Spain Election winners
A Planet Visitor
http://www.ucomics.com/danasummers/
Sad, but true. Sad for everyone but Desmond.
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
David Haley
news:s00f50hg08tm7lht3...@4ax.com...
For Spain to have "surrendered", the people would have had to have been for
the war in the first place.
Considering that the people were against the war, and now they suffer the
consequences of their government having gone through with it anyways, they
are simply removing the government who did what they did not want to do. Not
to mention the whole lying part.
Spain as a people never believed in the war, but get slapped in the face for
having their government go through with it anyways.
I think it's far to easy for the USA to start calling Spain a "surrenderer",
when the Spaniards never supported it in the first place.
-dhaley
JIGSAW1695
>From: A Planet Visitor abc...@zbqytr.ykq
>Date: 3/16/2004 5:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <s00f50hg08tm7lht3...@4ax.com>
>
>The picture of Spain's election winners --
>http://www.ucomics.com/danasummers/
>Sad, but true. Sad for everyone but Desmond.
>
>
A political cartoon that sums up reality. The only winners in this particular
battle at the terrorists.
Would any one care to venture a guess:
What would happen if the same thing occurs in France?
Jigsaw
JIGSAW1695
>From: "David Haley" junkm...@hotmail.com
>Date: 3/16/2004 6:11 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <c381jr$rmj$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>
Then why were they the target of terrorists and why did 201 people die in a
bombing? Because they wern't involved in the war?
David Haley
news:20040316215134...@mb-m11.aol.com...
As usual you misunderstand. The Spanish people didn't want to be in the war,
but much like in the UK the government did it anyways.
So yes, the Spanish were the targets of a bombing because their country was
involved in the war. They however were against the war to begin with, and
therefore kicked the offending government out the door - the government that
they view responsible for these attacks. If the government had done what the
people wanted in the first place, the attack wouldn't have happened.
-dhaley
Earl Evleth
<junkm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> As usual you misunderstand. The Spanish people didn't want to be in the war,
> but much like in the UK the government did it anyways.
>
> So yes, the Spanish were the targets of a bombing because their country was
> involved in the war. They however were against the war to begin with, and
> therefore kicked the offending government out the door - the government that
> they view responsible for these attacks. If the government had done what the
> people wanted in the first place, the attack wouldn't have happened.
The Al-Qaeda attack in political respects played into the hands of the
socialists!
Aznar also played it badly by contacting the major papers on the day
of the bombing and pushed the ETA explanation. Had Aznar not used
Bushian methods of lying the right might have still won.
The socialists and the vast majority of the Spanish people were against
Spain in the Iraqi war. That occurred not because of fear of Al-Qaeda,
since there was no Iraq-Al Qaeda connection.
The connectivity was established by invading Iraq. That invasion
radicalized more the situation (as was feared in Europe).
The winners of this election are the Spanish people and the Socialists,
but the people paid a big price for that victory.
Earl
A Planet Visitor
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:s00f50hg08tm7lht3...@4ax.com...
>> The picture of Spain's election winners --
>> http://www.ucomics.com/danasummers/
>> Sad, but true. Sad for everyone but Desmond.
>>
>>
>> PV
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>
>
>
>For Spain to have "surrendered", the people would have had to have been for
>the war in the first place.
>
Do you invent words, just like euro, David? Where is the word "surrendered"
in this post? It speaks of "winners." And clearly the terrorists are the "winners"
of that election. And it is rather certain that future elections in Europe will look
at the Spanish election... and vote for the party that is most 'soft' on terrorism.
And the parties will realize this is what they should present as a 'party line,' to
attract voters.
>Considering that the people were against the war, and now they suffer the
>consequences of their government having gone through with it anyways, they
>are simply removing the government who did what they did not want to do. Not
>to mention the whole lying part.
>
That has nothing to do with the fact that terrorists succeeded in intimidating
the voters to remove that government in even more forceful terms than it
might have been. Clearly the 'cover-up' was used because the government
still felt it had a chance to survive the election... which clearly unraveled as
it should have. But there is no doubt that the unraveling put 'fear' into the
minds of the Spanish. And that is a paradigm shift in voter thinking which
will affect future elections. Italy has already been threatened as I understand
it, and an al-Qaeda cell has claimed that it is 90% 'ready' to launch a new
attack on the U.S. As long as voters respond by rejecting fighting
terrorism... the terrorists are 'winners.'
>Spain as a people never believed in the war, but get slapped in the face for
>having their government go through with it anyways.
>
>I think it's far to easy for the USA to start calling Spain a "surrenderer",
>when the Spaniards never supported it in the first place.
>
As I said... can you point out the word "surrender" in my post or the
URL I provided? If not... you are no better than euro at distorting
the meaning of words. Since you placed that word in quotes as
if it was a word used in my comment or that URL.
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>-dhaley
>
David Haley
news:BC7DC98A.2A947%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
Even though it really does stink of lying, I'm not so sure if he was "lying
deliberately". He could have been so intimately convinced it really was the
ETA - after all there is somewhat of a history of them blowing stuff up -
and was perhaps too rapid to point fingers and assign blame. Also, the bit
about the dynamite coming from the same stash stolen from France by the ETA
was apparently published in all sorts of reputable papers - although it's
possible that the source of that information is Aznar.
Regardless the net result is that they booted the government that got them
into the mess. Let's hope the Americans can do the same, and let's also
hope, without paying the same price.
-dhaley
David Haley
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:11:56 -0800, "David Haley"
<junkm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Considering that the people were against the war, and now they suffer the
> >consequences of their government having gone through with it anyways,
they
> >are simply removing the government who did what they did not want to do.
Not
> >to mention the whole lying part.
> >
> That has nothing to do with the fact that terrorists succeeded in
intimidating
> the voters to remove that government in even more forceful terms than it
> might have been. Clearly the 'cover-up' was used because the government
> still felt it had a chance to survive the election... which clearly
unraveled as
> it should have. But there is no doubt that the unraveling put 'fear' into
the
> minds of the Spanish. And that is a paradigm shift in voter thinking
which
> will affect future elections. Italy has already been threatened as I
understand
> it, and an al-Qaeda cell has claimed that it is 90% 'ready' to launch a
new
> attack on the U.S. As long as voters respond by rejecting fighting
> terrorism... the terrorists are 'winners.'
Your position, of course, assumes that invading Iraq was fighting terrorism.
Yes, it was fighting a despicable dictator, but where is the Iraq/al-Qaeda
link? Other than that they both share a "q" of course.
Seriously though, you're misinterpreting events when you claim that they're
rejecting the "fight against terrorism". They're rejecting a government that
did something they didn't want, and that got them bombed as a result.
They're against a government that supported the illegal (i.e. unsanctioned,
poorly justified) invasion of Iraq; they're against a government that
follows a course of action - *against the will of the people* - that created
a situation in which 200 people were killed. And as you so aptly pointed
out, when proportionally compared to the US, that represents 1,400 people
dead - or roughly half of the WTC victims - and 7,000 injured.
I think it takes a lot of nerve - not to mention callousness and lack of
consideration - to accuse the Spaniards of giving the elections to
terrorists, simply because they rejected a government that did not follow
the will of the people.
> >Spain as a people never believed in the war, but get slapped in the face
for
> >having their government go through with it anyways.
> >
> >I think it's far to easy for the USA to start calling Spain a
"surrenderer",
> >when the Spaniards never supported it in the first place.
> >
> As I said... can you point out the word "surrender" in my post or the
> URL I provided? If not... you are no better than euro at distorting
> the meaning of words. Since you placed that word in quotes as
> if it was a word used in my comment or that URL.
>
> PV
> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>
If terrorists "win", that means that "Spaniards" lose. You said yourself
that the Spaniards were "intimidated"... into giving up the fight. Or did
you mean they were intimidated into something else? It's quite simple to
conclude that if Spaniards "lose" and have their minds filled with "fear",
it means that they "give up", in other words, surrendered. Do you follow, or
shall I rephrase it?
-dhaley
j.rennie1
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
All that the above proves is that arguing with you is like
knitting with elastic. Ardous, difficult and not worth the
bother.
Euro
"j.rennie1" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:v6V5c.6325$2d4.5863@newsfe1-win...
It also proves that PV is still so easy at simplifying things so that they
look like what he wish they did. According to PV, the Spanish socialists are
soft on terrorism (and we also know that, according to him, socialists are
shit). Now, has there been a single statement from Zapatero suggesting that
he is soft on terrorism?
No, of course, but that won't stop PV in twisting reality.
Euro
Earl Evleth
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote:
> What would happen if the same thing occurs in France?
None of the bombings in France or anywhere in Europe have been of this
magnitude. So this is new territory.
The most recent series bombings here was in '95 and the French worked
pretty much as the Spanish authorities, it is a domino game of getting one
after another.
The 95 bombings had no particular political fall out. They were due to the
GIA, from Algeria, the same group the hijacked an Air France plane
which the GIA had targeted the Eiffel tower. That was stopped by
French commando intervention in Marseilles so considered a success.
As was the deconstructing the '95 bombings.
The goal of the GIA was to stop the French government from aiding
the Algerian. It did not work.
So the political fall out was positive. Certainly a lesson to learn
by others but the French are not giving lessons, they are too worried
about the future more than the glories of the recent past. Psychologically
a few deaths can be tolerated, if the attack is a singularity and 100-200
get killed that will have an effect. Remember 200 in Spain was equivalent
to over a 1000 in the USA.
My own feeling was that the French should not have fooled around with the
scarf issue, not for appeasement reasons but that it was going to make more
trouble in the schools and the Beur community, that worth it.
That external radical forces were able to grab and run with it, something
I had not anticipated. The issue is a mole hill blown into a mountain.
It is much like the homosexual marriage issue in the US, too few girls
will wear the scarves anyway. It is not a mass movement among young
Muslim women for scarfs but the community does not want to be fucked
with. So the French right (and left, it was a bipartisan vote) screwed up
on this one.
Earl
Here is how it went
***
En mars 1995 :mise en place d'une structure en France destinée à commettre
des attentats :
à Lille : Touchent fait appel à Benfattoum et Drici qui participaient déjà
à un trafic d'armes et de faux papiers au profit du maquis algérien avec
l'aide de Jabri.
à Paris : Touchent fait appel à Bensaïd et Belkacem afin de devenir les
coordinateurs du réseau français.
à Lyon : Touchent recrute Kelkal autour de qui gravitent de nombreux amis :
Koussa, Maameri, Bouhadjar, Slimani et les frères Aouabed, Mahmoudi,
Aissoub et Aggoune.
à Marseille : Sabour et Bendrer assurent la propagande du GIA en distribuant
clandestinement la revue " Al Antar " à laquelle est associé Ramda.
Benelhadj, Amalou, Chaourar et Boutarfa continuent, comme ils l'avaient fait
avec Bourrada, Kheder et Ghomri, à apporter leur aide au GIA.
13 juillet 1995 : " grande réunion " à Bron : Touchent, Belkacem, Kelkal,
Maaméri sont présents.
Cette réunion marque le début de la vague d'attentats.
Participation aux attentats et tentatives
BENSAÏD aurait participé à l'attentat du 25 juillet 1995 au métro
Saint-Michel, à la tentative d'attentat sur la ligne du TGV Lyon-Paris
du 26 août, à la tentative d'attentat avenue d'Italie le 4 septembre, à
l'attentat du métro Maison Blanche le 6 octobre.
KELKAL aurait participé à la tentative d'attentat sur la ligne
du TGV Paris-Lyon du 26 août 1995.
BELKACEM aurait participé à l'attentat au métro Musée d'Orsay le
17 octobre 1995.
BELKACEM, BENFATTOUM, DRICI quant à eux se préparaient à
commettre des attentats à Lille.
Démantèlement du réseau
1er mars 1995 : démantèlement et arrestation du réseau belge.
Le démantèlement de ce réseau a débuté le 27 septembre 1995 suite
aux faits qui se sont déroulés au Col de Malval (près de Lyon)
Koussa blessé, Bouhadjar et Maameri présents ce jour-là ont été
interpellés.
La perquisition des sacs à dos appartenant à Kelkal et à Koussa a
permis de reconstituer progressivement l'organisation responsable
des attentats commis en France.
L'examen du fusil calibre 12 type Winchester détenu par Koussa et Kelkal
a démontré que les mêmes douilles avaient servi pour l'assassinat de
Sahraoui et la fusillade de Bron.
Le matériel contenu dans les sacs correspondait à celui utilisé pour
confectionner les bombes : chlorate, réservoir ou bouteille de
gaz Butane liquéfié, mitraille associée aux charges explosives, réveil.
Le portable découvert contenait de nombreux numéros de téléphone
permettant de découvrir leurs interlocuteurs réguliers.
Un guide des randonnées pédestres a permis de relever les empreintes
de Kelkal Celles-ci étaient à nouveau identifiées sur l'engin confectionné
lors de la tentative du TGV Lyon - Paris
Un agenda téléphonique avec les noms de Benslimane, Koussa, Kelkal,
Maameri, Nasri mettait en évidence leurs relations réciproques.
Les différentes perquisitions effectuées au domicile des personnes
interpellées ont permis de découvrir de nombreuses armes et munitions ainsi
que du matériel permettant de fabriquer une bombe artisanale.
De même, les faux papiers, lettres, morceaux de papiers et carnets saisis
ont facilité le démantèlement du réseau.
Les informations judiciaires ouvertes parallèlement ont également mis en
évidence la constitution et l'organisation du réseau agissant en France
dont l'action était retranscrite dans les communiqués du GIA et dans la
revue " Al Ansar ".
Richard J
One can also say the socialists also played right into the hands of the
terrorists. If the bombings were able to bring down a government in
Spain, it seems to me that terrorist all over Europe might try the same
tactics any time they want change. I suspect in the end, the totally
democratic act of the Spanish people will result in more acts of
terrorism rather than less.
Teflon
Earl Evleth
"Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> One can also say the socialists also played right into the hands of the
> terrorists.
I view it the other way around, the terrorists aided the socialist with
their terrorist act.
Often in a terrorist act, one political side or the other benefits.
After all what did 9/11 do for Bush???
And he is still playing it to the hilt.
True or not true??
Next, Aznar knew that the socialists might benefit if the public realized
before the election that the acts were in relationship to the Iraqi war.
He tried to block that information from being known. The sequence of
his acts are now known and have made the papers here.
> If the bombings were able to bring down a government in
> Spain,
Correction, there was an election, the existing Government was
brought down by that.
> it seems to me that terrorist all over Europe might try the same
> tactics any time they want change.
Now we are having regional elections this weekend and the one after.
Since Chirac was against the war and also the socialist opposition,
in what way would a bombing effect these elections????
And yet France is being threatened. On another issue, the scarf issue.
Even on that issue the support fo the new law was broad, there is
no partisan division on it.
If 9/11 had not occurred on 9/11/2001 but just before the next elections
in the USA, in what matter might it have influenced that election???
It depends on how the issues were developed in the campaign. If Bush
had neglected terrorism prevention it might work against him. Or the
country might decide to pull together and back the President in power.
Where Aznar goofed was NOT playing it the only way that he might of won on.
That is saying it was Iraq related and an attempt to maniuplate the
election. "Don`t allow that to happen" could have worked.
I would have preferred delaying the elections for one month so they
could occur in ³la tranquilité democratique² (a term used here).
I don`t think that would have worked because his goose was cooked with
his support of the Iraqi war.
I think big bombing in London might get Blair thrown out of power by
his own party but bombings in either France or Germany would be
non-productive in that sense. Italy, yes, the most of the rest of Europe,
no.
Earl
JIGSAW1695
>Date: 3/17/2004 10:30 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <BC7E2D8A.2AA26%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
It appears that Chirac has set himself and France up over the headscarf issue.
David Haley
news:c39i2u$25nfvm$1...@ID-164592.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Earl Evleth wrote:
>
> > The Al-Qaeda attack in political respects played into the hands of the
> > socialists!
> >
> > Aznar also played it badly by contacting the major papers on the day
> > of the bombing and pushed the ETA explanation. Had Aznar not used
> > Bushian methods of lying the right might have still won.
> >
> > The socialists and the vast majority of the Spanish people were against
> > Spain in the Iraqi war. That occurred not because of fear of Al-Qaeda,
> > since there was no Iraq-Al Qaeda connection.
> >
> > The connectivity was established by invading Iraq. That invasion
> > radicalized more the situation (as was feared in Europe).
> >
> > The winners of this election are the Spanish people and the Socialists,
> > but the people paid a big price for that victory.
> >
> > Earl
> >
>
> One can also say the socialists also played right into the hands of the
> terrorists. If the bombings were able to bring down a government in
> Spain, it seems to me that terrorist all over Europe might try the same
> tactics any time they want change. I suspect in the end, the totally
> democratic act of the Spanish people will result in more acts of
> terrorism rather than less.
>
> Teflon
I think the people would have "stuck through it" had the government been
following their will. The terrorist attacks in France in the 90s did not
topple the government, nor are the attacks in Britain by the IRA (to my
knowledge.)
The absolutely critical detail here is that Aznar's government was acting
out of sync with his people, and now they get bombed because of it. I
suspect that if the Spaniards had been much more in favor of the war, they
would have been willing to "pay the price" - or at least, less angry with
Aznar about the bombs.
-dhaley
David Haley
Yes, except for one minor detail that you left out by omission or ignorance;
the vast majority of the French population is in favor of the *secular*
issue. Stop calling it the damned headscarf issue, because it's about all
religions - people like you are only serving to make the job easier for the
radical Muslims, by waving around words like that.
-dhaley
Richard J
> On 17/03/04 13:51, in article c39i2u$25nfvm$1...@ID-164592.news.uni-berlin.de,
> "Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>One can also say the socialists also played right into the hands of the
>>terrorists.
>
>
> I view it the other way around, the terrorists aided the socialist with
> their terrorist act.
>
> Often in a terrorist act, one political side or the other benefits.
>
> After all what did 9/11 do for Bush???
>
> And he is still playing it to the hilt.
>
> True or not true??
>
> Next, Aznar knew that the socialists might benefit if the public realized
> before the election that the acts were in relationship to the Iraqi war.
>
> He tried to block that information from being known. The sequence of
> his acts are now known and have made the papers here.
>
>
>
>>If the bombings were able to bring down a government in
>>Spain,
>
>
> Correction, there was an election, the existing Government was
> brought down by that.
I don't think that is the way the terrorists will see it. IMO, they
will play it up as a great victory in bringing down a government, true
or not. IMO, it will encourage them to more, not less acts of violence
against soft targets in Europe as they see fit. If I were an anarchist
in Europe now and wanted to effect a particular government, for example,
I would be gathering the men and explosives for a demonstration of force
that would make Spain seem like child's play.
>
>
>>it seems to me that terrorist all over Europe might try the same
>>tactics any time they want change.
>
>
> Now we are having regional elections this weekend and the one after.
>
> Since Chirac was against the war and also the socialist opposition,
> in what way would a bombing effect these elections????
>
> And yet France is being threatened. On another issue, the scarf issue.
> Even on that issue the support fo the new law was broad, there is
> no partisan division on it.
That might be enough of an issue for the more militant Muslims living in
France. Who knows?
>
>
> If 9/11 had not occurred on 9/11/2001 but just before the next elections
> in the USA, in what matter might it have influenced that election???
>
> It depends on how the issues were developed in the campaign. If Bush
> had neglected terrorism prevention it might work against him. Or the
> country might decide to pull together and back the President in power.
Americans, when attacked, instinctually close ranks and get ready to
fight. That would not have changed, and the Candidate who came across
as wanting to take the fight to the perpetrators rather than mollify
them would have won. Needless to say, and Aznar would not have been
elected.
>
> Where Aznar goofed was NOT playing it the only way that he might of won on.
> That is saying it was Iraq related and an attempt to maniuplate the
> election. "Don`t allow that to happen" could have worked.
>
> I would have preferred delaying the elections for one month so they
> could occur in ³la tranquilité democratique² (a term used here).
>
> I don`t think that would have worked because his goose was cooked with
> his support of the Iraqi war.
>
> I think big bombing in London might get Blair thrown out of power by
> his own party but bombings in either France or Germany would be
> non-productive in that sense. Italy, yes, the most of the rest of Europe,
> no.
>
> Earl
>
Time will tell. I think the lesson the terrorist will take from this
(all terrorists, not just the Muslim extremists) is that if they choose
the time properly and make a big enough bang, they can gain ground.
There are enough native fringe groups in Europe aside from the Muslims
to make such a lesson very uncomfortable there.
I'm thinking of the ultra conservative neo-Nazi factions in Germany,
leftists in Italy, and others as well as Muslims who have something to
prove.
Teflon
yours_most_truly
From: "Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 4:51 AM
Subject: Re: Spain Election winners
> Earl Evleth wrote:
>
> > On 17/03/04 3:58, in article c38esc$ce0$1...@news.Stanford.EDU, "David Haley"
> > <junkm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>As usual you misunderstand. The Spanish people didn't want to be in the war,
> >>but much like in the UK the government did it anyways.
> >>
> >>So yes, the Spanish were the targets of a bombing because their country was
> >>involved in the war. They however were against the war to begin with, and
> >>therefore kicked the offending government out the door - the government that
> >>they view responsible for these attacks. If the government had done what the
> >>people wanted in the first place, the attack wouldn't have happened.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Al-Qaeda attack in political respects played into the hands of the
> > socialists!
> >
> > Aznar also played it badly by contacting the major papers on the day
> > of the bombing and pushed the ETA explanation. Had Aznar not used
> > Bushian methods of lying the right might have still won.
> >
> > The socialists and the vast majority of the Spanish people were against
> > Spain in the Iraqi war. That occurred not because of fear of Al-Qaeda,
> > since there was no Iraq-Al Qaeda connection.
> >
> > The connectivity was established by invading Iraq. That invasion
> > radicalized more the situation (as was feared in Europe).
> >
> > The winners of this election are the Spanish people and the Socialists,
> > but the people paid a big price for that victory.
> >
> > Earl
> >
>
> One can also say the socialists also played right into the hands of the > terrorists. If the bombings were able to bring down a government in
> Spain, it seems to me that terrorist all over Europe might try the same
> tactics any time they want change. I suspect in the end, the totally
> democratic act of the Spanish people will result in more acts of
> terrorism rather than less.
>
> Teflon
>
I can agree and disagree with the assertions in both your postings
when I take them one-by-one. I am still unclear as to what Aznar
believed Spain's national interest to be in adding such a silly little
fig leaf (1300 troops) to the U.S. post-invasion Iraq occupation
force. Particularly since 90% of the Spanish electorate (per polling)
disagreed. True, democratic republics ideally elect leaders, not
poll-watching mouthpieces. And the fact remains that before the
Madrid bombings, polls indicated that Anzar's Popular Party was the
predicted winner by a comfortable margin despite the Socialist Party's
campaign promise to "bring the boys home" from Iraq. So it seems the
Spanish electorate *before* the bombings didn't regard its token
expeditionary force in Iraq to be a controlling factor in how it would
vote.
The bombings, three days before the national elections, excited the
Anzar administration to pin it on Basque separatists. I'm not even a
Spaniard and I knew that didn't hang right. Domestic European
terrorist organizations *do* have limits to their mayhem (however
self-serving at times), but Al Qaida has yet to demonstrate any limit
at all. So I think believing the Spanish "caved in" to terrorism is
presumptuous. Who wants a government that goes weasel like that in a
crisis, even if s/he might otherwise agree with its overall agenda?
As for Al Qaida's engineered regime change in Spain, the proverbial
horses are already out of the barn and it doubtless now has a huge
gain in prestige in its reservoirs of potential support. But history
teaches that the outcome of any single battle does not control a war's
outcome and can even ultimately be the victor's undoing. So what the
ultimate impact of the Madrid bombings will be is at this point sheer
speculation.
For myself, I think it would be irresponsible from now on for any
democratic republic on Al Qaida's shit list to not force its national
candidates to disclose what to expect from them when another election
eve Al Qaida mass murder occurs (note I use *when* here, not *if*).
Earl Evleth
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote:
> It appears that Chirac has set himself and France up over the headscarf issue
He might be, see the end of my missive.. The evening's news is that the big
threatening letter was not
Islamic enough for experts. Written in too good French. They werenšt no
AAAArabs.
The other threat from the AZT group is more serious but they just want money
and are not ideologically linked. The authorities would like to deliver
money to
them (I suspect loaded with hitech traps!). This problem is being handled
more secretively, however.
I expressed myself on the scarf issue. it was not just Chirac who made
trouble,
since the majorities of both parties passed the law, it as a
declaration of ethnic France not a particular person nor party. So if blame
has to be attributed the blame will be spread around.
Another fact just came to the surface. Somebody has just written a book
on Islam in the prisons. France does not keep racial statistics. Nobody
knows what fraction of the criminals are from Arab
ethnic backgrounds. So this study was academic and while only
three prisons were surveyed they ran 50-80% Muslims! If this is the
general % in all French prisons it means two things. One is that French
prisons are more socially segregated than in the US, where Blacks do not
represent more than 50% of the prison populations. This means that
ethnic Arabs are being sent to prison at enormous rates compared to the
general population.
Next, the prison represents a trouble spot for Islamic trouble. Barry had
already told us that the Arab concentration is very high. We don`t see
that during visits since the other visitors are mostly ethnic French,
some Basques but not that many Arabs. Most of this prison Arab population
is not religious but they are subject to recruiting by the radicals.
Last weekend Barry reported that the sentiment in prison was heavily
supportive of the terrorist attack in Spain, as long as it was Al-Qaeda!
Barry says they are totally irrational and don`t think about the
innocent people, they just want to strike at the łsystem˛.
So there are problems, big ones and the French Government knows this.
The general population is not particularly informed yet, and hell,
we just found out ourselves that it was much worse than we imagined. This
situation has changed because
the support for Ben Laden was marginal after 9/11.
Basically, the problem in Europe is totally different than in the US.
Bush lecturing on terrorism is silly here, since they are already informed,
we have seen it for decades.
What is silly, from the start, was trying to equate Al Qaeda and Saddam.
But now Saddam is gone and the Iraqi war has in fact generated complications
Europe did not want. This is what the French were worried about from the
start and essentially nobody in the US was.
Today, on French TV they showed a number of "deminage" activities going on.
One type of truck one sees not infrequently are the crews which go after
abandoned bags, cars or truck which looks suspect. When we shopped earlier
in the week the butcher told us that a crew was outside looking over
a truck TV news coverage shoed a couple of bags being blown up and the
door on one truck blasted open. People were being interviewed on
the commuter trains coming into town, they are psyched up for the moment
and this will continue for a while.
So will Chirac or Bush get blamed if the bombings start? Don`t know
it depends on who does them. If they are small bombing by locals over
the scarf issue Bush won`t get blamed. but if they appear to be a spin
off of the iraqi war, then Bush will get the blame.
Earl
Richard J
Be that as it may, it still does not address the real issue I meant to
raise. IMO, the terrorists will learn the wrong less from this. In
their minds, they will think that their bombing in Spain toppled the
ruling party and caused governmental change beneficial to their brethren
in Iraq. I believe it could cause others to follow their example hoping
not only to weaken those who support the US, but ANY government they
disagree with. I can see the NAR, ASALA, CDCR (Warriors of Christ the
King), ETA, FNE, FLNC, INLA, JCAG, AN, RAF, BR (Red Brigade), RZ, 17
November, and some I am not aware of as well as cells of Al Qai'da
looking at what happened in Spain and thinking: "If they can do it, so
can we."
Of course, many of the above have been infiltrated and weakened so they
pose little threat, but it only takes a very few determined individuals
and relatively small amounts of explosive like semtex to create a lot of
injury. Don't think that will not occur to some of those home grown
organizations in Europe.
Teflon
JIGSAW1695
>Subject: Re: Spain Election winners
>From: "David Haley" junkm...@hotmail.com
>Date: 3/17/2004 1:30 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <c3a5gd$s0l$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>
===============================
Actually, it is a headscarf issue aimed at the minority muslims. The law is
intended to anger everyone. Chiracs timing is either terrible or wonderful
depending on what his ultimate goal is.
Jigsaw
PS: Thanks for infering that I have enough power to sway radical muslims. I
didnt realize I was that influential.
David Haley
I think you're right about that, but I also think that terrorists are
already pretty screwed up to begin with - I think they've already learned
the "wrong lesson" here.
No matter how a country responds to terrorism, the terrorists will always
claim victory. The USA responded to terrorism by "starting a religious war",
according to Al Qaeda. Now, Al Qaeda will claim that they toppled the
"pro-US" government.
I think one of the main ideas here is that terrorists like these are already
by their very nature fundamentally deranged and unreasonable people, who
will always spin anything in their favor.
There is no "winning" with terrorists, I believe, except through their
deaths. I don't believe groups such as Al Qaeda will just "go away" if we
give them what they want... for starters because it's unclear what they want
in the first place, or it's an unreasonable demand (e.g. "world Muslim
state".) Some terrorists can be negotiated with. Others... can only be
bested. At this point the fight against Al Qaeda has become one of survival,
which makes it all the more critical to not make such bad moves as Iraq -
which not only did not weaken Al Qaeda, but also gave it time to regroup,
AND create *even more* anti-US resentment.
Sure. Saddam was a jerk (to say the least) and deserved to go. In the
long-term however, was now really the best time to do it, and did the USA
really choose the best way of doing it?
Even disregarding the current dismal state of affairs in Iraq, what has this
"war for freedom" accomplished for the better? For the worse, it has
fostered anti-US sentiment and bolstered Al Qaeda's cause. Are the "gains"
in Iraq (which are dubious to begin with) worth the losses the rest of the
world will suffer in the long term?
-dhaley
j.rennie1
Unlike Britain where the population is 50/50 regarding the
illegal war in Iraq, the Spanish to their undying credit were
90% against the war. The Socialists were 100% against
it. Now what do you expect the Socialists to do when they
win? Back the war? Not likely is it? Frankly I expect the
next target to be Italy not Britain. The Italians felt much the
same way as the Spanish about the war.
Richard J
Al Qai'da is only one group Europeans have to worry about, IMO. If the
lesson the terrorist gained from this is that with enough force they can
force a government to change, there are plenty of home grown extremists
in Europe who might look to this bombing as an example when their agenda
has stalled. Even some of the old soldiers from groups now thought
mostly defunct might look at this act and rethink their involvement.
After all, it doesn't take a lot of people nor a great deal of explosive
to do what was done in Spain, and there are ways to do more. A couple
of people, one cement truck, and a load of AN/fuel oil explosive can
take out the best part of a city block, and it isn't that hard to get in
agricultural areas. What if some old members of the Red Brigade decide
to eliminate part of Rome, or 17 November decides to take out part of
Athens with such a bomb to force the greeks to reconsider their stance?
These are very real possibilities, and now that such folks see what they
think is success, who is to say what comes next in the EU with the
freedom of movement possible among member states?
Sorry to be a doomsayer, Desmond, but I can see some really bad
possibilities.
Richard J
I feel it really means little regardless what we do or try to do in the
Middle East. As you say, we are in a fight for survival. It isn't just
a fight for survival with al Qai'da, but all of extreme Islam. Even
moderate Muslims will tell you that the World must one day be one Nation
of Islam. The extremists, however, believe this is accomplished by the
removal of secularism and those who support it. To that end, it is kill
or be killed, and I see no other solution as there is no reasoning or
bargaining with extreme people of any type.
Teflon
Richard J
They reacted exactly the way they should react. If you get right down
to the bottom of it, the 1200 Spanish troops are only a very minor part
of the peace keeping force needed in Iraq tactically. Their loss is
more political than tactical.
I have no problem with the democratic process, but the message sent the
terrorists and the way it is being delivered by the incoming government
is one which may well foster more, not less, acts of terrorism in
Europe. What do you think the ETA is learning from all of this? Do you
think right now they are possibly thinking that they should change their
tactics and go for bigger and random acts of violence where hundreds if
not thousands are killed in order to gain their objective of a Basque
homeland? Were I in their place, I know I would. Regardless of the
reality, it appears as if Spain has backed down to the use of force. By
giving that appearance, they invite others with other agendas to use
massive force to accomplish their aims, and the ETA is a prime
candidate. Other nations in Europe have their own home grown terrorists
who are, no doubt, thinking the same thing.
Teflon
j.rennie1
Of course you have a problem with the democratic process
when it doesn't produce what you consider to be the right result.
The Spanish people unlike their wayward recent premier
do not want to be involved in America's stupid war. ETA
are a busted force and the Basque reaction against the Madrid
atrocity will bury the remains. Better for them to copy the
IRA and concentrate on their political arm.
j.rennie1
snip
> >
>
> I feel it really means little regardless what we do or try to do in the
> Middle East. As you say, we are in a fight for survival. It isn't just
> a fight for survival with al Qai'da, but all of extreme Islam. Even
> moderate Muslims will tell you that the World must one day be one Nation
> of Islam. The extremists, however, believe this is accomplished by the
> removal of secularism and those who support it. To that end, it is kill
> or be killed, and I see no other solution as there is no reasoning or
> bargaining with extreme people of any type.
>
> Teflon
>
Oh I dunno - we don't give up on you.
Richard J
Not at all, John. That is your assertion. If the people of Spain want
a change, they got one. I hope in the end it accomplishes what they
desire and not something much worse than they had.
> The Spanish people unlike their wayward recent premier
> do not want to be involved in America's stupid war.
That's fine. I believe the Spanish reacted as they should if they are
not satisfied with those in power. They voted them out. If they become
unsatisfied with the ones coming in office now, well there are always
the next elections.
ETA
> are a busted force and the Basque reaction against the Madrid
> atrocity will bury the remains. Better for them to copy the
> IRA and concentrate on their political arm.
Really? Perhaps busted as a large force, but it doesn't take that much
to wreak havoc if you wish to create panic and confusion by hitting
innocents. The Muslims are well aware of this and do it often. As I
said in another post to the same thread, were I a member of one of these
groups, even a group supposedly weakened, i would see this as a way to
get back into the political pressure game very quickly. Once a
government appears to give in to one group, who's to say they wouldn't
do the same if another applied equal or greater destruction?
Teflon
>
>
Richard J
You haven't seen me when I'm extreme, John. So far, compared to my
younger days, I've been downright liberal. <gasp>
Teflon
A Planet Visitor
I could say the same about you. Like trying to nail jelly
to a wall. All your comment proves is that you simply are
unable to view things realistically. Certainly, David threw
the word "surrender" around, and even placed it in quotes,
when it never appeared. I am certain that if I did something
similar you would probably call me a liar, as you did the
other time when you claimed I had 'quoted JPB.'
I am not the only one who has seen terrorism as the 'winners.'
It's rather commonly seen in all of the media in the U.S. at
this point. See --
http://www.ucomics.com/danasummers/2004/03/15/
I do believe I will put that into a URL... if I find time...
since it rather matches my opinion. While certainly not
calling it "_wonderful_ news for Spain"... as Desmond
called it. Sadly... Europeans will now live with that
image in the back of their mind... each time an election
draws near.
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
A Planet Visitor
>On 17/03/04 3:58, in article c38esc$ce0$1...@news.Stanford.EDU, "David Haley"
><junkm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As usual you misunderstand. The Spanish people didn't want to be in the war,
>> but much like in the UK the government did it anyways.
>>
>> So yes, the Spanish were the targets of a bombing because their country was
>> involved in the war. They however were against the war to begin with, and
>> therefore kicked the offending government out the door - the government that
>> they view responsible for these attacks. If the government had done what the
>> people wanted in the first place, the attack wouldn't have happened.
>
>
>The Al-Qaeda attack in political respects played into the hands of the
>socialists!
>
>Aznar also played it badly by contacting the major papers on the day
>of the bombing and pushed the ETA explanation. Had Aznar not used
>Bushian methods of lying the right might have still won.
>
>The socialists and the vast majority of the Spanish people were against
>Spain in the Iraqi war. That occurred not because of fear of Al-Qaeda,
>since there was no Iraq-Al Qaeda connection.
>
>The connectivity was established by invading Iraq. That invasion
>radicalized more the situation (as was feared in Europe).
>
>The winners of this election are the Spanish people and the Socialists,
>but the people paid a big price for that victory.
>
The big winners in that election... were the terrorists. They achieved
exactly what they set out to do. Regardless of any idea that it would
have resulted in a change of government without that terrorist attack,
the attack itself left a deep feeling of 'fear' which created an even
greater defeat. That paradigm shift, Earl. It could well affect future
European voters... who would choose paths which are less 'hard
on terrorism,' in self-protection from such attacks. There will be
denial... after denial from Europeans that this will happen... but
there is little doubt in my mind... of that paradigm shift as a result
of those terrorist murders. And I am certain that terrorists see it
as a great victory. See -
http://www.ucomics.com/danasummers/2004/03/15/
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>Earl
A Planet Visitor
>"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>news:BC7DC98A.2A947%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>> Earl
>
>
>Even though it really does stink of lying, I'm not so sure if he was "lying
>deliberately".
I don't think HE was personally lying, myself. Although there was
some lying going on in those about him. IMO, many who 'leaked'
to the press the suspicion of ETA, simply had their own jobs at
stake in the election, or wished to 'help' those who had their jobs
at stake in the election. It often feeds on itself, without actually
receiving 'directions to lie,' from the boss.
> He could have been so intimately convinced it really was the
>ETA - after all there is somewhat of a history of them blowing stuff up -
>and was perhaps too rapid to point fingers and assign blame. Also, the bit
>about the dynamite coming from the same stash stolen from France by the ETA
>was apparently published in all sorts of reputable papers - although it's
>possible that the source of that information is Aznar.
>
>Regardless the net result is that they booted the government that got them
>into the mess. Let's hope the Americans can do the same, and let's also
>hope, without paying the same price.
Let's hope that no country has to pay that price again. But that might
be in the mind of the voter in other elections... and fear drive that
voting process, which can only work in favor of terrorism. In the
perception of the voter that being 'hard' on terrorism places the
country at greater risk to such terrorist acts.
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>-dhaley
>
A Planet Visitor
No, euro... that's Desmond who stated that those 200 innocent victims
murdered were responsible for "_wonderful_ news for Spain." I wish
they had never happened. Strangely enough, I do not sense the same
feeling from you... and certainly not from Desmond.
>According to PV, the Spanish socialists are
>soft on terrorism (and we also know that, according to him, socialists are
>shit). Now, has there been a single statement from Zapatero suggesting that
>he is soft on terrorism?
>
Well... first let me say that IMO.. socialism believes in a lot of shit.
You are the personification of what I see in that system. You wish
to 'change everyone,' but yourself. You see yourself as perfection,
and all others must conform to your way. Such as your comment
that I do not have free speech in respect to the DP in Spain... but
you have such free speech in respect to the DP in the U.S.
It would be political suicide at this moment for Zapatero to say
he is 'soft on terrorism.' It would be political suicide for anyone
to say that, at this point anywhere.. But it is the voters who speak,
with their vote. And that vote was in 'fear' of terrorism, seeing
Zapatero as not that aggressive against terrorism, as the alternative
party. Voters shaken by those murders, which manipulated
the election in favor of terrorism... and terrorists are the 'winners.'
While I simply argued that a paradigm shift would develop
as a result of those murders, in the European mind-set in future
elections. Certainly no political party will run on a platform that
says 'we are soft on terrorism.' But the voter will pick the party
they think will attack terrorism less aggressively, so terrorists
will not try to manipulate the election by further murders. And
it builds on itself, as parties realize that they gain voters by being
less aggressive against terrorism than the other party.
>No, of course, but that won't stop PV in twisting reality.
Not at all. It is twisting reality to argue that those 200 murders
have not had an impact on the thinking of Europeans. That
thinking will become more opposed to any movement which
serves to attack terrorism on any front, in fear of reprisals
of terrorists because of such movements. If France were to
commit a substantial force to Iraq, I can almost guarantee
that the chances of an internal terrorist attack would increase
dramatically. The French see this even more clearly, after
Madrid. And will certainly be even more opposed to the
coalition in Iraq than ever before. Because they see that
the more a nation supports that coalition... the more they
have to fear from a terrorist attack internally.
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>
>Euro
>
Ummm... for those 'keeping count' this is 187 (?) of my posting some
very destructive comments from euro, providing the exact words,
a link to those words, and my opinion of those words. Not one
of which he has refuted. --
[1] Your words --
"At least, Goebbels was polite in his propaganda" See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d8232deaf4cfd86aa600b816fd947ca8%40news.meganetnews.com
[2] In an absolutely conflicted assortment of Machiavellian, ignominious,
disingenuous, feckless, sophistic, and offensive, double-speak nonsense.
ALL IN ONE POST. Your words --
"I made a claim of principle, that families have nothing to do with justice."
"Justice concerns also the families of victims and murderers."
"justice should, on the contrary, be compassion for the murderer's family"
"hence the feelings of the victims' families should not be instrumentalized to
justify a harder penalty;"
"the tears from one side (the victims' family) cannot be compensated
by the tears from another side (the murderers' family)."
"I never alluded to pity for murderers, but to pity for the murderers'
families." See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=98ecf84d186fb6f02671ac97f3157aec%40news.meganetnews.com
[3] Your words --
"because murderers are HUMANE, whether you like it or not."
"But since murderers are humane..."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=5bfda818764410613bc12ca4df5b16ba%40meganetnews.com
[4] Your words --
"Do you find that John Wayne Gacy is an animal who does not enjoy the
same human rights as you do?" See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ccea6e7e4217cf160862d1c39b026740news.meganetnews.com
You stated "And that is true." In reply to the question of John Wayne Gacy
having the same 'human rights' as any innocent person. See -
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=40383cc79857308eb110320ca87bc907%40news.meganetnews.com
[5] When choosing between abolishing the DP and 'saving' all murderers from the
DP, or abolishing slavery and freeing all slaves in a society that practices both --
Your words --
"That would lead me to the conclusion that I should abolish death penalty."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=c80a9ef0a3cea5a2e77e8fc9f80eb05d%40news.meganetnews.com
[6] In your arrogant claims that you, in your God-like belief in your own
infallibility, can DEFINE for everyone what are "great moral qualities."
While every rational person recognizes that 'morality' is not an absolute.
Yet YOU would DEFINE as a RC Cardinal who wants to elevate an executed
murderer to a role which would demand that millions refer to that murderer
as BLESSED -- Your words --
"You will also note that Lustiger is, in France, one of the prominent
activists for the beatification of Jacques Flesch, sentenced to death and
executed in France in 1957 for the murder of a police officer following a
bungled robbery.
http://www.catholicdigest.org/stories/200108106a.html
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to stress the great moral qualities of
Lustiger" See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dd7b24844c1b79d34bac9efbb48e2fcd%40news.meganetnews.com
Of course, then entering DENIAL... as usual, you denied even writing
those words... when you posted "I didn't claim that "it is moral to beatify a
murderer". Along with you again DEFINING 'moral values' for the rest of
all humans, in your delusion that God whispers in your ear... with your
words -- "Lustiger's moral values are famous"
Apparently you find Lustiger 'moral' for supporting what you believe is
an 'immoral' effort. But given that you've never been able to express any
comment without offering a contradiction immediately following that
comment... your belief that God speaks to you in defining 'moral' is
understandable. You simply have some psychotic problems.. See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=f5d5c01cdcd2d3e4a4c30acf8ac75602%40news.meganetnews.com
[7] Your words in speaking of 'Collective guilt.' --
"This word is one of the concepts on which West Germany was built."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6a7f4c90ad29d61171fb19a75c4359d6%40news.meganetnews.com
Using the expression that "It targets the whole German population."
How bigoted can you be, euro?
[8] In speaking of the death penalty -- "I actually don't believe in improvements,
and, so far, in spite of all the "improvement" proposals, I have not seen
anything that exclude the possbility for innocents to be executed." See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=58403db4127cd882b02e97a39cc2820f%40news.meganetnews.com
Apparently, you would sacrifice any who might not be executed with any
improvements... simply to justify your sadistic nature, in the support of
YOUR agenda. How very similar to your willingness to sacrifice all
innocent slaves... simply to justify your sadistic nature, in the support of
YOUR agenda.
[9] Implying that pity should not be felt for those deprived of their human
rights in the holocaust... because in your words --
"Human rights have nothing to do with pity." See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=531e0a6fc371e8f5745ae1c2ba15fd4d%40news.meganetnews.com
[10] And of course.. another of the 'great ones' from you -- "I don't think one
makes much progress by separating non murderers (the good ones) and
murderers (the evil ones)." Apparently... you conclude that we should not
even bother having a justice system which separates the murderer from the
non-murderer. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e2706c22e2c8c73ebbd818d20b986abb%40news.meganetnews.com
Earl Evleth
Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> The big winners in that election... were the terrorists.
You are suffering from North American myopia still again!
I posted here, before the election results the thread
"Did Aznar Lie?", nobody said anything.
On Saturday before the elections I posted on rec.travel.europe
"The current developing controversy in Spain is that Aznar has
played down the Al-Qaeda possibility for electoral political reasons.
If the public really does a tectonic shift from blaming the ETA
Aznar gets the blame for provoking Al-Qaeda. The public did not
want the Iraqi war. But the elections tomorrow probably avoid
the possibility of a shift, it will occur later on and influence
the legitimacy of the incoming right wing government if elected."
This issue is LYING. We know from recent comparative polls that
the Europeans are particularly sensitive to this issue and
in fact view Bush, Blair and Azar as liars. This comes up
on political cartoons in Le Monde, the three having been
characterized as having long long noses.
You, yourself, PV, have been PreVaricator so long you can
not even tell when the truth is the truth.
The big winner is the Spanish people. They kicked out the liars.
Hopefully the American people will follow their example.
Earl
j.rennie1
Well you were brought up in a backwater - that's not
your fault.
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <c3ao4b$25u6hq$1...@ID-164592.news.uni-berlin.de>, Richard J
<ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
> I have no problem with the democratic process, but the message sent the
> terrorists and the way it is being delivered by the incoming government
> is one which may well foster more, not less, acts of terrorism in
> Europe. What do you think the ETA is learning from all of this? Do you
> think right now they are possibly thinking that they should change their
> tactics and go for bigger and random acts of violence where hundreds if
> not thousands are killed in order to gain their objective of a Basque
> homeland? Were I in their place, I know I would. Regardless of the
> reality, it appears as if Spain has backed down to the use of force. By
> giving that appearance, they invite others with other agendas to use
> massive force to accomplish their aims, and the ETA is a prime
> candidate. Other nations in Europe have their own home grown terrorists
> who are, no doubt, thinking the same thing.
>
> Teflon
>
According to sources we consider reliable, there is a split within the ETA
itself. The older guys, the ones who have served or are serving prison
time, have mellowed, and now oppose terrorist tactics. However, the younger
ones are hotheaded. At one point some of the Basque prisoners in the prison
we visit (French and Spanish) wrote a letter to the ETA leadership in Spain
pleading for restraint, no more blind terrorism. They received a letter in
return from the younger elements, telling them that they were just old
fogeys, that their day had passed, and they should just get out of the way.
In my opinion, what ETA does will depend on who wins this internal struggle.
Donna Evleth
Richard J
Think about who has the capacity to act. If the old hands are in prison
and the young lions are not, who is in actual control? Also, as I said,
the apparent success of this one act in causing political change might
even cause the old tired ones to rethink their position on violence. ETA
is not the only group in this particular situation either.
Teflon
Euro
> On 18/03/04 9:06, in article vqli50d4se3a2ovoj...@4ax.com,
"A
> Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> > The big winners in that election... were the terrorists.
>
>
> You are suffering from North American myopia still again!
Most certainly, and the word is kind: I would almost use "incompetence" and
"ignorance" in this case. And I would add that PV's comment constitutes an
insult to the Spaniards who voted for Zapatero, as he almost accuses them to
play the game of the terrorists. Little does he care about the fact that
Zapatero had, long before the 3/11 terrorist attack, promised to pull the
Spanish army out of Iraq.
> I posted here, before the election results the thread
>
> "Did Aznar Lie?", nobody said anything.
>
> On Saturday before the elections I posted on rec.travel.europe
>
> "The current developing controversy in Spain is that Aznar has
> played down the Al-Qaeda possibility for electoral political reasons.
>
> If the public really does a tectonic shift from blaming the ETA
> Aznar gets the blame for provoking Al-Qaeda. The public did not
> want the Iraqi war. But the elections tomorrow probably avoid
> the possibility of a shift, it will occur later on and influence
> the legitimacy of the incoming right wing government if elected."
>
> This issue is LYING. We know from recent comparative polls that
> the Europeans are particularly sensitive to this issue and
> in fact view Bush, Blair and Azar as liars. This comes up
> on political cartoons in Le Monde, the three having been
> characterized as having long long noses.
>
> You, yourself, PV, have been PreVaricator so long you can
> not even tell when the truth is the truth.
>
> The big winner is the Spanish people. They kicked out the liars.
>
> Hopefully the American people will follow their example.
>
> Earl
The big winner of the elections, indeed, is the Spanish people. Aznar took
thoughtless risks by engaging his country into a military action opposed by
almost 90% of his population. He has been rightfully punished for that.
Accusing the Spaniards to play the game of the terrorists is utter hypocrisy
and bad faith.
Euro
Earl Evleth
Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 00:55:47 -0800, "David Haley" <junkm...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Even though it really does stink of lying, I'm not so sure if he was "lying
>> deliberately".
>
> I don't think HE was personally lying, myself. Although there was
> some lying going on in those about him. IMO, many who 'leaked'
> to the press the suspicion of ETA, simply had their own jobs at
> stake in the election, or wished to 'help' those who had their jobs
> at stake in the election. It often feeds on itself, without actually
> receiving 'directions to lie,' from the boss.
>
>
The sequence of his contacting the nationally important newspapers
from noon on of the first day was indicative of the intent to mislead.
Some he called twice in the same day. They configured their headlines
for that day to accuse the ETA. Government controlled TV also dropped
news items suggested an Al Qaeda involvement and when protestors
went into the streets on Saturday the censors got them off TV
and old film on ETA bombings shown.
Manipulation all the way.
Aznar knew that any speculation that is as an Al Qaeda attack would cost
"him" votes, he was trying to wait it out, have the elections and his side
win before the truth got out.
The French press covered this fully, giving the sequence of events down
to the hour.
I have not seen this in the US press. Has it been on American TV. Did
Fox give good coverage of Aznar`s distortions?
We got full coverage here.
The Spanish editors thought Aznar was speaking in the mode of the "parole
d'etat", that he would not dishonor Spain by lying. So they trusted him.
The first false indication that is was the ETA were news sources which
said that the police had determined that the dynamite was of the
same kind stolen from a Bretagne source 3 years earlier. That information
convinced me it was the ETA.
It turned out to be Spanish dynamite. I became unconvinced of the ETA.
The truck found with detonators of a type not used by the ETA and
the verses in Arab around noon on the first day. This discovery
was not played up by Aznar at all.
It was evident by Saturday morning that the ETA was probably not
responsible and that is when the Spanish public started reacting.
They were reacting to the lying more than the Al Qaeda connection
but also drawing from the anti-war sentiment.
So here we do have a comparison with the US. The Spanish reacted
to Aznar`s lies, or distortions, if you wish, immediately.
The American public has yet to react to the lie on WMD.
It ironic for Americans to criticize the Spanish when
they have a all to permissive attitude with regard to the
Bush distortions.
earl
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <c3c69t$268an5$1...@ID-164592.news.uni-berlin.de>, Richard J
<ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
Again from the same source, I have been told that the old hands are not
rethinking their policy on violence. They were ready to disavow the ETA if
it had been involved.
Donna Evleth
>
yours_most_truly
>
> >
> >
> > Dans l'article <c3ao4b$25u6hq$1...@ID-164592.news.uni-berlin.de>, Richard J
<snipped>
> >
> > According to sources we consider reliable, there is a split within the ETA
> > itself. The older guys, the ones who have served or are serving prison
> > time, have mellowed, and now oppose terrorist tactics. However, the younger
> > ones are hotheaded. At one point some of the Basque prisoners in the prison
> > we visit (French and Spanish) wrote a letter to the ETA leadership in Spain
> > pleading for restraint, no more blind terrorism. They received a letter in
> > return from the younger elements, telling them that they were just old
> > fogeys, that their day had passed, and they should just get out of the way.
> >
> > In my opinion, what ETA does will depend on who wins this internal struggle.
> >
> > Donna Evleth
>
> Think about who has the capacity to act. If the old hands are in prison
> and the young lions are not, who is in actual control? Also, as I said,
> the apparent success of this one act in causing political change might
> even cause the old tired ones to rethink their position on violence. ETA
> is not the only group in this particular situation either.
> Teflon
>
with dealing this dilemma in the context of organized criminal gangs.
Remove without exception the older gangsters in command and control,
and the result is a surge of criminal mayhem. The youngsters jockey
for the open leadership positions knowing they have nothing to lose by
taking even outrageous risks. The older guys have already proven
themselves and so tend think more about their "reps" as "good" leaders
in gang legacy. Consider the "Nuestra Familia," a U.S. west coast
gang. After major embezzlements of gang funds by its street leaders,
by a caucus of sorts the gang decided that only those members
qualified for its highest leadership positions were those serving life
without parole or its equivalent, as they were to the same extent
financially incorruptible. Ingenious! The NF's command and control
structure was broken in the early 1990s for other reasons. But now
what would have been its entry-level members (high school age), to be
controlled and "schooled," are killing and being killed like Siamese
fighting fish, and more innocents are dying by misidentifications and
in crossfires over gang "turf." The NF is– or was in its heyday– a
"for profit" terrorist organization and as such would have squashed
such unprofitable atavistic behavior like a bug.
So although the analogy is by no means perfect, it seems swatting
any terrorist leader as soon as he's located is not a good idea.
There are those who should be immediately swatted, and those who
should be tracked but otherwise left alone (at least for the time
being).
But no matter how artfully applied, IMO the struggle against
international terrorism will continue long after anyone alive today is
dead, and will end only when and if its wells run dry. And that might
require a change in the collective conscience comparable to that from
feudalism to the Enlightenment. The problem in discussing major
contemporary problems is always that nobody can be certain if s/he's
trying to address the symptoms or the disease. My bet is that global
terrorism is a symptom and we should instead try to focus on
identifying the disease and then curing it.
Richard J
To which the young ones who are able to act say: "SO?"
Teflon
Richard J
> "Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c3c69t$268an5$1...@ID-164592.news.uni-berlin.de...> Donna Evleth wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Dans l'article <c3ao4b$25u6hq$1...@ID-164592.news.uni-berlin.de>, Richard J
>>><ric...@hotmail.com> a éécrit :
I agree, Desmond. The only problem is that with people like the Basque,
the only way to cure ETA is to create a new nation with others giving up
some of theirs. That might even be accomplished eventually, but what
will you do with the next group that wants an new homeland and decides
to start killing innocents? At what point do you think nations will
say: "Enough!!!"?
Then there are others who kill because they wish to destroy a whole
people and their nation like the PLO. Will you unite and destroy Israel
to gain peace?
Appeasement isn't an answer either.
Teflon
A Planet Visitor
>"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040316215134...@mb-m11.aol.com...
>> >Subject: Re: Spain Election winners
>> >From: "David Haley" junkm...@hotmail.com
>> >Date: 3/16/2004 6:11 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <c381jr$rmj$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>
>> >
>> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>> >news:s00f50hg08tm7lht3...@4ax.com...
>> >> The picture of Spain's election winners --
>> >> http://www.ucomics.com/danasummers/
>> >> Sad, but true. Sad for everyone but Desmond.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> PV
>> >> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >For Spain to have "surrendered", the people would have had to have been
>for
>> >the war in the first place.
>> >
>> >Considering that the people were against the war, and now they suffer the
>> >consequences of their government having gone through with it anyways,
>they
>> >are simply removing the government who did what they did not want to do.
>Not
>> >to mention the whole lying part.
>> >
>> >Spain as a people never believed in the war, but get slapped in the face
>for
>> >having their government go through with it anyways.
>> >
>> >I think it's far to easy for the USA to start calling Spain a
>"surrenderer",
>> >when the Spaniards never supported it in the first place.
>> >
>> >-dhaley
>> ===============================
>>
>> Then why were they the target of terrorists and why did 201 people die
>in a
>> bombing? Because they wern't involved in the war?
>
>
>As usual you misunderstand. The Spanish people didn't want to be in the war,
>but much like in the UK the government did it anyways.
>
>So yes, the Spanish were the targets of a bombing because their country was
>involved in the war. They however were against the war to begin with, and
>therefore kicked the offending government out the door - the government that
>they view responsible for these attacks. If the government had done what the
>people wanted in the first place, the attack wouldn't have happened.
>
Now, now, David. Remember what your buddy, euro, said to me. His
words - "Leave that debate to the Spaniards, will you?" You should not
presume what the Spaniards 'wanted' or how they might have voted in the
absence of that terrorist attack, based on perhaps biased 'opinion polls.'
And you are certainly drawing a conclusion which cannot possibly be
argued is factual... since it is Desmond-like in its claim of certainty that
the attack would not have happened. Given that it DID happen... that
is actually the only certainty.
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>-dhaley
>
A Planet Visitor
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:od2g50dnlm509f85j...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:11:56 -0800, "David Haley"
><junkm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Considering that the people were against the war, and now they suffer the
>> >consequences of their government having gone through with it anyways, they
>> >are simply removing the government who did what they did not want to do. Not
>> >to mention the whole lying part.
>> >
>> That has nothing to do with the fact that terrorists succeeded in intimidating
>> the voters to remove that government in even more forceful terms than it
>> might have been. Clearly the 'cover-up' was used because the government
>> still felt it had a chance to survive the election... which clearly unraveled as
>> it should have. But there is no doubt that the unraveling put 'fear' into the
>> minds of the Spanish. And that is a paradigm shift in voter thinking which
>> will affect future elections. Italy has already been threatened as I understand
>> it, and an al-Qaeda cell has claimed that it is 90% 'ready' to launch a new
>> attack on the U.S. As long as voters respond by rejecting fighting
>> terrorism... the terrorists are 'winners.'
>
>Your position, of course, assumes that invading Iraq was fighting terrorism.
My position assumes that terrorism perceives itself to be the 'winner,' and
in doing so, will be more likely to attempt similar acts in other nations
prior to election, while it is hardly debatable that such acts generate fear
in the minds of those who witness events such as that. Nor is it only
'my position' but that of a great many others. Whether invading Iraq
was 'fighting terrorism' or not, terrorists SEE it as such, even if you do
not. Obviously they MUST... since it was those same terrorists who
committed those murders presumably because of Spain's participation
in Iraq.
>Yes, it was fighting a despicable dictator, but where is the Iraq/al-Qaeda
>link? Other than that they both share a "q" of course.
>
Many do claim such a connection. But let's see... 1) The terrorists
were al-Qaeda. 2) They murdered to affect the Spanish election
in respect to Spain's participation in Iraq. You connect the dots.
It's rather obvious that the terrorist murderers saw such a connection.
It is illogical on your part to claim there is 'no connection,' when
the murders were committed because of that connection in the
minds of the murderers. If the terrorists are al-Qaeda... and their
purpose was to affect Spain's participation in the war in Iraq, the
connection is rather obvious, and is more than a simple "q." Or
is it your argument that they were not al-Qaeda terrorists, but
simply 'peace-loving freedom fighters' seeking to 'liberate Iraq'
and see Iraq as having nothing to do with terrorism?
>Seriously though,
Oh... all right! Now I understand... You've been 'joking' up until now.
> you're misinterpreting events when you claim that they're
>rejecting the "fight against terrorism". They're rejecting a government that
>did something they didn't want, and that got them bombed as a result.
They 'got bombed' because terrorists wanted to 'bomb them.' For
reasons that lay in the minds of those terrorists. To argue that there
is 'no connection' between the fight against terrorism and the war
in Iraq, is to ignore the fact that terrorists committed those murders
BECAUSE of Spain's contribution to the war in Iraq. If there were
no such connection, terrorists would not have murdered because
of the connection that THEY SEE. Now if you contend that those
terrorists do not see a personal connection to terrorism and Iraq...
I don't know how to explain it to you.
>They're against a government that supported the illegal (i.e. unsanctioned,
>poorly justified) invasion of Iraq; they're against a government that
>follows a course of action - *against the will of the people* - that created
>a situation in which 200 people were killed. And as you so aptly pointed
>out, when proportionally compared to the US, that represents 1,400 people
>dead - or roughly half of the WTC victims - and 7,000 injured.
Please do not turn this into a Desmond-like pronouncement of your
opinion being FACT. While making EXCUSES for those terrorist
murderers. The murderers committed those murders to strike fear
in the heart of any nation supporting ANY action that even remotely
appears to be combating terrorism. Terrorist see the invasion of
Iraq as an effort directed against them. Why can't you? And the
other terrorist acts now on-going in Iraq, are not all of Baathist
party opposition. Both have an interest in creating disorder and
chaos in Iraq. Terrorists realize that to lose Iraq is to be dealt a
severe blow to their world-wide agenda. The possibility of that
crack fracturing fundamentalist Islam is quite obvious to terrorists.
Of course, if terrorists achieve their efforts in forcing Iraq to be
abandoned, Baathists and fundamentalist Islamic terrorists will
no longer share a common goal, and the blood bath could possibly
be too horrendous to contemplate. However; to argue that there
is no connection to terrorism opposing the efforts to turn Iraq into
a pseudo-democracy is simply unrealistic.
Terrorism is engaged in a great struggle to ensure Iraq FAILS.
Obviously this is true, simply because they are terrorists, and the
murders they committed were intended to ensure Iraq fails.
You might have 'argued' your view if those terrorists were
'Saddam followers,' and thus opposed the war in Iraq because
of that... but they are not. They are terrorists who murdered
because they want Iraq to fail because THEY see the connection
you claim only exists in a common "q."
Those terrorists attacked the 'weakest link' in that chain of support
for Iraq, because they want desperately for Iraq's reemergence in
a possible loose secular democracy, which is about the maximum
that we can expect to achieve, to fail. They want terrorism to win,
with Iraq collapsing into civil war and a possible fundamentalist
Muslim dictatorship resulting from that chaos. If there were no
connection of terrorism's agenda to the Iraq war... why did those
terrorists find it necessary to attack Spain for its efforts in that war?
>
>I think it takes a lot of nerve - not to mention callousness and lack of
>consideration - to accuse the Spaniards of giving the elections to
>terrorists, simply because they rejected a government that did not follow
>the will of the people.
>
I think it takes a lot of nerve to deny a connection to terrorism and
the war in Iraq. And a lot of nerve to claim you can decide what voters
would have done had those terrorist murders not occurred. While
you certainly twist my words -- since I said -- "in even more forceful
terms than it might have been." Which makes no claim as to how it
might have gone... but that clearly those murders DID have an effect
on a certain number of voters. While I said in respect to the government
'cover up' -- "But there is no doubt that the unraveling put 'fear' into the
minds of the Spanish." This is rather obviously the REASON behind the
'cover-up' to begin with, since the sitting party did not want the voters
to connect the terrorist attack to an attack by fundamentalist Muslim
terrorists, because they KNEW that the voters would also connect
that attack to the war in Iraq (a connection you claim does not exist),
and would react in fear by rejecting the sitting party, even more forcefully
than it might have done. I make no predictions as you do, as to how
the election might have turned out if there had been no terrorist attack.
But clearly that attack caused a great many voters to reject the sitting
party. And thus... terrorists will certainly find they have 'won,' and will
'believe' that such attacks result in them being able to affect election
outcomes, regardless of whether or not the election outcome would
have changed without that terrorist attack.
>> >Spain as a people never believed in the war, but get slapped in the face for
>> >having their government go through with it anyways.
>> >
>> >I think it's far to easy for the USA to start calling Spain a "surrenderer",
>> >when the Spaniards never supported it in the first place.
>> >
>> As I said... can you point out the word "surrender" in my post or the
>> URL I provided? If not... you are no better than euro at distorting
>> the meaning of words. Since you placed that word in quotes as
>> if it was a word used in my comment or that URL.
>>
>> PV
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>>
>
>If terrorists "win", that means that "Spaniards" lose. You said yourself
>that the Spaniards were "intimidated"... into giving up the fight. Or did
>you mean they were intimidated into something else?
As with your disgusting display of twisting euro's use of the word
"polite," I would ask that you not use words in quotation marks,
presumably attributing them to me, when I have not used them.
If you had omitted the quotation marks, I would have assumed
that you were parsing the word as YOUR word. And would
have not mentioned it. But by including it in quotation marks,
you implied it was MY word. And it was not. In any case --
'losing' does not imply 'surrender.' Since a contest... such as
an election... can be lost by the voters having chosen to turn
out the incumbent, without an idea of 'surrender' of the voters
being behind it. Even a sports contest has a 'winner' and
a 'loser' without the idea of the 'loser' having 'surrendered,' but
simply having been 'defeated.'
>It's quite simple to
>conclude that if Spaniards "lose" and have their minds filled with "fear",
>it means that they "give up", in other words, surrendered. Do you follow, or
>shall I rephrase it?
If you do... please do not include quotation marks to imply that you
are 'quoting me' if you are not. And if you believe that Spain was
not the 'loser' in that event... it's time you started counting dead
bodies, and comparing them with the number of dead bodies of
terrorists who committed those murders. Terrorism wins... when
it achieves its goal. Others lose... when their views are changed
by terrorism. It is hardly believable that no Spanish voter changed
their vote because of that terrorist attack. And the goal that terrorism
hoped for, was achieved. Whether the murders they committed
were responsible for achieving that goal is immaterial... since
terrorism SEES it as having achieved that goal... and will more
readily use it in the future. IMO.
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>
>-dhaley
>
A Planet Visitor
I do believe you are right in respect to Italy. It is the next
'weakest link' in the chain. See
http://www.iht.com/articles/510684.html
I also saw an article in the French media right after the
murders in Spain (I could not find it again as I looked),
that reported a threat from a terrorist organization that
"Italy would be next."
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
A Planet Visitor
>"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040317114709...@mb-m19.aol.com...
>> >Subject: Re: Spain Election winners
>> >From: Earl Evleth evl...@wanadoo.fr
>> >Date: 3/17/2004 10:30 AM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <BC7E2D8A.2AA26%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
>> >
>> >On 17/03/04 13:51, in article
>c39i2u$25nfvm$1...@ID-164592.news.uni-berlin.de,
>> >"Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> One can also say the socialists also played right into the hands of the
>> >> terrorists.
>> >
>> >I view it the other way around, the terrorists aided the socialist with
>> >their terrorist act.
>> >
>> >Often in a terrorist act, one political side or the other benefits.
>> >
>> >After all what did 9/11 do for Bush???
>> >
>> >And he is still playing it to the hilt.
>> >
>> >True or not true??
>> >
>> >Next, Aznar knew that the socialists might benefit if the public realized
>> >before the election that the acts were in relationship to the Iraqi war.
>> >
>> >He tried to block that information from being known. The sequence of
>> >his acts are now known and have made the papers here.
>> >
>> >
>> >> If the bombings were able to bring down a government in
>> >> Spain,
>> >
>> >Correction, there was an election, the existing Government was
>> >brought down by that.
>> >
>> >> it seems to me that terrorist all over Europe might try the same
>> >> tactics any time they want change.
>> >
>> >Now we are having regional elections this weekend and the one after.
>> >
>> >Since Chirac was against the war and also the socialist opposition,
>> >in what way would a bombing effect these elections????
>> >
>> >And yet France is being threatened. On another issue, the scarf issue.
>> >Even on that issue the support fo the new law was broad, there is
>> >no partisan division on it.
>> >
>> >
>> >If 9/11 had not occurred on 9/11/2001 but just before the next elections
>> >in the USA, in what matter might it have influenced that election???
>> >
>> >It depends on how the issues were developed in the campaign. If Bush
>> >had neglected terrorism prevention it might work against him. Or the
>> >country might decide to pull together and back the President in power.
>> >
>> >Where Aznar goofed was NOT playing it the only way that he might of won
>on.
>> >That is saying it was Iraq related and an attempt to maniuplate the
>> >election. "Don`t allow that to happen" could have worked.
>> >
>> >I would have preferred delaying the elections for one month so they
>> >could occur in ³la tranquilité democratique² (a term used here).
>> >
>> >I don`t think that would have worked because his goose was cooked with
>> >his support of the Iraqi war.
>> >
>> >I think big bombing in London might get Blair thrown out of power by
>> >his own party but bombings in either France or Germany would be
>> >non-productive in that sense. Italy, yes, the most of the rest of Europe,
>> >no.
>> >
>> >Earl
>> ==============================
>>
>>
>> It appears that Chirac has set himself and France up over the headscarf
>issue.
>
>
>Yes, except for one minor detail that you left out by omission or ignorance;
>the vast majority of the French population is in favor of the *secular*
>issue. Stop calling it the damned headscarf issue, because it's about all
>religions - people like you are only serving to make the job easier for the
>radical Muslims, by waving around words like that.
>
Oh... you mean the 'headscarf' issue. I don't see that calling it that
makes the 'job' (whatever you presume that job to be) of fundamentalist
Muslims easier. Fundamentalist Muslims are opposed to
EVERY *secular* issue, regardless of the French feeling
about those issues.
Do you contend that the BBC is making the 'job' of radical
Muslims easier, in their 'waving the "headscarf issue" around?
See --
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3309885.stm
Is Australian Radio National making their 'job' easier? See --
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/europe/stories/s1039127.htm
How about the German Deutsche Welle? See --
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1433_A_1111321_1_A,00.html
Don't be such a pedant, David. We already have a 'master
pedant' in AADP. It is not unfair to call it the 'headscarf issue,'
since rather all opposition to the law... comes from that exact
source... and it is hardly imaginable that it makes the 'job' of
fundamentalist Muslims easier. It makes them look rather
stupid... to me at least. While I must admit they seem to
find that 'job' quite easy to accomplish.
