Abject surrender

"Jarg" wrote:


"Yeff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:40:55 -0600, Tony wrote:

Well, we now have the first surrender in the War on Terror. Spain has
surrendered to Al Quada and will remove its troops from Iraq.

Spain held an election and the people spoke. Damn democracy!

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

And people often get the government they deserve. But I hope that isn't so
in this case.
Some points:
* The last poll before the election had the two parties
within the margin of error.

* EVERYONE called for people to vote to show that the
terrorists could not stop them, and that favorers the left-center
in Spanish politics.

* Anzar played politics with this, trying to blame the ETA
long after he knew that it was Islamic extremists, and the
electorate punished him for dancing on 200 people's graves.

On the third point, good for them.

Using a terrorist attack for political advantage is
despicable.
--
--Matthew Saroff
Rules to live by:
1) To thine own self be true
2) Don't let your mouth write no checks that your butt can't cash
3) Interference in the time stream is forbidden, do not meddle in causality
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page

Alistair Gunn wrote:

Stephen Harding twisted the electrons to say:
My guess, given this resounding victory for Al Qaeda, is
Italy will be next on the "hit list".

So Al Qaeda *may* have influenced the result in the Spanish election,
thus causing a government that was involved in the "war on terror" to be
replaced with one that has a priority of a "systematic fight against
terrorism of all kinds" - yeah, that was a real resounding victory if
ever I saw one! grins
If you follow Spanish politics (Check out Salon.com), one
of the reasons that Anzar won in the first place was that the
electorate thought that some of the measures taken against Basque
separatists by the Socialists were too broad and too brutal. (in
all fairness, there was also the matter that after a dozen or so
years of socialist rule, the electorate had gotten tired of them,
and charges of corruption and cronyism).

Spanish Socialists are NOT shrinking violets.


--
--Matthew Saroff
Rules to live by:
1) To thine own self be true
2) Don't let your mouth write no checks that your butt can't cash
3) Interference in the time stream is forbidden, do not meddle in causality
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


al Qaeda endorses the new government in Spain
the new government in Spain endorses John Kerry
does al Qaeda endorse John Kerry?

What are you smoking, and where can I get some?

Al Queida still considers Spain to be seized Muslim land
from 1492.

I'm not joking here.
--
--Matthew Saroff
Rules to live by:
1) To thine own self be true
2) Don't let your mouth write no checks that your butt can't cash
3) Interference in the time stream is forbidden, do not meddle in causality
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page

"Matthew G. Saroff" wrote

Using a terrorist attack for political advantage is
despicable.

"for political advantage" are unnecessary words in that sentence.

Pete

"Simon Robbins" wrote:

"Tony Williams" wrote in message
om...
but also very much because his government
tried to pin the blame on ETA in a very heavy-handed way, and this
caused great outrage.

I remember only a couple of weeks ago the Spanish government anouncing that
a warning had been received that ETA was going to target the rail network
and they were going to have to check all 20,000(?) miles of track. I've not
heard mention of this warning since, or was I dreaming it? (If so, I'll let
you all know next time I have a similar dream!)
I recall hearing of such a threat in France, though not
from ETA, in about that time period.

--
--Matthew Saroff
Rules to live by:
1) To thine own self be true
2) Don't let your mouth write no checks that your butt can't cash
3) Interference in the time stream is forbidden, do not meddle in causality
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page

"Matthew G. Saroff" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


al Qaeda endorses the new government in Spain
the new government in Spain endorses John Kerry
does al Qaeda endorse John Kerry?

What are you smoking, and where can I get some?

Lucky Strikes.

Al Queida still considers Spain to be seized Muslim land
from 1492.

Yes.

I'm not joking here.

It is Allah's will.

In article ,
"Simon Robbins" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
Actually, that's exactly the *opposite* of what was said. It was
repeated, time and again, that waiting until the threat was "imminent"
was a bad idea.

"45 minutes" not sound familiar then?

A somewhat different issue, and you should know better.

There is a little difference between probable local battlefield
response, and activity outside the national boundary.

In article ,
Charles Gray wrote:

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:00:20 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Charles Gray wrote:

Much of Europe including the spanish electorate is very leery of
"it turned out well" arguements for invasions. The U.S. sold it to
them, (or tried to) on the arguement of imminent threat, which didn't
appear to exist.

Actually, that's exactly the *opposite* of what was said. It was
repeated, time and again, that waiting until the threat was "imminent"
was a bad idea.

True-- I was unclear-- the whole idea of pre-empting imminent
threats was the one that brought some doubt from the Europeans. But
we did argue that Hussein was very close to having WMD's, and when
others contradicted us, we were in turns mocking and hostile...which
didn't play well when it turned out that they were *right*.

Too bad for Saddam and at least some of Iraq's military leadership...
*they* thought that WMDs were there and available.

"Jarg" wrote:

"Grantland" wrote in message


Idiot.

Grantland


Is that your new signature? Many of us just took it as a given in your
postings!

Seriously, do you have any basis for disagreeing, or are you limited to ad
hominem?

Jarg

For further reading on the subject check:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

Cretin.

G

"Pete" wrote:


"Matthew G. Saroff" wrote

Using a terrorist attack for political advantage is
despicable.

"for political advantage" are unnecessary words in that sentence.

Ummm....We have a consensus that terrorism is bad.

I was making the point that using a terrorist attack as a
cheap ploy to get re-elected is a bad thing...at least if you're
a Spaniard.

OOPS!!! That's the microwave. Time for a bowl of
Freedom Rice.
--
--Matthew Saroff
Rules to live by:
1) To thine own self be true
2) Don't let your mouth write no checks that your butt can't cash
3) Interference in the time stream is forbidden, do not meddle in causality
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page