|
 Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
 So much for the appeasement strategy 
#3253553 - 10/19/04 09:12 PM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
An excerpt from http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002800.php#trackbacks
****************************************************
The cease-fire that Spain bought with Islamists with their capitulation after the Madrid bombings appears to have been an illusion, as predicted. Spain announced that it captured seven terrorists plotting to bonb their High Court, according to Reuters:
Quote:
Police arrested seven suspected Islamic militants in raids across Spain on Monday to foil a planned bomb attack on the High Court, judicial sources said. The arrests came seven months after train bombs killed 191 people in Madrid.
The seven suspects, including four Algerians and one Moroccan, were arrested in the southern region of Andalusia, the Mediterranean city of Valencia and Madrid.
Further arrests could be made in the coming hours as part of the operation against a radical and violent Muslim network, the Interior Ministry said in a statement.
Perhaps the Spanish electorate will understand now that appeasing terrorists only leads to more terrorism, a lesson that Europeans learned the hard way 60 years ago. The Islamic lunatics don't want to be left alone, as many Europeans assume; they want to take over all of the old ummah, which includes most of Spain, especially Andalusia. The political success of the Madrid attacks has emboldened the fanatics to press their advantage, and the so-called "cease fire" announced by Osama bin Laden in the aftermath of Spain's withdrawal from Iraq only exists while tactically important for the next attack.
Maybe this will wake the Spaniards to the dangers of withdrawal and appeasement. I suspect the Socialists will be spinning this as a major victory on their behalf, which it is -- tactically speaking. Strategically, however, the Socialists have committed a huge error in backing down from the terrorists and fleeing Iraq, where establishing a functioning democracy would have a positive effect on stemming radicalism and terrorism.
***********************************************************
pinky
--------------------
|
 Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: So much for the appeasement strategy [Re: Phred]
#3253856 - 10/19/04 10:14 PM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
There is limited information in the article to draw any conclusions about 'appeasement.' What if Spain never would have gone into Iraq in the first place? Perhaps that was the mistake that led to this. If so, this is not a result of appeasement, but is a form of revenge. There may also be the possibility that this would have happened regardless of any action in Iraq. Again, there is not enough information to come to a well reasoned conclusion.
Contrary to any propaganda you may have bought in to, going into Iraq WAS NOT about terrorism. In fact, going into Iraq may have been the catalyst that started this cycle of violence. If I dig into a hornets' nest and the hornets follow me and attack me in a swarm after I leave the nest, whose ill thought out action initiated the swarm?
Regardless, if you are acting from a position that what you are doing is right, it is not appeasement. I may be wrong, but I thought the socialists were against going into Iraq from the beginning.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
Edited by Evolving (10/19/04 10:26 PM)
|
Grav
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 4,454
Loc: 
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
|
Re: So much for the appeasement strategy [Re: Evolving]
#3253924 - 10/19/04 10:26 PM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Evolving makes sense.
pinksharkmark made some big assumptions.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: So much for the appeasement strategy [Re: Evolving]
#3254092 - 10/19/04 11:01 PM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Evolving writes:
What if Spain never would have gone into Iraq in the first place? Perhaps that was the mistake that led to this. If so, this is not a result of appeasement, but is a form of revenge.
Even if it was a "revenge" attack it goes to show that the word of one group of Jihadists (the group claiming to be speaking on behalf of bin Laden and granting a "truce" after the Spaniards caved) means nothing in the eyes of the other Jihadists. Or maybe the seven captured terrorists were in fact members of the same group. Who knows? Who cares?
The relevant lesson to be learned here is that acceding to their demands -- and if that isn't appeasement then please tell us what is -- is a useless strategy.
"You're pissed at us because our current government supports the Great Satan? You want us to get the hell out of Iraq and denounce Bush? No problem!"
"Yes, infidels of stolen Andalusia, spawn of Crusaders, that is what we desire. In gratitude, we grant you a truce. Oh, so sorry, truce is over now."
Anyone with half a brain could have predicted there'd be more attacks on Spain. This won't be the last one.
If I dig into a hornets' nest and the hornets follow me and attack me in a swarm after I leave the nest, whose ill thought out action initiated the swarm?
Who was "digging into hornets nests" in Bali? Turkey? Morocco? Malaysia? Indonesia? India? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Sudan? As I have noted before, the Jihadists are not averse to murdering people other than Americans. Hell, they're not averse to murdering other Muslims whom they consider to be not Muslim enough.
I've posted in this forum before links to the teachings of the founding fathers of the Jihadis -- the role models and inspirations for Osama bin Laden and Zarqawi and the current crop of loons. Those guys were advocating attacking the decadent infidels long before the Iranian revolution, long before the Six Day War in Israel, long before the rise of the Taliban and long before Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
This is something I can't convince you of. You can read what their own leaders say and believe them or not believe them as you choose. But to assume the reason they attack whoever they can is because they have been wronged in some way is to presume they think in the same manner as Westerners do; to presume they have the same hierarchy of values a secular person does; to presume their motivations for acting parallel our own. The simple fact is they don't.
I may be wrong, but I thought the socialists were against going into Iraq from the beginning.
You're not wrong. That's my point exactly. The socialists were against the war in Iraq from the beginning, which is why the Jihadis tried (successfully) to get them elected. Yet the fact that the Spanish Socialists were against the war and pulled out the Spanish troops as soon as it was humanly possible made no damned difference to the Jihadis. They're still seething over the loss of al Andaluz centuries ago.
People with that mindset cannot be reasoned with, negotiated with, bribed, or appeased. They can only be eliminated.
Bush understands this basic truth. The Euros don't.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: So much for the appeasement strategy [Re: Grav]
#3254121 - 10/19/04 11:07 PM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
grav writes:
pinksharkmark made some big assumptions.
Really? The "assumption" the author of that article made is that doing what the terrorists want you to do makes no damn difference whatsoever.
Tell us, Grav, what more could Spain have done? What did they fail to do that the Jihadis required to leave Spain alone? What additional actions could the government of Spain have taken to end the attacks on Spain by Jihadis?
pinky
--------------------
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: So much for the appeasement strategy [Re: Phred]
#3254290 - 10/19/04 11:40 PM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pinksharkmark said:
Even if it was a "revenge" attack it goes to show that the word of one group of Jihadists (the group claiming to be speaking on behalf of bin Laden and granting a "truce" after the Spaniards caved) means nothing in the eyes of the other Jihadists. Or maybe the seven captured terrorists were in fact members of the same group. Who knows? Who cares?
Again, there is not enough information in the article to draw a conclusion. You do not know why these people engaged in their actions. Try to think instead of engaging in Pavlovian reactions.
Quote:
The relevant lesson to be learned here is that acceding to their demands
Again, the article tells us nothing of the group. The article tells us nothing of whether or not this action would have occurred without Spain's participation in Iraq. If their motivation is that Spain participated, then it may be irrelevant whether or not Spain pulled out afterward - in this case, IT WAS SPAINS'S ORIGINAL ACTIONS. Their motivations may be linked to the original Crusades. You do not know. How you are able to divine other people's motivations on a lack of evidence is beyond me. Perhaps your Ouija board works better than your powers of reason.
Quote:
Anyone with half a brain could have predicted there'd be more attacks on Spain.
Why, because Spain PARTICIPATED IN OPERATIONS IN IRAQ? Again, if this is the case, it is not appeasement that drives the enemy but revenge.
Quote:
Who was "digging into hornets nests" in Bali?
Aren't we addressing Spain and Iraq?
Quote:
As I have noted before, the Jihadists are not averse to murdering people other than Americans.
Wow, what a revelation. I didn't know that.
Quote:
I've posted in this forum before links to the teachings of the founding fathers of the Jihadis...
Yes, your collectivist mindset tells you that this is justification for bombing the innocent who may reside in the countries that neighbor where these people reside. I know. What you CONTINUOUSLY ignore are the very words of OBL and the leader of the first World Trade Center bombing, who EXPLICITLY refer to U.S. foreign policy as a major motivation. You seem to have tunnel vision in this regard.
Quote:
But to assume the reason they attack whoever they can is because they have been wronged in some way is to presume they think in the same manner as Westerners do;
Actually, I presume that they think the way that THEY do. I have read their explicit words about U.S. foreign policy. Why do you discount this?
Quote:
... to presume they have the same hierarchy of values a secular person does; to presume their motivations for acting parallel our own. The simple fact is they don't.
I have never presumed that, I go by the facts. I do not discount the mindset of zealots, but I am smart enough to know that you don't go around the world creating environments which encourages the development of MORE zealots.
