‘I wasn’t planning to vote, but I am here today because the Popular Party is responsible for murders here and in Iraq,’ said Ernesto Sanchez-Gey, 48, who voted in Barcelona.”

Changing Vote Because I’m Scared

Here’s a socialist newsite that contains both of our points:

“The massive turnout was in large part the result of a surge of last-minute voters, who reacted to the Madrid bombings, and to the initial, entirely unsubstantiated claims of the government to have definitive proof that the culprits were from the Basque separatist ETA, by resolving to vote the Popular Party out of office. As evidence mounted that seemed to point to Al Qaeda, the conviction grew among broad masses of Spaniards, who had opposed the war from the start, that Aznar?s support for the US invasion had heightened the threat of terrorist atrocities and politically implicated the government in the tragic loss of life that occurred on Thursday. . . . Throughout Saturday, March 13, angry protests against the Popular Party escalated. Some 5,000 people gathered outside the PP headquarters, shouting, ‘Our dead, your war!’”

Changing Vote Because I’m Scared

(As an aside, let me question people’s belief that the government willingly “lied” about ETA involvement, but for some reason released information on the Al-Qaeda tape the morning of the election. Seems odd to me.)

Sure, there may have been some voters swayed because of the purported cover-up. It is not a bad angle, and if that is the reason for a change of vote, it certainly is not cowardly or being a “pussy.” I’m willing to bet, big time, that far more were swayed because of the occurence of the bombing itself. That is cowardice.

[World_Eater]

@Tabby_Cat

Other possible reasons include
Sudden realisation of the risk (support Bush and think that AQ won’t target you? Right.)
Thinking that it won’t happen to you, but it does, and AQ call your bluff. You chicken out.
Accepting the risk, but getting intimidated by AQ and deciding that the risk isn’t worth taking any more.

One more.

Realizing that being in Iraq is a waste of time, money and resources, and obviously does nothing to stop big ass bombs from blowing us up. Iraq didn’t just blow us up, AQ did, let’s go after them instead.

Epoch shattering ain’t it? :rolleyes:

[Tabby_Cat]

@World Eater

One more.

Realizing that being in Iraq is a waste of time, money and resources, and obviously does nothing to stop big ass bombs from blowing us up. Iraq didn’t just blow us up, AQ did, let’s go after them instead.

Epoch shattering ain’t it? :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, this was known from the beginning. See: Opposition to the Iraqi war in the first place. Thus, this realisation cannot be attributed to the bomb.

[World_Eater]

@Tabby_Cat

Unfortunately, this was known from the beginning. See: Opposition to the Iraqi war in the first place. Thus, this realisation cannot be attributed to the bomb.

Sure it can, the PSOE won didn’t they? I certainly would say it’s within the realm of reason that the bomb went off, and the people said “what the hell are we doing in Iraq? We need to go after these AQ assholes, fuck Aznar and fuck Iraq, AQ is the real problem”.

And then voted for the guy that felt the same way.

[PharmBoy]

@Sofa King

There’s no real reason not to think both motivations played a role. But I won’t be surprised at all if this new government comes straight out and says, “let’s keep our eyes on the fucking ball, get out of Iraq, and go straight for the bastards who actually did this to us.”

Maybe, but maybe not. I read today where the new Spanish govt wants to “dialog” with the Palestinians, so that sounds like appeasement to me.

Good luck with taht-it worked real well in 1939.

[World_Eater]

@PharmBoy

Maybe, but maybe not. I read today where the new Spanish govt wants to “dialog” with the Palestinians, so that sounds like appeasement to me.

First off, cite?

Secondly, last time I checked, Palistinians != Al Qaeda

Third, so what? Someone needs to have a dialog with them, maybe they’ll listen to some reason.

[Larry_Mudd]

@Tabby_Cat

In Spain, the people (arguably) desire to vote for the PP, thus acknowledging the risk of attack by AQ, and accepting it. If they did not think otherwise, the polls would not be so close. However, an external event changes the vote.

One more time.

The problem with your analysis is twofold:

1. It assumes that the polls indicated a clear winner.
2. It attributes the deviation from the projected result to a speculative motivation which is not supported by any evidence, and while ignoring other, more likely motivations.

Refutation of point one (Pre-attack speculation about the election)

With less than a week to go until Spaniards go to the polls and the gap between the incumbent government and the opposition socialist party closing, the battle is on to capture undecided voters.

