Spain

What a horrible thing!! x(

The news is now reporting that the bombs were set off by cell phones. In addition, the composition of the bombs was not consistent with the armed Basque separatist group ETA. Looks like it may be related to bin Laden's group.

For more info see: http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=474912§ion=news

Don't go blaming Bush. This is a religous war that has been going on since before Genesis.

The sand rats are to blame. They have no regard for life and people who argue about religon and kill for it will have us all dead within ten years.

We are infadels and it has already been written, so just enjoy the time you have left and weep for those whose time came earlier.

I love Spain and I love the Spanish people and I weep for their great losses. But it will not stop me from going to Barcelona where the king had a lisp, so it's pronounced Barthelona, or so I've heard.

__

The above written as a regular guy, not the owner of a website and has no official meaning, just unofficial BS.)

__

--garbo the hoo

As of right now there's nothing to indicate definitely who is responsible. ETA criminals were caught recently with huge amounts of explosives in vans heading for Madrid, and have made threats against the transportation system, so they can't be ruled out. A report today says that the explosives used match those seized recently from ETA. In the past couple of years ETA has been decimated by the Spanish and French police, with large parts of its leadership imprisoned. What's left is getting pretty desperate, I think, and they may have decided to shift to such atrocities in an effort to get more bang for their diminishing buck.

As for abandoning it's Arab friends, one could argue that supporting the elimination of Saddam Hussein isn't exactly an act of enmity. And in spite of <some people's> ramblings, Spain's relations with the Arab world will continue to be close, because of geography, immigration, and cultural affinity. Also, if this unspeakable event WAS caused by al-Qaeda or other Arab terrorists, it hardly represents the will of the entire Arab world, which has suffered more than enough death and horror of its own.

My heart goes out to my amigos in Spain.

I am so sorry for your losses.

--garbo the hoo

Regardless of who is responsible, it made me absolutely ill watching the news footage from that train station. The times I have been to Spain the people were quite wonderful to me.

Just look at the outpouring of grief, and pleas for 'paz'/ 'pace', during the last 2 nights in all their major cities. Over 11 million citizens turned out, 1/4 of their population.

And what does the US do after a terrorist attack??

While there are some very specific regions in Spain, including the Basque region near Bilboa and the Catalan region by Barcelona, the other regions are very large and include some of the remaining large cities. Andalusa is interesting but in spite of its historical Moorish past, does not have the elements to create internal strife that exist on the eastern edge of Iberia.

Anyone interested in travel to Spain should look at two great web sites: http://www.gayinspain.com and, for those who might be fluent in Spanish: http://www.naciongay.com

As with New York City in 2001, the best thing anyone can do if they plan to visit Western Europe, is to make a stop in Spain.

And look what the Spanish voters told their incumbent PM today, essentially, "Go shit in your hat".

Now the new Socialist government is considering bringing home their armed forces from Iraq...

>And look what the Spanish voters told their incumbent PM

>today, essentially, "Go shit in your hat".

>Now the new Socialist government is considering bringing home

>their armed forces from Iraq...

That's great - it's always good to respond to a terrorist act by . . . doing exactly what the terrorists want you to do.

That will sure deter them and make sure they don't keep committing these atrocities - train them that if they do it, you will bend to their will. What a cause for celebration.

I know how much you abhor the Democratic process, Dougie.

Perhaps Spain should have done what we did after a terrorist attack: Initially go after the bad guy, but give up and go after someone not associated in any way with the original bad guy; invade a country that has nothing to do with the war on terror, but create the impression that we are actually doing something constructive.

>I know how much you abhor the Democratic process, Dougie.

No, actually I love the democratic process, which is why I find it so horrible and disgusting that Muslim terrorists were able to alter the outcome of an election by engaging in an atrocity days before the election was to be held, announcing that they did so to punish the governing Party, thereby scaring the citizens into voting for a different party, which has announced its intention to appease those terrorists.

