Anybody else think the Spanish people missed one glaringly obvious point?

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: drewshin
it seems to me that the main point some people seem to be missing is that i haven't heard the socialists say that they are relenting on terrorism one bit. everything points to the contrary. they've just decided it's not and never has been in their interest to stay in iraq (which ironically never had to deal with al-qaeda there until just last year).

i dont see where people get that withdrawing troops from iraq (which supposedly had little to do with illegal weapons or terrorism, it was about the freeing the iraqi people) has suddenly signaled that terrorism has won, a very far strectch in my book.

"Until last year" would be the optimal phrase you used. And as for what the opposition party says, how are they going to fight terrorism? Iraq is now the frontline in the battle on terrorism and they're withdrawing from there. Playing defensivly is a losing strategy since you need to cover every square inch of your country's land and start surveillance on every single person in your country. Unless they're going to Afghanistan to look for Osama, then this is just bluster and pandering.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

What terrorists want is not a factor I take into consideration at all. Whether you give them what they want, or always do the opposite of what they want your are still their pawn letting them control you.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: drewshin
it seems to me that the main point some people seem to be missing is that i haven't heard the socialists say that they are relenting on terrorism one bit. everything points to the contrary. they've just decided it's not and never has been in their interest to stay in iraq (which ironically never had to deal with al-qaeda there until just last year).

Good point. I didn't pick up on it because I know Saddam and Bin Laden are two different people. It seems obvious that one can be against terrorism and against the war in Iraq. Some can't quite walk and chew gum though and figure that out.

For those saying that Spain threw out the ruling party out to appease or give in to fear of Al Queda, do you think there will be no investigation into the bombing? It will just go away? Perhaps they will offer to drop a brown bag full of money off a bridge in appeasment? Maybe they will hold hands and start singing "I'd like to teach the world to sing" in Spanish?

Try, if you can, to leave Iraq out of this. What precisely will Spain do now to buy Al Queda off?

 

[laFiera]

i have several friends in spain and they disagreed about sending spaniards to iraq; from what they told me most spaniards were against sending troops to iraq; seems that the govt at the time didn't listen to the people, and well, the election results this past weekend show that; of course on this side of the world is shocking news, but according to my spaniard friends, they said..." nothing shocking about the elections; most people didn't support the war." Yea, seems like reading just cnn or foxnews is not the best way to get news nowadays...

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
What terrorists want is not a factor I take into consideration at all. Whether you give them what they want, or always do the opposite of what they want your are still their pawn letting them control you.

In theory, the "turn the other cheak" response is the right thing to do. Problem is that it would require a lot more death of innocent civilians before it had any effect. As a parent, and I'm sure as a national leader, you'd be irresponsible to apply the interpersonal rule of "turn the other cheak" to your children or citizens. The fact is that there is a danger here and your response of "act like it isn't there" is wreckless.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Zombie
May be they don't want anything to do Iraq war.

The point is that the terrorists don't want them there. That's why they should be there.

I dont want you to paypal me $1000.... Thats why you should paypal me $1000.

If you were someone I considered dangerous and I thought giving you $1000 would harm your cause, then, sure. I'm not suggesting everybody do the opposite of what everybody else wants...as your simple (or partisan) logic has interpretted it. I'm suggesting that anything a terrorist wants is probably the wrong thing for the rest of us since they are people whose principles do not prevent them from murdering innocent women and children and the rest of their ideals are probably equally skewed.

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
If their government's support of the war in Iraq caused them to become a target for terrorism, doesn't that mean their government was doing the right thing? When evil people see you as a threat, you can assume your present course is the best one.

And if it was ETA framing Al Qaeda, then, by allowing this tragedy to sway the vote in any way, the Spanish people have just given mass murderers exactly what they wanted.

That is some twisted fvcking logic HOP.
Spain had no problem with Al Queda terrorist before they helped us attack Iraq. So you think that the death of 200 and injury of close to 1500 means that it was good to go to war with Iraq. Like you say, as a parent, is that the message you want to give your kid?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
P&N
P&N
P&N!!!

OT is a magical land of fantasy, where large bosomed women deliver ice cold beer by the bucket and where the troubles of the outside world melt away....AND GODDAMN IT LET'S KEEP IT THAT WAY!

that is soooo sig worthy

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: oniq

Originally posted by: Zombie

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Zombie
May be they don't want anything to do Iraq war.

The point is that the terrorists don't want them there. That's why they should be there.

Its stupid to let people die just so that you can prove yourself right. May be the spanish people are not into this whole "war against terrorism" thing or it could be that they don't like confrontation. I wouldn't say they are wrong. It is their country and they have a right to make a decision on their own.

Why'd they go in the first place?

Probably because they were lied to about the pretenses for the war. (i.e. nonexistant WMD and terrorist ties that aren't exactly tied to tight)

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
If their government's support of the war in Iraq caused them to become a target for terrorism, doesn't that mean their government was doing the right thing? When evil people see you as a threat, you can assume your present course is the best one.

And if it was ETA framing Al Qaeda, then, by allowing this tragedy to sway the vote in any way, the Spanish people have just given mass murderers exactly what they wanted.

That is some twisted fvcking logic HOP.
Spain had no problem with Al Queda terrorist before they helped us attack Iraq. So you think that the death of 200 and injury of close to 1500 means that it was good to go to war with Iraq. Like you say, as a parent, is that the message you want to give your kid?

Well Al Qaeda sure taught them a lesson and set them straight, didn't they?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

-

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: laFiera
i have several friends in spain and they disagreed about sending spaniards to iraq; from what they told me most spaniards were against sending troops to iraq; seems that the govt at the time didn't listen to the people, and well, the election results this past weekend show that; of course on this side of the world is shocking news, but according to my spaniard friends, they said..." nothing shocking about the elections; most people didn't support the war." Yea, seems like reading just cnn or foxnews is not the best way to get news nowadays...

The ruling party was projected as winning before the blasts so your attempt at logic has failed here. But don't give up.

 

[drewshin]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: drewshin
it seems to me that the main point some people seem to be missing is that i haven't heard the socialists say that they are relenting on terrorism one bit. everything points to the contrary. they've just decided it's not and never has been in their interest to stay in iraq (which ironically never had to deal with al-qaeda there until just last year).

i dont see where people get that withdrawing troops from iraq (which supposedly had little to do with illegal weapons or terrorism, it was about the freeing the iraqi people) has suddenly signaled that terrorism has won, a very far strectch in my book.

"Until last year" would be the optimal phrase you used. And as for what the opposition party says, how are they going to fight terrorism? Iraq is now the frontline in the battle on terrorism and they're withdrawing from there. Playing defensivly is a losing strategy since you need to cover every square inch of your country's land and start surveillance on every single person in your country. Unless they're going to Afghanistan to look for Osama, then this is just bluster and pandering.

i disagree with you that iraq being the frontline against terrorism. it still should be afghanistan/pakistan if there is any "real" frontline. by your response, you seem to think that the only way to confront terrorists is with sending troops somewhere, when i think that there are so many more effective ways of dealing with them. first, you can concentrate on drying up their means of support, both financial and popular. i think that this is the most important, the less safe havens the terrorists can count on, the harder they will find their lives will be.

my feeling is that brute force against terrorists will end up working against us (of course you need to use it whenever possible, but dont use it as your main weapon of choice), you also end up hurting a lot of people that were previously indifferent but then turn into terrorists themselves. playing defensively IS a good way to go, there will always be terrorists, there will always be someone who hates america, but if you have good intelligence you should be able to stop many terrorists before they even get past the first step.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
If their government's support of the war in Iraq caused them to become a target for terrorism, doesn't that mean their government was doing the right thing?

Government making their people a target of terrorism is the right thing? Even if 90% of the population is against it? Yeah, I guess they missed that obvious point

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: drewshin


i disagree with you that iraq being the frontline against terrorism. it still should be afghanistan/pakistan if there is any "real" frontline. by your response, you seem to think that the only way to confront terrorists is with sending troops somewhere, when i think that there are so many more effective ways of dealing with them. first, you can concentrate on drying up their means of support, both financial and popular. i think that this is the most important, the less safe havens the terrorists can count on, the harder they will find their lives will be.

my feeling is that brute force against terrorists will end up working against us (of course you need to use it whenever possible, but dont use it as your main weapon of choice), you also end up hurting a lot of people that were previously indifferent but then turn into terrorists themselves. playing defensively IS a good way to go, there will always be terrorists, there will always be someone who hates america, but if you have good intelligence you should be able to stop many terrorists before they even get past the first step.

I agree with you here. Terrorists aren't some foriegn super power that you can just bomb away. Aside from not giving reason for more of them to come into being, a strong defense is really the only effective way to combat them. They can't be wiped out. You can't really win the war on terror. I think we should bolster the military, homeland security and increase our intelligence capabilities on the homefront to combat terrorism. Destroying and rebuilding the middle east is a costly and counter productive way of fighting them. It will probably create at least as many threats as it flushes out.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: gistech1978

Originally posted by: Zombie

Originally posted by: oniq

Originally posted by: Zombie

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Zombie
May be they don't want anything to do Iraq war.

The point is that the terrorists don't want them there. That's why they should be there.

Its stupid to let people die just so that you can prove yourself right. May be the spanish people are not into this whole "war against terrorism" thing or it could be that they don't like confrontation. I wouldn't say they are wrong. It is their country and they have a right to make a decision on their own.

Why'd they go in the first place?

US went to Vietnam and later quit
US went to Somalia and later quit
.
.
.
by the same token I guess they changed their mind and just wanna cut their losses.

no, those were wars fought by morally bankrupt administrations.
not anything like Bush and his Brigade of Freedom Fighters and Democracy Deployers.
Bush isnt a quitter, he's never quit any of his businesses; he never quit the national guard. he leads with an iron resolve and determination of a mongoose.

:beer:

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: drewshin


i disagree with you that iraq being the frontline against terrorism. it still should be afghanistan/pakistan if there is any "real" frontline. by your response, you seem to think that the only way to confront terrorists is with sending troops somewhere, when i think that there are so many more effective ways of dealing with them. first, you can concentrate on drying up their means of support, both financial and popular. i think that this is the most important, the less safe havens the terrorists can count on, the harder they will find their lives will be.

my feeling is that brute force against terrorists will end up working against us (of course you need to use it whenever possible, but dont use it as your main weapon of choice), you also end up hurting a lot of people that were previously indifferent but then turn into terrorists themselves. playing defensively IS a good way to go, there will always be terrorists, there will always be someone who hates america, but if you have good intelligence you should be able to stop many terrorists before they even get past the first step.

I agree with you here. Terrorists aren't some foriegn super power that you can just bomb away. Aside from not giving reason for more of them to come into being, a strong defense is really the only effective way to combat them. They can't be wiped out. You can't really win the war on terror. I think we should bolster the military, homeland security and increase our intelligence capabilities on the homefront to combat terrorism. Destroying and rebuilding the middle east is a costly and counter productive way of fighting them. It will probably create at least as many threats as it flushes out.

The oppressive totalitarian Islamic rule in the Middle East is from where all these terrorists are being raised. You can have a million soldiers out looking under rocks for terrorists or you can end the oppression and democratize the Middle East and end terrorism at the source.

Increasing homeland security, to be effective, requires laws like those under the Patriot Act, but I bet you're against that too.

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
If their government's support of the war in Iraq caused them to become a target for terrorism, doesn't that mean their government was doing the right thing? When evil people see you as a threat, you can assume your present course is the best one.

And if it was ETA framing Al Qaeda, then, by allowing this tragedy to sway the vote in any way, the Spanish people have just given mass murderers exactly what they wanted.

