I concur. Try to reason with the reasonable (and do something to cure the roots of the problems), and kill/judge the others.lowing wrote:
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.
I thought it your last post you were screaming that you never said we were trying to appease Bin Laden / al-Q or whatever, but in this one, blatantly you are saying that Spain are appeasing the terrorists and that it didn't work?
Was this directed to me?ShowMeTheMonkey wrote:
I thought it your last post you were screaming that you never said we were trying to appease Bin Laden / al-Q or whatever, but in this one, blatantly you are saying that Spain are appeasing the terrorists and that it didn't work?
If so, try again and explain.
1. Again just like with the US, the question is, how was the people going to vote before the bombings? I am lead to believe they were going to stay with the incumbent govt. The attacks changed that.Pierre wrote:
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.
2. I appreciate you recognizing my honesty. I do not lie in this forum regardless as to how inconvenient it might be. My opinions are my opnions, they are not always favorable to my country's actions or behavior. In regards to this war, I am a supporter, and I do not believe in cowering to it in any degree of measure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition … opposition
This was before the Madrid bombings. The ousting of the shitty government of José Maria Aznar was long long overdue after his betrayal of the Spanish people and especially after his last ditch lies to the Spanish people to try to cling to power. No appeasement here. The vast majority of Europeans knew that interfering in Iraq was wrong and that the invasion would do nothing to prevent terrorism.Opinion polls showed the population was against the war, with opposition as high as 90% in Spain and Italy, and also widespread in Eastern Europe.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-27 06:14:56)
Border control alone will not stop terrorism.CameronPoe wrote:
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.
I know but it's a pivotal part, without it all else is futile. It's anti-terrorism 101.M.O.A.B wrote:
Border control alone will not stop terrorism.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-27 06:21:11)
True, but the best defense is a good offensive. You have to get them where you can.CameronPoe wrote:
I know but it's a pivotal part, without it all else is futile. It's anti-terrorism 101.M.O.A.B wrote:
Border control alone will not stop terrorism.
Life is not that simplistic. The Brits tried that in Northern Ireland with the army and the SAS and they failed. Their impact was to convert thousands of young Irishmen into IRA volunteers. Not very smart.M.O.A.B wrote:
True, but the best defense is a good offensive. You have to get them where you can.CameronPoe wrote:
I know but it's a pivotal part, without it all else is futile. It's anti-terrorism 101.M.O.A.B wrote:
Border control alone will not stop terrorism.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-27 06:44:06)
Your article also says that the reasons for not supporting tha war was not based on right or wrong but economic ramifications to Europe.CameronPoe wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War#Popular_oppositionThis was before the Madrid bombings. The ousting of the shitty government of José Maria Aznar was long long overdue after his betrayal of the Spanish people and especially after his last ditch lies to the Spanish people to try to cling to power. No appeasement here. The vast majority of Europeans knew that interfering in Iraq was wrong and that the invasion would do nothing to prevent terrorism.Opinion polls showed the population was against the war, with opposition as high as 90% in Spain and Italy, and also widespread in Eastern Europe.
The war was not popular when Bush was re-elected yet the people, voted for national security over opinions of the war.
In March 2003, at the height of opposition to the Iraq war, the Socialists were ahead in polls. With the economy roaring and the Socialist Party in disarray, the Popular Party pulled ahead. On March 7, the last date in which polls were published, an Opina poll showed that the gap had narrowed, giving the Popular Party 42 percent, compared with 38 percent for the Socialists.
Four days later, terror struck. With Madrid under siege, voters were expected to rally around the flag and stick with the party that had talked the toughest against terrorism, at least initially. Even the Socialists braced themselves for that outcome, said two senior party officials.
taken from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h … gewanted=2
So it is a question as to what caused the election results.
The people of Spain were, along with the Italians, THE BIGGEST OPPONENTS of the war in Iraq. I can remember million strong marches in Madrid and Rome. This had a telling impact on the fall of Aznar. As with all things on this earth it was not a black and white issue: economic factors and other such things obviously played a part in how people voted. The lies Aznar told were probably the most decisive element of the election battle: he lost the respect of the crucial swing vote and lost his political career as a result.lowing wrote:
Your article also says that the reasons for not supporting tha war was not based on right or wrong but economic ramifications to Europe.