If you don't find it appalling that Al Qaeda can dictate the outcome of democratic, Western elections by engaging in terrorist attacks days before an election and announcing to the citizens that it was the fault of one of the parties for being too aggressive in the war on terrorism - thereby causing that party to lose - then you are beyond reason.

With people like you around, As Qaeda should be highly encouraged. If they don't want Bush re-elected, they can just pick a nice American city to bomb sometime in October, and then announce that they will keep doing it unless Bush loses. Then, people like you can stand up and say: "See, we have to vote against Bush, otherwise Al Qaeda will get angry and engage in more attacks."

That worked in Spain, and it's no wonder that you and others of your ilk are celebrating that disgusting result. Just admit that that's what you're hoping for: a nice terrorist attack in the U.S. near the election that makes people think that it's all Bush's fault for being so mean to the Arabs, and then wanting to vote him out of office so that Al Qaeda won't be mad at us any longer - just like what happened in Spain today.

>Perhaps Spain should have done what we did after a terrorist

>attack: Initially go after the bad guy, but give up and go

>after someone not associated in any way with the original bad

>guy; invade a country that has nothing to do with the war on

>terror, but create the impression that we are actually doing

>something constructive.

Isn't it funny that so many people in Spain are convinced that the reason Al Qaeda attacked Madrid was because of Spain's participation in the war in Iraq. If the war in Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, then why is Al Qaeda so angry that Spain participated in the war there???

The people in Spain certainly think there's a connection between the war in Iraq and Al Qaeda - they seem convinced that Al Qaeda was punishing them for participating in that war. If Saddam Hussien and Al Qaeda had nothing to do with one another, why is Al Qaeda seemingly so opposed to, and angry about, the war in Iraq which overthrew him?

>I know how much you abhor the Democratic process, Dougie.

Here's the vile result which you and your comrades are celebrating:

_________________________________

Socialists Oust Spain's Ruling Party

Mar 14, 9:33 PM (ET)

By ED McCULLOUGH

MADRID, Spain (AP) - Spain's Socialists scored a dramatic upset in elections Sunday, unseating conservatives stung by charges they provoked the Madrid terror bombings by supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq and making Spain a target for al-Qaida.

It was the first time a government that backed the Iraq war has been voted out of office. Incoming prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has pledged to bring home the 1,300 troops Spain has stationed in Iraq when their tour of duty ends in July.

The defeat of Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's Popular Party and his hand-picked successor capped four tumultuous days starting with the attacks that killed 200 people and wounded 1,500. The attacks were followed by massive street rallies against the bombings and smaller ones against the government.

The arrest of five suspects, including three Moroccans, and a reported al-Qaida claim of responsibility, raised the disturbing prospect that terrorists aligned with Osama bin Laden had changed the course of a national election.

__________________________________________

The prospect that Al Qaeda changed the course of a national election is, apparently, "disturbing" only to some of us, but not to all of us. Keep cheering, BoN - that was a great victory for Al Qaeda.

The situation is more complicated than Dougie understands. Voters were indeed angry about Spain's initial support of the Iraq war, but they were also angry about what they perceived as the incumbent party's efforts to manipulate public opinion by claiming so strongly that ETA was behind the latest terrorist attacks, and not international Arab terrorism. When it started to become clear that the attacks WERE related to Arab terrorism, that undoubtedly energized voters who didn't appreciate being told untruths. Feelings in Spain are terrifically bruised right now, as one can understand, and the PP overplayed its hand, bruising them even more. That backfired, as we now see.

However, the more fundamental causes of the PP's defeat go back farther. Aznar's support of the Iraq invasion was and continues to be massively unpopular in Spain. (Something like 90% opposition.) People haven't forgotten how Aznar involved the country in a war of which they wanted no part. They know that Bush lied to Americans and the world about the reasons for invading Iraq, and were very angry that their own government bought into those lies (let alone continued doing what seemed like lying about the causes of the recent bombings).

Spain only recently emerged from a long, stultifying dictatorship of its own, going through a dramatic and brilliantly successful transition from totalitarianism to democracy. Voters are very sensitive to anything that smells of totalitarian tactics, including the way Bush became President of the U.S., and the PP (which is the political heir of Franco and his supporters) unfortunately has had a way of acting in a very high-handed and autocratic manner that turns voters off. The PP was able to maintain support during the past eight years because it was successful in energizing the Spanish economy and reducing the staggering unemployment levels, but even though pocketbook issues are important, issues like security are also important to voters, and Spain's involvement in the Iraq war made the country less secure. This is significant to voters in a country with a vicious home-grown terrorist problem (ETA) that has already caused many tragic losses. Voters didn't want to add to that insecurity by getting involved in a foreign adventure based on lies and deceit.

There are undoubtedly other reasons the PP lost, including resentment in Galicia and elsewhere over the government's miserable handling of the terrible oil spill disaster a couple of years ago that very badly damaged the huge fishing industry as well as tourism. The price of economic growth came at the cost of cuts in social programs which directly affected voters, and people remember that, too. There are doubts about the PP's absolute intransigence in negotiating over issues affecting the Basque country (even though most voters reject ETA terrorism). So anyone who thinks that Spain's voters turned the PP out of office over a single issue is grossly over-simplifying!

BTW, there has been progress in some regions of Spain towards recognition of same-sex relationships, even though it was opposed by the PP (which is considered to be the party of Opus Dei). Now that the Socialists are back in power, it's possible that we'll see further advances on a national level. Legal recognition of same-sex relationships by one of the largest and most traditionally Catholic nations would have considerable impact elsewhere, especially in Latin America which closely watches Spain as a model of a country that has made a successful transition from dictatorship to modern, liberal democracy.

>The situation is more complicated than Dougie understands.

Now that John Kerry is their leader, it's so unbearable to listen to liberals run around constantly mimicing him by chattering on how everything is so complicated and nuanced and how only they understand the multi-faceted considerations of everything. The election is still 8 months away, and so many people are already so sick of that patronizing, pseudo-intellectual garbage.

>Voters were indeed angry about Spain's initial support of the

>Iraq war, but they were also angry about what they perceived

>as the incumbent party's efforts to manipulate public opinion

>by claiming so strongly that ETA was behind the latest

>terrorist attacks, and not international Arab terrorism.

Yes, this is true. The Government did not handle the investigation well at all, and there was undoubtedly some desire to heap blame on ETA even when it became apparent that it was far more likely to be Al Qaeda, and this evasive, even manipulative, handling of the situation likely resulted in some electoral backlash.

But every poll before the election showed the Conservatives winning. So obviously, the public's opposition to the war in Iraq was insufficient to cause the conservatives to lose. The only thing that changed beteen those polls and the conservative's defeat was the terrorist attack (and subeqeuent handling of it), so Al Qaeda's attack clearly altered the outcome of that election. How anyone - other than Al Qaeda supporters - can find that appalling fact to be a cause of celebration is truly mystifying.

>However, the more fundamental causes of the PP's defeat go

>back farther. Aznar's support of the Iraq invasion was and

>continues to be massively unpopular in Spain. (Something like

>90% opposition.) People haven't forgotten how Aznar involved

>the country in a war of which they wanted no part.

But polls up until a week ago uniformly showed Anzar's party winning. So claiming that that party lost due to Anzar's support for the war in Iraq is sadly illogical, even for you.

>so Al Qaeda's attack clearly altered the

>outcome of that election. How anyone - other than Al Qaeda

>supporters - can find that appalling fact to be a cause of

>celebration is truly mystifying.

There is nothing for either side to celebrate. Spain isn't going to stop cooperating with US intelligence agencies in attempts to stop Qaeda activities in Europe -- on the contrary, that cooperation will now be a higher priority than ever. And if Spain pulls its troops from Iraq that isn't going to have any real effect on the situation there. The only effect this is likely to have is to make other political parties in Europe less willing to express support for US efforts in Iraq as opposed to an effort led by the UN.

>But polls up until a week ago uniformly showed Anzar's party

>winning. So claiming that that party lost due to Anzar's

>support for the war in Iraq is sadly illogical, even for you.

Well, no, it isn't illogical at all. The public (in any country) can be overwhelmingly opposed to some government policy, but if that policy is not one of their primary concerns they may not base their votes on it -- unless circumstances change and make it one of their primary concerns. No doubt Aznar's opponents had warned that involving Spain in the Iraq war could make Spain a terrorist target, but their warnings probably didn't move many voters until something terrible happened to prove them right.

>That's great - it's always good to respond to a terrorist act

>by . . . doing exactly what the terrorists want you to do.

Exactly. Ask Chamberlain's ghost where appeasement got him.

--EBG

Polling

Well, if we believed in most polls, Howard Dean would be the presumptive nominee at this stage of the game, and John Kerry would be licking his wounds in his unmortgaged Back Bay mansion.

As polling in this country has shown, support can often be soft and prevailing events can have a great deal of impact. The points about the economy in Spain and concern about security issues are similar to the comments being made to me by relatives who are still living in Spain. In fact, my aunt made the same remark about the government lying and mishandling the investigation and I would not be surprised that this had the greater impact.

Notwithstanding, there is an interesting article to bolster some of Dougie's perspective:

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2654157

>thereby

>scaring the citizens into voting for a different party, which

>has announced its intention to appease those terrorists.

Let's not start with the "appeasement" shit again. Are you going to be playing recordings of Churchill's speeches and of Dame Vera Lynn singing "The White Cliffs of Dover" as well? Zapatero has made it clear that fighting Al Qaeda's affiliates in Europe will be one of his government's priorities. That hardly constitutes "appeasing" the group.

>If you don't find it appalling that Al Qaeda can dictate the

>outcome of democratic, Western elections by engaging in

>terrorist attacks days before an election and announcing to

>the citizens that it was the fault of one of the parties for

>being too aggressive in the war on terrorism - thereby causing

>that party to lose - then you are beyond reason.

What is beyond reason is your repeated attempts to tie Iraq to the cause of Islamist terrorism with which it has very little connection. It had no connection at all until Bush handed the Islamists a new issue by invading Iraq on the pretext that the two were somehow related.

>With people like you around, As Qaeda should be highly

>encouraged.

With people like you around, one can understand why it's so easy for Bush to conflate in the public mind his desire to get rid of Saddam with our struggle against Islamism, two things that have only a tenuous connection with each other.

>Isn't it funny that so many people in Spain are convinced that

>the reason Al Qaeda attacked Madrid was because of Spain's

>participation in the war in Iraq.

Nothing funny about it, unless you think mass murder is funny. By invading Iraq Bush handed the Islamists a new issue they have used (to great effect) to gin up support in Europe and elsewhere for their cause. Hopefully the new government in Spain will focus on the real struggle against Islamism and refuse to be distracted by the sideshow Bush has created in Iraq.

>Let's not start with the "appeasement" shit again.

Sadly, leaving "appeasement" aside seems not to be an option, since there are so many people - you being a perfect example - who believe that the best way to stop terrorism is to find out exactly what the terrorists want and then do it. Go ahead and tell everyone again how you think that the solution to terrorism is to stop trying to exert influence in the Middle East, i.e., meet the terrorists' primary demand so that they won't be angry at us any longer.

I can see why you want to ban the word "appeasement" from the discussion, but you don't have that prerogative.

>What is beyond reason is your repeated attempts to tie Iraq to

>the cause of Islamist terrorism with which it has very little

>connection. It had no connection at all until Bush handed the

>Islamists a new issue by invading Iraq on the pretext that the

>two were somehow related.

I asked this question earlier and got no answer: if Al Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, why is Al Qaeda seeking to retaliate against Spain for participating in the war in Iraq?

In fact, various articles (including the one cited by Franco below) are reporting that CNN has obtained documents from Al Qaeda showing that they planned the Madrid attacks last December precisely in order to cause the Socialists to win the election so that they would withdraw from Iraq, thereby further thwarting the American effort to bring stability and democracy to Iraq.

