Appeasement

[j_b]

come on PP, i suspect if i were klenke i'd say: "don't insult our intelligence". you used the word appeasement to describe the spanish vote as the title of this thread, and we will know how loaded this term is in the context of opposing terror (i.e. refusal to acknowledge our role in promoting huge inequalities/unfair policies combined with a military response to terror which encompasses all those who oppose us militarily). you wrote 2 quotes to the effect of: "don't give in one inch, smash their faces in". and finally you had 2 quotes by prodi (euro official) discussing how a 3rd way was possible (not terror, not the us answer). upon which you concluded that europe would lose its 1st world status in the near future. all of this combined with reading your other posts over the years (we know where you stand on these issues), and we should conclude that today you are totally innocent of insinuating there is no alternative to continuing current foreign policy. exactly, who do you think you are fooling? well, at least not me.

[JayB]

If percieved inequalities were the prime motivators behind political terror, we'd see quite a few more bombers targeting Westerners coming out of the Sub-Saharan Africa, India, Brazil, and other pockets of extreme poverty. Instead, the perpetrators of most large scale slaughters of Western civilians have come from relatively affluent societies, and were themselves posessed of advanced degrees. The notion that they were desperate people who were driven to violence by want, privation, and despair is entirely inconsistent with the truth.

 

Moreover, if eradicating poverty and hopelessness were their primary goals, they would be conducting themselves in a decidedly different manner - as last time I checked there was relatively little money to be had in suicide bombings, and no examples of any nation achieving long-term prosperity by periodically slaughtering civilians in other countries with backpacks full of explosives. Prosperity results from increasing the quantity of goods and services that each person in a given society is capable of producing and purchasing, and it is quite clear at this stage in history that the best way to bring about such a condition is by securing the personal freedoms of the average citizen, which is in turn favored by a democratically accountable, transparent political system. No one is stupid enough to believe that slaughtering shoppers at a mall or teenagers at a disco is the best way to bring about such changes, except perhaps the terrorists and their apologists in the West.

 

If they really wanted to redress economic inequalities and eliminate unfair policies in their own countries, they would have a much better chance of doing so by initiating mass movements in their own countries which harnessed the demands and ambitions of their fellow countrymen, most of whom are more concerned with rather prosaic mattters like securing a better life for their children and who have no interest in participating in political violence themselves. There are in fact examples like Korea and Spain, where the populations eventually succeeded in building a democratic state from a political system with authoritarian foundations.

 

The fact of the matter is that the folks detonating these bombs are not furthering the development of a society that most of their fellow citizens wish to participate in, and they know it. In fact, many of their aims are far too wildly irrational and destructive to warrant serious consideration by anyone but the most delusional zealots. Isolating the entire Middle East from the rest of the world and imposing a retrograde Islamism on the population is not a popular goal, nor is converting the rest of the world to Islam by force a strategic objective worthy of serious contemplation. Terror, then, is what these people revert to when they cannot bridge the void between their ambitions and what the people they claim to represent actually want. Yet that never seems to stop people like you from legitimizing their slaughters by claiming that they are appropriate manifestations of the popular will.

 

 

[Peter_Puget]

J-B - I didn't properly identify the last quote. It was actually from the Guardian.

 

 

Jayb -

You forgot Germany, Chile, Slovenia just to name a few.

 

Despite the best efforts of the Islamic terrorists, or window breaking teenagers at Starbucks the worldwide capitalist revolution will continue and leave considerably more free and democratic institutions in its wake. Those who behave like western Europe will be left treading water wondering how they fell out of the boat.

[catbirdseat]

JayB, well said. I'm glad someone can think clearly and express himself clearly as well.

[Jim]

If percieved inequalities were the prime motivators behind political terror, we'd see quite a few more bombers targeting Westerners coming out of the Sub-Saharan Africa, India, Brazil, and other pockets of extreme poverty. Instead, the perpetrators of most large scale slaughters of Western Civilians have come from relatively affluent societies, and were themselves posessed of advanced degrees.

 

I agree with your main point- that terrorism is a crude stick often used by folks with no clear agenda and often out of sync with the general public. But to ignore the roots of terrorism is done at our peril.

 

Yes many of the terrorists are from middle class families so what does this say about their motivations? Likely it has to do with power and wealth in their countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others, where there is no hint of democracy and a growing friction beween the Muslim fundamental movement and the western oriented rulers. They see no room for their voice in their society and the western countries assisting proping up these regimes. And you can't ignore our continued funding or Israel's opressive tactics.

 

This is not to excuse terrorism of any sort - it's a destructive force of no good. And why is Muslim fundamentalism growing? I don't know. Seems like the only thing they seem to be able to grab on to with any vigor is hate.

[j_b]

If percieved inequalities were the prime motivators behind political terror, we'd see quite a few more bombers targeting Westerners coming out of the Sub-Saharan Africa, India, Brazil, and other pockets of extreme poverty. Instead, the perpetrators of most large scale slaughters of Western Civilians have come from relatively affluent societies, and were themselves posessed of advanced degrees.

 

1)you are reducing my argument to extreme poverty. If you read all of my posts in this thread you’ll see that this is not what i said.

 

2)all regions have different history, culture and natural assets and thus will react differently to what are arguably different policies. Latin America for example has been a hot bed of violent opposition to 1st world policies for a long time. For example westerners are often the target of kidnappings that occasionally turn deadly and this despite the fact that the dominant culture is our own (religion, political institutions, etc ..). I am not going to write a treatise about why your argument is flawed but it is false to assume that different situations sharing a common trait (let’s say subservience to us interest) will react to it in the same fashion. It seems obvious enough to me and is fairly simple logic.

 

Moreover, if eradicating poverty and hopelessness were their primary goals, they would be conducting themselves in a decidedly different manner - as last time I checked there was relatively little money to be had in suicide bombings, and no examples of any nation achieving long-term prosperity by periodically slaughtering civilians in other countries with backpacks full of explosives.

 

I never said that eradicating poverty was their goal. Also i never said that their goal was to eradicate hopelessness either. What I said, however, is that terror is the result of hopelessness in bringing about change by other means. I assume you can appreciate the difference without my going further into it. The rest of your argument about whether there is money to be made by adopting terror is simply ludicrous (to put it mildly).

 

[snip the rest of free-marketeer neo-liberal rant]

 

let me nevertheless note that your simplifications are simply astounding (not that I am really surprised considering your posting history). addressing comparisons between korea/spain and feudal societies that have transitioned to despostism via colonialism, to ascribing arab terrorism to expansionism by islamists, to the lame accusation of being an apologist for terrorism is just too much for me to cover in one post. But basically it does amount to the usual, arab populations don’t have legitimate gripes, let’s make sure gas remain at ~$2/gal no matter what the cost in human life, you are either with us or against us, etc … no surprise here.

[klenke]

Jeez, j_b where do you get this stuff? Since you don't use proper punctuation or capitalization, I wonder if you even slow down long enough to consider what you've just typed. Do you even preview your posts?

 

Oh, and can you please answer my question:

How are South Africa's former apartheid program and Israel's security fence no different from one another? I would really like to know why you made your initial comment to this effect ("there is no difference"). I'd like to understand your reasoning for equating the security fence with apartheid.

[j_b]

Jeez, j_b where do you get this stuff? Since you don't use proper punctuation or capitalization, I wonder if you even slow down long enough to consider what you've just typed. Do you even preview your posts?

 

did you forget to write down your argument or is it all you had to say?

 

Oh, and can you please answer my question:

How are South Africa's former apartheid program and Israel's security fence no different from one another? I would really like to know why you made your initial comment to this effect ("there is no difference"). I'd like to understand your reasoning for equating the security fence with apartheid.

 

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/VictimGroups/Palestinans/palestinans02.htm

 

http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/forum_eng.html#shohat

 

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/return.html

[klenke]

The first comment was an observational point not constructed as an argument. Plus, I am/was still trying to get you to use better grammar.

 

As for you answering my security fence question, you still have not done so. Not only that but you couldn't even put it in your own words, which is what I really want.

 

I read the first article. Dr. Davis makes very good points and I find myself in agreement with what he says. I don't like the Jewish conceit anymore than he does. However, there is no mention whatsoever of the security fence. I began reading the second article and got about four paragraphs into it. Not seeing reference to the fence, I decided to do use the search function to look for "fence" and "barrier" and other variants. No dice: the second article also does not refer to the fence. Lastly, because I suspected as much, a search on the third article also did not refer at all to the fence. In conclusion, then, you have not answered my question, which refers to the security fence, not the Jewish State as as whole.

 

Please answer my question: how is there "no difference" between the security fence and South Africa's former apartheid program?

