This accusation against the entire nation of Spain is so stunningly ignorant it defies belief that this is the second thread I’ve seen on this board alleging this.
Bush lied to get us into Iraq.
Aznar participated in that lie.
When the bombing occurred, Aznar attempted to deflect the responsibility onto ETA in a stupid attempt to prevent having to take responsibility for leading his people against their collective will into Iraq.
He has now paid the appropriate price for these lies at the polls.
For people who don’t live there to make these kinds of extraordinary accusations is just nauseating. You all have much to be ashamed of.
Ashamed, as in actually doing something wrong. This is wrong, it’s morally reprehinsible in the extreme, and I truly can’t believe that this is being debated here at all.
[QUOTE=Starving I get so tired of this type of U.S. bashing! Those who accuse the U.S. of imperialism or dictatorship are ignoring history. Unlike almost all of the countries who are currently being held up to us as sterling examples of civilized restraint, i.e. Europeans, we have never conquered any country with the aim of seizing its land or resources, we have never installed a colonial government anywhere, and when attacked by countries we ultimately defeated, we not only did not take over these countries but helped them to rebuild. We also helped our allies rebuild; some of whom (are you listening, France) subsequently told us to stuff their war debt, they weren’t gonna pay.[/QUOTE]
Sorry. I have to respond to this.
Mexico. As a Mexican classmate of mine once said… “You assholes took the half with paved roads.”
Spain (ironically). Sure, we did it to promote freedom in the Phillipines and Cuba. SUuuuure we did.
Hell, we even took a stab at invading Canada at one point. Google up “Laura Secord”.
No, we don’t like be a ‘colonial’ power. For a century though instead we set up ‘client states’ in which generic right-wing puppet leaders were installed to make certain that those countries did what WE wanted and not what their populations wanted. Examples: Nicaragua/Somoza, Chile/Pinochet, Vietnam/Rhee.
I acknowledge this one. But realize that the Marshall Plan was developed out of OUR self-interest, not some great love of mankind. It was, and forever shall remain a good thing but let’s not look at it with blinders on.
- Jonathan ‘1.5 degrees in de-colonial history’ Chance
I must admit that after eading the OP and a couple of the ensuing messages, I largely skimmed the rest of the thread. For as a PSOE-voting Spanaird myself – a vote, that in my case, was never in doubt and had nothing to do with the attacks – I found myself getting more than a little bit angry at the insulting sillyness being bandied about.
“Pussies” your own selves!
1-A nation that goes out 11 million strong (a full 1/4 of its entire population) the day after such an attack, in full defiance of whomever the perpetrators might have been, is certainly not showing any fright. Don’t remeber a similar response after 9/11, but perhaps it’s just my faulty recall.
2-The PP brought about their own demise, nothing more. First by going against a full 90% of its constituents and joining what was already know to be an invasion based on lies and deceit, secondly, and this was its own coup de grace, by blatantly trying to manipulate the countries’ worst terrorist attack (and I must remind some of you that we’ve been dealing with terrorism for the better part of 40 years unlike the US) into political capital.
3-To even suggest that the terrorist have won by way of bringing a left of center goverment into power, is to show your own ignorance of what it takes to fight terrorism. Because, as much as Herr Bush has tried to make this a “with us or gainst us” black & white issue, it simply isn’t. In fact, Mr Zapatero had pledged all along that would be his first priority were he to win the elections. Thing is, he, like most of Spain, Europe and the world, does not think invading sovereign countries based on lies and deceptions is the way to do it.
4-The polls prior to the attacks were showing an alarming (for the PP) narrowing of the gap between the two parties. From a 10 point gap just a scant two weeks ago to an almost neglible 2.5 difference the day prior to the attack. Given the fact that polls have a built-in margin of error of about same, the race was too close to call for many a political analyst. At best for them, the PP would have won, but they wouldn’t have approached their 2000 levels. Meaning that their Parliamentary majority was as good as gone no matter what – no rule by fiat = no more Dubya butt-kissing.
5-Allow me to go back to the manipulation which is what ultimaltely did them in. Had Aznar & Co had the yarbles to stand up to the Spanish people from the get go, and admit that Al Quada was the most likely suspect – as most of the intelligence agencies suggested, including Spain’s own CIN – they might have managed to hold on to some of the independents. But their blatant game of manipulation, including changing TVE’s programming last night to an all-ETA special, was just too much to bare for the average grief-striken and, oh so angry Spaniard.
Just off the top of my head I can think of the following examples:
I-Angel Acebes, Minister of the Interior, says at his first press conference, just hours after the attacks: “We have no doubt ETA is behind this.”
II-The same Acebes has to backtrack later in the day after finding stolen van with detonator devices and a Koran instructional video. Now says “ETA remains prime suspect, but we’re investigating all possibilities.”
III-Aznar addresses the nation, makes a number of pointed remarks blaming “independist aspirations” and all the damage they’ve caused Spain in the past, while carefully avoiding direct references to ETA.
IV-E-mail in London based Arab paper by radical Islamist org claims credit for the attacks. Although it warrants further investigation, it is just about dismissed by Acebes as “unfounded claims from dubious sources.”
V-Which is exactly the same wording he uses to negate plausibility to a number of ETA denials. One of them by the speaker of the erstwhile legal arm of ETA, the Batasuna party. The two others are coded messages received by a Basque newspaper and the Basque regional TV station (both used by ETA in the past)
VI-Ana Palacios, Minister of Foreign Affairs, is quite the busy beaver, obtaining an almost unprecedent quick UN condemnation of not just the attack, but ETA itself, mere hours after the event. Beyond that, she sent a now leaked memo to all Spanish embassies overseas urging them to “stick to the official version of events in order to avoid confusion.”
VII-Police bomb experts find an unexploded backpack at one of the train stations. After thorough testing of same, concludes that neither the explosives nor the detonators are of the type “used by ETA in the past.” This evidence directly contradicts Acebes original claims.
VIII-There are video cameras in all stations, none have been made available to the public. One witness has come forth, he claims to have seen the guys around the van with the detonators, although they were wearing ski masks, he claims two out of the three were “rather tall,” an unusual physical characteristic in the Basque region.
IX-The US and England have upped their terror alerts, particularly around train stations. It is highly unlikely that they would be afraid of ETA, even if Bush and Blair have both gone on record as blaming the Basque terrorist group.
I’m probably missing a few more examples of this misinformation campaign, but the above should make the point quite clear.
As well as the more salient one, we don’t take kindly to being lied and manipulated with.
Perhaps there’s a lesson to be learned there for all you “brave Americans” like the OPer?
One PO’d, sad, and yet happy Spaniard. There might be light at the end of the tunnel after all. Just fuckin’ glad we’ve finally taken the lead.
I must admit that after eading the OP and a couple of the ensuing messages, I largely skimmed the rest of the thread. For as a PSOE-voting Spanaird myself – a vote, that in my case, was never in doubt and had nothing to do with the attacks – I found myself getting more than a little bit angry at the ensuing sillyness being bandied about.
“Pussies” your own selves!
1-A nation that goes out 11 million strong (a full 1/4 of its entire population) the day after such an attack, in full defiance of whomever the perpetrators might have been, is certainly not showing any fright. Don’t remeber a similar response after 9/11, but perhaps it’s just my faulty recall.
2-The PP brought about their own demise, nothing more. First by going against a full 90% of its constituents and joining what was already know to be an invasion based on lies and deceit, secondly, and this was its own coup de grace, by blatantly trying to manipulate the countries’ worst terrorist attack (and I must remind some of you that we’ve been dealing with terrorism for the better part of 40 years unlike the US) into political capital.
3-To even suggest that the terrorist have won by way of bringing a left of center goverment into power, is to show your own ignorance of what it takes to fight terrorism. Because, as much as Herr Bush has tried to make this a “with us or gainst us” black & white issue, it simply isn’t. In fact, Mr Zapatero had pledged all along that would be his first priority were he to win the elections. Thing is, he, like most of Spain, Europe and the world, does not think invading sovereign countries based on lies and deceptions is the way to do it.