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>-dhaley
>
David Haley
> Many do claim such a connection. But let's see... 1) The terrorists
> were al-Qaeda. 2) They murdered to affect the Spanish election
> in respect to Spain's participation in Iraq. You connect the dots.
> It's rather obvious that the terrorist murderers saw such a connection.
> It is illogical on your part to claim there is 'no connection,' when
> the murders were committed because of that connection in the
> minds of the murderers. If the terrorists are al-Qaeda... and their
> purpose was to affect Spain's participation in the war in Iraq, the
> connection is rather obvious, and is more than a simple "q." Or
> is it your argument that they were not al-Qaeda terrorists, but
> simply 'peace-loving freedom fighters' seeking to 'liberate Iraq'
> and see Iraq as having nothing to do with terrorism?
How easy it is to claim the Iraq/Al-Qaeda link... now that the Bushites have
gone and created it.
My original point - that you ignored, intentionally or not - was about
invading Iraq in the first place. Now there is undeniably a link, because
the Bushes (and Weeds...) have gone and royally mucked up. There wasn't a
link before, but there certainly is *now*.
And it is this very link-creation that the "rest of the world" was trying to
warn off, but no, Sir Bush knows better than everyone. :)
-dhaley
Earl Evleth
"Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> To which the young ones who are able to act say: "SO?"
This group has a financial structure, the young
do not control the purse strings and also, by
experience, have not paid their revolutionary "dues".
Earl
Richard J
All of which makes little difference to young hot heads, Earl. If they
don't have the money, a trip to the nearest bank with firearms to make a
'withdrawal' will solve that. As far as paying dues, youngsters tend
not to get too upset about such things when inspired by the acts of
others they see could possibly benefit them, eh?
Timothy McVeigh had neither much help nor a lot of co conspirators, but
he still managed to make one hell of a big bang. For him, it was the
Branch Davidian compound situation which was the key. Others are
motivated by other keys. All you have to do is look at some of the
splinter groups in Ulster over the past decade or so to see how hard it
is for older, cooler heads to control youngsters bent on action.
Teflon
yours_most_truly
>
<snipped>
> >>Think about who has the capacity to act. If the old hands are in prison
> >>and the young lions are not, who is in actual control? Also, as I said,
> >>the apparent success of this one act in causing political change might
> >>even cause the old tired ones to rethink their position on violence. ETA
> >>is not the only group in this particular situation either.
> >>Teflon
> >>
> >
> > As to the last comments, U.S. law enforcement is very experienced
> > with dealing this dilemma in the context of organized criminal gangs.
> > Remove without exception the older gangsters in command and control,
> > and the result is a surge of criminal mayhem. The youngsters jockey
> > for the open leadership positions knowing they have nothing to lose by
> > taking even outrageous risks. The older guys have already proven
> > themselves and so tend think more about their "reps" as "good" leaders > > in gang legacy. Consider the "Nuestra Familia," a U.S. west coast
> > gang. After major embezzlements of gang funds by its street leaders,
> > by a caucus of sorts the gang decided that only those members
> > qualified for its highest leadership positions were those serving life
> > without parole or its equivalent, as they were to the same extent
> > financially incorruptible. Ingenious! The NF's command and control
> > structure was broken in the early 1990s for other reasons. But now
> > what would have been its entry-level members (high school age), to be
> > controlled and "schooled," are killing and being killed like Siamese
> > fighting fish, and more innocents are dying by misidentifications and
> > in crossfires over gang "turf." The NF is?? or was in its heyday?? a
> > "for profit" terrorist organization and as such would have squashed
> > such unprofitable atavistic behavior like a bug.
> > So although the analogy is by no means perfect, it seems swatting
> > any terrorist leader as soon as he's located is not a good idea.
> > There are those who should be immediately swatted, and those who
> > should be tracked but otherwise left alone (at least for the time
> > being).
> > But no matter how artfully applied, IMO the struggle against
> > international terrorism will continue long after anyone alive today is
> > dead, and will end only when and if its wells run dry. And that might
> > require a change in the collective conscience comparable to that from
> > feudalism to the Enlightenment. The problem in discussing major
> > contemporary problems is always that nobody can be certain if s/he's
> > trying to address the symptoms or the disease. My bet is that global
> > terrorism is a symptom and we should instead try to focus on
> > identifying the disease and then curing it.
>
> I agree, Desmond.
He agrees, dirtdog.
> The only problem is that with people like the Basque,
What people are "like" the Basques? Do you mean they have some kind
of terror gene?
I am only vaguely familiar with the history of Spain's Basque
"problem," but it seems post-Franco they enjoy a great deal of
autonomy, and the overwhelming majority of Basques are either content
with that or reject violence in advancing independence. Consider in
this respect the U.S.-Puerto Rico relationship. PR has had several
national referendums on whether to seek U.S. statehood or
independence. Her electorate has thus far rejected both options in
favor of the status quo. The U.S. has launched no cultural genocide
program there, they are entitled to vote in U.S. presidential
elections, they can immigrate to the U.S. with few restrictions, and
there are numerous U.S. laws encouraging investment there which both
statehood and independence would erase. So the outcomes of these
referendums have been perfectly sensible. Yet there have been PR
nationalist terror groups, including one in the 1950s which sprayed
Congress with bullets from a visitors' gallery. Do Puerto Ricans have
a "terror gene" too?
> the only way to cure ETA is to create a new nation with others giving up
> some of theirs.
Some of their what? Nations come and go through history, there's no
indication that will ever change. Even when the Taliban controlled
most of Afghanistan, only two nations recognized them as sovereign.
The Knights of Malta control no territory at all, and two nations
acknowledge their sovereignty and they're working on more. Then
there's a number of nations who have always done quite well despite
being territorial pipsqueaks. Do try to maintain your side of the
discussion if you wish to sustain it.
> That might even be accomplished eventually, but what
> will you do with the next group that wants an new homeland and decides
> to start killing innocents? At what point do you think nations will
> say: "Enough!!!"?
>
Again, history teaches nations come and go. More pertinent is how
they came to be, and why they have and will go away.
> Then there are others who kill because they wish to destroy a whole
> people and their nation like the PLO. Will you unite and destroy Israel
> to gain peace?
Cut the crap, or risk becoming a "Planet Visitor" cellie in my
killfile.
>
> Appeasement isn't an answer either.
>
> Teflon
>
Unfortunately, multiple choice tests always present limited options.
Richard J
Which means that you, like everyone else, have no answers to the
problems posed above.
Teflon
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
(in message <9eli5016v0bkam827...@4ax.com>):
> Let's hope that no country has to pay that price again.
Many countries will be attacked, PV. You doubtless know, as I do, that Al
Quae'da and similar organisations really don't give a flying fuck about
involvement or otherwise in the Iraq invasion. They just want to see our
civilisation crumble.
Doubtless they're incredibly jealous of the happiness and freedom that their
Muslim cousins are enjoying living in the belly of "The Great Satan".
> But that might
> be in the mind of the voter in other elections... and fear drive that
> voting process, which can only work in favor of terrorism. In the
> perception of the voter that being 'hard' on terrorism places the
> country at greater risk to such terrorist acts.
I disagree that the election result was born of fear. More of exasperation
with a regime that was obviously duplicitous and too arrogant to observe the
will of the people. That is, after all, what democracy is about. Spain
would have been a target regardless of its alliance with the USA or
otherwise.
Mr Q. Z. D.
David Haley
news:0001HW.BC81EA56...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Really? You don't think Spain was targetted precisely *because* of its
alliance with the USA?
-dhaley
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
(in message <c3g8u3$gmi$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>):
> Really? You don't think Spain was targetted precisely *because* of its
> alliance with the USA?
I think that Spain was targeted because it is a Western liberal democracy
with comparatively lax security. Any questions?
Mr Q. Z. D.
JIGSAW1695
>Date: 3/19/2004 8:30 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <0001HW.BC81EA56...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
I have to agree with the Man From Oz on this one. The new socialist government
would have found an excuse to sever their relationship with the US. Al Quida
saved them problem.
Hmmmmm.........do you think that....no..impossible, even Socialists would
never do anything like that.
Jigsaw
JIGSAW1695
>Date: 3/19/2004 9:05 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <c3g8u3$gmi$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>
For one dhaley asks a good question. I am sure that Spains alliance with the US
was part of it. But were the Basque seperatists involved in the terrorist act
in any way?
Does this mean that France is safe from any such incident? How about Germany,
Poland, the UK, and Italy?
Jigsaw
JIGSAW1695
>Date: 3/19/2004 9:24 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <0001HW.BC81F704...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
What???
I had to read your post three times before I was sure of what you said.
Q!, not once, did you even hint....or infer..that the US was to blame.
Turn in your party card and then report to The Central Committee Reeducation
Unit.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
(in message <20040319222017...@mb-m03.aol.com>):
> I had to read your post three times before I was sure of what you said.
> Q!, not once, did you even hint....or infer..that the US was to blame.
I did not infer it and nor did I imply it. Last I looked, it wasn't the USA
or any of its agencies that planted bombs in Madrid trains. Last I looked,
Al Quae'da were an equal opportunity terrorist group with little
consideration for whom its targets are save that they are representative of
Western liberal democracies.
> Turn in your party card and then report to The Central Committee Reeducation
> Unit.
You have a most odd, black-and-white view of the world, Jiggy. It is a
common flaw of conservatives. We from the left prefer to view things as they
are - in shades of grey.
Mr Q. Z. D.
A Planet Visitor
To call the Spanish people "big winners," while they are still burying their
dead... murdered by terrorists who achieved all that they set out to do...
is obscene.
Look at euro... he calls the Spanish people -- "the big winner..." How
disgusting.
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>Euro
>
Ummm... for those 'keeping count' this is 188 (?) of my posting some
very destructive comments from euro, providing the exact words,
a link to those words, and my opinion of those words. Not one
of which he has refuted. --
[1] Your words --
"At least, Goebbels was polite in his propaganda" See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d8232deaf4cfd86aa600b816fd947ca8%40news.meganetnews.com
[2] In an absolutely conflicted assortment of Machiavellian, ignominious,
disingenuous, feckless, sophistic, and offensive, double-speak nonsense.
ALL IN ONE POST. Your words --
"I made a claim of principle, that families have nothing to do with justice."
"Justice concerns also the families of victims and murderers."
"justice should, on the contrary, be compassion for the murderer's family"
"hence the feelings of the victims' families should not be instrumentalized to
justify a harder penalty;"
"the tears from one side (the victims' family) cannot be compensated
by the tears from another side (the murderers' family)."
"I never alluded to pity for murderers, but to pity for the murderers'
families." See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=98ecf84d186fb6f02671ac97f3157aec%40news.meganetnews.com
[3] Your words --
"because murderers are HUMANE, whether you like it or not."
"But since murderers are humane..."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=5bfda818764410613bc12ca4df5b16ba%40meganetnews.com
[4] Your words --
"Do you find that John Wayne Gacy is an animal who does not enjoy the
same human rights as you do?" See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ccea6e7e4217cf160862d1c39b026740news.meganetnews.com
You stated "And that is true." In reply to the question of John Wayne Gacy
having the same 'human rights' as any innocent person. See -
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=40383cc79857308eb110320ca87bc907%40news.meganetnews.com
[5] When choosing between abolishing the DP and 'saving' all murderers from the
DP, or abolishing slavery and freeing all slaves in a society that practices both --
Your words --
"That would lead me to the conclusion that I should abolish death penalty."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=c80a9ef0a3cea5a2e77e8fc9f80eb05d%40news.meganetnews.com
[6] In your arrogant claims that you, in your God-like belief in your own
infallibility, can DEFINE for everyone what are "great moral qualities."
While every rational person recognizes that 'morality' is not an absolute.
Yet YOU would DEFINE as a RC Cardinal who wants to elevate an executed
murderer to a role which would demand that millions refer to that murderer
as BLESSED -- Your words --
"You will also note that Lustiger is, in France, one of the prominent
activists for the beatification of Jacques Flesch, sentenced to death and
executed in France in 1957 for the murder of a police officer following a
bungled robbery.
http://www.catholicdigest.org/stories/200108106a.html
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to stress the great moral qualities of
Lustiger" See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dd7b24844c1b79d34bac9efbb48e2fcd%40news.meganetnews.com
Of course, then entering DENIAL... as usual, you denied even writing
those words... when you posted "I didn't claim that "it is moral to beatify a
murderer". Along with you again DEFINING 'moral values' for the rest of
all humans, in your delusion that God whispers in your ear... with your
words -- "Lustiger's moral values are famous"
Apparently you find Lustiger 'moral' for supporting what you believe is
an 'immoral' effort. But given that you've never been able to express any
comment without offering a contradiction immediately following that
comment... your belief that God speaks to you in defining 'moral' is
understandable. You simply have some psychotic problems.. See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=f5d5c01cdcd2d3e4a4c30acf8ac75602%40news.meganetnews.com
[7] Your words in speaking of 'Collective guilt.' --
"This word is one of the concepts on which West Germany was built."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6a7f4c90ad29d61171fb19a75c4359d6%40news.meganetnews.com
Using the expression that "It targets the whole German population."
How bigoted can you be, euro?
[8] In speaking of the death penalty -- "I actually don't believe in improvements,
and, so far, in spite of all the "improvement" proposals, I have not seen
anything that exclude the possbility for innocents to be executed." See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=58403db4127cd882b02e97a39cc2820f%40news.meganetnews.com
Apparently, you would sacrifice any who might not be executed with any
improvements... simply to justify your sadistic nature, in the support of
YOUR agenda. How very similar to your willingness to sacrifice all
innocent slaves... simply to justify your sadistic nature, in the support of
YOUR agenda.
[9] Implying that pity should not be felt for those deprived of their human
rights in the holocaust... because in your words --
"Human rights have nothing to do with pity." See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=531e0a6fc371e8f5745ae1c2ba15fd4d%40news.meganetnews.com
[10] And of course.. another of the 'great ones' from you -- "I don't think one
makes much progress by separating non murderers (the good ones) and
murderers (the evil ones)." Apparently... you conclude that we should not
even bother having a justice system which separates the murderer from the
non-murderer. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e2706c22e2c8c73ebbd818d20b986abb%40news.meganetnews.com
Earl Evleth
Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> The big winner of the elections, indeed, is the Spanish people. Aznar took
>> thoughtless risks by engaging his country into a military action opposed by
>> almost 90% of his population. He has been rightfully punished for that.
>> Accusing the Spaniards to play the game of the terrorists is utter hypocrisy
>> and bad faith.
>>
> To call the Spanish people "big winners," while they are still burying their
> dead... murdered by terrorists who achieved all that they set out to do...
> is obscene.
If Aznar had not gone against the will of the people there would have been
no involvement of Spain in Iraq.
I getting rid of Aznar and his gang, the Spanish people have returned to
a democratically government.
The election accomplished that. Having a democratic government is
a "big win situation", but the people made that choice not the terrorists.
Earl
A Planet Visitor
>On 18/03/04 9:07, in article 9eli5016v0bkam827...@4ax.com, "A
>Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 00:55:47 -0800, "David Haley" <junkm...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Even though it really does stink of lying, I'm not so sure if he was "lying
>>> deliberately".
>>
>> I don't think HE was personally lying, myself. Although there was
>> some lying going on in those about him. IMO, many who 'leaked'
>> to the press the suspicion of ETA, simply had their own jobs at
>> stake in the election, or wished to 'help' those who had their jobs
>> at stake in the election. It often feeds on itself, without actually
>> receiving 'directions to lie,' from the boss.
>>
>>
>
>The sequence of his contacting the nationally important newspapers
>from noon on of the first day was indicative of the intent to mislead.
>Some he called twice in the same day. They configured their headlines
>for that day to accuse the ETA. Government controlled TV also dropped
>news items suggested an Al Qaeda involvement and when protestors
>went into the streets on Saturday the censors got them off TV
>and old film on ETA bombings shown.
Actually that doesn't prove a damn thing, Earl. And you know it. He
could well have been personally misled by his advisors, and those in the
government analyzing the attack. He certainly was limited to the
information provided to him. That has no meaning in respect to him
PERSONALLY attempting to deceive as was the case with Nixon,
for example. Or even Bush... who if anyone could be called a liar
it would be Bush. And even Powell... who is certainly more qualified
to see a sham than I am... and I recognized that second-rate intelligence
as I watched him present it before the U.N. It is inconceivable to
me that Powell did not KNOW he was lying before the U.N.
And at the moment of that invasion... Powell became a non-person
to me. Totally incompetent and a lackey, rather than a leader. His
entire political future was destroyed at that U.N. presentation, as
far as I'm concerned. Even given that at this moment I support the
continuation of the possible transformation of Iraq into at least a
pseudo-democratic government. His 'moment' before the U.N.,
provided the absolute lowest point in my personal feelings about
Iraq... since I knew at that moment... that nothing would prevent
us from going ahead with an invasion that I originally objected to
quite strongly. As I felt it was possible that casualties on both sides
could well be in the hundreds of thousands, before we even entered
Baghdad.
I am willing to give Aznar the benefit of the doubt, although it is
certain that his political future is at an end. Certainly more of
that benefit of a doubt than I would ever give to Bush or
Powell. I have become rather convinced in an absolute sense
that there were no WMDs, while I was never convinced there
were. And I think both Bush and Powell knew there were
not. I cannot speak for Blair.