If our war in Iraq doesn't harm Al Qaeda in any way, why does Al Qaeda seem so determined to make us fail there, and why are they retaliating against governments who are helping us bring democracy to Iraq?

Don't you understand that the establishment of a free, democratic Iraq in the middle of that region is a huge blow to Al Qaeda's primary goal of trying to create a Muslim fundamentalist monopoly in all Arab and Middle Eastern countries, and trying to foment hatred against the U.S. based on the claim that we support dictators in the Middle East?

Al Qaeda obviously understands quite well that what we are trying to achieve in Iraq will be a huge blow to it. It's too bad that some people in our country aren't quite as perceptive as they are when it comes to recognizing the painfully obvious link between the creation of democracy in the Middle East and the defeat of Al Qaeda.

RE: Polling

>Well, if we believed in most polls, Howard Dean would be the

>presumptive nominee at this stage of the game, and John Kerry

>would be licking his wounds in his unmortgaged Back Bay

>mansion.

This just isn't so. Polls taken shortly before the Iowa caucases showed that Dean was likely to lose to Kerry and Edwards. Polls taken before the New Hampshire primary predicted quite accurately what the results would be.

You would have a point if the Spanish polls in questions were taken months before the election. Then you could analogize them to the polls showing Dean in the lead months before the election.

But those polls weren't taken months before, and you therefore have no point. The polls were taken days before, and they showed Anzar's party with an almost certain victory. The only thing that changed between those polls and the election was the terrorists attacks (and the PP's handling of it). While the causation can't be proven with mathematical certainty, those events leave little doubt that the attacks influenced the election rather substantially.

>Notwithstanding, there is an interesting article to bolster

>some of Dougie's perspective:

>

>http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2654157

That article - and many other like them on the Internet - make clear that Al Qaeda planned these attacks with the precise objective of causing the Socialists to win. The fact that certain posters here (such as Glutes and BoN) spoke of the fulfillment of that plan as some sort of cause for celebration is truly sickening.

Also, it's just so fascinating how all of these people keep saying that Al Qaeda attacked Spain as punishment for its support of the war in Iraq. Isn't it pretty fucking obvious that this proves that there IS a link between the war in Iraq and Al Qaeda? If there were no link, why would Al Qaeda care about punishing Spain for helping in the war on Iraq, and why would Al Qaeda be planning terrorist attacks with the specific intent of impeding our efforts to establish democracy in Iraq?

Al Qaeda obviously understands that our success in Iraq will be a huge blow to its goals, which is exactly why they're trying to prevent it. How ironic that so many people in this country try to deny the link that Al Qaeda so clearly recognizes.

>>Let's not start with the "appeasement" shit again.

>

>Go ahead and

>tell everyone again how you think that the solution to

>terrorism is to stop trying to exert influence in the Middle

>East, i.e., meet the terrorists' primary demand so that they

>won't be angry at us any longer.

Oh, Doug, Doug, Doug! When will you ever learn to tell the truth? You know quite well that the 9/11 attacks occurred because our government decided to take sides in a quarrel over who is going to run the Muslim world, despite the fact that from the point of view of people who value democracy and human rights there is not a lot to distinguish one of the sides in that quarrel from the other. What kind of idiot would be surprised when the side we DIDN'T support takes a poke at us?

Would the Islamists leave us alone if we decided to leave them alone? That solution might have worked years ago, but now I'm not so sure -- those of you who supported that reckless policy of taking sides may well have gotten us in too deep.

>I can see why you want to ban the word "appeasement" from the

>discussion, but you don't have that prerogative.

But I do have the prerogative of pointing out how inappropriate it is for people like you to yell "appeasement" whenever anyone expresses distaste at our involvement in a quarrel that you guys got us into in the first place. And I'll continue to do so whether you like it or not.

>I asked this question earlier and got no answer: if Al Qaeda

>has nothing to do with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, why is Al

>Qaeda seeking to retaliate against Spain for participating in

>the war in Iraq?

You did get an answer, from me. As I've already said, the Islamists had no interest in Saddam's quarrel with the US, since they detested both sides, except to the extent they could use it as an example of Western "crusader" interference in the affairs of Muslim nations. Bush has given them a golden opportunity to do exactly that. Congratulations.

>in order to cause the Socialists to win

>the election so that they would withdraw from Iraq, thereby

>further thwarting the American effort to bring stability and

>democracy to Iraq.

Al Qaeda's leaders must be mighty stupid if they think the withdrawal of 1300 Spanish troops is going to tip the balance of victory in Iraq in their favor.

>If our war in Iraq doesn't harm Al Qaeda in any way, why does

>Al Qaeda seem so determined to make us fail there, and why are

>they retaliating against governments who are helping us bring

>democracy to Iraq?

For the fourth or fifth time, the independence of Iraq means no more to them than the welfare of the Palestinians. As Arafat and other Palestinian leaders have repeatedly pointed out, Al Qaeda cares nothing about their cause except to the extent it can be used to gin up support for Al Qaeda. It's the same with Iraq. Why do you find this so hard to understand?

>Don't you understand that the establishment of a free,

>democratic Iraq in the middle of that region is a huge blow to

>Al Qaeda's primary goal of trying to create a Muslim

>fundamentalist monopoly in all Arab and Middle Eastern

>countries, and trying to foment hatred against the U.S. based

>on the claim that we support dictators in the Middle East?

I sure do, and in fact that part of Bush's strategy was pointed out by others on this board long before you mentioned it, long before the invasion actually happened. Unfortunately, Bush has so grotesquely bungled that mission that it is no longer likely to be achieved no matter what Al Qaeda does. Just as Bush has made so little progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue that Al Qaeda no longer needs to worry that they will be deprived of that conflict as a rallying cry. Lucky them.

>It's too

>bad that some people in our country aren't quite as perceptive

>as they are when it comes to recognizing the painfully obvious

>link between the creation of democracy in the Middle East and

>the defeat of Al Qaeda.

Oh we recognize it, all right. We just don't think Bush is sincere in his commitment to achieving it. His coddling of the Saudi royals and his refusal to do anything to rein in Sharon make it quite obvious that he has no real commitment to removing the real obstacles to democracy and peace in the region.

Speaking of Sharon, why is it that the outrage you folks on the Right expressed about terrorist influence on the Spanish election was nowhere to be seen during the past few years in which Palestinian terrorist groups have successfully influenced the Israeli elections? Oh, I get it -- you only object to terrorists swinging elections when it means YOUR candidate loses.

>You know quite well that the 9/11 attacks occurred

>because our government decided to take sides in a quarrel over

>who is going to run the Muslim world, despite the fact that

>from the point of view of people who value democracy and human

>rights there is not a lot to distinguish one of the sides in

>that quarrel from the other. What kind of idiot would be

>surprised when the side we DIDN'T support takes a poke at us?

LOL!! That's what you consider 9/11 to be - a "poke". On September 11, Al Qaeda took a poke at us. No wonder you're so non-chalant about the need to destroy them. All they did was take a poke at us, so what's all the fuss?

And I genuinely don't understand how you can object to the word "appeasement" to describe your viewpoint. To appease simply means to accomodate someone's wishes in order to diminish their anger. How is this inaccurate in the slightest when applied to your view as to what should be done about Al Qaeda?

>Would the Islamists leave us alone if we decided to leave them

>alone? That solution might have worked years ago, but now I'm

>not so sure -- those of you who supported that reckless policy

>of taking sides may well have gotten us in too deep.

You may want to look into the ideology of extreme Islam. They believe that they are destined to rule the world and to be the most powerful and dominant. Any country which undermines or contravenes that view is a dangerous infidel and must be destroyed.

So the only way they will stop hating us and wanting to destroy us, at least according to them, is if we become subservient to them and less powerful and advanced than they are. Does your desire to appease them extend that far? If not, then your solution - obliterate our involvement in the Middle East - would do nothing to diminish their desire to harm us but would do everything to render us vulnerable to those attacks.

