Would you change your voting intention following a terrorist attack?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
What's the point of doing that?

It makes more sense according to the "math of the doubters."

PS This is what I get for answering posts just after waking up.

[Ned]

Whatever happened with that European meeting that was supposed to discuss Europe's collective response to the attack and Spain? Has it occurred yet?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
It's the politics of fear-mongering we've all come to know and love from the Bush cabal. If it ever came to the point that people were prevented from voting their TRUE conscience out of fear of possible future attacks, then the terrorists HAVE truly won

It would be sad if Bush and co tried to use the example of Spain's withdrawal and 'terrorist' sponsored election victory to convince voters in the US that they need him now more than ever. I don't think it will feature in the US election campaign, at least I hope not.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It makes more sense according to the "math of the doubters."

PS This is what I get for answering posts just after waking up.

No it doesn't and Boris showed you why. The smaller a country's commitment, the less important their withdrawal is to the whole issue.

[Whaleboy]

If the government lied about the attack to gain political capital, then I would re-evaluate its trustworthiness.
Otherwise, no. However, in the case of Spain, the attack one could argue is an understandable, if horrifying consequence of the war on Iraq, which has made us in the West even less safe from terrorists. I cannot blame people for voting Socialist because that fact has now been brought home to them.

No AQ can only affect direct political change by taking over governments. Effects on voting are environmental, so this entire argument (PA) is a strawman.

[Bereta_Eder]

Well Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. So if a government supported that it already had one black point for all the innocents killed. If this helps terrorists (as it certaintly does) it has two black points. If this results in the killing of compatriotes it has three black points. If it lies about the source of the attacks to benefit itself it has four black points.
So there wasn't really one but 4 reasons to vote them out.
The result is: combatting terrorism not helping it and thus making the world safer.

[Solly]

"No AQ can only affect direct political change by taking over governments."

"Well Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism"

Have you two ready any of the comments at all in the several threads over the last few days? Jesus.

i) Without this attack, the PP would be in power. Now it isn't, and al-Qaeda have chased some of the "infidels from holy soil" (or whatever) as a result of the expected withdrawal of Spanish troops

ii) It has everything to do with it.

FOr ****s sake you two.

[Whaleboy]

i) Without this attack, the PP would be in power. Now it isn't, and al-Qaeda have chased some of the "infidels from holy soil" (or whatever) as a result of the expected withdrawal of Spanish troops

Without the crash of '29, Hoover would have won the '32/33 election. Its all consequential. You really should consider the difference between intent+direct consequence (in this case 201 dead people) and indirect consequence. To use my very overused analogy, blaming AQ for the new Spanish govt is like blaming Plato for Hitler. And, PA, I think you'll find that Karl Popper is not your friend .

ii) It has everything to do with it.

The fact that we are now evidently more at risk would seem to preclude that. Also consider that AQ had little or nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

Try again

[Kidlicious]

Yes, I will vote for the party that the terrorist want least in power if that happens in the US.

[Whaleboy]

Well that's plainly stupid

[Spiffor]

I will vote for the party I deem the most competent and honest, regardless of terrorist attacks. The only difference the attacks will do on my suffrage, is that I will consider antiterrorist efficiency as one more variable to base my judgement.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Yes, I will vote for the party that the terrorist want least in power if that happens in the US.

Vote Al Sharpton.

[DinoDoc]

He endorsed Kerry.

[GePap]

If any government shows itself incapable of stopping attacks by its actions and you note terrorism as the greatest danger and issue, why would you vote to reelect that group?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He endorsed Kerry.

Do a write in vote.