Rob E Dangerously

The thing with the appeasement is that the group claiming responsibility and citing Iraq is the same one who also claimed responsibility for the NY blackouts, and they're also endorsing George W. Bush for re-election. They may lack some credibility. As well, what have you seen that makes you so sure that Zapatero is unwilling to defend Spain from attacks in their nation? And does that factor in when the police and the authorities under Aznar had failed to arrest the head Moroccan (who is a 'known terrorist'). That doesn't really do much when it comes to the credibility of the PP in their protection of the Spanish people from terror. Have we heard any other claims from non-Abu Hafs al Masri Brigade sources in regards to the reasoning for the attacks. I know the "We caused that blackout" brigade claimed the Iraq war as a reason. Still, it could be some jackass who keeps bothering that one paper in England for all we know. (There's also the video claiming responsibility, but did they go into the reasoning?)

I searched.. and yep. That's pretty much right. Although, I don't think the Democrats really ran with that. They did mention it. The 1800 campaign is tops on my list of nasty campaigns. Unless Kerry starts alledging that Bush is born out of wedlock, or Bush alleges Kerry to be a Papist. Then it won't be the nastiest.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...64633_2004mar16 But.. you know voting against the PP only gave the terrorists what they wanted! Vote for the corrupt conservatives, or else! Although this "Abu Hafs al Masri Brigade" seems to be a bit odd. They claimed credit for the bombing, and then called a truce against Spain. I have questions about their credibility, since they took credit for that blackout last Summer in New York. It wouldn't stun me if Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades is being run by somebody else, for propaganda, or publicity, or whatever else.

Even with at least 10 parties on the ballot, there's only two legit choices in Spain. The PP and the PSOE. It's sorta like the two party system here, but without direct election of Presidents. (And, if we had the system here, we'd have Libertarians and Green Party guys winning a seat somewhere) The PP was in power when the authorities weren't arresting known terrorists (prefering instead to do nothing) The PP reacted to the attacks by blaming the ETA, even though the ETA trademark of a warning was missing. They continued to blame the ETA when the world knew Al-Qaida did it. Which was enough to swing people over to the other choice. The PP fucked up big time. The voters decided that was enough to boot them out of power. Here's the voting results map. (Proving all of Spain to be filled by eeevil cowards. ) Well.. actually.. you can see the PP won more provinces as well. Although, that doesn't mean much.

Yes, deport the man who risked his own life to protect us. The guy was obviously shaken by things he saw and possibly did during the war and he doesn't want to go back. He's already done a hell of a lot more for this country than most people ever will. Non-citizen who went AWOL. Seems pretty cut and dried there. Yeah, most of us won't be able to go AWOL. Alas. -=Mike "A native of Nicaragua, Meija is a permanent resident of the US who served in the army for three years." Unless there's some legalese in US citizenship law.. it seems he is pretty much a citizen. There might be some subtle difference between 'permanent resident' and 'citizen' though.

Let's quote the article here Care to raise any hell against the authorities in Spain, or the Popular Party in general over that fuckup? I'd assume you'd be up in arms if the FBI under Clinton didn't go after a known AQ terrorist and then he killed a few hundred people. It seems the same can be said here. It was a massive fuckup. And massively screwing up so badly that you allow for a terrorist to kill hundreds, and then trying to pin it on another group will get you voted out of office. On a more neutral note, here's a site going over the results of the election. It's pretty informative. And it has colorful maps, for the illiterate amongst us. http://electionresources.org/es/index_en.html And you can use this ( http://www.electionworld.org/election/spain.htm ) to speculate on who the PSOE will align with to get 175 seats The PSOE will align with the IU for 169 seats, they could also align with the ERC. The CiU is more conservative-leaning.

Short reply here.. Mike, putting aside the claims that the Spanish people are all cowards for not re-electing conservatives. How about the claims that the Spanish could have arrested the people behind these attacks within the last year?? I'm sure that's not gonna be mentioned when you bring up how the Spanish are all evil for not backing Asnar. Although, lord knows, you'd have a coronary if the Socialists were running Spain and then attacks occured due to their indifference to warnings about terrorists. (I don't have anything specific to back this up, but, I wouldn't be stunned if you were fuming against Clinton in regards to claims about Sudan and bin Laden)

Then again.. unless the Left controls US foreign policy, then it seems that the US (Bremer, Powell, others) made that promise for June 30th. As for giving 40 years of preferences. Eh, no. First, remember the minority in Iraq is the Sunnis. The Shiites, the majority, were the ones out of power for decades. "Monday, in his first remarks to reporters since his victory, Zapatero criticized the American occupation as "a great disaster," and said the Spanish troops would be withdrawn unless they were put under United Nations control by the end of June" - Baltimore Sun Uh huh Mike.. Ooooh.. years. "Under the Nov. 15 agreement, Boucher said, "on June 30 you have an Iraqi interim government and the coalition authority is no longer the authority in Iraq."" -Washington Times, 12/23 "Some of the questions the Bush administration is now considering include the status of the U.S. forces in Iraq after the June 30 transition. One of the possibilities is to reach an agreement with the interim Iraqi government which would fix the status and the duration of stay for U.S. The other option is to wait and see how the situation develops once the interim government is formed and then decide how long would the U.S. forces stay in that country and what would be their status" Like how the US withdrew troops from Saudi Arabia? *smirk* I'd have better luck arguing that with a brick wall. Obviously I missed the memo. (You think that the Terrorists are supporting the transition of power too? ) "Despite the lack of connection between Saddam's regime and 9/11, Administration officials continue to insist there are links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that there is "bullet-proof" evidence of links between the terrorist group and the Iraqi regime. However, the Al Qaeda members who are based in Iraq are in Kurdish Iraq, a region outside of Saddam's control patrolled by the US Air Force, which is in turn controlled by...Donald Rumsfeld. When President Bush made his keynote speech on Iraq in October, the most compelling evidence he gave of Al Qaeda's links to Saddam was the story of "one very senior Al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year." It has been widely reported that the name of this "very senior Al Qaeda leader" is Abu Musab Zarqawi, who, curiously, is so important that he does not appear on the FBI's list of the twenty-two most wanted terrorists. Indeed, key US investigators tell me that Zarqawi is not a significant player in Al Qaeda. (In fairness, European officials believe that Zarqawi has played an important role in Al Qaeda operations in Europe.)" - The Nation, 12/18/02 As for spelling, there's numerous ways to spell Arab names. Don't worry about it. OKAY. I recalled that. (Granted, do you know when we could say we've defeated terrorism?) Any other terrorist groups you care to mention as being ones that will be dealt with? (The IRA? The ETA?) I've heard a bit linking JI and Abu Sayyaf and all those groups to AQ. So, it's not like they're completely autonomous. Do you know when a war on an action is won? And the PP won the trust of Spain after the attacks by claiming it was the ETA and suppressing news of Al-Qaida involvement. But then again.. I guess they're the only choice. Yeah.. god forbid they distrust a party.. just for lying to them and trying to spin an attack to help them politically. Bastards. (Note: I'm pretty sure Socialist social policies won't mix well with AQ's idea of society. None the less) Come on. Cite Please. Here's a few differences. #1 - The Iraqi Army crumbled in a month #2 - Segments of that army weren't stranded in remote areas, left to occasionally attack people Misc note - If It's the Iraqi army who is doing this, that might contradict all the claims that the AQ and foreigners are behind the bombings #3 - The people behind the attacks aren't operating under the mindset that the war is still going on and that their government is in power. Look up the stories of the Stranded Japanese. They thought the war was still going on. One even surrendered after a higher officer came to the island to relieve him of duty. #4 - I'd say the fighting attitudes of the two armies are different. The Japanese would have rather died than surrendered. Most of the Iraqi army crumbled (as noted in #1) But.. we're to believe that somewhere.. they happened. Uh huh. Between the surrender of their emperor, and two atomic bombs, the situation in Japan was probably nowhere near the same as the situation in Iraq. Then again, using your POV, you'd find small attacks and try to compare it to bombings in Baghdad. It's not the same. Yeah, i'm really burnt up about Honduras doing that too. Ya know, cowardly withdrawing their 300+ troops after a year. And only committing for a year too. Punks. Thanks to America, Tegucigalpa is safe from Al-Qaeda. I recall FDR was more of the "Don't switch horses" type, and not the "If I am not re-elected, Hitler will dance" type.

So, you acknowledge that America's promised transition on June 30th won't happen? Since that's the condition for the "eventual pull out" of Spanish troops and all. Cite please.. When we were "bombed", we lost 3,000 people. We also had a target to go after. We toppled the Taliban because they wouldn't hand over Osama bin Laden. When they were bombed, they lost 200 people. And what do you expect them to do? topple the King of Morrocco? First, there's no way they could react on the level of the US. Second, their government botched the reaction to the attacks. I'd say that's a biiiit different Mike. Alot of the soldiers who kept fighting were the ones who either didn't know the war was over, or refused to believe it. And it was over a larger area. Like with the single soldier on some island. Care to cite any big attacks on the US by Japanese holdouts after the Japanese surrender? Oh yeah Mike.. you'll need to add Honduras onto the list of "EVIL NATIONS" source

Cite please?? Please.. bring up SOMETHING mentioning the new government abandoning efforts to punish the people responsible. Come on..

to settle this.. they're monsterous humans. Each person has redeeming qualities, but in the case of mass murderers and terrorists, the bad qualities totally overwhelm anything positive, warping everything in a drastic way. (I also believe in a Messiah who forgives people if they ask for it, no matter how evil they were. *shrug*)

What possessed you to put a pizza box in an oven? actually.. it was on a stove, and there were knobs involved. I was like 4!

Way to win that war on terror. If you won't fight for yourself, why the hell should ANYBODY risk their lives doing it for you? -=Mike so you're in the army then Mike? What? You're not? Mike only wants to abandon Spain and risk losing the gateway to the mediterrainean. He's reasonable.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...sh_sleepovers_3 and for the purpose of a response. Let's put together some of the reactions for when Clinton did this. We'll see if the 'everybody does it' defense is used in this case.

I'm sure the "Terrorists love Kerry" crowd outnumbers the "Bush helps recruitment of terrorists" people. By a large number. And I set a pizza box on fire on an oven. But, you don't see me acting like that's gonna happen anytime soon.

Yep.. it's campaign season. Calling out Bush on his use of big numbers and context is a great idea. One billion seems alot of alot of money, unless you consider what the budget is.

The War on Terror and the War in Iraq are not quite joined together. The War on Terror is noble in it's intent, but lacking on how it can be won. How do you win a war over an action? There's no real end-plan in regards to the WoT. Although, I do think that Bin Laden is an asshole who is using AQ to further his own interests, and using various issues to get support. There are signs to knowing when the war in Iraq has ceased. That moment may have already passed. It might come when the new government is in power. Or when the attacks are squelched. When it comes to the reasons for the War. It was either a massive lie, or a huge failure in regards of intelligence gathering, either due to bias or whatever else. There's some justification if the top reason was 'the liberation of Iraqis'. Although, the question is "If Iraqis deserve liberation, shouldn't we go on to liberate the Burmese, the Iranians, the Chinese". That wouldn't work. Attacking them so they wouldn't become a threat is a shoddy reason to do something. If I beat someone up first since they might think of doing the same to me, I'd need some good solid proof that he was doing that. I haven't checked, but have we dug up anything suggesting Iraq was thinking of attacking our troops or our people? Yeah, the Hussein regime was horrible. It's just even the best reasons for ridding the world of it will involve our own interests. Unless we're gonna go into Myanmar.

I must have missed the news of the new government declaring they wouldn't go after Al-Qaida for what happened. Nothing like a summer of "A vote for Kerry is a vote for bin Laden" Oh Joy. Based on the stuff I heard pre-election and the results, there was a small shift, in the swing voters, that gave the election to the PSOE. The swing was probably influenced by the PP officials blaming the Basques, when the world figured it was al-Qaeda. It was either a rush to judgement, or manipulation. The fact that the PP lost an election after that doesn't speak much for them. Then again, the US will still give aid to Spain, and help them. But, if you listen to the tone of some, the Muslims are flying a crescent moon over Madrid. Anybody care to dig up some of the domestic stuff that the PSOE advocates?

The PP totally fucked up. They claimed and claimed it was the ETA, even after the arrests of Morroccan suspects. I've heard that there was a momentum shift in the perception of blaming the ETA, even after those arrests. Basically, it politicized the dealings. Sorta like if there's a bomb that goes off in London, and the ruling party blames the IRA, but it was AQ. As for the fact that 90% of people didn't support the war. It wasn't quite enough to push the PP out of power, until the time they screwed up in reaction to the attacks. And, there was a surge of younger voters as well. One thing I noticed on a wire report that some of you haven't noticed, apparently. So.. what are you guys getting up in arms about? Spain threatening to eventually pull out if the US can't keep a promise? OMG BASTARDS Damn their hides for considering eventually pulling out in 3 months!

Let's put that in context.. "I am not surprised, but I am extremely insulted, that this piece of crap, this bill, would be put on the same level that our civil rights laws in this country have been put on. Now, I am not surprised. I knew that was coming, because we have had this discussion with my chairman on several occasions on this floor. But I want you to know that the notion that there are basic constitutional rights that the civil rights laws had to enact to enforce was based on rights that were articulated in the Constitution. The right to vote, and it is a shame that we had to have legislation at the Federal level to make it clear that the right to vote applied to all of our citizens in this country, there is no comparison between this bill and that. The right to travel on a bus and sit where you want, it is a shame that we had to have Federal legislation to tell the States that they had to enforce that basic human constitutional right. I am insulted that this piece of legislation, and if I went too far in calling it a piece of crap, I apologize to the Chair. I knew he shuddered when I said that, so maybe that is going too far. But it is an abomination for us to be trying to compare this statute to the civil rights laws." and here's what he was replying to "Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina and I have a little bit different view of the role of federalism in our country. All I can say is I am happy that his view did not prevail during the great debates on civil rights that occurred in this Chamber and down the hall in the Senate Chamber during the sixties, seventies and eighties, because the notion of States' rights would not have been agreed to by the gentleman from North Carolina."

How long did it last on FOX anyways? It was humorous, but not as good as Most Extreme Elimination Challenge

"The Bush campaign claims the "terrorist" in the ad isn't Arab. You decide"

eh, I'm not so sure. I dont like Kerry, but allow me to steal a quote from my independant friend "I'm gonna vote for the lesser of the two dumbfucks... Kerry" I don't know, I watched Kerry pull his "brotha" card at this black church while giving a speech, because he wants to be the second black president you see...we will see who will out dumb fuck the other in the coming months. Bush would have to work hard to top that. You sure it was "brotha" and not "brutha"? maybe Kerry's gonna go for the Hogan vote?

Screenshots plz

they should bring Al Wilson back from the dead