The war was not popular when Bush was re-elected yet the people, voted for national security over opinions of the war.
In March 2003, at the height of opposition to the Iraq war, the Socialists were ahead in polls. With the economy roaring and the Socialist Party in disarray, the Popular Party pulled ahead. On March 7, the last date in which polls were published, an Opina poll showed that the gap had narrowed, giving the Popular Party 42 percent, compared with 38 percent for the Socialists.
Four days later, terror struck. With Madrid under siege, voters were expected to rally around the flag and stick with the party that had talked the toughest against terrorism, at least initially. Even the Socialists braced themselves for that outcome, said two senior party officials.
taken from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h … gewanted=2
So it is a question as to what caused the election results.
"Before Thursday, the Popular Party had been favored to win by a comfortable margin." taken from http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03 … index.htmlCameronPoe wrote:
The people of Spain were, along with the Italians, THE BIGGEST OPPONENTS of the war in Iraq. I can remember million strong marches in Madrid and Rome. This had a telling impact on the fall of Aznar. As with all things on this earth it was not a black and white issue: economic factors and other such things obviously played a part in how people voted. The lies Aznar told were probably the most decisive element of the election battle: he lost the respect of the crucial swing vote and lost his political career as a result.lowing wrote:
Your article also says that the reasons for not supporting tha war was not based on right or wrong but economic ramifications to Europe.
The war was not popular when Bush was re-elected yet the people, voted for national security over opinions of the war.
In March 2003, at the height of opposition to the Iraq war, the Socialists were ahead in polls. With the economy roaring and the Socialist Party in disarray, the Popular Party pulled ahead. On March 7, the last date in which polls were published, an Opina poll showed that the gap had narrowed, giving the Popular Party 42 percent, compared with 38 percent for the Socialists.
Four days later, terror struck. With Madrid under siege, voters were expected to rally around the flag and stick with the party that had talked the toughest against terrorism, at least initially. Even the Socialists braced themselves for that outcome, said two senior party officials.
taken from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h … gewanted=2
So it is a question as to what caused the election results.
it would appear the consensus is that, regardless of how people felt, the popular party was the favorite to win. Then boom, and they lost.
It's terrible when a leader lies to his people, isn't it? If only more nations took their lying leaders to task.lowing wrote:
"Before Thursday, the Popular Party had been favored to win by a comfortable margin." taken from http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03 … index.html
it would appear the consensus is that, regardless of how people felt, the popular party was the favorite to win. Then boom, and they lost.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international … 01,00.html
"There is absolute proof that shows ... a connection between Eta terrorists and Islamic terrorism."
What a retard. He lost the election because of his own infatuation with ETA.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-27 07:27:18)
Isn't there a difference between absolute blame for the attacks and having a connection to the people that did it?CameronPoe wrote:
It's terrible when a leader lies to his people, isn't it? If only more nations took their lying leaders to task.lowing wrote:
"Before Thursday, the Popular Party had been favored to win by a comfortable margin." taken from http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03 … index.html
it would appear the consensus is that, regardless of how people felt, the popular party was the favorite to win. Then boom, and they lost.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international … 01,00.html
"There is absolute proof that shows ... a connection between Eta terrorists and Islamic terrorism."
What a retard. He lost the election because of his own infatuation with ETA.
YOur own article says that the lying was PARTLY to blame for his loss. Which means not the sole reason as you imply.
The fact is his govt. wasn't loosing until the attacks. The attacks were meant to influence the election and it did. period
You'd be very surprised how many hits/bombings they prevented using the SAS.CameronPoe wrote:
Life is not that simplistic. The Brits tried that in Northern Ireland with the army and the SAS and they failed. Their impact was to convert thousands of young Irishmen into IRA volunteers. Not very smart.M.O.A.B wrote:
True, but the best defense is a good offensive. You have to get them where you can.CameronPoe wrote:
I know but it's a pivotal part, without it all else is futile. It's anti-terrorism 101.
The lies influenced the election. End of story. The Spaniards were the most vehemently opposed nation to the Iraq war since day one. Zapatero was an unknown quantity. The top man lying to the nation shaded it in the end, there being only a few percentage points between the two parties anyway.lowing wrote:
Isn't there a difference between absolute blame for the attacks and having a connection to the people that did it?
YOur own article says that the lying was PARTLY to blame for his loss. Which means not the sole reason as you imply.
The fact is his govt. wasn't loosing until the attacks. The attacks were meant to influence the election and it did. period
Spain's El Mundo sees the Popular Party's defeat as a backlash against outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar. "Never in the history of democracy has a party gone from an absolute majority to opposition," the paper says. "In large part, this was down to a strong protest vote against Mr Aznar's conduct in this term of office."
La Razon stresses the role of Aznar's support for military action in Iraq. "The perception... that Jose Maria Aznar had committed us to an unjust war in Iraq in close alliance with the United States, added to the Madrid massacre, was a decisive factor," it argues.
The PP government continued to place partial blame on ETA even after evidence that the attacks may have been the work of an Islamist group emerged, even going so far as having the Minister of Foreign Affairs Ana Palacio instruct all Spanish diplomats to place the blame on ETA at every opportunity. The public perception that the government hid information from the general population gave rise to a public outcry. Two days after the Atocha bombings, demonstrations took place across Spain demanding news from the investigation, where chants such as "We want the truth before we vote" and "Who is responsible?" were heard.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-27 15:13:12)
If the people were so fed up with this guy like you say, it would have reflected in the opinion polls long before the attacks. As it turns out the attacks were the catalyst to oust him. Again the attacks were timed to achieve exactly what was set out to achieve.CameronPoe wrote:
The lies influenced the election. End of story. The Spaniards were the most vehemently opposed nation to the Iraq war since day one. Zapatero was an unknown quantity. The top man lying to the nation shaded it in the end, there being only a few percentage points between the two parties anyway.lowing wrote:
Isn't there a difference between absolute blame for the attacks and having a connection to the people that did it?
YOur own article says that the lying was PARTLY to blame for his loss. Which means not the sole reason as you imply.
The fact is his govt. wasn't loosing until the attacks. The attacks were meant to influence the election and it did. periodSpain's El Mundo sees the Popular Party's defeat as a backlash against outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar. "Never in the history of democracy has a party gone from an absolute majority to opposition," the paper says. "In large part, this was down to a strong protest vote against Mr Aznar's conduct in this term of office."
La Razon stresses the role of Aznar's support for military action in Iraq. "The perception... that Jose Maria Aznar had committed us to an unjust war in Iraq in close alliance with the United States, added to the Madrid massacre, was a decisive factor," it argues.The PP government continued to place partial blame on ETA even after evidence that the attacks may have been the work of an Islamist group emerged, even going so far as having the Minister of Foreign Affairs Ana Palacio instruct all Spanish diplomats to place the blame on ETA at every opportunity. The public perception that the government hid information from the general population gave rise to a public outcry. Two days after the Atocha bombings, demonstrations took place across Spain demanding news from the investigation, where chants such as "We want the truth before we vote" and "Who is responsible?" were heard.
I will concede that there are more than just one mitigating circumstance to this event however.
Last edited by lowing (2008-01-27 16:05:21)
Clearly someone was moved to not blow up Spain. Evidence that Spain is winning this battle, not loosing.Police acting on a tipoff....
You and your appeasement threads lol.
Uhhhh they got caught already in Spain. Clearly a failure to stop entrance of terrorists into western countries. Hats off to the police that decided to act instead of gather more evidence.PureFodder wrote:
Clearly someone was moved to not blow up Spain. Evidence that Spain is winning this battle, not loosing.Police acting on a tipoff....
......either contribute to it, or ignore it. Pretty simple really.daddyofdeath wrote:
You and your appeasement threads lol.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01 … index.html
Those nutty ANTI-ISLAMIC ACTIVISTS were planning "activities" in more than just Spain apparently.
Those nutty ANTI-ISLAMIC ACTIVISTS were planning "activities" in more than just Spain apparently.
FEOS wrote:
March elections a few years back. It was neck and neck between the incumbents (platform included continuing Iraq mission) and the challengers (pulling out of Iraq). Boom on the trains courtesy of Al Aqaida, who claimed it was due to Spain's involvement in the coalition.adam1503 wrote:
When were Spanish elections influenced by terrorist demands? Can you quote a source for me?
A few days later, the challengers won...broadly described as a popular response to the bombings. A couple of months later, no Spaniards in Iraq.
Pretty clear cut.
I studied this exact case for my project on modern terrorism.lowing wrote:
1. Again just like with the US, the question is, how was the people going to vote before the bombings? I am lead to believe they were going to stay with the incumbent govt. The attacks changed that.
What I've found is anger due to government incompetence and attempted misleading also played a part in them losing the election, as Pierre had said
In paticular their eagerness to virulently blame ETA for the attacks, despite all the signs pointing otherwise, despite ETA denying the attacks (never underestimate this point, because terrorists are inclined to claim responsibility for everything and anything, whether it be a car bombing or Bush tripping down the stairs. Whatever they can do to get 10 seconds in the media.)
Certainly their (their meaning the Aznar govt) support for the Iraq War, which was already highly unpopular (what was it, 70% against?) and not parliament approved, did play a major part. But you can hardly say this amounts to a sudden backflip or your word of the month 'appeasement'. They never wanted the war, and now they were paying for it in innocent blood, they'd had enough. (they being the spanish public)
You can't stop terrorists moving around. Sorry, but however you want to play up the US intelligence community's capabilities (which are sizable when used properly), a terrorist can get from Bolivia to Botswana as easily as the rest of us. Getting there with a bomb in tow is another matter, but bombs aren't exactly hard to make, so there would be absolutely no reason to carry bomb-like materials aboard an aircraft.Uhhhh they got caught already in Spain. Clearly a failure to stop entrance of terrorists into western countries. Hats off to the police that decided to act instead of gather more evidence.
I know we already had a 25 page on semantics, but you're not exactly making it obvious what you mean by 'appeasement'. And I don't think you'll meet an intelligent person who advocates either of the latter two.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.
I'd like you to answer his point, because it's an excellent one. I saw an AFR feature article on this, and it's an excellent one, but once again, thwarted by 'copyright restrictions'.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?
Essentially what that article was saying was that the reason Islamists have found a sudden groundswell in support basically in the post-colonial era are mostly secular reasons. ESPECIALLY anger at corrupt governments, the only alternative to whom is Islamist parties. I think if some of those countries had non-Islamist, sensible and fairly powerful alternative parties then this situation where Islamism is taking hold across the Middle East and North Africa would occur. The perception that the US is helping prop up said corrupt governments (Iran and the Shah come to mind) doesn't exactly help.
Oh come on. You can hardly expect the terrorists to stop planning, can you? I think they'd still be planning even if their weapon was a sole toothpick.http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01 … index.html
Those nutty ANTI-ISLAMIC ACTIVISTS were planning "activities" in more than just Spain apparently.
Neither Kuwait, Qatar or the UAE seem to have too bad a terrorist problem. And they are fairly 'westernized'. I think the issue comes back to development and corruption, once again. Lack of development/corruption = anger at those in power, and if those in power are supported by the US, then look out.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.
So what's your solution? To 'save' people from Islamism through force? Geez...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 that
I don't understand how getting the public onside doesn't work. It appears to be working in sections of Iraq, where US soldiers are seen to be helping out the community (through security) they seem to enjor more support and fewer attacks. Nutjobs will be nutjobs, and nothing you do will change that. So ignore them, in a sense.
Karma for you.DBY wrote:
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.
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.
Certainly, don't go into their countries heralded as savior and giver. 'Don't try and save people. People don't want to be saved' (Freud)
But certainly don't starve them of everything they have and discourage development.
As for the situation in Indonesia: it's getting a lot better I think. Certainly the attacks have dried up over the last two years or so. But the stupidity of the Australian public and media, giving the Bali bombers free press when it really wasn't needed...
Last edited by Spark (2008-01-27 23:56:03)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Bullet between the eyes should be sufficient 'appeasement' for these wastes of space.
Explanation? And have you read the rest of the thread?thraSK wrote:
Bullet between the eyes should be sufficient 'appeasement' for these wastes of space.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman