Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Spanish bombing proves Iraqi/AQ link.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Timefortruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-04 01:00 PM
Original message
Spanish bombing proves Iraqi/AQ link.
That is the new talking point, and I think it may stick. People don't realize that the bombings in Spain and the invasion are separated by a year. They don't realize that the invasion simply created more angry young Arab men, ripe for AQ recruitment. They will think that this is some sort proof that the two were connected all along.

How can one explain something so complicated in one sentence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AngryYoungMan Donating Member (856 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-04 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. Say, "Clearly the 'mission' isn't 'accomplished' at all."
Just a start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-04 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. I agree. let's run with it
AQ is based in Iraq. Of course, since we, theoretically, rule Iraq, it's all our fault, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryYoungMan Donating Member (856 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-04 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
3. Or, conversely, "'Taking out' Hussein wasn't very effective, was it?"
Edited on Mon Mar-15-04 01:06 PM by AngryYoungMan

"I guess we should have focused on bin Laden instead."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-04 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Hmm, so I guess Bush was wrong
When he said that he didn't know and didn't care where bin Laden was, because he wasn't our priority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
a_random_joel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-04 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. I hope that IS the new talking point!
Easily defused...

There were no AQ in Iraq before the war. There are now. Told ya so.

Next talking point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
9215 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-04 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. hmmmm.....let me see
Now who would want to link the attacks in Spain to Al Qaeda to promote the idea that Al Qaeda was reacting to Spain's involvement in Iraq?

As the Roman playwright Seneca warns us, "Cui prodest scelus, is fecit"-- the one who derives advantage from the crime is the one most likely to have committed it.


Now, when we learn that Al Qaeda has worked, or is working, with the CIA as in the Balkans (Google: Chossudovsky+"trans-balkan pipeline") we must ask a deeper question: who controls Al Qaeda?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mobuto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-04 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
6. If that were the case
then when Al Qaeda was attacking us because they wanted us to get our troops out of Saudi Arabia (which we did, btw), does that indicate an Al Qaeda-Saudi Government connection?

Of course not. The argument is just as fallacious anyway you spin it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryYoungMan Donating Member (856 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-04 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Right, but the point here is combating a talking point, not explaining it.
It's not the same thing. Republicans understand the distinction. So many of their utterances are just "sand in the eyes" while they wind up for the takedown punch. This thread is about doing the same thing to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-04 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
7. Forget about subtlety....
If you can't explain something to a typical RWer in a short, less-than-8-word sentence, you'll never make them understand. Also, if it isn't black-and-white, them-vs-us or too "in-tell-ek-chooal", there's no use trying to make a point or explain what's really happening.
:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ksec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-04 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
9. What happened to the lower oil prices
that were supposed to happen post saddam?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gasperc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-04 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
10. proves how bad our security really is, were not safer after Iraq
If capturing Iraq was supposed to make us safer, then how do we explain the subway bombings? They didn't use WMD, which they may or may not have, they killed hundreds of people, crippled the subway system in that area, and terrified millions.

How are we safer? Billions have been spent on Iraq. Billions that could have been spent on better non-invasive bomb detection methods, better tracking and identifying of citizens with criminal intent.

How are we safer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Homer12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-04 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
11. That is the crappiest logic I've heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-04 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
13. insHannity started that one, or at least is repeating it
Where do you start with people like this? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zero Gravitas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-04 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
14. Bring It On
If these idiots are going to try and use these bombings to somehow imply that Saddam was connected to Al Qaeda then they're even stupider than we thought. Do they really think that people will believe that AQ bombed those trains because Osama's buddy was kicked out of power? Puh-lease!

These bombings happened because of Bush's invasion of Iraq. The religious psychos were not in any way harmed or deterred by Bush's war, they were only further enraged by it. Al Qaeda was not damaged in any way by what happened in Iraq, but they do have a bigger pool of potential recruits now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 05:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC