So much for appeasing the terrorists

[Democrat4Bush]

Spanish authorities said Tuesday they disrupted a plot by a cell of Islamic radicals to blow up a Madrid court complex that serves as the home for the country's top anti-terrorism investigators and judges.

I could have sworn the terrorists said no more attacks againist coalition members that withdrew from Iraq?

Stupid socialists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45442-2004Oct19.html

 

[dmp]

Stupid socialists.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I could have sworn the terrorists said no more attacks againist coalition members that withdrew from Iraq?

Stupid socialists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45442-2004Oct19.html

Spain did not withdraw to appease the terrorists. Their former president went against the will of the people and went in. They exercised the art of something called democracy and got rid of him.

 

[Merlin1047]

Spain did not withdraw to appease the terrorists. Their former president went against the will of the people and went in. They exercised the art of something called democracy and got rid of him.

Baloney. If your statement is true, then explain why the former president had a solid lead in the election until the bombings?

Just a coincidence, huh?

 

[onedomino]

Spain did not withdraw to appease the terrorists. Their former president went against the will of the people and went in. They exercised the art of something called democracy and got rid of him.

The above statement could not be more inaccurate. Note that it is unsubstantiated.

Prior to the 11 March bombing in Madrid, Anzar was five points ahead in the polls. The bombing frightened the Spanish public into voting Anzar out of office three days later on 14 March. Then Zapatero, the newly elected socialist Spanish PM, set a new record for capitualtion by announcing on 16 March the Spanish troop withdrawal from Iraq. Terror, not democracy, was on display in the Spanish elections.

http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20040316.americawar.radu.terrorworks.html

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Baloney. If your statement is true, then explain why the former president had a solid lead in the election until the bombings?

Just a coincidence, huh?

Solid lead? The post after yours says 5%. On the edge of the margin of error.

Take your people into a war they don't want and then get bombed because of it and they are rightly a bit pissed off.

 

[onedomino]

Solid lead? The post after yours says 5%. On the edge of the margin of error.

Take your people into a war they don't want and then get bombed because of it and they are rightly a bit pissed off.

You are an expert in the margin of error in Spanish polls? Post your source. From before the bombing to the election day result (less than one week), the Spanish electorate moved 12 percent toward the Socialists. That is democracy in action? Obviously not; it is terror in action.

http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20040316.americawar.radu.terrorworks.html

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Prior to the 11 March bombing in Madrid, Anzar was five points ahead in the polls.

Just quoting you. You said it...one usually does not need proof to convince another of something s/he said.

 

[onedomino]

Just quoting you. You said it...one usually does not need proof to convince another of something s/he said.

You said Anzar's lead was:

On the edge of the margin of error.

Post your source.

It is obvious that the 12 point swing (from Anzar being ahead by five points to losing by seven points) in less than a week to the Socialists was a result of the bombiing and Zapatero's promised appeasement of the terrorists.

 

[NATO AIR]

i want to believe the conventional wisdom and say they reacted to the terrorist attacks and iraq... but i really think many reacted to the dishonesty and stupidity of aznar in stubbornly and wrongly insisting the ETA was responsible....

 

[onedomino]

i want to believe the conventional wisdom and say they reacted to the terrorist attacks and iraq... but i really think many reacted to the dishonesty and stupidity of aznar in stubbornly and wrongly insisting the ETA was responsible....

NATO, there was only three days between the bombing and the election. Islamic murderers had never previously attacked Spain, yet the ETA had committed many terrorist attacks. Why was it unreasonable for the Spanish government to think it was the ETA? Remember, only 72 hours elasped between the bombing an the election. If there was a longer period where the Spanish authorities insisted it was the ETA, then I might agree that the Spanish government was being "dishonest" when it said that it suspected the ETA in the bombings. The facts do not support your contention that the Anzar government was dishonest.

 

[NATO AIR]

NATO, there was only three days between the bombing and the election. Islamic murderers had never previously attacked Spain, yet the ETA had committed many terrorist attacks. Why was it unreasonable for the Spanish government to think it was the ETA? Remember, only 72 hours elasped between the bombing an the election. If there was a longer period where the Spanish authorities insisted it was the ETA, then I might agree that the Spanish government was being "dishonest" when it said that it suspected the ETA in the bombings. The facts do not support your contention that the Anzar government was dishonest.

from my recollection after 36 hours serious doubts were raised about the ETA commiting such an attack... that's 36 hours for the spanish electorate to see aznar screwing up by the numbers

 

[onedomino]

from my recollection after 36 hours serious doubts were raised about the ETA commiting such an attack... that's 36 hours for the spanish electorate to see aznar screwing up by the numbers

Not correct. As early as the evening of 11 September:

"The Spanish government initially blamed the Basque separatist group ETA, which came three days before Spain's general elections, but then seemed to back away after police found detonators and an Arabic-language audio tape of Quranic verses in a van near where the bombed trains originated."

While Spanish authorities still thought it was more likely that ETA was involved, no one was being "dishonest," to quote your earlier post. As late as 29 February, eleven days before the bombing, Spanish authorities had arrested two ETA terrorists in connection with 500kg of explosives. The Socialists wanted the Spanish electorate to think that the government was hiding something. No such thing occurred and all facts were in the open.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/12/world/main605547.shtml

 

[NATO AIR]

i stand corrected then.