Madrid Terrorism/spanish Election [Archive]

leftism

03-15-2004, 05:53 PM

It seems quite straightforward to me.

The Spanish people were against the war and have suffered a massive terrorist attack because of their countries involvement in it. The Gvt tried very hard to make out it was ETA, because to admit that a policy that <20% of the electorate supported caused the worst terrorist attack in European history is not a vote winner.

I suspect they would have kept this up until after they won the election and then they would have switched over to the "It was Al-Queda" camp.

The Spanish people clearly have more sense than the politicians gave them credit for and rejected the Gvt for their utterly cynical handling of the bombings and for their involvement in Iraq.

Put into this context a massive swing to the anti-war socialist side is not surprising.

One more point, they didn't "win big", here are the results.

Socialists won 42% of the vote
Popular Party (former Gvt): 38% of the vote

I don't think we need to look for conspiracy theories to explain this one.

EDIT:

I think this pic says it all, in case anyones been living in a cave for the last week Aznar is the former president.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39888000/jpg/_39888854_protestsignbbcbody.jpg

j2k4

03-15-2004, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by leftism@15 March 2004 - 14:53

Put into this context a massive swing to the anti-war socialist side is not surprising.

One more point, they didn't "win big", here are the results.

Socialists won 42% of the vote
Popular Party (former Gvt): 38% of the vote

I don't think we need to look for conspiracy theories to explain this one.
Any win by the Socialists in Spain must be characterized as big, lefty.

You yourself termed the swing towards the Socialists as "massive".

So, you've concluded that Aznar would have lost anyway; interesting.

BTW-"Something else is afoot, I think" is not so suggestive of a conspiracy, now, is it?

Must you continually assign motivations where none exist?

leftism

03-15-2004, 06:27 PM

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'>So, you've concluded that Aznar would have lost anyway; interesting.[/b]

No, I did not, if you disagree then please quote the relevant part of my post that led you to believe this.

I attributed their victory mostly to the governments handling of the bombings. i.e if the Spanish had not been attacked then Aznar would probably have won.

What would have happened anyway is that Aznar would have lost a significant amount of support. Considering that 80-90% of the population were against the war surely it was to be expected?

To conclude, and to make my meaning crystal clear..

Aznar would have lost a lot of support anyway, his Gvts cynical handling of the bombings made the difference, and it was a big enough difference to cause him to lose the election.

Originally posted by j2k4@
BTW-"Something else is afoot, I think" is not so suggestive of a conspiracy, now, is it?

Well.. if you don't think the bombings were the primary cause of Aznar losing then what other alternatives do you have in mind? I thought you were referring to the election being rigged because there is absolutely nothing else that could account for the result. If you have an alternative suggestion then please share it.

EDIT:
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Any win by the Socialists in Spain must be characterized as big, lefty[/quote]

They governed Spain from 1982-1996, they're hardly outsiders with no experience of Government. In US terms the Popular Party are the Republicans and the Socialists are the Democrats. Now, if one or the other didn't get in.. that would be big.

j2k4

03-15-2004, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by leftism+15 March 2004 - 15:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 15 March 2004 - 15:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
BTW-"Something else is afoot, I think" is not so suggestive of a conspiracy, now, is it?

Well.. if you don't think the bombings were the primary cause of Aznar losing then what other alternatives do you have in mind? I thought you were referring to the election being rigged because there is absolutely nothing else that could account for the result. If you have an alternative suggestion then please share it.

[/b][/quote]
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.

That seems pretty straightforward to me.

They would rather hand Al Qaida a clear-cut victory than give the impression they would resist terrorism.

This last, of course, assumes Aznar would have won (as was apparently expected) in the event the bombings had not occurred.

j2k4

03-15-2004, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by leftism+15 March 2004 - 15:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 15 March 2004 - 15:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>EDIT:
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Any win by the Socialists in Spain must be characterized as big, lefty

They governed Spain from 1982-1996, they're hardly outsiders with no experience of Government. In US terms the Popular Party are the Republicans and the Socialists are the Democrats. Now, if one or the other didn't get in.. that would be big.[/b][/quote]
The burgeoning Spanish economy was expected to carry the day for Aznar, I hear; this is what accounts for the "surprise" of his defeat, and my characterization of the Socialist's win as "big".

I did not in any way attempt to paint them as political neophytes, lefty, and I wish you'd stop using that tactic-it doesn't aid your efforts.

leftism

03-15-2004, 07:26 PM

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'>Must you continually assign motivations where none exist?[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
They would rather hand Al Qaida a clear-cut victory than give the impression they would resist terrorism.[/quote]

As soon as I heard about the election result in Spain I knew you'd be straight on here painting the Spanish as cowards or saying that they handed Al-Queda a "victory".

What else could I expect from an opportunist such as yourself? You've already been warned by a mod about this political opportunism in the "Spain Support" thread. It was the same deal with the Dr Shipman murders. There you were calling people opposed to the death penalty stupid, only to quickly retract your statements when you realised many of the families of Shipmans victims were against the death penalty.

So here you are again... painting the Spanish as cowards who would rather bow down to Al-Queda than "fight the good fight" with you guys in Iraq.

