Spain PM-elect: Troops out of Iraq

[Gab]

I fear that this was part of Al-Queda's plans. However, you Americans should know this: Most world leaders and people all around the world hate George Bush. That's one of the reasons the Spaniards got rid of their government was because it was too pro-Bush. Want proof? Go ask people on Ironworks from another country if they like Bush. Heck, I believe John Kerry's claims of foregn ministers supporting him. I'm saying this not because I hate the U.S.A. but because I'm very anti-Bush.

[Skunk]

And had Aznar won the elections, we could have turned the argument on its head - that Al'Qaida forced the re-election of Aznar and that the populace voted him back as a knee-jerk reaction to a new threat.

However, Al'Qaida did do something GOOD for the Spanish population - they made an additional 20-30% of the population realise that their ballot paper is worth its weight in gold; that voting in an election is not something to be missed. Voter turnout was at an all time high with even pensioners (who had never voted in their lives) finding themselves at the ballot box for the first time.

Personally, I do not (for a moment) believe that Al'Qaida made people change their minds about Aznar. When a leader of a country implements a policy that 90% of the population abhor, he/she is bound to find themself in trouble come election time.

So a bomb goes off in Madrid and two hundred die - should the Spanish population throw out life-long principles of decency and civilisation and re-elect Aznar in a knee-jerk reaction so that he can "continue down the path of lawlessness" (as it is widely viewed there) in order to gain revenge rather than justice, or should they uphold those values that they hold so dear and throw him out? The latter action took a lot of COURAGE in my opinion.


By the way, the statement: "You love life and we love death" refers to judgement day - the insinuation being that 'westerners' do not care who they hurt in life as they do not believe that they will have to pay for their 'crimes' in the after life.
It helps if the text is put in context of the original message:

"It is a response to your collaboration with the criminals Bush and his allies.

This is a response to the crimes that you have caused in the world, and specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there will be more, if God wills it.

You love life and we love death, which gives an example of what the Prophet Muhammad said.

If you don't stop your injustices, more and more blood will flow and these attacks will seem very small compared to what can occur in what you call terrorism."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3509556.stm

I'm supposing that the author deliberately removed it from its context in order to make it sound more demonic. Daft - the crime that was committed was evil enough with dressing it up.

[ 03-16-2004, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Timber Loftis]

Skunk, I do agree that the bombings did not change the overall outcome of the election. However, the 30-point swing it caused WILL have the effect of encouraging future attacks around elections as a political tool -- A.Q. will see the obvious results.

I also think you misrepresent the meaning of the quote. I think the language you quoted does NOT amount to an insinuation that "that 'westerners' do not care who they hurt in life as they do not believe that they will have to pay for their 'crimes' in the after life."

The quote

This is a response to the crimes that you have caused in the world, and specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there will be more, if God wills it. You love life and we love death, which gives an example of what the Prophet Muhammad said. If you don't stop your injustices, more and more blood will flow and these attacks will seem very small compared to what can occur in what you call terrorism."

Tells me no more than what was represented by the author.

I also further note that you are often trying to explain the terrorists' messages and what they are complaining about and what they are trying to say. Personally, I don't give 2 farts about those things -- I just want to see their dead terrorist corpses laid out in a pleasing arrayment of justified death. My opinion.

[ 03-17-2004, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Djinn Raffo]

Spain should be proud of the effort they and their troops put forth in Iraq thus far. Well done Spain.

[Yorick]

Agreed Djinn. They've been rebuilding cities, caring for hospitals, providing water and setting up electricity.

Oh so evil is their presence in Iraq! All 1300 of them. Caring for the oppressed is something 90% of Spanish are against? ■■■■ politics. ■■■■ politicians. Leave the troops in to finish what they've been rebuilding. Leave the troops in to show terrorism doesn't work.

Christian missionaries are being killed in Iraq each day. Another 5 died earlier this week. Some baptists I believe. A 60 year old, 53 year old and 38 year old woman.

So evil are these missionaries! Perhaps all Christian organisations should pull out in retaliation.

■■■■ politics and politicians. Puts causes ahead of human life. Every company that did business with Hussein, every politician that defended his right to rule is as responsible as those that dropped the bombs for the termination of humans lives.

[ 03-17-2004, 06:12 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I also further note that you are often trying to explain the terrorists' messages and what they are complaining about and what they are trying to say. Personally, I don't give 2 farts about those things -- I just want to see their dead terrorist corpses laid out in a pleasing arrayment of justified death. My opinion.

And a valid opinion too.
I would be quite happy if OBL, Bush, Blair et.al would just shut up - and I love to see them all sitting behind bars in a maximum security prison for the rest of their lives - where they belong. Those who abandon the law and use violence rather than the courts and democratic systems to get their way belong in a cell - as far removed from society as possible.

Unfortunately, not listening to their messages leads to the less pleasing array of the corpses of innocent people. Sticking fingers in ears lead to 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Madrid.

And even if we are not big enough to listen to the message (despite the revulsion at having to), one would expect that 'great' nations would be capable of a little self-criticism. And certainly, a 'great' politician should always be capable of standing in the other man's shoes and asking himself how he would feel if he were on the receiving end of x,y and z. I've seen no evidence of that so far - not since WWII anyway.

And so the circle of violence continues. Only problem is, while Al'Qaida et. al have a definite list of targets in set locations, those trying to stop them do not. We are waiting for the next attack and have no way of preventing it.

In the old days, it was easier to maintain the status quo. Al'Qaida was a small and unimportant organisation based in Afghanistan - few people in the middle east had heard of them and even fewer supported them. The intelligence services yawned with the ease of tracking them - everyone who belonged would, at some point end up in a training camp in Afghanistan, and as soon as they did they would be watched, and everyone they met when they left would be watched, and everyone they met would be watched too.

