We Are All Spaniards

Is that not how the republicans got a majority in both houses after 911

The republicans had both houses long before 9-11.

The Spanish voted in a Socialist government because the Right wing
government lied to then too often. Firdtly over the reasons for going to
war
and then quickly blaming ETA when it appears not to be.

The government was punished for that - not to appease terrorists.

True or not, it doesn't matter. (And given the pre-election polls in Spain,
I doubt your conclusions.)

What matters is what the terrorists perceive -- not what you and I believe.
And I don't see how they can learn any lesson but this: "Bombs+Massive
Casualties = Troops out of Middle East."

The actions of Spain have endangered us all.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article hE85c.8720$J05.102917@attbi_s01, "Michael 182"
writes:

How did you get from electing socialists to legitimizing Islam
fundamentalists?

Quite simple. By staging their attack just before an election, the Islamic
facists effectively took down an entire government. The socialists were
expected to loose by a wide margin before the attack. Most socialist parties
and organizations have been far more friendly to the Islamic cause than anyone
else. Expect similar just before the next election in Britain.

Fortunately, we may be luckier, as such an attack in America would likely have
the opposite effect. We will see.

John

In article , JohnMcGrew wrote:
expected to loose by a wide margin before the attack. Most socialist parties
and organizations have been far more friendly to the Islamic cause than anyone
else. Expect similar just before the next election in Britain.

Let's see: Britain currently has a socialist (or at least
quasi-socialist) party in power at the moment: the Labour Party. The
Conservative Party is at least as gung-ho, if not more so about
supporting the United States. The 'special relationship' with the US
enjoys strong cross-party support in Britain. The terrorists would
likely just bring in a government with an even stronger resolve to keep
fighting.

I think those who say the Spanish changed the Government because of a
terrorist act are missing the point: the Spanish changed their
government because the one in power tried to lie and distort and spin
about the whole tragic affair and got caught. The Spanish didn't elect
the other lot to appease terrorists, they elected the other lot to
punish the incumbent for bare-faced lying.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Dylan Smith wrote:

I think those who say the Spanish changed the Government because of a
terrorist act are missing the point: the Spanish changed their
government because the one in power tried to lie and distort and spin
about the whole tragic affair and got caught.

Few, if any, have argued with that. The problem is that outfits like Al Quaida
will not see it this way. Even if their leaders do, they will fomulate in the
ranks the idea that their actions changed the election results and got Spanish
troops pulled out. Sorta like "Ok, you guys did real well last time, go do it
again somewhere else."

Now, if they perceive the Conservative Party as being more hawkish than Labour,
they probably will not try to influence the British elections this way, but the
way the media is beginning to spin the two parties here in the States, Al Quaida
might well feel that a victory by the Democrats would be advantageous. *If* they
come to that conclusion, they might also feel that another strike just before
the election would hand Kerry the presidency. That's two "ifs", but the Spanish
elections make that second if much more likely.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

Let's see: Britain currently has a socialist (or at least
quasi-socialist) party in power at the moment: the Labour Party. The
Conservative Party is at least as gung-ho, if not more so about
supporting the United States. The 'special relationship' with the US
enjoys strong cross-party support in Britain. The terrorists would
likely just bring in a government with an even stronger resolve to keep
fighting.

Nobody ever said that they were smart.

But still, taking down Blair would be considered a great
accomplishment. They are likely to accomplish that without bombing a
railroad: Labour may well do it for them.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

That was my reaction also. I don't know if it makes random attacks on
Spanish targets more likely, but it certainly makes attacks on BRITISH
targets more likely. Probably Polish targets as well.

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 02:26:18 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

The socialists have just won the election & Zapatero has
pledged to withdraw troops from Iraq. Looks like it's
down to the US, Britain, Australia and Poland. Rather
like last time.

With this election the Spanish have actually legitimized the very attackers
they supposedly revile, and endangered us all in the process.

This election will encourage the terrorists like nothing else has.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

That was my reaction also. I don't know if it makes random attacks on
Spanish targets more likely, but it certainly makes attacks on BRITISH
targets more likely. Probably Polish targets as well.

More worrisome are the U.S. elections in the fall, IMHO.

The terrorists have seen what can be accomplished in Spain; they may assume
Kerry is the equivalent of the Socialists?

Nothing good can come of this.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

That was my reaction also. I don't know if it makes random attacks on
Spanish targets more likely, but it certainly makes attacks on BRITISH
targets more likely. Probably Polish targets as well.

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 02:26:18 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

The socialists have just won the election & Zapatero has
pledged to withdraw troops from Iraq. Looks like it's
down to the US, Britain, Australia and Poland. Rather
like last time.

With this election the Spanish have actually legitimized the very
attackers
they supposedly revile, and endangered us all in the process.

This election will encourage the terrorists like nothing else has.

One report earlier this morning gave rise to the possibility it was locals,
not any Islamic terrorists. Another gave a possible link back to the
Socialists.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

That was my reaction also. I don't know if it makes random attacks on
Spanish targets more likely, but it certainly makes attacks on BRITISH
targets more likely. Probably Polish targets as well.


I disagree. Britain has always been a target. An attack would not
change government policy (even if Labour were kicked out, the
Conservatives are even more bullish). And the UK have a clearer
sense of their global responsibilities than Spain. Of course, this
doesn't preclude an attack out of spite, but that is as likely now as
it was before the weekend. The most likely enhanced targets are
France and Germany (over the hajib issue), and in fact these two
have today called for an EU-wide emergency security conference.

The big loser in this is not the coalition forces in Iraq; rather it is
the institutions of the EU. The idea of a common defense force is
exposed as a farce (with Spain turning tail after just one bloody
nose), and continent-wide unity dealt a further blow (as the Spanish
political establishment is clearly not in the least concerned that their
actions have made life more dangerous and difficult for the rest of
the people of the EU).