That's not a serious response. I don't think you (or anyone) would disagree that millions of residents of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan hate the US. My post didn't say that people hate the US because they are muslims. In fact, it suggested a completely different reason.lowing wrote:
HUH?? I'm sorry, I have been "proven wrong" remember. We do not have problems with Islam, only a few that are not even practicing Islam. In fact we can't even call it Islamic Terror anymore, It is now called ANTI-Islamic activity". So tell me again what you mean when you say millions of Muslims hate us, because according to Cam and his groupies, this is not the case. We only have a problem with a select few and that problem is insignificant. So on the whole expalin to me again why the US needs to improve relations with the Muslims, if everything is already fantastic. ( except for a few of course, and they are not Muslims)san4 wrote:
There are a million third choices. They all have a common goal: figure out why millions of muslims hate the US and do something about it that does not compromise US values or interests.lowing wrote:
If there is a third choice to react to "anti-islamic activity', I am all ears.
For example, one theory is that millions of muslims hate the US because they see it as propping up their corrupt leaders. The US could do something about this by working with dictatorships we support--in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan--to provide basic services to their people. Poor Egyptians would have different feelings about the US if their televisions were getting electricity from a grid the US gave them. Instead, muslims with dysfunctional governments turn to Hezbollah, Hamas and the Islamic Brotherhood because they provide them with basic services.
Maybe you consider that appeasement, but it doesn't compromise US interests or values at all. In fact, it's a highly aggressive move because it would transform societies and drag people from the dark ages into the 21st century.
This is just one idea (developed by me, a person who doesn't know much about muslim societies). Joe Biden has talked about his own ideas like this, such as building roads, schools and clinics in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The fundamental idea is to address the causes of anti-US attitudes among muslims and to modernize muslim societies. The Bush administration has totally ignored this "third" type of choice.
I am looking for a third choice after the terrorist act, like the Madrid bombing, you can appease, or like the US you can fight.....Which isa third choice to deal with a terror act aftewr it is committed?
No they do not hate us because they are Muslims, they hate us because we are westernized and it goes agaoinst everything they believe.san4 wrote:
That's not a serious response. I don't think you (or anyone) would disagree that millions of residents of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan hate the US. My post didn't say that people hate the US because they are muslims. In fact, it suggested a completely different reason.lowing wrote:
HUH?? I'm sorry, I have been "proven wrong" remember. We do not have problems with Islam, only a few that are not even practicing Islam. In fact we can't even call it Islamic Terror anymore, It is now called ANTI-Islamic activity". So tell me again what you mean when you say millions of Muslims hate us, because according to Cam and his groupies, this is not the case. We only have a problem with a select few and that problem is insignificant. So on the whole expalin to me again why the US needs to improve relations with the Muslims, if everything is already fantastic. ( except for a few of course, and they are not Muslims)san4 wrote:
There are a million third choices. They all have a common goal: figure out why millions of muslims hate the US and do something about it that does not compromise US values or interests.
For example, one theory is that millions of muslims hate the US because they see it as propping up their corrupt leaders. The US could do something about this by working with dictatorships we support--in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan--to provide basic services to their people. Poor Egyptians would have different feelings about the US if their televisions were getting electricity from a grid the US gave them. Instead, muslims with dysfunctional governments turn to Hezbollah, Hamas and the Islamic Brotherhood because they provide them with basic services.
Maybe you consider that appeasement, but it doesn't compromise US interests or values at all. In fact, it's a highly aggressive move because it would transform societies and drag people from the dark ages into the 21st century.
This is just one idea (developed by me, a person who doesn't know much about muslim societies). Joe Biden has talked about his own ideas like this, such as building roads, schools and clinics in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The fundamental idea is to address the causes of anti-US attitudes among muslims and to modernize muslim societies. The Bush administration has totally ignored this "third" type of choice.
I am looking for a third choice after the terrorist act, like the Madrid bombing, you can appease, or like the US you can fight.....Which isa third choice to deal with a terror act aftewr it is committed?
Also, I was being saecastic but everything I said is what was claimed. You merely can not have it both ways.
So you don't think anything can be done to change the attitudes of muslims who hate the US? Building an electric grid for poor Egyptians, roads in Afghanistan, hospitals in Pakistan--none of that would change how those people feel about the US?lowing wrote:
No they do not hate us because they are Muslims, they hate us because we are westernized and it goes agaoinst everything they believe.san4 wrote:
That's not a serious response. I don't think you (or anyone) would disagree that millions of residents of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan hate the US. My post didn't say that people hate the US because they are muslims. In fact, it suggested a completely different reason.lowing wrote:
HUH?? I'm sorry, I have been "proven wrong" remember. We do not have problems with Islam, only a few that are not even practicing Islam. In fact we can't even call it Islamic Terror anymore, It is now called ANTI-Islamic activity". So tell me again what you mean when you say millions of Muslims hate us, because according to Cam and his groupies, this is not the case. We only have a problem with a select few and that problem is insignificant. So on the whole expalin to me again why the US needs to improve relations with the Muslims, if everything is already fantastic. ( except for a few of course, and they are not Muslims)
I am looking for a third choice after the terrorist act, like the Madrid bombing, you can appease, or like the US you can fight.....Which isa third choice to deal with a terror act aftewr it is committed?
Also, I was being saecastic but everything I said is what was claimed. You merely can not have it both ways.
Can we PLEASE cut down on the quote trees.
nope, it has been proven if you give an inch the only thing that will happen is,............ well.............you lost an inch. Spain proves it. The only thing that we can do to win favor is to NOT be the FREE society that we are. I am not willing to succumb to thatsan4 wrote:
So you don't think anything can be done to change the attitudes of muslims who hate the US? Building an electric grid for poor Egyptians, roads in Afghanistan, hospitals in Pakistan--none of that would change how those people feel about the US?lowing wrote:
No they do not hate us because they are Muslims, they hate us because we are westernized and it goes agaoinst everything they believe.san4 wrote:
That's not a serious response. I don't think you (or anyone) would disagree that millions of residents of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan hate the US. My post didn't say that people hate the US because they are muslims. In fact, it suggested a completely different reason.
Also, I was being saecastic but everything I said is what was claimed. You merely can not have it both ways.
You think building an electric grid for poor people in Egypt is "giving an inch"? You think it is comparable to Spain's changing its government?lowing wrote:
nope, it has been proven if you give an inch the only thing that will happen is,............ well.............you lost an inch. Spain proves it. The only thing that we can do to win favor is to NOT be the FREE society that we are. I am not willing to succumb to thatsan4 wrote:
So you don't think anything can be done to change the attitudes of muslims who hate the US? Building an electric grid for poor Egyptians, roads in Afghanistan, hospitals in Pakistan--none of that would change how those people feel about the US?lowing wrote:
No they do not hate us because they are Muslims, they hate us because we are westernized and it goes agaoinst everything they believe.
Also, I was being saecastic but everything I said is what was claimed. You merely can not have it both ways.
It's just the opposite. It would be an incredibly aggressive thing to do, attempting to transform and modernize those shitholes.
Agree to disagree, there are too many elements out there that will sabotage any efforts made by the west. These elements do not want the west to appear as heroes or saviors from poverty and will undermine them. Why is it do you think they blow up their own people? They want to emulate the impression that their lives are worse with our influence than without it.san4 wrote:
You think building an electric grid for poor people in Egypt is "giving an inch"? You think it is comparable to Spain's changing its government?lowing wrote:
nope, it has been proven if you give an inch the only thing that will happen is,............ well.............you lost an inch. Spain proves it. The only thing that we can do to win favor is to NOT be the FREE society that we are. I am not willing to succumb to thatsan4 wrote:
So you don't think anything can be done to change the attitudes of muslims who hate the US? Building an electric grid for poor Egyptians, roads in Afghanistan, hospitals in Pakistan--none of that would change how those people feel about the US?
It's just the opposite. It would be an incredibly aggressive thing to do, attempting to transform and modernize those shitholes.
They want Spain back.
