NationStates Jolt Archive

I have heard this around. I'm not the first to mention or will be the last in light of the most recent bombings in London. But you have to wonder if the Spanish people would have stood up and re-elected there president instead of going for a milk toast liberal. Would the terrorist have been embolden to strike at London to try and achieve the same outcome for the UK? I think the spanish cowering in a corner is partially responsible for emboldening these terrorist into thinking this will work again. Dont get me wrong. The terrorist are 100% responsible for this action. But the Spanish electorate are enablers.
I am glad at Prime Ministers Blairs response to this terrible event. This shows the terrorist that they messed with the wrong people. British wont run and cower like some other nations when faced with danger. When are people going to wake up from there pacifist dream world and face reality?

Links:

this link is from a Spanish paper today, good read.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/art...rticle_continue

another explaining the election:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005...ain679495.shtml

and yet another saying exactly what im saying:

http://www.kaimin.org/viewarticle.php?id=2769

and another:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/wm448.cfm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have heard this around. I'm not the first to mention or will be the last in light of the most recent bombings in London. But you have to wonder if the Spanish people would have stood up and re-elected there president instead of going for a milk toast liberal. Would the terrorist have been embolden to strike at London to try and achieve the same outcome for the UK? I think the spanish cowering in a corner is partially responsible for emboldening these terrorist into thinking this will work again. Dont get me wrong. The terrorist are 100% responsible for this action. But the Spanish electorate are enablers.
I am glad at Prime Ministers Blairs response to this terrible event. This shows the terrorist that they messed with the wrong people. British wont run and cower like some other nations when faced with danger. When are people going to wake up from there pacifist dream world and face reality?

Wow. You ever break something jumping to your conclusions?

Giving a terrorist what he wants will always encourage him.

I've said something similar before. Spain sent the message that "if you hit us hard enough we'll do exactly what you want".

I never considered that the terrorists would be encouraged to attack another country because of that, but it does make sense.

Wow. You ever break something jumping to your conclusions?

This is not at all jumping to conclusions. This has been said after the Madrid blasts and recently today in the media. This isnt a original idea from myself. I do happen to agree with it.

The terrorist understand the strong alliance between Britain and the U.S. and know they share a pretty similar attitude toward terrorists. I'm sure they didn't expect another Madrid chain of events. I think their message was "Hey, we're still here and working and guess what? We got past your security!"

sensible.

Get off you sad pathetic wanker. It's our shit, stop trying to blame everyone in sight.

I swear one more thread like this and I'll get myself forumbanned.

Who was to say that the socialist (liberal) would have not won on his own? Your clutching at straws here.

Regardless the response they will receive back is:

Huh? You think this changes anything?

There's still a Churchillian Spirit and I believe the British response will be one of measure and reason to people who lack any of those qualities.

That'd be like saying the US people, reelecting Bush, "enabled" him to kill more people in Iraq, something which would, by that line of reasoning, justify everything Bin Laden did. I'm not using this line of reasoning, you are.

First of all, the Spaniards didn't change their votes because of the war: They did it because their then-prime-minister LIED about WHO caused 3-11. Second, the MAJORITY of them were against the war in the first place, a fact their prime-minister sollemny ignored. Third, the election was going to be close anyways. Fourth, a "liberal" president (it actually is prime-minister) wouldn't lead his country into an unwinnable quagmire over NO WMD EVIDENCE.

But of course you'd jump to that conclusion, seeing as you WANT to blame anything and everything on whoever doesn't support Bush. Before you ask, I'm Brazilian.

Marrakech II this is pathetic. Grow up.

Get off you sad pathetic wanker. It's our shit, stop trying to blame everyone in sight.

I swear one more thread like this and I'll get myself forumbanned.

Let it out muppet. Its obvious that you cant think enough to put together a thoughtful reply.

The terrorist understand the strong alliance between Britain and the U.S. and know they share a pretty similar attitude toward terrorists. I'm sure they didn't expect another Madrid chain of events. I think their message was "Hey, we're still here and working and guess what? We got past your security!"

and our message remains, "If you keep operating as terrorists, we will continue to hunt you and blow you up."

(quasi-hehe)

Let it out muppet. Its obvious that you cant think enough to put together a thoughtful reply.

You think you deserve one?

How about this then. Stop whinging because a liberal got in in Spain. Stop throwing blame at everyone bar the US and UK. Stop your sad, filthy attemts to drag down the sovreign choice of a democratic nation.

Marrakech II this is pathetic. Grow up.

Pathetic? Whats pathetic is people that are not in reality. Every action has a consequence. Giving in will get people killed. This is the main point. Also again this isnt a idea from myself. Just happen to agree with it. This is a multiple media story that has been in US press and US radio airwaves. So grow up yourself and either write something intelligent or dont respond at all. Save yourself looking stupid.

Let it out muppet. Its obvious that you cant think enough to put together a thoughtful reply.

Well, if you'll try to discredit your opponent because of HOW he put what I was also saying, go ahead, but you'd better try to out-argue me. Go ahead, try to come up with a reasonable answer to what I said.

The Spanish chose change because they lost faith in the previous government. The government at the time blamed ETA even though the bombing was way out of their league. The result of the Madrid bombing had no effect on the terrorists targeting London, they would have done it anyway.

You think you deserve one?

How about this then. Stop whinging because a liberal got in in Spain. Stop throwing blame at everyone bar the US and UK. Stop your sad, filthy attemts to drag down the sovreign choice of a democratic nation.

Im not whining at all. You started this with whining. Take your own advice. Spain is free to elect anyone they want. Im also free to criticise there decision. There is no shortage of people that criticise the US presidential election. I would assume you being one of them.

The Spanish chose change because they lost faith in the previous government. The government at the time blamed ETA even though the bombing was way out of their league. The result of the Madrid bombing had no effect on the terrorists targeting London, they would have done it anyway.

Yeah, but Marrakech doesn't want to see this point, lest his view of reality, in which anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh is to blame for everything, is challenged.

Pathetic? Whats pathetic is people that are not in reality. Every action has a consequence. Giving in will get people killed. This is the main point. Also again this isnt a idea from myself. Just happen to agree with it. This is a multiple media story that has been in US press and US radio airwaves. So grow up yourself and either write something intelligent or dont respond at all. Save yourself looking stupid.

Well glad to see you have such an objective source for your opinion from the Right Wing American Media.

Wurzelmania and Marrakech (hope I didn't butcher those names) are both right in some degree:

W is right that Spain's election, since it was free, should be respected... they made their choice.

but

M is right in that giving in to terrorism only encourages it more. These people respect strength, and when you bow to them (which may have happened with the popularly-elected Spanish government), they are emboldened.

So while we can sit here and criticize, to our heart's content, the terrorist-centered actions of the Spanish government, we cannot debate that they have a right to make such decisions -- power was given to them by their people.

I think that whenever possible, we should keep them on the run. If they're on the run, they are far less capable of hitting us.

What Marrakech is forgetting is that it's really budgerigars to blame for all the world's troubles.

War... terrorism... paranoia... assigning blame...

Budgerigars. The enemy within.

Im not whining at all. You started this with whining. Take your own advice. Spain is free to elect anyone they want. Im also free to criticise there decision. There is no shortage of people that criticise the US presidential election. I would assume you being one of them.

Telling you to piss off is whining? New one on me.

I'll criticize Bush true. I'll criticize his policies, his beliefs, his friends, his party. I do not however accuse he US electorate of having Iraqi blood on their hands for electing him (at least as justifiable as your flight of fancy here).

That'd be like saying the US people, reelecting Bush, "enabled" him to kill more people in Iraq, something which would, by that line of reasoning, justify everything Bin Laden did. I'm not using this line of reasoning, you are.

First of all, the Spaniards didn't change their votes because of the war: They did it because their then-prime-minister LIED about WHO caused 3-11. Second, the MAJORITY of them were against the war in the first place, a fact their prime-minister sollemny ignored. Third, the election was going to be close anyways. Fourth, a "liberal" president (it actually is prime-minister) wouldn't lead his country into an unwinnable quagmire over NO WMD EVIDENCE.

But of course you'd jump to that conclusion, seeing as you WANT to blame anything and everything on whoever doesn't support Bush. Before you ask, I'm Brazilian.


Kerry would not have pulled out of Iraq. He said so. Spanish liberal opponent did run on that fact. As who was ahead the day before in the Spanish polls. It was Anzar not his opponent. There is a clear line of the Madrid bombings and the election. Check your facts its Spanish President not Prime minister. I solely blame the terrorist for there actions. But I also blame people that enable them to do more evil deeds.

Wurzelmania and Marrakech (hope I didn't butcher those names) are both right in some degree:

W is right that Spain's election, since it was free, should be respected... they made their choice.

but

M is right in that giving in to terrorism only encourages it more. These people respect strength, and when you bow to them (which may have happened with the popularly-elected Spanish government), they are emboldened.

So while we can sit here and criticize, to our heart's content, the terrorist-centered actions of the Spanish government, we cannot debate that they have a right to make such decisions -- power was given to them by their people.

I think that whenever possible, we should keep them on the run. If they're on the run, they far less capable of hitting us.


The Spaniards didn't "give in", they chose a president that wouldn't LIE to them as for WHO CAUSED 3/11. Also, another thing: Most Spaniards were against the war TO BEGIN WITH.

Knock it off people, is it really worth it?

Telling you to piss off is whining? New one on me.

I'll criticize Bush true. I'll criticize his policies, his beliefs, his friends, his party. I do not however accuse he US electorate of having Iraqi blood on their hands for electing him (at least as justifiable as your flight of fancy here).


Re read your post. Obviously you cant see what you wrote. Saying "I'm tired of these posts" is whining.

Kerry would not have pulled out of Iraq. He said so. Spanish liberal opponent did run on that fact. As who was ahead the day before in the Spanish polls. It was Anzar not his opponent. There is a clear line of the Madrid bombings and the election. Check your facts its Spanish President not Prime minister. I solely blame the terrorist for there actions. But I also blame people that enable them to do more evil deeds.

It's the budgies, I'm tellin' ya! They're influencing their owners in Spain to enable terrorism!

This is not at all jumping to conclusions. This has been said after the Madrid blasts and recently today in the media. This isnt a original idea from myself. I do happen to agree with it.
Illogical conclusion.

The madrid bombings happened after 9/11, and we went and bombed random countries, by your lopgic, the terrorists should have begged us to stop, turned themselves over, and never bombed anything again

I have heard this around. I'm not the first to mention or will be the last in light of the most recent bombings in London. But you have to wonder if the Spanish people would have stood up and re-elected there president instead of going for a milk toast liberal.
It wasn't a presidential election, junkhead.

The Spanish had always been against the war. It was inevitable that the Popular Party of Aznar would be defeated, and that Zapatero's Socialists would be elected.

Would the terrorist have been embolden to strike at London to try and achieve the same outcome for the UK? I think the spanish cowering in a corner is partially responsible for emboldening these terrorist into thinking this will work again. Dont get me wrong.

The terrorist are 100% responsible for this action. But the Spanish electorate are enablers.

I am glad at Prime Ministers Blairs response to this terrible event. This shows the terrorist that they messed with the wrong people. British wont run and cower like some other nations when faced with danger. When are people going to wake up from there pacifist dream world and face reality?
I am also glad that Blair won't pull out like the Spanish did, but I would equally argue that the fundamentalists would have carried out this attack regardless of the outcome of the 2004 Spanish election.

The Spaniards didn't "give in", they chose a president that wouldn't LIE to them as for WHO CAUSED 3/11. Also, another thing: Most Spaniards were against the war TO BEGIN WITH.


Everyone lied eh. There is multiple posts here to discuss that fact. I dont believe that the French, Russians, Germans, Spanish and or the UK, US and a host of other nations that though he had WMD lied. He had them before and used them. Would be like saying the US has no Nukes. Would we keep them in harms way of a invading army. Doubt it, we would move them. If our whole country was looking to be overrun I would suspect Canada would be the recipient of most of our weapons. In order to keep them out of the hands of the said invading army.

Yeah, but Marrakech doesn't want to see this point, lest his view of reality, in which anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh is to blame for everything, is challenged.

Im not a right winger. I vote both ways btw. Im a centrist by the US definition.

Kerry would not have pulled out of Iraq. He said so. Spanish liberal opponent did run on that fact. As who was ahead the day before in the Spanish polls. It was Anzar not his opponent. There is a clear line of the Madrid bombings and the election. Check your facts its Spanish President not Prime minister. I solely blame the terrorist for there actions. But I also blame people that enable them to do more evil deeds.

You didn't answer my point that Aznar lied to the Spanish people about who did the bombings. If you "solely" blame the terrorists, you can't "also" blame the Spaniards, semantic genius. If you'll say there's "blood on the hands" of the Spanish people, you'll have to say there's LOTS of blood in the hands of the US electorate that elected Bush for Iraq, Eisenhower for Vietnam... The list goes on for blood. By the way, Tony Blair, by joining the war in Iraq, created LOTS of hatred towards England. You REALLY wanna go on blaming everyone-but-the-Conservatives?

Kerry would not have pulled out of Iraq. He said so. Spanish liberal opponent did run on that fact. As who was ahead the day before in the Spanish polls. It was Anzar not his opponent. There is a clear line of the Madrid bombings and the election. Check your facts its Spanish President not Prime minister. I solely blame the terrorist for there actions. But I also blame people that enable them to do more evil deeds.

I agree pretty much entirely with your actions. I don't know why the Spanish government was so quick to blame ETA - maybe because it would have been less embaressing to admit ETA managed it? And I respect the choice of the Spanish people, but I do think it was something of a capitulation. I sinecerely hope that Spain doesn't suffer any consquences from emboldened terrorists. And I do think London would still have occured without the change in Spain; even if this had stopped this cell, another would doubtless have emerged sooner or later.

Ihatevacations']Illogical conclusion.

The madrid bombings happened after 9/11, and we went and bombed random countries, by your lopgic, the terrorists should have begged us to stop, turned themselves over, and never bombed anything again

They attacked the US knowing we would bomb other nations. They wanted that to happen to pull people to there cause. Look at what the evil US is doing! Bombing our muslim brothers!
The Spanish on the other hand was right before a election. They were kidnapping people in Iraq to force nations to withdrawl. It is completely logical to assume that the terrorist wanted to affect the Spanish election. Since the opposing candidate was running on a pull our troops out platfrom. While Anzar was ahead in the polls. They needed to help the opposing candidate. They suceeded.

