Madrid Terrorism/spanish Election

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Your mere stating of the obvious (The voters in Spain got rid of the party which led them into Iraq)[/b]

Thats not what I&#39;ve been saying at all, this can be verified by anyone who cares.

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>doesn&#39;t make me the bad guy, lefty, nor do your continued taking of liberties with my supposed "intent".[/b]

If I had read your intent incorrectly you would have quickly corrected me and clarified your exact meaning. Instead you&#39;ve went way off topic with your "defence". This just confirms that my original analysis of your intent was correct.

Do I need to quote you a 3rd time to settle this "intent" issue?

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
If you believe so firmly that I am the embodiment of evil, and that you are the cure, I suggest you start a thread to that effect, and solicit opinions.[/quote]

You&#39;re a disingenious political opportunist. If your looking for a one word adjective I think "false" is more apt than "evil".

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
I won&#39;t object; indeed, if you choose to do so, I wish to communicate to the mods that I wouldn&#39;t mind one bit-in fact, I desire it greatly.

Call it an experiment.[/quote]

I wouldn&#39;t dream of granting your ego the satisfaction and I won&#39;t allow you to deflect attention away from your disingenious opportunism so easily. I am quite content with pointing out your cynical attempts to turn atrocities into political points. Or "patriotism" as I&#39;m sure you perceive it.

Again.. if you want to return to the topic and talk about the bombings in Spain don&#39;t hesitate. But playing this little game of "you said this", "I didn&#39;t say that" is pointless when the original text is only a mouse click away.

[j2k4]

Why not start afresh?

You&#39;ve fouled this thread beyond all recognition and use with your disregard for a legible form as to quotes, etc.

Why put others through that?

No need for a new thread; just pick a point and let&#39;s go from there, lefty.

Anything you like; you don&#39;t even have to restrict yourself to the current topic-just pick one thing, and we will proceed.

I have to go to work, now, but I shall return.

The ball is in your court.

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You&#39;ve fouled this thread beyond all recognition and use with your disregard for a legible form as to quotes, etc.[/b]

Disregard for a legible form as to quotes. etc?? You seem to have a disregard for a legible sentence.

I posted your own words to prove your intent. Yet again.. if I had done so incorrectly you could easily point it out and... yet again you fail to do so.

If this thread has been fouled up, then it is your diversionary &#39;tactic&#39; of not addressing the topic for the last 4 posts which is to blame.

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>No need for a new thread; just pick a point and let&#39;s go from there, lefty.

Anything you like; you don&#39;t even have to restrict yourself to the current topic ()&nbsp; -just pick one thing, and we will proceed.

I have to go to work, now, but I shall return.

The ball is in your court.[/b]

You take us off topic, repeatedly refuse to address any of the issues or accusations I send your way and now it&#39;s my responsibility to get us back on topic? Hilarious..

However.. to show my good will and highlight your inadequacy, heres a starting point...

Originally posted by leftism
To make it explicitly honest lets go over your post again.

You offered 2 options.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4

@

My point is that:
1. The Spanish electorate either was much less-than-enamored of Aznar than was assumed, and/or:

2. They were struck by fear and awe of the attack to the extent they chose, in a rather expedited sense, to cast a vote they would not have, otherwise.

Aznar would have lost anyway or the Spanish are cowards. Thats exactly what you said. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about my summation of your point.

The 3rd widely accepted option (that you rejected from the start) was that the combination of an extremely unpopular war and an astoundingly cynical handling of the bombings caused the surprise election result.
[/quote]

Your purpose, as always, is to attack anyone and anything that doesn&#39;t concur with US foreign policy and to go wildly off topic when you cant defend your position.

Your aim is to discredit the decision of the Spanish as an act of cowardice because it, in turn, discredits your Gvts decision to go to war with Iraq and threatens the PR exercise that is the "coalition of the willing".

<!--QuoteBegin-Zapatero (new Spanish Leader)

The war in Iraq was a disaster, the occupation of Iraq is a disaster.
...
Bush and Blair need to engage in some self-criticism over their decision to invade Iraq.[/quote]

I&#39;m not going to replay this little charade of yours for a 2nd time j2k4. I suggest you collect your thoughts so I don&#39;t need to do it for you again

[j2k4]

Okay-

The best I could get out of that post was this quote, which you say is a demonstration of your goodwill.

So be it.

Quote=leftism
However.. to show my good will and highlight your inadequacy, heres a starting point...

Originally posted by leftism+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>To make it explicitly honest lets go over your post again.

Explicitly honest?

Okay.

I&#39;ll throw in some clarity for free.

You offered 2 options.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4

My point is that:
1. The Spanish electorate either was much less-than-enamored of Aznar than was assumed, and/or:

2. They were struck by fear and awe of the attack to the extent they chose, in a rather expedited sense, to cast a vote they would not have, otherwise.

Aznar would have lost anyway or the Spanish are cowards. Thats exactly what you said. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about my summation of your point.

They are observations, lefty, not options.

My aim was to discern which of the two observations was more true.

That the Spanish electorate was not pleased with Aznar&#39;s governance was, to my way of thinking, a condition which may have been aggravated by the perception of a lie (the ETA attribution), but was, in the main, just another complaint on the pile which ultimately did led Aznar&#39;s party to defeat.

The second observation simply noted the fear and awe (check the definition) the Spanish people no doubt felt at these tragic events.

It&#39;s okay they felt these things, lefty-they are human, after all, and relative to my first observation, I don&#39;t think that the bombings, in and of themselves, could have been responsible for the massive swing in the vote that you alluded to.



The 3rd widely accepted option (that you rejected from the start) was that the combination of an extremely unpopular war and an astoundingly cynical handling of the bombings caused the surprise election result.
[/b][/quote]

The "3rd option" you claim I ignored fits rather neatly under the heading of my first observation.

How exactly is it you claim I "rejected (it) from the start"?

I didn&#39;t address it at all in the form you claim; as I said earlier in this post, I presumed this instance of "astoundingly cynical handling of the bombings" to be just the latest in a long litany of complaints about Aznar&#39;s government, and thus not worthy of separate note.

I trust I&#39;ve made that clear, and not deviated sufficiently from my prior posts to give you cause to carp further on this specific point.

Okay, then-

What&#39;s next, lefty?

Edit: spelling

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
2. They were struck by fear and awe of the attack to the extent they chose, in a rather expedited sense, to cast a vote they would not have, otherwise.[/b]

Of course they were struck by fear. Whether they are cowards or not depends on their reaction to it. They could have been struck by fear and said "OK, now we&#39;ve got to send more people to Iraq to sort this out properly".

You have accused them of wanting to get there troops out of Iraq due to fear.

This is, quite clearly, an accusation of cowardice and no amount of revisionism on your part is going to change that.

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The "3rd option" you claim I ignored fits rather neatly under the heading of my first observation. [/b]

More revisionism

Your 1st "observation" clearly refers to the polls taken before the bombings being incorrect. Now you&#39;re trying to say that this "observation" included the bombings and the Gvts reaction to it? Sure...

Originally posted by j2k4
How exactly is it you claim I "rejected (it) from the start"?

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
Many are claiming the train bombings in Madrid threw the election to the Socialists rather than Jose Maria Aznar, who was expected to win.
....
Something else is afoot, I think.
[/quote]

What "many are claiming" is exactly what I am arguing, (Aznars cynical handling of the bombings caused him to lose) therefore you rejected it from the start.

Now this next part is where you start to get really silly.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
I presumed this instance of "astoundingly cynical handling of the bombings" to be just the latest in a long litany of complaints about Aznar&#39;s government, and thus not worthy of separate note.[/quote]

1. The Gvt sends troops into Iraq.
2. This causes a terrorist atrocity.
3. The Gvt tries to avoid responsibility by blaming it on ETA to make it seem that their decision to send troops into Iraq had nothing to do with the bombings.

You call this "just another complaint" that&#39;s "not worthy of separate note"???

Nonsense.

It is, obviously, the main cause of Aznar losing the election. If he had handled the bombings in a more honourable(check the definition) manner he would still be in power.

[lynx]

Rather than make presumptions about what the Spanish people might or might not have done had there been no bombs in Madrid, I prefer to listen to what the people themselves have said, it seems to solve the problem of "what if".

It has been widely shown on ALL tv channels (in the UK at least) that the overwhelming majority of voters who said they had changed their support away from the Popular Party had done so because of the way Aznar and his government had tried to make political capital out of this dreadful atrocity by continuing to blame ETA when it was becoming increasingly clear that Al Qaeda was probably to blame. From the proportion who said they had changed their support in this way, Aznar&#39;s government could have had a fairly comfortable victory. That said I will concede that some may have changed their support anyway, linking the bombing to Spain&#39;s involvement in the Iraq war.

Let&#39;s have a look at who has given Al Qaeda the &#39;victory&#39; it sought (although I doubt they care very much one way or the other).

The voters voted against the tactics of the government - although this would not have occured if there had been no attack, it is not directly related to the attack. The government blamed ETA - not what Al Qaeda wanted otherwise they would not have claimed responsibility. No-one made Aznar&#39;s government blame ETA, they did that all on their own.

So it is the former Spanish government who caused their own downfall, not Al Qaeda. And if Al Qaeda got what it wanted it is the fault of Aznar&#39;s government.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism@17 March 2004 - 12:34
It is, obviously, the main cause of Aznar losing the election. If he had handled the bombings in a more honourable(check the definition) manner he would still be in power.

You&#39;ve made my point about the presumptive "superiority" of your views rather nicely, lefty.

There is no way you can know this to be true, you are certainly not the prognosticator you make yourself out to be.

Statements such as this are why I facetiously asked you previously if you were Spanish; your pose as a prescient is stunning:

You actually have the gall to suppose that you know what other people think, and their motivations for thinking what they do.

That&#39;s it.

I am well and truly finished with you.

Unless you humor me, in which case I might deign to castigate you for your inanity once again.

On second thought, strike that last; cyber-ink, while cheap, should nonetheless not be wasted.

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
<!--QuoteBegin-leftism
It is, obviously, the main cause of Aznar losing the election. If he had handled the bombings in a more honourable(check the definition) manner he would still be in power.

There is no way you can know this to be true, you are certainly not the prognosticator you make yourself out to be.[/b][/quote]

See lynx&#39;s post above, reread the posts in this thread from mrcall1969 and read the comments on various news websites from people in Spain.

In any case, my argument is more likely than yours i.e that the Spanish want their troops out of Iraq because they are cowards without the stomach for a fight.

I&#39;m done with you. At least until the next time you attempt to make political capital from an atrocity.

[mrcall1969]

Originally posted by j2k4@16 March 2004 - 07:58
And now Hobbes and I are elitist into the bargain?

What is it makes you think we&#39;re not more-or-less par, mrcall1969?

I am rather lowly and normal, if I say so myself; don&#39;t assume you&#39;ve got the market cornered on that score.

Although I may be more even-tempered than you.

What I meant by &#39;lowly&#39; was a large percentage of the population here, not politicians. No, I did&#39;t not mean that yourself and Hobbes were elitist.

j2k4, In answer to your PM, No I do not have a personal problem with you that goes beyond your beliefs. How could I? I don&#39;t know you, alll I have to go on is how you quote your beliefs on this board, which I admit I find disturbing, just as I am sure you find many other peoples views disturbing.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by mrcall1969@18 March 2004 - 15:33
[j2k4, In answer to your PM, No I do not have a personal problem with you that goes beyond your beliefs. How could I? I don&#39;t know you, alll I have to go on is how you quote your beliefs on this board, which I admit I find disturbing, just as I am sure you find many other peoples views disturbing.

I thank you for your gracious response to my PM.