The Spanish were betrayed by their Gvt who led them into a war they didn't want, they were further betrayed when the Gvt tried to lay the blame on ETA in a cynical political damage limitation strategy. The Gvt suffered because of it. It's as simple as that.

They are not cowards or afraid to fight, nor are they "struck by fear and awe". One only needs to look at the last 100 years of Spanish history to see that the Spanish temperament doesn't involve cowardice.

They have simply chosen to fight terrorism in a different way. i.e not go charging around the world on wild goose chases looking for WMD that just happen to be located in the country with the worlds 2nd largest oil reserves.

More power to them, I hope the UK follows suit soon. Let the US Gvt do its dirty oil grabbing work on its own. If we are to sacrifice our people in terrorist attacks and wars then I would rather they were the result of supporting a legitimate cause, not Halliburtons latest venture into the Middle East dressed up as anti-terrorism.

btw, I would like to see you goto Spain and explain to the people there how they are "struck by fear and awe" and have handed "Al Qaida a clear-cut victory ". You wouldn't get out of there alive, hell... you've offended me and I was expecting you to do this and I'm not even Spanish.

Congratulations j2k4, your machiavellian opportunism has reached an all time high. I suggest you get on the campaign trail with the rest of those snakes, you're 'talents' are wasted here.

Biggles

03-15-2004, 07:45 PM

A year ago the Popular Party looked down and out. It was the relative quiet after the war and the slow recovery of the Euro economy that returned support to the PP.

The bombings and the rather unedifying attempts to pin it on ETA, regardless to pointers to the contrary, that reminded a number of Spaniards why they did not like the PP. In addition Aznar was retiring and his replacement lacklustre. As in any election, the majority voted for the party of their choice come what may, as ever, the 10% who are volatile swing a result one way or another (unless you are Putin :blink: ).

At the end of the day a number of people said "sod the economic recovery, I really don't like these people."

The PP were instrumental in their own downfall.

I may be wrong, but another increasingly disliked politician is Berlesconi. I am concerned that they may well be in the line of fire also.

Edit: to remove the musical ambiguity.

j2k4

03-15-2004, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by leftism+15 March 2004 - 16:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 15 March 2004 - 16:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@
Must you continually assign motivations where none exist?

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
They would rather hand Al Qaida a clear-cut victory than give the impression they would resist terrorism.

As soon as I heard about the election result in Spain I knew you'd be straight on here painting the Spanish as cowards or saying that they handed Al-Queda a "victory".

What else could I expect from an opportunist such as yourself? You've already been warned by a mod about this political opportunism in the "Spain Support" thread. It was the same deal with the Dr Shipman murders. There you were calling people opposed to the death penalty stupid, only to quickly retract your statements when you realised many of the families of Shipmans victims were against the death penalty.

So here you are again... painting the Spanish as cowards who would rather bow down to Al-Queda than "fight the good fight" with you guys in Iraq.

The Spanish were betrayed by their Gvt who led them into a war they didn't want, they were further betrayed when the Gvt tried to lay the blame on ETA in a cynical political damage limitation strategy. The Gvt suffered because of it. It's as simple as that.

They are not cowards or afraid to fight, nor are they "struck by fear and awe". One only needs to look at the last 100 years of Spanish history to see that the Spanish temperament doesn't involve cowardice.

They have simply chosen to fight terrorism in a different way. i.e not go charging around the world on wild goose chases looking for WMD that just happen to be located in the country with the worlds 2nd largest oil reserves.

More power to them, I hope the UK follows suit soon. Let the US Gvt do its dirty oil grabbing work on its own. If we are to sacrifice our people in terrorist attacks and wars then I would rather they were the result of supporting a legitimate cause, not Halliburtons latest venture into the Middle East dressed up as anti-terrorism.

btw, I would like to see you goto Spain and explain to the people there how they are "struck by fear and awe" and have handed "Al Qaida a clear-cut victory ". You wouldn't get out of there alive, hell... you've offended me and I was expecting you to do this and I'm not even Spanish.

Congratulations j2k4, your machiavellian opportunism has reached an all time high. I suggest you get on the campaign trail with the rest of those snakes, you're 'talents' are wasted here. [/b][/quote]
:huh:

Do you have any deductive ability at all, lefty?

You consistantly jump well beyond anything that would resemble an appropriate response.

Please learn to moderate your tone, sir; you're a bit of a harpy.

Edit: BTW-Do you claim a Spanish heritage?

Your defense of the election result, and defense likewise of it's "meaning", anent Halliburton, Iraq and the U.S., seems to have a fervor which could only be described as religious.

I don't think they need your help, lefty.

leftism

03-15-2004, 08:58 PM

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 consistantly(sic) jump well beyond anything that would resemble an appropriate response.

Please learn to moderate your tone, sir; you're a bit of a harpy.[/b]

My tone is perfectly appropriate given your offensive arguments.

You equated electing a Socialist Gvt who want to withdraw from Iraq as "handing Al-Queda a victory". You are the one who is in need of moderation sir.

As for religious fervour...

