Spain may withdraw Iraq troops

[JonnyBGood]

I think this is all pretty amusing. Most of the extra turnout over in Spain has supposedly voted for the socialist party. So in fact what <whoeverbombedmadridstrains> succeeded in doing was make spain more democratically representative of the people's wishes. Of course it could also be said that the usually apathetic element of the electorate voted for whoever the newspapers told them to/whoever shouted loudest.

Or in other words Al Quaeda made more stupid people vote.

[Ste]

Can I just point out that the ruling conservatives had the option to postpone the elections in the wake of the attack. Why didn't they?
If they had there wouldn't have been such a knee-jerk reaction to the bombings. The opposition may still have been voted in but at least it wouldn't have the whole 'giving in to terror' bollocks.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Or in other words Al Quaeda made more stupid people vote.

Yeah, cos the people who normally don't vote are obviously stupid, right?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yeah, cos the people who normally don't vote are obviously stupid, right?

ur rite



And frankly most people who vote probably reached a higher educational level than those who didn't. Of course this might not necessarily mean that people who don't vote are stupid but as a punchline "Or in other words Al Quaeda made more people who didn't reach as high an educational level as would be found in the normal electorate" pretty much ****ing sucks.

[Perle]

Originally Posted by Ste

Can I just point out that the ruling conservatives had the option to postpone the elections in the wake of the attack. Why didn't they?
If they had there wouldn't have been such a knee-jerk reaction to the bombings. The opposition may still have been voted in but at least it wouldn't have the whole 'giving in to terror' bollocks.

the answer is very simple.
FEAR

the government wanted the elections to be over very fast, before the newspapers would find out that the attack was carried out by al qaeda and not by ETA.
they knew that if the spanish people(of which 90% were against the war in iraq) would find out that they were bombed, because their idiotic leader (aznar) had chosen to be bush´s servant, they would be furious and would vote for the socialists.
ironically, the press found out the al qaeda connection and the fact that mr aznar had manipulated the press into blaming ETA, just the night before the elections.
The combination of these 2 facts led to the big victory for the socialist party.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yeah, cos the people who normally don't vote are obviously stupid, right?

The ones who voted for the socialist party probably are.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The ones who voted for the socialist party probably are.

Whereas the one for the ones who voted for a vaguely pro-religious statist conservative party are shining beacons of genius ready to herald a new day of possessive individualism.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Whereas the one for the ones who voted for a vaguely pro-religious statist conservative party are shining beacons of genius ready to herald a new day of possessive individualism.

Now you're seeing the light

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Perle

the answer is very simple.
FEAR

the government wanted the elections to be over very fast, before the newspapers would find out that the attack was carried out by al qaeda and not by ETA.
they knew that if the spanish people(of which 90% were against the war in iraq) would find out that they were bombed, because their idiotic leader (aznar) had chosen to be bush´s servant, they would be furious and would vote for the socialists.
ironically, the press found out the al qaeda connection and the fact that mr aznar had manipulated the press into blaming ETA, just the night before the elections.
The combination of these 2 facts led to the big victory for the socialist party.

But if they'd postponed the elections a month or so then it would have died down and there wouldn't have been this 'backlash' against them which everyone is blaming on the madrid attacks. It would have meant a fairer election.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

ah, but that still doesnt mean that it is the governments fault, as you cannot blame the actions of psychopaths (in this case, religious fundamentalists) on anyone apart from themselves.

so you hire a security guard for your house. he falls asleep on the job, and someone breaks into your house and rapes your wife. the guy who breaks in leaves a message saying "I'm doing this so you fire your security guard"

Obviously, in the case of Spain there's a lot less evidence that they wanted a change then this. But assuming.

Personally, I'm firing my guard and hiring one that doesn't sleep on the job.

It sounds like you would tell your wife (who gets raped every night) that there are principles involved and you can't put your head in the sand. Fine.

Anyway, the fact in Spain is that most of the people who changed their minds didn't change them until after they found out that their government was lying to them and trying to keep everything covered up until the elections were over.

Originally Posted by queball

It's murderous fundamentalists on both sides. Sure, "giving in to terrorism" is a bad policy. So is the opposite. The "correct" thing to do is obey no-one, but do what is right, and to know what is right by evidence, not by assumption. If someone wrongs you, but also makes you aware of what's right, you should do what's right and condemn theit wrongdoing. And it's perfectly consistent to do so. Even if the "white vs. black" pundits probably won't see it that way. You are proposing we be stubborn. That's ok, but the issue is not in any way simple.

I'd like to claim that as my stance too

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by acropolis

so you hire a security guard for your house. he falls asleep on the job, and someone breaks into your house and rapes your wife. the guy who breaks in leaves a message saying "I'm doing this so you fire your security guard"

Obviously, in the case of Spain there's a lot less evidence that they wanted a change then this. But assuming.

Personally, I'm firing my guard and hiring one that doesn't sleep on the job.

It sounds like you would tell your wife (who gets raped every night) that there are principles involved and you can't put your head in the sand. Fine.

Worst

Metaphor

Ever.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Worst

Metaphor

Ever.

I'd like to see you come up with a metaphor that conveys my point better.