To be honest, this thread is just pathetic. It must be lonely out there for some people. Facts are more important than feelings, so here are some facts.lowing wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080124/ap_on_re_eu/spain_terror_arrests_5
Apparently anti-islamic terrorists were not appeased enough by Spain's election decisions. Those crazy anti-muslims were STILL gunna blow shit up in Spain. Evidence that appeasement does not, will not, work. I wonder what else Spain can do to appease these guys. Given their track record, and European peace at all cost mentality, I am sure they will come up with something.
Spain is a democracy. FFS, that's all. People vote for whatever reasons they have at the moment of the vote, mostly for their own political reasons. In Spain there is a lot to do about the ETA, and the Independence of the regions.
At the time of the bombings, the Partido Popular (right wing) was the governing party from 1996 under José Aznar. And at that moment, weeks before the elections, people did not like him any more which was partly due to the fact that he lied - something very familiar in right wing governments those days - about invading Iraq while in fact he was only playing the game 'how to become a bigger poodle to Bush than Blair is'.
So right before the bombings there was already a mood swing with the voters to get rid of Aznar, because most people did not like being lied to and having their soldiers killed for no reason (hence the changes in the USA in 2006).
However, soon after the bombings Aznar tried to lie about the people who did the bombings, and he tried to put the blame on the ETA. Unlucky for him, his plot was uncovered so people knew him for what he was and voted him out of office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_March_2 … n_bombings
So, Lowing, there is no appeasement, and there was none in the past. Terrorists will always exist, under many forms and in many countries, regardless of how people vote.Controversy regarding the handling and representation of the bombings by the government arose with Spain's two main political parties (PSOE and Partido Popular (PP), accused each other of concealing or distorting evidence for electoral reasons. The authorship of the bombings remains controversial as it occurred three days before general elections and appears to have led to the defeat of the incumbent José María Aznar's Partido Popular (PP), which had been leading in opinion polls. Immediately after the bombing leaders of the PP claimed evidence indicated the Basque ETA was responsible for the bombings, an outcome generally thought favorable to the PP's chances of being re-elected, while Islamist responsibility would have had the opposite effect, as it would been perceived a consequence of the PP government's involvement in the Iraq War, a policy already extremely unpopular with Spaniards.
After 21 months of investigation, judge Juan del Olmo ruled Moroccan national Jamal Zougam guilty of physically carrying out the attack, ruling out any ETA intervention. The September 2007 sentence established no known mastermind nor direct al-Qaida link.
Nation-wide demonstrations and protests followed the attacks. Many analysts coincide on the view that the Aznar administration lost the general elections as a result of the handling and representation of the terrorist attacks, rather than the bombings per se.
"MADRID -- Seven months after bombs exploded aboard morning commuter trains in Madrid, killing 191 people, the precise motives of the attackers remain unclear. But new evidence, including wiretap transcripts, has lent support to a theory that the strike was carefully timed to take place three days before a national election in hopes of influencing Spanish voters to reject a government that sent troops to Iraq."Pierre wrote:
To be honest, this thread is just pathetic. It must be lonely out there for some people. Facts are more important than feelings, so here are some facts.lowing wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080124/ap_on_re_eu/spain_terror_arrests_5
Apparently anti-islamic terrorists were not appeased enough by Spain's election decisions. Those crazy anti-muslims were STILL gunna blow shit up in Spain. Evidence that appeasement does not, will not, work. I wonder what else Spain can do to appease these guys. Given their track record, and European peace at all cost mentality, I am sure they will come up with something.
Spain is a democracy. FFS, that's all. People vote for whatever reasons they have at the moment of the vote, mostly for their own political reasons. In Spain there is a lot to do about the ETA, and the Independence of the regions.
At the time of the bombings, the Partido Popular (right wing) was the governing party from 1996 under José Aznar. And at that moment, weeks before the elections, people did not like him any more which was partly due to the fact that he lied - something very familiar in right wing governments those days - about invading Iraq while in fact he was only playing the game 'how to become a bigger poodle to Bush than Blair is'.
So right before the bombings there was already a mood swing with the voters to get rid of Aznar, because most people did not like being lied to and having their soldiers killed for no reason (hence the changes in the USA in 2006).
However, soon after the bombings Aznar tried to lie about the people who did the bombings, and he tried to put the blame on the ETA. Unlucky for him, his plot was uncovered so people knew him for what he was and voted him out of office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_March_2 … n_bombingsSo, Lowing, there is no appeasement, and there was none in the past. Terrorists will always exist, under many forms and in many countries, regardless of how people vote.Controversy regarding the handling and representation of the bombings by the government arose with Spain's two main political parties (PSOE and Partido Popular (PP), accused each other of concealing or distorting evidence for electoral reasons. The authorship of the bombings remains controversial as it occurred three days before general elections and appears to have led to the defeat of the incumbent José María Aznar's Partido Popular (PP), which had been leading in opinion polls. Immediately after the bombing leaders of the PP claimed evidence indicated the Basque ETA was responsible for the bombings, an outcome generally thought favorable to the PP's chances of being re-elected, while Islamist responsibility would have had the opposite effect, as it would been perceived a consequence of the PP government's involvement in the Iraq War, a policy already extremely unpopular with Spaniards.
After 21 months of investigation, judge Juan del Olmo ruled Moroccan national Jamal Zougam guilty of physically carrying out the attack, ruling out any ETA intervention. The September 2007 sentence established no known mastermind nor direct al-Qaida link.
Nation-wide demonstrations and protests followed the attacks. Many analysts coincide on the view that the Aznar administration lost the general elections as a result of the handling and representation of the terrorist attacks, rather than the bombings per se.
taken from a link on page 1
and it worked
so I guess we will agree to dieagree
"You get more with a kind word and a gun than you do with a kind word"
-Al Capone
-Al Capone
Malloy must go
/wrong.lowing wrote:
"MADRID -- Seven months after bombs exploded aboard morning commuter trains in Madrid, killing 191 people, the precise motives of the attackers remain unclear. But new evidence, including wiretap transcripts, has lent support to a theory that the strike was carefully timed to take place three days before a national election in hopes of influencing Spanish voters to reject a government that sent troops to Iraq."
taken from a link on page 1
and it worked
so I guess we will agree to dieagree
I don't care what the possible motives of the bombers were but we can assume their motives were political (to influence the election) and they weren't happy with the presence of Spanish soldiers in Iraq.
That is however not the question of the OP: you interpreted the votes as appeasement while the voters did not want to appease AQ but instead they wanted to dismiss Aznar for his failing policy and his lies.
In your logic, looking at the results of the 2006 elections the US has also appeased AQ by giving a majority to the democrats.
well, how about the classic approach ? police work and counter-terrorism/intelligence ? Isn't that what the link in the OP is about, in essence ? There was a plot to bomb the public transport system in Madrid, and the police uncovered it and stopped the criminals/terrorists before it could be carried out.lowing wrote:
If there is a third choice to react to "anti-islamic activity', I am all ears.san4 wrote:
The problem lowing is having is that he believes there are only two choices, appeasement or violent resistance.lowing wrote:
You are correct, military responses are not doing much to curb terrorism either. I simply would rather die in defiance of it, than kneel to it and make it easier for them to kill me anyway. Spain proves this, peace at any price, even succumbing to it, to no avail.
You always seem to imply that Europeans "kneel" to the threat of terrorism. Seriously, I don't know where you are getting this idea from. A lot of European nations are involved in Afghanistan, to the degree that our laws will allow us to, and the rest is fighting terrorism with the means at their disposal. with considerable success, I might add.
Not every nation's military is so readily at the hands of their leader as the US armed forces, you know.
As far as the Spanish "appeasement" is concerned, as has been pointed out, Spaniards were growing increasingly unhappy with their country's involvement in Iraq before the elections, and the fact that Aznar tried to blame ETA for the bombings didn't really help his credibility.
The Spanish people made a democratic choice, and as an American, you should be the first to respect that.
Call it appeasement, if you want, but I don't think the Spanish people are any less safe today in their country, without military involvement in Iraq.
The law enforcement and counter-terrorism community are doing a good job at fighting terrorists and the added bonus is that
a) no Spanish soldier has to risk his life in some ME shithole for questionable motives, and
b) the Spanish government can spend their money on issues that are really important for the future of their nation.
and to be honest, looking at the number of US soldiers killed or wounded in Iraq, and the costs to your economy, an argument can be made that the Spanish people made a wise choice after all.
but nobody died for that supposed influence...Pierre wrote:
/wrong.lowing wrote:
"MADRID -- Seven months after bombs exploded aboard morning commuter trains in Madrid, killing 191 people, the precise motives of the attackers remain unclear. But new evidence, including wiretap transcripts, has lent support to a theory that the strike was carefully timed to take place three days before a national election in hopes of influencing Spanish voters to reject a government that sent troops to Iraq."
taken from a link on page 1
and it worked
so I guess we will agree to dieagree
I don't care what the possible motives of the bombers were but we can assume their motives were political (to influence the election) and they weren't happy with the presence of Spanish soldiers in Iraq.
That is however not the question of the OP: you interpreted the votes as appeasement while the voters did not want to appease AQ but instead they wanted to dismiss Aznar for his failing policy and his lies.
In your logic, looking at the results of the 2006 elections the US has also appeased AQ by giving a majority to the democrats.
Love is the answer
Wow, liberals bowing to terrorists!?.......Now why didn't I ever make that connection?.......thanks for the confirmation. I knew we could agree.Pierre wrote:
/wrong.lowing wrote:
"MADRID -- Seven months after bombs exploded aboard morning commuter trains in Madrid, killing 191 people, the precise motives of the attackers remain unclear. But new evidence, including wiretap transcripts, has lent support to a theory that the strike was carefully timed to take place three days before a national election in hopes of influencing Spanish voters to reject a government that sent troops to Iraq."
taken from a link on page 1
and it worked
so I guess we will agree to dieagree
I don't care what the possible motives of the bombers were but we can assume their motives were political (to influence the election) and they weren't happy with the presence of Spanish soldiers in Iraq.
That is however not the question of the OP: you interpreted the votes as appeasement while the voters did not want to appease AQ but instead they wanted to dismiss Aznar for his failing policy and his lies.
In your logic, looking at the results of the 2006 elections the US has also appeased AQ by giving a majority to the democrats.
look you already admit the bombings were meant to influence the election, and it did, you seem to agree....What exactly are you arguing
This is where the United States gets into trouble all the time. If the United States would go into these countries and build this factory, this power grid or roads....etc.....as you suggested, it would only heighten their distrust even more. Why? Because we would be seen around the world as interfering once again in their eyes. They would wonder what we are getting in return. We are just the devil in disguise. It simply wouldn't work.san4 wrote:
You think building an electric grid for poor people in Egypt is "giving an inch"? You think it is comparable to Spain's changing its government?lowing wrote:
nope, it has been proven if you give an inch the only thing that will happen is,............ well.............you lost an inch. Spain proves it. The only thing that we can do to win favor is to NOT be the FREE society that we are. I am not willing to succumb to thatsan4 wrote:
So you don't think anything can be done to change the attitudes of muslims who hate the US? Building an electric grid for poor Egyptians, roads in Afghanistan, hospitals in Pakistan--none of that would change how those people feel about the US?
It's just the opposite. It would be an incredibly aggressive thing to do, attempting to transform and modernize those shitholes.
Again and again, I have said the same thing. It doesn't matter how nice the United States may be, it doesn't matter if your country appeases or gives in to the fear of terrorism. It just doesn't matter because the only goal of a terrorist is to make this world into one huge world under one order and that is a strict form of Islam. Now let me say that again. Its not the general Muslim population that wants this. It is the extremists and their use of Islam after high jacking Islam for their cause.
Let's get real. Even if Israel closed its doors and left, even if every single white, yellow or brown non Muslim left the middle east....it would not matter. Battle lines would be started in other places. In fact, it is already happening in many places. Take a look at the Philippines or Indonesia, why are they under attack from radical Muslims? Their governments are not involved in the middle east. They are far removed from that area and yet radical Muslims are causing many problems for those governments and its people as we speak. If any of you think it is a small problem....BS....I know for a fact first hand the seriousness of the problem in Indonesia and its not going away any time soon.
The bottom line is that someday, people will have to stand up and true Muslims will have to take back their religion. How this will happen, who knows but I am sure that armed conflict will be one of the solutions for some as it is now.
I asked, clearly, what is a third option in dealing with an attack AFTER the fact. Hunt them down and cower are 2 options, what is the third. Spain made its choice, and your approval of it figures.B.Schuss wrote:
well, how about the classic approach ? police work and counter-terrorism/intelligence ? Isn't that what the link in the OP is about, in essence ? There was a plot to bomb the public transport system in Madrid, and the police uncovered it and stopped the criminals/terrorists before it could be carried out.lowing wrote:
If there is a third choice to react to "anti-islamic activity', I am all ears.san4 wrote:
The problem lowing is having is that he believes there are only two choices, appeasement or violent resistance.
You always seem to imply that Europeans "kneel" to the threat of terrorism. Seriously, I don't know where you are getting this idea from. A lot of European nations are involved in Afghanistan, to the degree that our laws will allow us to, and the rest is fighting terrorism with the means at their disposal. with considerable success, I might add.
Not every nation's military is so readily at the hands of their leader as the US armed forces, you know.
As far as the Spanish "appeasement" is concerned, as has been pointed out, Spaniards were growing increasingly unhappy with their country's involvement in Iraq before the elections, and the fact that Aznar tried to blame ETA for the bombings didn't really help his credibility.
The Spanish people made a democratic choice, and as an American, you should be the first to respect that.
Call it appeasement, if you want, but I don't think the Spanish people are any less safe today in their country, without military involvement in Iraq.
The law enforcement and counter-terrorism community are doing a good job at fighting terrorists and the added bonus is that
a) no Spanish soldier has to risk his life in some ME shithole for questionable motives, and
b) the Spanish government can spend their money on issues that are really important for the future of their nation.
and to be honest, looking at the number of US soldiers killed or wounded in Iraq, and the costs to your economy, an argument can be made that the Spanish people made a wise choice after all.
This OP speaks directly to Spains reation in the face of terrorism. The terrorist set out to achieve a specific goal, and that goal was achieved. It is cut and dry, and indisputable. THe fact that the ISLAMIC TERRORISTS ( can I say that?) was poised to do it again PROVES that appeasement, negotiations, rationalizations, understanding or what ever else you wanna call it will not work as long as we live our western lifestyles against the teaching of the peace loving and tolerant prophet Muhammad.
THe fact that you approve of sitting back and watching other countries fight this war that you know needs to be fought is exactly the European mentality that I speak of. If you had it your way, there would be no war on terror, ( I am sorry, on ANTI-ISLAMIC ACTIVITY ), there will only be a clean up after the terrorism. Iraq ,is not the war on terror, Iraq is a front on the war on terror.
Last edited by lowing (2008-01-27 05:05:22)
I'll try to explain this in a simple way:lowing wrote:
Wow, liberals bowing to terrorists!?.......Now why didn't I ever make that connection?.......thanks for the confirmation. I knew we could agree.
look you already admit the bombings were meant to influence the election, and it did, you seem to agree....What exactly are you arguing
1. all terrorists acts are meant to influence the political life in a country, be it the way people live, elections, etc..
2. Spanish voters wanted to get rid of Aznar, their voting was not meant to appease AQ.
3. In your Op you said the voting was an appeasement, which it was not (see 2.).
Last edited by Pierre (2008-01-27 05:05:15)
The popular party had a comfortable lead in the polls in the days before the election and the attacks. The terrorist set out for a specific goal, and that goal was achieved. PeriodPierre wrote:
I'll try to explain this in a simple way:lowing wrote:
Wow, liberals bowing to terrorists!?.......Now why didn't I ever make that connection?.......thanks for the confirmation. I knew we could agree.
look you already admit the bombings were meant to influence the election, and it did, you seem to agree....What exactly are you arguing
1. all terrorists acts are meant to influence the political life in a country, be it the way people live, elections, etc..
2. Spanish voters wanted to get rid of Aznar, their voting was not meant to appease AQ.
3. In your Op you said the voting was an appeasement, which it was not (see 2.).
Care to provide a link?lowing wrote:
The popular party had a comfortable lead in the polls in the days before the election and the attacks. The terrorist set out for a specific goal, and that goal was achieved. Period
-edit- NM: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … Oct16.html
Back on topic: but you still fail to prove that the voting was meant to appease to AQ.
Last edited by Pierre (2008-01-27 05:14:11)
Actually I didn't, you simply refuse to accept the obvious. That is something I can not controlPierre wrote:
Care to provide a link?lowing wrote:
The popular party had a comfortable lead in the polls in the days before the election and the attacks. The terrorist set out for a specific goal, and that goal was achieved. Period
-edit- NM: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … Oct16.html
Back on topic: but you still fail to prove that the voting was meant to appease to AQ.
So, when people change their votes it's called appeasement?lowing wrote:
Actually I didn't, you simply refuse to accept the obvious. That is something I can not controlPierre wrote:
Back on topic: but you still fail to prove that the voting was meant to appease to AQ.
So, did the US appease Aq in 2006?Pierre wrote:
In your logic, looking at the results of the 2006 elections the US has also appeased AQ by giving a majority to the democrats.
1. In the case of Spain it was appeasement because the shift of public opinion was 180 out from the polls just prior to election. It was an abrupt knee jerk reaction.Pierre wrote:
So, when people change their votes it's called appeasement?lowing wrote:
Actually I didn't, you simply refuse to accept the obvious. That is something I can not controlPierre wrote:
Back on topic: but you still fail to prove that the voting was meant to appease to AQ.So, did the US appease Aq in 2006?Pierre wrote:
In your logic, looking at the results of the 2006 elections the US has also appeased AQ by giving a majority to the democrats.
2. Actually, a strong argument could be made that we in fact did appease AQ. AQ wanted and hoped for a democratic congress in 2006 correctly thinking a democratic wouldn't be so apt to resist. They wanted one and they got it. The only question that I have that keeps me from calling this appeasement is wondering if our election was due to fear of AQ or, the normal swing of the political pendulum that history shows is constant.
Would we have voted for a democratic congress anyway even without AQ in the wings? I don't know. I can say I am not above saying we appeased AQ if that question could be answered.
I can add that if the US is viewed as appeasing the terrorists, it further proves my point that appeasement, cowering, negotiations etc.....does nothing to curb the agenda, or desires of Islamic terrorists and their goal of toppling western civilization.
Last edited by lowing (2008-01-27 05:47:57)
Spain needs to stop being such a fucking pansy when it comes to border control. The government that was elected a few years ago are so far left they almost come full fucking circle.
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6357599.stmlowing wrote:
1. In the case of Spain it was appeasement because the shift of public opinion was 180 out from the polls just prior to election. It was an abrupt knee jerk reaction.
2. Actually, a strong argument could be made that we in fact did appease AQ. AQ wanted and hoped for a democratic congress in 2006 correctly thinking a democratic wouldn't be so apt to resist. They wanted one and they got it. The only question that I have that keeps me from calling this appeasement is wondering if our election was due to fear of AQ or, the normal swing of the political pendulum that history shows is constant.
Would we have voted for a democratic congress anyway even without AQ in the wings? I don't know. I can say I am not above saying we appeased AQ if that question could be answered.
So, no, no appeasement to AQ.BBC wrote:
The bombings did lead to the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq. But it is sometimes wrongly claimed that the bombings themselves led directly to the defeat of the Conservative government and its replacement just days later by the Socialists.
In fact, it was the perception that the government was misleading the public about who was responsible for the bombings that did most damage.
Government officials indicated they believed the Basque separatist group Eta was responsible, even as evidence emerged to suggest otherwise. This helped galvanise public opposition to the incumbent government.
2. Respect for your honesty. We'll never know for sure what goes on in the minds of the public, but I doubt there is one American who votes different as a way to appease AQ. Many issues count, e.g. this time the economy will play an important part, as will the war in Iraq. It may look like that, but no-one thinks 'it wil please AQ if i vote this way'.
I don't know what exactly is the current position of the democrat party on the 'war on terror', but I doubt they will just shake hands and leave. Maybe in Iraq, but certainly not in AG. I can be wrong though, I'll have to check that.