Peter_Puget

When I posted the appeasement thread I was thinking of the very narrow question of the Spanish election. It of course drifted to “how should terrorism be dealt with. J_B added a series of logical errors and partisan sloganeering suggesting I was thinking that the GW way was they only way. After tiring of correcting his inane claims I realized I was bored with the thread. The I read this story in the Financial Times. If this story is true, then I think the offer should have been seriously considered.

if it was all that he said, it'd be fine. but here is what he also said: "To cringe to the things that are called evils, to surrender to them our freedom, in defiance of which we ought to face any suffering" and "There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb". quotes that clearly attest to his thinking that there is no alternative to a continuation of the policies we have been pursuing (despite his subsequent denial when i pointed out to him). next he'll tell us that hating us and our way of life is the reason for terror. don't forget he is "bending surface truth" for our own good Egads, busy day and I see that J-B still doesn't have even the barest grasp of logic. Remember earlier he was claiming that I..oh heck I'll just quote the dear: "why do you feel that the spanish people who have expressed themselves massively and continuously against bush's war on terror, should not have the right to choose a governement that will act according to their wishes? this my friend is anti-democratic. " Of course I never suggested that the Spanish should not have the right to elect any goverment they so desired. Now he writes that I said something. Actually I clearly indicated that these were quotes - two out of a total off four. Now he claims that these "quotes that clearly attest to his thinking that there is no alternative to a continuation of the policies we have been pursuing (despite his subsequent denial when i pointed out to him). " This assertion like most of J-B's is BS. (The other quotes express different sentiments) I can imagine many different tactics and strategies. I do believe that the Spanish strategy is BS and is nothing more than the vain hope that appeasement will get the terrorists out of Spain.

I haven't been discussing Iraq as such but the impact of the Spanish election on possible terorist behavior. Get with the program Jim. Sadly Jim as with your first post in this thread your desire to argue is not soupported by a logical argument. See highlights above. Both J_B and Jim seem to use every possible opportunity to attack with unrelated arguments and spew like an automaton the leftist party line. Kinda like one of those talking head shows where the interviewers questions are never answered as every question is seen not as part of a dialogue but rather as an opportunity to sloganeer. PP

you are conveniently ignoring that the terror threat is now greater than it was one year ago as is shown by the increased frequency of bombings and the very fertile ground for recruitment by terror organizations (facts acknowledged by many security analysts). this escalation is the direct result of our invading 2 muslim countries to control oil resources, to put the squeeze on iran and syria, only paying lip service to a fair resolution of the palestine conflict, etc .. all in the name of the war on terror. your suggesting that spain should not have voted the way they did because it would foster more terror is outrageous because it is precisely the continuation of present policies of confrontation (by aznar and his would be successor by proxy for bush) that would lead to more violence in spain, the uk, the us and arab nations. basically your comments amount to a refusal to acknowledge alternatives to the current disastrous policies and to frighten people into supporting perpetual war. you implied they made the wrong choice because it would encourage more terror, which as i explained above is dead wrong. i'll repeat it again, bush's policies of imposing his will upon arabs is the cause of more terror, refusing to stand by bush on the contrary will foster conciliation and conflict resolution. did you not suggest that the spaniards exercising their right to implement the policies they want was detrimental to the war on terror, therefore it was wrong? whereas in fact it is exactly the opposite? which exactly points to your unability (or unwillingness) to comprehend/acknowledge the implications of your words. why do you feel this way? because the euros are not supporting predatorial policies toward arab nations under the disguise of the war on terror? Ah more nonsense from the keyboard of J-B. I would only make the following comments. 1 Your "measurement " of terrorist threat is beyond embaressing and is hardly worth a reply. I would note that according to you measurement system we were safer on the mornign of September 11. 2 Many responsible people who were against the war see the potential for disaster coming from the Spanish elections See the following for an argument supportign this assertion: Edward Luttwak , Fareed Zakaria PP

i strictly call you upon your outrageous comments. you think we should not budge from our policies and force arabs to buckle; fine, you can feel that way but perhaps you should commit to those feelings and act upon them instead of letting others be on the frontline. you want the riches conveyed by military might? go get them my dear. What exactly does call upon you outrageous statements mean? Your are simply talking nonsense. I never said anything about budging from our policies I did suggest that the Spanish vote would be viewed as appeasement and that viewpoint will lead to more terrorist acts – ie more deaths. i'll wait for an explanation because your next sentence does not follow? why do you feel that the spanish people who have expressed themselves massively and continuously against bush's war on terror, should not have the right to choose a governement that will act according to their wishes? I cannot find where I said they do not have a right to choose their own government – I do think that their choices do have consequences. this my friend is anti-democratic. if the spaniards want to take themselves off the frontline where they were placed by a governemnt that did not listen to popular demands, more power to them. let those that benefit from controlling oil resources and finance israel land grabbing be their own agents. if the warmongers had to conduct their own war, they'd find compromising alternatives in a heartbeat. Of course since your contention that I am anti-democratic is pure phantasy and is not supported by anything I have written, the paragraph quoted above is nothing than the rant of a person who does not have any regard for basic honesty. If you make up facts in a simple thread how can anything you ever say be taken seriously? I stand by my prediction for Western Europe.

Klenke - I can remember hiking a section of the Muir Trail with a Youth group. One of the kids was from Israel. He was sent here (the US) in order to escape from the stress of life in Israel.

Wow J-B still at the personal attacks. Something that often comes from your keyboard. In a greater sense your comments are anti-democratic. More specifically they are a dodge of my point which is that the mere appearance of political outcomes being dramtically impacted by terrorist activity will tend to encourage terorists. Such is human nature.

Before Thursday, the Popular Party had been favored to win by a comfortable margin. PP

Gotta say I am saddened yet not surprised by the election in Spain. These quotes seem of interest. Shall I tell you what the real evil is? To cringe to the things that are called evils, to surrender to them our freedom, in defiance of which we ought to face any suffering. -- Seneca, Letters to Lucilius Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in one of his famous "fireside chats" to the American people over the radio in 1940 said, "There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb." "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists," Prodi said. "Terrorism is infinitely more powerful than a year ago," and all of Europe now feels threatened, he told the paper. The victims of the commuter train bombings in Madrid and the Spaniards who came out of the streets last night surely deserve more than party political responses. Europe too needs to mould a different response to its September 11. Spain has a history which places it at the crossroads of the European and Arab worlds. It understands both traditions. It is a country where once Jew, Muslim and Christian lived together. An international conference, to bridge the divide between Muslim and Christian communities [edit: what happened to the Jews?] , should be one first step. But there are many others. We need to take the fight against terror out of America's hands. We need to get beyond the them and us, the good guys and the bad guys, and seek a genuinely collective response. Europe should seize the moment that America failed to grasp. My prediction: In 50 years Western Europe will be far far less important than it is today and have a much lower standard of living. PP

I have a much more personal definition of “sport” climbing specifically: I am sport climbing when I either start hanging or believe that I can hangdog my way up something. Take a bolted route at Vantage as an example of a modern bolted route and take “Tips” as an example of an easily protected non bolted route. If I apply my definition they can both be “sport” climbs. On the flip side take “Swiss Orange Chip” as an example of a fully bolted route that I would never conceive of as a sport route. “Stage Fright” would be an example of a non-sport crack route. Sport climbing is a state of mind.

I think Vertical World also offers the same service.

Guess what Minx! I noticed by checking balance appeared a bit low today so I went online a few minutes ago to see what was going on and approx $2,500 in checks and EFTs went out the doors that were not signed by me. Now I gotta close my account and deal with a freakin' mess. PP

Bad and by the way creating future obligations such as this program is almost identical to raising taxes.

CHuck - the anti-war chicks are dressed as sexy suicide bombers! And as far as fighting terrorism that is very arguable but hardly the point here.

HOT DOG! Glad you're finally on the right side ChucK! Much better links than NPR or the NYT. PP

A sad and ironic photo of anti-war demonstrators last year in Madrid.....

Will - I don't get your point. Customers were offered a choice and most chose to go with the offshore option. I should say that the point of my post was to ask a question regarding whether this expansion of consumer choice be banned or restricted. What's your take on this?

Should this expansion of consumer choice be banned or restricted? Note that 86% picked the outsourced option! Link

The ABC article says, however, that the explosive is not Titadine but some other kind of Spanish manufacture, and the detonators are copper, rather than the aluminum that ETA generally uses. Link

You could make a fortune renting these to climbers packing haul bags to the base of ElCap!

link

Check this out... bleex link Seattle Times story

Office Gossip!

If any posters know JY and MF why don't you encourage them to post some tidbits here on cc.com! PP