[j_b]

The first comment was an observational point not constructed as an argument. Plus, I am/was still trying to get you to use better grammar.

 

to me it looked like you were taking a cheap shot without actually discussing what i said. i suspect we are all entitled to different realities.

 

As for you answering my security fence question, you still have not done so. Not only that but you couldn't even put it in your own words, which is what I really want.

 

I read the first article. Dr. Davis makes very good points and I find myself in agreement with what he says. I don't like the Jewish conceit anymore than he does. However, there is no mention whatsoever of the security fence. I began reading the second article and got about four paragraphs into it. Not seeing reference to the fence, I decided to do use the search function to look for "fence" and "barrier" and other variants. No dice: the second article also does not refer to the fence. Lastly, because I suspected as much, a search on the third article also did not refer at all to the fence. In conclusion, then, you have not answered my question, which refers to the security fence, not the Jewish State as as whole.

 

all the linked articles contain undisputed evidence that israel is an apartheid state. the "security" fence is just the cherry on the cake; now, in addition to institutionalized discrimination against non-jewish citizens, they have a physical barrier to prevent arabs from accessing their lands as well as an advantageous boundary that might delineate future palestinian/israeli states. also watch your language, i am not sure what you call the "jewish conceit" but avnery only discusses how political zionism lead to apartheid. there is a big difference.

 

Please answer my question: how is there "no difference" between the security fence and South Africa's former apartheid program?

 

now you are playing with semantics. i did not say that the fence was apartheid. here is the actual exchange that started this:

 

klenke said: for instance, I am for the security fence.[within the context of discussing israel and the palestinians]

 

j_b replied: were you in favor of south african apartheid? there is no difference

 

in which it is fairly obvious that i equated sa apartheid and israel's, and not the fence with apartheid (although it is an element of it). so i am not really sure what you are getting at ...

[Peter_Puget]

Suppose that the US had bombed Madrid last week in order to compel the Spanish to vote in accordance with US wishes. Had the Spanish then voted in accordance to US wishes (a result contrary what polls indicated would be the result of the elections had the US intervention not occurred), wouldn’t we all consider Spanish sovereignty to be lost? How is this any different? In a real sense the Spanish have elected to abandon their sovereignty.

 

This very act – an act by a free people – can only serve to encourage future acts of terrorism before elections in other countries. The only real solution at least in the short term would be for political parties to advocate policies that are not offensive to the terrorists. Is it inconceivable that politicians advocating offensive policies will come under attack for endangering innocent lives? I guess time will tell. How ironic it will be if the Europeans turned out to be freer living under literally under the shadow of Soviet tanks than they are as democracies not threatened other nation states.

 

PP

[To_The_Top]

Where's Mtngoat to politically offset j_b's posts of cut paste and quote marathons?

[murraysovereign]

Hey, Peter, good luck trying to get the thread back on topic. It looks like klenke and j_b have got all tangled up in barbed wire, so it could take a while for them to extricate themselves. You might as well go for a walk or something until they get themselves sorted out. Me, I'm off to do the banking, then maybe coffee and a newspaper somewhere dry.

[willstrickland]

JayB

 

Peter, it seems as if the Spanish were in a conundrum: They were clearly not behind the foreign policy of their govt and if it did not represent them, then by any measure of democracy it should be replaced. However, replacing that leadership becomes an appeasement, and keeping them becomes a surrender of the people's democratic voice. The policy that was adopted is not easily abandoned. The ideal scenario is they are replaced with a govt that will respect the people's wishes, but will see the current policy through. Either way the terrorists win and it was an extremely savy move.

 

I suspect we'll see a similar scenario (with plenty more bombings and attacks in Iraq) played out here at home in November. BushCo is likely going to get tossed, but I hope that Kerry is not dense enough to attempt a complete and sudden abandonment of our presence in Iraq. There is no feasible exit strategy in the foreseable future. I regret that, but accept it.

[klenke]

Response to j_b:

I didn't discuss what you said because what you said was directed to JayB. This left him the chance to respond to you. I don't feel it appropriate to insert my views between yours and his especially since he was so clear in his writing.

 

The three articles give evidence, but undisputed evidence is dependent on those viewing said evidence. What I'm trying to say is that most evidence--but especially evidence of the political kind--is disputable.

 

One thing I know I don't like about the fence is that it was built over Palestinian land (and some Jewish land too). But you've got to build a fence somewhere. Any construction project can have obstructions. So perhaps that is what you mean by access to their lands--the lands that have been usurped for the construction of the fence.

 

The fence has gates. Those with proper identification are still allowed to pass through to go to their jobs. True, the waiting is slow for Palestinians to get across. That I don't like. But it is not strict separation of the two peoples.

 

By "Jewish conceit" I was referring to the policies of the Jewish State, not Jews worldwide. Such an inference I'm sure you would have understood or did you just say what you said to attempt to discredit me? Note that Dr. Davis in the 1st article refers to the Jewish State more than he does the Zionist State or Israel.

 

In response to your last bit, sorry but I'm going to have to call bullshit. Another case of seeing only what you want to see and disregarding the rest. I have pasted below what I actually said (verbatim):

 

"Note that I am not a supporter of Israel and their aggressive expansionist ideologies, but I tend to give them more of the benefit of the doubt in terms of their methodologies for combating the killing of their innocents (for instance, I am for the security fence)."

 

To this whole sentence, you only parsed out the parenthetical part then simplistically responded:

"Were you in favor of South African apartheid? There is no difference." In your last post, you reapplied my context to be "[within the context of discussing Israel and the Palestinians]"

 

What you have done here is taken my specific reference to Israel's methodologies for combating the killing of their innocents and applied it to the Israeli-Palestinian struggle as a whole. That is, you took a specific facet of the struggle and generalized it to the whole struggle.

 

Yes, the Jewish State practices some form of apartheid. But that is NOT why I'm for the fence.

 

Here is why I am for the fence (I am NOT for apartheid):

The killing of innocents on buses, in restaurants, and shops has been going on and on. The Israeli government had to do something in the short term to stem this slaughter. They could not assume the bombings would abate. Maybe they did assume a couple of times but ultimately found they were wrong. They can then ask, if I build this fence will it exacerbate the struggle? Yes, probably. But, will it also curtail the bombings to some degree? Yes, probably. Therefore, build the fence (as a band-aid as Toast so astutely pointed out) to seal up the porous barrier between the origin of the bombs and bombers and the places where the bombs are detonated.

 

There are basically two general methodologies in warfare: offensive measures and defensive measures. Offensive measures are battles. Defensive measures are guards, fences, walls, etc.

 

You therefore must look at the fence for both practical and ideologic reasons. While ideologically (the direction you're coming from) the fence looks bad and damages diplomacy, it also saves lives by making it harder for the bombs and bombers to get to their victims. If it could be proven that the fence doesn't save lives at all, then I would be the first to scream out for it's removal. However, I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt [same phrase I used before].

 

You will note that fences are nothing new. The coilition compound in Baghdad has a wall and fence around it in order to keep bombers away. It is folly to not institute defensive measures simply because someone might oppose them for ideological reasons.

 

The security fence being built in Israel is in many ways similar to the tangible measures being taken in the U.S. at border crossings, airports, and ship terminals. Within these three areas, we have erected "fences" (not necessarily real fences but the suggestion of fences--i.e., screening machines, etc.) with the intent of keeping the terrorists on the other side. Once someone has been deemed safe, they are free to enter.

 

In Israel's situation, the major conduit for these bombers is simply by walking or driving into the bombing areas. If you build a fence, you can force those that would bomb into screening bottlenecks and thus maybe deter them.

 

Let's pose this scenario:

If you have a neighbor who has a dog that always comes into your yard to take his shits, what can you do? You can shoot the dog (looks bad and maybe is against the law). Or you can talk to the neighbor. But what if the neighbor (Arafat) keeps saying he'll do something but actually does nothing? What can you do then? You can try and befriend the dog. That might help. But what if the dog never comes to greet you but instead waits while you're not looking to do his dirty business (terrorist bombings)? If you can't open a dialogue with the dog because it always hides from you (terrorists), you have another option: you can put up a fence between your lawn and your neighbor's lawn. No more problem with the dog shitting on your lawn. Now, the erection of the fence does not necessarily imply you hate the dog, only that you want it to stop shitting on your lawn.

 

Conclusion, the Israeli fence is MORE than simply a tool for apartheid, it is also a means to stop the carnage. The former ideological evil may be seen as necessary for the latter practical good. Ergo, there is a difference between South Africa's apartheid program (and, by extension, Israel's apparent apartheid) and the security fence.

 

Yes, I'm sure you still don't understand me.

