Originally posted by Heresson
He didn't claim that. If I should apologise it's only one word, "only", which I used as emphasis, but which's meaning is incorrect in my sentence.
He didn't claim that. If I should apologise it's only one word, "only", which I used as emphasis, but which's meaning is incorrect in my sentence.
Molly did not write what You claim He did, He just replied "how many times did he (Usama) vote?"
which I read as denying of Usama's influence on the elections. Perhaps it was not intended, even Molly has some common sense I guess, perhaps He wanted to temper my opinion - and then, and only then, He'd be right, but if that's what He's ment, He should've done it in a clear way, not in a blurry sarcastic way that He did.
which I read as denying of Usama's influence on the elections. Perhaps it was not intended, even Molly has some common sense I guess, perhaps He wanted to temper my opinion - and then, and only then, He'd be right, but if that's what He's ment, He should've done it in a clear way, not in a blurry sarcastic way that He did.
![Smile](https://apolyton.net/core/images/smilies/smile.gif)
At any rate, the point stands that there's little evidence that Bin Laden is the one responsible for the conservative downfall. In fact, as that article I linked to shows, they were the architects of their own demise.
Even if the partial responsibility for electing the smaheful Zapateronians rests on Aznar's handling of the case, it is only result of the primary action, that is terrorist attack. I do not deny it. My point stays.
Also, if You read my posts with attention, You' find out that in fact, I didn't deny that what gouverment did didn't have any influence. But some voted for socialists of cowardice, it is obvious.
And how is it "obvious?" I am eager to hear what support you had that anyone voted out of "cowardice" in the wake of the attacks. As noted above, people voted against the conservatives because the government had lied to them.
And the rise of votes for socialists after it was said it wasn't ETA that conducted the attacks can be explained both by the gouverment's behaviour and by that only then it was clear that it had to do with Spanish presence in Iraq.
No matter what, backing of from Iraq by Zapatero, if really it didn't (unlike much of its support) come of cowardice, but naivity of pacifism or populism, it will be seen as such by the terrorists and by the world in general and that's white the right thing to do was to let the forces stay precisely because the attack has happened.
The misguided and naive position would precisely be to keep supporting a government like Anzar's out of a misguided since of jingoistic pride.
Is it sure it was a lie, and not fooling themselves as well as the rest?
Also, what I've written above: it's a secondary thing. Without the attack, there would be no question if the gouverment lied or not.
And even without the lie, the support for conservatives would fall.
And even without the lie, the support for conservatives would fall.
But I do like your crystal ball view--that you seem to know what would have happened even without the government lie. Say, what are the winning lottery numbers this week?
Comment