First political party casualties from the war on terror?

John Reynolds said:
I knew right away where you're going with this Joe and it's extremely non sequitur. This does NOT prove a relationship between Saddam and AQ in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...

Nor did I say or claim it does, so apparently, you have no idea where I'm going with this. (Oh, and BTW, I thought Sadam's regime was secular in nature...)

We invaded a ME, Islamic nation, we've had sanctions against that nation for years...
Click to expand...

The point is, don't you think Spain and whoever else would be interested in what IRAQIs want going forward? Rather than what AQ wants...or what AQ claims Iraq wants.

...and we now have a strong military presence in that very country for the past year. Anyone who supports us in this is going to be punished if possible by the AQ to isolate the US.
Click to expand...

Right...so as the theory goes: "forget about what Iraq wants....just look at what the U.S. wants, and what AQ wants. AQ threatens us with terrorism, so hey, let's capitulate."
 
Joe DeFuria said:
Nor did I say or claim it does, so apparently, you have no idea where I'm going with this.
Click to expand...

Then why did you write:

It really is a shame to see Spain raise the white flag.

Terrorism won this election, AFAIC.
Click to expand...

What does a socialist party wanting to pull troops out of Iraq have to do with terrorism winning? Unless you mean that the socialists were behind in the polls prior to the bombing, but I'm not sure what you meant by white flag raised. Elaborate.
 
John Reynolds said:
What does a socialist party wanting to pull troops out of Iraq have to do with terrorism winning?
Click to expand...

Do you think that the terrorists perfer a hard-line against terrorism (allied with U.S.) gov in power, or socialists / pacifists who are not willing to assist the U.S. in the war on terror?
 
Joe DeFuria said:
Do you think that the terrorists perfer a hard-line against terrorism (allied with U.S.) gov in power, or socialists / pacifists who are not willing to assist the U.S. in the war on terror?
Click to expand...

And what does Iraq have to do with the war on terror (to the European mindset, and the mindset of left wing, liberal pinkos such as myself)? Seriously, Joe, I don't think your average European sees our presence in Iraq as a direct attack on terrorism, especially since we've failed to find WMD. That said, the Spainish voters have certainly sent the wrong message to terrorists with their election (not because "socialistic pacifists" won, but rather that terrorist attacks can affect the democratic process).
 
Joe DeFuria said:
John Reynolds said:
What does a socialist party wanting to pull troops out of Iraq have to do with terrorism winning?
Click to expand...

Do you think that the terrorists perfer a hard-line against terrorism (allied with U.S.) gov in power, or socialists / pacifists who are not willing to assist the U.S. in the war on terror?
Click to expand...

I'm not a terrorist, so I can't say for sure. I'm guessing something could be said either way. From a terrorist's point of view the advantage of pacifists is that they're less likely to come and pick a fight with you. The advantage of hard line governments might be that they could incite more radical views among the moderate population of the home countries of the terrorists. Surely terrorists would be served by a widening gap between western and middle-eastern nations.
 
Joe DeFuria said:
Do you think that the terrorists perfer a hard-line against terrorism (allied with U.S.) gov in power, or socialists / pacifists who are not willing to assist the U.S. in the war on terror?
Click to expand...

Did I miss something? When did Spain pull out of the war on terrorism?
 
While I'm not a terrorist either, I don't really subscribe to the "al qaeda wants bush re-elected" theory.

There's one thing about the enemy helping you recruit by being the enemy, but you don't want a competent enemy who seems to be doing a good job of killing and capturing you and your recruits.
 
RussSchultz said:
While I'm not a terrorist either, I don't really subscribe to the "al qaeda wants bush re-elected" theory.

There's one thing about the enemy helping you recruit by being the enemy, but you don't want a competent enemy who seems to be doing a good job of killing and capturing you and your recruits.
Click to expand...

I will say that, insofar as I'm aware, Kerry has been awfully damn quiet on this entire situation. There goes the right over-estimating/inflating the terrorist threat again.
 
Eh, I don't catch your drift.

Jihad unspun is where I saw the "Osama wants Bush" editorial.

Though I have seen quite a bit of "Kim Jong Il wants Kerry" from all over the place.
 
Kerry last year made some off-the-cuff statement that the Bush administration and the right in general were overblowing the terrorist threat. Just thought it strange how he's been so quiet since the Madrid bombing (again, insofar as I've heard).
 
John Reynolds said:
Kerry last year made some off-the-cuff statement that the Bush administration and the right in general were overblowing the terrorist threat. Just thought it strange how he's been so quiet since the Madrid bombing (again, insofar as I've heard).
Click to expand...

