Terrorists claim victory in Spain

[GePap]

In another thread, Fez said there was nothing the PP could have done to stop this attack from happening. If so, then what service did the war in Iraq serve Spain's security? If being with Bush does not make Spain safer-why should the Spanish electorate stay with that boat? People make the claim AQ's aims are univesalist-world domination and all that blather-well, if after 1 year in Iraq and 2 in Afghanistan Fezzie is right and there was nothing a government like Spain's do to stop a massive terrorist attack like the one in madrid, then what has been the point? And if Fezzie is wrong and the PP government, with different priorities, could have stopped the attack-why re-elect a government that failed in securing Spain?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Appeasement, like confrontation, is a strategy-whether it works or not is based on the eventual aims of the opponent.

Can you point out a situation where where such a strategy actually worked?

[Dr. Nick]

A socialist government in Madrid weakens the US-led coalition and thereby increases the chances of things going wrong in Iraq.

Like the situation in Iraq could go wronger?

[Drake Tungsten]

Like the situation in Iraq could go wronger?

At least try to put some effort into your trolls...

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Can you point out a situation where where such a strategy actually worked?

I will look for good examples. In the meantime, I can give you an example were appeasement would have worked-Iraq. Had Saddam appeased Bush in 1990, he would still be in power. Depending on what one thinks Bush II's mind was about the war, appeasement of Bush II by Iraq might still mean Saddam in power.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Can you point out a situation where where such a strategy actually worked?

Appeasement?

Look at Muscovy, they paid tribute to the Golden Horde until they were no longer a threat.

My knowledge is rusty, and relevance may be slim. But I think it falls under "appeasement worked as a strategy".

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
It won't be a "brief moment". This was a major victory for Al Qaeda, arguably more impressive than the 9/11 attacks. We'll be hearing about this for years, as Al Qaeda milks their victory over the crusaders for all it's worth. I wonder how many new recruits this is going to garner?

I think you're greatly overstating the ramifications the PSOE victory will have.

Regardless, the PP lied to the people and deserved to lose the election. They bungled badly and paid for their ineptness. Were it revealed a few days before the November election that the Bush Administration had misidentified the 9/11 hijackers as AQ and continued with this deception in order to prosecute the war in Afghanistan, wouldn't you say the electorate had every right to be mad and to turn them out? I'd say yes, anything AQ wants or doesn't want be damned.

[SpencerH]

The Spainish people certainly have the right to vote for whom they want, and to pull out their troops from Iraq. That said, it is a public relations victory for AQ who, at the very least, wanted to punish 'the crusaders' for supporting US policy. Not only did they show that they could strike effectively in Europe, but they also got the added bonus of changing the course of the election. AQ must be very much heartened by the results. Personally, I find it hard to understand the choice made by the voters who switched to the socialists after the bombing.

[Drake Tungsten]

I think you're greatly overstating the ramifications the PSOE victory will have.

And I think you're great understating it. Wow, what an interesting exchange of ideas you just provoked...

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Personally, I find it hard to understand the choice made by the voters who switched to the socialists after the bombing.

No kidding-after all, you supported the war in Iraq, unlike the vast mayority of those that ended up voting for the PSOE.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
The statement issued with the attack said it was in retalion for Spain's support of the United States in Iraq (among other things); a few days later, the party that was most against the war (among other things) is elected.

It dosen't take much to conclude that the implied demand was met.

As far as I can tell, the Spanish voted PSOE was because the PP government lied about the attack in Madrid. The PP government pinned the attack on the ETA, who vehemently denied any involvement. An Arab organisation claimed they did it, nobody took them seriously. In fact, there's still no definite proof which terrorist organisation was behind the attack. Thus, linking the vote with said implied demand is unfounded.

[Drake Tungsten]

As far as I can tell, the Spanish voted PSOE was because the PP government lied about the attack in Madrid.

Why don't you read the Washington Post article I linked to (and then copied and pasted)?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by BeBro
An ideological conflict is usually not negotiable. It may be under certain circumstances (east - west under the MAD threat) but that does not lead to a compromize in ideological beliefs either.

I don't think it's an ideological conflict -- even the IRA put down their weapons.

[GePap]

I see drake has yet to address any of the points I made: see what happens when you waste your time posting long posts DT?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap


No kidding-after all, you supported the war in Iraq, unlike the vast mayority of those that ended up voting for the PSOE.

Yes, I support the war in Iraq. I believe that the western powers should use their might to depose dictatorships. By not acting, they virtually condone the evil and suffering done under such despotic regimes.

Read closely, I refered to the voters who switchedtheir support to the socialists, not to those who were socialists to begin with.