Terrorists claim victory in Spain

[SpencerH]

Time to dive back in

Originally posted by Cruddy
So, after reading through 7 pages of this thread, I HAD to ask...

Where's the link to the terrorists claiming victory?

Did anyone say they did? What a number of people have said is that there may be the perception of victory especially if AQ were in fact aiming to influence the election.

An interesting counterpoint to that idea is that so far as I can tell the arab websites have not commented on the bombing. They've reported it, but not focussed on it.

Those who love democracy cannot criticise the Spanish people's decision.

Why not? I'm glad that the spanish people were not afraid to go out and vote, but I dont support their choice.

Those who think Spain will do nothing do not know the Spanish.

This is an interesting comment to me. I remember a Brit exchange officer saying the same thing about Baroness Thatcher during the Falklands when the many military pundits said Britain could only blockade the islands.

What is it you expect the spanish to do?

Iraq is but one one front on a global battlefield.

No argument from me.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
Kidicious: Please vote for Bush. I can only chuckle to see you and some of the conservatives agreeing election time-it will make them feel so icky...

You're going to be chuckling if there is a terrorist attack in the US right before the election, or are you not reading my posts carefully.

Originally posted by GePap
80-90% of the people in Spain did not back the war in Iraq-. IF the PP was going to win, it was going to be due to it's internal policies, NOT its external policies. The Madrid bombing showed its external policies to be, if not a failure, unable to keep Spain safe. Fez said there was nothing any government could have done to stop that bombing-if that is true, what the hell did the PP do for 2 plus years as part on this war on terror? And how would a continuation of the highly unpopular participation of Spain in Iraq without a UN mandate make Spain and spaniards any safer against AQ?

Of course they will be safer with the new non-confrontational govt. They will also have allowed foreign influence into their govt.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kidicious

You're going to be chuckling if there is a terrorist attack in the US right before the election, or are you not reading my posts carefully.

As carefully as they always deserve to be.

Of course they will be safer with the new non-confrontational govt. They will also have allowed foreign influence into their govt.

1. since you don;t know the future, your statement is nonsense.

2. Last time I checked, your point is that YOU would allow foreing influence into your government? Pot, kettle, black?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap


As carefully as they always deserve to be.

What does deserving have to do with it? You're the one who ends up looking stupid.

Originally posted by GePap

1. since you don;t know the future, your statement is nonsense.

Didn't we agree that they would be safer?

Originally posted by GePap
2. Last time I checked, your point is that YOU would allow foreing influence into your government? Pot, kettle, black?

Where did I say that? I said that I would vote for the politician that the terrorists didn't want.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Didn't we agree that they would be safer?

No

Where did I say that? I said that I would vote for the politician that the terrorists didn't want.

Hence you would be voting based on foreign influence. Really, do you NOT see that!!?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Where did I say that? I said that I would vote for the politician that the terrorists didn't want.

You are saying that terrorist are changing your vote from one that you want to make sans terrorist, to one that they don't want (which is not your first choice). So you have been influenced in your governmental choice by terrorists.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
No

Originally posted by GePap
And how would a continuation of the highly unpopular participation of Spain in Iraq without a UN mandate make Spain and spaniards any safer against AQ?

Originally posted by GePap

Hence you would be voting based on foreign influence. Really, do you NOT see that!!?

Do you NOT see the difference between voting for candidate that the terrorists want because you are scared, and voting for the candidate that they don't want because you don't want them to try that crap again.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Do you NOT see the difference between voting for candidate that the terrorists want because you are scared, and voting for the candidate that they don't want because you don't want them to try that crap again.

Ever thought of having more than terrorism define your ballot choice.

[GePap]

quote:
Originally posted by GePap
And how would a continuation of the highly unpopular participation of Spain in Iraq without a UN mandate make Spain and spaniards any safer against AQ?

You view that as having agreed they would be safer with the new gov.? OMG!! I am sorry, that blows my mind.

Originally posted by Kidicious
Do you NOT see the difference between voting for candidate that the terrorists want because you are scared, and voting for the candidate that they don't want because you don't want them to try that crap again.

No. You would be voting again out of fear and anger- Heck! This guy will go after them and they won't try it again! As opposed to this guy will get out of their way, and they won;t try it again!

Yes, kid, massive difference..in the Nedaverse perhaps.

[Dauphin]

I would really love it if we could make the issue of how to deal with AQ and other terrorists become a non-politicised, non-partisan issue. If the policies were agreed and commited to across parties then there would be no problem.

[Arrian]

Fat chance, BC. Everything is political.

It sucks, I agree, but that's how it is.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I would really love it if we could make the issue of how to deal with AQ and other terrorists become a non-politicised, non-partisan issue. If the policies were agreed and commited to then there would be no problem.

Man is a political animal. Terrorism is a form of political violence. How could this discussion NOT be political?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


Ever thought of having more than terrorism define your ballot choice.

That's just not going to happen when there is a terrorist attack right before the election.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Arrian
Fat chance, BC. Everything is political.

It sucks, I agree, but that's how it is.

-Arrian

Treatment of terrorism in the UK has been largely succesful in this regard. The Northern Ireland issue has not been politicised to any great degree (in Whitehall politics), and the Labour and Tories are not in major disagreement over terrorism handling.

Maybe its just the quirkiness of the British.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Treatment of terrorism in the UK has been largely succesful in this regard. The Northern Ireland issue has not been politicised to any great degree (in Whitehall politics), and the Labour and Tories are not in major disagreement over terrorism handling.

Maybe its just the quirkiness of the British.

Political agreement is not proof of lack of politicising.