[chucK]

"Allowing a terrorist attack to influence a democratic election is awful. However, it is hard to begrudge foreign electorates the right to toss out governments that have sacrificed their nations's interests to win favor in Washington."

 

from an op-ed piece by some Cato institute guy

[Thinker]

this post is not addressed to anyone particular...but have you SEEN a map of the barrier route? The route planning was obviously done by politicians and not engineers.

 

http://www.seamzone.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/map_eng.htm

[Peter_Puget]

Chuck –

 

I think those arguing about the “rightness” or “wrongness” of Aznar’s policies or event the “rightness” or “wrongness” of the Bush administration miss the big issue with the Spanish election. The issue is did a terrorist act materially change or have the appearance of changing the outcome of an election.

 

Whether the voters agreed with Aznar or not they were, in polls at least, supporting his party’s reelection. True, it is possible that the polls were in error and Aznar’s party would have not been winners absent the terrorist acts but that is where exit polls come in - something notably absent from your link. Why? Because they would not have supported the author’s viewpoint.

 

I think it is clear that the acts of terror at least had the appearance of materially impacting the outcome of the election. The long-term effect of these events is yet to be seen. To the extent that the acts did impact the election results I imagine political discourse will be reduced and sovereignty relinquished. To the extent at which there is only the appearance of influence, we can at best expect an increase in terrorist acts.

 

PP

[chucK]

Forgive me Peter. I totally agree that the bombings probably had an effect on the elections. How could they not? I also totally agree with you that the Spanish election is going to be bad news in terms of exacerbating terrorism. It is a huge victory for Al-Queida, and those are not the only terrorists who are going to be emboldened by this.

 

I also think that an American blaming the Spanish people for fomenting terrorism oughta look in the mirror too.

 

 

Here is another awesome link.

 

Almost by definition, the war on terrorism is a joint venture, in which intelligence sharing, police cooperation, and quick responses are the critical factors, not who owns the most aircraft carriers. If the Europeans conclude the Bush administration isn't serious about fighting that kind of war, but would rather tilt at Middle Eastern windmills (or oil wells, as the case may be) they could decide their own national interests would be best served by moving to the sidelines, and letting the Americans and Al Qaeda have at it. And why not? When has the Bush administration ever shown any willingness to sacrifice any of its interests -- even the partisan political ones -- to maintain a united front?

[klenke]

Thinker: I had heard the fence has a tortuous route to it (if that's the non-engineered point you were alluding to). It does look quite odd and certainly wouldn't have been constructed that way if it was completely up to the engineers and the terrain. However, the tapeworm look is probably due more to capturing Israeli settlements (and, conversely, not un-capturing Palestinian settlements, if you know what I mean) than anything else. So, it's maybe 1/6th engineering, 3/6th geography, and 2/6th politically routed.

 

True, the fence sucks and I wish it wasn't necessary but it is a way to (possibly) keep the innocents from being killed.

 

You will note that we have a fence right here in America too on the border with Mexico. Are we practicing apartheid in the U.S. too, then? If there was no fence and border patrol, what kind of influx of illegal immigrants would we get from Mexico? Would it be a bad thing? It's never cut and dry, is it?

 

There's always practicality and ideology. Very often, they're at odds.

 

Okay, enough of the Israeli fence bruhaha. I tire of the subject. j_b: don't bother posing any more questions to me concerning the fence because I won't be responding to them. This tangential topic has persisted long enough.

[j_b]

PP: you are misrepresenting what happened. sure, the bombing had an effect on the elections but the effect was not to change the opinion of the spanish people about us policy in the middle east. as before, the spanish are resolutely against terror as well as against the policy of escalation practiced by the us.

 

now let's continue assuming the polls were right and the bombing forced the spanish to reassess their priorities, which is that opposing both terror and neo-imperial policies became more important than rewarding a political party for a good job on handling the economy. do you seriously believe that it is the first time that a terror bomb had a people behave in a way that they would not normally choose to. ahem! just consider what happened to us since 911 in term of losing personal liberties, invading 2 countries, becoming verbal and physical targets around the globe, spending many billions of dollars and sacrificing the health and lives af many individuals, etc ... do you really think al qaeda wanted it any differently? i am not saying all of these things were the logical outcome of 911, but our leaders for sure claim it is so.

 

so here is my question to you: why do you think the spanish election will cause more terror while you seem to think that isolating ourselves politically and creating resentment all over the arab world is not the reward that al qaeda was seeking, therefore encouraging more 911-like actions on their part?