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
They would rather hand Al Qaida a clear-cut victory than give the impression they would resist terrorism.[/quote]

Thus.. you believe that only your Gvt knows how to "resist terrorism" and that anyone who strays from the path your Gvt proposes is handing the terrorists a "clear-cut victory".

or to paraphrase..

"We are right and anyone who disagrees with us is not only wrong but is indirectly working against us by handing our enemies a victory"

That seems pretty close to religious fervour to me. ;)

mrcall1969

03-15-2004, 10:26 PM

Got to agree with Leftism on this one. Spain went to a war that the majority of its citizens didn't want. The government then tried to deflect the blame of the bombings in Madrid to ETA, in my opinion to try and deflect the outrage that would be caused away from the government.

The PP losing is what democracy and politics is all about, the people didn't like what the government was doing and voted against them.

"This supposedly indicates the willingness of the Spanish people (80-90% against supporting America in Iraq) "supporting America" appears to be the real reason that this thread was started.

hobbes

03-16-2004, 02:27 AM

So the people of Spain opposed supporting America in Iraq.

The government went against these wishes and drew the attention of Al-queda.

In response, Al-Queda killed the people of Spain.

The Popular party was favored to remain in power until the bombing.

The people voted out the government that was a threat to Al Queda.

So, Al-Queda, by killing the very Spanish people who opposed the war caused these same people to oust their Al Queda hostile government. That is what you would call a victory for Al-Queda.

Unless, of course, the Popular party was not going to win, bombing or not.

mrcall1969

03-16-2004, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by hobbes@16 March 2004 - 03:27
So the people of Spain opposed supporting America in Iraq.

The governemnt went against these wishes and drew the attention of Al-queda.

In response, Al-Queda killed the people of Spain.

The Popular party was favored to remain in power until the bombing.

The people voted out the government that was a threat to Al Queda.

So, Al-Queda, by killing the very Spanish people who opposed the war caused these same people to oust their Al Queda hostile government. That is what you would call a victory for Al-Queda.

Unless, of course, the Popular party was not going to win, bombing or not.
Hobbes, no, the MAJORITY of people in Spain didn't want to go to war with Iraq. That doesn't mean they support Al-Quada.

The government that supported the war on Iraq, without the backing of the electorate brought about their own downfall. It's not about the war on terrorism or supporting America, it's internal politics. It is really something that outside nations need to keep out of and stop treating it in a "they're with them or us" sort of fashion.

Unless of coure the US think they own everything European.

hobbes

03-16-2004, 03:52 AM

Never said anything of the sort.

Just pointing out that by killing innocent people, Al Queda was able to achieve exactly what it wanted.

That is all I said.

mrcall1969

03-16-2004, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by hobbes@16 March 2004 - 04:52
Never said anything of the sort.

Just pointing out that by killing innocent people, Al Queda was able to achieve exactly what it wanted.

That is all I said.
Sorry, but by bolding certain words in your post made it seem sort of dramatic, maybe thats an American thing?

Think of this though, if Spain had gone with the majority of its citizens wishes, would there still be 200 of its citizens with us tonight???

I've just found out that someone I have socialised with and did the same job as, has perished in the bombings. I could be next, I'm shocked, vbut I still don't want to fight Iraq, am I a coward or a supporter of terrorism? no I just want to do my job and get on wiith my life and let America do its own thing and let the whole middle east do its own thing. just stop mixing in things you dont know anything about

I work in what would be considered a pretty high risk attack for Al-Queada (sp)

I would fight and give up my life for lots of things, war in Iraq is not one of them.

Why should the actions of the government that I voted for at the time make me a greater taget in a "war" that I do NOT want? does that make me coward??

hobbes

03-16-2004, 04:06 AM

The "bold" was done to show the irony that the very people who opposed such action became the victims of Al-Queda. That is how terrorism works, and it worked very effectively here.

What is with the American thing, that does you no credit. And contrary to popular belief Americans do "do" irony.

Pardon the dueling edits, but I have NEVER implied that Spaniards are anything other than people. Don't put words in my mouth.

I merely stated that Al-Queda has to be pleased with their effort.

mrcall1969

03-16-2004, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by hobbes@16 March 2004 - 05:06
The "bold" was done to show the irony that the very people who opposed such action became the victims of Al-Queda. That is how terrorism works, and it worked very effectively here.

What is with the American thing, that does you no credit. And contrary to popular belief Americans do "do" irony.

Pardon the dueling edits, but I have NEVER implied that Spaniards are anything other than people. Don't put words in my mouth.

I merely stated that Al-Queda has to be pleased with their effort.
Hobbes, that is exactly the arguement. If the government of the people had listened to them, then they wouldn't have got involved, hence there wouldn't have been any bombings in Madrid. If the US wants to wage war in Iraq then go ahead, but please don't bring anyone else into it.

I am probably more at risk than you of an attack, do you get searched every morning before you get into your place of work? does your car get searched?? that is the reality of getting involved in a phoney war|!

hobbes

03-16-2004, 04:31 AM

My point was that Al Queda got what it wanted by killing innocent people, that was it. Nothing between the lines, a simple statement.

