Abject surrender

Simon Robbins wrote :

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!)

The news you've heard were about France I think, not Spain.

"Laurence Doering" wrote in message
...
Probably not. The threat against railroads in France was very
different. In late February a group calling itself AZF claimed to
have planted 10 bombs along rail lines in France, and said it would
begin detonating them one by one if the French government didn't pay
the group about 4 million euros (about $4.9 million.) By March 5 it
was reported that 10,000 workers for the French state railway had
searched 20,000 miles of track and found no bombs. [1]

Yes, you're right. I'd forgotten the details about the ransom.

Si

Cub Driver wrote:


It's certainly true that I fail to understand that anyone would avoid
a war by convincing the enemy that he had every reason to go to war!

I find it very hard to believe that that is the Arab mindset. Surely
you're being contemptuous of the Arabs?

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:26:38 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

In article ,
(Cub Driver) wrote:
Saddam had at least five months to convince people that he had no such
weapons. That he made no such effort (the efforts that he did make
were along the lines of obfuscating the issue, thus helping convince
everyone that the weapons did exist) can only mean that he was
convinced that he had them and couldn't conceal them.


I think so...I suspect that none of his advisors dared to tell
him anything but that his 'war machine' was all spit polished and
shined to a gnats eyeball, that it incorporated all the newest
tricks and was set to follow his highnesses beck and command on
pain of death. I'm sure that they had seen lot's of their
compatriots stop a 9mm for bearing less than glorious news.

That kind of operation tends to encourage 'glad tidings of great
joy'
--

-Gord.

In article ,
(Cub Driver) wrote:


It's certainly true that I fail to understand that anyone would avoid
a war by convincing the enemy that he had every reason to go to war!

I find it very hard to believe that that is the Arab mindset. Surely
you're being contemptuous of the Arabs?
I think you need to consider it more in terms of pride, saving face etc.

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:56:03 -0500, Yeff wrote:

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

No, damn cowards

Al Minyard

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:36:30 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Jarg" wrote in message
. com...
"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
Alistair Gunn wrote:

So Al Qaeda *may* have influenced the result in the Spanish election,

Not "may."

Anyone who insists that the Spanish election wasn't heavily influenced
by the bombings is just fooling themselves.


Sadly, that is true. The Spanish electorate went belly up. You would
think
the repeated lessons of appeasment might have soaked in by now, but
apparently not.

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

Yes.

Al Minyard

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:53:25 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:11:54 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:




Which is ironic given the opinion poll published by the BBC which
shows that more IRAQI's are in favor of the invasion than
opposed it and 70% thought things would be better as a result.

Keith

I doubt anything less than a completely howling anarchy woudl be
worse than Hussein...
But-
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. If we'd found warehouses of chemical weapons, I
think the dynamic would have been far different.
The election appeared to be influenced by several factors:
1. Anger at the government for trying to pin it on ETA, which was,
rightly or wrongly, seen as a purely political move.
2. A feeling that the attack had come because the government, in
defiance of its own electorate, joined up with the U.S. for an
invasion that many still consider illegal.
3. A feeling that the U.S. doesn't value their alliance, which from
the U.S., I have to agree with. We've treated our allies *very*
poorly. The U.S. attacks on "old europe", the UN, and anyone who dared
disagree with us have come back to haunt us. The Neo-con disdain for
alliances was rather misplaced and definately destroyed some (not all)
of the good will existing between the U.S. and its allies.

One very interesting point however, is that this bombing didn't
change very many peoples votes, according to some exit polls, what it
did was get more people out TO vote. That's encouraging in one
respect-- in nations with a solid majority one way or the other, such
a bombing probably won't have the effect of shifting things. That
means even more so then before, the U.S. has GOT to do everything ti
can to get the people, not simply the government, on board.

Amazing the contortions that some people will go to in order to
justify cowardice.

Al Minyard

Cub Driver wrote:
--cut--

That is, not that he *was* able to attack say unleash WMD on Israel in
45 mins, but that he *believed* he was able to do so. Evidently his
own commanders believed that the guy in the next regiment/division had
WMDs. And, after all, Iraq did indeed launch Scuds into Israel and
Saudi in 1991, and into Kuwait last year. That the Kuwait ones had no
chemical or biological elements seems to have come as a surprise to
everyone.


Likely because Saddam had shot the man in charge of missile
warheads last week because he had asked for Friday off.
--

-Gord.

Alan Minyard wrote:

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:56:03 -0500, Yeff wrote:

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

No, damn cowards

Al Minyard

Gave in to the school bully I guess...
--

-Gord.

"The CO" wrote:


"Simon Robbins" wrote in message
...
"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...

There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological
weapon.

Why? How is it any different in that respect from any other weapon
designed
to kill or maim those you're fighting?

Scale. Look up the definition of "Weapon of Mass Destruction"

The CO

So you use the threat of these weapons as a defense...because of
that very 'scale' they're even a better defense, right?
--

-Gord.