Spanish Elections
Ernst Blofeld
there will be a series of terror attacks in the
US before the election. I'd expect a series of
car bombs designed to maximize civilian casualties
or perhaps attack major landmarks. Even a loser
like McVeigh could pull that off.
Martin McPhillips
news:F275c.13389$1p.249914@attbi_s54...
On the theory that a terror attack here will elect
a Democrat as president?
I don't think so. Our enemies are lacking in character
but not in feral intelligence.
All of Europe, including the U.K., is buckling.
Not buckling to terror, necessarily, but buckling
per se. They're 20-25 years ahead of us in decline.
Spain is impotent, and so after it helped the U.S.
in Iraq, gave us political cover for the invasion, it
was easily punished. And Islam also expects Spain
to be an Islamic country again within 50 years -- it's
too weak to resist, and with the socialists in power
via the will of the people, disinclined to resist either
terror or re-population by muslims. (Imagine, you're
country is victim of a vicious terror attack, a million
people come out to protest for *peace,* and
the electorate votes in the socialists two days later
to make sure that there's no more cooperation with
the United States.)
An attack on the U.S. of the kind this week
in Madrid would be addressed far more
savagely and quickly than anything Spain could
muster in a decade or two.
Even the bombing in Madrid will be addressed
far more savagely by the U.S., I'm venturing to
guess, than we will be allowed to know. I imagine
that at this point there is a basic two-mode
strategy in place. We watch and follow and map
networks for as long as we can, and then we strike
pre-emptively when situations seem to be ripe.
We let the situation hang as long as we can
and then take it down in an involuted, quiet,
lethal way. It that is not in fact true, then we
are not winning this war.
I'm fairly confident that it is true.
Scott Erb
Well, Ernst, you've been wrong about almost everything involving Iraq and US
policy in your predictions, so I only can hope you're wrong on this too.
Meanwhile, another bloody weekend in Iraq, experts fear that democracy is
far away from the country, and sectarian disputes grow. Terrorist
recruitment has increased, the US military is overstretched and in low
morale, the US is forced to go back to the UN to get help, Syria and Iran
are not pressured and in fact are able to keep the US weakened by simply
letting terrorists cross borders (and the US can't respond)...meanwhile, oil
prices stay high, the US has little respect on the world stage, and we're
learning the lesson of great powers about the dangers of trying to project
power to shape another part of the world.
More in the summer, I just peeked in to see the reaction to the good news
from Spain.
Ernst Blofeld
> "Ernst Blofeld" <blof...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:F275c.13389$1p.249914@attbi_s54...
>
>>I think the outcome makes it a near-certainty that
>>there will be a series of terror attacks in the
>>US before the election. I'd expect a series of
>>car bombs designed to maximize civilian casualties
>>or perhaps attack major landmarks. Even a loser
>>like McVeigh could pull that off.
>
>
> On the theory that a terror attack here will elect
> a Democrat as president?
>
> I don't think so. Our enemies are lacking in character
> but not in feral intelligence.
Actually, I don't think they're very bright. What they've
got going for them is ruthlessness and tactical
inventiveness. I've seen no evidence that they're
particularly smart at any sort of operational
or strategic level. Instead they've picked a series
of fights that have set them back, such as attacking
the Saudi monarchy. They've had a history of getting
their asses handed to them in Egypt and elsewhere.
In the sense of understanding the motivations
and likely responses of the US, they're deluded
and living in a fantasy world.
They can conduct individual terror attacks with
some efficiency, but they don't have a strategy
for tying together attacks to progress towards
an overall goal. The carnage of the individual
attacks largely _is_ the goal.
They managed to hit the jackpot in Spain, though.
For years elections in Europe and elsewhere will
be accompanied by bombs.
h0mi
@attbi_s54:
> I think the outcome makes it a near-certainty that
> there will be a series of terror attacks in the
> US before the election.
And elsewhere.
I wouldn't be shocked to see more terrorism in Spain as well. There were
reports in late 2001 that ETA and Al Qaeda _were_ working together, which
is why poo pooing the ETA connection to the latest bombings seemed
premature IMO. (Poo pooing AQ's role was also premature as well.)
Martin McPhillips
news:d485c.23326$H44.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
You've been hypnotized by your own stupidity, Scott.
As an example:
"...another bloody weekend in Iraq, experts fear that democracy
is far away from the country, and sectarian disputes grow."
You write that a week after the Iraqis reach a milestone in
democracy. The terrorist violence there has become more
desperate, less effective, and serves to anger Iraqis. And
sectarian disputes are finding solutions in the political
process.
Naturally, however, you call the election of socialists in
Spain "good news." That's not good news, Scott. Least
of all for Spain and Europe. It's a death knell.
But perhaps you won't be so sensitive about being "labelled"
a socialist in the future.
Martin McPhillips
I agree with your thesis that they are not very
bright, in general, but I don't credit them with
being "bright." I credit them with "feral
intelligence."
By now they know that Europe is weak
and the United States strong. What they
need more of, they can get in Europe --
appeasers. That's not just appeasement in
the war on terror, but appeasement in the
Islamization of Europe. Remember that some
Parisians shrug at the suggestion that soon
enough (10 or 15 years?) women will be required
to cover their heads in France.
Europeans have forgotten what Europe is,
and almost forgotten *where* it is.
All they know is that they don't want those
damnable Americans causing the muslims
to be angry with them.
From the long view what the Spanish electorate
did yesterday was totally predictable. But it
was shocking how quickly they jumped on the
heels of the bombing -- that suggests a lot about
the end psychology of Europe. It's comparable to
the end psychology of the Roman Empire.
I've been saying all along that Americans must
be prepared to lose the U.K. as an ally as well.
That is a society that has lost its elan. I seriously
doubt that it will ever get it back, and Tony Blair
is possibly the last PM who will ever observe
more than ceremonial relations with the U.S.
So, when you hear talk on the Left in the U.S.
about how we must make amends with out
allies -- sign Kyoto, join the ICC treaty, submit
to UN process on geopolitics, etc. -- what you
are hearing is an ideology that seeks to dissolve
sovereignty while accepting appeasement and
capitulation.
Europe thinks that it is thinking big, but it is dying,
and it wants the U.S. to die with it.
Paul Havemann
> "Ernst Blofeld" <blof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I think the outcome makes it a near-certainty that
>> there will be a series of terror attacks in the
>> US before the election. I'd expect a series of
>> car bombs designed to maximize civilian casualties
>> or perhaps attack major landmarks. Even a loser
>> like McVeigh could pull that off.
>
> On the theory that a terror attack here will elect
> a Democrat as president?
>
> I don't think so. Our enemies are lacking in character
> but not in feral intelligence.
>
> All of Europe, including the U.K., is buckling.
> Not buckling to terror, necessarily, but buckling
> per se. They're 20-25 years ahead of us in decline.
I think you're both partly right. Yes, the terrorists will try
very hard to duplicate their success in Spain whereever they can,
but I think they will concentrate on Europe, which is already weak
in the knees. It's easier there, for one thing, especially in
countries like Spain where Arabs with backpacks are not uncommon.
> Spain is impotent, and so after it helped the U.S.
> in Iraq, gave us political cover for the invasion, it
> was easily punished. And Islam also expects Spain
> to be an Islamic country again within 50 years
Let's not forget that France, at the rate it's going, will turn
as well, and perhaps sooner. There are over a million Arabs in
France, most of them unassimilated: they may be in France, but
they have no allegiance to France. And more are arriving all the
time.
> An attack on the U.S. of the kind this week
> in Madrid would be addressed far more
> savagely and quickly than anything Spain could
> muster in a decade or two.
As much as they'd like to, the terrorists don't _have_ to hit the
US directly -- they can seek to isolate us by attacking more
isolationist- and/or appeasement-minded populaces (and
governments) across Europe, including the UK, and relying on US
leftists and useful idiots to sing that song here.
This is correct, too.
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_belmontclub_archive.html#107935898271893279
The capitulation of Spain to Al Qaeda's terrorist offensive may
momentarily gladden the Eurosocialists -- but only momentarily.
Eurosocialism is ironically premised on a wall of free security,
traditionally provided by the United States, behind which they
can pursue utopianism. But the practical effect of the Socialist
victory will be to open Europe's southern borders to more
terrorist infiltration. [...]
France, already at a heightened state of alert, now faces the
prospect that its southern neighbor will make a separate peace
with the jihadis. For while Aznar's party might have withstood
another bombing, Zapatero's, after all their promises, cannot. If
the Socialists cannot take their program of appeasement to its
logical conclusion then they must face the very Islamic bombings
which they told the electorate their election would prevent.
The appeasement which so amuses the French may not be so funny
when played by the Spaniards. For Spain, in concert with America
and France, shared the watch of North Africa. And since that is
where many Al Qaeda have moved, as the Madrid train bombing
carried out by North Africans proves, Europe will find their
relative danger increased far more greatly than the Americans,
who can comfortably lose the Spanish contingent in Iraq. The loss
of a solid Spain, while an annoyance to America, is a catastrophe
for Europe. Iraq is far from America but Spain is close to
France.
There's more, IMO worth reading. He concludes:
Eurosocialism, by hitching its wagon to the fortunes of militant
Islam, has put itself at its mercy. That is the definition of
surrender, whose fine print the Continent will soon be familiar
with. A disarmed, politically correct and supine Eurosocialist
society can only exist where other free men guard their borders.
By dismissing the guardians and capitulating to the jihadis, the
Eurosocialists have struck at the very root of their own
existence.
I don't think he's wrong.
midtowng
You haven't thought this one out at all Ernst.
Like most of the conservatives here you believe that
al-Qaeda can't see the difference between Spain and America,
and that _everything_ is in context with the WoT. Worse yet,
you think the Spanish election was about a single, solitary
issue (the recent attack).
Well you underestimate the Spanish people almost as much as
you underestimate al-Qaeda's understanding of national politics.
Here's a few reasons why you won't see a terrorist
attack from al-Qaeda in America between now and the election:
1) More than 90% of Spain opposed the invasion of Iraq.
The percentage in America was closer to 40-50%. That means
in Spain there is the "Look what you did when we told you
not to do it" backlash. That won't happen in America to nearly
the same degree.
2) 9/11 happened _before_ the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
In Spain they didn't see an attack until they committed to
this campaign. The dynamics in America are entirely different.
So here's a challenge:
If al-Qaeda does attack America _domestically_ (an attack on
our forces overseas has an entirely different dynamic) before the
November election then I will leave a.f.d-q forever.
If there is no attack I would like you to admit that you
don't understand the terrorists or their motives, and hence,
don't know how to win the WoT.
I'm extending this challenge to Doh and Martin.
Martin McPhillips
news:cbb1397c.04031...@posting.google.com...
He's perfectly correct, in fact. Victor Davis Hanson points
out that the Roman Republic of ~3 million persons had
no problem fielding and army of 250,000 soldiers, yet
500 years later, when the Empire included some 50
million persons, they had great difficulty scraping together
a similar army.
They forgot who they were and what it meant to be
a Roman.
Europeans are living in a fantasyland, in their pretty-as-
picture world, and believe that they can appease the
barbarians within the gates by rejecting the United
States.
One problem is that our NATO commitment to the
Europeans is much the source of their *complacency,*
whence the internal rotting of their society proceeds.
And neither is the EU the solution; it is, rather, the
most advanced symptom of the disease -- the universal
state that punishes European diversity and rewards
conformity and has a bureaucracy and a "politically
correct" dung heap so high that there's no way to even
look at the real cultural horizon.
And let us not forget that there are European
deconstructionists, for lack of a better term, who
applaud what is happening because they are anxious
to see European civilization ended as they knew it.
Well, they're getting their wish.
I was saying this a long time before last weekend's
vote in Spain.
Eagle Eye
Scott Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[sniptroll]
>More in the summer, I just peeked in to see the reaction to the good news
>from Spain.
Terrorists murder 200 people. As a consequence, the voters shift 11
points from the last poll before the bombing. The terrorists accomplish
their objective of influencing the democratic process.
How is any of that "good news"?
=====
EE
Latine loqui coactus sum.
h...@nospam.com
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Because the alternative is worse: murder more Muslims in reprisals,
only ensuring that the Muslims with strike back and kill more innocent
people. Israel and Palestine should tell us that.
Hal
>
> =====
> EE
>
> Latine loqui coactus sum.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
John D.
"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:2004031517574...@nym.alias.net...
I wonder how communists will get along worshiping at the feet of Islam?
John D.
<h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:42sb505q4vmqo4q35...@4ax.com...
> On 15 Mar 2004 17:57:49 -0000, Eagle Eye
> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
> >In article <d485c.23326$H44.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
> >Scott Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >[sniptroll]
> >>More in the summer, I just peeked in to see the reaction to the good
news
> >>from Spain.
> >
> >Terrorists murder 200 people. As a consequence, the voters shift 11
> >points from the last poll before the bombing. The terrorists accomplish
> >their objective of influencing the democratic process.
> >
> >How is any of that "good news"?
