Victory for Terrorism (page 5)

Farkel

Perhaps those countries in Europe which are opposed to our involvement against current and future terrorism would feel differently if they had their own 9/11, too. I'm not sure of the connection between our involvement in Iraq and the terrorist attack in Spain. I don't see the connection, but see it only as a pathetic excuse for the anti-war crowd to bring their soldiers home. Is doing that going to stop future attacks in their country by terrorists? Does one stop terrorism by ceasing to fight?

What Spain SHOULD have done is what we did: increase their military resources and go after and KILL those bastards. There are a LOT of those bastards in Iraq and because of the instability there it will draw other terror bastards into that part of the world.

If France had to watch its cherished Eiffel Tower, Arch d' Triumphe or Louvre Museum fall to the ground in flames they might change their tune and join us in vigorously killing those bastards. If Britain saw their cherished historical monuments blown to pieces they might change their tune, too. Same with other Countries.

The terrorists only win when such cowardly acts as bringing their soldiers home when the heat is turned up occur. That's exactly what happened in Spain. Had Spain decided to send 5,000 MORE soliders to fight terrorism and those soldiers found and killed a bunch of them it would have been a better choice, in my opinion.

But that was a loss in only one battle of this war. Remember this: the most important battle in any war is always the last one. This war ain't over yet.

Farkel

Satanus

Iraq had nothing to do the planes hitting the wtc. Countries that did were saudi arabia, pakistan, and afghanistan. Taliban came from pakistan; bin ladin came from saudi arabia, from a muslim movement there, called wahabi.

SS

Phantom Stranger

Many of the posters here are ignoring a fact that the US media is also ignoring:

Spanish voters have been against their involvement in Iraq without UN involvement since day one (according to some widely-published polling numbers, up to 90% were against Spain's involvement). To act as if Spain was "for" the war until terrorists hit them is absurd and incorrect. For a democratic government to pursue a course without securing enough support from the electorate is folly - and that folly, combined with that last-minute clumsy attampt at media spin, cost the PP the election.

As far as Europe needing to experience modern terror to understand it, Farkel, that's laughable in light of history. Please recall how, immediately after 9/11, many articles discussed how the US had finally lived through a disaster reminiscent of events in WWI and WWII. The Dresden firestorm bombings (200K dead!), the blitzkrieg practice on Spain in Guernica, the use of gas in WWI, the blitz bombing of England - Europe has a much better handle on what mass killing is like than the US has ever had.

As a reminder of how self-centered we in the US are, please note the following headlines:

9/12/01: Le Monde, Paris: We are all New Yorkers

3/12/04, Newsweek (came today): Europe's 9/11: A New Threat to America?

That's the best we can do - make it about us?

Double Edge

Interesting comment made from a Spanish expert last night... He said that Al Qaeda operatives had been working in Spain long before our 9/11 attacks. They were networking with other groups stirring up their political pot.

MorpheuzX

Avishai, I personally think your comment was disgusting, especially coming from you. Have some dignity.

There seems to be this idea out there that democrats, liberals, whatever you want to label them, are cowardly -- just because they don't believe in doing the shoot first and ask questions later thing. And let me remind you it was a conservative President Bush who dared Al-Queda to on July 2, 2003 to, "Bring them on!" Since Bush's dare, 358 US boys have been killed in Iraq.

In case some of you don't know or don't care, according to Centcom, the current official body count of the Iraq invasion is 564 US dead, 59 UK dead, 11 Spainish dead. The total number of dead soldiers is 665, including boys from Italy, Poland, Bulgaria. The number of US soldiers wounded is 2,814. The total number of soldiers wounded is 3,241. What's the Iraqi body count? Well nobody bothered to keep those numbers.

And yet as even people like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, George Tenet and Colin Powell have admitted, in retrospect, there were no WMD in Iraq and there was no connection between 9/11 and the Iraqi government.

Let me make this perfectly clear: YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO CARRIED OUT THE ATTACKS IN SPAIN! And yet a lot of people's response is let's send more troops and go kill some Iraqis. Or let's blame it on Al-Queda, even if there's no proof. Right now nobody knows if it was Salafia Jihadia, Al-Queda or the Basque separatist ETA. All we know is the Spanish government has arrested five Moroccans.