Further, see --
http://www.iht.com/articles/511079.html
The International Herald Tribune just reported that Aznar acted
on intelligence he had received. The idea of knowingly lying
and being deceived by his advisors presenting presumed reliable
intelligence to him... are worlds apart.
<nonsense clipped>
>The first false indication that is was the ETA were news sources which
>said that the police had determined that the dynamite was of the
>same kind stolen from a Bretagne source 3 years earlier. That information
>convinced me it was the ETA.
>
Yes... I remember how wrong you were. While I stated from the
beginning that -- "I will say that my gut feeling finds a belief
that Madrid was NOT an act of ETA." and "I think it is
now becoming clear that it was al-Qaeda orchestrated."
Once again... you appear to be totally incompetent in matters
of global significance. For someone who suggested nuking
Mecca.. you seem quite willing to look the other way when
terrorists murder 202 innocent human beings.
<rest of nonsense clipped>
>It ironic for Americans to criticize the Spanish when
>they have a all to permissive attitude with regard to the
>Bush distortions.
Whoever is 'criticizing the Spanish'? I criticize the terrorist
murderers. It seems that Europeans here... are applauding
those murderers... as they find the agenda of those terrorist
murderers matches their own agenda perfectly. Isn't that
true, Earl? Isn't the agenda of those terrorist murderers to
drive the coalition from Iraq? Isn't that YOUR agenda?
Aren't you really 'secretly' happy that those murders put the
'seal of victory' on that Spanish vote? Did you give yourself
a high-five, when you heard it was really fundamentalist
Muslim terrorists, thus ensuring the Spanish would vote
out Aznar? Be honest now... aren't you rather proud of
those terrorist murderers. After all... you did call Spain --
"the Big winner.." even while they still mourned their dead.
I will tell you that in my view... it is time only to mourn those
dead along with the Spanish people... and not 'congratulate'
yourself that the agenda of those terrorist murderers matches
your own... and you consider yourself a 'big winner,' just as
those terrorist murderers consider themselves to be a 'big
winner.'
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>earl
A Planet Visitor
>On 18/03/04 9:06, in article vqli50d4se3a2ovoj...@4ax.com, "A
>Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>> The big winners in that election... were the terrorists.
>
>You are suffering from North American myopia still again!
>
While you are not suffering at all about the terrorists being
big winners. It rather fits neatly into your own agenda...
Which is -- ANYTHING is permissible if it results
in withdrawal from Iraq, and abdication to terrorism.
Isn't that so? ANYTHING for the 'cause,' right, Earl?
>I posted here, before the election results the thread
>
>"Did Aznar Lie?", nobody said anything.
>
That's because no one pays any attention to much of your
raving. In fact you first suggested that the murders were the
work of ETA... in your 'scientific' examination of the dynamite
used. In that very post -- you wrote -- "this dynamite
information led me to believe that the bombings were probably
done but (sic - by) the ETA." It seems like you might
have initially been one of Aznar's intelligence advisors.
In fact, Earl, your post is dated Mar 14, at 06:24:09 PST.
And offers your first suggestion that the murders might be
the work of Muslim terrorists. Now.. a little research will
see that I offered a post on Mar 13, at 18:51:20 PST.
More than 11 hours prior to your post. See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=so2750hcadrgnoqitj61tsjcipdf6radk7%404ax.com
In which I say -- "I will say that my gut feeling finds a belief
that Madrid was NOT an act of ETA." and "I think it is
now becoming clear that it was al-Qaeda orchestrated."
I never implied it could possibly be the work of ETA... Never.
>On Saturday before the elections I posted on rec.travel.europe
>
>"The current developing controversy in Spain is that Aznar has
>played down the Al-Qaeda possibility for electoral political reasons.
>
>If the public really does a tectonic shift from blaming the ETA
>Aznar gets the blame for provoking Al-Qaeda. The public did not
>want the Iraqi war. But the elections tomorrow probably avoid
>the possibility of a shift, it will occur later on and influence
>the legitimacy of the incoming right wing government if elected."
>
>This issue is LYING. We know from recent comparative polls that
>the Europeans are particularly sensitive to this issue and
>in fact view Bush, Blair and Azar as liars. This comes up
>on political cartoons in Le Monde, the three having been
>characterized as having long long noses.
Let me see if I understand this -- because Le Monde has offered
a political cartoon which shows Bush, Blair and Azar (sic - you
imbecile), as having long long noses... you find that justifies
the murder of 202 innocent human beings in an attempt to
control an election playing on 'fear' which would hope to achieve
an objective of terrorism? Is that about it? Little wonder that
I have often mentioned that the democratic process means
absolutely nothing to you, if that process can in any way be
influenced by any means. Now, unlike you, I do not argue that
the end result might or might not have been the same. But,
also unlike you, I do not exalt that terrorists murdered in
an attempt to influence that end result. Spain cannot possibly
be called a "big winner." Only you and those terrorist murderers
actually achieved what you both wished would be achieved.
>You, yourself, PV, have been PreVaricator so long you can
>not even tell when the truth is the truth.
>
>The big winner is the Spanish people. They kicked out the liars.
>
Oh... my... God!!! The Spanish are still reeling in pain at the
murder of 202 of their citizens... and you call them "the big
winner." What an evil little shit you really are, Earl. What a
disgusting example of how you place YOUR agenda ahead of
the grief of Spain. Anyone who sees the Spanish people
as "the big winner" in those murders... needs psychiatric help...
DESPERATELY!!
>Hopefully the American people will follow their example.
>
How many murders of Americans will you support to ensure
they follow that example? How many murders of Americans
will you support in your agenda? Are you suggesting that
you would support another terrorist attack on the U.S., of
equal dimensions as that in Spain... with 1,000 murdered,
just before the election to ensure the defeat of Bush? Maybe
in Florida... to make sure that it does not swing that slight
bit to Bush? I believe that is what I see behind your words.
I hope for the defeat of Bush, as well. But I would not call
the American people "the big winner" if it came about as it
did in Spain... with terrorists murdering innocent Spanish
citizens to get them to vote out Aznar, in an agenda which
centers on the same agenda that you hold. Leave Iraq.
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>Earl
>
David Haley
Why not Portugal? They're a democracy and are likely to have even laxer
security than Spain. In fact according to many indices, Portugal is on the
same level as third-world countries.
Al Qaeda may be a bunch of awful people, to make an understatement, but
they're not indiscriminate. They don't strike out against those that aren't
involved against them one way or another. They are in many ways like
military strategists; they recognize their resources and especially the
limits thereof, and use them in the "best" way to achieve their goals.
Perhaps "most efficient" is a better word, but it certainly is what is "best
for them". Unfortunately what is best for them is often the worst for us!
In any case, I don't think that Al Qaeda attacked Spain just for the heck of
attacking a random democracy. There are plenty random democracies that
aren't terribly secure, but there are many fewer democracies with lax
security who also are on "Bush's side".
-dhaley
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
(in message <c3h4iu$cuf$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>):
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <sa...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.BC81F704...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:05:54 +1100, David Haley wrote
>> (in message <c3g8u3$gmi$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>):
>>
>>> Really? You don't think Spain was targetted precisely *because* of its
>>> alliance with the USA?
>>
>> I think that Spain was targeted because it is a Western liberal democracy
>> with comparatively lax security. Any questions?
> Why not Portugal? They're a democracy and are likely to have even laxer
> security than Spain. In fact according to many indices, Portugal is on the
> same level as third-world countries.
...and thus not a particularly good target for Al Qae'da. Portugal has
issues that prevent it from being a "first line" Western state, if you will.
That's why Spain was a much better target.
> Al Qaeda may be a bunch of awful people, to make an understatement, but
> they're not indiscriminate. They don't strike out against those that aren't
> involved against them one way or another.
David, those who are fighting in Iraq are not involved against Al Qae'da.
Have you been listening to Dubya or something?
> They are in many ways like
> military strategists; they recognize their resources and especially the
> limits thereof, and use them in the "best" way to achieve their goals.
> Perhaps "most efficient" is a better word, but it certainly is what is "best
> for them". Unfortunately what is best for them is often the worst for us!
They have an all-consuming hatred of the West. I really dislike echoing the
sentiments of conservatives but I'm afraid that what I'm saying is true. I
am not speaking of Muslims in general but the lunatic fringe that constitute
Al Qae'da and related groups. These are not nice people, David, and they
want to see you and yours dead.
> In any case, I don't think that Al Qaeda attacked Spain just for the heck of
> attacking a random democracy. There are plenty random democracies that
> aren't terribly secure, but there are many fewer democracies with lax
> security who also are on "Bush's side".
I wonder if that's the position you'll be taking when France is attacked? It
really is "when" and not "if", believe me. We are all targets.
Mr Q. Z. D.
Euro
"David Haley" <junkm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3e5cl$7ft$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
In a nutshell, with his invasion of Iraq, Bush has created what he claimed
was existing before: the implantation of al-Qaeda in Iraq to replace the
vacuum of power left by Saddam Hussain's regime. And this has contributing
creating a more dangerous world, as the Spaniards have, unfortunately, made
the experience.
Of course, there will always be imbeciles like PV to overlook: after all, PV
supported the invasion of Iraq before he thought it would liberate the Iraqi
from a horrendous regime. Now the Iraqi are "free", but "free" of what?
"Free" of being killed in the street by terrorists that the occupants are
unable to control? "Free" of being submitted to a wave of religious
extremism that begins dictating what should be allowed and what should not?
"Free" of seeking economic opportunities in a country where there is none,
because of insecurity?
All this is ridiculous to the extreme. The invasion of Iraq has transformed
this country into an area of no-law where extremist fighters from everywhere
can go and help al-Qaeda. Meanwhile, during the invasion, al-Qaeda
reinforced itself and has proved it was now able again to perform terrorist
attacks anywhere.
Great achievements, but as PV would say: everything is fine since the Iraqi
are sooooooooooooooo free.
Euro
David Haley
The link did not exist when the Iraq campaign started, but thanks to our
dear President it is now becoming a terrorist breeding ground.
Think about it- the terrorists will take advantage of whatever they can to
criticize the USA. They're using the Iraq campaign and calling it an attack
against Islam, an invasion of the Arab world. Never mind that Al Qaeda
wasn't "friends with" Iraq - it serves their purposes to use Iraq now.
Why else would they choose to attack "America's servants"? They're not
attacking random targets, believe me. They can't afford to strike out
randomly, so they choose very carefully. They chose Spain because it was an
"easy" target, and it was right before elections. "Perfect" timing for them.
They didn't choose Spain just because it was an easy democracy, they chose
Spain because it supported the USA and was not hard to attack.
> > They are in many ways like
> > military strategists; they recognize their resources and especially the
> > limits thereof, and use them in the "best" way to achieve their goals.
> > Perhaps "most efficient" is a better word, but it certainly is what is
"best
> > for them". Unfortunately what is best for them is often the worst for
us!
>
> They have an all-consuming hatred of the West. I really dislike echoing
the
> sentiments of conservatives but I'm afraid that what I'm saying is true.
I
> am not speaking of Muslims in general but the lunatic fringe that
constitute
> Al Qae'da and related groups. These are not nice people, David, and they
> want to see you and yours dead.
Of course they do, I'm quite aware of that. That being said they don't
strike out randomly, at least not for now - they don't have enough resources
to strike out indiscriminately yet.
> > In any case, I don't think that Al Qaeda attacked Spain just for the
heck of
> > attacking a random democracy. There are plenty random democracies that
> > aren't terribly secure, but there are many fewer democracies with lax
> > security who also are on "Bush's side".
>
> I wonder if that's the position you'll be taking when France is attacked?
It
> really is "when" and not "if", believe me. We are all targets.
>
> Mr. Q. Z. D.
Oh, yes, it certainly is a "when", especially with all this mess about the
secularism laws - with the (foreign) extremists in France making all sorts
of noise against the government. Note that it is not the "local" Arabs who
are causing trouble, it is a certain group of religious leaders coming from
the Middle East and all that.
So when they attack France, it won't be "unprovoked" either - just as it was
not unprovoked in Spain. In their eyes France has smacked Islam across the
face, so it is not an "innocent" target.
-dhaley
A Planet Visitor
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:vr3l505snrdbo5k9a...@4ax.com...
>> Many do claim such a connection. But let's see... 1) The terrorists
>> were al-Qaeda. 2) They murdered to affect the Spanish election
>> in respect to Spain's participation in Iraq. You connect the dots.
>> It's rather obvious that the terrorist murderers saw such a connection.
>> It is illogical on your part to claim there is 'no connection,' when
>> the murders were committed because of that connection in the
>> minds of the murderers. If the terrorists are al-Qaeda... and their
>> purpose was to affect Spain's participation in the war in Iraq, the
>> connection is rather obvious, and is more than a simple "q." Or
>> is it your argument that they were not al-Qaeda terrorists, but
>> simply 'peace-loving freedom fighters' seeking to 'liberate Iraq'
>> and see Iraq as having nothing to do with terrorism?
>
>
>How easy it is to claim the Iraq/Al-Qaeda link... now that the Bushites have
>gone and created it.
>
Yes... I believe it is quite easy... even if in your denial you argue that
it has been created by Bush. It is easy to claim it... because it
most certainly exists... proven... just a few days ago in Madrid.
Or do you believe those murderers were simply 'Iraq freedom
fighters' hoping to restore Saddam to power, and the murders
they committed 'justified' because of Bush?
>My original point - that you ignored, intentionally or not - was about
>invading Iraq in the first place. Now there is undeniably a link, because
>the Bushes (and Weeds...) have gone and royally mucked up. There wasn't a
>link before, but there certainly is *now*.
>
The FACT that there is now... makes your entire argument irrelevant.
Everything else is opinion. Now I am not claiming any certainty, as
you attempt in your Desmond-like presumption of infallibility, but there
has been certain media reporting that such a link DID exist. For a
small example -
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031201-123723-4738r.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2979405.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/23/iraq.alqaeda/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/02/040212-al-zarqawi.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/11/18/132000.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/30/iraq/main551632.shtml
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp?pg=2
It is at the least gullible to argue it is PROVEN that this connection never
existed... it is at the most an attempt to defend both the monsters Saddam
and bin Laden.
No one is actually CERTAIN that there was or was not an Iraq/al-Qaeda
connection, pre-war Iraq. It is best not to make statements that imply
they are proven. Nonetheless, we should deal with present realities...
rather than 'I wish it hadn't happened' arguments in respect to our
current presence in Iraq, hoping to establish some form of democracy.
Despite the obviously inept attempts we have made at times after having
achieved a quick ground victory. I do not believe it is rational to
argue that 'no good' has come from a removal of Saddam. Whether
the sum result will be positive or negative for western civilization and
Iraqis is still undecided, IMO. Only time and events will determine
that.
>And it is this very link-creation that the "rest of the world" was trying to
>warn off, but no, Sir Bush knows better than everyone. :)
>
Bush is an asshole... the war in Iraq must not be abandoned. If you
want to see two points that are not connected ... Look at those
two.
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>-dhaley
>
A Planet Visitor
If you think that terrorists had no impact on that election... in sheer
number of vote, and that those murders will not have an impact on future
elections across Europe...you are even more foolish than I imagined.
Terrorists were the "big winners," Earl. That is why you are so happy
with that 'win,' since their agenda matches yours. Wasn't their agenda
in those murders to ensure that Spain left the coalition? Isn't that
YOUR agenda? Don't give me any rubbish about how the Spanish
would have changed governments even if those murders had not
occurred. Speak to me of REALITIES. And not your pitiful excuses
which attempt to justify those murders, by calling the Spanish
"big winners" with those murders. Speak to me of the agenda
of the terrorists in committing those murders... and your agenda.
Both being withdrawal from Iraq. I am quite certain that terrorists
across Europe see those murders as being a "big winner" for
terrorism. Thus... it is obscene to state that Spain is "the big
winner."
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>Earl
>
>
A Planet Visitor
>On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:07:25 +1100, A Planet Visitor wrote
>(in message <9eli5016v0bkam827...@4ax.com>):
>
>> Let's hope that no country has to pay that price again.
>
>Many countries will be attacked, PV. You doubtless know, as I do, that Al
>Quae'da and similar organisations really don't give a flying fuck about
>involvement or otherwise in the Iraq invasion. They just want to see our
>civilisation crumble.
>
I could not agree more.
>Doubtless they're incredibly jealous of the happiness and freedom that their
>Muslim cousins are enjoying living in the belly of "The Great Satan".
>
>> But that might
>> be in the mind of the voter in other elections... and fear drive that
>> voting process, which can only work in favor of terrorism. In the
>> perception of the voter that being 'hard' on terrorism places the
>> country at greater risk to such terrorist acts.
>
>I disagree that the election result was born of fear. More of exasperation
>with a regime that was obviously duplicitous and too arrogant to observe the
>will of the people. That is, after all, what democracy is about. Spain
>would have been a target regardless of its alliance with the USA or
>otherwise.
It was a vote for 'fear,' more so in respect to other nations now seeing
that support for the Iraq coalition places them at greater risk to such
murders. The terrorist murderers knew well to strike at what they
saw as the 'weakest link,' and other European nations will now wonder
if they are now the 'new weakest link.'
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>Mr Q. Z. D.
JIGSAW1695
>Date: 3/19/2004 11:26 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <0001HW.BC8213B8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Dont you mean shades of red? :-)
Euro
(snipped)
> >My original point - that you ignored, intentionally or not - was about
> >invading Iraq in the first place. Now there is undeniably a link, because
> >the Bushes (and Weeds...) have gone and royally mucked up. There wasn't a
> >link before, but there certainly is *now*.
> >
> The FACT that there is now... makes your entire argument irrelevant.
The fact that you write this shows that you didn't understand David's
point, which, indeed, is very relevant.
Euro
(remaining snipped)
Earl Evleth
Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 09:45:48 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>
> To call the Spanish people "big winners," while they are still burying their
> dead... murdered by terrorists who achieved all that they set out to do...
> is obscene.
Not quite, they are now in better control of their destiny, which they
had been robbed of by Aznar
> If you think that terrorists had no impact on that election...
Sure they did, they tipped the domino. It fell on Azna. The domino
was the Spanish voters.
They had an influence in the US on 9/11 also.
They would have NO influence on the election today in France.
They will try and function where they have an effect.
See below.
You seem to have been slow of mind lately, PV.
Earl
****
Afghan Minister, 50 to 100 Others Killed
By STEPHEN GRAHAM, Associated Press Writer
KABUL, Afghanistan - Soldiers killed Afghanistan's aviation minister in the
western city of Herat on Sunday, and hours of heavy factional fighting that
followed killed between 50 and 100 people, a top commander said.
In Kabul, President Hamid Karzai's Cabinet convened an emergency session
following Mirwais Sadiq's killing, and ordered extra troops sent from the
capital to try to calm the city. Sadiq is the third leading figure of
Karzai's government, and the second aviation minister, to be assassinated.
Sadiq ‹ son of Herat's powerful governor, Ismail Khan ‹ was shot in his car
in Afghanistan's main western city on Sunday afternoon, presidential
spokesman Khaleeq Ahmed said.
A top local military commander, Zaher Naib Zada, told The Associated Press
his forces had killed Sadiq in a confrontation at Zada's Herat home.
Heavy gunbattles broke out between forces loyal to Khan and Zada's soldiers
after the killing. Zada said between 50 to 100 total had died on both sides
in the first hours of fighting.
Aid workers, also reached by telephone, reported gunfire and heavy
explosions in Herat and said they had been ordered to stay indoors. U.N.
workers scrambled into a bunker at their headquarters.
Zada claimed that Sadiq had come to his home to try to relieve him of his
command.
A police officer, Fahim, reached by telephone at the main police station,
gave a different account, saying Sadiq had gone to Zada's residence to ask
him about the killing of three civilians by Zada's forces two days earlier.
Karzai's defense and interior ministers were preparing to travel to Herat to
try to determine the circumstances of the killing, and the battles that
followed, Ahmed said.
Karzai, who himself escaped a 2002 attempt on his life, said in a brief
statement from Kabul that he was "deeply shocked" by the killing and offered
condolences to Ismail Khan.
Ismail Khan, a former anti-Soviet commander who runs a large private army,
has had firm control over Herat since the fall of the Taliban in late 2001.
But there have been persistent tensions ‹ and occasional factional fighting
‹ between his men and those loyal to rival warlords.
His son, Sadiq, was widely viewed as his father's representative in Karzai's
government.
State television reported that Sadiq's father, Khan, had escaped a separate
attack unhurt. Ahmed and other officials said there had been no attack on
Khan, however.
Karzai's first civil aviation minister, Abdul Rahman, was assassinated Feb.
14, 2002, at Kabul's airport, in circumstances that remain unclear.
Gunmen shot and killed Vice President Abdul Qadir in the capital on July 6,
2002.
Both of those killings remain unsolved.
Karzai has been constantly shadowed by Afghan and American bodyguards armed
with automatic weapons since a September 2002 assassination attempt in the
southern city of Kandahar. Three people, including the gunman, died in that
attack.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
(in message <c3iv5m$6b1$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>):
> So when they attack France, it won't be "unprovoked" either - just as it was
> not unprovoked in Spain. In their eyes France has smacked Islam across the
> face, so it is not an "innocent" target.
It _is_ unprovoked, David. France is attempting to be a truly secular state.
The laws, as well you know, are being directed at _all_ religions - not just
Islam.
Everyone knows it, even the extremist element. It is that element who can't
stand the notion of a secular state. It is well known that the Iraq conflict
has no purpose for Al Qae'da other than to provide a lame excuse for killing
the hated Westerners and their society.
What, regrettably, is now the case is the fact that (through no fault of the
Spanish), _every_ election held in a Western liberal democracy is now highly
likely to be accompanied by some kind of attack.
Mr Q. Z. D.
A Planet Visitor
The fact that you would suck up to anyone who happens to hold the
same agenda as you... including terrorist murderers... is very relevant.
Why in heaven's name should I accept the 'word' of either you or
David as PROOF that no such connection EVER existed before
the invasion? I make no claim that proof DOES exist.. but if it comes
down to believability of you and David or the Daily Telegraph... I'll
take my chances with the Daily Telegraph. See --
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml
That is the reason I am far, far superior to both you or David. I keep
an open mind... and do not make rash, unproven statements. Nor
do I call the Spanish "big winners," as they bury their dead, as you
have done.
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>Euro
Ummm... for those 'keeping count' this is 165 of my posting some
A Planet Visitor
What the fuck are you raving about? Unless you mean "because" rather
than "before." As usual, you make absolutely no sense. But 'assuming'
you mean "because," is it your argument that Saddam's regime was not
a horrendous regime? Are you once again... bemoaning the loss of
someone you consider a 'great leader' who treated his people with
kindness and compassion? If so... let me assert that it makes your
"Gobbels was polite in his propaganda" comment look positively
affable. Since we have --
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140081997?open&of=ENG-IRQ
Amnesty reporting while Saddam was in power... in Oct 1997...
that there were "gross human rights violations committed on a
massive scale in Iraq affecting all sectors of society. These
violations, which have been committed by Iraqi military,
intelligence and security personnel, have included the arbitrary
arrest and detention of tens of thousands of suspected government
opponents and their relatives without charge or trial; widespread
torture and ill-treatment often resulting in deaths in custody;
unfair trials; the ''disappearance'' and extrajudicial execution
of hundreds of thousands of people, for political reasons; the
introduction of judicial punishments amounting to cruel, inhuman
or degrading punishments or to torture; and the widespread
use of the death penalty."
Seems like you argue that what was exposed by Amnesty was
not actually a "horrendous regime."
Hundreds of thousands, euro!! But, of course, they mean nothing
to you. Also see --
http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/
Fifty-four pages of pictures of mass graves that do not disturb
you in the slightest, in your 'bemoaning' that Saddam is gone...
and gone forever. FIFTY-FOUR fucking pages... you imbecile.
FIFTY-FOUR pages of pictures of mass graves. I defy you to
look at each and every page. Try Page 48 or 42, bodies
stretching as far as the eye can see. And in fact, people are
dying in Iraq every day... hopefully to put an end to those mass
graves. And they die because there are those such as you,
who still 'bemoan' that Saddam is gone, and would do
anything in their power to create a situation which would lead
to civil war, and a return to a party of dictatorship, in which
they could profit as they did for so many decades under
Saddam. You support a withdrawal which would play
directly into the hands of those now intent on ensuring no
viable infrastructure of self-government can exist. Those
such as you who would sacrifice any number of lives in
future mass graves... in the HOPE for failure in Iraq... simply
so you can say ==> I told you so <==
> Now the Iraqi are "free", but "free" of what?
Umm... free of Saddam. But I know you see that as a 'bad'
thing, euro.
>"Free" of being killed in the street by terrorists that the occupants are
>unable to control? "Free" of being submitted to a wave of religious
>extremism that begins dictating what should be allowed and what should not?
>"Free" of seeking economic opportunities in a country where there is none,
>because of insecurity?
See --
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html
>
>All this is ridiculous to the extreme. The invasion of Iraq has transformed
>this country into an area of no-law where extremist fighters from everywhere
>can go and help al-Qaeda. Meanwhile, during the invasion, al-Qaeda
>reinforced itself and has proved it was now able again to perform terrorist
>attacks anywhere.
>
Are you claiming they would not have done so without the invasion?
Clearly, every terrorist that is now in Iraq... is one less terrorist that
could be in the U.S. or Europe.
>Great achievements, but as PV would say: everything is fine since the Iraqi
>are sooooooooooooooo free.
They are free of Saddam. Of course... you weep daily about that fact...
hoping somehow he will regain power. Don't you?
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>
>Euro
>
Ummm... for those 'keeping count' this is 194 (?) of my posting some
A Planet Visitor
>On 21/03/04 7:55, in article l4eq505vihr3tn0s9...@4ax.com, "A
>Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 09:45:48 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>>>
>> To call the Spanish people "big winners," while they are still burying their
>> dead... murdered by terrorists who achieved all that they set out to do...
>> is obscene.
>
>Not quite, they are now in better control of their destiny, which they
>had been robbed of by Aznar
>
202 of them have been murdered. It is obscene to the Spanish people
"big winners."
>> If you think that terrorists had no impact on that election...
>
>Sure they did, they tipped the domino. It fell on Azna. The domino
>was the Spanish voters.
>
No... the domino was the terrorist murders who hold the same
agenda as you do. That domino fell on 202 innocent Spaniards
in an act of unbelievable cruelty, that you seem to be quite satisfied
with.
>They had an influence in the US on 9/11 also.
>
Whatever are you rambling about? There is even some slight
perception that 3/11 now has some 'significance,' being EXACTLY
two and a half years after 9/11. Either planned or a macabre
coincidence.
>They would have NO influence on the election today in France.
>
I think they already have. Just today, in fact. As regional voters
swung far to the left of even Chirac. See --
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1079419834936
Overwhelming gains of the socialist left, finding allies in Communists
and greens. All more opposed to Iraq than even Chirac. Let no one
in France utter a word of support for the coalition. It seems worse
than fascism to me, with dissent not permitted. What's next? French
McDonald's only offering "Freedom burgers," rather than "American
burgers"?
I am certain that Terrorists see that swing as the result of their
murders... and smugly dusted their hands in satisfaction... looking
for where they can strike next.
>They will try and function where they have an effect.
>
<Intellectual goosing on>
No shit, Earl. Did you learn that in 'Political aims 101'?
<Intellectual goosing off>
<totally immaterial article clipped>
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
A Planet Visitor
>On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 13:37:42 +1100, David Haley wrote
>(in message <c3iv5m$6b1$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>):
>
>> So when they attack France, it won't be "unprovoked" either - just as it was
>> not unprovoked in Spain. In their eyes France has smacked Islam across the
>> face, so it is not an "innocent" target.
>
>It _is_ unprovoked, David. France is attempting to be a truly secular state.
> The laws, as well you know, are being directed at _all_ religions - not just
>Islam.
>
You know, Mr. D., I am still trying to figure out if David opposes or
supports that French secular law. Sometimes he seems to support it...
and at other times he appears to attack it. As he does here, IMO,
by almost arguing that Muslim violent reactions to the law would be
'justified.' I personally fully endorse the effort, as the right of the
French to establish a fully secular society, despite my belief in a 'first
cause' deity, and thus finding no reason not to hold to sayings such as
"In God we trust," when speaking of MY country (Although I would
denounce any idea which would express a particular religion, such as
Christianity or ANY religion filling that role). But I see only Muslims
crying about the French secular law, thus the law having taken on the
name -- 'the headscarf issue.'
>Everyone knows it, even the extremist element. It is that element who can't
>stand the notion of a secular state. It is well known that the Iraq conflict
>has no purpose for Al Qae'da other than to provide a lame excuse for killing
>the hated Westerners and their society.
>
Quite true. Of course al-Qaeda recognizes that losing Iraq to a
pseudo-democracy would be a stinging defeat for them. They
have chosen that battleground... and will murder wherever they
feel it will help reduce the coalition resolve in that battleground.
>What, regrettably, is now the case is the fact that (through no fault of the
>Spanish), _every_ election held in a Western liberal democracy is now highly
>likely to be accompanied by some kind of attack.
Quite true.
David Haley
news:dgju50lnaotood880...@4ax.com...
Actually my position is nuanced in a way that seems incomprehensible to you.
I am both for AND against it. Think about that one for a while... the world
is not black and white.
The other very big difference is that this is taking place in France, in an
already secular country. Your article was discussing Muslims on their own
"home turf", whereas in France, the "home turf" belongs to the French and
therefore they make of their country what they will. And I would ask the
Muslims to respect that, just as I would ask people who visit Muslim
countries to respect the Muslim traditions, beliefs and rules.
Therefore, reactions to the law in France are not justified, but reactions
against people who break Muslim rules in their own country are justified -
except of course for violence. How can we expect the Muslims to follow our
laws if we won't follow theirs?
-dhaley
David Haley
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 13:37:42 +1100, David Haley wrote
> (in message <c3iv5m$6b1$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>):
>
> > So when they attack France, it won't be "unprovoked" either - just as it
was
> > not unprovoked in Spain. In their eyes France has smacked Islam across
the
> > face, so it is not an "innocent" target.
>
> It _is_ unprovoked, David. France is attempting to be a truly secular
state.
> The laws, as well you know, are being directed at _all_ religions - not
just
> Islam.
Maybe to our eyes that's not provocation, but in their eyes it is the
Ultimate Provocation, as it were. Yes, I of all people am the first to say
that it targets *all* religions, but that's not how they see it, that's not
how certain elements of the American press is portraying it, and extremist
leaders are certainly going out of their way to make it look like that.
> Everyone knows it, even the extremist element. It is that element who
can't
> stand the notion of a secular state. It is well known that the Iraq
conflict
> has no purpose for Al Qae'da other than to provide a lame excuse for
killing
> the hated Westerners and their society.
Indeed. The "link" is simply one of opportunity that the American
administration has cleverly created.
> What, regrettably, is now the case is the fact that (through no fault of
the
> Spanish), _every_ election held in a Western liberal democracy is now
highly
> likely to be accompanied by some kind of attack.
>
> Mr Q. Z. D.
Highly likely, yes. And maybe if the powers that be can get their damned act
together and start cooperating about this, maybe we can get some progress
done on the fight against them.
-dhaley
A Planet Visitor
ROTLFMAO... your position is nuanced in a way that is incomprehensible.
FULL STOP. In respect to the 'headscarf law' you simply support it as
written, or you oppose it as written. If you do not like a single thing about
it... you oppose it. It is as simplistic as the DP. It only takes ONE thing
to make you oppose the law as written... regardless of agreeing with
everything else in it. It only takes support for a single lawful execution....
regardless of opposing every other execution... to make you a retentionist.
Everyone here understands that, David. Why are you so hard-headed?
>The other very big difference is that this is taking place in France, in an
>already secular country. Your article was discussing Muslims on their own
>"home turf", whereas in France, the "home turf" belongs to the French and
>therefore they make of their country what they will. And I would ask the
>Muslims to respect that, just as I would ask people who visit Muslim
>countries to respect the Muslim traditions, beliefs and rules.
So you support the 'headscarf law' as written. But you stated that "when
they attack France, it won't be "unprovoked" either - just as it was not
unprovoked in Spain. In their eyes France has smacked Islam across the
face, so it is not an "innocent" target." Putting that into the context of
the 'headscarf law' it seems you are stating the law has 'provoked'
Muslims... and thus an attack on France would be 'justified' as it would
not be an "innocent" target. But now you claim that France belongs to
the French.. so it can hardly be 'guilty' while you imply it can.
>
>Therefore, reactions to the law in France are not justified, but reactions
>against people who break Muslim rules in their own country are justified -
>except of course for violence. How can we expect the Muslims to follow our
>laws if we won't follow theirs?
I have no idea what you are even rambling about. Since your comment
referred to France, and you said "In their eyes France has smacked
Islam across the face, so it is not an "innocent" target." Now France
is France... and MUST be presumed as an "innocent" target. But you
argue that Muslims need not see it that way... and find they have been
'provoked' into attacking France. You're a regular fruitcake, David.
A real work of art by a master baker of fruitcakes... with all the trimmings
that go into a fruitcake.. with all the dates, pecans, rum, orange rinds,
cranberries, apricots, raisins, pineapples, salt, and assorted spices that go
into the making of that enormous fruitcake which you display in each
of your posts.
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>
>-dhaley
>
Richard J
Does it ever occur to you that the same type of message coming at you
from three such diverse sources as Earl, Diablo, and I might have a
semblance of truth in it?
Teflon
Earl Evleth
"Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Does it ever occur to you that the same type of message coming at you
> from three such diverse sources as Earl, Diablo, and I might have a
> semblance of truth in it?
By the way, we don`t see the likelihood of a big bombing in France soon.
The head scarf issue is local issue, has no international
effect. I would be on Italy as being the weak link in the
coalition's chain. The elections are out of the international loop
of political events. The left is barely more anti-war than the right.
A poll says that 66% of the Spanish believe that Aznar
was manipulating the media situation. He appeared
on TV to defend himself but I don`t think it had an effect.
Earl
Richard J
> On 23/03/04 13:58, in article c3pco9$29a4o8$2...@ID-164592.news.uni-berlin.de,
> "Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Does it ever occur to you that the same type of message coming at you
>>from three such diverse sources as Earl, Diablo, and I might have a
>>semblance of truth in it?
>
>
>
> By the way, we don`t see the likelihood of a big bombing in France soon.
Perhaps, perhaps not. As things go, the bombing in Spain wasn't a big
one, just a series of relatively small bombs set off in places where
their effect was maximized.
I'm not sure any western nation is totally exempt, although I agree with
you that France, after their myriad dealings with Muslims and much
placation, are less liable to suffer the same type of attack as Spain or
others.
>
> The head scarf issue is local issue, has no international
> effect. I would be on Italy as being the weak link in the
> coalition's chain. The elections are out of the international loop
> of political events. The left is barely more anti-war than the right.