>
> Because the alternative is worse: murder more Muslims in reprisals,
> only ensuring that the Muslims with strike back and kill more innocent
> people. Israel and Palestine should tell us that.
England should have capitulated to Germany? The US to Japan?
Eagle Eye
<h...@nospam.com> wrote:
>On 15 Mar 2004 17:57:49 -0000, Eagle Eye
><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>In article
>><d485c.23326$H44.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Scott
>>Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>More in the summer, I just peeked in to see the reaction to the
>>>good news from Spain.
>>Terrorists murder 200 people. As a consequence, the voters shift
>>11 points from the last poll before the bombing. The terrorists
>>accomplish their objective of influencing the democratic
>>process.
>>
>>How is any of that "good news"?
>Because the alternative is worse: murder more Muslims in
>reprisals, only ensuring that the Muslims with strike back and
>kill more innocent people.
That's a false dichotomy.
Exactly how many innocent Muslim civilians did Spanish forces
murder? Even more pertinent: how many innocent Muslim civilians
did the people on those trains murder?
But that's beside the point of my question to Scott Erb.
Terrorists managed to alter the democratic process. The election
victory of the Socialists was written in the blood of innocents.
I want to know why Scott Erb finds that to be good news. I thought
he was purportedly for peaceful elections, uninfluenced by violence.
>Israel and Palestine should tell us that.
Really? Because whenever Israel holds out an olive branch to try
to peacefully negotiate, those savages strap a bomb on some kid to
go blow up innocent Israeli civilians.
Please tell me what you think Israelis should do to avoid
terrorists murdering their civilians? Provide some empirical
evidence to support your theory.
h...@nospam.com
>
><h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:42sb505q4vmqo4q35...@4ax.com...
>> On 15 Mar 2004 17:57:49 -0000, Eagle Eye
>> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <d485c.23326$H44.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>> >Scott Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >[sniptroll]
>> >>More in the summer, I just peeked in to see the reaction to the good
>news
>> >>from Spain.
>> >
>> >Terrorists murder 200 people. As a consequence, the voters shift 11
>> >points from the last poll before the bombing. The terrorists accomplish
>> >their objective of influencing the democratic process.
>> >
>> >How is any of that "good news"?
>>
>> Because the alternative is worse: murder more Muslims in reprisals,
>> only ensuring that the Muslims with strike back and kill more innocent
>> people. Israel and Palestine should tell us that.
>
>England should have capitulated to Germany? The US to Japan?
Apples and oranges.
Hal
John D.
<h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vqtb5093dfi0lds5u...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:18:48 -0600, "John D." <Ya...@bfd.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >news:42sb505q4vmqo4q35...@4ax.com...
> >> On 15 Mar 2004 17:57:49 -0000, Eagle Eye
> >> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <d485c.23326$H44.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
> >> >Scott Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> >[sniptroll]
> >> >>More in the summer, I just peeked in to see the reaction to the good
> >news
> >> >>from Spain.
> >> >
> >> >Terrorists murder 200 people. As a consequence, the voters shift 11
> >> >points from the last poll before the bombing. The terrorists
accomplish
> >> >their objective of influencing the democratic process.
> >> >
> >> >How is any of that "good news"?
> >>
> >> Because the alternative is worse: murder more Muslims in reprisals,
> >> only ensuring that the Muslims with strike back and kill more innocent
> >> people. Israel and Palestine should tell us that.
> >
> >England should have capitulated to Germany? The US to Japan?
> Apples and oranges.
How so?
h...@nospam.com
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Give them Palestine.
Simple really.
Hal
>
> =====
> EE
>
> Latine loqui coactus sum.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
h...@nospam.com
>
>> >England should have capitulated to Germany? The US to Japan?
>
>> Apples and oranges.
>
>How so?
>
You tell me. Just how is two wealthy imperialist nations waging war
on the entire world different than a rag tag band of fanatical
religious extremists?
Hal
John D.
<h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:rtub509ptu8tus3ds...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:42:37 -0600, "John D." <Ya...@bfd.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> >England should have capitulated to Germany? The US to Japan?
> >
> >> Apples and oranges.
> >
> >How so?
> >
>
> You tell me. Just how is two wealthy imperialist nations waging war
> on the entire world different than a rag tag band of fanatical
> religious extremists?
I didn't think you would have an answer. I also didn't realize how
despicable your views are.
h...@nospam.com
>
><h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:rtub509ptu8tus3ds...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:42:37 -0600, "John D." <Ya...@bfd.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> >England should have capitulated to Germany? The US to Japan?
>> >
>> >> Apples and oranges.
>> >
>> >How so?
>> >
>>
>> You tell me. Just how is two wealthy imperialist nations waging war
>> on the entire world different than a rag tag band of fanatical
>> religious extremists?
>
>I didn't think you would have an answer. I also didn't realize how
>despicable your views are.
You're a moron John. Righties like you love to quote 20-20 hindsight
from WWII as some kind of justification for murdering Muslim children
as restribution for the acts of a few fanatical extremists who _want_
us all to go to war. Your war is only giving them exactly what they
want. And us getting involved in WWII was us taking a stand against
fascist imperialism, which is exactly what the Muslims are taking a
stand against.
Hal
Eagle Eye
Your lack of response is noted.
>>>Israel and Palestine should tell us that.
>>Really? Because whenever Israel holds out an olive branch to try
>>to peacefully negotiate, those savages strap a bomb on some kid
>>to go blow up innocent Israeli civilians.
>>
>>Please tell me what you think Israelis should do to avoid
>>terrorists murdering their civilians? Provide some empirical
>>evidence to support your theory.
>Give them Palestine.
Define Palestine. Then explain why the savages keep sending
children with bombs strapped to them to blow up civilians, even
when Israel attempts to broker a peaceful withdrawl from the West
Bank and Gaza Strip.
I thought you said that would stop terrorism. It doesn't.
Do you have any other ideas which might work?
>Simple really.
No. The simple solution would be for the decent Palestinians to
take control and imprison all the murderous terrorists and start
building a civilized, independent nation.
Eagle Eye
<h...@nospam.com> wrote:
[snip]
>You're a moron John. Righties like you love to quote 20-20 hindsight
>from WWII as some kind of justification for murdering Muslim children
>as restribution for the acts of a few fanatical extremists who _want_
>us all to go to war.
Who is "murdering Muslim children"?
>Your war is only giving them exactly what they
>want. And us getting involved in WWII was us taking a stand against
>fascist imperialism, which is exactly what the Muslims are taking a
>stand against.
The Islamist savages are blowing up Muslims who aren't fanatical
enough for their tastes.
But you inexplicably see some sort of noble fight against "fascist
imperialism" in the designs of these mass murderers.
Your denial of reality is astounding.
uhm
Address-Header@[127.1] says...
The bombing is a very real demonstration that the actions of the Bush
administration and their sucklings have not made the world safer.
It's good news because Spain at least may be abandoning useless courses
of action and start actually doing something about the terrorist threat.
Even better, it may inspire democracies in other parts of the world,
like Britain and the US, to also change from this poor course of action.
Osama is to Saddam
as bait is to switch
Eagle Eye
uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd> wrote:
>In article <2004031517574...@nym.alias.net>, Use-Author-
>Address-Header@[127.1] says...
>> In article <d485c.23326$H44.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>> Scott Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >More in the summer, I just peeked in to see the reaction to the good news
>> >from Spain.
>> Terrorists murder 200 people. As a consequence, the voters shift 11
>> points from the last poll before the bombing. The terrorists accomplish
>> their objective of influencing the democratic process.
>>
>> How is any of that "good news"?
>The bombing is a very real demonstration that the actions of the Bush
>administration and their sucklings have not made the world safer.
The bombings are an indication that savages intend to keep murdering
innocent civilians. Perhaps Bush doesn't have the answers, but no
one else has yet offered a better way to stop terrorism.
>It's good news because Spain at least may be abandoning useless courses
>of action and start actually doing something about the terrorist threat.
Do you consider it "good news" that violent mass murder changed the
outcome of an election?
Do you want your political victories to come from such horrible
events? Wouldn't you rather have peaceful elections?
>Even better, it may inspire democracies in other parts of the world,
>like Britain and the US, to also change from this poor course of action.
How? By causing voters to fear that they will become targets if they
don't turn to appeasement?
Are we going to start seeing the so-called "anti-war" protestors
hoping for more slaughter of innocents timed to change the outcomes
of elections?
This gloating is disgusting and macabre.
MikeSoja
posted:
>In article <2004031517574...@nym.alias.net>, Use-Author-
>Address-Header@[127.1] says...
>> In article <d485c.23326$H44.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>> Scott Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> [sniptroll]
>> >More in the summer, I just peeked in to see the reaction to the good news
>> >from Spain.
>> Terrorists murder 200 people. As a consequence, the voters shift 11
>> points from the last poll before the bombing. The terrorists accomplish
>> their objective of influencing the democratic process.
>> How is any of that "good news"?
>The bombing is a very real demonstration that the actions of the Bush
>administration and their sucklings have not made the world safer.
>It's good news because Spain at least may be abandoning useless courses
>of action and start actually doing something about the terrorist threat.
Like what? Renouncing their Catholic heritage and converting to
Islam?
Mike Soja
John D.
<h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vm1c50dugv8rql4qn...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:26:36 -0600, "John D." <Ya...@bfd.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >news:rtub509ptu8tus3ds...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:42:37 -0600, "John D." <Ya...@bfd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> >England should have capitulated to Germany? The US to Japan?
> >> >
> >> >> Apples and oranges.
> >> >
> >> >How so?
> >> >
> >>
> >> You tell me. Just how is two wealthy imperialist nations waging war
> >> on the entire world different than a rag tag band of fanatical
> >> religious extremists?
> >
> >I didn't think you would have an answer. I also didn't realize how
> >despicable your views are.
>
> You're a moron John. Righties like you love to quote 20-20 hindsight
> from WWII as some kind of justification for murdering Muslim children
> as restribution for the acts of a few fanatical extremists who _want_
> us all to go to war. Your war is only giving them exactly what they
> want. And us getting involved in WWII was us taking a stand against
> fascist imperialism, which is exactly what the Muslims are taking a
> stand against.
You are an abject idiot.
Dave Lister
news:200403152102...@nym.alias.net:
> The bombings are an indication that savages intend to keep murdering
> innocent civilians. Perhaps Bush doesn't have the answers, but no
> one else has yet offered a better way to stop terrorism.
Crap, loon. We could be expending massive resources on hunting actual
terrorists that instead we are spending to attack, get, and keep Iraq.
--
Un-elect Dubya in 2004
John Kerry for President
Ernst Blofeld
>> Worse yet,
> you think the Spanish election was about a single, solitary
> issue (the recent attack).
It was to the jihadis.
Scott Erb
"Dave Lister" <retsil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39dfdcde2eb93976...@news.teranews.com...
> Eagle Eye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
> news:200403152102...@nym.alias.net:
>
> > The bombings are an indication that savages intend to keep murdering
> > innocent civilians. Perhaps Bush doesn't have the answers, but no
> > one else has yet offered a better way to stop terrorism.
>
> Crap, loon. We could be expending massive resources on hunting actual
> terrorists that instead we are spending to attack, get, and keep Iraq.
It never ceases to amaze me when I look at these news groups the level of
willful ignorance, and "Eagle Eye" definitely is one of the most ignorant.
The fact, of course, is that the victory of the opponents in the Iraq war
was good news -- the venom and anger coming from the far right in response
is proof. It I find it delightful to look in here and see how they are
lashing out, realizing that things are going much different than they
expected.
Unfortunately, those of little intelligence don't understand that most
Muslims and most in the Mideast are not terrorists, nor are they extremists.
However, if we start stereotyping, bombing in ways that kill innocents and
civilians, and look like we are waging some kind of war of civilizations, it
will create the emotion that fascists like al qaeda need to try to gain
recruits. In that, the Islamic fundamentalists are no different than past
fascist movements, their best friends are violence and war, and if they can
lure another side into buying into the fear and war mentality, it
strengthens their cause.
People who actually understand terrorism know that you cannot win a "war"
against terrorism (it's a strategy, not a set enemy), but you can have a
counter terrorist policy that works to undercut the roots of terrorism.
Bombing and attacking is counter productive at worst, and only gives short
respite from the symptoms of terrorism at best. It is an emotion-driven
approach (and you can see it in the way those supporting Bush fall into the
idea of demonizing Islam, the mideast, those who disagree with the Bush's
militarist response), doomed to failure.
And we are seeing it fail. Much like the Kennedy era "Grand Design," when
the US decided it could use its power to reshape the world and defeat
communism, the US is getting sucked into a situation with no easy way out,
and losing allies. Our military is stretched thin, and Iraq is not
stabilizing. The economy is in the midst of a structural problem and jobs
and real growth is not returning (the spurt of growth last year was pure
government deficit spending induced growth, and will dissipate quickly as
much of it was defense related, rather than something that sticks).
Expect more anger from that crowd. They thought they were on top of the
world, the war would be won, that Blair, Aznar, and those who stood by the
US would emerge on top of Europe (quite the opposite has occurred!) They
thought the economy would bounce back, that Bush could spend Kerry into
oblivion by mid-April. All that is now gone, and they are in a panic. It's
also amusing that Bush has helped three of his opponents win elections they
otherwise would have lost. In South Korea, Germany and Spain election
outcomes were changed due to opposition of the electorate to Bush's
policies.
I'll check in now and then and hopefully this summer I'll have time to post
more. This could be hilariously fun -- especially given how seriously those
guys take themselves, how they wear their anger and frustration on their
sleeves. Priceless.
Scott Erb
<h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vm1c50dugv8rql4qn...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:26:36 -0600, "John D." <Ya...@bfd.com> wrote:
> You're a moron John. Righties like you love to quote 20-20 hindsight
> from WWII as some kind of justification for murdering Muslim children
> as restribution for the acts of a few fanatical extremists who _want_
> us all to go to war. Your war is only giving them exactly what they
> want. And us getting involved in WWII was us taking a stand against
> fascist imperialism, which is exactly what the Muslims are taking a
> stand against.
One problem in all of this, is how the emotionalization of warfare leads to
a dehumanization of the other, to the point that innocent deaths on the
"other" side are easily rationalized away.
Look at how more Palestinian innocents have died than Israeli innocents.
Yet somehow their innocents aren't considered as important since people like
some in this thread simply label them all savages, and engage in the most
vile and evil form of dehumanization in order to rationalize violence
against a group. That is the stuff of fascism.
I'm developing a project to teach a course on children and war, and look at
the impact bombings and war have on children and families, including those
in Iraq and Palestine as well as Israel, the US and other places. A lot of
people think they are being so smart when they abstract war into some kind
of power thing, distancing themselves from the real human cost,
rationalizing murder and killing for some cause. The terrorists do that,
and when people respond to terrorism with the kind of fear and hate that
some are doing, they are essentially engaged in thought processes similar to
those of the supporters of terrorism.
The best way to counter that is through education, reason, and
understanding. But, of course, they'll scoff at that, call it weak, and
demand action and emphasize power. Little do they realize, they are setting
themselves up to suffer that which they wish upon others. "Evil is still
evil, in anybody's name," (Don Henley).
OK, I can't let myself get sucked into these discussions....too much real
world stuff to do...but I'm hoping I'll have more time come this summer up
through the election...it should be fun. But now, I'm signing off.
Martin McPhillips
news:Xrs5c.29328$H44.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I guess Scott is still very upset that the Hussein
regime and the Taliban are gone, that Libya is
turning in its WMD programs, that the Iranians
are opening up to nuclear inspections, that North
Korea is encircled diplomatically. He must be
very disturbed by Iraqi progress toward
civil society.
That would explain why he's excited that an
al Qaeda terrorist attack has convinced the
electorate of Spain that appeasement will
work.
One begins to wonder if the State of Maine,
in the persons of its taxpayers, really understands
what it is doing paying Scott's salary.
h0mi
> In article <d485c.23326$H44.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
> Scott Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> [sniptroll]
>>More in the summer, I just peeked in to see the reaction to the good news
>>from Spain.
>
> Terrorists murder 200 people.
Maybe that's what Erb was referring to when he said "Good news".
I mean this is _Erb_ we're talking about
zepp
As the right wing squeals get shriller and more pathetic by the
moment.
-
Kerry served in Vietnam and got a silver star.
Putsch served in the National Guard and got a silver filling.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
midtowng
It's amazing how one-dimensional Americans view people from
other nations.
Does the fact that 90% of Spanish voters opposed the
invasion of Iraq, yet the ruling government chose to ignore their
opinions, have anything to do with the results? Not according to
the pro-war people in America.
Does the fact that the ruling government in Spain tried to
pin the blame on Basque's even when the evidence pointed towards
al-Qaeda, and then they were caught at it, have anything to do
with the results? Not according to the pro-war people in America,
even after angry protests about these lies and coverups happened
before international cameras. (not to mention disinformation
from the Bush Administration at the same time)
According to the pro-war people in America there was only
one element to all this: Spanish cowardice before terrorists.
Government lies and disregard for the opinions of the
populace are not elements in this equation.
It must be nice to live in a world in which societies have
no depth.
Isle Of The Dead
"zepp" <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:itrc505vgk91326a3...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 02:35:15 GMT, h0mi <h0...@ooohay.com> wrote:
> >
> >I mean this is _Erb_ we're talking about
>
> As the right wing squeals get shriller and more pathetic by the
> moment.
Hey, Zepp.
You perused over at DemocraticUnderground lately? :D
I tell ya, buddy,
I'm gonna have to work extra hard to go mano-y-mano with
T H E L E G E N D
O F
S T E V E K A N G A S!
Didja ever notice that liberals make the best stalkers / assasins?
Kangas.
John Hinkley
Squeaky Fromme.
Damn, man, I'm not sure I can compete. :)
There's nobody famous I can think of that I want to stalk. :)
I'm not partial to bus rides, either, although the Trimet train here
seems okay. On Sunday, I stopped off at Washington Park.
Man, that's a wild stop, 260 feet underground! You could
survive a nuclear blast on Portland in that tunnel, although it won't
do much good when the Clintonoids attack on Friday night.....
http://www.dawnofthedeadmovie.net
I chalked up another seven miles on Sunday, bringing my total
weekend walk to about twenty miles. Damn, man, I never
walked that much even in the service at less than half the age. :)
Eagle Eye
<Xrs5c.29328$H44.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Scott
Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"Dave Lister" <retsil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:39dfdcde2eb93976...@news.teranews.com...
>> Eagle Eye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
>> news:200403152102...@nym.alias.net:
>> > The bombings are an indication that savages intend to keep
>> > murdering innocent civilians. Perhaps Bush doesn't have the
>> > answers, but no one else has yet offered a better way to stop
>> > terrorism.
>> Crap, loon. We could be expending massive resources on hunting
>> actual terrorists that instead we are spending to attack, get,
>> and keep Iraq.
>The fact, of course, is that the victory of the opponents in the
>Iraq war was good news
The Populist Party in Spain was predicted to have a clear
win. Then terrorists murdered lots of people. Afterwards, the
polls changed 11 points.
Do you really want to call a victory brought about in reaction to
an attrocity "good news"? I thought you were for PEACEFUL
democratic elections.
Can't you look beyond the immediate win for a political party
you favor to see the implications of a terrorist attack
changing the outcome of an election? That should send chills
up your spine.
The news from Spain is decidedly BAD.
[sniptroll]
Eagle Eye
midtowng <gjoh...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>Eagle Eye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>news:<2004031517574...@nym.alias.net>...
>> In article
>> <d485c.23326$H44.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>> Scott Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >More in the summer, I just peeked in to see the reaction to the
>> >good news from Spain.
>> Terrorists murder 200 people. As a consequence, the voters
>> shift 11 points from the last poll before the bombing. The
>> terrorists accomplish their objective of influencing the
>> democratic process.
>>
>> How is any of that "good news"?
> It's amazing how one-dimensional Americans view people from
>other nations.
> Does the fact that 90% of Spanish voters opposed the
>invasion of Iraq, yet the ruling government chose to ignore their
>opinions, have anything to do with the results?
Of course it does. Without the terrorist bombings, the Socialists
were hoping that popular opposition to the war could help them
prevent the Popular Party from winning an absolute majority.
But the terrorists managed to affect the election so much that the
Socialists scored an upset and actually won.
When terrorists manage to change the outcome of an election by
slaughtering hundreds of people, that's definitely BAD NEWS,
regardless of the political parties involved. That means that
these murderous savages will start looking to influence more
elections by murdering more people.
Decent, rational people should be sickened by all of this.
>Not according to the pro-war people in America.
If you want to discuss the matter with me, drop your idiotic
presumption that I am "pro-war".
[snip]
Isle Of The Dead
"Martin McPhillips" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:KRs5c.19362$c73.6...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:Xrs5c.29328$H44.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > and defeat communism,
I guess Erb missed the period of 1989 until now. :)
Dude, you gotta get out of that classroom at least
*once* per decade. More if you can take the pay loss. :)
The more I walk around Portland, the better I like it.
It's a nice little town, smaller than I expected, but there's
more new investment into the downtown than I expected.
The train works well, for a limited geographic area.
The crime seems much lower than in Phoenix.
House prices seem comparable.
I like being on the waterfront again. I annoyed the
bridge monitors last night, I didn't see that flashing red
hand and kept walking down the Burnside bridge.
Some bicyclist yelled at me, but I had on headphones,
I don't know that guy from Jack, why should I listen?
Then this maxie loudspeaker comes on.....
"Pedestrian, clear the bridge.
Testing of the drawbridge is about to begin"
Ooops. :)
Two weeks ago I drove downtown, parked my car
and asked the attendent about a good rock'n'roll club.
He recommended McFadden's, so I walked down to it,
but it was freaking jam-packed, a huge line out the door.
So I tried again on Saturday, only earlier. I quit walking
a bit before eight pm and walked in. I'm, like... "what the
hell is with this place", that it's jam-packed like that?
I waited about an hour for the answer.
The place is *packed* with women, from the start.
I mean, like a 2:1 ratio to the men, at least early on.
You know how you're finally old, Erb?
When the twenty-something waitress flirts with you, and
the other waitress flirts with you, and a couple of customer
babes flirt with you, and suddenly you're thinking more
about how they could be your daughter than your bedmate. :)
Wow. I mean, I've had similar episodes, but this time it
really manifested itself in my head, like the Anti-Viagra.
uhm
@newsguy.com says...
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:06:57 -0500, uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd>
> posted:
>
> >In article <2004031517574...@nym.alias.net>, Use-Author-
> >Address-Header@[127.1] says...
>
> >> In article <d485c.23326$H44.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
> >> Scott Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >> [sniptroll]
>
> >> >More in the summer, I just peeked in to see the reaction to the good news
> >> >from Spain.
>
> >> Terrorists murder 200 people. As a consequence, the voters shift 11
> >> points from the last poll before the bombing. The terrorists accomplish
> >> their objective of influencing the democratic process.
>
> >> How is any of that "good news"?
>
> >The bombing is a very real demonstration that the actions of the Bush
> >administration and their sucklings have not made the world safer.
>
> >It's good news because Spain at least may be abandoning useless courses
> >of action and start actually doing something about the terrorist threat.
>
> Like what? Renouncing their Catholic heritage and converting to
> Islam?
>
> Mike Soja
Can you imagine no better course of action than to attack the wrong guy?
John Doh
>Here's a few reasons why you won't see a terrorist
>attack from al-Qaeda in America between now and the election:
Here is another... it would terrify anyone who was thinking about voting for
John Kerry and his "anti terrorism" policy. Dubya would win even bigger than he
already will.
>So here's a challenge:
>If al-Qaeda does attack America _domestically_ (an attack on
>our forces overseas has an entirely different dynamic) before the
>November election then I will leave a.f.d-q forever.
How about if al-Qaida attacks another European county domestically before their
next election? Especially in England.
>If there is no attack I would like you to admit that you
>don't understand the terrorists or their motives, and hence,
>don't know how to win the WoT.
> I'm extending this challenge to Doh and Martin.
No deal, because I do not think there will be an "October Surprise" terrorist
attack, for the reason I said above. Kerry's idea of a response would be to
send subpoenas to al-Qaida... Dubya would send the Marines. I think most voters
know that, or will soon enough.
--
John D'oh The only possible interpretation of any research whatever
in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't.
-- Ernest Rutherford
uhm
Address-Header@[127.1] says...
> In article <MPG.1abfd6e9a...@news.newsguy.com>
> uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd> wrote:
> >In article <2004031517574...@nym.alias.net>, Use-Author-
> >Address-Header@[127.1] says...
> >> In article <d485c.23326$H44.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
> >> Scott Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> >More in the summer, I just peeked in to see the reaction to the good news
> >> >from Spain.
> >> Terrorists murder 200 people. As a consequence, the voters shift 11
> >> points from the last poll before the bombing. The terrorists accomplish
> >> their objective of influencing the democratic process.
> >>
> >> How is any of that "good news"?
> >The bombing is a very real demonstration that the actions of the Bush
> >administration and their sucklings have not made the world safer.
>
> The bombings are an indication that savages intend to keep murdering
> innocent civilians.
... and, that the Bush strategy has, IN FACT, not made the world safer.
We've also killed innocent civilians. We kill for our goals and they
kill for theirs.
> Perhaps Bush doesn't have the answers
Bush doesn't understand the question.
And you don't understand my response.
> , but no
> one else has yet offered a better way to stop terrorism.
Bush's plan not only doesn't stop terrorists from killing civilians but
it does allows us to kill civilians, and American soldiers too.
> >It's good news because Spain at least may be abandoning useless courses
> >of action and start actually doing something about the terrorist threat.
>
> Do you consider it "good news" that violent mass murder changed the
> outcome of an election?
The change in Spain's direction is good news. It's unfortunate that it
took this to motivate them.
> Do you want your political victories to come from such horrible
> events? Wouldn't you rather have peaceful elections?