As for Spain's involvement in the war, that was the fault of their government, period. The US did not make them go.

mrcall1969

03-16-2004, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by hobbes@16 March 2004 - 05:31
My point was that Al Queda got what it wanted by killing innocent people, that was it. Nothing between the lines, a simple statement.

As for Spain's involvement in the war, that was the fault of their government, period. The US did not make them go.
OK, so you are saying it was the Spanish governments fault for going to war that killed 200 of their citizens (including someone that I have socialised with) ??

Just like if an attack here in the UK would be the UK governments fault, or GWB's fault int the US??

Busyman

03-16-2004, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by mrcall1969+16 March 2004 - 00:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mrcall1969 @ 16 March 2004 - 00:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@16 March 2004 - 05:31
My point was that Al Queda got what it wanted by killing innocent people, that was it. Nothing between the lines, a simple statement.

As for Spain's involvement in the war, that was the fault of their government, period. The US did not make them go.
OK, so you are saying it was the Spanish governments fault for going to war that killed 200 of their citizens (including someone that I have socialised with) ??

Just like if an attack here in the UK would be the UK governments fault, or GWB's fault int the US?? [/b][/quote]
If Spain's involvement in Iraq led to the bombing then it is merely cause and effect. It is not America's fault nor Spain's fault. Ultimately is was Spain's decision to go to war. The bombing was an effect of Spain going to war.

If the voter's changed party ties merely because of the bombings, then they are cowards and gave the terrorists what they wanted. This will probably lead to more terrorism if a demand or threat from Al Qaeda is not met.

If they changed party ties because they disagreed with going to war with Iraq that is entirely different but unfortunately it makes Al Qaeda look like they are getting what they wanted anyway.

It's win, win for Al Qaeda

Lose, Lose for Spain.

hobbes

03-16-2004, 04:53 AM

I think based on your personal involvment, that the attack is tragic and only those who were trying to go to work and who were likely against the Iraq War, to begin with, were made victims.

Had the attack not occurred, the election would have been different, some speculate. This indicates that the current regime was not all that bad, despite certain pimples on its face.

Since it did, Al Queda got to kill innocent Spaniards and oust the party they did not want.

As I said in post 1, if the election was going to oust the old party anyway the whole discussion is moot.

The crux of this discussion is that the bombing DID change the election outcome, the veracity of this statement I cannot argue.

But above all else, I will STFU as I can appreciate your emotion on the subject and keep my 3rd party objectivity silent, as now may not be the time or place to express it. Sorry.

mrcall1969

03-16-2004, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by Busyman+16 March 2004 - 05:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 16 March 2004 - 05:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by mrcall1969@16 March 2004 - 00:39
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@16 March 2004 - 05:31
My point was that Al Queda got what it wanted by killing innocent people, that was it. Nothing between the lines, a simple statement.

As for Spain's involvement in the war, that was the fault of their government, period. The US did not make them go.
OK, so you are saying it was the Spanish governments fault for going to war that killed 200 of their citizens (including someone that I have socialised with) ??

Just like if an attack here in the UK would be the UK governments fault, or GWB's fault int the US??
If Spain's involvement in Iraq led to the bombing then it is merely cause and effect. It is not America's fault nor Spain's fault.

If the voter's changed party ties merely because of the bombings, then they are cowards and gave the terrorists what they wanted. This will probably lead to more terrorism if a demand or threat from Al Qaeda is not met.

If they changed party ties because they disagreed with going to war with Iraq that is entirely different but unfortunately it makes Al Qaeda look like they are getting what they wanted anyway.

It's win, win for Al Qaeda

Lose, Lose for Spain. [/b][/quote]
HOW BLINKERED ARE SOME PEOPLE?? between 85 and 90% of the Spanish people didn't want to get involved in a war/massacre in Iraq. Because of their Governments determination to get involved 200 (and rising) people lost their lives.

Now if you take 85-90% of those people that's about 180 people the perished for something that they did not believe in, do any of the pro war on Iraq people think thats acceptable?? and have any of you met any one that has dies in the "fight for freedom"????? coz if so i'd like to meet you!

Edit: sorry for the spelling and grammar, had some bad news that this thread involves

Busyman

03-16-2004, 05:28 AM

Originally posted by mrcall1969+16 March 2004 - 01:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mrcall1969 @ 16 March 2004 - 01:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@16 March 2004 - 05:51

Originally posted by mrcall1969@16 March 2004 - 00:39
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@16 March 2004 - 05:31
My point was that Al Queda got what it wanted by killing innocent people, that was it. Nothing between the lines, a simple statement.

As for Spain's involvement in the war, that was the fault of their government, period. The US did not make them go.
OK, so you are saying it was the Spanish governments fault for going to war that killed 200 of their citizens (including someone that I have socialised with) ??

Just like if an attack here in the UK would be the UK governments fault, or GWB's fault int the US??
If Spain's involvement in Iraq led to the bombing then it is merely cause and effect. It is not America's fault nor Spain's fault.

If the voter's changed party ties merely because of the bombings, then they are cowards and gave the terrorists what they wanted. This will probably lead to more terrorism if a demand or threat from Al Qaeda is not met.

