Victory for Terrorism

by Yerusalyim 135 Replies latest social current

• 

  blacksheep

  "Because Blacksheep we financed what they did! We also allowed it to happen."

  We allowed WHAT to happen. Age-old historical, institutionalized abuse of women??? This has been going on for eons. Many human/women rights groups have been recently involved in attempting to stop atrocities against women, with or without political/wartime support. Again, not following. What do you think is the CORE reason some countries brutalize and enslave women? Is it because women deserve it??? What have these women done which makes men behave so. That's the SAME rationale you seem to want to use against the US: If such groups terrorize us, it is for a reason..."

  " We could have pushed an amendment through the U.N. to get U.N. troops sent into there back in 1999, or 2000, or 2001 in order to establish a democracy, apprehend Osama Bin Laden and stop the genocide of the taliban. Instead, Bill Clinton and George Bush did nothing. It was only when we were attacked that we decided to go flatten Afghanistan."

  Sure. When someone commits a crime (i.e. murder), you can be that the police start looking into ALL details of what went on. That includes the abusive and murderous nature of the person who committed the terrorist act. You captured and penalized the person who committed horrendous crimes against your friends/family. It's only natural to try to discover and rectify the brutalization and terror that they committed against their OWN.
• 

  patio34

  http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

  • Polls show that the Socialists were catching up anyway. They might have won even without the bombings.

  • The bombings simply caused an upsurge in interest in the elections, which in turn caused a higher turnout (63% vs. 55% in 2000). This benefited the Socialists, who usually do better when the turnout is better.

  • The populace was enraged at Aznar for lying about ETA being responsible for the bombings and took it out on him at the polls.

  • Voters thought Spain had been targeted because of its support for the Iraq war and voted for the party that had promised to withdraw Spain's troops.

  In addition, of course, the number of people who actually changed their vote was quite small, probably no more than 5% of the electorate.

  More than likely, all four of these things had some impact, but when you put them all together and then stir in the approximately 5% who actually changed their vote, what do you get? At most 1-2% of voters switched their votes because they hoped it would appease the terrorists and prevent future attacks. So sure, appeasement might have been a factor in the vote, but if so it was almost certainly a very, very small one.

  ,,,

  Still, I do wonder why American conservatives were so quick to loudly blame the result on cowardly appeasement. Not only is it both very unlikely and enormously insulting, but it's hard to see how it helps their cause. Wouldn't they be better off trying to downplay it?

  ?Kevin Drum
• 

  little witch

  I don't believe this appeasment theory either. For one, polls shmoles. In the US a few months ago the polls had Dean winning the democratic nomination hands down, with hollywood and gore backing him. Of course that turned into a shocker huh?

  We must always question polls. They arent terribly scientific after all, and often irrelevant.

  Secondly, hostilities between muslims and spain go back centuries. Just the stuff terrorists are quick to label as reasons for suicide bombings and so forth. They don't need a current reason for pete's sake, these are fundamentalist and twisted religious types. They are under the influence of ancient battles and consider themselves gods chosen (sound familiar)?

  Imagine the jw's gone gorilla. There is no reasoning with it, no sense can be made from it unless of course you are one of them.

  Spain is accomplished at taking care of herself. The world will not end because the socialist party is empowered. Get real.
• 

  Badger

  But spain didn't pull it's support out of Afghanistan...Neither did France or Germany....because they do NOT consider Iraq a front on the war on terror...only the US, UK and Australia do.
• 

  blacksheep

  "But spain didn't pull it's support out of Afghanistan...Neither did France or Germany....because they do NOT consider Iraq a front on the war on terror". Oh, and plus all the kickbacks they were supplying to Sadaam under the guise of "oil-for-food" sponsored by the UN. Saddaam was getting filthy rich while his people were starving. Countries were making out like bandits by getting a cut in the oil...why would they want to upset the applecart when they have a good thing going.
• 

  donkey

  Of course Spain still hypocritically occupies parts of North Africa...but shhhh be vewy vewy qwuiet!!!