Clearly, you are not bright if that's the inference you draw.
> >Even better, it may inspire democracies in other parts of the world,
> >like Britain and the US, to also change from this poor course of action.
>
> How?
Why don't you tell me how you'll misconstrue it:
> By causing voters to fear that they will become targets if they
> don't turn to appeasement?
Thank you. You didn't dissapoint.
Changing course from the failing policy of the Bush administration to
policies that might actually work against terrorism are not appeasement.
I'm glad that Spain has woken up. I hope that they will now turn
attention to effective
> Are we going to start seeing the so-called "anti-war" protestors
> hoping for more slaughter of innocents timed to change the outcomes
> of elections?
You will no doubt characterize it that way.
> This gloating is disgusting and macabre.
If it disgusts you, a Bush fan, I imagine that's more evidence of its
soundness.
midtowng
The jihadists weren't voting or running for office.
uhm
Address-Header@[127.1] says...
> Do you really want to call a victory brought about in reaction to
> an attrocity "good news"? I thought you were for PEACEFUL
> democratic elections.
>
> Can't you look beyond the immediate win for a political party
> you favor to see the implications of a terrorist attack
> changing the outcome of an election? That should send chills
> up your spine.
Why is it bad that the terrorists have woken Spain up to abandon failed
policies? Now Spain might actually put resources into fighting the
terrorists.
That's one for the good guys.
uhm
Address-Header@[127.1] says...
The only thing that would be worse would have been if, after having
received such a horrendous demonstration of the consequences of Bush's
leadership, they stuck by him.
Paul Havemann
> "Paul Havemann" <paulin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Yes, the terrorists will try very hard to duplicate their
>> success in Spain whereever they can, but I think they will
>> concentrate on Europe, which is already weak in the knees.
[snip]
> Europeans are living in a fantasyland, in their pretty-as-
> picture world, and believe that they can appease the
> barbarians within the gates by rejecting the United
> States.
One wonders how many Europeans agree with this Spaniard:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/14/international/europe/14CND-ELEC.html
A 26-year-old window frame maker, who identified himself only as
David, said he had changed his vote from Popular Party to
Socialist because of the bombings and the war in Iraq. "Maybe
the Socialists will get our troops out of Iraq, and Al Qaeda will
forget about Spain, so we will be less frightened," he said.
You just can't find a clearer declaration of appeasement than that.
Although this comes close:
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040315/1/3irv0.html
"It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the
conflict with terrorists," [European Commission chief Romano]
Prodi said.
> I was saying this a long time before last weekend's
> vote in Spain.
Well, here's my contribution to the prediction parade. I think
that it won't be too long before we hear echoes of this (in)famous
statement from people like David, above:
"Oh dear," said Mr. Chamberlain, thunderstruck. "He has
betrayed my trust."
Eagle Eye
uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd> wrote:
>In article <2004031607392...@nym.alias.net>, Use-Author-
>Address-Header@[127.1] says...
>> Do you really want to call a victory brought about in reaction to
>> an attrocity "good news"? I thought you were for PEACEFUL
>> democratic elections.
>>
>> Can't you look beyond the immediate win for a political party
>> you favor to see the implications of a terrorist attack
>> changing the outcome of an election? That should send chills
>> up your spine.
>Why is it bad that the terrorists have woken Spain up to abandon failed
>policies?
It's sick how you refer to the slaughter of hundreds of innocent
people as waking people up.
[snip]
Martin McPhillips
news:cbb1397c.04031...@posting.google.com...
> "Martin McPhillips" <nos...@nospam.com> sez:
> > "Paul Havemann" <paulin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yes, the terrorists will try very hard to duplicate their
> >> success in Spain whereever they can, but I think they will
> >> concentrate on Europe, which is already weak in the knees.
> [snip]
>
> > Europeans are living in a fantasyland, in their pretty-as-
> > picture world, and believe that they can appease the
> > barbarians within the gates by rejecting the United
> > States.
>
> One wonders how many Europeans agree with this Spaniard:
>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/14/international/europe/14CND-ELEC.html
>
> A 26-year-old window frame maker, who identified himself only as
> David, said he had changed his vote from Popular Party to
> Socialist because of the bombings and the war in Iraq. "Maybe
> the Socialists will get our troops out of Iraq, and Al Qaeda will
> forget about Spain, so we will be less frightened," he said.
>
> You just can't find a clearer declaration of appeasement than that.
The next stage will be where they see the terrorists as
their protectors, both from the terrible impositions
of the United States and from their own immigrant
muslim population. "When al Qaeda tells them to
behave they behave, and with al Qaeda always
watching the government will never betray us
again by forming stupid alliances with the U.S."
They'll hardly notice it when the muslims
in Spain (or all of Europe for that matter) will
be allowed to live under Islamic law. That is
probably going to happen, and much sooner
than anyone thinks. Europe has lost its center
of gravity and Islam, despite its own disintegration,
retains a basic highly aggressive nature.
> Although this comes close:
>
> http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040315/1/3irv0.html
>
> "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the
> conflict with terrorists," [European Commission chief Romano]
> Prodi said.
Direct force isn't the only answer, but it's an absolutely
necessary component of an integrated strategy. But
Prodi is speaking as someone who is contemplating,
again, Europe's internal proletariat of muslims, to
use Toynbee's term for populations that are *in*
but not *of* a great society.
> > I was saying this a long time before last weekend's
> > vote in Spain.
>
> Well, here's my contribution to the prediction parade. I think
> that it won't be too long before we hear echoes of this (in)famous
> statement from people like David, above:
>
> "Oh dear," said Mr. Chamberlain, thunderstruck. "He has
> betrayed my trust."
I have two things to say about that, Paul. First is that
as this goes forward there will never even be an
opportunity for anyone to say that, at least not in
the context that Chamberlain said it. This is about
dissolution, and there is no capacity left there to
strike the sort of contrast in which that sort of
thing can broached -- betrayal.
Second is that there's a solemn lesson of the
emerging realpolitik here. There's no point in
hoping that the situation there will be turned
around. The point of no return has probably
been passed, and well before the Spanish
election.
The only thing left is to do what can be done
to make sure that our own society is not
pulled down into Europe's death by our
ancient association and the siren call of those
Eurosocialist lunatics.
The most important thing in that context is
to start preparing now for the end of our
special relationship with the British. That
is a land of crazed totalitarian school marms,
of both sexes, now.
Eagle Eye
uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd> wrote:
>In article <2004031608010...@nym.alias.net>, Use-Author-
>Address-Header@[127.1] says...
>> When terrorists manage to change the outcome of an election by
>> slaughtering hundreds of people, that's definitely BAD NEWS,
>> regardless of the political parties involved. That means that
>> these murderous savages will start looking to influence more
>> elections by murdering more people.
>>
>> Decent, rational people should be sickened by all of this.
>The only thing that would be worse would have been if, after having
>received such a horrendous demonstration of the consequences of Bush's
>leadership, they stuck by him.
No. If the voters had not changed their choice in response to the
terrorist attack, thwarting the goals of the murderers, that would
have sent a message that terrorism will not be effective.
Unfortunately, the terrorists demonstrated that they can succeed.
That's not a hopeful sign for the future.
Eagle Eye
uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd> wrote:
>In article <200403152102...@nym.alias.net>, Use-Author-
>Address-Header@[127.1] says...
>> This gloating is disgusting and macabre.
>If it disgusts you, a Bush fan, I imagine that's more evidence of its
>soundness.
Shows how much you know. I'm not a "Bush fan". I don't support any
political party nor do I plan to ever waste my time voting again.
All the politicians are thieves and liars.
I didn't advocate the invasion of Iraq, either.
You were saying?
chris.holt
> uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd> wrote:
[spanish election]
>>The only thing that would be worse would have been if, after having
>>received such a horrendous demonstration of the consequences of Bush's
>>leadership, they stuck by him.
> No. If the voters had not changed their choice in response to the
> terrorist attack, thwarting the goals of the murderers, that would
> have sent a message that terrorism will not be effective.
Since you don't know what the goals of the murderers were, I
can only assume that you think they were what occurred. Since
we know that elsewhere murderers have tried to polarize the
world, making people even more hardline than they are, why
do you think your assessment is accurate?
> Unfortunately, the terrorists demonstrated that they can succeed.
> That's not a hopeful sign for the future.
If people had voted for more hardline policies, it could be argued
that then the terrorists would have succeeded. How would you
counter this argument?
--
MikeSoja
posted:
>In article <7t4c509vdrn7i0ljq...@4ax.com>, msoja9
>@newsguy.com says...
>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:06:57 -0500, uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd>
>> posted:
>> >The bombing is a very real demonstration that the actions of the Bush
>> >administration and their sucklings have not made the world safer.
>> >It's good news because Spain at least may be abandoning useless courses
>> >of action and start actually doing something about the terrorist threat.
>> Like what? Renouncing their Catholic heritage and converting to
>> Islam?
>Can you imagine no better course of action than to attack the wrong guy?
Well, aside from the facts that: Hussein was the right guy, Spain
didn't commit troops to the attack, al Qaeda and breathren have had
an Iberian presence and interests for years and have repeatedly
targeted Spanish interests in Africa and elsewhere and are likely to
continue to press their claims wherever they can, the socialist
prime minister has vowed to continue fighting terrorism (and
presumably al Qaeda), the same prime minister would still keep
Spanish troops in Iraq behind the fig leaf of a United Nations
presence (in other words, he's fine with the fall of Hussein and
just wants to slap George Bush), al Qaeda has a history of despising
the cowards who fall all over themselves in attempting some form of
appeasement toward them, bin Laden will despise a socialist
democracy in Spain at least as much as he despised the more
conservative one, and there's no guarantee in the slightest that
Spain won't be targeted again; aside from all that, you've got it
all goin' on, yeah.
Mike Soja
Eagle Eye
chris.holt <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>Eagle Eye wrote:
>> uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd> wrote:
> [spanish election]
>>>The only thing that would be worse would have been if, after having
>>>received such a horrendous demonstration of the consequences of Bush's
>>>leadership, they stuck by him.
>> No. If the voters had not changed their choice in response to the
>> terrorist attack, thwarting the goals of the murderers, that would
>> have sent a message that terrorism will not be effective.
>Since you don't know what the goals of the murderers were
It isn't hard to figure out.
Then there's this:
MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- A document published months before
national elections reveals al Qaeda planned to separate Spain
from its allies by carrying out terror attacks.
A December posting on a Internet message board used by al Qaeda
and its sympathizers and obtained by CNN, spells out a plan to
topple the pro-U.S. government.
"We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two
blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw
because of the public pressure on it," the al Qaeda document
says.
"If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the
Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed -- and the withdrawal
of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto."
That prediction came to fruition in elections Sunday, with the
Socialists unseating the Popular Party three days after
near-simultaneous bombings of four trains killed 200 and shocked
the nation.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/15/spain.invest/index.html
[snip]
>> Unfortunately, the terrorists demonstrated that they can succeed.
>> That's not a hopeful sign for the future.
>If people had voted for more hardline policies, it could be argued
>that then the terrorists would have succeeded. How would you
>counter this argument?
You don't get it. It doesn't so much matter whether the winning
party is "hardline" or "soft" or whatever. What matters most is
that the outcome of the election CHANGED.
Rewind back to 1996 and suppose that a terrorist attack three days
before the election resulted in a Dole victory. Even if I wanted
Clinton to lose, I would never call such events "good news".
That's just sick.
r_c_brown
> > > I think the outcome makes it a near-certainty that
> > > there will be a series of terror attacks in the
> > > US before the election. I'd expect a series of
> > > car bombs designed to maximize civilian casualties
> > > or perhaps attack major landmarks. Even a loser
> > > like McVeigh could pull that off.
> >
> > Well, Ernst, you've been wrong about almost everything involving
> Iraq and US
> > policy in your predictions, so I only can hope you're wrong on this
> too.
> >
> > Meanwhile, another bloody weekend in Iraq, experts fear that
> democracy is
> > far away from the country, and sectarian disputes grow. Terrorist
> > recruitment has increased, the US military is overstretched and in
> low
> > morale, the US is forced to go back to the UN to get help, Syria and
> Iran
> > are not pressured and in fact are able to keep the US weakened by
> simply
> > letting terrorists cross borders (and the US can't
> respond)...meanwhile, oil
> > prices stay high, the US has little respect on the world stage, and
> we're
> > learning the lesson of great powers about the dangers of trying to
> project
> > power to shape another part of the world.
> >
> > More in the summer, I just peeked in to see the reaction to the good
> news
> > from Spain.
>
>
> As an example:
>
> "...another bloody weekend in Iraq, experts fear that democracy
> is far away from the country, and sectarian disputes grow."
>
> You write that a week after the Iraqis reach a milestone in
> democracy. The terrorist violence there has become more
> desperate, less effective, and serves to anger Iraqis. And
> sectarian disputes are finding solutions in the political
> process.
>
> Naturally, however, you call the election of socialists in
> Spain "good news." That's not good news, Scott. Least
> of all for Spain and Europe. It's a death knell.
"Good news"? A national election was determined by *terrorism*. How
can this possibly be considered "good news"?
What is wrong with people?
>
> But perhaps you won't be so sensitive about being "labelled"
> a socialist in the future.
Martin McPhillips
news:bb730bf.04031...@posting.google.com...
Munich, Vichy, appeasement, capitulation,
cowardice, death wish, obliviousness.
Roughly, from memory because I'm too
lazy to go find my paperback copy:
A crowd flowed over London Bridge,
sighs were exhaled, short and infrequent,
so many, I had not thought death had undone
so many
-T.S. Eliot, very approximately, from the
Wasteland.
A society too exhausted by narcissism to
remain awake.
Ernst Blofeld
> Second is that there's a solemn lesson of the
> emerging realpolitik here. There's no point in
> hoping that the situation there will be turned
> around. The point of no return has probably
> been passed, and well before the Spanish
> election.
I'm not as pessimistic as that. Democracies
make all sorts of stupid decisions before,
often, making the right one. The European
record is from a historical standpoint admittedly
not that good, but there is at least some recognition
in Europe that this was a decision that invited more
terror, and on a grander scale.
European _elites_ are a pretty sad lot.
Europe is in desprate need of an alternative
political movement, but too often they seem
stuck between socialism, reactionary
movements like Le Pen, or swag-happy crooks
like Chirac. If the situation deteriorates
over the next 20 years as some are saying
they could well take a detour through some
of the populist reactionaries.
John Doh
>>>>>> John D'oh writes:
> John> No deal, because I do not think there will be an "October Surprise"
>terrorist
> John> attack, for the reason I said above. Kerry's idea of a response
>would be to
> John> send subpoenas to al-Qaida... Dubya would send the Marines. I think
>most voters
>
>Where would he send the Marines?
It is an expression, Mr. Hall. I think you know what I mean... and you do not
seem to be challenging the idea.
midtowng
> In article <32a880f2.04031...@posting.google.com>
> midtowng <gjoh...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
> >Eagle Eye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> >news:<2004031517574...@nym.alias.net>...
> >> In article
> >> <d485c.23326$H44.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
> >> Scott Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> >More in the summer, I just peeked in to see the reaction to the
> >> >good news from Spain.
> >> Terrorists murder 200 people. As a consequence, the voters
> >> shift 11 points from the last poll before the bombing. The
> >> terrorists accomplish their objective of influencing the
> >> democratic process.
> >>
> >> How is any of that "good news"?
> > It's amazing how one-dimensional Americans view people from
> >other nations.
> > Does the fact that 90% of Spanish voters opposed the
> >invasion of Iraq, yet the ruling government chose to ignore their
> >opinions, have anything to do with the results?
>
> Of course it does. Without the terrorist bombings, the Socialists
> were hoping that popular opposition to the war could help them
> prevent the Popular Party from winning an absolute majority.
They had little chance of winning an absolute majority.
>
> But the terrorists managed to affect the election so much that the
> Socialists scored an upset and actually won.
I notice you deleted my other points.
For instance, one of them was the ruling party tried to lie
about the source of the bombing, blaming the ETA, and got caught
at it. The public was outraged and there were unplanned
demonstrations.
This little fact fits outside of the one-dimensional,
American view of the Spanish elections.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/international/europe/16SPIN.html
Senior European officials complained Monday that their governments and
the United Nations felt misled by the government of Prime Minister
José María Aznar in the way it initially blamed the Basque separatist
organization ETA for the terror attacks last week.
On Thursday, the day of the bombings, at Spain's insistence, the
Security Council passed a resolution attributing responsibility to
ETA.
Also on Thursday, Javier Solana, a Spaniard who is the European
Union's top foreign policy official, gave television interviews in
three languages saying it seemed certain that militant Basque
separatists were responsible because the type of explosives and the
tactics used were those of ETA.
[...]
>
> When terrorists manage to change the outcome of an election by
> slaughtering hundreds of people, that's definitely BAD NEWS,
> regardless of the political parties involved. That means that
> these murderous savages will start looking to influence more
> elections by murdering more people.
Who says that their objective was the elections?
Everyone seems to accept this as a fact, yet I've seen
no proof that this was their objective.
After all, they were Moroccans. Morocco has plenty of
reasons to attack Spain that have nothing to do with Iraq.
>
> Decent, rational people should be sickened by all of this.
Terrorists have been disrupting and influencing elections
for centuries. Their efforts generally backfire.
The reason they didn't this time was NOT because of their
efforts, but for other reasons outside of this one-dimensional
thinking.
Ernst Blofeld
>>>you think the Spanish election was about a single, solitary
>>>issue (the recent attack).
>>
>>It was to the jihadis.
>
>
> The jihadists weren't voting or running for office.
The Spanish people won't be the ones blowing up
the bombs.
chris.holt
> chris.holt <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Eagle Eye wrote:
>>>uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd> wrote:
>> [spanish election]
>>>>The only thing that would be worse would have been if, after having
>>>>received such a horrendous demonstration of the consequences of Bush's
>>>>leadership, they stuck by him.
>>>No. If the voters had not changed their choice in response to the
>>>terrorist attack, thwarting the goals of the murderers, that would
>>>have sent a message that terrorism will not be effective.
>>Since you don't know what the goals of the murderers were
> It isn't hard to figure out.
Well, I'm not convinced that you've figured it out. Maybe
I'm just more wary about taking things at face value.
> Then there's this:
>
>
> MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- A document published months before
> national elections reveals al Qaeda planned to separate Spain
> from its allies by carrying out terror attacks.
>
> A December posting on a Internet message board used by al Qaeda
> and its sympathizers and obtained by CNN, spells out a plan to
> topple the pro-U.S. government.
>
> "We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two
> blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw
> because of the public pressure on it," the al Qaeda document
> says.
>
> "If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the
> Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed -- and the withdrawal
> of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto."
>
> That prediction came to fruition in elections Sunday, with the
> Socialists unseating the Popular Party three days after
> near-simultaneous bombings of four trains killed 200 and shocked
> the nation.
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/15/spain.invest/index.html
>>>Unfortunately, the terrorists demonstrated that they can succeed.
>>>That's not a hopeful sign for the future.
>>If people had voted for more hardline policies, it could be argued
>>that then the terrorists would have succeeded. How would you
>>counter this argument?
> You don't get it. It doesn't so much matter whether the winning
> party is "hardline" or "soft" or whatever. What matters most is
> that the outcome of the election CHANGED.
So? Events, good bad and ugly, are always going to affect
such things. The Stern Gang affected the creation of Israel
way back when; the Bolsheviks affected the future of the
Mensheviks. You're trying to make this special/exceptional;
it isn't really.
> Rewind back to 1996 and suppose that a terrorist attack three days
> before the election resulted in a Dole victory. Even if I wanted
> Clinton to lose, I would never call such events "good news".
>
> That's just sick.
I didn't and wouldn't call the loss of life good news; I didn't
call 9/11 good news either. In both cases, if it causes people
to reassess their positions and make more sensible decisions,
that result can be applauded without being happy about the
cause. Not that I think either event necessarily did that;
but they can be interpreted in these ways.
--
Martin McPhillips
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
>
> > Second is that there's a solemn lesson of the
> > emerging realpolitik here. There's no point in
> > hoping that the situation there will be turned
> > around. The point of no return has probably
> > been passed, and well before the Spanish
> > election.
>
> I'm not as pessimistic as that. Democracies
> make all sorts of stupid decisions before,
> often, making the right one. The European
> record is from a historical standpoint admittedly
> not that good, but there is at least some recognition
> in Europe that this was a decision that invited more
> terror, and on a grander scale.
Dolly back from the immediate events and
take the big panoramic shot, one that includes,
for instance, the compulsive turn to socialism
by the Brits immediately at the end of WWII,
as well as the collapse of the Tories there
after Thatcher.
The moment that I knew it was over was
when I saw -- maybe it was a year or
two ago now -- the audience of Labourites
at their convention, with Tony Blair at
the podium. "Crazed totalitarian school
marms of both sexes" expressionlessly
tolerating their flamboyant "third way" front
man. It's not for nothing that the authors
of the two classic dystopian novels --
Huxley and Orwell -- were Brits.
There's a man from the British
countryside who is in prison because
he shot a burglar who had broken into
his home -- this after several earlier
break-ins. He refuses to admit to his
wrongdoing, so when his opportunity
for parole came up he was kept in jail
because his failure to understand the
seriousness of his offense, according
to the crazed totalitarian school marms
in charge of his fate, made him a
continuing threat to burglars.
Any society caught in that kind of vapor
lock has no future worth contemplating.
And the Brits retain more in the way of
common sense than the Continent, to whose
EU monster they are about to submit
another portion of their soul.
The Islamic internal proletariat of Europe
will be feeding on the European carcass
like vultures before we even know it.
> European _elites_ are a pretty sad lot.
> Europe is in desprate need of an alternative
> political movement, but too often they seem
> stuck between socialism, reactionary
> movements like Le Pen, or swag-happy crooks
> like Chirac. If the situation deteriorates
> over the next 20 years as some are saying
> they could well take a detour through some
> of the populist reactionaries.
Europe should be preparing to go to war --
the kind of relentless savage war that only
Western societies understand how to
prosecute -- but instead it is getting
prepared to emulate its predecessor,
the Roman Empire, in the face of
barbarism.
It's over.
John Doh
>>>>>> John Doh writes:
>
> >> ah...@no-spam-panix.com :
> >>>>>>> John D'oh writes:
>
> John> No deal, because I do not think there will be an "October Surprise"
>terrorist
> John> attack, for the reason I said above. Kerry's idea of a response
>would be to
> John> send subpoenas to al-Qaida... Dubya would send the Marines. I think
>most voters
>
> >> Where would he send the Marines?
>
> John> It is an expression, Mr. Hall. I think you know what I mean... and
>you do not
> John> seem to be challenging the idea.
>
>I am. We need a real target for the marines. We had
>one in Afghanistan (one we may have used too quickly).
Wow... so you don't even think we should have gone after al Qaida in
Afghanistan?
>Iraq was not about terrorism.
Well, except that Saddam harbored terrorists.... as you know.
>
>Most of the fight against terrorism will be police and
>intelligence work. They are in small cells all over the
>place. Not a marines target.
Okay, since you have trouble understanding, I will spell it out... Kerry's idea
of fighting terrorism is like yours -- sending subpoenas to "alleged"
terrorists. He will play defense, which means being ready to clean up after the
next attack.
I much prefer killing terrorists before they kill us. I guess we just disagree.
midtowng
The spanish people didn't vote the way they did because of
any bombs.
They voted the way they did because the ruling, conservative
party tried to manipulate the tragedy and got caught at it.
So far this point has been ignored by every conservative on
this board. I wonder if you guys will ever address the point?
Billy Beck
"Martin McPhillips" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Martin, it's been nearly ten years since I noted the case of a
young man in Pennsylvania, whose first name is "Brian", and that's all
I can recall. He shot a man coming through the door of his porch, and
was promptly convicted on some pled-out charge less than murder. Went
to prison for 7-10, IIRC. I corresponded briefly with his father, who
was as despairing a man as I ever saw.
*You are living* in a "society caught in that kind of vapor
lock". You said it here in Usenent some years back: "It's France
here, now." As soon as I saw that line, I thought, "That is a perfect
distillation of what's going on." And you once asserted to me in
e-mail that things were different since 9/11 and that the judgment no
longer applied, but I say you were right the first time. In fact, it
was right long before you wrote it.
>And the Brits retain more in the way of
>common sense than the Continent, to whose
>EU monster they are about to submit
>another portion of their soul.
Yes, they are. But this country did that a long time ago in San
Francisco, and the monument is right there in your home town, along
the East River.
I'm not here to swing on you the wrong way. I'm just telling you
that I see all the things you're talking about, right here in America.
I have for a long time.
Billy
Martin McPhillips
news:rj6h50d49m9m949du...@4ax.com...
This is not a simple question. I've said that we're
about 20 years behind Europe, and that's half a
breath historically. I told Soja earlier that we
are on a razor's edge and that we could embrace
the European death wish without much advance
notice.
But that said the two situations are different.
The principle difference being that our
situation is still reversible and Europe's
is not. That stems from the fact that while
we are part of Western civilization, we also
stand apart from its European core and
have the potential to survive as a distinct
American civilization. That's something
that, in fact, we clearly saw as our
destiny before we took the really big
jump into internationalism in WWI.
But of course our prospects are not
rosy simply because they are better
than Europe's. On the other hand,
the UN is not close to becoming our
EU, and the EU is the absolute death
knell of Europe. Our underlying
structure of government, though
obviously susceptible to assault by
Euro-style socialism and culture war,
has to it some of the toughness of
an inexpensive cut of beef. It resists
all but stewing, and stewing takes
time.
We also assimilate our immigrants,
and Europe has a very hard time with
that and has failed with it most aggressive
immigrants -- those from Islamic civilization.
Europe is about a 9 on the narcissism scale,
and we're around 6 and headed to seven.
There is one key element that you
don't care about at all, but which has
the capacity to see us to and through
a reversal of the death wish -- and that
is the Church. It would also only
be the Church to which Europe could
turn in any last attempt to throw off
the death wish. Instead, however, it
appears that Europe has thrown off
the Church. (And by the Church I
mean all the elements of traditional
Christian churches that remain faithful
to the basic teachings, what C.S. Lewis
called "mere Christianity.")
Finally, unlike Europe we do not have
an aggressive internal and external muslim
proletariat -- an awakening-from-dormancy,
feral, *traditional* enemy that has been
reduced from civilization to barbarity --
ready to come feast on our carcass.
Ernst Blofeld
> Ernst Blofeld <blof...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<x1R5c.28534$1p.467790@attbi_s54>...
> > midtowng wrote:
> > >>>you think the Spanish election was about a single, solitary
> > >>>issue (the recent attack).
> > >>
> > >>It was to the jihadis.
> > >
> > > The jihadists weren't voting or running for office.
> >
> > The Spanish people won't be the ones blowing up
> > the bombs.
>
> The spanish people didn't vote the way they did because of
> any bombs.
The terrorists believe they did, and they've got a pretty good
argument. And that's why there will be more and bigger
bombs to come.
midtowng
Do they? It's possible, but at the same time Spain is
more familar with terrorism than places like America are.
Terrorist attacks in the past in Spain haven't gotten the
terrorists what they wanted.
> And that's why there will be more and bigger
> bombs to come.
Against whom? Spain? Possibly, but then I seriously doubt
the spanish people believe that there would be any more
or less terrorism whether they stay in Iraq or not.
Marty Feldman
> gjoh...@eudoramail.com (midtowng):
>
> >Here's a few reasons why you won't see a terrorist
> >attack from al-Qaeda in America between now and the election:
>
> Here is another... it would terrify anyone who was thinking about voting for
> John Kerry and his "anti terrorism" policy. Dubya would win even bigger than he
> already will.
>
> >So here's a challenge:
> >If al-Qaeda does attack America _domestically_ (an attack on
> >our forces overseas has an entirely different dynamic) before the
> >November election then I will leave a.f.d-q forever.
>
> How about if al-Qaida attacks another European county domestically before their
> next election? Especially in England.
>
> >If there is no attack I would like you to admit that you
> >don't understand the terrorists or their motives, and hence,
> >don't know how to win the WoT.
> > I'm extending this challenge to Doh and Martin.
>
> No deal, because I do not think there will be an "October Surprise" terrorist
he supported the war in afghanistan, no subpoenas involved there.
kerry does support subpoenas when terrorists reside in allied
countries like pakistan, that's how we got khalid, the mastermind of
9/11 (not saddam). you can't just send the marines into sovereign
nations, you need their cooperation in apprehending them.
but...you'll never understand that. wanna know why? you're ignorant.
moreover, you're ignorant of how ignorant you are. just like the
bush admin.
uhm
Address-Header@[127.1] says...
> In article <MPG.1ac10eee1...@news.newsguy.com>
> uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd> wrote:
> >In article <200403152102...@nym.alias.net>, Use-Author-
> >Address-Header@[127.1] says...
> [snip]
> >> This gloating is disgusting and macabre.
> >If it disgusts you, a Bush fan, I imagine that's more evidence of its
> >soundness.
>
> Shows how much you know. I'm not a "Bush fan". I don't support any
> political party nor do I plan to ever waste my time voting again.
> All the politicians are thieves and liars.
>
> I didn't advocate the invasion of Iraq, either.
>
> You were saying?
I was saying that Spain's change of direction away from the foolish
policies of the Bush administration is a good thing.
Further I was saying that it's disingenuous of you to try to
characterize those who are happy that Spain has woken up as being happy
that people died.
That's what I was saying.
uhm
Address-Header@[127.1] says...
> In article <MPG.1ac11115b...@news.newsguy.com>
> uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd> wrote:
> >In article <2004031607392...@nym.alias.net>, Use-Author-
> >Address-Header@[127.1] says...
> >> Do you really want to call a victory brought about in reaction to
> >> an attrocity "good news"? I thought you were for PEACEFUL
> >> democratic elections.
> >>
> >> Can't you look beyond the immediate win for a political party
> >> you favor to see the implications of a terrorist attack
> >> changing the outcome of an election? That should send chills
> >> up your spine.
> >Why is it bad that the terrorists have woken Spain up to abandon failed
> >policies?
>
> It's sick how you refer to the slaughter of hundreds of innocent
> people as waking people up.
There you go again.... I'm refering to Spain's change of direction as
people waking up. But you knew that didn't you.
uhm
Address-Header@[127.1] says...
> In article <MPG.1ac10fab4...@news.newsguy.com>
> uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd> wrote:
> >In article <2004031608010...@nym.alias.net>, Use-Author-
> >Address-Header@[127.1] says...
> [snip]
> >> When terrorists manage to change the outcome of an election by
> >> slaughtering hundreds of people, that's definitely BAD NEWS,
> >> regardless of the political parties involved. That means that
> >> these murderous savages will start looking to influence more
> >> elections by murdering more people.
> >>
> >> Decent, rational people should be sickened by all of this.
> >The only thing that would be worse would have been if, after having
> >received such a horrendous demonstration of the consequences of Bush's
> >leadership, they stuck by him.
>
> No.
Yes. It would be foolish to continue to follow a leader after the
leader's failure has been made so clear.
> If the voters had not changed their choice in response to the
> terrorist attack, thwarting the goals of the murderers, that would
> have sent a message that terrorism will not be effective.
I don't know that the terrorists cared who won the election.
> Unfortunately, the terrorists demonstrated that they can succeed.
> That's not a hopeful sign for the future.
It is a hopeful sign that not everyone in the world are frightened sheep
and are willing to start to take the terorrist threat seriously. In
fact Americans may be unique in the world in their ability to be led
into attacking nations that have nothing to do with al-Qaida.
We don't look too bright in aggregate.
uhm
@newsguy.com says...
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:01:25 -0500, uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd>
> posted:
>
> >In article <7t4c509vdrn7i0ljq...@4ax.com>, msoja9
> >@newsguy.com says...
>
> >> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:06:57 -0500, uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd>
> >> posted:
>
> >> >The bombing is a very real demonstration that the actions of the Bush
> >> >administration and their sucklings have not made the world safer.
>
> >> >It's good news because Spain at least may be abandoning useless courses
> >> >of action and start actually doing something about the terrorist threat.
>
> >> Like what? Renouncing their Catholic heritage and converting to
> >> Islam?
>
> >Can you imagine no better course of action than to attack the wrong guy?
>
> Well, aside from the facts that: Hussein was the right guy
Hussien was not the right guy. He was just A guy that we didn't like.
We diverted resources from supporters of al-Qaida to non-supporters of
al-Qaida.
That was stupid.
> , Spain
> didn't commit troops to the attack, al Qaeda and breathren have had
> an Iberian presence and interests for years and have repeatedly
> targeted Spanish interests in Africa and elsewhere and are likely to
> continue to press their claims wherever they can, the socialist
> prime minister has vowed to continue fighting terrorism (and
> presumably al Qaeda), the same prime minister would still keep
> Spanish troops in Iraq behind the fig leaf of a United Nations
> presence (in other words, he's fine with the fall of Hussein and
> just wants to slap George Bush), al Qaeda has a history of despising
> the cowards who fall all over themselves in attempting some form of
> appeasement toward them, bin Laden will despise a socialist
> democracy in Spain at least as much as he despised the more
> conservative one, and there's no guarantee in the slightest that
> Spain won't be targeted again; aside from all that, you've got it
> all goin' on, yeah.
If Spain now commits it's resources to fighting terrorism rather than
supporting the Bush administration's failed policies it will be safer.
Martin McPhillips
news:c39gib$q35$1...@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
>
> I didn't and wouldn't call the loss of life good news; I didn't
> call 9/11 good news either. In both cases, if it causes people
> to reassess their positions and make more sensible decisions,
> that result can be applauded without being happy about the
> cause. Not that I think either event necessarily did that;
> but they can be interpreted in these ways.
How about if some terrorists killed your children
because you were living in a neighborhood that
they wanted to make their enclave, and you then
quickly moved from the neighborhood? While
not viewing the murder of your children as
"good news," is your leaving of the neighborhood
a "sensible decision" that should be "applauded?"
Your moral confusion is equal to the volcanic
ash that buries entire cities. You're like the
"after" person from Invasion of the Body
Snatchers -- seriously, you're like a walking,
talking bag of pulp.
MikeSoja
posted:
>In article <c6oe509mi1vjs2058...@4ax.com>, msoja9
>@newsguy.com says...
>> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:01:25 -0500, uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd>
>> posted:
>> >Can you imagine no better course of action than to attack the wrong guy?
>> Well, aside from the facts that: Hussein was the right guy
>Hussien was not the right guy. He was just A guy that we didn't like.
>We diverted resources from supporters of al-Qaida to non-supporters of
>al-Qaida.
Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group in the world (in case you
don't believe that Iraq and al Qaeda were as good pals as H. Clinton
and T. Kennedy). Iraq was involved with many of them. And G. Bush
declared a war on *Terror*, not a war on al Qaeda.
>That was stupid.
>> , Spain
>> didn't commit troops to the attack, al Qaeda and breathren have had
>> an Iberian presence and interests for years and have repeatedly
>> targeted Spanish interests in Africa and elsewhere and are likely to
>> continue to press their claims wherever they can, the socialist
>> prime minister has vowed to continue fighting terrorism (and
>> presumably al Qaeda), the same prime minister would still keep
>> Spanish troops in Iraq behind the fig leaf of a United Nations
>> presence (in other words, he's fine with the fall of Hussein and
>> just wants to slap George Bush), al Qaeda has a history of despising
>> the cowards who fall all over themselves in attempting some form of
>> appeasement toward them, bin Laden will despise a socialist
>> democracy in Spain at least as much as he despised the more
>> conservative one, and there's no guarantee in the slightest that
>> Spain won't be targeted again; aside from all that, you've got it
>> all goin' on, yeah.
>If Spain now commits it's resources to fighting terrorism rather than
>supporting the Bush administration's failed policies it will be safer.
The recently ousted Popular Party in Spain was noted for its hard
line stance against terrorism. Which, of course, the terrorists
didn't like. Are you supposing that the socialists, whose first act
was to cave to terrorist demands, are going to be bigger terrorism
fighters than Aznar was?
Or are you counting on those 1300 Spanish peace keeping troops to
make all the difference?
Mike Soja
Eagle Eye
chris.holt <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>Eagle Eye wrote:
>> chris.holt <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>Eagle Eye wrote:
>>>>uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd> wrote:
>>> [spanish election]
>>>>>The only thing that would be worse would have been if, after having
>>>>>received such a horrendous demonstration of the consequences of Bush's
>>>>>leadership, they stuck by him.
>>>>No. If the voters had not changed their choice in response to the
>>>>terrorist attack, thwarting the goals of the murderers, that would
>>>>have sent a message that terrorism will not be effective.
>>>Since you don't know what the goals of the murderers were
>> It isn't hard to figure out.
>Well, I'm not convinced that you've figured it out.
I don't measure the accuracy of my posts by whether Chris
Holt is convinced or not.
>Maybe I'm just more wary about taking things at face value.
Or maybe you have a problem discriminating between the plausible
and implausible.
<blink>
Are you really unable to grasp the implications?
>Events, good bad and ugly, are always going to affect
>such things. The Stern Gang affected the creation of Israel
>way back when; the Bolsheviks affected the future of the
>Mensheviks.
Yes. Those were bad things.
>You're trying to make this special/exceptional;
>it isn't really.
It is an exceptional event in the context of a modern western democracy.
If France started rounding up Jews and murdering them, should we
shrug our shoulders and say that wasn't an exceptional event, since
it's happened many times before?
>> Rewind back to 1996 and suppose that a terrorist attack three days
>> before the election resulted in a Dole victory. Even if I wanted
>> Clinton to lose, I would never call such events "good news".
>>
>> That's just sick.
>I didn't
Scott Erb did. He's a professor of Political "Science", teaching
young minds about such matters. He claimed to be for PEACEFUL
democratic elections, but apparently he lied.
>and wouldn't call the loss of life good news; I didn't
>call 9/11 good news either. In both cases, if it causes people
>to reassess their positions and make more sensible decisions,
>that result can be applauded without being happy about the
>cause.
Voters reacting to a bombing only two or three days prior are
far more inclined to make their decisions based upon emotions
rather than careful reflection. However, applauding an
outcome you like while ignoring or minimizing the long-term
ramifications is very foolish.
>Not that I think either event necessarily did that;
>but they can be interpreted in these ways.
Three guesses how the terrorists will interpret events.
uhm
@newsguy.com says...
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:24:06 -0500, uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd>
> posted:
>
> >In article <c6oe509mi1vjs2058...@4ax.com>, msoja9
> >@newsguy.com says...
>
> >> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:01:25 -0500, uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd>
> >> posted:
>
> >> >Can you imagine no better course of action than to attack the wrong guy?
>
> >> Well, aside from the facts that: Hussein was the right guy
>
> >Hussien was not the right guy. He was just A guy that we didn't like.
> >We diverted resources from supporters of al-Qaida to non-supporters of
> >al-Qaida.
>
> Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group in the world (in case you
> don't believe that Iraq and al Qaeda were as good pals as H. Clinton
> and T. Kennedy). Iraq was involved with many of them. And G. Bush
> declared a war on *Terror*, not a war on al Qaeda.
The terrorists supported by SWaddam were small beans and should have
been left for last.
al-Qaeda is the group that attacked us and can continue to do so. That
should have been first priority.
>
> >That was stupid.
>
> >> , Spain
> >> didn't commit troops to the attack, al Qaeda and breathren have had
> >> an Iberian presence and interests for years and have repeatedly
> >> targeted Spanish interests in Africa and elsewhere and are likely to
> >> continue to press their claims wherever they can, the socialist
> >> prime minister has vowed to continue fighting terrorism (and
> >> presumably al Qaeda), the same prime minister would still keep
> >> Spanish troops in Iraq behind the fig leaf of a United Nations
> >> presence (in other words, he's fine with the fall of Hussein and
> >> just wants to slap George Bush), al Qaeda has a history of despising
> >> the cowards who fall all over themselves in attempting some form of
> >> appeasement toward them, bin Laden will despise a socialist
> >> democracy in Spain at least as much as he despised the more
> >> conservative one, and there's no guarantee in the slightest that
> >> Spain won't be targeted again; aside from all that, you've got it
> >> all goin' on, yeah.
>
> >If Spain now commits it's resources to fighting terrorism rather than
> >supporting the Bush administration's failed policies it will be safer.
>
> The recently ousted Popular Party in Spain was noted for its hard
> line stance against terrorism.
Bullshit. They followed the Bush lead which is weak on terrorism.
> Which, of course, the terrorists
> didn't like. Are you supposing that the socialists, whose first act
> was to cave to terrorist demands, are going to be bigger terrorism
> fighters than Aznar was?
Anzar supported the war on Iraq which was not a significant contributor
to global terrorism.
So you are wrong.
> Or are you counting on those 1300 Spanish peace keeping troops to
> make all the difference?
I'm counting of Spain to stop wasting those 1300 and put them to good
use.
I'm also counting on you to continue spewing mistaken Iraqi threat
rhetoric like you've been in a coma since 1991.
MikeSoja
posted:
>In article <glhj5058m4ohtl1jp...@4ax.com>, msoja9
>@newsguy.com says...
>> Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group in the world (in case you
>> don't believe that Iraq and al Qaeda were as good pals as H. Clinton
>> and T. Kennedy). Iraq was involved with many of them. And G. Bush
>> declared a war on *Terror*, not a war on al Qaeda.
>The terrorists supported by SWaddam were small beans and should have
>been left for last.
Sez you. Some of the world's more notorious murderers had firm ties
to Iraq.
>al-Qaeda is the group that attacked us and can continue to do so. That
>should have been first priority.
Al Qaeda opened up a branch terror group in north eastern Iraq in
late 2001.
>> The recently ousted Popular Party in Spain was noted for its hard
>> line stance against terrorism.
>Bullshit. They followed the Bush lead which is weak on terrorism.
The terrorists of Afghanistan and Iraq would tend to disagree with
you, I think.
Of course, you're a simple tool of the Left, for whom everything
Strong is Weak, everything Forthright is Corrupt, and everything
Right is Wrong.
>> Which, of course, the terrorists
>> didn't like. Are you supposing that the socialists, whose first act
>> was to cave to terrorist demands, are going to be bigger terrorism
>> fighters than Aznar was?
>Anzar supported the war on Iraq which was not a significant contributor
>to global terrorism.
>So you are wrong.
Your saying it doesn't make it so.
>> Or are you counting on those 1300 Spanish peace keeping troops to
>> make all the difference?
>I'm counting of Spain to stop wasting those 1300 and put them to good
>use.
Maybe they can check trains for stray backpacks.
>I'm also counting on you to continue spewing mistaken Iraqi threat
>rhetoric like you've been in a coma since 1991.
I'm happy for the people of Iraq. Shoulda been done a long time
ago.
Mike Soja
Jeffrey Turner
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:55:31 -0500, uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd>
> posted:
>>In article <glhj5058m4ohtl1jp...@4ax.com>, msoja9
>>@newsguy.com says...
>
>
>>>Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group in the world (in case you
>>>don't believe that Iraq and al Qaeda were as good pals as H. Clinton
>>>and T. Kennedy). Iraq was involved with many of them. And G. Bush
>>>declared a war on *Terror*, not a war on al Qaeda.
>
>>The terrorists supported by SWaddam were small beans and should have
>>been left for last.
>
> Sez you. Some of the world's more notorious murderers had firm ties
> to Iraq.
Henry Kissinger?
>>al-Qaeda is the group that attacked us and can continue to do so. That
>>should have been first priority.
>
>
> Al Qaeda opened up a branch terror group in north eastern Iraq in
> late 2001.
You mean in the US-protected no-fly zone?
>>>The recently ousted Popular Party in Spain was noted for its hard
>>>line stance against terrorism.
>
>>Bullshit. They followed the Bush lead which is weak on terrorism.
>
> The terrorists of Afghanistan and Iraq would tend to disagree with
> you, I think.
>
> Of course, you're a simple tool of the Left, for whom everything
> Strong is Weak, everything Forthright is Corrupt, and everything
> Right is Wrong.
You mean like "We had to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein wouldn't
let the inspectors in"?
--Jeff
--
A man, a plan, a cat, a canal - Panama!
Ho, ho, ho, hee, hee, hee
and a couple of ha, ha, has;
That's how we pass the day away,
in the merry old land of Oz.
Gandalf Grey
"MikeSoja" <mso...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:l67k50high5rbjntc...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:55:31 -0500, uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd>
> posted:
>
> >In article <glhj5058m4ohtl1jp...@4ax.com>, msoja9
> >@newsguy.com says...
> >> The recently ousted Popular Party in Spain was noted for its hard
> >> line stance against terrorism.
>
> >Bullshit. They followed the Bush lead which is weak on terrorism.
>
> The terrorists of Afghanistan and Iraq would tend to disagree with
> you, I think.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=38377#1
WAR ON TERROR - THE ENEMY IS STRONGER: The war in Afghanistan, far from
leaving the area more secure after a two-year war with the U.S., is seething
with militants who are stronger and more organized. The NYT reports,
"Hundreds of Islamic militants and Pakistani government paramilitary troops
engaged in heavy fighting for more than six hours on Tuesday at a fort in
the Pakistani tribal areas, just miles from the Afghan border." It was by
far the "heaviest clash since Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf,
sent 70,000 troops into the country's isolated tribal areas two years ago to
capture suspected Qaeda members." Attempting to arrest some suspected
al-Qaida operatives, Pakistani troops found themselves surrounded by about
500 well-organized militants. "Their level of training and resilience has
surprised us all," said one senior government official.
--
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
---Theodore Roosevelt
"I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of
Iraq."
-- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz,
MikeSoja
<jtu...@localnet.com> posted:
>MikeSoja wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:55:31 -0500, uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd>
>> posted:
>>>In article <glhj5058m4ohtl1jp...@4ax.com>, msoja9
>>>@newsguy.com says...
>>>>Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group in the world (in case you
>>>>don't believe that Iraq and al Qaeda were as good pals as H. Clinton
>>>>and T. Kennedy). Iraq was involved with many of them. And G. Bush
>>>>declared a war on *Terror*, not a war on al Qaeda.
>>>The terrorists supported by SWaddam were small beans and should have
>>>been left for last.
>> Sez you. Some of the world's more notorious murderers had firm ties
>> to Iraq.
>Henry Kissinger?
>>>al-Qaeda is the group that attacked us and can continue to do so. That
>>>should have been first priority.
>> Al Qaeda opened up a branch terror group in north eastern Iraq in
>> late 2001.
>You mean in the US-protected no-fly zone?
Ansar al Islam set up their little terrorist center far south of the
Northern Fly Zone. They had ties to both al Qaeda and Saddam
Hussein.
>>>>The recently ousted Popular Party in Spain was noted for its hard
>>>>line stance against terrorism.
>>>Bullshit. They followed the Bush lead which is weak on terrorism.
>> The terrorists of Afghanistan and Iraq would tend to disagree with
>> you, I think.
>> Of course, you're a simple tool of the Left, for whom everything
>> Strong is Weak, everything Forthright is Corrupt, and everything
>> Right is Wrong.
>You mean like "We had to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein wouldn't
>let the inspectors in"?
More like, "The toppling of Hussein was at least as important as the
toppling of the Taliban."
Mike Soja
midtowng
> ah...@no-spam-panix.com :
[...]
> >Most of the fight against terrorism will be police and
> >intelligence work. They are in small cells all over the
> >place. Not a marines target.
>
> Okay, since you have trouble understanding, I will spell it out... Kerry's idea
> of fighting terrorism is like yours -- sending subpoenas to "alleged"
> terrorists. He will play defense, which means being ready to clean up after the
> next attack.
So Bush doesn't play defense?
Good thing McCain isn't sinking to the level Doh and Martin feel
comfortable at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/18/politics/trail/18TRAIL-MCCAIN.html?hp
Senator John McCain added a rare bit of restraint to the escalating
tone of the presidential campaign today, rejecting assertions by other
Republicans that his colleague, Senator John Kerry, would endanger
national security if elected.
``I don't think that,'' Mr. McCain said on CBS this morning. ``I
think that John Kerry is a good and decent man. I think he has served
his country. I think he has different points of view on different
issues and he will have to explain his voting record. But this kind of
rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the
American people make a choice.''
Mr. McCain also defended Mr. Kerry in an appearance on NBC's
"Today," saying in response to a question that he did not believe Mr.
Kerry was "weak on defense."
But Mr. McCain made it clear he supported the president and said
he had no intention of joining his fellow Vietnam veteran on the
ticket after he recently left the door slightly open to that
possibility, much to the distress of the White House.
``I don't want to be vice president of the United States,'' Mr.
McCain said on CBS, adding that he enjoyed his work in the Senate. ``I
do not want to leave the Republican Party. I would not be vice
president of the United States on either ticket.''
Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican who opposed President Bush in
the 2000 primaries and was himself the subject of some tough attacks,
indicated he was alarmed by the ferocity of the rhetoric so early in
the campaign. He suggested that both sides might want to pull back a
bit.
``I think it's because both parties are going to their bases
rather than going to the middle. I regret it. I think there are
serious challenges facing America in the form of Medicare, Social
Security, health care, deficit spending. And I think we ought to have
open and honest debates on those issues,'' said the Arizona senator.
If the attacks and counterattacks continue, he said, voters might
ultimately tune out.
``I would certainly hope that we could raise the level of this
debate,'' he said. ``Otherwise we're going to have very low voter
turnouts in November.''
Hmmm. Very low turnout. Looks like we know what Bush's campaign
strategy is.
MikeSoja
>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner writes:
> Jeffrey> MikeSoja wrote:
> >> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:55:31 -0500, uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd>
> posted>
> >>> In article <glhj5058m4ohtl1jp...@4ax.com>, msoja9
> >>> @newsguy.com says...
> >> Al Qaeda opened up a branch terror group in north eastern Iraq in
> >> late 2001.
> Jeffrey> You mean in the US-protected no-fly zone?
>Yes, and they were allied to Iran, and sworn enemies of
>Saddam.
Which is why as soon as they showed up in Iraq they attacked
Hussein's sworn enemies, the Kurds? Sure. You bet.
>This is the most stupid Saddam/Terrorism connection the
>war apologists use.
Saddam good. America bad. Eh, Andrew?
Mike Soja
MikeSoja
> MikeSoja> Northern Fly Zone. They had ties to both al Qaeda and Saddam
> MikeSoja> Hussein.
>ahall-Nonsense, they were clients of Iran and enemies of
>ahall-Saddam. That is why they set up in an area
>ahall-outside the control of Saddam. They did/do have
>ahall-al Qaeda connections.
There is both a map and information at the following link that sez
yer wrong.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0315/p01s04-wome.html
Mike Soja
MikeSoja
>>>>>> MikeSoja writes:
> MikeSoja> On 19 Mar 2004 08:09:31 -0500, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> posted:
> >>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner writes:
> Jeffrey> MikeSoja wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:55:31 -0500, uhm <7r76...@9j7dr8yr8.8jrd>
> posted>
> >> >>> In article <glhj5058m4ohtl1jp...@4ax.com>, msoja9
> >> >>> @newsguy.com says...
> >> >> Al Qaeda opened up a branch terror group in north eastern Iraq in
> >> >> late 2001.
> Jeffrey> You mean in the US-protected no-fly zone?
> >> Yes, and they were allied to Iran, and sworn enemies of
> >> Saddam.