Most of the responses I see on this thread remind me of the first reaction of a scared person -- lash out in anger. Or the reaction of a cornered animal -- attack!

Let me further ask this question, how many of you big, brave, tough guys out there that are so gung ho to send more troops and "kill those bastards" have ever served in the military? Do any of you have any combat experience? Have any of you actually had to kill somebody? How about we give you a rucksack and an M-16 and ship you off to Iraq, sound fun? Or is all your big just talk carried out by the blood and sacrifice of others?

Phantom Stranger

Well, I don't know that I'd go there... I'd just remind all on this thread that Democratic liberals led the country through winning WWII...

Enough with the name-calling and calling each other out...

avishai

There seems to be this idea out there that democrats, liberals, whatever you want to label them, are cowardly

Not my position at all. I think Clinton, with all of his flaws would have handled this pretty well. Maybe better than Bush. I also agree that Saudi Arabia is a bigger problem than Iraq. But I think that a vote for Kerry is frightening. I would have voted for Clark, possibly even Dean. But a senator who only votes on the issues 28% of the time, vs. the usual 78% average for senators? No way.

Let me make this perfectly clear: YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO CARRIED OUT THE ATTACKS IN SPAIN! And yet a lot of people's response is let's send more troops and go kill some Iraqis. Or let's blame it on Al-Queda, even if there's no proof. Right now nobody knows if it was Salafia Jihadia, Al-Queda or the Basque separatist ETA. All we know is the Spanish government has arrested five Moroccans.

No, I don't, and that was my point. It still COULD have been ETA. But Al-Queda sure capitalized on it, did'nt they? Effectively too. They are getting a hell of a lot smarter, and it's scary. No, I don't think Iraq should be nearly as big of an issue. But if Al Queda claimed responsibility, we should go after them even more. Why should'nt we?

Phantom Stranger

avishai, I'd like to add some context for your discussion of Kerry's votes in the Senate there:

That is for 2003 only... most of which was spent campaigning and in other pre-campaign work .Not stating the period measured could lead a reader to believe that it's a lifetime record, which it's not. As is the tradition with Senators, they make sure to be present for close votes when campaigning.

avishai

OK, ps, consider me schooled. I still don't think he's any more fit than Bush to lead, what w/ him voting the liberal party line 90 some odd percent of the time. More so than Ted Kennedy. It smacks of someone who votes knee jerk and not w/ his brain. I have a hard time w/ extremes.

Phantom Stranger

FYI - the commonly-referred to "93% of the time" figure refers either to the fact that Kerry voted the same as Ted Kennedy 93% of the 28% of the votes he attended in 2003, or to a "93" score assigned senators by a liberal group (see below).

From the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22260-2004Feb7?language=printer

Kerry's 19-year record in the Senate includes thousands of votes, floor statements and debates, committee hearings and news conferences. That long paper trail shows that, on most issues, Kerry built a solidly liberal record, including support for abortion rights, gun control and environmental protection, and opposition to costly weapons programs, tax cuts for wealthy Americans and a 1996 federal law designed to discourage same-sex marriages.

But there are exceptions to that generally liberal voting record. Kerry voted for the welfare overhaul bill in 1996 that President Bill Clinton signed over the vociferous opposition of the party's liberal wing; supported free-trade pacts, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement that organized labor opposed; backed deficit-reduction efforts in the mid-1980s, which many other Democrats opposed; and was distinctly cool toward Clinton's health care proposal, which died after being pilloried as the embodiment of big government.

From http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200401220835.asp

For example, Kerry has earned a lifetime rating of 93 from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action, which selects key votes each year and rates lawmakers according to a perfect liberal score of 100.
Viewed from the other side of the ideological divide, Kerry has a lifetime rating of six from the conservative American Conservative Union, which uses a similar methodology to rate lawmakers according to a perfect conservative score of 100. Kerry's rating is the same as Leahy's and New York's Charles Schumer's, although it is slightly less liberal than Kennedy's lifetime rating of three.

Victory for Terrorism

Share this