>I sure do, and in fact that part of Bush's strategy was

>pointed out by others on this board long before you mentioned

>it, long before the invasion actually happened.

>Unfortunately, Bush has so grotesquely bungled that mission

>that it is no longer likely to be achieved no matter what Al

>Qaeda does.

But the minute you concede (as you just did, and according to you, as you did long ago) that establishment of a democracy in Iraq would undermine Al Qaeda, then you can longer claim with any rationality that there is no link between going to war in Iraq and fighting Al Qaeda. You just said what the link was: creating democracy in the heart of the Middle East is an important step in fighting Al Qaeda.

It's one thing to criticize how this Administration has gone about that mission, but your recognition of what the effects would be of a successful establishment of a democratic Iraq (i.e., that it would undermine Al Qaeda) precludes you from claiming, at least with any sanity, that there is no link between going to war in Iraq and the fight against Al Qaeda (which is occurring becasue they took a poke at us a few years ago).

>Speaking of Sharon, why is it that the outrage you folks on

>the Right expressed about terrorist influence on the Spanish

>election was nowhere to be seen during the past few years in

>which Palestinian terrorist groups have successfully

>influenced the Israeli elections? Oh, I get it -- you only

>object to terrorists swinging elections when it means YOUR

>candidate loses.

There's a rather fundamental difference between taking actions which incidentally alter an alection (as the Palestineans do when they engage in terrorism) and deliberately causing the election of a particular party by planning an attack immediately prior to the election with that purpose (as Al Qaeda did in Spain).

Lots and lots and lots of things affect election. High crime rates may cause the election of a strong law-and-order candidate, but that isn't the same as saying that criminals have altered the election by engaging in criminal acts in order to ensure that their favored candidate (i.e., the one softer on crime) prevails. That's exactly what Al Qada did. I trust you now see this basic distinction.

RE: Polling

No, Dougie, the attack in Spain shows what we who are against Bush have been saying all along: Bush abandoned the war on terror to invade iraq (for Poppy and Halliburton) and his ineptitude has allowed Al Qaeda to regroup and now kill people in Spain. Had Bush stayed the course in Afghanistan, and pursued Osama 24/7 since 2001, rather than just a few weeks ago as announced, these people might not be dead. Their blood is on George Bush's hands. It's time for regime change here in the US. Out the door in 2004. The phrase "Bush lied, people died" hasn't had this somber a meaning in quite a while.

>LOL!! That's what you consider 9/11 to be - a "poke". On

>September 11, Al Qaeda took a poke at us. No wonder you're so

>non-chalant about the need to destroy them. All they did was

>take a poke at us, so what's all the fuss?

Yes, Doug, I do think of it as a "poke." Tragic as the deaths were, for a country of 300 million people a terrorist attack killing 3.000 is not much of a blow compared to what countries like Israel have suffered in the past couple of years. Do the math yourself.

>And I genuinely don't understand how you can object to the

>word "appeasement" to describe your viewpoint. To appease

>simply means to accomodate someone's wishes in order to

>diminish their anger. How is this inaccurate in the slightest

>when applied to your view as to what should be done about Al

>Qaeda?

What should be done about Al Qaeda in my view is to identify its leaders and operatives wherever they may be and bring them to justice. How you can characterize that as "appeasement" is one of the enduring mysteries of this board.

>You may want to look into the ideology of extreme Islam. They

>believe that they are destined to rule the world and to be the

>most powerful and dominant. Any country which undermines or

>contravenes that view is a dangerous infidel and must be

>destroyed.

>

>So the only way they will stop hating us and wanting to

>destroy us, at least according to them, is if we become

>subservient to them and less powerful and advanced than they

>are.

You know, that sounds awfully familiar. Where have I heard that before? Oh yes! It's the exact same thing the Right used to say about the "world Communist conspiracy." You guys kept saying that right up until the "world Communist conspiracy" fell apart from its own internal problems. And now you have simply taken the same speeches you used in those days and changed "Communist" into "terrorist." Very economical.