The head scarf issue is something which should have been avoided. That
it was not only goes to show politicians everywhere are pretty stupid, IMO.
Teflon
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <c3q1bc$2a0tcr$1...@ID-164592.news.uni-berlin.de>, Richard J
<ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
> The head scarf issue is something which should have been avoided. That
> it was not only goes to show politicians everywhere are pretty stupid, IMO.
>
> Teflon
Indeed. I personally loathe the head scarves, for various reasons. First
of all they send a message of female submission. Which everyone who knows
me knows I cannot buy at all. But it's even more than that. This female
submission carries over into the practical aspects of everyday life. Today
I was in a library, and saw a woman who was wearing the Islamic scarf.
These things interfere with peripheral vision. I watched the way she moved,
and she was constantly compensating for the impairment of her peripheral
vision. In a library that works. But suppose she had been crossing in a
crosswalk, and a driver ran the light...
However, I saw worse this summer during the heat wave. We were eating at
one of our favorite restaurants on the boulevard Montparnasse, where there
are a lot of people out walking at night, even in the heat. I saw a Muslim
couple go by. He was dressed for the weather, in a short sleeved cotton
shirt with an open neck, and nothing on his head. She was wearing the
Islamic scarf, tight around the head and neck, with a long tunic with long
sleeves worn over long pants. She looked miserable. I wondered (as one
always does) if this was her own personal choice or if it was the choice of
her husband. Although sometimes it's hard to tell, since the woman will
often say it is her personal choice.
All that said, I still think a law was the wrong way to approach it. You
could try dress codes in the individual schools, or more important, stress
participation in all courses - for example,the wearing of the Islamic scarf
often precludes participation in physical education classes, required in
French schools just as they were in the schools of my youth in the United
States (and may still be, you can tell me). One could simply state: you
don't participate in the required coursework, you don't attend this school.
This would avoid the freedom of religion issue.
This law has created a few bizarre situations, where the law has been
stretched beyond the school system. There are examples from the prison
system which I can relate if you are interested.
Donna Evleth
Richard J
>
>
> Dans l'article <c3q1bc$2a0tcr$1...@ID-164592.news.uni-berlin.de>, Richard J
> <ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
>
>
>
>>The head scarf issue is something which should have been avoided. That
>>it was not only goes to show politicians everywhere are pretty stupid, IMO.
>>
>>Teflon
>
>
> Indeed. I personally loathe the head scarves, for various reasons. First
> of all they send a message of female submission. Which everyone who knows
> me knows I cannot buy at all.
In the Muslim faith, women are submissive to their husbands. (I might
also add that the Hindu and a few others are not much better. Female
submission and male ownership appears to be quite common among Middle
Eastern and far Eastern cultures.)
But it's even more than that. This female
> submission carries over into the practical aspects of everyday life. Today
> I was in a library, and saw a woman who was wearing the Islamic scarf.
> These things interfere with peripheral vision. I watched the way she moved,
> and she was constantly compensating for the impairment of her peripheral
> vision. In a library that works. But suppose she had been crossing in a
> crosswalk, and a driver ran the light...
Then some good Muslim man would have to replace one of the four wives
the Qur'an allows him. Sorry, but I see that as an example of Darwin's
Theory.
>
> However, I saw worse this summer during the heat wave. We were eating at
> one of our favorite restaurants on the boulevard Montparnasse, where there
> are a lot of people out walking at night, even in the heat. I saw a Muslim
> couple go by. He was dressed for the weather, in a short sleeved cotton
> shirt with an open neck, and nothing on his head. She was wearing the
> Islamic scarf, tight around the head and neck, with a long tunic with long
> sleeves worn over long pants. She looked miserable. I wondered (as one
> always does) if this was her own personal choice or if it was the choice of
> her husband. Although sometimes it's hard to tell, since the woman will
> often say it is her personal choice.
Many Muslim women are quite used to wearing such clothing in the Middle
East where I assure you it is MUCH hotter than France in the summer. I
doubt she was bothered as much by it as you were.
>
> All that said, I still think a law was the wrong way to approach it. You
> could try dress codes in the individual schools, or more important, stress
> participation in all courses - for example,the wearing of the Islamic scarf
> often precludes participation in physical education classes, required in
> French schools just as they were in the schools of my youth in the United
> States (and may still be, you can tell me). One could simply state: you
> don't participate in the required coursework, you don't attend this school.
> This would avoid the freedom of religion issue.
We have Christian female students whose religious practice does not
allow them to wear pants or shorts as well. When I taught physical
education, they still participated regardless. Indeed, the record time
for the mile on the President's Physical Fitness test for our sixth
grade girls was set and is still held some years later by a girl running
in an ankle length dress.
Oh yes, we still have mandated physical education in Texas right down to
the lowest levels.
>
> This law has created a few bizarre situations, where the law has been
> stretched beyond the school system. There are examples from the prison
> system which I can relate if you are interested.
>
> Donna Evleth
>
>
I've seen most of them most likely. Interestingly enough, the attempt
to regard everyone's religious rights has resulted in an unusual
situation here in the states. Muslims in prison have more privilege
than other groups so they may practice their faith. This, of course,
doesn't go over well with some groups, and conflicts often erupt.
Teflon
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <c3r447$2b051g$1...@ID-164592.news.uni-berlin.de>, Richard J
<ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
> However, I saw worse this summer during the heat wave. We were eating at
>> one of our favorite restaurants on the boulevard Montparnasse, where there
>> are a lot of people out walking at night, even in the heat. I saw a Muslim
>> couple go by. He was dressed for the weather, in a short sleeved cotton
>> shirt with an open neck, and nothing on his head. She was wearing the
>> Islamic scarf, tight around the head and neck, with a long tunic with long
>> sleeves worn over long pants. She looked miserable. I wondered (as one
>> always does) if this was her own personal choice or if it was the choice of
>> her husband. Although sometimes it's hard to tell, since the woman will
>> often say it is her personal choice.
>
> Many Muslim women are quite used to wearing such clothing in the Middle
> East where I assure you it is MUCH hotter than France in the summer. I
> doubt she was bothered as much by it as you were.
Don't be so sure. Most of our Muslim women of the age of this woman were
born or raised from very early childhood right here in France, and have
always lived here. They know nothing of the heat of the Middle East. They
know France. The heat wave of which I speak set an all-time record.
Donna Evleth
Richard J
Donna, I'm from Texas, remember? Several years ago I was in Northern
Michigan when they had a killer heat wave. It was 91 Degrees F. I was
doing grounds maintenance at a campground mowing one day when a bunch of
the clients wanted me to stop so I didn't get too hat. I just laughed
at them, for 90 degrees was just a good Spring day in May for me.
Teflon
Teflon
David Haley
news:c3s5ia$2b3sge$1...@ID-164592.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Donna Evleth wrote:
>
> >
> > Don't be so sure. Most of our Muslim women of the age of this woman
were
> > born or raised from very early childhood right here in France, and have
> > always lived here. They know nothing of the heat of the Middle East.
They
> > know France. The heat wave of which I speak set an all-time record.
> >
> > Donna Evleth
>
> Donna, I'm from Texas, remember? Several years ago I was in Northern
> Michigan when they had a killer heat wave. It was 91 Degrees F. I was
> doing grounds maintenance at a campground mowing one day when a bunch of
> the clients wanted me to stop so I didn't get too hat. I just laughed
> at them, for 90 degrees was just a good Spring day in May for me.
>
> Teflon
You make a good point, but Donna's point is that many of these women were
born and raised in France and only went to the Middle East on vacation. It's
true; more and more of the Muslims in France are from second-generation
immigrant families.
I do think however that the "really bad" cases, e.g. women wearing burqas,
tend to be from very recent immigrants, or at least, is due to the new
influence of recently arrived clerics. To be honest I don't really give a
damn how hot they are underneath it (well I do but that's not the point),
I'm much more worried about the absolute incompatibility of the burqa with
everything Western civilization stands for.
You know, I don't really mind the veil in a culture where men get "veiled"
too. Take the Sikhs, for example. The men wear those turban-like things
wrapped around their hair, and the women wear these sort of semi-transparent
(or not) veil things that actually leave a fair amount of the head visible.
I don't mind it in cases like this because it is "fair" - both parties
involved are "forced" (although I think it's more choice here) to wear their
respective "modest clothes", it's not one side forcing the other to do it.
The funny thing is, I believe that in strict Muslim religion, men are
supposed to "dress modestly" as well, but I could be mistaken.
-dhaley
Richard J
In the Muslim faith women are expected to dress modestly.
[24.31] And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks
and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except
what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their
bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or
their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the
sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or
their sisters' sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands
possess, or the male servants not having need (of women), or the
children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and
let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments
may be known; and turn to Allah all of you, O believers! so that you may
be successful.
[33.59] O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women
of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this
will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be
given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of
them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the
good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has
guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish
them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if
they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
Here's more Islamic temperance:
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from
whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter,
and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with
you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the
recompense of the unbelievers.
[3.169] And reckon not those who are killed in Allah's way as dead; nay,
they are alive (and) are provided sustenance from their Lord;
4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved,
so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them
friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn
back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not
from among them a friend or a helper.
I could go on, but little of the evidence I present will make much
impact on you. I remember that once I was a starry eyed college student
who had hopes that all the world's problems could be solved by liberalism.
Teflon
A Planet Visitor
>
>
>
>Dans l'article <c3q1bc$2a0tcr$1...@ID-164592.news.uni-berlin.de>, Richard J
><ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
>
>
>> The head scarf issue is something which should have been avoided. That
>> it was not only goes to show politicians everywhere are pretty stupid, IMO.
>>
>> Teflon
>
>Indeed. I personally loathe the head scarves, for various reasons. First
>of all they send a message of female submission. Which everyone who knows
>me knows I cannot buy at all. But it's even more than that. This female
>submission carries over into the practical aspects of everyday life. Today
>I was in a library, and saw a woman who was wearing the Islamic scarf.
>These things interfere with peripheral vision. I watched the way she moved,
>and she was constantly compensating for the impairment of her peripheral
>vision. In a library that works. But suppose she had been crossing in a
>crosswalk, and a driver ran the light...
The reason for having to wear the scarf, is expressly to reduce that
peripheral vision, Donna. It is purposely created so she cannot
see it coming, and protect herself, when her husband or male
relative come up to 'slap her up the side of the head' for some
imaginary 'moral infraction' she has 'committed.' The males do it
at least three times a day, at varied times. The males do not
know why it is necessary... but she certainly does!
>
>However, I saw worse this summer during the heat wave. We were eating at
>one of our favorite restaurants on the boulevard Montparnasse, where there
>are a lot of people out walking at night, even in the heat.
Ah, yes... Le Dôme, most probably. I have not found a meal in the
U.S. anywhere, that can compare with the plateau de fruit de Mer
in Montparnasse. I have in-laws who live in Montparnasse.
> I saw a Muslim
>couple go by. He was dressed for the weather, in a short sleeved cotton
>shirt with an open neck, and nothing on his head. She was wearing the
>Islamic scarf, tight around the head and neck, with a long tunic with long
>sleeves worn over long pants. She looked miserable.
That was probably because of the dog collar and chain attached to
her... and carried tightly by the male counterpart.
> I wondered (as one
>always does) if this was her own personal choice or if it was the choice of
>her husband. Although sometimes it's hard to tell, since the woman will
>often say it is her personal choice.
>
Sure they will. Thus, the demand to reduce her peripheral vision, so
the male can 'slap her up the side of the head,' if she happens to say it
is not her personal choice. It's all part of the 'headscarf issue' which
might offer some peripheral vision to the Muslim female. Can't have
any of that peripheral vision for Muslim females... can we?
>All that said, I still think a law was the wrong way to approach it. You
>could try dress codes in the individual schools, or more important, stress
>participation in all courses - for example,the wearing of the Islamic scarf
>often precludes participation in physical education classes, required in
>French schools just as they were in the schools of my youth in the United
>States (and may still be, you can tell me).
The 20 lb, steel 'chastity belts' that they are required to wear, from the
age of 10 until the age of 95, would also reduce their 'running mobility,'
I believe. :-) Runners often wear weighted belts to increase their stamina
when they run without them, so I can imagine Muslim women would be
world-class runners, if they could ever be 'permitted' to run without them.
>One could simply state: you
>don't participate in the required coursework, you don't attend this school.
>This would avoid the freedom of religion issue.
>
>This law has created a few bizarre situations, where the law has been
>stretched beyond the school system. There are examples from the prison
>system which I can relate if you are interested.
>
<sarcasm on> I believe you are unfairly attacking a religion which highly
values women. Please try not to be so 'intolerant' toward 'wife beating'
as a religious principle. Do not offend 'peaceful Islam' <sarcasm off>
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>Donna Evleth
>
>
David Haley
<snip text extracts>
>
> I could go on, but little of the evidence I present will make much
> impact on you. I remember that once I was a starry eyed college student
> who had hopes that all the world's problems could be solved by liberalism.
>
> Teflon
>
What's your point? We already know that women are to dress modestly. I'm not
disagreeing with that, I'm just wondering what you're trying to show here.
-dhaley
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <c3sk53$nlk$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>, "David Haley"
<junkm...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
>
> You make a good point, but Donna's point is that many of these women were
> born and raised in France and only went to the Middle East on vacation. It's
> true; more and more of the Muslims in France are from second-generation
> immigrant families.
At the march of the women against the head scarf ban law in January, which I
went and had a personal look at, a great many of those women made a point of
stressing their French citizenship. They were born and raised here.
Another point, not that it matters, because North Africa gets hot, too, but
the vast majority of Muslims here in France are from North Africa, not the
Middle East. And the ones from North Africa only go there on vacation once
a year at most. The other Muslim group, smaller in number but still
noticeable, are the Turks, who are found in eastern France. There are a
number of them in Bar-sur-Aube (population 6500) in the department of the
Aube, and more as you go farther east.
We only have personally known one Arab couple from the Middle East, from
Syria. The wife would never in her life have worn a head scarf, for a very
good reason - they are Christian.
Donna Evleth
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <kqk3609it2vh3a61q...@4ax.com>, A Planet
Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>>However, I saw worse this summer during the heat wave. We were eating at
>>one of our favorite restaurants on the boulevard Montparnasse, where there
>>are a lot of people out walking at night, even in the heat.
>
> Ah, yes... Le Dôme, most probably. I have not found a meal in the
> U.S. anywhere, that can compare with the plateau de fruit de Mer
> in Montparnasse. I have in-laws who live in Montparnasse.
Actually it wasn't. It was a traditional French place, where we also ate
last night - I had rabbit, Earl had lamb. I like the Dôme, but I know a
place up by the Gare St Lazare, Garnier, which I like even better for the
plateau de fruits de mer. It is one of my all time favorite dishes. Our
daughter Peggy's, too. She started eating it at age 5.
I must say, PV, someone who loves a good plateau de fruits de mer can NOT
be all bad:-)
Donna Evleth
David Haley
news:c3srlo$asj$1...@news-reader4.wanadoo.fr...
Then what would that mean about someone like me who absolutely hates and
cannot stand any kind of fruit de mer? :-) Only kind of seafood I can eat is
canned tuna with mayo and pickles in a sandwich, and then only from time to
time. Oh, and of course, the little shrimp bits in Cantonese rice (fried
rice) or other Chinese dumplings (ha kao for instance.)
-dhaley
A Planet Visitor
>"Donna Evleth" <dev...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>news:c3srlo$asj$1...@news-reader4.wanadoo.fr...
>>
>>
>>
>> Dans l'article <kqk3609it2vh3a61q...@4ax.com>, A Planet
>> Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>>
>>
>> >>However, I saw worse this summer during the heat wave. We were eating
>at
>> >>one of our favorite restaurants on the boulevard Montparnasse, where
>there
>> >>are a lot of people out walking at night, even in the heat.
>> >
>> > Ah, yes... Le Dôme, most probably. I have not found a meal in the
>> > U.S. anywhere, that can compare with the plateau de fruit de Mer
>> > in Montparnasse. I have in-laws who live in Montparnasse.
>>
>> Actually it wasn't. It was a traditional French place, where we also ate
>> last night - I had rabbit, Earl had lamb. I like the Dôme, but I know a
>> place up by the Gare St Lazare, Garnier, which I like even better for the
>> plateau de fruits de mer. It is one of my all time favorite dishes. Our
>> daughter Peggy's, too. She started eating it at age 5.
>>
>> I must say, PV, someone who loves a good plateau de fruits de mer can NOT
>> be all bad:-)
>>
>> Donna Evleth
>
>Then what would that mean about someone like me who absolutely hates and
>cannot stand any kind of fruit de mer? :-)
Umm... 'Cretin' is the first word that comes to my mind. :-)
> Only kind of seafood I can eat is
>canned tuna with mayo and pickles in a sandwich, and then only from time to
>time. Oh, and of course, the little shrimp bits in Cantonese rice (fried
>rice) or other Chinese dumplings (ha kao for instance.)
>
<sarcasm on>
You fucking Americans... all alike... only Long John Silver and China Coast.
<sarcasm off>
:-)
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmicks_index.html
>-dhaley
>
Richard J
Equality is not part of Islam, David. Men own their wives in Islam,
just as Allah owns all humans in their belief. Muslims are also the
most prejudice of all people. You are either Muslim or infidel to them.
If you do not 'accept' Islam, you are unworthy, and they will deal
with you any way they can to gain advantage. Fair play isn't part of
that equation.
Teflon
Richard J
You like dim sum? Someone who likes dim sum can't be too bad.
Teflon