I am surprised at the timing of the attacks. Britain is not a pushover like Spain was, even when support of the Iraq issue was weakening, because A) they have too much invested to just shove off, and B) they don't have a national mentality that takes to being bullied about. Perhaps the reaction might have been different had this happened just prior to the recent re-election of Blair. However, all that's happened now is to strengthen the resolve of Britain, re-commit Blair to Iraq, and (in the short-term, shallow analysis) give Bush about a month's worth of political capital built on the "I was right, so eat it, liberals" philosophy. The media's full of "as the Bush Administration has been saying, 'it's matter of when and not if'..."
I would argue that this was a major blunder on the terrorists' part. Italy or Denmark would have been better targets (more likely to withdraw support). Remember, Bush needs his "international coalition" for political creditability purposes against the American Democrats and in the UN Security Council. Removing, one by one, the weak countries (most of the coalition) would seriously injure his ability to pursue the war on terror in the international theatre.
The reason for the terrorist strategic error may have been because this was an as-yet unknown group, probably somewhat amateurish (relatively ineffective compared with 9/11), and not in communication with more established groups such as Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda, Palestinian groups such as Hamas, or the fighters in Iraq.
Ideas?

They attacked the US knowing we would bomb other nations. They wanted that to happen to pull people to there cause. Look at what the evil US is doing! Bombing our muslim brothers!
The Spanish on the other hand was right before a election. They were kidnapping people in Iraq to force nations to withdrawl. It is completely logical to assume that the terrorist wanted to affect the Spanish election. Since the opposing candidate was running on a pull our troops out platfrom. While Anzar was ahead in the polls. They needed to help the opposing candidate. They suceeded.
Now you are offtopic, wasn't the topic "the london bombing was the fault of spain"

They attacked the US knowing we would bomb other nations. They wanted that to happen to pull people to there cause. Look at what the evil US is doing! Bombing our muslim brothers!
The Spanish on the other hand was right before a election. They were kidnapping people in Iraq to force nations to withdrawl. It is completely logical to assume that the terrorist wanted to affect the Spanish election. Since the opposing candidate was running on a pull our troops out platfrom. While Anzar was ahead in the polls. They needed to help the opposing candidate. They suceeded.

For crying out loud. Now he's associating the terrorists with the Spanish Left. For the third time, Aznar lied to the people about who carried out the bombings. But your liking for war and bloodshed won't allow you to notice this. A shame. By your logic, the American people are to blame for 9-11. There's your logic talking.

It's the budgies, I'm tellin' ya! They're influencing their owners in Spain to enable terrorism!

Dobbs I dont hardly ever agree with ya, but still got to like ya. LOL

I am surprised at the timing of the attacks. Britain is not a pushover like Spain was, even when support of the Iraq issue was weakening, because A) they have too much invested to just shove off, and B) they don't have a national mentality that takes to being bullied about. Perhaps the reaction might have been different had this happened just prior to the recent re-election of Blair. However, all that's happened now is to strengthen the resolve of Britain, re-commit Blair to Iraq, and (in the short-term, shallow analysis) give Bush about a month's worth of political capital built on the "I was right, so eat it, liberals" philosophy. The media's full of "as the Bush Administration has been saying, 'it's matter of when and not if'..."
I would argue that this was a major blunder on the terrorists' part. Italy or Denmark would have been better targets (more likely to withdraw support). Remember, Bush needs his "international coalition" for political creditability purposes against the American Democrats and in the UN Security Council. Removing, one by one, the weak countries (most of the coalition) would seriously injure his ability to pursue the war on terror in the international theatre.
The reason for the terrorist strategic error may have been because this was an as-yet unknown group, probably somewhat amateurish (relatively ineffective compared with 9/11), and not in communication with more established groups such as Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda, Palestinian groups such as Hamas, or the fighters in Iraq.
Ideas?

Did it ever occur to you that the terrorists might love to see a dumb Republican that gathers hatred towards the US at every turn, fumbles a war killing two thousand US soldiers, etc, in power?

...And by leaving Vietnam, the US has taught the world that if you kill enough of us, we'll leave.

For crying out loud. Now he's associating the terrorists with the Spanish Left. For the third time, Aznar lied to the people about who carried out the bombings. But your liking for war and bloodshed won't allow you to notice this. A shame. By your logic, the American people are to blame for 9-11. There's your logic talking.

Pay attention my friend. I clearly didnt say that the opponent used the terrorist. It was the terrorist trying to manipulate the election. Is that clear enough?

Did it ever occur to you that the terrorists might love to see a dumb Republican that gathers hatred towards the US at every turn, fumbles a war killing two thousand US soldiers, etc, in power?

the terrorist are scared shitless of Bush. The hatred comes from people like you my friend. I doubt if the majority of Iraqis hate Bush and the Afghan people for that matter.

the terrorist are scared shitless of Bush. The hatred comes from people like you my friend. I doubt if the majority of Iraqis hate Bush and the Afghan people for that matter.

So they played the Spanish about but never you. Despite the fact you are playing into their hands? There's none so blind as the arrogant.

the terrorist are scared shitless of Bush. The hatred comes from people like you my friend.
Oh man, this one has got to be a joke.

...And by leaving Vietnam, the US has taught the world that if you kill enough of us, we'll leave.
Maybe we should jsut ship some troops tomorrow to vietnam just to prove the world we like wars and wont give up :rolleyes:

Yeah they're scared shitless, running scared even. Certainly not bombing our allies and killing our soldiers. Oh wait. Scared shitless, with recruiting numbers like that I'd be scared too, what if they run out of targets? We don't scare them, Iraq has given them ample recruiting material. Abu Ghraib alone assured us this war we cannot win.

the terrorist are scared shitless of Bush. The hatred comes from people like you my friend. I doubt if the majority of Iraqis hate Bush and the Afghan people for that matter.

Usual tactics that remind me of McCarthyism, libeling me of hating the US because I disagree with the current people in power. What was that thing about you fighting for "freedom" again? Oh, right...

You're an idiot.

Ihatevacations']Maybe we should jsut ship some troops tomorrow to vietnam just to prove the world we like wars and wont give up :rolleyes:

we left vietnam probably mostly because of:

a)hippies (anti-war movement)

and

b)a dawdling government

we could have won

This is ridiculous, Marrakech. British blood is no more on the hands of the Spanish electorate than Iraqi and Afghan and Vietnamese and Guatemalan and Chilean and Panaminian and Hatian and Honduran and Nicaraguan blood is on the hands of the American electorate.

This is ridiculous, Marrakech. British blood is no more on the hands of the Spanish electorate than Iraqi and Afghan and Vietnamese and Guatemalan and Chilean and Panaminian and Hatian and Honduran and Nicaraguan blood is on the hands of the American electorate.

Exactly, but considering he just libeled me for disagreeing like a good dictator would do, he won't see this.

How do you take a quote?

Heikoku, attacking a target already heavily involved in the war (such as Britain) would not cause more of the stuff you mentioned (mishandled war, Bush doing much of anything that would increase Muslim dislike of US, etc. They didn't attack the US, after all). If you really wanted to F things up, get together a group of fringe Iranians, create fake ties to the government that will show up in early post-investigation attacks, and then blow up a soft US target. Presto, new invasion--Bush needs to save face in Iraq by doing SOMEthing, and that story would provide it. A bonus would be that once the ties were found to be fake, Bush would lose huge cred with the world and much of his own populace.

Besides, Bush is in for 3.5 more years. Nothing the terrorists can do about that, so the worst done in that respect is discrediting him (which creates more international dislike everywhere. The terrorists need to provoke him into doing something stupid. Attacking the US or an easy to remove country will do that. The Britain attacks just helps him by shoring up the situation there.

the terrorist are scared shitless of Bush. Oh brother...

the terrorist are scared shitless of Bush.
I know I'm scared of a man who: had a cia agent or two exposed, lost alot of arabic speakers in the armed forced, is OBSESSED with Iraq more than ANYTHING esle, and who scares the english language

Ihatevacations']I know I'm scared of a man who: had a cia agent or two exposed, lost alot of arabic speakers in teh armed forced, is OBSESSED with Iraq mroe than ANYTHING esle, and who scares teh english language

Careful, you don't wanna become a "turrorist" in Marrakech's deranged little dream-world...

Oh dear,
It's been a fun day.....

First we have an American telling us that we should blame Ken Livingston for the bombing.

Now Spain is to blame.

Can't wait for the next one.....

I think we should infact, as someone has stated, blame the budgies, however, have you seen the look on the faces of them there penguins?

Lol

I blame the Albatross. Long ranged strie forces already range the oceans scouting us out. Soon Hitchcock will be proven right.

I have heard this around. I'm not the first to mention or will be the last in light of the most recent bombings in London. But you have to wonder if the Spanish people would have stood up and re-elected there president instead of going for a milk toast liberal. Would the terrorist have been embolden to strike at London to try and achieve the same outcome for the UK? I think the spanish cowering in a corner is partially responsible for emboldening these terrorist into thinking this will work again. Dont get me wrong. The terrorist are 100% responsible for this action. But the Spanish electorate are enablers.
I am glad at Prime Ministers Blairs response to this terrible event. This shows the terrorist that they messed with the wrong people. British wont run and cower like some other nations when faced with danger. When are people going to wake up from there pacifist dream world and face reality?

Im glad That Enlgand wont be pushed around. Standing up for yourself is good, however you should know who to stand up to the terrorists not the Spanish. Regardless of the effect the spanish people might have had on the terrorists mind set blamming them for the attack on London is simply Ignorant conservitave bullshit. If you want to play the blame game we can all blame this on Bush and Blair as they started this Bullshit over oil. But thats not what im doing because it wasnt their intention to provoke a bombing on London. It wasnt Spains intent Either.

I don't know much...

Some might blame Ken Livigstone or the Spaniards...

I blame the French...

But what I know... the Britons have shown their colors yet again. No hurry to blame anybody... just count their losses, and hold stiff upper lip. no "we are gonna fucking get ya!". Kudos to britons.

Amen

Aditional note more on Bush than Blair.

But what I know... the Britons have shown their colors yet again. No hurry to blame anybody... just count their losses, and hold stiff upper lip. no "we are gonna fucking get ya!". Kudos to britons.

I second that.

Hmmmmmm.......... Now I see your point about the albatross, however, it is more likely the common or garden blackbird or finch.

It is not a coincidence that we have been having national bird watch programs and that the RSPB (Hah a Likely story, MI6 more like), have been asking us to count the bird populations in our back gardens.

I'm afrais that the albatross is far too uncommon and large to be an infiltrator, more likely something smaller.

Though having said that........Pigeons.....it has to be the pigeons.......They even get us British mugs AND tourists to feed them!

the terrorist are scared shitless of Bush. The hatred comes from people like you my friend. I doubt if the majority of Iraqis hate Bush and the Afghan people for that matter.

I would certainly be scared shitless of a man whos intelligence my dog surpasses. note my sarcasm.

I have heard this around. I'm not the first to mention or will be the last in light of the most recent bombings in London. But you have to wonder if the Spanish people would have stood up and re-elected there president instead of going for a milk toast liberal. Would the terrorist have been embolden to strike at London to try and achieve the same outcome for the UK? I think the spanish cowering in a corner is partially responsible for emboldening these terrorist into thinking this will work again. Dont get me wrong. The terrorist are 100% responsible for this action. But the Spanish electorate are enablers.
I am glad at Prime Ministers Blairs response to this terrible event. This shows the terrorist that they messed with the wrong people. British wont run and cower like some other nations when faced with danger. When are people going to wake up from there pacifist dream world and face reality?

It's difficult to say for sure what the Spanish voters' motives were in the election - as usual there are complex issues and short of exit poll data and intimate knowledge of the politics who are we to know?

"What really matters, in terms of encouraging or discouraging future attacks, is not so much whether Spanish voters were trying to appease terrorists, but whether the terrorists themselves perceive the result that way..."*

It's all about perceptions, and in this case I believe the Moslem terrorists believe they threw an election. That would embolden anybody.

Al-Qaeda just won a huge battle because they are now able to suggest to their own people that they have the power to topple large western governments.

Did the Spanish voters capitulate? Who knows. But the effect is the same, one way or the other.

And any sensible nation will never capitulate. The US won't and neither will the UK.

* http://www.reason.com/links/links031704.shtml

I would Just like to say not all Americans are like this Marakech some are actually pretty decent people long as you dont veer to far south to texas. Note That in bush's 1st run for president more of us actually voted for his opisition Gore.

I have heard this around. I'm not the first to mention or will be the last in light of the most recent bombings in London. But you have to wonder if the Spanish people would have stood up and re-elected there president instead of going for a milk toast liberal. Would the terrorist have been embolden to strike at London to try and achieve the same outcome for the UK? I think the spanish cowering in a corner is partially responsible for emboldening these terrorist into thinking this will work again. Dont get me wrong. The terrorist are 100% responsible for this action. But the Spanish electorate are enablers.
I am glad at Prime Ministers Blairs response to this terrible event. This shows the terrorist that they messed with the wrong people. British wont run and cower like some other nations when faced with danger. When are people going to wake up from there pacifist dream world and face reality?



Damned spanish and their god-damned democracy and rule by popular consent!

Unless they re-elect right wing leaders, even against their will and better judgement, the terrorists have WON!

It's why they blew up london right before THEIR election, so they can win there too!

Damned spanish and their god-damned democracy and rule by popular consent!

Unless they re-elect right wing leaders, even against their will and better judgement, the terrorists have WON!

It's why they blew up london right before THEIR election, so they can win there too!

LoL Amen.

Damned spanish and their god-damned democracy and rule by popular consent!

Unless they re-elect right wing leaders, even against their will and better judgement, the terrorists have WON!

It's why they blew up london right before THEIR election, so they can win there too!

Hehehe :)

If you would permit me to comment, the reasons for the recent attacks are not as clear as one might think. The attacks would seem to coincide with the G8 summit, but what interest Al Qaeda has in this is unclear.
Another possible reason is to increase the anti-muslim and anti-asian sentiment that has existed from 9-11 onwards. Mistreatment of muslims, either under the guise of "anti-terrorism" or by individuals, would in turn increase resentment among Britain's muslim population, which would in turn lead to increased tensions between communities and increased support for extremists.

Hopefully this will not happen.

The terrorists wont attack countries with liberal leaders and policies? Great! Lets get all those conservatives out of office then and America is safe weeeeeeeeeeee.
See I can make moronic statements too.

The terrorists wont attack countries with liberal leaders and policies? Great! Lets get all those conservatives out of office then and America is safe weeeeeeeeeeee.
See I can make moronic statements too.

Problem is to do that we would have to make entire states leave the union. States such as Texas hey they were their own country once they can be again Bush can be president their and wage his War on Iraq. They could do it using Pickup trucks and shotguns. And He could change the entire military uniform to include a cowboy hat yeeeehhhhawww. Or he could just start a war against those damn border hopping mexicans damn those job stealing bastards its not like white people cant mow their own damn lawn. Or that Californias ecconomy would collapse without them.

The terrorists wont attack countries with liberal leaders and policies? Great! Lets get all those conservatives out of office then and America is safe weeeeeeeeeeee.
See I can make moronic statements too.

Apparently, that's what Marrakesh is stating when he says that the Spaniards elected a liberal to "appease" terrorists, isn't it?

Problem is to do that we would have to make entire states leave the union. States such as Texas hey they were their own country once they can be again Bush can be president their and wage his War on Iraq. They could do it using Pickup trucks and shotguns. And He could change the entire military uniform to include a cowboy hat yeeeehhhhawww. Or he could just start a war against those damn border hopping mexicans damn those job stealing bastards its not like white people cant mow their own damn lawn. Or that Californias ecconomy would collapse without them.


Naw we'll just have all the preachers explain to them that their conservative policies are what causes terorrism and that should change their minds in a hurry.

Naw we'll just have all the preachers explain to them that their conservative policies are what causes terorrism and that should change their minds in a hurry.

Ya im sure that will work because they are so accepting and open minded.

Let me put it in another way: Spanish blood in the hands of the US administration. Would the terrorists had carried their attacks on Madrid if the US had not fought them?

This idea is, of course, nonsense. As is the one suggested by the poster.

Islamic terrorism would have attacked US allies, or whoever they saw as enemies, regardless.

Damned spanish and their god-damned democracy and rule by popular consent!

Unless they re-elect right wing leaders, even against their will and better judgement, the terrorists have WON!

It's why they blew up london right before THEIR election, so they can win there too!

The election was held 2 months ago...bit late arn't they!? Which means that this thread is irrevelent because the reason is blatantly not to topple the government at an election because that happened agees ago, making the spainish atrocities unrelated to the London one.

Not sure about you, but i am getting really sick if these topics on the London bombings, can you guys not think of anything better to talk about? I mean to be honest they were not exactly the worlds most dramatic explosions, fairly small in comparison to Madrid and NY, tragic as the events are, they are not something that should be discussed endlessly, life must go on, there is no point speculating as no one has any answers.

The election was held 2 months ago...bit late arn't they!? Which means that this thread is irrevelent because the reason is blatantly not to topple the government at an election because that happened agees ago, making the spainish atrocities unrelated to the London one.

Not sure about you, but i am getting really sick if these topics on the London bombings, can you guys not think of anything better to talk about? I mean to be honest they were not exactly the worlds most dramatic explosions, fairly small in comparison to Madrid and NY, tragic as the events are, they are not something that should be discussed endlessly, life must go on, there is no point speculating as no one has any answers.

But we American Hics need a fresh reason to start antother war this could be it.

Why would we need a reason, we just made it up last time.

Why would we need a reason, we just made it up last time.

He has a point.

If you would permit me to comment, the reasons for the recent attacks are not as clear as one might think. The attacks would seem to coincide with the G8 summit, but what interest Al Qaeda has in this is unclear.
Another possible reason is to increase the anti-muslim and anti-asian sentiment that has existed from 9-11 onwards. Mistreatment of muslims, either under the guise of "anti-terrorism" or by individuals, would in turn increase resentment among Britain's muslim population, which would in turn lead to increased tensions between communities and increased support for extremists.

Hopefully this will not happen.

I don't know whether the terrorists have any particular issue with the G8 summit or not, but it is fairly plain that one of the largest political events of our time, not to mention the Live 8 stuff last week, (AND the fact we managed to win the Olympic Games, though there was no time to plan after that was announced, it was a bonus for them.) brings a massive amount of global scrutiny on Britain.

The events of wednesday will be forgotten by next month. Global scrutiny will disipate by next week, especially as the events were so minor in comparison to madrid and NY. In fact there is no real comparison.

I think London should be celebrating that the bombs were so small, and our security measures seem to be working as they are stopping the larger attacks that cause alot more deaths and destruction.

I have heard this around. I'm not the first to mention or will be the last in light of the most recent bombings in London. But you have to wonder if the Spanish people would have stood up and re-elected there president instead of going for a milk toast liberal. Would the terrorist have been embolden to strike at London to try and achieve the same outcome for the UK? I think the spanish cowering in a corner is partially responsible for emboldening these terrorist into thinking this will work again. Dont get me wrong. The terrorist are 100% responsible for this action. But the Spanish electorate are enablers.
I am glad at Prime Ministers Blairs response to this terrible event. This shows the terrorist that they messed with the wrong people. British wont run and cower like some other nations when faced with danger. When are people going to wake up from there pacifist dream world and face reality?

I hereby stamp you with the big red stamp of Asshat.

Congratulations.

You have serious issues. People DIED you ass. Individuals were killed in Madrid, then in London, and you are just using thier deaths for your partisan hackery. That, I believe, makes you a terrorist, or at least as bad. But for the sake of reason, take this.

1. The spanish electorate opposed the War in Iraq by a LARGE margin. The government took Spain to war, against the people's will. Then, when the attack happened, the government immediately lied to the public and blamed the ETA, instead of the real culprit, Al Qaeda. The Socialists were then ushered into office, and fulfilled the will of the electorate (which had existed before the bombings) by withdrawing from Iraq.
2. If you have a source, or know yourself the exact mentality of those who attacked London, or even if they really were A-Q, then you should turn yourself over to the authorities. Barring that, you are simply speculating on the reasoning or lack thereof behind the attacks. It is just as likely that A-Q wanted to simply punish Britain for supporting Bush, and really don't give a damn if the attacks make Britain withdraw.
3. If Spain hadn't been on the target list, Britain would have been hit earlier. If anything, the Spanish attack should have taught Britain that A-Q likes to hit crowded transit systems.
4. Your last paragraph is nothing but ignorant ranting. You have no idea what Britain will do, and as I pointed out earlier, obviously have no idea about Spain. And you are so verbally anti-pacifist, but you know what, you can kiss my Pacifist ass.

You sir are a leech-terrorist - for all your ranting you don't have the balls to terrorise, but are more than willing to abuse the deaths of innocents to take potshots at the Left and leftist nations.
Please report to camp X-ray with all due haste, or at the very least, blow off.

*snip



Your anger at me is proof that im right. Being a pacifist gets people killed.

The election was held 2 months ago...bit late arn't they!? Which means that this thread is irrevelent because the reason is blatantly not to topple the government at an election because that happened agees ago, making the spainish atrocities unrelated to the London one.

Not sure about you, but i am getting really sick if these topics on the London bombings, can you guys not think of anything better to talk about? I mean to be honest they were not exactly the worlds most dramatic explosions, fairly small in comparison to Madrid and NY, tragic as the events are, they are not something that should be discussed endlessly, life must go on, there is no point speculating as no one has any answers.

Pay attention, this thread isnt irrelevant. This doesnt have to do with the British elections. How do you draw that conclusion if you read what i posted? The whole point is to show that pulling out and hiding gets people killed. The terrorist got a big shot in the arm from Spain when they pulled out. They were able to show there followers that the West can be brought to its knees.

Though the screwed up attacking the UK. This is like poking a stick at a tiger. Your going to get your arm bit off.

I would certainly be scared shitless of a man whos intelligence my dog surpasses. note my sarcasm.

You must have a damn smart dog.

The events of wednesday will be forgotten by next month. Global scrutiny will disipate by next week, especially as the events were so minor in comparison to madrid and NY. In fact there is no real comparison.

I think London should be celebrating that the bombs were so small, and our security measures seem to be working as they are stopping the larger attacks that cause alot more deaths and destruction.


Can they compare? No, but I highly doubt anyone in the UK will forget about this.

Your anger at me is proof that im right. Being a pacifist gets people killed.

Yeah, because Bush is such a pacifist that he got a hundred thousand Iraqi CIVILIANS (no, not terrorists) killed. Come on, are you really this stupid or are you trying to be funny?

You must have a damn smart dog.

You just admitted that smart dogs are smarter than Bush. Come on, it's not challenging anymore, are you even trying?

Usual tactics that remind me of McCarthyism, libeling me of hating the US because I disagree with the current people in power. What was that thing about you fighting for "freedom" again? Oh, right...

You're an idiot.

Hey I defend anyones right to freedom of speech. As well they should mine. Your assumptions make you the idiot. Im not one for McCarthyism. You libeled yourself for hating the administration. You know your underlying thoughts better than I do. I just call it as I see it.

You must have a damn smart dog.

Well He knows how to fetch and rollover he can even play dead. I suposes you might be able to teach that to bush to.......................... Na

Yeah they're scared shitless, running scared even. Certainly not bombing our allies and killing our soldiers. Oh wait. Scared shitless, with recruiting numbers like that I'd be scared too, what if they run out of targets? We don't scare them, Iraq has given them ample recruiting material. Abu Ghraib alone assured us this war we cannot win.

War we cannot win? We are winning and with light losses. How is it you think we are losing? What victories have the terrorist chalked up?

Hey I defend anyones right to freedom of speech. As well they should mine. Your assumptions make you the idiot. Im not one for McCarthyism. You libeled yourself for hating the administration. You know your underlying thoughts better than I do. I just call it as I see it.

I hate the administration, not the country. And you'd damn better know that distinction if you want me to play nice and not show every mistake of your ideology to everyone here.

He has a point.

This is true but the world might catch on you know because they didnt last time..... oh wait they did.....

"British blood on the hands of the Spanish electorate"
This claim is stupid and offensive.


You have to look at how Spain's government has handled the "Madrid Bombing" crisis back in 2004 (a few days before the elections). The government...
1) first accused the ETA, without any evidence
2) sent false information to the newspapers and national TV
3) confused the police services with bogus information and "official statements" with the government's seal, all of these actually slowing down the inquiry
4) disrespected their citizens by keeping up with these lies, even after evidences pointing elsewere were starting to leak in the press
5) asked the public to vote for them, "to beat the terrorists" (how can you ask people to do that? the other party was at least as good as them)

After such a display of idiocy, demagogy, and sheer lack of honesty, the governing party started to sink FAST in the voting intentions. Millions of people in the biggest cities had used their SMS texting phone to pass the TRUE information from person to person, so that they get around the government's disinformation campaign. By the time the government had started showing its "honest" face, it was already too late for them.

How can you trust your government after that? You can't. So... since the opposition party had vowed to fight terrorism AND corruption, the Spanish people made up their mind.

There are plenty of archives, documents, articles and reports to support my explanation.

I hate the administration, not the country. And you'd damn better know that distinction if you want me to play nice and not show every mistake of your ideology to everyone here.

Mistake in my ideology? Thats a good one. Like I said before I just call it like I see it. If you want to backtrack later. Then thats on you.

War we cannot win? We are winning and with light losses. How is it you think we are losing? What victories have the terrorist chalked up?

WInning you right wing Hick winning who gives a damn if were winning Light losses say that to the thousands of dead and their families and for what OIL .

I supose their acceptable losses to you so you can drive your godamn gas guzzling suv

Light losses 2000 american dead a lot more iragis and countless other dead. thats not even mentionting the maimed and the wounded. No one wins in war. War is a last defense a last resort we certainly had other options in Iraq

Marrakech:
What you are saying is baseless, unfounded and insulting. Many people died in London and in Madrid, and you are shamelessly trying to use that to push your agenda.

What you are saying is also wrong. If the terrorists would've wanted to change the Government, they would've struck before the election, don't you think?

Additionally, what do you think would've happened if they had struck before the election and Blair blamed it on, say the IRA in order not to look like he caused it by going to Iraq? Without any evidence or anything.
I say he would've lost the confidence of the British public immediately.

As for "victories" of the terrorists, this is not a conventional war. There are no "battles". Whether you attack Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else, you cannot eliminate Terrorism, you cannot eliminate AQ (which is an idea, not an organisation as such). Every time terrorists blow something up, they win. It's that simple.

What we learnt from this is that the war on "terror" is best fought by getting emergency procedures up to date and be ready to help once they strike. And then you work on changing the root causes of the problem.
Bombing Arab countries doesn't destroy terrorists. AQ doesn't need training camps, they do just fine with a PC and some explosives. An hour of searching the web and I know everything I need to blow something up myself.
Additionally, you merely create Martyrs and more reasons for people to become Terrorists if you attack countries militarily.

So, please, think about an issue before you type things that seriously make my stomach turn.

Marrakech:
What you are saying is baseless, unfounded and insulting. Many people died in London and in Madrid, and you are shamelessly trying to use that to push your agenda.

What you are saying is also wrong. If the terrorists would've wanted to change the Government, they would've struck before the election, don't you think?

Additionally, what do you think would've happened if they had struck before the election and Blair blamed it on, say the IRA in order not to look like he caused it by going to Iraq? Without any evidence or anything.
I say he would've lost the confidence of the British public immediately.

As for "victories" of the terrorists, this is not a conventional war. There are no "battles". Whether you attack Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else, you cannot eliminate Terrorism, you cannot eliminate AQ (which is an idea, not an organisation as such). Every time terrorists blow something up, they win. It's that simple.

What we learnt from this is that the war on "terror" is best fought by getting emergency procedures up to date and be ready to help once they strike. And then you work on changing the root causes of the problem.
Bombing Arab countries doesn't destroy terrorists. AQ doesn't need training camps, they do just fine with a PC and some explosives. An hour of searching the web and I know everything I need to blow something up myself.
Additionally, you merely create Martyrs and more reasons for people to become Terrorists if you attack countries militarily.

So, please, think about an issue before you type things that seriously make my stomach turn.
Couldnt have said it better myself.

*snip


Leonstein this is a story from US media. I did not make it up to piss people off or be dismissive to anyone that died. What happened in Madrid and London and other terrorist targets are absolute tragedies that should never have happened in the first place. I use to live in the UK when I was a young adult. This hits me as well as NY does.

My agenda is only this. People need to stand up and fight. Not hide and cower. It emboldens your enemy when you do these things. I know the British will make them pay dearly. But for the fence sitter nations out there. They need to join the side against this islamafascist scourge. There isnt time to sit around and do nothing but blame administrations or right wingers for the war. When elections come up make damn sure whomever you vote for. Vote for someone that will protect you and your family.

Vote for someone that will protect you and your family.
The Spanish electorate has chosen the right party for that.
The current Spanish government has adopted a tough stance against the ETA, has banned or arrested many terror supporters (ETA-friendly politicians), and has setp up important measures against any new terrorist attack.
The have also enhanced their links with France's secret services to track and cripple both the ETA and Islamic groups.
Spanish people can enjoy more security than before the Madrid bombing.
Isn't that a great achievement of democracy?

Light losses 2000 american dead a lot more iragis and countless other dead. thats not even mentionting the maimed and the wounded. No one wins in war. War is a last defense a last resort we certainly had other options in Iraq

We are in a World War. Some dont want to agree with this. But we are, this is light casualties for such a large conflict.
All lives of the innocent are worth something. I would have never killed an unarmed civilian while in service. Never did.
Not to make light of anyone that has died. Except of course the terrorist.
People do win in war. You mean to tell me the allies didnt win WWII for example? Hundreds of millions dead, was that worth it. Would it have been better if we just layed down our guns and let the Nazis take over?

The Spanish electorate has chosen the right party for that.
The current Spanish government has adopted a tough stance against the ETA, has banned or arrested many terror supporters (ETA-friendly politicians), and has setp up important measures against any new terrorist attack.
The have also enhanced their links with France's secret services to track and cripple both the ETA and Islamic groups.
Spanish people can enjoy more security than before the Madrid bombing.
Isn't that a great achievement of democracy?

Only after they were bombed and the public demanded action.And democracy is always good. The intelligence gathering is a Nato response as a whole btw.

People do win in war. You mean to tell me the allies didnt win WWII for example? Hundreds of millions dead, was that worth it. Would it have been better if we just layed down our guns and let the Nazis take over?
52 million people died. If you can't get such a simple fact as that right, why should we listen to you?

We are in a World War. Some dont want to agree with this. But we are, this is light casualties for such a large conflict.
All lives of the innocent are worth something. I would have never killed an unarmed civilian while in service. Never did.
Not to make light of anyone that has died. Except of course the terrorist.
People do win in war. You mean to tell me the allies didnt win WWII for example? Hundreds of millions dead, was that worth it. Would it have been better if we just layed down our guns and let the Nazis take over?

Theres a differnce between Victory and winning. In Victory you defeat your opponent, winning you gain something we are not winning anything we may be beatting our opponents that doesnt mean we are winning. And as for this idea of world war this is paraniod crap. Large conflict how is this a Large enough conflict to be a world war? The fighting has been only in two relativley small countries? one of which had nothing to do with Terrorism in fact Irag is Entirely seperate from the war on Terror Despite What Bush said AQ and Saddaam were not cooperating untill we invaded. This is a fact even the CIA said it.

Marrakesh's arrogant enough to believe that his way to fight terrorism is the ONLY way. I'm done here, this inbred hillbilly that somehow got his paws in a keyboard can't be reasoned with.

Theres a differnce between Victory and winning. In Victory you defeat your opponent, winning you gain something where not winning anything we may be beatting our opponants that doesnt mean we are winning. And as for this idea of world war this is paraniod crap. Large conflict how is this a Large conflict of a world war? The fighting has been only in two relativley small countries? one of which had nothing to do with Terrorism in fact Irag is Entirely seperate from the war on Terror Despite What Bush said AQ and Saddaam were not cooperating untill we invaded. This is a fact even the CIA said it.

lets see where the fighting is. Iraq, Afghanistan for obvious reasons, Phillipines, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Chechnya, Russia, United States, Spain, Uk, Morocco, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Eritia/Ethopia, Yemen, Kuwait, and a few others i cant think of off the top of my head. This isnt a convential war as some would think of your traditional WW. But WWI was different from WWII, Vietnam is different from today. Wars are almost never the same. We are fighting an ideology not a state.

lets see where the fighting is. Iraq, Afghanistan for obvious reasons, Phillipines, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Chechnya, Russia, United States, Spain, Uk, Morocco, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Eritia/Ethopia, Yemen, Kuwait, and a few others i cant think of off the top of my head. This isnt a convential war as some would think of your traditional WW. But WWI was different from WWII, Vietnam is different from today. Wars are almost never the same. We are fighting an ideology not a state.

If this is true than its not even war at all. Its an attempted extermination.

Marrakesh's arrogant enough to believe that his way to fight terrorism is the ONLY way. I'm done here, this inbred hillbilly that somehow got his paws in a keyboard can't be reasoned with.


Gonna go off in the corner and cry now eh. Nice insults, shows alot of intelligence on your part. I never said there was only one way to fight, you did. Im unreasonable?

..
My agenda is only this. People need to stand up and fight. Not hide and cower.what a coincedence!!...It happents to be a duplicate of the Insurgents agenda.

If this is true than its not even war at all. Its an attempted extermination.

Well you are correct, extermination if you dont convert. This is how they think. Although Nazis were on an extermination kick too werent they. I still call that a war though. At least they fought like real men.

Gonna go off in the corner and cry now eh. Nice insults, shows alot of intelligence on your part. I never said there was only one way to fight, you did. Im unreasonable?

Yes you are. and why are you bothering posting this if he isnt comming back?

what a coincedence!!...It happents to be a duplicate of the Insurgents agenda.

OceanDrive2 happens to be a duplicate of OceanDrive! What a coincedence. Now with added Piss and vinegar! :D

Well you are correct, extermination if you dont convert. This is how they think. Although Nazis were on an extermination kick too werent they. I still call that a war though. At least they fought like real men.

So now the Nazis are better than AQ id say thats a tough call but id give it to AQ far before Nazis the Nazis slaughtered 12 million people who were non combatants How are they better than AQ?

Yes you are. and why are you bothering posting this if he isnt comming back?

Lol, they never go away. I know this. :D

So now the Nazis are better than AQ id say thats a tough call but id give it to AQ far before Nazis the Nazis slaughtered 12 million people who were non combatants How are they better than AQ?

Were they better at fighting? Yes. Are they equal on the piece of crap scale. I would think AQ is working its way up to Nazi status.

Well you are correct, extermination if you dont convert. This is how they think...
He was pointing at you.
You are indeed out to convert and overthrow - and if they don't convert, they get a MOAB in their lawn.

Apart from the matter that I could go through your list of places and pull it apart (those are seperate conflicts, hardly wars) - how do you think the world will be when this "World War" ends?
Can you describe your terror-free utopia?

OceanDrive2 happens to be a duplicate of OceanDrive! What a coincedence. Now with added Piss and vinegar! hey Marrakech, dont drink it all in one shot :D

Were they better at fighting? Yes. Are they equal on the piece of crap scale. I would think AQ is working its way up to Nazi status.

Hardly i despise AQ however When AQ attacks they at least believe they are deffending themselves however misguided there methods and beliefs are. The Nazis werent defending Jack they were trying to conquer the world and reshape it in their Image there is no way AQ could never be half as bad as the Nazis.

Hardly i despise AQ however When AQ attacks they at least believe they are deffending themselves however misguided there methods and beliefs are. The Nazis werent defending Jack they were trying to conquer the world and reshaped it in their Image there is no way AQ could ever be half as bad as the Nazis.

Defending themselves against the jews. Hitler said that himself. They believed in the Aryan race and thats why they believed they were right. Well I hope that AQ doesnt ever rise to Nazi status. But if you gave Osama the power to do whatever he mused. You think you and I would be still breathing?

hey Marrakech, dont drink it all in one shot :D

He he, nah Im a drink slow kind of guy. BTW nice to see your back.

War we cannot win? We are winning and with light losses. How is it you think we are losing? What victories have the terrorist chalked up?

You're a dumbass if you believe that, but then we all knew you were. Light losses? How many Al-Queda guys have we killed? How many of our guys have died? Less than 10, and about 2000 respectively. You can't beat an idealogy with guns and bombs unless you're willing to exterminate an entire religion. Yeah we've killed tens of thousands of iraqis and afghans, but they weren't terrorists, they were however people Bin Ladin can point to and scream about how the imperialist american devils will slaughter masses to expand their power.

Marrek where do you get all these silly ideas i supose you watch fox news net the ultimate in right wing propaganda bullshit you certainly seem to be spewing it up quickly enough.

its late and i can't be bothered reading all the pages that have gone before me, i've only read the original post. apologies if i'm therefore repeating people.

i'll start by saying my mums spanish and i live in england, and luckily haven't been personally affected by either set of terrorism, but have seen the reactions of the people in the respectiive countries.

firstly, your tone seems very unsympathetic. there was a lot of mourning in spain (and now will be in england) after the attacks, much as i imagine there was in the US after 9/11. Spain doesn't blame america for the attack, it blames the terrorists (i say spain, i mean most of the media ii saw and people i talked with). however, the spanish people were never as behind aznar to go to war as the americans were with bush, and the opposition party opposed the war. there were many who said (including i think the cia, could be wrong) that war would increase globabl terrorism, and it has, by providing more fuel to their cause and a breeding ground for it in iraq.

when the attack occured, the government originally tried to pin the blame on ETA, either ernestly or falsly, and barly recognised that it could have been AQ. this angered the spanish as well. as they had an option to vote for teh party which wasn't pro the war, which they didn't want and may have catalysed the attack, they (reasonably) voted for them. its not a pussy option, its valid. standing up and fighting doesn't have to meen invading another country, it can mean increased intelligence and anti-terrorism work, rahter than inflaming things by invading countries, and not having a clear reconstruction plan, or if we had one, not implementing it very well.

i don;t think their choice of government promoted an attack on london. i'm not surprised we were attacked, but i think it has more to do with the wars than with spain.

Defending themselves against the jews. Hitler said that himself. They believed in the Aryan race and thats why they believed they were right. Well I hope that AQ doesnt ever rise to Nazi status. But if you gave Osama the power to do whatever he mused. You think you and I would be still breathing?

Yes im a God i would smote him with my lighting

You're a dumbass if you believe that, but then we all knew you were. Light losses? How many Al-Queda guys have we killed? How many of our guys have died? Less than 10, and about 2000 respectively. You can't beat an idealogy with guns and bombs unless you're willing to exterminate an entire religion. Yeah we've killed tens of thousands of iraqis and afghans, but they weren't terrorists, they were however people Bin Ladin can point to and scream about how the imperialist american devils will slaughter masses to expand their power.

I like how your quick with the insults. I dont think any of you are idiots at all. If you knew me personally I think you would say different.

You can beat down an Ideology with guns and bombs. We beat down the Nazis and Japans ideology. Then what did we do. Built there nations into democracies. This is exactly what the plan is. It will work.

Your point on civilians. Well civilians get killed. It happens in war. Is it a terrible deal? Yes. Its never clean and I would say that the "other" side has killed vastly more civilians than the allies.

Yes im a God i would smote him with my lighting

hurry up will you. Getting tired of waiting. :p

Defending themselves against the jews. Hitler said that himself. They believed in the Aryan race and thats why they believed they were right. Well I hope that AQ doesnt ever rise to Nazi status. But if you gave Osama the power to do whatever he mused. You think you and I would be still breathing?

Seriously though Hitler said he was deffending against German Jews responsible for Germanies Decay that did not extend to conquering poland russia france england and the rest of Europe that was restoring germanys glory by conquering other nations.

I like how your quick with the insults. I dont think any of you are idiots at all. If you knew me personally I think you would say different.

You can beat down an Ideology with guns and bombs. We beat down the Nazis and Japans ideology. Then what did we do. Built there nations into democracies. This is exactly what the plan is. It will work.

Your point on civilians. Well civilians get killed. It happens in war. Is it a terrible deal? Yes. Its never clean and I would say that the "other" side has killed vastly more civilians than the allies.

You just contradicted yourself. We built up Germany and Japan because they were nations. AQ is a wide spread idea how do you kill that and rebuild it? In adition America isnt a democracy its republic.

Marrek where do you get all these silly ideas i supose you watch fox news net the ultimate in right wing propaganda bullshit you certainly seem to be spewing it up quickly enough.

Actually never watched Fox news. But thanks for asking. Am I a right winger? No, a centerist/realist. A veteran of one war. Married to Moroccan Muslim, yes im muslim myself. Have kids and two business. Been all over the world and talked with many many people about politics. Lived in the US, UK and Morocco. Am probably alot older than most on here. I always vote for whomever I think will do the right job. Been split evenly through my voting career on presidents. Most likely local elections too If I were to dig up the info. So thats a baseline what I am.

Actually never watched Fox news. But thanks for asking. Im I a right winger? No, a centerist/realist. A veteran of one war. Married to Moroccan Muslim, yes im muslim myself. Have kids and two business. Been all over the world and talked with many many people about politics. Lived in the US, UK and Morocco. Am probably alot older than most on here. I always vote for whomever I think will do the right job. Been split evenly through my voting career on presidents. Most likely local elections too If I were to dig up the info. So thats a baseline what I am.

You may think you are a realist however your words show otherwise. A realist would know that Iraq had nothing to do with AQ. A realist would know that Spannish democracy is not responsible for the attacks on England as the population never wanted to go to war and they told their government. who didnt listen.

You just contradicted yourself. We built up Germany and Japan because they were nations. AQ is a wide spread idea how do you kill that and rebuild it? In adition America isnt a democracy its republic.

I know what America is. It is technically a republic. Your right but thats neither here nor there. Now I didnt contradict myself. When I say rebuild. I mean specifically Afghanistan and Iraq. Now if we go anywhere else. Which I dont think we will. We would rebuild that nation too.

You can beat down an Ideology with guns and bombs.
That's a lot of bullshit. Both Nazis and Japanese imperialists still exist. The only reason they are no longer dominant is because of people, not bombs.
Even more relevant in a case like today's - in which bombing a nation doesn't affect the idea, or the people who have it, in the slightest.

You may think you are a realist however your words show other. A realist would know that Iraq had nothing to do with AQ. A realist would know that Spannish democracy is not responsible for the attacks on England as the population never wanted to go to war and they told their government. who didnt listen.