If they changed party ties because they disagreed with going to war with Iraq that is entirely different but unfortunately it makes Al Qaeda look like they are getting what they wanted anyway.

It's win, win for Al Qaeda

Lose, Lose for Spain.
HOW BLINKERED ARE SOME PEOPLE?? between 85 and 90% of the Spanish people didn't want to get involved in a war/massacre in Iraq. Because of their Governments determination to get involved 200 (and rising) people lost their lives.

Now if you take 85-90% of those people that's about 180 people the perished for something that they did not believe in, do any of the pro war on Iraq people think thats acceptable?? and have any of you met any one that has dies in the "fight for freedom"????? coz if so i'd like to meet you!

Edit: sorry for the spelling and grammar, had some bad news that this thread involves [/b][/quote]
That's messed up part about terrorists. They actually go after innocents.
In this case the innocents didn't want to be bothered with Iraq.

I don't know what you are on about with this BLINKERED thing though.

Spain has no choice now but to JOIN the war on terrorism, at least in their own country.

mrcall1969

03-16-2004, 05:38 AM

Busyman, I'm not going to quote you, it would take up too much space and I don't think you're worth it.

You clearly haven't read anything that anyone has posted, if Spain had gone with it's citizens wishes then they would have taken the sensible choice and not gotten involved!

PS I'm not some moral high-groundist.........it's like getting involved in some womens fight in the street.........it doesnt matter what you do, you're going to end up getting slapped, so it's better to leave it alone

Busyman

03-16-2004, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by mrcall1969@16 March 2004 - 01:38
Busyman, I'm not going to quote you, it would take up too much space and I don't think you're worth it.

You clearly haven't read anything that anyone has posted, if Spain had gone with it's citizens wishes then they would have taken the sensible choice and not gotten involved!

PS I'm not some moral high-groundist.........it's like getting involved in some womens fight in the street.........it doesnt matter what you do, you're going to end up getting slapped, so it's better to leave it alone
No offense dude but piss off...

I never disagreed with your post.

I merely stated facts about happenings AFTER the bombing.

It's also obvious that if Spain didn't go to war this wouldn't have happened. Now YOU read my posts again and come back (or not, I really don't care).

I said nothing offensive whatsoever.

I talked about Spain's involvement in the war and the effect. Nothing more.
I never addressed that 90% didn't want the war nor did I disagree.

If your emotional, go to bed, come back when you feel a little better.
Don't get worked up about an internet post that DOESN'T even disagree with you. :blink:

GOOD NIGHT!!! <_<

mrcall1969

03-16-2004, 06:07 AM

After the bombing? I dont't know what you mean..

I've read your post and it really does make no sense to me.

Please do not tell me or anyone on this board to "piss off" you maybe don't take that as an insult, but we here do.

I welcome coherent debate, as most people do, but your post goes beyond that.

Busyman

03-16-2004, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by mrcall1969@16 March 2004 - 02:07
After the bombing? I dont't know what you mean..

I've read your post and it really does make no sense to me.

Please do not tell me or anyone on this board to "piss off" you maybe don't take that as an insult, but we here do.

I welcome coherent debate, as most people do, but your post goes beyond that.
Well you opened that up with your "I don't think you're worth it" remark.

Like I offended you or something.

AFTER the bombing you had an election.

Again if I'm not worth it...why bother posting a reply.....piss off!!

j2k4

03-16-2004, 06:16 AM

Being slapped doesn't bother me if I think I'm right.

Marc, you and lefty both have made the mistake of jumping to conclusions that were not warranted, and indeed did not exist outside your supposition that Spain (as well as, I guess, the U.K.) had it's arm twisted by the U.S. to go into Iraq.

I'm not going to put myself to the trouble, but I wonder if a search of our archive would reveal commentary by either or both of you berating the U.S. for involving itself in Iraq absent an adequate coalition?

I remember well additional posting (I don't remember by who) that, as a result of our "misbegotten" foreign policy, we would, and should be held responsible for every act of terrorism which occurred anywhere in the world.

My intent in starting this thread was to explore the event and it's ramifications; I find it ironic that the only respondent here capable of discerning my aim is another American whose political views are almost diametrically opposed to my own.

As Hobbes has very ably pointed out:

Any way you look at this; the bombings and/or the election, considered from every angle, is a huge victory for Al Qaida.

That is the bottom line, and no amount of quibbling over the particulars is going to change that.

I wish to extend to you my condolences and sympathy at the loss of your friends, but wonder at your ability to lay your grief aside just long enough to lay a guilt-trip on us Americans.

Lefty-

You just earned your way back onto my "ignore" list; you continue to further my impression of you as the Mediterranean Avenue of board members, which is just another way of saying that you are a small property-though, as a theoretical socialist of the first order, you are probably flattered by my capitalist-pig attentions, so never mind.

mrcall1969

03-16-2004, 06:30 AM

Ack.. Yes or no who thinks if Spain hadn't got involved in Iraq, the bombings would'nt have happened???

No the UK or Spain Governments didn't get their "arm twisted" in joining the war on "terrorism". The key word is "governments".

j2k4 and hobbes, come here among the lowly, normal people and ask them about the "war", I guarantee you will get a response that you would not expect or like, however much you think it is on terrorism, the terrorism is much closer to us than you.

mrcall1969

03-16-2004, 06:50 AM

We're going nowhere with this.
But who thinks is Spain hadn't got invlolved the bombings wouldn't have happened??

And who thinks Britain is next, and not just London, try coming to Scotland and getting searched by armed guards before going in to do a job that is supposed to help people (most of them American)

j2k4

03-16-2004, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by mrcall1969@16 March 2004 - 03:30
Ack.. Yes or no who thinks if Spain hadn't got involved in Iraq, the bombings would'nt have happened???

No the UK or Spain Governments didn't get their "arm twisted" in joining the war on "terrorism". The key word is "governments".

j2k4 and hobbes, come here among the lowly, normal people and ask them about the "war", I guarantee you will get a response that you would not expect or like, however much you think it is on terrorism, the terrorism is much closer to us than you.
Okay.

If Spain hadn't joined us in Iraq, I don't imagine they would have been bombed.

Now, a question for you:

Is the U.S. responsible?

Just as responsible as Al Qaida?

More responsible than Al Qaida?

Totally responsible?

And now Hobbes and I are elitist into the bargain?

What is it makes you think we're not more-or-less par, mrcall1969?

I am rather lowly and normal, if I say so myself; don't assume you've got the market cornered on that score. ;)

Although I may be more even-tempered than you.

Busyman

03-16-2004, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by mrcall1969@16 March 2004 - 02:50
We're going nowhere with this.
But who thinks is Spain hadn't got invlolved the bombings wouldn't have happened??

And who thinks Britain is next, and not just London, try coming to Scotland and getting searched by armed guards before going in to do a job that is supposed to help people (most of them American)
I think if Spain hadn't gotten involved the bombings wouldn't have happened call......this time.

leftism

03-16-2004, 01:09 PM

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'>My intent in starting this thread was to explore the event and it's ramifications; [/b]

Sure.... Your intent was correctly identified by mrcall1969

Originally posted by mrcall1969+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mrcall1969)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>supporting America appears to be the real reason that this thread was started.[/b]

Originally posted by j2k4
I find it ironic that the only respondent here capable of discerning my aim is another American whose political views are almost diametrically opposed to my own.

Don't try and hide behind hobbes. There are serious differences between you and him on this issue.

Hobbes is arguing that the Spanish people got rid of their government because they were not acting in accordance with the wishes of the people and that this has caused, albeit inadvertently, a victory for Al-Queda.

You, on the other hand, are arguing that "They were struck by fear and awe of the attack" and thats why they got rid of the Gvt. Because they are scared and would rather sit on the sidelines than fight terrorism.

I recall you offering the Spanish solidarity a few days ago in the "Spain Support" thread. How quickly that sentiment turns to accusations of cowardice as soon as the Spanish people disagree with you.

Originally posted by j2k4
Any way you look at this; the bombings and/or the election, considered from every angle, is a huge victory for Al Qaida.

That is the bottom line, and no amount of quibbling over the particulars is going to change that.

It is, quite obviously, a victory for democracy. The Spanish Gvt went against 90% of their people and then handled the terrorist attacks in a most cynical manner. The Spanish people decided they did not want these people representing them and showed them the door.

This is democracy at work.. yes?

Al-Queda may perceive it to be a victory for them, but it is not. The election result was due to the way the Gvt handled the bombings, not the bombings per se.

If the Spanish Gvt had handled the bombings in a more honest, open and less cynical manner they would still be in power.

This is the fundamental difference between us on this issue. You think the Spanish "chickened out" because they were scared. I think they got rid of a Gvt who no longer represented them or had a shred of credibility left. We assign very different motivations to the same action.

Now lets turn to the question of whether Al-Queda really achieved a victory here. This hinges on the issue of whether the war in Iraq is the best way to fight terrorism. I, and many other people don't believe it is. It's just an oil grabbing exercise dressed up as "the search for WMD", or "freeing the Iraqi people" or whatever fairy tale is currently being used to justify it.

What has it achieved? Is there less terrorism? Is the world a safer place? Obviously not!

The only positive aspect that Iraq brings to the war on terror is that Al-Queda is currently allocating much of it's resources to bombing the Iraqis and trying to start a civil war there. Dead Iraqis instead of dead Europeans/Americans, great result. Thats all that the war in Iraq has achieved with regards to Al-Queda.

Originally posted by j2k4
I wish to extend to you my condolences and sympathy at the loss of your friends, but wonder at your ability to lay your grief aside just long enough to lay a guilt-trip on us Americans.

If the US hadn't needlessly attacked Iraq then 200 Spanish people would still be alive. This is undeniable fact. Al-Queda, the British and American governments and the former Spanish government are to blame for this.

Originally posted by j2k4
You just earned your way back onto my "ignore" list; you continue to further my impression of you as the Mediterranean Avenue of board members, which is just another way of saying that you are a small property-though, as a theoretical socialist of the first order, you are probably flattered by my capitalist-pig attentions, so never mind.

Let me know when your ready to return to the topic.

Any criticism I direct at you is always focused on your opinions and sincerity (or lack of it) with regards to the topic at hand. You, as usual, cannot maintain a debate without getting back to your "playground games".