> MikeSoja> Which is why as soon as they showed up in Iraq they attacked
> MikeSoja> Hussein's sworn enemies, the Kurds? Sure. You bet.
>They were in the Kurdish run territories.
Ansar al Islam carved out a section of the Kurdish run territories.
And then attacked the Kurds.
>Hint, they could be the enemy of the Kurds and Saddam.
The Kurds claim Ansar al Islam operated with Hussein's blessing, if
not moolah.
> >> This is the most stupid Saddam/Terrorism connection the
> >> war apologists use.
> MikeSoja> Saddam good. America bad. Eh, Andrew?
>Are you trying to look stupid? I said neither thing.
Are there any non-stupid "Saddam/Terrorism connection[s]", Andrew?
Are all rationales for toppling Hussein apologist?
Mike Soja
MikeSoja
>>>>>> MikeSoja writes:
> MikeSoja> Ansar al Islam set up their little terrorist center far south of the
> MikeSoja> Northern Fly Zone. They had ties to both al Qaeda and Saddam
> MikeSoja> Hussein.
> >> ahall-Nonsense, they were clients of Iran and enemies of
> >> ahall-Saddam. That is why they set up in an area
> >> ahall-outside the control of Saddam. They did/do have
> >> ahall-al Qaeda connections.
> MikeSoja> There is both a map and information at the following link that sez
> MikeSoja> yer wrong.
>The map clearly shows their base to be in the Kurdish controlled
>area, the information on ties to Saddam was anecdotal. They,
>as I said, were in Kurd controlled areas, and were enemies of
>Saddam.
> http> www.csmonitor.com/2002/0315/p01s04-wome.html
The map clearly shows that the Ansar al Islam enclave, located near
the town of Halabja, is far south of the Northern No Fly Zone, which
you called "Nonsense".
And Kurdish statements pertaining to the terrorist's ties to Hussein
may be anecdotal to you, but their (the terrorists) actions
(attacking the Kurds) happen to be consistent with the claim.
Mike Soja
John Doh
>shih...@aol.combiteme (John D'oh) wrote in message
>news:<20040317105725...@mb-m22.aol.com>...
>> ah...@no-spam-panix.com :
>[...]
>> >Most of the fight against terrorism will be police and
>> >intelligence work. They are in small cells all over the
>> >place. Not a marines target.
>>
>> Okay, since you have trouble understanding, I will spell it out... Kerry's
>idea
>> of fighting terrorism is like yours -- sending subpoenas to "alleged"
>> terrorists. He will play defense, which means being ready to clean up after
>the
>> next attack.
>
> So Bush doesn't play defense?
Wotta maroon! No... seriously... you really have to TRY HARD to misunderstand
clear and simple English.
chris.holt
> chris.holt <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
[and back and forth]
>>>>Since you don't know what the goals of the murderers were
>>>It isn't hard to figure out.
>>Well, I'm not convinced that you've figured it out.
> I don't measure the accuracy of my posts by whether Chris
> Holt is convinced or not.
I wouldn't expect you to. I'm just pointing out that your
analysis of other people's motives hasn't proved convincing
to at least one of your interlocutors, the hope being that
you might address this in one way (explain your reasoning
better) or another (revise your assessment of your mind-
reading abilities).
>>Maybe I'm just more wary about taking things at face value.
> Or maybe you have a problem discriminating between the plausible
> and implausible.
<shrug> I happen to find Intelligent Design implausible, but
some other people find it likely. Here, I think your model
of other people's motives is based more on stereotype than
reality; it's a bit like discussing human nature with an
Ayn Rand fanatic (not suggesting that you are one, just that
I think you might be missing some things).
>>>You don't get it. It doesn't so much matter whether the winning
>>>party is "hardline" or "soft" or whatever. What matters most is
>>>that the outcome of the election CHANGED.
>>So?
> <blink>
>
> Are you really unable to grasp the implications?
Sure, but so what? It's a bit like talking with many
Americans after 9/11; they felt the entire world had
changed under their feet. Well, having lived in places
that have had to deal with terrorism for the past couple
of decades, I felt sorrow at people's deaths, but I
didn't have to radically re-evaluate my sense of risk
assessment.
>>Events, good bad and ugly, are always going to affect
>>such things. The Stern Gang affected the creation of Israel
>>way back when; the Bolsheviks affected the future of the
>>Mensheviks.
> Yes. Those were bad things.
Quite so. But they have happened, and they are going
to happen (in ways we can't predict right now). So
rather than ranting and wailing about the fact that
events affect politics (and vice versa), isn't it more
productive to acknowledge it, and go on to the hard
work of making future deaths less likely?
>>You're trying to make this special/exceptional;
>>it isn't really.
> It is an exceptional event in the context of a modern western democracy.
Really? France, the UK, Germany, Italy have all had to
deal with terrorists over the past few decades. The
US had a hiatus after the '60s; the Weathermen and the
Symbionese Liberation thingie (the Patty Hearst one)
pretty well died off. But Eta has kept itself up and
running, so Spain (while shocked) isn't as startled as
you seem to be.
> If France started rounding up Jews and murdering them, should we
> shrug our shoulders and say that wasn't an exceptional event, since
> it's happened many times before?
No, but that's not what I'm suggesting, any more than I
advocate killing random Moslems on the street. I'm saying
put it into perspective, and try to figure out why people
feel driven to such desperate measures. You say it's
obvious; that's what I'm questioning.
>>>Rewind back to 1996 and suppose that a terrorist attack three days
>>>before the election resulted in a Dole victory. Even if I wanted
>>>Clinton to lose, I would never call such events "good news".
>>>
>>>That's just sick.
>>I didn't
> Scott Erb did. He's a professor of Political "Science", teaching
> young minds about such matters. He claimed to be for PEACEFUL
> democratic elections, but apparently he lied.
I think you misunderstood what he was trying to say. I
think he felt that even though the loss of life was terrible,
the fact that it brought Spain to its senses was good news.
Since he's said that he won't be back till the summer, we
can't ask him directly; but if you're skeptical of my
attempt at mind-reading, can you at least see why I'm
skeptical of yours?
>>and wouldn't call the loss of life good news; I didn't
>>call 9/11 good news either. In both cases, if it causes people
>>to reassess their positions and make more sensible decisions,
>>that result can be applauded without being happy about the
>>cause.
> Voters reacting to a bombing only two or three days prior are
> far more inclined to make their decisions based upon emotions
> rather than careful reflection.
I think you do the Spanish a disservice when you say things
like that. There was a general emotional reaction that led
them to decide to vote, when otherwise they wouldn't have;
but that doesn't mean that their decision on who to vote
for was ill-considered. Indeed, it probably caused more of
them to think harder about why they were voting than the
average American does.
> However, applauding an
> outcome you like while ignoring or minimizing the long-term
> ramifications is very foolish.
Asking people to take their democratic rights seriously is
scarcely foolish; and shaking them out of their advertising-
led apathy is an important and positive long-term outcome
(if it lasts). The alternative is fewer and fewer people
voting, until small but intense minorities can capture the
main political parties and introduce radical changes using
platitudes that put everyone to sleep. I assume you see
where I'm going with this.
>>Not that I think either event necessarily did that;
>>but they can be interpreted in these ways.
> Three guesses how the terrorists will interpret events.
Some will say it was good (because the US has lost an
ally in Iraq, though not in terror), some will say it
was bad (because it reduces the chances of polarizing
the world), and some will say it was ugly (because they
themselves don't like the idea of killing innocent
people, even though they feel they must). There are
as many different viewpoints among terrorists as there
are among those of us who reject terrorism; it's worth
remembering that.
--
midtowng
> > of fighting terrorism is like yours -- sending subpoenas to "alleged"
> > terrorists. He will play defense, which means being ready to clean up after the
> > next attack.
>
> Senator John McCain added a rare bit of restraint to the escalating
> tone of the presidential campaign today, rejecting assertions by other
> Republicans that his colleague, Senator John Kerry, would endanger
> national security if elected.
> "Today," saying in response to a question that he did not believe Mr.
> Kerry was "weak on defense."
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097369/
Last week, George W. Bush aired a TV ad in which the following charges
appeared on the screen for nine seconds: "John Kerry's Plan: Weaken
Fight Against Terrorists"; "John Kerry's Plan: Delay Defending
America."
What was Bush's evidence for the first charge? His campaign cited four
Kerry quotes. In the first, Kerry called for "replacing the Patriot
Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the
same time." In the second, Kerry called for "provisions to guarantee
that there is not this blind spot in the American justice system that
there is today under the Patriot Act." In the third, Kerry said, "I
voted for the USA Patriot Act in the Senate right after 9/11 to
advance our security at home, but I am concerned that Attorney General
John Ashcroft's Justice Department is abusing the powers conferred on
it by that act." In the fourth, Kerry said, "We are a nation of laws
and liberties, not of a knock in the night."
Among those four statements, I count zero in favor of weakening the
fight against terrorists and two in favor of protecting American
security. But never mind. According to Bush, "Kerry's Plan" is "Weaken
Fight Against Terrorists."
What was Bush's evidence for the second charge? His campaign cited
eight quotes, of which four expressed a position. In the first, Kerry
said Bush should "take the time, for a period of time, to continue to
build [support]" for using force against Iraq. In the second, Kerry
said he would have "exhausted the available remedies with the French
and the Russians." In the third, Kerry speculated that if Bush had
built up U.S. troops around Iraq more gradually, "It might have
allowed you to use the United Nations process to really build
consent." In the fourth, Kerry said, "You have to try to build the
multilateral effort, even if it fails."
Among those four statements, I count four in favor of delaying the use
of force in Iraq, zero against ultimately using force in Iraq, zero in
favor of making the use of force contingent on U.N. approval, and zero
in favor of delaying the defense of America. We now know that contrary
to what Bush told us, Iraq had no WMD programs capable of threatening
America. But never mind. According to Bush, "Kerry's Plan" is "Delay
Defending America."
[...]
Plenty more lies exposed in the article. See link.
MikeSoja
>>>>>> MikeSoja writes:
> MikeSoja> Which is why as soon as they showed up in Iraq they attacked
> MikeSoja> Hussein's sworn enemies, the Kurds? Sure. You bet.
> >> They were in the Kurdish run territories.
> MikeSoja> Ansar al Islam carved out a section of the Kurdish run territories.
> MikeSoja> And then attacked the Kurds.
>Yes, they wanted to establish a Taliban/Iran type of Islamic
>state. The opposed the secular Kurdish groups, and the secular
>Saddam.
But they attacked the Kurds, something Hussein was not disposed to
be against.
> >> Hint, they could be the enemy of the Kurds and Saddam.
> MikeSoja> The Kurds claim Ansar al Islam operated with Hussein's blessing, if
> MikeSoja> not moolah.
>Yes, anecdotally. No evidence has come to light that
>backs that self-interested claim.
The only denials I've read have been from people like you who only
get their information third and fourth hand.
> >> >> This is the most stupid Saddam/Terrorism connection the
> >> >> war apologists use.
> MikeSoja> Saddam good. America bad. Eh, Andrew?
> >> Are you trying to look stupid? I said neither thing.
> MikeSoja> Are there any non-stupid "Saddam/Terrorism connection[s]", Andrew?
>Sure, but what does that have to do with your stupid claim
>that I supported Saddam and think America is bad?
>Saddam harbored some retired Palestinian terrorists, and
>send money to some family members of Palestinian homicide
>bombers. As a secular leader that suppressed all Islamists,
>he was the enemy of Islamist terrorists.
Whatever you say, Andy. Me, I believe Hussein backed anyone he
thought could take chunks out of the United States.
> MikeSoja> Are all rationales for toppling Hussein apologist?
>No, he was a brutal murdering thug. If we had a policy of
>toppling all brutal murdering thugs I might support that policy.
>The reasons given by Bush did not hold water, and are quite
>likely to be making us less safe, not more safe.
Standing up for what is right always carries some danger. Turning
our back on the world will not make the world a less dangerous
place. In fact, it will just become more dangerous. Taking the
fight to the Middle East was the right thing to do.
Mike Soja
midtowng
> gjoh...@eudoramail.com (midtowng):
>
> >shih...@aol.combiteme (John D'oh) wrote in message
> >news:<20040317105725...@mb-m22.aol.com>...
> >> ah...@no-spam-panix.com :
> [...]
> >> >Most of the fight against terrorism will be police and
> >> >intelligence work. They are in small cells all over the
> >> >place. Not a marines target.
> >>
> >> Okay, since you have trouble understanding, I will spell it out... Kerry's
> idea
> >> of fighting terrorism is like yours -- sending subpoenas to "alleged"
> >> terrorists. He will play defense, which means being ready to clean up after
> the
> >> next attack.
> >
> > So Bush doesn't play defense?
>
> Wotta maroon! No... seriously... you really have to TRY HARD to misunderstand
> clear and simple English.
That's laughably ironic. You've gone to increadible lengths
to intentionally misinterpret Kerry's stand on terrorism
and then you flame me for misunderstanding you.
Very funny indeed.