But see this is completely where most people are offbase. Iraq does have ties with AQ. AQ for one is a loose organization of terrorist that share the same ideology. Iraq intelligence helped AQ. 1993 bombing of the World Trade towers were by AQ? Well did you know one of them helping was an Iraqi intel agent?

Spanish decision to cower does have a connection to the London bombings. Like I said before it emboldens the terrorist. Of course the Spanish are a democracy or mabye a republic :p But they were scared into voting for the current pres because of AQ.

I know what America is. It is technically a republic. Your right but thats neither here nor there. Now I didnt contradict myself. When I say rebuild. I mean specifically Afghanistan and Iraq. Now if we go anywhere else. Which I dont think we will. We would rebuild that nation too.

But you see we wont it is imposible to hold Iraq together with anything resembling a democratic governmant it would be like trying to put pakistan and india back together they just hate each other to much. The Only thing that made their unity possible was Sadaam Equally oprresive to all religons and ethnicities, but now either another dictator will arise when we leave or it will shatter into several smaller countries.

That's a lot of bullshit. Both Nazis and Japanese imperialists still exist. The only reason they are no longer dominant is because of people, not bombs.
Even more relevant in a case like today's - in which bombing a nation doesn't affect the idea, or the people who have it, in the slightest.

Your statement is the one thats bullshit. They are no longer dominate because of people. Yes thats true. People with guns, tanks, ships, and bombs.

Who said indiscriminate bombing changes an idea. Taking out bad people and letting people vote and decide for themselves does.

But see this is completely where most people are offbase. Iraq does have ties with AQ. AQ for one is a loose organization of terrorist that share the same ideology. Iraq intelligence helped AQ. 1993 bombing of the World Trade towers were by AQ? Well did you know one of them helping was an Iraqi intel agent?

Spanish decision to cower does have a connection to the London bombings. Like I said before it emboldens the terrorist. Of course the Spanish are a democracy or mabye a republic :p But they were scared into voting for the current pres because of AQ.

Your right however Iraqs ties where minimal there were actually more active AQ agents in america than Irag and that one man Wasnt sent By Iraqis regime Saddaam. Saddaam is a bastard but he is not stupid he would not side with AQ if it meant incurings Americas wrath he only did after we said we were invading.

But you see we wont it is imposible to hold Iraq together with anything resembling a democratic governmant it would be like trying to put pakistan and india back together they just hate each other to much. The Only thing that made their unity possible was Sadaam Equally oprresive to all religons and ethnicities, but now either another dictator will arise when we leave or it will shatter into several smaller countries.


Well that remains to be seen doesnt it. It could very likely split because of the differences. Problem lies in how the boundries were drawn last century. But I do have hope they can make it work.

...They are no longer dominate because of people. Yes thats true. People with guns, tanks, ships, and bombs...
So are you saying people no longer feel like being racists because of fear of being killed?
Even in the US there has been change in the people's mind over time. With Slavery for example. You cannot possibly argue that people only stopped being pro-slavery because they are scared of repercussions.
I don't know how things are in the US, but in Germany things are far more fundamental than your simplistic view of things.

Your statement is the one thats bullshit. They are no longer dominate because of people. Yes thats true. People with guns, tanks, ships, and bombs.

Who said indiscriminate bombing changes an idea. Taking out bad people and letting people vote and decide for themselves does.

This is not neccesarily true look who America elected although the 1st time around the circumstances were questinable

Your right however Iraqs ties where minimal there were actually more active AQ agents in america than Irag and that one man Wasnt sent By Iraqis regime Saddaam. Saddaam is a bastard but he is not stupid he would not side with AQ if it meant incurings Americas wrath he only did after we said we were invading.

Well I agree with the first part. Though Saddam did do things underhandedly. If he though he could get away with it he would. After all he did try to asassinate the first President Bush. However Clinton only threw a few cruise missles as a punishment.

Well that remains to be seen doesnt it. It could very likely split because of the differences. Problem lies in how the boundries were drawn last century. But I do have hope they can make it work.

I very much doubt it will work for long altough in this instance i would be happy to be wrong.

But they were scared into voting for the current pres because of AQ.
That is where your argument breaks down and you use all credibility.
That was clearly not the case.

This is not neccesarily true look who America elected although the 1st time around the circumstances were questinable

It was solved democratically. The Supreme Court ruled on it and it stood. Thats how American democracy worked. You didnt see widespread turmoil and upheavel.

Well I agree with the first part. Though Saddam did do things underhandedly. If he though he could get away with it he would. After all he did try to asassinate the first President Bush. However Clinton only threw a few cruise missles as a punishment.

Key words there if he thought he could get away with it he knows he couldnt hied ties to AQ for christs sake they admit to everything they do.

It was solved democratically. The Supreme Court ruled on it and it stood. Thats how American democracy worked. You didnt see widespread turmoil and upheavel.

Supreme court isnt democracy there not even elected by the damn people. Gore was ahead by a million votes we arent democratic at all.

That is where your argument breaks down and you use all credibility.
That was clearly not the case.

By deduction it shows this to be true. Day before the bombing Anzar was up. After and right before the election the opponent made huge gains on a pacifist platform. He since has had to change his stance somewhat because of public demand after the bombings. Any reasonable calculation would show that Anzar was defeated by AQ swaying the public toward his opponent. I have heard this from many many people. Just from a logical standpoint it holds true. No can you ever know for 100% cerain that this would have been different if Madrid bombings didnt take place? No one can.

That is where your argument breaks down and you use all credibility.
That was clearly not the case.

I agree the Spanish people had already said tthey wanted nothing to do with Iraq before this bombing honsetly did you see the riots that went on after it was declared they were going into Iraq? if anything Madrid would have had the opposite effect on the Spanish people.

Supreme court isnt democracy there not even elected by the damn people. Gore was ahead by a million votes we arent democratic at all.

Well going to have to respectively disagree with that. But that is how the coutry is laid out. We are a democracy to a point. Not a direct democracy but a form of it. As was pointed out earlier, we are a republic.

I have heard this around. I'm not the first to mention or will be the last in light of the most recent bombings in London. But you have to wonder if the Spanish people would have stood up and re-elected there president instead of going for a milk toast liberal. Would the terrorist have been embolden to strike at London to try and achieve the same outcome for the UK? I think the spanish cowering in a corner is partially responsible for emboldening these terrorist into thinking this will work again. Dont get me wrong. The terrorist are 100% responsible for this action. But the Spanish electorate are enablers.
I am glad at Prime Ministers Blairs response to this terrible event. This shows the terrorist that they messed with the wrong people. British wont run and cower like some other nations when faced with danger. When are people going to wake up from there pacifist dream world and face reality?
I'm sorry, but did you miss the part where the former spanish government lied to the people in an attempt to persuade them that the bombing had nothing to do with their involvement in the war in Iraq? Some countries don't take too kindly to being lied to.

Well going to have to respectively disagree with that. But that is how the coutry is laid out. We are a democracy to a point. Not a direct democracy but a form of it. As was pointed out earlier, we are a republic.

ITs partially based of some Democratic ideals However a True Democracy is impossible not even Athens had one.

I have heard this around. I'm not the first to mention or will be the last in light of the most recent bombings in London. But you have to wonder if the Spanish people would have stood up and re-elected there president instead of going for a milk toast liberal. Would the terrorist have been embolden to strike at London to try and achieve the same outcome for the UK? I think the spanish cowering in a corner is partially responsible for emboldening these terrorist into thinking this will work again. Dont get me wrong. The terrorist are 100% responsible for this action. But the Spanish electorate are enablers.
I am glad at Prime Ministers Blairs response to this terrible event. This shows the terrorist that they messed with the wrong people. British wont run and cower like some other nations when faced with danger. When are people going to wake up from there pacifist dream world and face reality?
That is actually one of the dumbest posts I've ever read!

I have heard this around. I'm not the first to mention or will be the last in light of the most recent bombings in London. But you have to wonder if the Spanish people would have stood up and re-elected there president instead of going for a milk toast liberal. Would the terrorist have been embolden to strike at London to try and achieve the same outcome for the UK? I think the spanish cowering in a corner is partially responsible for emboldening these terrorist into thinking this will work again. Dont get me wrong. The terrorist are 100% responsible for this action. But the Spanish electorate are enablers.
I am glad at Prime Ministers Blairs response to this terrible event. This shows the terrorist that they messed with the wrong people. British wont run and cower like some other nations when faced with danger. When are people going to wake up from there pacifist dream world and face reality?

I'm sure someone has mentioned this in 6 pages, but it bears repeating.

You are an idiot.

a) The terrorists got their wish when we invaded Iraq. They don't want anyone here to know that we're playing into their hands. Why would they try again when their first effort was so successful? Because we've invaded Iraq they've got all the recruits they could want. If we tried to actually make the Middle East a better place to live then the terrorist movements would be at a loss to persuade people to join. It is Bush and his posse that are the enablers.

b) It's spelled milquetoast. And not being a mindless killbot with a roid rage (whether steroids or hemaroids makes no difference) is not a bad thing. War in Iraq does nothing to make us any safer. Even Bush has admited that the war made Iraq into Terrorist Mecca.

c) the fact that terrorists are willing and able to attack western nations on their own soil is proof that the "attack them there so that we don't have to fight them here" doctrine is a load of crap in addition to just being disrespectful to the troops by saying that their entire job is to act as bait for bombs. If they were really so mad at US policy and wanted it to change don't you think that they'd have put some of those bombs on US subways?

d) The presumpion that the Spanish favored the war until the bomb went off in Madrid is patently false. They weren't in favor of a war in Iraq and because they have free will and aren't a bunch of right wing scared little pants-wetting conservatives who need a big strong daddy figure to tell them that "everything is alright and that I'm going to beat up the big bad boggie man in the closet" they actually voted the way that they were going to anyway and voted their lying warmongering government out. We've got an electorate of uneducated uninformed FOX news watching cowards who think that supporting the troops means listening to country music and drinking bear on the couch while voting for the war pimps who send soldiers off to get their arms and legs blown off for rich people's money, so we have stupid little phrases like "don't change horses mid stream even if your horse is jumping over the waterfall," and vote for spastic cowards who've never even been near a battlefield, but know what an amoral business opportunity smells like. "Smells like victory."

e) You sicken me.

After and right before the election the opponent made huge gains on a pacifist platform.
If Pacifism is the same as cowering before the enemy, maybe. But it isn't.

-snip-
That, and more importantly, the Spanish were extremely unhappy with Aznar using the bombings for political gain. He blamed them on ETA, which turned out to be wrong. He lied about them, presumably in order not to connect them with Iraq.
Of course they didn't vote for such a guy. Just imagine what would happen if Blair had done the same.

So are you saying people no longer feel like being racists because of fear of being killed?
Even in the US there has been change in the people's mind over time. With Slavery for example. You cannot possibly argue that people only stopped being pro-slavery because they are scared of repercussions.
I don't know how things are in the US, but in Germany things are far more fundamental than your simplistic view of things.

I dont have simplistic views. Neither do I think you do. But people dont do certain things because of fear of being jailed. This is why we have a police force to enforce societies rules. Now it works on the national level too. Slight differences of course. But for example N Korea doesnt nuke Japan like it would like to because it knows it would be punished.

The southren states were occupied by the north for a generation. Until the majority of the rebels had either grown old or died. This gave a chance for a new generation to grow and realise fighting over slavery wasnt going to work for them. Now until the civil rights movement did it really change in the south.

Now I dont travel to Germany much to make an accurate statement on the state of the country.

That is actually one of the dumbest posts I've ever read!

Dammit. Six pages and I've only been beaten to the punch by one post. I knew I shouldn't have bothered typing up "d."

I'm sure someone has mentioned this in 6 pages, but it bears repeating.

You are an idiot.

a) The terrorists got their wish when we invaded Iraq. They don't want anyone here to know that we're playing into their hands. Why would they try again when their first effort was so successful? Because we've invaded Iraq they've got all the recruits they could want. If we tried to actually make the Middle East a better place to live then the terrorist movements would be at a loss to persuade people to join. It is Bush and his posse that are the enablers.

b) It's spelled milquetoast. And not being a mindless killbot with a roid rage (whether steroids or hemaroids makes no difference) is not a bad thing. War in Iraq does nothing to make us any safer. Even Bush has admited that the war made Iraq into Terrorist Mecca.

c) the fact that terrorists are willing and able to attack western nations on their own soil is proof that the "attack them there so that we don't have to fight them here" doctrine is a load of crap in addition to just being disrespectful to the troops by saying that their entire job is to act as bait for bombs. If they were really so mad at US policy and wanted it to change don't you think that they'd have put some of those bombs on US subways?

d) The presumpion that the Spanish favored the war until the bomb went off in Madrid is patently false. They weren't in favor of a war in Iraq and because they have free will and aren't a bunch of right wing scared little pants-wetting conservatives who need a big strong daddy figure to tell them that "everything is alright and that I'm going to beat up the big bad boggie man in the closet" they actually voted the way that they were going to anyway and voted their lying warmongering government out. We've got an electorate of uneducated uninformed FOX news watching cowards who think that supporting the troops means listening to country music and drinking bear on the couch while voting for the war pimps who send soldiers off to get their arms and legs blown off for rich people's money, so we have stupid little phrases like "don't change horses mid stream even if your horse is jumping over the waterfall," and vote for spastic cowards who've never even been near a battlefield, but know what an amoral business opportunity smells like. "Smells like victory."

e) You sicken me.

while I agree with what most of what you say your generalizing americans unfairly not all of us voted for that cock sucker bush i know i didnt. In the 1st Election he should have actualy lost but since daddy had hired all the supreme court judges he made it into office.

I'm sure someone has mentioned this in 6 pages, but it bears repeating.

You are an idiot.

a) The terrorists got their wish when we invaded Iraq. They don't want anyone here to know that we're playing into their hands. Why would they try again when their first effort was so successful? Because we've invaded Iraq they've got all the recruits they could want. If we tried to actually make the Middle East a better place to live then the terrorist movements would be at a loss to persuade people to join. It is Bush and his posse that are the enablers.

b) It's spelled milquetoast. And not being a mindless killbot with a roid rage (whether steroids or hemaroids makes no difference) is not a bad thing. War in Iraq does nothing to make us any safer. Even Bush has admited that the war made Iraq into Terrorist Mecca.

c) the fact that terrorists are willing and able to attack western nations on their own soil is proof that the "attack them there so that we don't have to fight them here" doctrine is a load of crap in addition to just being disrespectful to the troops by saying that their entire job is to act as bait for bombs. If they were really so mad at US policy and wanted it to change don't you think that they'd have put some of those bombs on US subways?

d) The presumpion that the Spanish favored the war until the bomb went off in Madrid is patently false. They weren't in favor of a war in Iraq and because they have free will and aren't a bunch of right wing scared little pants-wetting conservatives who need a big strong daddy figure to tell them that "everything is alright and that I'm going to beat up the big bad boggie man in the closet" they actually voted the way that they were going to anyway and voted their lying warmongering government out. We've got an electorate of uneducated uninformed FOX news watching cowards who think that supporting the troops means listening to country music and drinking bear on the couch while voting for the war pimps who send soldiers off to get their arms and legs blown off for rich people's money, so we have stupid little phrases like "don't change horses mid stream even if your horse is jumping over the waterfall," and vote for spastic cowards who've never even been near a battlefield, but know what an amoral business opportunity smells like. "Smells like victory."

e) You sicken me.

A)Of course your right to your own opinion.

B) Its not milquetoast you moron. Maybe in france.

C) Im not a right winger like you maybe suggesting.

D) You sicken me by your idiotic rant.

Giving a terrorist what he wants will always encourage him.

I've said something similar before. Spain sent the message that "if you hit us hard enough we'll do exactly what you want".

I never considered that the terrorists would be encouraged to attack another country because of that, but it does make sense.

You just don't get it. The people of Spain were against the Iraq war in the first place. Aznar lying and blaming ETA topped it off.

I dont have simplistic views...
Essentially you are saying though that by killing your enemies, you solve the problem. And that is what I mean by "simplistic".
I agree that occupation can sometimes be a way of changing the psyche of people, but certainly not in this case. We see that in Iraq right now. You don't seriously think the insurgency is going to end?
And if this was about changing the psyche, you wouldn't have to drop bombs and hype this up into a "war". Helping with education and infrastructure would be completely sufficient.

A)Of course your right to your own opinion.

B) Its not milquetoast you moron. Maybe in france.

C) Im not a right winger like you maybe suggesting.

D) You sicken me by your idiotic rant.

I love how you automaticallly assume hes french typical redneck bullshit generalization

That is actually one of the dumbest posts I've ever read!

You counting your own?

I love how you automaticallly assume hes french typical redneck bullshit generalization


No, I meant the spelling. Dont be an ass.

You counting your own?
Nope.

..Its not milquetoast you moron. Maybe in france... You sicken me by your idiotic rant...

I love how you automaticallly assume hes french typical redneck bullshit generalization

:D

No, I meant the spelling. Dont be an ass.

lol im being an ass im not the one sitting there insulting an entire country for their political veiws.

Essentially you are saying though that by killing your enemies, you solve the problem. And that is what I mean by "simplistic".
I agree that occupation can sometimes be a way of changing the psyche of people, but certainly not in this case. We see that in Iraq right now. You don't seriously think the insurgency is going to end?
And if this was about changing the psyche, you wouldn't have to drop bombs and hype this up into a "war". Helping with education and infrastructure would be completely sufficient.

Insurgency will end. It ended in previous wars. This is no different. As far as dropping bombs. In order to take out a leader that doesnt want to go. You have to drop them. After he is gone. Replace with a self governing society. Prefferably a democracy.

lol im being an ass im not the one sitting there insulting an entire country for their political veiws.


Well I hear it continously on these forums in dealings with other issues. How would this be different. And I love Spain but they wimped out. Resulting in more harm than good.

:D

Ahh leon you are so clever! :D

Insurgency will end. It ended in previous wars. This is no different. As far as dropping bombs. In order to take out a leader that doesnt want to go. You have to drop them. After he is gone. Replace with a self governing society. Prefferably a democracy.

There you go contradicting yourself again. Even you have said that were fighting a widespread idea are we going to reform the governments of all countires with AQ in them if so we would have to do it here in America to Shall we start a Revolution?

Nope.


Well I will for you.

Well I hear it continously on these forums in dealings with other issues. How would this be different. And I love Spain but they wimped out. Resulting in more harm than good.

They never Wimped out they never stood up they never wanted to be involved they would have elected the same man desptite the damn bombing to say otherwise is Ridiculous 80% of the population said it was againsts Spains involement in the war Are you reading the Facts or are you just stupid

Insurgency will end. It ended in previous wars...
It did? Which one are you talking about?
Most famous ones would be the French Resistance, Soviet and Yugoslavian Partisans, The Viet Cong and Viet Minh...
As for Germany or Japan, there was no insurgency.

Ahh leon you are so clever! :D
Why, thank you!
;)

There you go contradicting yourself again. Even you have said that were fighting a widespread idea are we going to reform the governments of all countires with AQ in them if so we would have to do it here in America to Shall we start a Revolution?

Damn it Celtic. Im trying to like you here. Why would we reform a country that goes after AQ cells? If said country harbors AQ cells. Supports them, gives them aid and comfort. Supplies them with weapons. Then probably we should consider action against them.

Damn it Celtic. Im trying to like you here. Why would we reform a country that goes after AQ cells? If said country harbors AQ cells. Supports them, gives them aid and comfort. Supplies them with weapons. Then probably we should consider action against them.

A government not a country i agree however Iraq never did this.

"MILQUETOAST

The name is just a Frenchified respelling of the old American English term milk toast, an uninspiring, bland dish which was created from slices of buttered toast laid in a dish of milk, usually considered to be food for invalids. There’s an even older foodstuff, milksop, which was untoasted bread soaked in milk, likewise something suitable only for infants or the sick. From the thirteenth century on, milksop was a dismissive term for “an effeminate spiritless man or youth; one wanting in courage or manliness”, as the Oxford English Dictionary puts it. Mr Milquetoast is in the same tradition."
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-mil1.htm

It did? Which one are you talking about?
Most famous ones would be the French Resistance, Soviet and Yugoslavian Partisans, The Viet Cong and Viet Minh...
As for Germany or Japan, there was no insurgency

;)

Leon these above listed insurgencies lasted because the war was still raging. There was hope for these people. When you take away the hope of winning insurgencies die.

Japan had pockets of resistance for along time after the war was declared over. Alot of American soldiers died fighting after VJ day. I just watched a documentary on the Phillipines. It took 6 months to root all the Japanese resisters out of that country. They basically had to walk hand in hand to weed them out.

"MILQUETOAST

The name is just a Frenchified respelling of the old American English term milk toast, an uninspiring, bland dish which was created from slices of buttered toast laid in a dish of milk, usually considered to be food for invalids. There’s an even older foodstuff, milksop, which was untoasted bread soaked in milk, likewise something suitable only for infants or the sick. From the thirteenth century on, milksop was a dismissive term for “an effeminate spiritless man or youth; one wanting in courage or manliness”, as the Oxford English Dictionary puts it. Mr Milquetoast is in the same tradition."
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-mil1.htm

WoW lol lol lol lol lol lol you sure go to lengths dont you.

the terrorist are scared shitless of Bush. The hatred comes from people like you my friend. I doubt if the majority of Iraqis hate Bush and the Afghan people for that matter.


OK now I am confused.

It was my understanding that Bush was leading the terrorists.

Are you saying the "coalition of the willing" do what he wants because
they are afraid of him?

If that were the case, does that mean they are less culpable for the
crimes they have participated in?


The pure and simple truth is that the people who planned the bombs in London the other day, need to be found and put on trial.
For the purposes of justice and due to their own acts of terror,
Bush and Blair and their cronies need to go to trial.

As a bit of a sidebar would anybody be able to explain to me what they
think the word terrorist means, as from all that has been said and printed
over the last 3 years in particular it seems to mean people who don't
have missiles.

"MILQUETOAST

The name is just a Frenchified respelling of the old American English term milk toast, an uninspiring, bland dish which was created from slices of buttered toast laid in a dish of milk, usually considered to be food for invalids. There’s an even older foodstuff, milksop, which was untoasted bread soaked in milk, likewise something suitable only for infants or the sick. From the thirteenth century on, milksop was a dismissive term for “an effeminate spiritless man or youth; one wanting in courage or manliness”, as the Oxford English Dictionary puts it. Mr Milquetoast is in the same tradition."
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-mil1.htm


Smartass :D Of course your from French Canada. That is maybe how they spell it where your from. But I can tell you with certainty that is not how its spelled in the states. But good show.

I have to disagree with you, Marra.

I think it's because the warring nations keep sending troops to Iraq, that's why you get attacked. Do you see China getting attack threats because they stay neutral in the war in Iraq? No! It's "on the other hand". Countries who sent troops are now attacked, solely because of their own behaviour.

OK now I am confused.

It was my understanding that Bush was leading the terrorists.

Are you saying the "coalition of the willing" do what he wants because
they are afraid of him?

If that were the case, does that mean they are less culpable for the
crimes they have participated in?


The pure and simple truth is that the people who planned the bombs in London the other day, need to be found and put on trial.
For the purposes of justice and due to their own acts of terror,
Bush and Blair and their cronies need to go to trial.

As a bit of a sidebar would anybody be able to explain to me what they
think the word terrorist means, as from all that has been said and printed
over the last 3 years in particular it seems to mean people who don't
have missiles.

thanks you for you far left comments. Will be sure to add you to my greetings card list.

I have to disagree with you, Marra.

I think it's because the warring nations keep sending troops to Iraq, that's why you get attacked. Do you see China getting attack threats because they stay neutral in the war in Iraq? No! It's "on the other hand". Countries who sent troops are now attacked, solely because of their own behaviour.

Thats fine if you disagree. But the fact is the China is dealing with a muslim population too. Not on the same level as in other nations have you. But Was Indonesia part of the coalition of the willing? They have had some horrific blasts there.

Thats fine if you disagree. But the fact is the China is dealing with a muslim population too. Not on the same level as in other nations have you. But Was Indonesia part of the coalition of the willing? They have had some horrific blasts there.

True however this only discredits your argument if Indonesia was bombed for no good reason England probably would have been to.

Leon these above listed insurgencies lasted because the war was still raging. There was hope for these people. When you take away the hope of winning insurgencies die.

Japan had pockets of resistance for along time after the war was declared over. Alot of American soldiers died fighting after VJ day. I just watched a documentary on the Phillipines. It took 6 months to root all the Japanese resisters out of that country. They basically had to walk hand in hand to weed them out.
But the soldiers in the Phillipines are not what I would call an "insurgency". They weren't civilians for example.
And these insurgents in Iraq are religiously inspired. They always have hope, no matter what happens to them.
Plus it is blatantly obvious to everyone around the world that America is nowhere near winning against this insurgency. It's clear that there are many voices in the US that call for "our boys" to come home, and that the US is already stretched logistically to a level it can't sustain forever (plus it can't attack anyone else for the time being - and US leaders are bound to hate that...).
There's plenty of hope for Iraqi insurgents.

But to get the discussion back on topic
1. You say the Spanish cowered and submitted to terrorists when they voted against Aznar.
That despite the fact that most of them hated the Iraq war and that Aznar cynically lied to them about the bombing. Do you suggest Spanish voters should have ignored these issues in order to seem "tough on terrorism"?

2. You say that emboldened terrorists to attack London.
That despite the fact that they attacked after the election.

Smartass Of course your from French Canada. That is maybe how they spell it where your from. But I can tell you with certainty that is not how its spelled in the states. But good show.

The name Milquetoast comes from an AMERICAN cartoon character. If you kindly follow the link, you'll get the whole explanation.

And by the way, the word "milquetoast" has absolutely no meaning in French. Is isn't used at all. The word was invented by the British, reused by the Americans, and has 2 possible spellings.

Now please keep your super witty comments where you got them.

The name Milquetoast comes from an AMERICAN cartoon character. If you kindly follow the link, you'll get the whole explanation.

And by the way, the word "milquetoast" has absolutely no meaning in French. Is isn't used at all. The word was invented by the British, reused by the Americans, and has 2 possible spellings.

Now please keep your super witty comments where you got them.

HAHAHAHAHA lol

Thats fine if you disagree. But the fact is the China is dealing with a muslim population too. Not on the same level as in other nations have you. But Was Indonesia part of the coalition of the willing? They have had some horrific blasts there.

But directed against who? Australians, Americans and British who sent troops.

The further in you force the tiger into the corner, the fiercer the tiger will become. They are way too many stories from Iraq that point that ordinary Iraqis are being pushed into insurgency by the occupying forces.

But to get the discussion back on topic
1. You say the Spanish cowered and submitted to terrorists when they voted against Aznar.
That despite the fact that most of them hated the Iraq war and that Aznar cynically lied to them about the bombing. Do you suggest Spanish voters should have ignored these issues in order to seem "tough on terrorism"?

2. You say that emboldened terrorists to attack London.
That despite the fact that they attacked after the election.


I didnt say they attacked London due to elections. They wanted the Spanish to pull out of Iraq. They have made the same demands and given the same reasoning for the London attack.


Should the Spanish showed themselves to be tough on terrorism? Of course they should. The other problems can be worked out. That is why there is not absolute rule by the Spanish President. There are other lawmakers to fix problems. A victory of Kerry would have weakened the US position.


As far as elections. Polls and opinion pages are bullshit. People thought Kerry was going to win. All sorts of polls and opinions of editors said this to be true. You know the rest of that one.

But directed against who? Australians, Americans and British who sent troops.

The further in you force the tiger into the corner, the fiercer the tiger will become. They are way too many stories from Iraq that point that ordinary Iraqis are being pushed into insurgency by the occupying forces.

This is absolutely not true. I have alot of ties with the military and hearing the opposite of what you just said.

As far as Indonesia by your standards they were in innocent country. Would it be different if they bombed US/UK tourists in Hong Kong? Would China say that well it wasnt against us really. Then just go on there way? I highly doubt it.

I didnt say they attacked London due to elections. They wanted the Spanish to pull out of Iraq. They have made the same demands and given the same reasoning for the London attack.


Should the Spanish showed themselves to be tough on terrorism? Of course they should. The other problems can be worked out. That is why there is not absolute rule by the Spanish President. There are other lawmakers to fix problems. A victory of Kerry would have weakened the US position.


As far as elections. Polls and opinion pages are bullshit. People thought Kerry was going to win. All sorts of polls and opinions of editors said this to be true. You know the rest of that one.

it is irrelevant what you think the spanish should do the spanish have decided and they decided well before the madrid bombing which didnt change their ideas the government may have went against those wishes but that is why the administration wasnt reelected.

Why persist in arguing with this simpleton? It's obvious he's bought the republican company line hook line and sinker with no regard for reality or tactics. He claims to of been in the military but I can't imagine anyone who had been would have such a piss poor grasp of how to handle people.

1. They wanted the Spanish to pull out of Iraq. They have made the same demands and given the same reasoning for the London attack.

2. Should the Spanish showed themselves to be tough on terrorism? Of course they should. The other problems can be worked out.

3. As far as elections. Polls and opinion pages are bullshit. People thought Kerry was going to win. All sorts of polls and opinions of editors said this to be true. You know the rest of that one.
1. It makes sense, doesn't it? Both countries were in Iraq, but the Spanish opposition had been against the war the whole time. Howard in the UK is pro-war. So I don't see why the terrorists would expect anything from bombing London after the elections.
And their demands and reasoning (I don't know whether you followed the news thread to the London Bombing - I posted their statement there...) are very unclear. It's the usual stuff about Crusaders, Zionists and holy warriors. And they threaten countries with revenge for Iraq, they don't make any demands.

2. So if your leader just watched a hundred or so people die, and then used it to further his own goals, then that "can be worked out"? Why should the Spansih voters want that "worked out"?
I think you're taking the Spanish election way to personally. The Spanish have domestic issues (many nothing to do with war or terrorism) on which they voted - and the very last thing they might've thought about is what other countries and people think of their decision. As it should be in an autonomous democracy.

3. In that case it is also irrelevant that Aznar may have been up in the polls before the bombing.
Also, I could not find ONE SINGLE person who agreed with the war, either here in Australia, nor in Germany. Not one. I don't see why Spain should've been any different.

1. It makes sense, doesn't it? Both countries were in Iraq, but the Spanish opposition had been against the war the whole time. Howard in the UK is pro-war. So I don't see why the terrorists would expect anything from bombing London after the elections.
And their demands and reasoning (I don't know whether you followed the news thread to the London Bombing - I posted their statement there...) are very unclear. It's the usual stuff about Crusaders, Zionists and holy warriors. And they threaten countries with revenge for Iraq, they don't make any demands.

2. So if your leader just watched a hundred or so people die, and then used it to further his own goals, then that "can be worked out"? Why should the Spansih voters want that "worked out"?
I think you're taking the Spanish election way to personally. The Spanish have domestic issues (many nothing to do with war or terrorism) on which they voted - and the very last thing they might've thought about is what other countries and people think of their decision. As it should be in an autonomous democracy.

3. In that case it is also irrelevant that Aznar may have been up in the polls before the bombing.
Also, I could not find ONE SINGLE person who agreed with the war, either here in Australia, nor in Germany. Not one. I don't see why Spain should've been any different.
you will be hard pressed to find one any where except perhaps in America and now England who now have a reason to be angry :sniper:

The name Milquetoast comes from an AMERICAN cartoon character. If you kindly follow the link, you'll get the whole explanation.

And by the way, the word "milquetoast" has absolutely no meaning in French. Is isn't used at all. The word was invented by the British, reused by the Americans, and has 2 possible spellings.

Now please keep your super witty comments where you got them.

Well I will take your link and you can read mine.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=milk+toast

to smart for your own good.

This is absolutely not true. I have alot of ties with the military and hearing the opposite of what you just said.

As far as Indonesia by your standards they were in innocent country. Would it be different if they bombed US/UK tourists in Hong Kong? Would China say that well it wasnt against us really. Then just go on there way? I highly doubt it.

Both sides are possible. What we don't want are insurgents and people ideologically motivated to carry out terrorist attacks.

So if the Western countries didn't send troops to Iraq, would those attacks have happened? Do terrorists attack for the fun of it?

Both sides are possible. What we don't want are insurgents and people ideologically motivated to carry out terrorist attacks.

So if the Western countries didn't send troops to Iraq, would those attacks have happened? Do terrorists attack for the fun of it?

Why not American invades countries for the fun of it. :mp5:

3. I could not find ONE SINGLE person who agreed with the war, either here in Australia, nor in Germany. Not one. I don't see why Spain should've been any different.

Maybe you need to broaden the base of people you talk to. Because I can find them all day. I bet if I were to travel to Spain today I could find them.

Why not American invades countries for the fun of it. :mp5:

lol. :D

Maybe you need to broaden the base of people you talk to. Because I can find them all day. I bet if I were to travel to Spain today I could find them.

Perhaps if you traversed the sewers.

Both sides are possible. What we don't want are insurgents and people ideologically motivated to carry out terrorist attacks.

So if the Western countries didn't send troops to Iraq, would those attacks have happened? Do terrorists attack for the fun of it?

We dont want people doing terrorist attacks. Thats obvious. What if we didnt go into Iraq? Well 40 million people would still be under Saddams thumb. Would Madrid and London happen? Most likely. Nato was involved in Afghanistan. Where majority of people would agree was a just war.

Do terrorist attack for the fun of it? Dont know, dont want to be close enough to one to ask.

Perhaps if you traversed the sewers.

Celtic actually going to be in southren Spain in August. I will give you a full report on my findings.

Maybe you need to broaden the base of people you talk to. Because I can find them all day. I bet if I were to travel to Spain today I could find them.
Sure you could. Something like 2 out of every 10?

Maybe you need to broaden the base of people you talk to. Because I can find them all day. I bet if I were to travel to Spain today I could find them.
1 million of Spanish persons filled the streets of Barcelona to protest against the Iraq war. One of the biggest anti-war rallies, ever.

Polls have shown that 80% of Spanish people were against the war. This level stayed constant through the events, and is probably the same today.

But you know... polls... you can always dismiss them. We're on the internet after all, not in real life.

The nature of the British is one of resilence. This attack will only increase our determination to defeat terrorism and the malicious people who practice it. I hope no government will withdraw our troops from Iraq, for we have made a commitment and to withdraw our toops would render our word worthless on the international stage.

Sure you could. Something like 2 out of every 10?

Is that a scientific poll? :D

I admit I haven't read the entire thread, so I apologize if I am treading over already trampled ground.

I believe the primary reason why the government in Spain fell after the attacks had less to do with Spanish support for the war in Iraq and the Spanish electorates blaming of the decision to support the US on the bombings than it had to do with the government refusing to admit that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the bombing, instead blaming it on Basque seperatists, literally until the eve of the election.

As demonstrated in the US, its possible for the voters to forgive someone who made a decision based on bad information if they believe it was done in good faith - they don't take kindly to being lied to directly.

In any event, the result was a victory for the terrorists for whatever reason because the perception is that the Spanish government fell because of the attacks. And that is unfortunate.

B

Celtic actually going to be in southren Spain in August. I will give you a full report on my findings.

I hear thers alligators down there and wererats to

1 million of Spanish persons filled the streets of Barcelona to protest against the Iraq war. One of the biggest anti-war rallies, ever.

Polls have shown that 80% of Spanish people were against the war. This level stayed constant through the events, and is probably the same today.

But you know... polls... you can always dismiss them. We're on the internet after all, not in real life.


touche, did you see my link btw?

touche, did you see my link btw?

My mother told me not to folow strangers into strange links ill pass thank you.

My mother told me not to folow strangers into strange links ill pass thank you.

lol, your mama is so.... :D

In any event, the result was a victory for the terrorists for whatever reason because the perception is that the Spanish government fell because of the attacks. And that is unfortunate.
I disagree. That may be the perception in the US, I don't know, but it certainly wasn't in Europe, nor here. Our politicians (like that most diplomatic of people - Alexander Downer) had to open his mouth in utter ignorance, but people just ignore him generally.

I haven't seen a statement from AQ about this either, so I assume that at least the leaders (who I think are rational people with irrational goals) will know the truth too.
And as was said before, London would've happened regardless of what happened in Spain.
It's all about certain pro-war people feeling personally insulted by the Spanish voter's decision.

lol, your mama is so.... :D

You think so well heres what im gonna do for you :sniper:

You think so well heres what im gonna do for you :sniper:

was going to say smart, you ass :p

I disagree. That may be the perception in the US, I don't know, but it certainly wasn't in Europe, nor here. Our politicians (like that most diplomatic of people - Alexander Downer) had to open his mouth in utter ignorance, but people just ignore him generally.

I haven't seen a statement from AQ about this either, so I assume that at least the leaders (who I think are rational people with irrational goals) will know the truth too.
And as was said before, London would've happened regardless of what happened in Spain.
It's all about certain pro-war people feeling personally insulted by the Spanish voter's decision.

I apologize. You are indeed correct, the perception in the United States is that the Spanish did indeed cave. If you take a moment and read a selection of the articles written about the events in London (I suggest www.realclearpolitics.com) a common theme is how we (Americans) have faith in the British that they won't let the terrorists win like the Spanish did (their implication, not mine).

The concern that I do have, however, is what the perception in the Islamic world was. If it is the same as it is in the US, then the rest of the worlds perception is irrelevant - they view it as a victory, therefore they will use it to bolster their popular support.

As I said before, that is unfortunate.

B

I
It's all about certain pro-war people feeling personally insulted by the Spanish voter's decision.

Who are you talking about? Dont be pointing fingers and name calling. We all have managed to keep it civilized to this point.

Who are you talking about? Dont be pointing fingers and name calling. We all have managed to keep it civilized to this point.
I wasn't calling names or pointing fingers.
But so far I haven't really seen a clear connection as to why the Spanish voters caused British people to die. And that is what your initial post implied (and the title clearly states).
Instead, your arguments have varied from World Wars to Spanish voters not voting "the right" way.
And I was even moreso referring to Drunk Commie's early post, but you really haven't been much better in avoiding seeming like the type of person I was pointing at.

I wasn't calling names or pointing fingers.
But so far I haven't really seen a clear connection as to why the Spanish voters caused British people to die. And that is what your initial post implied (and the title clearly states).
Instead, your arguments have varied from World Wars to Spanish voters not voting "the right" way.
And I was even moreso referring to Drunk Commie's early post, but you really haven't been much better in avoiding seeming like the type of person I was pointing at.

ok that was sarcasm.

ok that was sarcasm.
Ooops. Hmmm, nonetheless, what I said stands.
Make one clear-cut argument connecting the Spanish decision to the London bombings, using logic, actual facts (with links if possible) and keep it as neutral as possible.
It'll give us something to work off.

Ooops. Hmmm, nonetheless, what I said stands.
Make one clear-cut argument connecting the Spanish decision to the London bombings, using logic, actual facts (with links if possible) and keep it as neutral as possible.
It'll give us something to work off.

Damn Leon you want links?@!

Damn Leon you want links?@!
Meh, not really. But sometimes it forces people to confront false beliefs that they held when they try and prove them with links and can't find any.
Of course, if you're good enough with searching the web, that won't work cuz then one can prove anything...

I disagree. That may be the perception in the US, I don't know, but it certainly wasn't in Europe, nor here...

<snip>



Leonstein, my thinking is that it makes little difference why the Spanish voted as they did. And it matter not what the perception is of how we feel about it.

The only thing that matters is that the Moslem terrorists perceive that they influenced the election and action of a big western country. All the folks at home are in awe - hey, we can win this!

At the cost of several hundred to several thousand dollars and a handful of operatives, al-Qaeda has succeeded in ensuring the removal of ~1,600 troops from Iraq and successfully isolated the United States from what was previously one of its key allies.

Repeat, it's about the terrorists perception - not ours. And if it worked once for them, they'll keep trying in other countries. Isolate allies. It's very simple - and cheap.

this link is from a Spanish paper today, good read.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,2763,1523800,00.html#article_continue

another explaining the election:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/11/world/main679495.shtml

and yet another saying exactly what im saying:

http://www.kaimin.org/viewarticle.php?id=2769

and another:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/wm448.cfm

...And if it worked once for them, they'll keep trying in other countries. Isolate allies. It's very simple - and cheap.
However, we did establish that considering the timing of the attack, and the political climate in the UK, there was no chance of them succeeding.
I therefore concluded that they did not have an expectation of removing the UK from Iraq with this attack.
Instead, as they claimed themselves, it was a revenge attack.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,2763,1523800,00.html#article_continue
That one says exactly what I am saying: That there were domestic reasons (mainly about how Aznar handled the attack) that led to people dropping him.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/11/world/main679495.shtml
Same here.

http://www.kaimin.org/viewarticle.php?id=2769
That is an opinion piece by an undergrad economics student, a "chicken-hawk" and a member of the NRA.
Guess what - I am an undergrad Economics Student.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/wm448.cfm
And the heritage foundation is a notorius right-wing think-tank. And it is an opinion piece.
You might as well give me links from the new American century.

Meh, not really. But sometimes it forces people to confront false beliefs that they held when they try and prove them with links and can't find any.
Of course, if you're good enough with searching the web, that won't work cuz then one can prove anything...

Meh, I agree. Updated main post, Check em out.

I can see why people would want to think that the Spanish somehow "gave in", and how that caused people to die.
But those are opinions. There are no facts to support them. And as a matter of fact, there are no Spanish soldiers dying in Iraq right now...

*snip.

If your ever in Washington state leo. Let me know, would be interesting to sit and talk politics over a cold one. Plastic cup for sure. So would you like me to find this stuff on a socialist or leftist news org?

...So would you like me to find this stuff on a socialist or leftist news org?
I don't think you need to bother. But if more people see your links to opinion pieces you're gonna get yelled at some more...
And are there any leftist news organisations? I hear CNN for example, but I am yet to see leftism that goes any further than reporting about things.
I know that Fox often doesn't bother looking at the left other than to dismantle it, but the little of CNN that I get to see seems to be a lot more "fair and balanced" than anything I have had the chance of seeing on Fox.

EDIT: Oh, and I need to go now. Physical activities are calling...

This is not at all jumping to conclusions. This has been said after the Madrid blasts and recently today in the media. This isnt a original idea from myself. I do happen to agree with it.
You know, that it is threads like these and all the snide comments made about the Spanish people in previous threads and by your illustrious leader that should make their next decision whether to join in future conflicts or not. You probably didn't take into consideration that the majority of the Spanish people were AGAINST the invasion of Iraq?

For most Spaniards pulling out of Iraq is not a sign that the government is easing up on terrorism. The fact is that most Spaniards have never linked the "War against Iraq" to the "War on Terror" in the way that many North Americans and British people did. Spaniards believed that war was declared on Iraq for the wrong reasons, and that the allies were not being totally sincere about their reasons. They didn't believe that weapons of mass destruction existed, they were worried by the fact that this was an attack which neither NATO or the United Nations supported, and there was a feeling among Spanish people that their Government was leading them into a conflict which violated international law. President Aznar never argued his case to the extent that Blair and Bush did to Parliament and to public opinion. And he has never been prepared to explain his view of the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq after all.

Most Spaniards have a feeling of international responsability, they shared in the World's shock and grief when the USA were attacked on 11th September 2001, and identify with the fight against terrorism and their participation in this fight. But Spaniards lived in a dictatorship for 40 years, and their country was isolated from most international forums. There was great rejoicing in this country when Spain joined the European Union in the early 1980s, and the population voted to stay in NATO in a national referendum held in 1986. Spaniards enjoy participating in international bodies and international initiatives which are protected and approved by international law and the United Nations. They participated in the Gulf War, the Bosnian crisis, and Spanish troops are still working hard with their colleagues from other countries in Afghanistan. The fact that the war on Iraq was never approved by an international body will always be a sign for many Spaniards that the war should have been avoided at that stage, until there was more consensus or until other measures were taken.

All this means that in pulling out of Iraq, Spain is not necessarily giving in to terrorism. Zapatero announced in an interview on Onda Cero Radio this morning that he will take steps to improve national security, and he said two days ago that he would seek national and international consensus in the fight on terrorism. Spain wants to participate in the fight against terror, but in a global fight, not a fight carried out according to the rules and principles of one or two World leaders. And many Spaniards have never made the connection between the war against Iraq and the interntional war on terror.

This thread is a slap in the face of the Spaniards who have already made the ultimate sacrifice to the war on terror. It can even harm future US/Spanish relations, if it hasn't already. Good job!! :rolleyes:

Am I alone in finding Marrakech's line of reasoning completely offensive? It's demogoguery at the very least, and poorly thought out demogoguery at that. It's symptomatic of the talking head culture in the US right now--if you don't agree with us, then when something bad happens, it's your fault. It's positively Rovian in its construction.

I therefore concluded that they did not have an expectation of removing the UK from Iraq with this attack.
Instead, as they claimed themselves, it was a revenge attack.
This is the most rational post on this thread of irrational posts.

Blaming British deaths on a Spanish election is utter foolishness.

while I agree with what most of what you say your generalizing americans unfairly not all of us voted for that cock sucker bush i know i didnt. In the 1st Election he should have actualy lost but since daddy had hired all the supreme court judges he made it into office.

I wasn't stereotyping Americans. I was stereotyping people who voted for Bush. I've seen enough of Marrakech's posts to feel secure in my belief that he deserves accusations of fitting the stereotype.

B) Its not milquetoast you moron. Maybe in france.

Milquetoast. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=milquetoast)

Milk Toast (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=milk%20toast)

Unless you mean to suggest that the Spanish literally elected a mild breakfast dish to high office you are using the wrong term. This is an American dictionary site, so don't go hiding behind regionalisms. Moron indeed. :rolleyes:

I don't think you need to bother. But if more people see your links to opinion pieces you're gonna get yelled at some more...
And are there any leftist news organisations? I hear CNN for example, but I am yet to see leftism that goes any further than reporting about things.
I know that Fox often doesn't bother looking at the left other than to dismantle it, but the little of CNN that I get to see seems to be a lot more "fair and balanced" than anything I have had the chance of seeing on Fox.

EDIT: Oh, and I need to go now. Physical activities are calling...

Reporting facts is considered liberal these days. All the evidence that comes from objective reality makes Bush look bad because all of his policies are complete failures. To criticize a conservative is to support the liberals. Therefore, observing objective reality is inherently liberal.

Terrorist attacks on Spain since 3/11: 0
Terrorist attacks on UK since 3/11: 1

What exactly leads you to the conclusion that giving them what they want, encourages them? Some people do what they promise - unlike politicians like Blair or Bushasshat.

You counting your own?

It may be simplistic for German Nightmare to call your thread start simply 'dumb.' It does take a certain amount of intellectual agility to contort such obvious facts as "terrorists are still able to plant bombs in western cities" and "Spain didn't want to go to war despite our ability to bribe a handful of their government officials" and come up with something as wildly out of touch with reality as "England got bombed because Spain was against the war in Iraq."

However, a lack of intelligence is, to some extent, an inability to form a sense of the world that allows you to form adaptive strategies for dealing with it. While you may posess whatever facility it is that allows people to do this, you've turned it towards completly different ends. i.e. forming a view of the world that fits a fantasy that you've adopted. You may not be demonstrating stupidity so much as a sort of inverted brilliance. However, whether I sit at the start line because of contrariness or because I have a broken leg, the end results are the same, I lose the race. You are in a similar situation in a strictly emotive/perceptive sense. You are either intellectually blind, or have your eyes shut.

Actually the talk on the arabic websites about the Al quada strategic goal as never been to hit america again after 911.

Basically it was to hit american allies to get them to fall away from helping the Americans and to encourage bitterness between the two former allies after they learned the fact that support for america wasnt that high in Europe due to jealousy of the american lifestyle.

They analized which targets in the allied forces would be the easiest. Spain was choosen because of its high level of dissent and ease of attack (access to spain was easy since a large % of the southern areas were muslim) This puts more pressure on England and Poland once Spain bows out. So why England and not Poland? England was harder security wise, but there is a LARGE muslim population in London, not so much so in Poland. As well support is weaker in England then Poland. Planning for the English attacks took place soon after the spanish ones and were planned to happen just before the election, but problems occured and the attack had to be sit back, a major setback really when you think about it.

Needless to say the entire tactical strat of Al Quada right now isnt to hit the USA...its a simple game of divide and conquer right now...

and the main CONQURE target isnt actually the USA....it is Europe. Europes native population is in decline, they need cheap young labor...so they import africans and middle easterners who happen to be of what religion you say? (MUSLIM!) Eventually they will be in a majority in Europe and what is left of the native europe people will flee to the americas which will be the last baston of Western life. Euraraba will become more then a myth and the muslim conquring of Europe will finally happen.

And you people are being lead like sheep to slaughter because both the americans and Europians are doing exactly what is expected of them. Infighting. You cant be stopped when you are together, but you can be taken down piecemeal.

You Americans and Europians have signed your own deaths by acting so selfish and jealous of each other that when presented with a challege instead of being united you bicker amoungst yourselves. You call bus bombers cowardly while you stick your head in the sand totally ignoring what is going on around you, which is more cowardly i say, I man willing to blow himself up, or a man so delusional he believes that there isnt a war going on around him and stands there while his world is being consumed and destoryed, which is more cowardly?!

In response to the original poster, I dont think the Spanish cowardice suddenly encouraged Al Queda to make plans up to bomb London, I'd say that was always in the pipeline.
But it didnt help.

Actually the talk on the arabic websites about the Al quada strategic goal as never been to hit america again after 911.
Basically it was to hit american allies to get them to fall away from helping the Americans and to encourage bitterness between the two former allies after they learned the fact that support for america wasnt that high in Europe due to jealousy of the american lifestyle.
They analized which targets in the allied forces would be the easiest. Spain was choosen because of its high level of dissent and ease of attack (access to spain was easy since a large % of the southern areas were muslim) This puts more pressure on England and Poland once Spain bows out. So why England and not Poland? England was harder security wise, but there is a LARGE muslim population in London, not so much so in Poland. As well support is weaker in England then Poland. Planning for the English attacks took place soon after the spanish ones and were planned to happen just before the election, but problems occured and the attack had to be sit back, a major setback really when you think about it.
Needless to say the entire tactical strat of Al Quada right now isnt to hit the USA...its a simple game of divide and conquer right now...
and the main CONQURE target isnt actually the USA....it is Europe. Europes native population is in decline, they need cheap young labor...so they import africans and middle easterners who happen to be of what religion you say? (MUSLIM!) Eventually they will be in a majority in Europe and what is left of the native europe people will flee to the americas which will be the last baston of Western life. Euraraba will become more then a myth and the muslim conquring of Europe will finally happen.
And you people are being lead like sheep to slaughter because both the americans and Europians are doing exactly what is expected of them. Infighting. You cant be stopped when you are together, but you can be taken down piecemeal.
You Americans and Europians have signed your own deaths by acting so selfish and jealous of each other that when presented with a challege instead of being united you bicker amoungst yourselves. You call bus bombers cowardly while you stick your head in the sand totally ignoring what is going on around you, which is more cowardly i say, I man willing to blow himself up, or a man so delusional he believes that there isnt a war going on around him and stands there while his world is being consumed and destoryed, which is more cowardly?!

Well said.
Its too late but, for Europe anyway, they have less than fifty years as a caucasian majority, due to feminism influencing birthrates.
Have fun under the muslim jackboot surviving feminists.

I still maintain, steadfastly, that the Spaniards were unduly influenced by the inhuman machinations of the Budgerigars already in their midsts. Reports of Albatross, Finch, and other possible supporters of the Axis of Evil Avians active in Madrid still have yet to be confirmed, but the ongoing danger remains.

We shall never be free from this insidious threat so long as pet shops, aviaries, menageries, millet farms, and vet's offices are allowed to serve as recruitment centres for their unholy cause - a breeding ground for Budgerigar unrest. Perhaps worse than these... animals... are the bird fanciers who have sold out their fellow humans. Piano wire, forceps and a tube of super-glue is too good for the likes of them.

A government that chooses to become involved in a war that the voters don't want and then has the audacity to blame a local terror group before any evidence is gathered is more to blame for losing the election than the voters or the terrorists.
While it is disappointing and sends the wrong message that Spain pulled out so quickly, it is hardly surprising and also legitimate. It was disappointing that Spanish soldiers were involved in the first place.
That this emboldens the terrorists is a fact, but the fact that they succeeded in getting Spain to leave didn't add much to that emboldenment. The fact that they succeeded in killing and injuring so many is the greatest victory for the terrorists (next to the publicity they achieved). London wasn't influenced by Madrid insofar that it would not have happened if Spain had remained in Iraq. There were plenty of attempts that were thwarted before Madrid. The terrorists only just got lucky now.

But you have to wonder if the Spanish people would have stood up and re-elected there president instead of going for a milk toast liberal. Would the terrorist have been embolden to strike at London to try and achieve the same outcome for the UK?



IF the terrorists really were emboldened by the Spanish election, and wanted to achieve the same in the UK, then wouldn't they have set off their bombs there BEFORE the election?

Every action has a consequence.

The action was US Foreign policy that has fuelled anger from some parts of the muslim world, and the CIA funding of Bin Laden, and Blair's unquestioning support of Bush.

The consequence was lives lost, lives destroyed, blood spilt, bodies broken on the streets and the Underground of London, through no fault of the British civillian and victims, but the fault of the British government's actions in supporting The Bush Administration's foreign policy, and a US administration's support for Bin Laden through CIA training in the 80's, which led to the creation of a monster.

The people who have blood on their hands are Bush, Blair and their foreign policy, previous US Administrations and their foreign policy in The Middle East and parts of the rest of the world that are Islamic, the CIA and cohorts for supporting Bin Laden in the first place, Bin Laden himself, and those who commited murder on Thursday, inspired by Bin Laden.

Britain would have been at risk of attack because of the government's foreign policy and closeness to Bush, and the invasion of Iraq, and Bin Laden and his supporters dislike of the British government's closeness to America's, whatever way the Spanish had voted, who voted the way they did in anger at The Spanish government which wished to deny an Al-Qaeda attack took place on their soil because of Spanish troops in Iraq.

Had the Spanish government been truthful, then they may well be still in power.


The Spanish people have no blood on their hands. Just the blood splattered on them they had from helping the injured and the dying from the Madrid bombings, just like the heroic people and emergency service who helped the wounded and dying on Thursday.

I'm British, and my family are Londoners. We for one know where the blame and on whose hands the blood lies. Bush. Blair, and US and British Foreign Policy. Bin Laden, and the CIA support they gave him.

"british blood on the hands of the spanish electorate", oh my God where stupidity can go to, I just can't believe it! As if giving in fear and opting for more involvment would have change something!

I haven't read this particular revolting bullshit, but what I've read since yesterday is british /american journalists and commentators wishing in barely covered words the same thing happened to us cowardly surrendering monkeys - talk about a WISH, seriously, I couldn't believe my eyes... it's going to be fulfilled one day or the other anyway (the question is not "if" but "when") - but frankly, wishing the dead of innocent people just to make a point is just too disgusting to be believed.
I still feel deeply sorry for all those involved in spite of these sickening comments, though.

...due to feminism influencing birthrates.
Have fun under the muslim jackboot surviving feminists.
:D
Well said....but also very stupid indeed.
What a silly thing to say!

The action was US Foreign policy that has fuelled anger from some parts of the muslim world, and the CIA funding of Bin Laden, and Blair's unquestioning support of Bush.

The consequence was lives lost, lives destroyed, blood spilt, bodies broken on the streets and the Underground of London, through no fault of the British civillian and victims, but the fault of the British government's actions in supporting The Bush Administration's foreign policy, and a US administration's support for Bin Laden through CIA training in the 80's, which led to the creation of a monster.

The people who have blood on their hands are Bush, Blair and their foreign policy, previous US Administrations and their foreign policy in The Middle East and parts of the rest of the world that are Islamic, the CIA and cohorts for supporting Bin Laden in the first place, Bin Laden himself, and those who commited murder on Thursday, inspired by Bin Laden.

Britain would have been at risk of attack because of the government's foreign policy and closeness to Bush, and the invasion of Iraq, and Bin Laden and his supporters dislike of the British government's closeness to America's, whatever way the Spanish had voted, who voted the way they did in anger at The Spanish government which wished to deny an Al-Qaeda attack took place on their soil because of Spanish troops in Iraq.

Had the Spanish government been truthful, then they may well be still in power.


The Spanish people have no blood on their hands. Just the blood splattered on them they had from helping the injured and the dying from the Madrid bombings, just like the heroic people and emergency service who helped the wounded and dying on Thursday.

I'm British, and my family are Londoners. We for one know where the blame and on whose hands the blood lies. Bush. Blair, and US and British Foreign Policy. Bin Laden, and the CIA support they gave him.

Thank you. although ultimately the terrorists are to blame, we have fueled their cause by our wars. The spanish electorate didn't want the war and voted against it afterwards.