But the Bush military machine wanted quick results to please a frightened electorate - so they invaded on the mistaken assumption that Al'Qaida was just another animal - cut off the head and the body will die. But Al'Qaida is more like a cancer - the malignant cells operate independantly and wheras before you knew where they were, now we have no idea at all.

Going on to invade Iraq was like prescribing ciggarettes to a cancer patient while trying to remove the disease with very low doses of radiation. It just helped the cancer to grow rather than kill it off. One big successful recruitment drive for Al'Qaida paid for by the US and UK taxpayers.
And *still* we can't find them - just the odd cell here and there and soon as we remove that, another one grows somewhere else to take its place.

There is not doubt in my mind that both Bush and Blair are sincere in their beliefs that what they are doing is regrettable but right - but that mindset is no different from the opposing terrorists that they are seeking to destroy.

Locking them all up in adjoining cells (or exectuting them) is a nice idea - but unrealistic. Bush, Blair and the Al'Qaida machine will be protected by their supporters indefinitely while a steady stream of innocent lives are ended before their time.

Breaking the cycle of violence takes courage. It doesn't neccesarily involve 'listening' to the other other side - but it does demand self-critiscism. Bush and Blair simply do not have that kind of courage - and neither does Al'Qaida (and I wouldn't expect the latter to ever have that kind of courage) - but then it doesn't need to start with Al'Qaida. It only takes one side to begin the process of self-examination to end the cycle.

Personally, I'm simply APPALLED that 'Great' Britain is behaving in such a manner and DISGUSTED that my country has to take lessons in democracy and law from France, Germany and now Spain. How the once mighty have fallen...

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I also further note that you are often trying to explain the terrorists' messages and what they are complaining about and what they are trying to say. Personally, I don't give 2 farts about those things -- I just want to see their dead terrorist corpses laid out in a pleasing arrayment of justified death. My opinion.

And that, in a nutshell, is why you will never defeat terrorism.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Skunk: Going on to invade Iraq was like prescribing ciggarettes to a cancer patient while trying to remove the disease with very low doses of radiation. It just helped the cancer to grow rather than kill it off. One big successful recruitment drive for Al'Qaida paid for by the US and UK taxpayers. And *still* we can't find them - just the odd cell here and there and soon as we remove that, another one grows somewhere else to take its place.

Terrorism as a cancer - what an interesting metaphor!

http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/cg...;f=31;t=012810

[Skippy1]

Originally posted by Skunk: In the old days, it was easier to maintain the status quo. Al'Qaida was a small and unimportant organisation based in Afghanistan - few people in the middle east had heard of them and even fewer supported them. The intelligence services yawned with the ease of tracking them - everyone who belonged would, at some point end up in a training camp in Afghanistan, and as soon as they did they would be watched, and everyone they met when they left would be watched, and everyone they met would be watched too.

So I take it from this that you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Bush knew the 9/11 attacks were going to happen before they happened? I think your underestimating Al'Qaida's abilities to disguise it's operations and overestimating the "intelligence services" abilities.

Originally posted by Skunk: And had Aznar won the elections, we could have turned the argument on its head - that Al'Qaida forced the re-election of Aznar and that the populace voted him back as a knee-jerk reaction to a new threat.

I'm afraid I totally disagree with this. It was clear in the weeks leading up to the attack that Aznars party was leading in the polls. That's not to say that they would have definately won, only that there was a clearly defined lead. To say that the attack on the trains didn't influence the vote, especially after the opposition party announced they would bring the troops home from Iraq, is to say the least, presumptuous.

My own opinion is that the election should have been delayed. This would have avoided the obvious emotional vote counting towards the final result, that has come about due to the election being held the very next weekend after the attack. Can anyone really feel that it had no effect on the result?

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Skippy1: So I take it from this that you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Bush knew the 9/11 attacks were going to happen before they happened? I think your underestimating Al'Qaida's abilities to disguise it's operations and overestimating the "intelligence services" abilities.

Oh far from it!
I think that the security services let that one slip simply because, having had everything wrapped up tightly for so long and with so little happening as a result, they simply mis-read the signs.

Life had simply gotten too easy to maintain the neccessary vigilence and the intelligence services let their guard down. But then, who could have expected something on that scale anyway?

Originally posted by Skippy1: I'm afraid I totally disagree with this. It was clear in the weeks leading up to the attack that Aznars party was leading in the polls. That's not to say that they would have definately won, only that there was a clearly defined lead. To say that the attack on the trains didn't influence the vote, especially after the opposition party announced they would bring the troops home from Iraq, is to say the least, presumptuous. My own opinion is that the election should have been delayed. This would have avoided the obvious emotional vote counting towards the final result, that has come about due to the election being held the very next weekend after the attack. Can anyone really feel that it had no effect on the result?

Interestingly enough, I just came across this snippet from Time Magazine, posted on the day of the attack:

"The governing centre-right Popular Party was heading for victory in the election. The only thing that was in doubt was their majority, which they might have lost. The attack will now guarantee their majority.

"People will be so outraged that they will be bound to react in that way and look towards politicians who crack down on terrorism."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...034076,00.html

But I do disagree with halting elections as a result of a criminal act - that in itself would upset democracy and give the terrorists a win, and Aznar was right to state that he would not conceive of the idea. Even the US government backed that position.

Oh and by the way, the opposition party only stated that they would withdraw troops from Iraq AFTER the election was OVER. They, as all other parties did, stopped making any electoral statements as soon as the attacks occured and kept quiet until after the result was known.


[ 03-17-2004, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]