If you are going to criticise me at least retain a little dignity and keep it in context of the topic. If a "theoretical socialist of the first order" such as myself can do it, then I'm sure a "capitalist-pig" can too.

As for ignoring me...I'm not sure if it'll make much difference. This is the second time in this thread I've had to correct you on a piece of information I've already provided.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
Edit: BTW-Do you claim a Spanish heritage?
...
you continue to further my impression of you as the Mediterranean Avenue of board members[/quote]

Do you claim to possess a short term memory of more than 7 seconds?

<!--QuoteBegin-leftism

hell... you've offended me and I was expecting you to do this and I'm not even Spanish.
[/quote]

j2k4

03-16-2004, 02:24 PM

Okay.

You have homed in on this statement to conclude I attempted to brand the Spanish as "cowards":

Quote:j2k4
They would rather hand Al Qaida a clear-cut victory than give the impression they would resist terrorism.

Taken by itself, you are right; it certainly does create that impression.

You have, however, used the quote rather selectively by intentionally failing to provide the context I intended by ignoring the very next sentence in my post:

Quote:j2k4
This last, of course, assumes Aznar would have won (as was apparently expected) in the event the bombings had not occurred.

It is precisely this type of intellectual dishonesty that relieves your best efforts of even the slightest shred of worth, lefty.

You are a good mind horribly wasted.

leftism

03-16-2004, 05:13 PM

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 have homed in on this statement to conclude I attempted to brand the Spanish as "cowards":

Quote:j2k4
They would rather hand Al Qaida a clear-cut victory than give the impression they would resist terrorism.

Taken by itself, you are right; it certainly does create that impression.

You have, however, used the quote rather selectively by intentionally failing to provide the context I intended by ignoring the very next sentence in my post:

Quote:j2k4
This last, of course, assumes Aznar would have won (as was apparently expected) in the event the bombings had not occurred.

It is precisely this type of intellectual dishonesty that relieves your best efforts of even the slightest shred of worth, lefty.
[/b]

1. The statement I used to conclude that you are accusing the Spanish of cowardice and not having the "balls" to fight is this one.

Originally posted by j2k4@
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.

2. The statement...

"This last, of course, assumes Aznar would have won (as was apparently expected) in the event the bombings had not occurred."

does not negate your accusations of cowardice at all. It is widely accepted that Aznar would have won anyway but it still doesn't mean that the Spanish vote was motivated by fear.

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.[/quote]

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.

What angers me is that your point is clearly motivated by political reasons. It has nothing to do with exploring the issue or discerning the truth.

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.

Many of your fellow patriots are arguing the same line on the BBC website. The Spanish are cowards because they have chosen a non-US method of fighting terrorism.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3512422.stm)

The problem is that you and your fellow patriots have equated the war in Iraq with the war on terrorism while most people in Europe think the two things have very little to do with each other.

oldmancan

03-16-2004, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by j2k4@15 March 2004 - 08:40
What do you think?
Aye, there's the rub.

j2k4, You got what you asked for ... not that you have to like it or agree.

marc, my sympathies regarding you colleague. I can't imagine going through that kind of security every day.

If al-Qaeda was responsible for the bombing, it seems reasonable that if Spain had no involvement in the Middle East then there would be no reason to choose Spain as a target.

I think that extremist muslim militants (al-Qaeda & others) want the West out of their regions. I don't think Iraq is the only country of concern.

I don't know how involved Spain is in the Middle East. But all the industrialized (West) countries are potential targets for al-Qaeda. The countries that have military presence in the Middle East are the most likely targets.

:beerchug: omc

Wizard_Mon1

03-16-2004, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by mrcall1969@16 March 2004 - 06:50
We're going nowhere with this.
But who thinks is Spain hadn't got invlolved the bombings wouldn't have happened??

And who thinks Britain is next, and not just London, try coming to Scotland and getting searched by armed guards before going in to do a job that is supposed to help people (most of them American)
It seems logical that if the Al Queda attack spain for have a part in the war and surporting america, they will at some point want to attack england for their part. This is slightly conserning as i live in London and it would most likely be their target. I can only put my hopes on the British intelligence services as any hopes i had in the gvt. got destroyed when they descided to join the war on iraq even after many millions demonstarted aaginst it. It will be interesting to see what happens in our next election, whether peolpe still surport blair or labour (the new conservatives). I for one will probably vote Liberal although they are a weak party because i would not like to see labour in again. I also hope blair resigns as people have had enough of him and his sweaty armpits. :angry:

j2k4

03-16-2004, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by oldmancan+16 March 2004 - 14:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (oldmancan @ 16 March 2004 - 14:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@15 March 2004 - 08:40
What do you think?
Aye, there's the rub.

j2k4, You got what you asked for ... not that you have to like it or agree.

[/b][/quote]
True enough, but the thread wandered a bit, as is the tendency.

The theme was re-defined by lefty; something to do with what I regard as a deliberate mis-interpretation of my posting, and others picked up on it.

Marc jumped in, rather adamantly-owing to the tragic loss of his friend, no doubt.