Although the conservative Partido Popular (PP) led by Mariano Rajoy is expected to win next Sunday’s vote, according to recent polls, an absolute majority is unlikely and both sides are trying to win over the ‘undecideds’.

Almost one fourth of voters say they have not yet chosen who to vote for.

Refutation of point two - (most commonly voiced post-attack concern)

Voters said they were enraged not only by the government’s insistence that the Basque separatist group ETA was responsible, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, but they also resented its clumsy attempts to quell antigovernment sentiment.

For example, the main television channel TVE, which is state-owned, showed scant and selective scenes of antigovernment demonstrations on Saturday night, just as it ran very little coverage of the large demonstrations against the war in Iraq last year. It also suddenly changed its regular programming to air a documentary on the horrors of ETA.

That was the last straw for some Spaniards, who said it evoked the nightmare of censorship during the Franco dictatorship little more than a quarter of a century ago.

preview

@SlyFrog

As an aside, let me question people’s belief that the government willingly “lied” about ETA involvement, but for some reason released information on the Al-Qaeda tape the morning of the election. Seems odd to me.

Well maybe they were looking at which quarters the conflicting information was coming from:

Prime Minister José María Aznar personally called the top editors of Spain’s major dailies twice on the day of the attacks. In the first round of calls, Mr. Aznar said he was convinced that ETA was responsible.
"He said, `It was ETA, Antonio, don’t doubt it in the least,’ " said Antonio Franco, editor in chief of the Barcelona-based El Periódico de Catalunya, in an interview.
Mr. Franco’s newspaper published a special edition based on Mr. Aznar’s call, then Mr. Franco published an editorial rectifying the mistake as new information came to light. “It was shameful to me that the whole world was taking precautions and debating about Al Qaeda except in Spain, where the attack occurred,” he said.
At the Spanish news agency EFE, Alfonso Bauluz, a correspondent and member of the agency’s union, said, “I received information from my colleagues, who have good sources, about the Al Qaeda hypothesis, but the editor said we don’t want that, don’t pay attention. On Saturday, the editor wrote a story with his own byline saying all possibilities of an Al Qaeda connection were thrown out.”
During Mr. Aznar’s second call that evening, he acknowledged that other avenues were being investigated, but discounted them, Mr. Franco said.

As for the videotape – you remember that government “announced” its discovery after the person who placed it there called a TV station to inform them of its location, right? And that even after that disclosure, the government still claimed that ETA was the “main suspect”?

La la la.

[sailor]

@Tabby_Cat

If they quit because they are tired of the risk, then they are simply voting to eliminate the risk. They are not voting due to the killings, but rather, they are voting as to the risk of the killings.
. . . .
I hope the point has been made clearer.

Sorry but I cannot take you seriously. You are playing silly games. If the people of Israel decide they are tired of the killings and sign peace with the PLO then they are merely “reducing the risk of further attack” and that is not cowardice but if the people of Spain would decide they would want to “reduce the risk of further attack” that would be cowardice. :rolleyes:

You are implying that there are two levels: what the people say they want and what they really want and that the people of Spain did not vote what they “really” wanted because of the killings while the people of Israel “really” wanted that even if it was because of the killings. This is just silly semantics. The people of Spain voted what they wanted to vote and you are assuming they wanted something else. Well, the people of Israel would also like to vote for something else if it were not for the killings. It is a silly game you are trying to play.

Furthermore, by your definition, to be a coward means to have accepted the risk at first and then changed your mind about it so that if a military officer asks for volunteers for a risky mission the soldier who is scared and does not volunteer is not a coward while the soldier who accepts but half way through realizes it is riskier than he thought and gives up is a coward.

The fact is that the USA is steadily losing international support and the only recourse it has is to call names. The suspicions about the intentions of the USA are growing and more and more people believe the USA is using this “war on terror” for its own ends.

http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=1215&format=

When people in the nine countries - including Britain and the United States - were asked whether the United States’ actions were sincere to reduce international terrorism, majorities in France, Germany and the four Muslim-majority countries said they thought not. Almost half in Russia thought the United States was not sincere, while majorities in Britain and the United States said they thought the anti-terror campaign was a sincere effort.

The US occupation of Iraq has turned into a fiasco and the US government is going to do anything but admit the blatantly obvious truth. I wouldnt be surprised if they resort to the same tactics at home and start calling those Americans who question these policies “cowards” or “anti-american”. Because, you know, no true Scotsman would vote for anyone other than His Republican Horror GWB.