That is some twisted fvcking logic HOP.
Spain had no problem with Al Queda terrorist before they helped us attack Iraq. So you think that the death of 200 and injury of close to 1500 means that it was good to go to war with Iraq. Like you say, as a parent, is that the message you want to give your kid?

Well Al Qaeda sure taught them a lesson and set them straight, didn't they?

OK. simple question since you don't seem to be getting it:
Do you think Al Queda would have launched an attack against Spain, had Spain not supported the war in Iraq?

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: drewshin


i disagree with you that iraq being the frontline against terrorism. it still should be afghanistan/pakistan if there is any "real" frontline. by your response, you seem to think that the only way to confront terrorists is with sending troops somewhere, when i think that there are so many more effective ways of dealing with them. first, you can concentrate on drying up their means of support, both financial and popular. i think that this is the most important, the less safe havens the terrorists can count on, the harder they will find their lives will be.

my feeling is that brute force against terrorists will end up working against us (of course you need to use it whenever possible, but dont use it as your main weapon of choice), you also end up hurting a lot of people that were previously indifferent but then turn into terrorists themselves. playing defensively IS a good way to go, there will always be terrorists, there will always be someone who hates america, but if you have good intelligence you should be able to stop many terrorists before they even get past the first step.

I agree with you here. Terrorists aren't some foriegn super power that you can just bomb away. Aside from not giving reason for more of them to come into being, a strong defense is really the only effective way to combat them. They can't be wiped out. You can't really win the war on terror. I think we should bolster the military, homeland security and increase our intelligence capabilities on the homefront to combat terrorism. Destroying and rebuilding the middle east is a costly and counter productive way of fighting them. It will probably create at least as many threats as it flushes out.

The oppressive totalitarian Islamic rule in the Middle East is from where all these terrorists are being raised. You can have a million soldiers out looking under rocks for terrorists or you can end the oppression and democratize the Middle East and end terrorism at the source.

Increasing homeland security, to be effective, requires laws like those under the Patriot Act, but I bet you're against that too.

NO! Western Governments (US) not supporting totalitarian regimes like in Saudi Arabia would help the most in the fight against terrorism.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

"The oppressive totalitarian Islamic rule in the Middle East is from where all these terrorists are being raised. You can have a million soldiers out looking under rocks for terrorists or you can end the oppression and democratize the Middle East and end terrorism at the source.

Increasing homeland security, to be effective, requires laws like those under the Patriot Act, but I bet you're against that too."

Ok, how do you get them to do this when you can't get me to agree with your POV?

Here is how you do it. Kill every man woman and child there. You will have peace.

As far as security at home, you need four things to be effective

A Department of Truth, one of Love, one of Peace, and one of Plenty.

You can learn of "my" experiences with them

here.

I think many would gladly support them in exchange for "homeland security"

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: drewshin


i disagree with you that iraq being the frontline against terrorism. it still should be afghanistan/pakistan if there is any "real" frontline. by your response, you seem to think that the only way to confront terrorists is with sending troops somewhere, when i think that there are so many more effective ways of dealing with them. first, you can concentrate on drying up their means of support, both financial and popular. i think that this is the most important, the less safe havens the terrorists can count on, the harder they will find their lives will be.

my feeling is that brute force against terrorists will end up working against us (of course you need to use it whenever possible, but dont use it as your main weapon of choice), you also end up hurting a lot of people that were previously indifferent but then turn into terrorists themselves. playing defensively IS a good way to go, there will always be terrorists, there will always be someone who hates america, but if you have good intelligence you should be able to stop many terrorists before they even get past the first step.

I agree with you here. Terrorists aren't some foriegn super power that you can just bomb away. Aside from not giving reason for more of them to come into being, a strong defense is really the only effective way to combat them. They can't be wiped out. You can't really win the war on terror. I think we should bolster the military, homeland security and increase our intelligence capabilities on the homefront to combat terrorism. Destroying and rebuilding the middle east is a costly and counter productive way of fighting them. It will probably create at least as many threats as it flushes out.

