The election in Spain has sent a strong message.

If Bush, Aznar, and the rest of the neocons thought that they were going to win in Spain as a result of the terrorist attacks, they were highly mistaken. The majority of Spaniards did not want to commit troops to Iraq. This should send a strong message to the governments in London, Rome, The Hague, Warsaw, Copenhagen, Canberra, and the other countries not to go against the will of their own people in joining in America's half-baked quest for world domination. I am certain al-Qaeda has their sights set on the capitals I just mentioned.

John

John,

I agree. And I hope those asleep at the wheel in this United States wake up and vote Bush out.

And many happy returns!

:toast:

rockymountain fellow dem.

Then, my guess right before our elections, they'll blow something up in some mid-sized American towm. A mall? A HS sporting event? A disco?It's going to be a rough year...

The attacks in Madrid may well be the beginning. It could happen in D.C., again in New York, Seattle, or even a small town like Lawrence, Kansas. I can only wonder if people will finally get the message. Bush and his crime family have told us that we are all safer since we attacked Iraq. Are we all safer? Ask the people of Madrid that question.


John

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Azner pissed off basically the entire country.

Ninety percent were opposed to the Iraq war...

It's called democracy...

You are not playing it straight, figures.

Conservative propaganda here folks! Stupid logic though. It’s based on the notion that terrorist WANT what these people think are “soft” on terrorism. Problem is you put someone in office that will not strike first ask questions later BUT ask the questions first, what happens to the terrorist movement? IT DIES! I’m sorry but I have to call you an idiot to think that our tough fist doesn’t promote terrorism, but instead prevent it. Dumb dumb dumb dumb……you want to wipe out terrorism, don’t give them a reason to commit terrorist acts. That means making the world a better place for everyone. But that’s not what you want now is it when you make a stupid comment like this.

Inquiring minds want to know.

"Never, ever give in to terrorism."

You're damned right! After decades of greedy, misguided, oppressive U.S. terrorism--a.k.a energy/foreign policy (particularly in the Middle East,)--that is exactly the very painful lesson we learned on 9-11.

LOL! Open a book, genius.

(Back to lurking...)

the question for me is - who, exactly, are "they" - ?

:tinfoilhat:

:eyes:

and if it is in the U.S., you can almost bet that bush will win, because he will play the fear card...

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

weaker-spined creatures back into bush's arms. They'd feel compelled to "Stand By Our President." Especially if they perceived a "them agin' us" scent to it. Which they would. And which the republi-CONS wouldn't hesitate to exploit.

NO, our masses would likely NOT react the way the Spanish voters did. Not by a long shot. They'd be more inclined to want to "show them durn fur'ners" instead.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Maybe I'm too out of touch, but when did those responsible for the bombings in Spain demand that the Spanish oust Aznar and the conservatives? Seems to me that the folks over there decided to do that all on their own instead of "caving to terrorist demands".

attempt to mislead them right after the bombing. They instantly came out blaming ETA until evidence to the contrary began piling up. The protest Saturday night was in front of the Popular Party's headquarters. People in Spain were unhappy with Aznar's party BEFORE the bombings and their conduct afterward sealed their fate.

did not want Spain to support the U.S. in Iraq. This was a message because of that

sounds like crap I'd hear of Faux News.

Listen, buddy, if you don't like democracy, leave the country, ok?

Azner went against the wishes of NINETY PERCENT of the country, and his party paid the price...

CerealMurderer is a one trick pony. Its getting old
Scott

or have no desire to really deal with Al-Qaeda. Just maybe they voted for a government who has no design's on other country's oil and no taste for imperial dreams of conquest.

Maybe they want to deal with terrorists as the criminals they are. I know that is how Kerry, like Clinton, will deal with it. And we won't create a whole new growth industry of war profiteers to do it, either.

So you're saying if al-Queda can scare the people into voting for government officials who won't go after terrorists, that they would be able to operate more freely in order to accomplish their objectives of a world ruled by Islamic law. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

It has been my contention that the natural place for regimes based upon Islamic law to expand next would be Europe. The continent is already seeing an increase in population by those who hold to Islamic beliefs.

I suppose time will tell.

The continent is already seeing an increase in population by those who hold to Islamic beliefs.

-- "Heathen At the Doorstep", Act I, Scene 1

:eyes:

That's all. Conjecture worth paying attention to based upon similar things happening in world history.

I'm curious about what kind of dim future you envision for a Europe burdened with an increasing Muslim population. Islam, like Christianity, can accurately be associated with both the heights of human learning and ethics and the basement of religious fanaticism and persecution. Would I be wrong to assume that your vision of a Europe with an ever-larger Muslim representation involves the basement association?

Yes, you would be wrong in assuming. I simply said it's worth paying attention to the demographics and noted that it is my personal contention that a regime interested in expanding Islamic law would naturally look to Europe. I pass no judgment on whether or not it would ever take place, or if it did, what it would mean to Europe.

Do you believe that governments based upon Islamic law will be content to remain in what is traditionally considered to be their homelands, or do you believe they would eventually like to expand their control into new territories?

tend toward colonization and empire eventually because colonization increases power. Whether that can be constrained morally is an open question, but the temptation is very real and very human, and I see no reason any given Islamic government should be any more or less tempted in that way. Replace "Islamic" in your question with "Christian" or "secular", and you have the same question.

Certainly history has shown us that governments desire increasing power and influence in many different ways. That is, until it reaches a boiling point, the people storm the Bastille and demand change, and then 30 years later you get Napoleon, and it starts all over.

I say that to demonstrate that human nature desires government for order, which eventually becomes more than was intended, and that is the history of the world, something of which I see you've also noted.

I suppose my core beliefs come down to this: I don't expect mankind to change anytime soon.

Having said that, I still find the posters assertation that terrorists would desire governments in Europe who they rightly or wrongly believe would be less likely to pursue them as an interesting consideration. I certainly admit the thought had crossed my mind.

Low post count, and insisting that voting left "lets the terrorists win."

Naah... couldn't be.

it's amazing the depths to which some sink...

somehow, I got deleted for calling him on it earlier.

gonzo.

:) love the sig pic JeanMarc
Scott

but let the experiment continue

You mean like we did in Iraq? Remember, where we slaughtered thousands of innocent people? I guess it's only terrorism in your book when it happens to Americans or Europeans.

Here's how it works:

1) We assume al-Qaeda are rational actors. Indeed, the Republican spin assumes just that: Al-Qaeada has a set of strategies and goals, and uses force to implement its goals, based in part on precedent. The assumption here is that all rational actors consider precedent carefully when making decisions (i.e., rely on induction as a form of reasoning about action).

2) All recent precedent has shown that populations of Western/Westernized countries under terrorist threat behave more rather than less conservative. For evidence, we would show the rightward shift in the US immediately following September 11, the pro-government feeling in Australia immediately following the Bali bombings, and the general rightward leaning of the Israeli population as each intifada expanded its scope.

3) If al-Qaeda are rational actors, and precedents point to a rightward shift, then one should assume that the bombings were intended to produce a rightward shift in Spain, turning the PP's victory from slim to huge, thereby radicalizing the Spanish populace and furthering polarizing the EU. In fact, a leftward swing seems stupid given al-Qaeda's objectives of instigating an intensifying conflict between the West and Islam.

4) Therefore, the Spanish people's decision to oust their rightwing government was NOT a victory for al-Qaeda, but precisely the opposite of what they expected and desired.

QED