[chula]

PharmBoy needs to be added to the list.

[Tabby_Cat]

@sailor

Sorry but I cannot take you seriously. You are playing silly games. If the people of Israel decide they are tired of the killings and sign peace with the PLO then they are merely “reducing the risk of further attack” and that is not cowardice but if the people of Spain would decide they would want to “reduce the risk of further attack” that would be cowardice. :rolleyes:

Please see the point about “changing your mind due to external influence”. As I have said, my point is that the PP possibly might have been re-elected had there not been the bomb. The bomb caused the people to change who was in power, even though it was already known what the party had done.

The Spanish people did NOT decide that they wanted to reduce the risk of further attack, if they did, then the polls should have reflected that before the bomb. Unless they did not understand the risk before, or thought that it would not have happened to them, etc.

@sailor

Furthermore, by your definition, to be a coward means to have accepted the risk at first and then changed your mind about it so that if a military officer asks for volunteers for a risky mission the soldier who is scared and does not volunteer is not a coward while the soldier who accepts but half way through realizes it is riskier than he thought and gives up is a coward.

You seem to be lacking the element of external coersion. In both cases, the soldier is free to do whatever he wants. If he is pressured violently into doing something he does not want, then he has changed his principles in reaction to external pressure, to relieve that pressure. Nowhere did I say that being mistaken to the risk is cowardice, in fact, I specificially discounted that group, however short sighted they might have been.

[Tabby_Cat]

@Larry Mudd

One more time.

The problem with your analysis is twofold:

1. It assumes that the polls indicated a clear winner.
2. It attributes the deviation from the projected result to a speculative motivation which is not supported by any evidence, and while ignoring other, more likely motivations.

1. Even if the polls were close, there margin of PSOE was far greater than “close”.

2. I have addressed the point above with regard to my opinion. This particular speculation, however, is eminently possible, and thus should not be relegated to “impossible opinion”. To be sure, we might never know which motivation is more likely. The less likely possibility should still be allowed as a opinion, regardless.

In any case, it is not so much a problem with my analysis as it is a non-acceptance of the logical outcome. It is one of many possibilities, and should be taken as such.

If you don’t accept this justification, then it is not your opinion, and I am not forcing this opinion on anyone. I cannot even say that it is my own opinion. But if you wish a justification for that view point, there certainly is one.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Coldfire

My stripe? What the fuck?

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?

Coldfire, I responded to a well crafted post that was designed to brand certain posters with shame. In an effort that would do either Torquemada or William Stoughton proud the Gaspode secured approval for his childish labours amongst “your stripe”. Put yourself back in real life for a moment…Mature adults do not act in this manner. My historical references were merely to respond to his selective history and should be limited to that context. I do not share the predominant view that The Gaspode acted out of any genuine sympathy. He’s just pumping up his popularity by slamming others. Grade school all over again.

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.

Well don’t question my sympathy for the people of Spain either. Or Israel or Palestine , both of whom are constantly in distress and constantly lashed out at by others of “your stripe” or mine(the gang of 17).

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

I don’t get it. You’re exaggerating?

[Larry_Mudd]

@Tabby_Cat

1. Even if the polls were close, there margin of PSOE was far greater than “close”.

Various polls in the weeks before the election gave the PP a slim 4% - 5.5% lead over the PSOE, while acknowledging that nearly a quarter of respondants said that they were undecided. Even if we weren’t talking about a sample size of 10,000, and the pollsters asked every single person who registered to vote, those statistics leave the possibility of an anambiguous PSOE victory on the table. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

The less likely possibility should still be allowed as a opinion, regardless.

Well, yeah, okay…

In any case, it is not so much a problem with my analysis as it is a non-acceptance of the logical outcome. It is one of many possibilities, and should be taken as such.

I don’t think you understand what a “logical outcome” is.

Let’s look at the your little syllogism again, okay?

Will of the people => Accepted the risk at first, but change their minds due to bomb attack, effectively capitulating to AQ.

The premise that they were set to vote in another PP government is not established. Speculation about what tipped the balance should be informed by examining the issues, and not merely picked out of the air. The weeks leading up to the election included a lot of electioneering from all sides, going after the undecided voters. One of the key issues was forthrightness.

Spain holds an election in three weeks’ time. Opinion polls show that many Spaniards are still undecided as to how they will vote. […] “The Spanish press is filled with silences,” freelance journalist Emilio Silva said. "So often when I’m out to lunch with another journalist, they say to me ‘Oh I wish I could write this report or that report,’ but they can’t because they are subject to unofficial political censures. “This is a left-over of dictatorship.” […]
A recent public opinion poll, for example, showed that 75% of Spaniards want a televised, live head-to-head debate between the two main contenders for the general election. They want to judge the leaders of the Spanish Socialist Party and the conservative Partido Popular for themselves. It looks unlikely to happen.

If a significant number of people changed their vote, (and that’s not strictly necessary for us to see see the result we did,) it’s silly to talk about what single thing is mostly responsible for it, either way.

It was a democratic election. Many people participated, and they all had their reasons for voting the way they did.

My objection is to attributing a simplistic (and offensive) motivation to the undecided folks, and this self-centered post hoc analysis that we see coming from some quarters, when, for anyone who has been paying attention, the last year has been a steady slide for Aznar and the Popular Party, and their defeat is anything but a surprise. If anything, it’s surprising that they did as well as they did.

[Sofa_King]

@PharmBoy

Maybe, but maybe not. I read today where the new Spanish govt wants to “dialog” with the Palestinians, so that sounds like appeasement to me.

Good luck with taht-it worked real well in 1939.

The Palestinian people are not Nazis. The Palestinians fight because they live without hope. Give them hope, and aggression necessarily becomes antithetical to the achievement of their ultimate goals.

International terrorists–an entirely different type of people–do not control political dialogue in most of the places they attempt to cow with their asymmetric style of warfare. They do not have the threat of military power to back up their intentions as the Germans had in 1938.

Now that some international terrorists have made it a fight, we’re going to extinguish that way of life. I remind you again that the Spanish have considerable experience in such things. They are as dangerous an ally as they are an enemy, because historically the Spanish are not beholden to simple moralities when complex goals are to be achieved.

The Phoenix rises from the ashes. So too will Spain thirst for revenge. This is a war the terrorists can only win by not losing. There are far more ways to lose than to win, and there are far more people committed to ensuring that loss than there are brilliant international terrorists.

I say start by offering them ice cream. If that doesn’t work, kill their families and friends.

[Coldfire]

@grienspace

Coldfire, I responded to a well crafted post that was designed to brand certain posters with shame. In an effort that would do either Torquemada or William Stoughton proud the Gaspode secured approval for his childish labours amongst “your stripe”.

Stop assuming you know how I interpreted the OP, please. Like KidCharlemagne, you’re convinced you know exactly what I think, despite the fact that I haven’t even formulated an opinion in this particular thread. Also, trying to put me in some sort of imaginary group by speaking of “my stripe” as if I were part of some sort of evil homogenous group that needs to be fought makes you look like a fucking idiot.

Put yourself back in real life for a moment…Mature adults do not act in this manner. My historical references were merely to respond to his selective history and should be limited to that context.

Fair enough. Obviously, this was not entirely clear upon the first read, or I would not have responded. FWIW, I also didn’t read The Gaspode’s post as “selective history”: I interpreted it as a description of a country he obviously feels fond of. It didn’t come across to me that he was trying to pass off his post as the complete and accurate History of Spain.

I do not share the predominant view that The Gaspode acted out of any genuine sympathy. He’s just pumping up his popularity by slamming others. Grade school all over again.

Hmmmm. He said he worked 4 hours crafting that OP. I’d say he obviously feels strongly about the subject at hand. But I’m sure you’d know his motives better than The Gaspode himself does, right?

Well don’t question my sympathy for the people of Spain either. Or Israel or Palestine , both of whom are constantly in distress and constantly lashed out at by others of “your stripe” or mine(the gang of 17).

Huh? Wha?
Where in this thread have I spoken about either Israel or Palestine? What have “my stripe” done wrong now? :rolleyes:

I don’t get it. You’re exaggerating?

No. You commented on my use of the word “random” in the statement that "random Muslims were aprehended and shipped to Gitmo, saying that had the aprehensions truly been random, there ought to have been women in Guantanamo as well.

Obviously, I should have said “random Muslim men”, in order to not confuse “your stripe”. :rolleyes:

KidCharlemagne: great job. You counted my posts in ONE of the many threads on this topic. Like I already said: I haven’t read each and every thread the OP references. That was the point. The fact that I participated in ONE of them doesn’t mean I have read them all. Surely, that’s not too hard to understand?