 

klenke:

j_b: don't bother posing any more questions to me concerning the fence because I won't be responding to them. This tangential topic has persisted long enough.

 

you are just too funny. first you pester me endlessly to explain myself "in my own words" about my apartheid comment, then you say that i should stop asking you questions about it as if i were the one who instigated this tangent in the first place. whatever dude, i hope you had fun.

[JayB]

For Klenke:

 

FWIW, I have it on good authority that a renegade band of capitalists in my evil homonym's ancestral homeland achieved a monopoly on capital letters through a combination of cunning, bribery, and underhanded tactics and henceforth artificially restricted the supply available to their less fortunate compatriots. In the years that followed only the wealthy amongst his countrymen were able to afford upper case letters, and would often compose letters to one another written entirely in capitals, which they subsequently took to laminating and displaying publically in a decadent display of weath which would have left even Thorstein Veblen reeling in an uncomprehending stupor.

 

At the same time that the Capital Cartel was engaged in rigging the market to their own advantage, my Evil Homonym quitely amassed a great deal of wealth after attaining ironclad intellectual property rights to the vast majority of the world's discredited ideologies and selling or leasing them to the great swarming hordes of pampered activists native to college campuses there, all of whom had become physically addicted to the rush brought on by participating in utterly gratuitous and innefectual protest movements. Most, if not all of the ideas and ideologies he secured the rights to were going for a song, having long since been abandoned if not actively cursed by the all of the populations that had spawned them, but he was the first to recognize the effects that both nostalgia and the impossibility of ever having to confront their effects in person would have on his target demographics' perception of their value, and made a killing.

 

However, in a touching show of solidarity with the less fortunate members of his society, he has nobly abstained from the use of upper case letters in his own writing despite having the wealth necessary to sprinkle them liberally througout every sentence he might ever need to write. His sacrifice has in turn inspired legions of his fellow countrymen, most of whom happen to post on the internet, by his example. So Klenke, goad not this man for his breathtaking parsimony with respect to this precious lexical commodity, but stand in quiet reverence as you gaze upon the evidence of his principled frugality.

 

So there you have it - j_b's antipathy towards both capitalism and the use of upper case letters explained. The mystery is over.

 

Three cheers and a raised glass to my Evil Homonym.

[klenke]

No, actually j_b, you finally adequately answered my question (though not thoughtfully and not without errors in reference to what I really said). I also answered your question (paraphrased: "am I also for SA apartheid if I'm for the fence") in my last, long response. Plus murraysovereign correctly pointed out that the fence issue was not germane to the subject of this thread. All those things added up to my declaration that the fence issue had run it's course (that I wished to put a kibosh on it). That was the logic behind my comment. I'm sure we could debate it for another 40 posts but I'd like to think you and I have got better things to do, like debate other equally contentious subjects.

 

And, for Pete's sake (and mine), use some proper punctuation!

[sexual_chocolate]

If they really wanted to redress economic inequalities and eliminate unfair policies in their own countries, they would have a much better chance of doing so by initiating mass movements in their own countries which harnessed the demands and ambitions of their fellow countrymen

 

 

I don't quite understand your position above; most such attempts have been met with the most brutal oppression, be it in Saudi Arabia (our "ally"), or in Iraq (also our "ally", once upon a time).

 

My point is that "popular movements" within such rigid police-states are incredibly difficult; that's part of the reason why bin Laden is looked upon favorably by 66% of pakistanis, and enjoys widespread popularity in many other (most?) "Islamic" countries.

[sexual_chocolate]

Forgive me Peter. I totally agree that the bombings probably had an effect on the elections. How could they not? I also totally agree with you that the Spanish election is going to be bad news in terms of exacerbating terrorism. It is a huge victory for Al-Queida, and those are not the only terrorists who are going to be emboldened by this.

 

[/i]

 

 

I find it troubling that the focus has now, for some people, shifted to the "negative" effects Spain's elections will have on the "terror" problem, even going so far as to hold Spain's Zapatero supporters responsible for what is perceived to be coming (I believe this would be the logical entailment of Peter Puget's position).

 

This seems to be in line with the mindset displayed by George Bush, which is to place blame on others whilst never taking a look at what one's own actions are fomenting.

 

(Remember, we actually have a leader in place who has publicly (and proudly!) acknowledged his lack of interest in self-scrutiny!)