My impression is that you simply disagree with me, and therefore any metaphor I used that argued for my stance must be inherently bad.

Either way, mine doesn't hold with any of these.

[Stew]

Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever.

He was as tall as a six-foot-three-inch tree.

lolly roffle!

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by acropolis

Either way, mine doesn't hold with any of these.

Pretty funny

I especially like this one:

"Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever."

[JonnyBGood]

The only thing funnier than that page is the fact NONE OF THEM ARE ****ING METAPHORS.




(well one probably is I guess as I never manage to do these things without looking like a bit of a tit).

[acropolis]

OMG IVE GOTS TO VOTE FOR KERRUY!!!! TWICE!!!

The statement said it supported President Bush (news - web sites) in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."


In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:


"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."


"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."

OR MAYBE THEATS WHAT THEY WANT US TO THINKSOI SHOULD VOTEFORBUSHORMAYBETHEYWANTFREEHEALTHCAREFORTHEPOORSOISHOULDGOOUTANDSHOOTSOMEDIRTYHOBOLOSERS

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by acropolis

I'd like to see you come up with a metaphor that conveys my point better.

My impression is that you simply disagree with me, and therefore any metaphor I used that argued for my stance must be inherently bad.

Either way, mine doesn't hold with any of these.

I'd like to see anyone come up with a metaphor that conveys your point worse.

You are mistaken, I dont even remember what your point was, just that it was an appauling metaphor to explain it.

And some of the examples listed on that site are fantastic!

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by acropolis

I'd like to see you come up with a metaphor that conveys my point better.

My impression is that you simply disagree with me, and therefore any metaphor I used that argued for my stance must be inherently bad.

Either way, mine doesn't hold with any of these.

ive seen that before. And as my internet life is pretty small, im assming it came from here.

OLD

actually, i take back that 'old'. they are, but are still funny enough to not point it out. oh well, ive pressed reply now.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

I'd like to see anyone come up with a metaphor that conveys your point worse.

You are mistaken, I dont even remember what your point was, just that it was an appauling metaphor to explain it.

even if there was no worse metaphor, i don't see how that would imply there was a better one, which is the issue in question.

here is the situation at hand: you get someone to protect you. someone tries to attack you and the people you got to protect you fails to stop him. that someone indicates that they want you to get rid of that someone.

a security guard metaphor seemed apt, almost to the point of not being a metaphor anymore.

PS: the metaphor link is 'old' in the sense that i used it a year or two ago, but not as a thread or anything. I think I posted something along the lines of "i know where this belongs!!" in response to a metaphor in someone's essay.

PPS: as to the topic, another point is that the spanish population vastly opposed Aznar's policies wrt queda, but it was probably an unimportant issue to the people before the attack, and was probably a major issue after the attack. so perhaps no one was swayed in opinion whatsoever by the attack.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by acropolis

PPS: as to the topic, another point is that the spanish population vastly opposed Aznar's policies wrt queda, but it was probably an unimportant issue to the people before the attack, and was probably a major issue after the attack. so perhaps no one was swayed in opinion whatsoever by the attack.

Or more likely, imho, is it simply came too close to the election to have much of an impact either way (what with the initial finger being pointed at ETA etc).

Somewhat more troubling would be if al Qaeda and the like thought it had a positive (for them) impact such that they would consider terrorist attacks during election campaigns as a new tactic.

[roadrunner_0]

the security guard link is not good at all, you have to remember, doing what is best for yourself (firing that security guard) is nothing like doing your best for your country (as its duly elected representative)
The point i am trying to make is: (we will try this one more time)
i agree with his standpoint that spain shouldn't have troops there, the public don't what them to be there (by a vast majority) and, the fact that he has been elected on this issue (what are his other policies btw??? does anyone apart from his staunchest suporters even know?) means that yes, he does have to pull the troops out of iraq
BUT
he should not have done this in this manner, making such a VISIBLE speech so soon after the election was a really REALLY bad idea, it has sent out the wrong signals to everyone. It smack of appeasement, which, as i think we will all agree (hope) has been historically proven not to work! (interestingly to me at least, a US senator has been quoted as using exactly these words to describe the situation)
he should have waited and/or at least not done this quite so visibly.

open question: what do you think al-qaida are going to do the next time that they disagree with spains foreign policy?

[JonnyBGood]

This week substituting for Alexander Marriot.

What a well-grounded, factually based article!

[Deepflow]

i want alexander marriot to start posting on these forums

good article btw

he seemed to think that posting factual dates would make his argument about the present seem more credible... flawed logic, but i bet itll work on loads of people.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Somewhat more troubling would be if al Qaeda and the like thought it had a positive (for them) impact such that they would consider terrorist attacks during election campaigns as a new tactic.

At the end of the day, this is all that matters, but you'll never get any of the individuals in this thread assigning their own logic and reason to a completely different individual to agree with you.

Remember, they're arguing that "they wouldn't have a reason..." when refering to people who think it's ok to slit an infant's throat for allah or kill a woman because she spoke to someone on the street.

[Kurashima]

You dont reason with Fanatics. They wouldnt reason with you if you had the gun.