Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY<
Yes - Spain probably would have been attacked because of their involvement in the war on terror.
I hope this attitude of turning tail isn't official policy for them though - it shows weakness. Iraq is currently a battle against terrorism and they are pulling out because of these attacks. Anyway - you question is dishonest and I won't play your games.(bowfinger anyone?😛) Your question is just a diversion and dishonest.😛 (oh crap I already answered your question- guess I'm not as good at teh rhetoric as Bow.😛
CkG
How is my question dishonest. It's a simple question.
Event A triggers Event B which triggers Event C.
Shouldn't the blame be on Event A? It's logical after all.
And the new prime minister of Spain did not say they will no longer combat terrorist. Stop rambling with your lies about that. He only said he is pulling the troops out of Iraq in July if there is no UN sanction. That's it. He did reaffirm his commitment to fighting terrorism. Get your facts straight.
Depends on what you think 'A' is. Could it not be the arrest and detainment of Al Qaeda suspects in Spain? Hmmmm? Naw - we can't think logically about this - we just have ASSume it was all about Iraq. Yep - blame it on Iraq. Al Qaeda may have attacked Spain to get them to leave Iraq(which it looks like they are going to do...if if if
) but that doesn't mean they were targetted because of Iraq - no? Come on? Where is your nuance? Where is this "open mind" the left always speaks of? Why is this attack only because of their involvement in Iraq?
Naw - we'd rather just blabber about Iraq than actually think.
And yes - I've already noted(In one of these threads anyway) about the lipservice being paid terrorism by the new PM. We'll have to see though. Actions speak louder than words at this point.
CkG