Abject surrender

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
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...

Pretty good analogy. Can't help but imagine what the effect of such an
attack would have been over here on this side of the big water; history
seems to point to it having likely resulted in an increase in support of
efforts aimed at draining the swamp that has given life to the butchers and
even if you don't credit Iraq with any links to terrorism (which would
require one to be somewhat myopic given their hosting of folks like Abu
Nidal and Abbas) we'd have been more determined not to cave in to their
demands, but Spain rolled over so fast it is not even funny. Their respect
rank just went down a few notches in my view.

Brooks

--

-Gord.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:16:04 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

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

Perhaps a defensive chemcial weapon is one you use on your own people.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 04:21:14 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

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...

Yes, but in my experience the bully goes on bullying. Can anyone say
"Chamberline"??

Al Minyard

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
om...
"Tony" wrote in message
news:WOt5c.5074$%g.3194@okepread02...

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.
Do the Spanish really think that will be Al Quada's last demand?

Just what had the invasion of Iraq to do with the War on Terror?

The proper question would be, "What drove Spain to pull out of Iraq?" The
answer would be terrorism. But since you asked the first question, how about
Abu Nidal, Abbu Abbas, and the support Saddam gave to palestinian suicide
bombers, not to mention that terrorist training facility that was overrun
during the first couple of weeks of the war (remember, the one that had
Nidal's picture on the wall?). Then there is Anser Al Salaam... get the
picture?


The recent bomb attacks mainly showed that for reducing the threat
of terrorism, the policies of the previous Spanish government (and
that of the US government) are a failure. It is not illogical to
elect a government that proposes another approach. To borrow Cheney's
words, to see fighting terrorism in the context of intelligence
gathering and policing, instead of in the context of a 'War on
Terror', which -- if anything -- seems to play in the terrorists
hands by fighting the battle on their terms, i.e. asymmetrically.

Ah, so that other approach is...buckle under to the terrorists demands. No
thank you.


The Spanish have had a long experience with the terrorism of ETA.
Fighting that still has the full support of people and the new
government.

And they will presumably continue to toe whatever line the that AQ and its
friends dictate to them. Again, no thanks.

Brooks


Emmanuel

In article ,
(Emmanuel Gustin) wrote:

Just what had the invasion of Iraq to do with the War on Terror?

Ask the terrorists. They seem to be really ****ed off about it.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
(Emmanuel Gustin) wrote:

Just what had the invasion of Iraq to do with the War on Terror?

Ask the terrorists. They seem to be really ****ed off about it.

Libya is disarming and Iran is looking for a way to back out of what they
have been doing. The terrorist still want Spain, but that was not going to
change. Sacrificing Israel would not be enough.

Glenfiddich wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:23:33 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:
"Chad Irby" wrote in message
.com...
In article ,
(Emmanuel Gustin) wrote:

Just what had the invasion of Iraq to do with the War on Terror?

Ask the terrorists. They seem to be really ****ed off about it.

Libya is disarming and Iran is looking for a way to back out of what they
have been doing. The terrorist still want Spain, but that was not going to
change.

Sacrificing Israel would not be enough.

Well, it might buy some time - like the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia
did back in the 1930s.
But, as in the 1930s, appeasement would actually encourage the enemy,
and would only help us if we actually used that time to prepare for
the inevitable conflict.

Of course, and the longer we wait while feeding them dribs and
drabs the bigger and more painful the final removal will have to
be.

"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely".

--

-Gord.

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

Just what had the invasion of Iraq to do with the War on Terror?

The recent bomb attacks mainly showed that for reducing the threat
of terrorism, the policies of the previous Spanish government (and
that of the US government) are a failure. It is not illogical to

With attitudes like that, how could anyone succeed in
any war that ends up being actually contested?

To make an omelet, you break some eggs. Who said the
world is going to be instantly better by countering
terrorism? It's going to be worse for some time due
to the very fact we are resisting it. If you want
peace and tranquility, go along!

This is a long haul fight, and the war in Iraq is now
a part of it whether you like it, or even recognize it
or not.

You really don't think world terror would regard US
failure in Iraq as a good thing? No effect at all?
You think Al Qaeda's negative opinion of the West (weak)
has mitigated from Spanish "reason" after the Madrid
attacks?

Perhaps Spain should just give the Basques their
independence. Resisting will only lead to more
bloodshed.

You seem primed for surrender, largely for the sake
of sticking it to Bush. Slice off your nose to spite
your face!


SMH

Just what had the invasion of Iraq to do with the War on Terror?

Ask the terrorists. They seem to be really ****ed off about it.

Good point


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver wrote:
Just what had the invasion of Iraq to do with the War on Terror?

Ask the terrorists. They seem to be really ****ed off about it.

Good point

Bad point.
It's akin to kicking a dog in the nuts and complaining that it then bites
you.

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk