Way to go Spain - aka The results of giving in to terrorist demands

[Az]

Ban on "scarf"

Islamist scum

[RGBVideo]

Terrorism is just another method of political bartering.
It is wrong and should be clearly made illegitimate.

It should always be condemned. It should always be fought.

Demands by terrorists should never - ever be met. This only legitimizes terrorism as "a method that works".

The same people that use terrorism today to demand things which you think they deserve, will end up demanding what ever they think they can achieve.

STOP TOUTING TERRORISM NOW.

Now, what has the article which you posted to do with Spain?

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by VJ



Now, what has the article which you posted to do with Spain?

Seconded, thirded, fourthed.....

Although, one could make a leap of logic and say that threats were being levied against France because the terrorists looked at Spain as an example of a Western nation that aquiesced to their demands.

However, Spain did not acquiesce to any terrorist demands. They pulled out of a war seen by many billions and many nations as illegally started. Are the nations who never supported the war considered as appeasing terrorists? What about those who support anti-terrorist activities in places like Afghanistan? Also, what have these terrorists to do with Iraq? Nothing that I can see, beyond the base religion of both sets of people, which means a big fat nothing.

I agree that acquiescing to the demands of terrorists is not the best way to hope to eliminate these threats. However, that does not mean that we should always do the opposite of whatever a terrorist says either. If a terrorist threatened to blow up a certain building unless everyone moved out of it, you'd be crazy to not evacuate the building until it was deemed safe. A government stubborn enough to oppose such a case of 'appeasing a terrorist' would be just plain stupid.

So in short I'm not sure what the point is being made here.

[Bereta_Eder]

edit:
wow everything i write is deleted at the speed of light!!!!


big brother retail reached a new level!!!!!

mingy mingy

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


A more intelligent one. Think about it. Israel has been using the exact same methods for the last 56 years, and yet they still exist.

[Az]

*sight*

*smell*

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's correct.

Afterall, they used terrorism succcessfully against the Brits.

You refering to 1916 or the current Northern Ireland? (Or Israeli terrorism against Britain?)

In the first case Eire got independence not because of terrorism per se, but rather the Germans were causing a bit of a stink - attending to that was far more important than policing Dublin.

In the current Northern Ireland situation the IRA and other terrorist organisations had to declare a cessation of violence before their political wings were accepted in policy making.

[Az]

(Or Israeli terrorism against Britain?)

That's probably the right answer. ( Of course, I don't know of many british innocent civilians killed, by UR will surely enlighten us )

[Pekka]

Like I've said before, we must not have the caveman mentality, where we don't recognize crap from food.

The 'Let's-Do-The-Exact-Opposite' logic is nto always working OR the most effective way to fight the terrorists. Now taht you have such polarized situation, it will be extremely difficult to work on. Congratulations about that. Terrorists have won already.

[Spiffor]

Chirac's party is strongly in favour of the ban, and the main lefty party is rather favourable-ish to it, but generally undecided IIUC.

Our stance on the headscarf ban won't change with this terrorist action. However, it can change if proven useless or contraproductive (it will be first implemented thursday), or if the debate sparks again.
The next legislature (starting in 2007) may change it, or may not, in the usual democratic fashion. It's nearly impossile that terrorism changes our stance, and it's unlikely that the general pressure from the Muslim world (such as strained diplomatic relationships with Islamic countries) affects it.
This debate is internal, and the only foreign meddling that could affect it would be the EU.

[Az]

It's good that their dictatorship and utter lack of human rights doesn't strain your relationships with them.

[Spiffor]

This is called "Realpolitik"

[Az]

I was talking about the EU.

Seriously, though, I hope that this ban will stand. Stupid religionists.

[Pekka]

The fact is, if you do the opposite what terrorist demands, you're already letting the influence you. If you let terrorism influence on your decision making, they win. Simple as that. And that's what they want, a say in things. They want to be taken seriously and be heard. They want to play a game.

So, we submit to that, and take what they demand into consideration as means to counter it with the exact opposite solution.

We should not let them affect our decision making, AT ALL. That way, we win.

[Spiffor]

Re: "Stupid religionists"

In this case, the "stupid religionists" are the Muslims who insist wearing the scarf, or having their daughters wear the scarf.

The measure wasn't aimed at favouring the Christians or Jews, but at keeping the tradition of schools devoid of religiosity. The religious convictions of the policy-makers had almost nothing to do with it (we're veeeeery far from the US in this regard), but the old-dtyle-Republican fanaticism did.