Hobbes' posts seemed to me to indicate he understood what I meant (not that he agreed-he just suffers the impediment of being American, too); but lefty, after his own fashion, chose to attribute to me sentiments I do not hold.

If I object, then I am getting what I asked for?

I asked for thoughts, not the standard ad hominum attack.

leftism

03-16-2004, 06:29 PM

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 theme was re-defined by lefty; something to do with what I regard as a deliberate mis-interpretation of my posting, and others picked up on it.
....
but lefty, after his own fashion, chose to attribute to me sentiments I do not hold.[/b]

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.

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.[/b][/quote]

And you have the audacity to accuse ME of intellectual dishonesty??? This situation reminds of something you said in another thread.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4

Realize you will not change the mind(s) of your debate opponent(s). Your fulminations and illuminations should be constructed with a mind toward swaying or convincing or enlightening the reader/follower/occasional contributor of/to the thread.[/quote]

I'm quite happy to let people read your accusations, read my summation of your points and then decide for themselves who is the dishonest one with ulterior motives.

Again.. let me know when/if your ready to return to the topic, but make sure you pick up on the various points in my previous post if you choose to do so.

j2k4

03-16-2004, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by leftism@16 March 2004 - 15:29
I'm quite happy to let people read your accusations, read my summation of your points and then decide for themselves who is the dishonest one with ulterior motives.

Again.. let me know when/if your ready to return to the topic, but make sure you pick up on the various points in my previous post if you choose to do so.
My posting stands, as yours, for the judgement of the members.

The points you claim to have made certainly don't come at my expense; I could have written a "book", too, but that strategy has revealed itself to be a turn-off to potential posters.

Your mere stating of the obvious (The voters in Spain got rid of the party which led them into Iraq) doesn't make me the bad guy, lefty, nor do your continued taking of liberties with my supposed "intent".

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.

I won't object; indeed, if you choose to do so, I wish to communicate to the mods that I wouldn't mind one bit-in fact, I desire it greatly.

Call it an experiment. ;)

leftism

03-16-2004, 08:08 PM

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'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'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'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'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't object; indeed, if you choose to do so, I wish to communicate to the mods that I wouldn't mind one bit-in fact, I desire it greatly.

Call it an experiment.[/quote]

I wouldn't dream of granting your ego the satisfaction and I won'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'm sure you perceive it.

Again.. if you want to return to the topic and talk about the bombings in Spain don't hesitate. But playing this little game of "you said this", "I didn't say that" is pointless when the original text is only a mouse click away.

j2k4

03-16-2004, 08:26 PM

Why not start afresh?

You'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's go from there, lefty.

Anything you like; you don'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

03-16-2004, 10:12 PM

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'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 'tactic' 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's go from there, lefty.

Anything you like; you don't even have to restrict yourself to the current topic (:lol:)  -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'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'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'm not going to replay this little charade of yours for a 2nd time j2k4. I suggest you collect your thoughts so I don't need to do it for you again ;)

j2k4

03-17-2004, 06:18 AM

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'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'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'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's okay they felt these things, lefty-they are human, after all, and relative to my first observation, I don'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'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's government, and thus not worthy of separate note.

I trust I'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's next, lefty?

Edit: spelling

leftism

03-17-2004, 03:34 PM

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'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 :rolleyes:

Your 1st "observation" clearly refers to the polls taken before the bombings being incorrect. Now you'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'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's "not worthy of separate note"??? :blink:

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

03-17-2004, 04:07 PM

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'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's involvement in the Iraq war.

Let's have a look at who has given Al Qaeda the 'victory' 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'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's government.

j2k4

03-17-2004, 04:12 PM

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'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'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

03-17-2004, 06:16 PM

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'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'm done with you. At least until the next time you attempt to make political capital from an atrocity.

mrcall1969

03-18-2004, 09:33 PM

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're not more-or-less par, mrcall1969?

I am rather lowly and normal, if I say so myself; don't assume you've got the market cornered on that score. ;)

Although I may be more even-tempered than you.
What I meant by 'lowly' was a large percentage of the population here, not politicians. No, I did'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'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

03-21-2004, 06:50 PM

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'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.

J'Pol

03-21-2004, 09:39 PM

The Spanish people elected their Government, to run the country for them and to make decision for them. This includes foreign policy, law and order etc.

The Spanish Government chose to take part in various actions around the world, presumably because they believed it was the right thing to do.

There were terrorists attacks in Spain, these may have been as a result of the actions of the Spanish people, around the world. Once the Government is elected they act on behalf of the people.

The Spanish people decided that they did not wish to re-elect the same Government. Given that so many appear to have disagreed with their Governments decisions, that is hardly surprising. (I have only ever read the figure 80-90 % here, I am not aware of the scope or accuracy of this figure).

Did the bombings have an effect on the election result, almost certainly I would have thought. However to assume that the incumbent Government would have won otherwise is incorrect. Particularly if the vast bulk of the electorate did not agree with various major policy decisions.

As an aside, a lot if not most of the political commentators and terrorism experts I heard at the time in the UK also believed it to be ETA. As such I am not certain that the Spanish authorities tried to mislead their people.