The oppressive totalitarian Islamic rule in the Middle East is from where all these terrorists are being raised. You can have a million soldiers out looking under rocks for terrorists or you can end the oppression and democratize the Middle East and end terrorism at the source.

Increasing homeland security, to be effective, requires laws like those under the Patriot Act, but I bet you're against that too.

No, I'm not. Thanks for asking me.

Do you honestly think that all of those people in the middle east are just sitting around waiting for America to come 'liberate' them? For every one that thanks us for it there's another that hates for meddling in their affairs. We killed some of their people too you know, with those bombs we dropped on them? We don't have special bombs that avoid civilians and only hit 'evil-doers'. How much do you think those people love America for killing their sons? Or daughters?

And I've got news for you, as long as there's people that have something that others don't have, there's going to be terrorism. And blowing up and rebuilding the entire middle east isn't going to fix much since not all terrorists come from the middle east. But I suppose you propose we take on the whole world than? That worked real well for Hitler.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
If their government's support of the war in Iraq caused them to become a target for terrorism, doesn't that mean their government was doing the right thing? When evil people see you as a threat, you can assume your present course is the best one.

And if it was ETA framing Al Qaeda, then, by allowing this tragedy to sway the vote in any way, the Spanish people have just given mass murderers exactly what they wanted.

That is some twisted fvcking logic HOP.
Spain had no problem with Al Queda terrorist before they helped us attack Iraq. So you think that the death of 200 and injury of close to 1500 means that it was good to go to war with Iraq. Like you say, as a parent, is that the message you want to give your kid?

Well Al Qaeda sure taught them a lesson and set them straight, didn't they?

OK. simple question since you don't seem to be getting it:
Do you think Al Queda would have launched an attack against Spain, had Spain not supported the war in Iraq?

Here's a simple question for you since you don't seem to be getting it

Since when did Al Qaeda decide what was morally right or wrong?

If helping the US in Iraq was morally right, then Spain's leaders were right to do so. If helping the US in Iraq was morally wrong, then Spain's leaders were wrong to do so. It's easy logic and Al Qaeda's actions are definitely not part of the equation.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
If their government's support of the war in Iraq caused them to become a target for terrorism, doesn't that mean their government was doing the right thing? When evil people see you as a threat, you can assume your present course is the best one.

And if it was ETA framing Al Qaeda, then, by allowing this tragedy to sway the vote in any way, the Spanish people have just given mass murderers exactly what they wanted.

That is some twisted fvcking logic HOP.
Spain had no problem with Al Queda terrorist before they helped us attack Iraq. So you think that the death of 200 and injury of close to 1500 means that it was good to go to war with Iraq. Like you say, as a parent, is that the message you want to give your kid?

Well Al Qaeda sure taught them a lesson and set them straight, didn't they?

OK. simple question since you don't seem to be getting it:
Do you think Al Queda would have launched an attack against Spain, had Spain not supported the war in Iraq?

Here's a simple question for you since you don't seem to be getting it

Since when did Al Qaeda decide what was morally right or wrong?

If helping the US in Iraq was morally right, then Spain's leaders were right to do so. If helping the US in Iraq was morally wrong, then Spain's leaders were wrong to do so. It's easy logic and Al Qaeda's actions are definitely not part of the equation.

Was that the reason for Spain's involvement? Because it was morally correct to do so?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
If helping the US in Iraq was morally right, then Spain's leaders were right to do so. If helping the US in Iraq was morally wrong, then Spain's leaders were wrong to do so. It's easy logic and Al Qaeda's actions are definitely not part of the equation.

That's easy. Our invasion of Iraq was morally wrong because it was justified with lies. Therefore, anyone supporting our invasion was also morally wrong. Most of the people of Spain saw that, but were dragged into our immoral invasion anyway. They have become the latest innocent victims of King George's detour from the war on terror.

 

[b0mbrman]

Then so be it. As long as it's not the reaction of terrorists that made their entry right or wrong

Thanks for your help