Kerry's just waiting for all of the political "fallout" of the election, get a gist of what the majorityof American's think (read: how they poll), and then he'll come out with his stance. Don't expect him to speak out one way or another based on what he might actually think. Exepct Kerry to wait and see if "The world is turning against bush" rhetoric gets any traction in the U.S. population.
 
John Reynolds said:
Kerry last year made some off-the-cuff statement that the Bush administration and the right in general were overblowing the terrorist threat. Just thought it strange how he's been so quiet since the Madrid bombing (again, insofar as I've heard).
Click to expand...
Ah, gotcha. Yeah, he's got other drums to beat, I suppose.
 
Man I cant disagree more with both sides of the political aisle this time... Its clear that this attck caused the terrorist cause much more harm than good this time. And the terrorists know it.

They want more attacks on the ME so they can garner more support from muslims caught in the crossfire. With the example of Spain's withdrawing from Iraq they will now have to reevaluate (assuming they really have that much breathing room) who and how they attack.

I mean its no secret. The reasons for 9\11 were made plainly clear in various media analysts reports on AQ and its objectives with multiple reports and interviews about what AQ's goals were... AQ needs widespread support in order to fullfill its fantasy of an islamic world thru force. They know they will never be able to do that if they cant create enough east\west, muslim\christian antipathy. Dont trust plain declarations when they assume responsibility at face value. They DONT want spain out of Iraq. They want iraqis to learn to hate westerners by living under their rule and hopefully by their mere pressence be cause enough to create violence in the streets...
 
So,are you saying the terrorists are just that stupid to have done this? Or that the "terrorists" are actually "coalition allies" trying to make it look like a ME extremist attack?
 
I don't know what has been said in this thread so far. I am not sure if the terrorist action did effect the outcome of the election in Spain... however if it has, it is a major victory for terrorist. If they can affect the outcomes of elections in other states simply by attacking civilian targets with the implication of retribution for attacks on terrorist and their protectors, voters might loose the political will to continue a war against terror and its proponents. It’s a dammed shame if you ask me.

If terrorism works.... it is a sad indictment of democratic values indeed. I would expect in light of such a success for there to be more attacks on other states that openly oppose terrorism and its advocates. This is an appalling prospect in my opinion.
 
No I think the spanish attack was 90% opportunity and 10% desire to piss off the west even more. I think if the terrorists could have done Paris instead of Madrid they would have done so. They didnt probably because intelligence services are now blunting most attacks from happening.

I certainly dont think the spanish attack was what the official declaration of responsibility says it is. If it is even remotely a true reason then Id have to consider the attack likely by copycat muslim groups that probably spring up in short order when they can... and not really by AQ. Its too easy to declare yourself AQ when in fact youve probably never been in touch or in the know with the organisation other than what we all see in the media about AQ.

I think its foolish to see this attack as successful other than it was able to be carried out.
 
pax said:
I think its foolish to see this attack as successful other than it was able to be carried out.
Click to expand...

Nonetheless a new government was elected with high on their list of things to do... removal of their forces in Iraq and withdrawal of support for US lead actions. Even if it did not affect the outcome of the election (which I certainly believe is possible.) there is a definite perception that the tactic did indeed work. That may be all terrorist need to rally their cohorts.
 
Even if it did not affect the outcome of the election (which I certainly believe is possible.) there is a definite perception that the tactic did indeed work.
Click to expand...

Well, we don't really know what their 'tactics' are, if I understood you correctly that is. I mean just on this thread alone we have plenty different views on what the goals of the terrorists are. Sure, if we view their tactics as just killing people and randomly hope for whatever they're hoping for, then their tacticts might've been seen as a success. But since we don't really know if they prefer a socialist goverment that are less likely to ally with the US, a goverment who wants to ally with the US, or if they simply see no difference between what parties are in power since they represent the evil west either way, I don't really think we should call it successful. For all we know whatever happened or will happen might be the opposite of what they wanted to happen.

Edit: But I do however agree that it most likely affected the election in one way or another, probably mostly in the way of bringing previous non-voters to vote.

But the only 'facts' I see in all this is that they're still highly capable of excercising their terror.

Edit2: Of course it can be seen as a 'random' attack just meant to rally support and show that the west isn't the impenetrable fortress that we like to think that we are. But I'm just saying that it's not exactly the easiest thing to say for sure what their goals are.
 
can someone with insight tell me why the spanish elections werent postponed for maybe a week to a month. Seems like a bombing a few days before an election should be investigated so people dont go off the deep end. I hope someone from spain can shed some light for me.

later,
epic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top