The truth is that our nation betrayed the principles on which it was founded by supporting a bunch of dictators and murderers in the Muslim world (including Saddam Hussein and Osama) because they did our bidding in various ways, the same strategy we have employed in South America, Africa and elsewhere. And the results of that strategy have been the same in the Muslim world as elsewhere. Either we end up fighting the dictators we once supported when they turn on us (as happened with Saddam and Osama) or we end up fighting the people who replace them and who hate us because we supported their oppressors (as happened with the Shah). And when anyone questions that incredibly stupid strategy, you yell "Appeasement!" How many times do you have to fall into the same hole before you finally learn to take a different path?

>your recognition of what the effects

>would be of a successful establishment of a democratic Iraq

>(i.e., that it would undermine Al Qaeda) precludes you from

>claiming, at least with any sanity, that there is no link

>between going to war in Iraq and the fight against Al Qaeda

>(which is occurring becasue they took a poke at us a few years

>ago).

That's ridiculous, Doug. The only "link" is the one we created by our own stupid policy of meddling in the affairs of other countries so that we can get the price we want for their oil. I think just about everyone reading this thread can see how absurd it is for your lot to get us involved in a fight between two equally repugnant groups and then, when the rest of us (or the people of Spain) question whether we should be involved in that fight at all, shout "Appeasement, Appeasement!"

>>Speaking of Sharon, why is it that the outrage you folks on

>>the Right expressed about terrorist influence on the Spanish

>>election was nowhere to be seen during the past few years in

>>which Palestinian terrorist groups have successfully

>>influenced the Israeli elections? Oh, I get it -- you only

>>object to terrorists swinging elections when it means YOUR

>>candidate loses.

>There's a rather fundamental difference between taking actions

>which incidentally alter an alection (as the Palestineans do

>when they engage in terrorism) and deliberately causing the

>election of a particular party by planning an attack

>immediately prior to the election with that purpose (as Al

>Qaeda did in Spain).

Oh come off it. The leaders of Hamas and IJ would have to be comatose not to realize how effective their attacks have been in scuttling any effective negotiations between the PA and Israel (it just happened again this week, in case you didn't notice) and undermining the positions of the Israeli Left. You think they're incapable of picking up a newspaper or turning on a television to read opinion polls and see how Israeli voters react to what they are doing? If that is NOT what they want to achieve, why continue doing it?

RE: Polling

Do you really not recognize the extent to which you think and speak in cliches:

>Bush abandoned the war on

>terror to invade iraq (for Poppy and Halliburton)

>Had Bush stayed the course in Afghanistan, and

>pursued Osama 24/7 since 2001,

>Their blood

>is on George Bush's hands.

>It's time for regime change here

>in the US.

>Out the door in 2004.

>"Bush lied,

>people died"

That's almost the entirety of your post - nothing but platitutdes and slogans. And anyone who thinks that capturing Osama bin Laden will end terrorism or even significantly diminish it understands the world in Disney terms - like if you capture the big bad guy, the world lives in peace. Just inane.

And if capturing OBL is so important because he causes terrorism, how is the failure to capture him Bush's fault? Since 9/11, there have been Al Qaeda attacks in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Morocco, Jordan, Iraq and Spain, resulting in the deaths of enormous nubmers of citizens from those countries and others, most prominently Australia.

Why aren't the leaders of those countries responsible for capturing OBL? How could anyone say that Bush has the blood of the Madrid victims on his hands because he didn't capture OBL when none of these other countries did either? How truly fucking stupid.

RE: Polling

It's time for regime change here

>in the US. Out the door in 2004. The phrase "Bush lied,

>people died" hasn't had this somber a meaning in quite a

>while.

Very good BoN. But will there actually be a election??

A former State Department was on a Fox program last night, and he said with a straight face that our election in November would be called off if a 'similar event that happened in Madrid takes place right before Nov. 2'.

The dictatorship continues.