4-The polls prior to the attacks were showing an alarming (for the PP) narrowing of the gap between the two parties. From a 10 point gap just a scant two weeks ago to an almost neglible 2.5 difference the day prior to the attack. Given the fact that polls have a built-in margin of error of about same, the race was too close to call for many a political analyst. At best for them, the PP would have won, but they wouldn’t have approached their 2000 levels. Meaning that their Parliamentary majority was as good as gone no matter what – no rule by fiat = no more Dubya butt-kissing.
5-Allow me to go back to the manipulation which is what ultimaltely did them in. Had Aznar & Co had the yarbles to stand up to the Spanish people from the get go, and admit that Al Quada was the most likely suspect – as most of the intelligence agencies suggested, including Spain’s own CIN – they might have managed to hold on to some of the independents. But their blatant game of manipulation, including changing TVE’s programming last night to an all-ETA special, was just too much to bare for the average grief-striken and, oh so angry Spaniard.
Just off the top of my head I can think of the following examples:
I-Angel Acebes, Minister of the Interior, says at his first press conference, just hours after the attacks: “We have no doubt ETA is behind this.”
II-The same Acebes has to backtrack later in the day after finding stolen van with detonator devices and a Koran instructional video. Now says “ETA remains prime suspect, but we’re investigating all possibilities.”
III-Aznar addresses the nation, makes a number of pointed remarks blaming “independist aspirations” and all the damage they’ve caused Spain in the past, while carefully avoiding direct references to ETA.
IV-E-mail in London based Arab paper by radical Islamist org claims credit for the attacks. Although it warrants further investigation, it is just about dismissed by Acebes as “unfounded claims from dubious sources.”
V-Which is exactly the same wording he uses to negate plausibility to a number of ETA denials. One of them by the speaker of the erstwhile legal arm of ETA, the Batasuna party. The two others are coded messages received by a Basque newspaper and the Basque regional TV station (both used by ETA in the past)
VI-Ana Palacios, Minister of Foreign Affairs, is quite the busy beaver, obtaining an almost unprecedent quick UN condemnation of not just the attack, but ETA itself, mere hours after the event. Beyond that, she sent a now leaked memo to all Spanish embassies overseas urging them to “stick to the official version of events in order to avoid confusion.”
VII-Police bomb experts find an unexploded backpack at one of the train stations. After thorough testing of same, concludes that neither the explosives nor the detonators are of the type “used by ETA in the past.” This evidence directly contradicts Acebes original claims.
VIII-There are video cameras in all stations, none have been made available to the public. One witness has come forth, he claims to have seen the guys around the van with the detonators, although they were wearing ski masks, he claims two out of the three were “rather tall,” an unusual physical characteristic in the Basque region.
IX-The US and England have upped their terror alerts, particularly around train stations. It is highly unlikely that they would be afraid of ETA, even if Bush and Blair have both gone on record as blaming the Basque terrorist group.
I’m probably missing a few more examples of this misinformation campaign, but the above should make the point quite clear.
As well as the more salient one, we don’t take kindly to being lied and manipulated with.
Perhaps there’s a lesson to be learned there for all you “brave Americans” like the OPer?
One PO’d, sad, and yet relieved Spaniard. There might be light at the end of the tunnel after all. Just fuckin’ glad we’ve finally taken the lead.
RedFury: Thanks for the Spanish perspective. It’s easy to rail against someone if you think they’re not around to hear and respond. It’ll be interesting to see more of what your fellow countrymen on both sides of the issue think as time goes on and the situation develops.
PD-Pardon the double post and all the likely sp mistakes contained therein. But I admit, that as a native Madrileño, albeit no longer a resident, I am more than a little emotionally involved in all of this.
Never mind that I’ve never taken to ignorance or thinly veiled insults very well. And I am not about to start now.
Perhaps the lesson for the “honest Spanish” is to learn to read. When did the OPer call himself a “brave American?” When did the OPer say anything about the Spanish people being lied to? What in the hell does the OP, regarding the Spanish people calling their president a “murderer” because of the Al-Qaeda bombing, have to do with whether the Spanish leadership lied about who did the bombing, Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, or anything else.
Look people, if you are going to post in the thread, at least read what it is about and the other posts. Stop posting your bullshit responses to a strawman argument that wasn’t made. No one cares about whether the Spanish people wanted war in Iraq, whether someone said the ETA was responsible, whether Amercians are rude, etc. Read the question and answer it. I realize it may require you to break out a new argument, using new words, rather than the pointless, “But you Amercians are unilateralists, you are pushing around the world, we didn’t want to go to war, our leaders lied to us” response that you use for every argument.
You want your worthless OP specifically discussed? Fine. You asked for it:
Title: Deliberately provocative and insulting.
1st paragraph: a lie and a strawman.
2nd paragraph: a lie and a strawman.
3rd paragraph: Deliberately provocative and insulting.
Satisfied now?
You’re getting mighty close to BBQ reponse – just not worth the effort.
From your OP which you’ve obviouly forgotten.
Thread title:
Who the fuck are you calling a “pussy” and why? How insulting would you find such a statement about the US after 9/11?
How about it’s “evidence” the US should stop lying to other countries in order to get what it wants? How about the fact that citizens in other countries have a right to think for themselves and not follow their leaders blindly?
It strikes me as odder still that the above statement could have come from an above room temperature IQ. Care to try again? Perhaps you were just warming up.
There are probably close to 200 threads that dismiss this particular bit of idiocy. Learning the use of the search function might do you well if you’re planning on spending any lenght of time here.
Your OP asserted that the cause of the incumbent Spanish government’s defeat was a cowardly reaction to the recent attacks. It has since been shown that OTHER factors were extant: the electoral race was already very close–the government expected to lose seats, maybe even a majority–and the attempt by government officials to deflect blame onto ETA rather that al-Quaida enraged voters already smarting from Spain’s unpopular entry into the Iraqi war. The success of the Socialists was NOT solely brought about by a punishment vote blaming the government for the bombings.
I suspect that some Americans have their panties in a twist because (i) rejection of the incumbent government gives the IMPRESSION that the terrorists have won, which is detrimental to their cause; and (ii) that wicked word “socialist” gives them a throbbing boner.
A palliative to the stunning ignorance and arrogance being shown here:
Nice objective thread title. This should be in the pit so I can tell the OP what I think of him.
BULLSHIT!!!
The greater wrong by far is capitulating to (and thereby further encouraging) terrorism! Personally, I was shocked that the Spanish people fell for this. I expected them to rally around Aznar in a show of strength and to let these reprehensible scum know that their tactics were only going to strengthen their reserve not to be cowed by terrorism. Sadly, I was mistaken.
Yes, good deconstruction. The 1st paragraph was a question - I’ve never heard of a question that was a lie before. The second paragraph was an opinion; again, it’s odd that an opinion is somehow a lie, I always thought that “lie” was used in connection with facts.
Deliberatively provocative, well, I’ve already admitted that. Insulting is up to you. One out of three ain’t bad I guess.
I would find it very accurate if someone had called George Bush Sr. a murderer because the first gulf war “caused” 9/11.
See, this is what I mean. What does this have to do with anything? How does the U.S. lying to other countries affect Spaniards calling Aznar a murderer? How does it affect the viewpoint held by some Spaniards that, apparently, Aznar is responsible for the recent bombings.
Again, you are doing great at responding to the other 200 questions you mentioned were posted about whether Iraq really had weapons of mass destruction, and whether U.S. and the European leaders lied about things. Try answering the questions that were posted here.
No, it didn’t. Again, you are not actually reading the text; you are reading the argument you assume someone is making, so that you can make a glib response.
I did not say that the cause, as in the sole cause, of the defeat was a cowardly reaction to the recent attacks. I stated that the “punishment voters,” those who consider the former Spanish leadership murderers, and who voted against them because they somehow “caused the bombing,” may be cowards.
Seriously, can you people read? Can you do anything other than trot out the basic “ignorant, superior American” rhetoric. I would suggest that a tendency to simply assume what people are writing or saying, without actually reading it or thinking about it, but instead bringing up the same old “ugly American” argument is what is ignorant, condescending, and insulting.
I never once said that I don’t believe that various leaders, including Bush, Blair, and others, lied about what they know, or came up with a pretense for war. When you argue about that, you are arguing against a strawman, because it is what you know how to do.
Answer the question - are those who believe the former Spanish leadership “murdered” the terrorist victims, or who voted against the recent government because of the bombings (not because of the decision to go to Iraq, or to back Bush, etc.), appeasers and cowards?
Yes, good deconstruction. The 1st paragraph was a question - I’ve never heard of a question that was a lie before. The second paragraph was an opinion; again, it’s odd that an opinion is somehow a lie, I always thought that “lie” was used in connection with facts.
Deliberatively provocative, well, I’ve already admitted that. Insulting is up to you. One out of three ain’t bad I guess.
I would find it very accurate if someone had called George Bush Sr. a murderer because the first gulf war “caused” 9/11.
See, this is what I mean. What does this have to do with anything? How does the U.S. lying to other countries affect Spaniards calling Aznar a murderer? How does it affect the viewpoint held by some Spaniards that, apparently, Aznar is responsible for the recent bombings.
Again, you are doing great at responding to the other 200 questions you mentioned were posted about whether Iraq really had weapons of mass destruction, and whether U.S. and the European leaders lied about things. Try answering the questions that were posted here.
No, it didn’t. Again, you are not actually reading the text; you are reading the argument you assume someone is making, so that you can make a glib response.
I did not say that the cause, as in the sole cause, of the defeat was a cowardly reaction to the recent attacks. I stated that the “punishment voters,” those who consider the former Spanish leadership murderers, and who voted against them because they somehow “caused the bombing,” may be cowards.
Seriously, can you people read? Can you do anything other than trot out the basic “ignorant, superior American” rhetoric? I would suggest that a tendency to simply assume what people are writing or saying, without actually reading it or thinking about it, but instead bringing up the same old “ugly American” argument is what is ignorant, condescending, and insulting.
I never once said that I don’t believe that various leaders, including Bush, Blair, and others, lied about what they know, or came up with a pretense for war. When you argue about that, you are arguing against a strawman, because it is what you know how to do.
Answer the question - are those who believe the former Spanish leadership “murdered” the terrorist victims, or who voted against the recent government because of the bombings (not because of the decision to go to Iraq, or to back Bush, etc.), appeasers and cowards?
You pretty much already have, haven’t you? I’ve already admitted that the title is deliberately provocative, there’s nothing more there. Answer the questions, state your view.
By the way, enough of the “You ain’t from around here, are you boy” type of comments on the low post count. For some reason, I’ve seen people here in particular do that for years, and it is ridiculous and childish. I hardly think that post count reflects on ability (it’s a false analogy anyway, not everyone who reads the site or the boards posts constantly); it’s another cheap attempt to attempt to cast disparagement on the poster, rather than the post.
Congratulations on having posted a lot on these boards, it makes your kung fu much stronger, now trying commenting on the posts instead of making references to membership in the secret “high posters” club.
Yeah, boy…you sure showed us, alright!
So, they have a leader who brought them to war against their will, which war has since been shown to be based on a lie, and that same leader then jumps to a conclusion that is proven to be unfounded on this bombing, said conclusion having been jumped to for transparently political reasons, and the Spanish are supposed to reward this remarkable display of self-serving behavior with a re-election, or they are pussies because to do otherwise is to give in to terrorists.
And this is supposed to be taken seriously as a mature, considered opinion of how the Spanish thought when they voted. No thought at all that maybe they were outraged and insulted by the behavior of their PM? Couldn’t have been that, eh?
And, one notes as well the lack of any sympathy at all for the Spanish in their time of grief, because after all there’s a political point to be scored, and that surely takes precedence over any other consideration.
What does whether he lied have to do with people calling him a murderer? Did his purported lie about the ETA somehow blow those people up? Again, what does any of that have to do with the question being (sort of) debated?
Oh sure, for those who were outraged at his response to the bombing, they may have voted against him for that reason. Those are not the same people I am discussing, those who voted against him because the bombing occurred, the one’s whose act appears to be cowardice and appeasement.
Are you kidding? I have a huge amount of sympathy. It is a tremendous tragedy. I just can’t imagine that the dead people would be happy that people are walking the streets blaming the leadership, and not Al-Qaeda, for blowing them up, much in the same way as I think people who blame Clinton as being the true cause of 9/11 have their priorities misplaced, and in the case of Clinton, at least the argument is that he did not do enough against the terrorists, not that he somehow antagonized them and should have left them alone.