Quote:
Yet the fact that the Spanish Socialists were against the war and pulled out the Spanish troops as soon as it was humanly possible made no damned difference to the Jihadis.
Well, then they should be drawn and quartered, have their testicles removed and made to choke on them. But these people's mindset is still no excuse for a pre-emptive war against the most secular nation in the Gulf and the creation of more of them.
Quote:
People with that mindset cannot be reasoned with, negotiated with, bribed, or appeased. They can only be eliminated.
So, are you suggesting genocide?
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: So much for the appeasement strategy [Re: Phred]
#3254382 - 10/20/04 12:00 AM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Interesting that without the cost of committing troops to a foreign conflict, they had the resources to catch and uncover this terrorist plot on time. We should be so lucky. Guess this goes to show that you CAN fight terrorism without interventionism.
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
JesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: So much for the appeasement strategy [Re: silversoul7]
#3254505 - 10/20/04 12:27 AM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
Guess this goes to show that you CAN fight terrorism without interventionism.
You can fight terrorism both with and without interventionalism. It all depends upon which country you want the bombs being blown up in.
--------------------
Tastes just like chicken
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: So much for the appeasement strategy [Re: Phred]
#3254687 - 10/20/04 01:19 AM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
How many countries who didnt take part in the illegal war in Iraq have been targeted by Muslim terrorists then?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
 Re: So much for the appeasement strategy [Re: Phred]
#3255007 - 10/20/04 04:55 AM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Maybe this will wake the Spaniards to the dangers of withdrawal and appeasement. I suspect the Socialists will be spinning this as a major victory on their behalf, which it is -- tactically speaking. Strategically, however, the Socialists have committed a huge error in backing down from the terrorists and fleeing Iraq
what the hell are you talking about here pinky?
do you know the difference between strategy and tactics?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: So much for the appeasement strategy [Re: Phred]
#3255048 - 10/20/04 05:43 AM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I'm curious, pinky: If you are against income taxes, as you have indicated in the past, how do you propose to pay for our foreign military adventurism?
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: So much for the appeasement strategy [Re: Evolving]
#3255565 - 10/20/04 10:30 AM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Evolving writes:
Again, there is not enough information in the article to draw a conclusion. You do not know why these people engaged in their actions. Try to think instead of engaging in Pavlovian reactions.
There is enough information in the article to determine that the new Spanish government's withdrawal of Spanish forces from Iraq (which the Jihadists wanted done, and as a result of which Jihadists publicly declared a "truce" with the people of Spain) has not prevented the Jihadists from continuing to attack Spain.
Obvious conclusion -- appeasing Jihadists does not stop Jihadists from attacking you. Who knows why they continue to attack? Who cares? The fact is they continue to attack. I ask you the same questions I asked Grav --
What more does the Spanish government need to do in order to persuade the Jihadists to stop attacking Spain? What crucial requirement remains undone? Why do the Jihadis refuse to lay out for the Spaniards what they have failed to do in order to satisfy them to the point where they will cease attempting to murder Spaniards?
If their motivation is that Spain participated, then it may be irrelevant whether or not Spain pulled out afterward - in this case, IT WAS SPAINS'S ORIGINAL ACTIONS.
Their motivation may indeed have been that Spain supported the deposing of Hussein by force, and they decided that the March bombing was insufficient revenge. If that is indeed their motivation, when will the Jihadists decide to stop punishing Spain for participating in the Iraq invasion?
Note that if this in fact their motivation, Spain's bowing to the demands of Jihadists made no difference. In other words, Spain's appeasement of Jihadists hasn't persuaded Jihadists to leave Spain alone. Appeasement as a strategy of dealing with Jihadists is a failure. That's all the author of the article I excerpted claims. It is all I claim.
Their motivations may be linked to the original Crusades.
Indeed they might. In which case Spain's bowing to the Jihadist demands to pull out of Iraq hasn't stopped Jihadists from attacking Spain. Appeasement didn't work. When will the Jihadists stop attacking Spain for what occurred over half a millenium ago? What strategy should the Spanish government adopt which will undo the damage done five hundred years ago?
How you are able to divine other people's motivations on a lack of evidence is beyond me.
I don't know the motivations of the most recently captured group. It doesn't matter what their motivations were. What matters is that appeasing Jihadists didn't stop other (if they are in fact from a different group) Jihadists from attacking. This has nothing to do with Ouija boards and everything to do with observation.
Why, because Spain PARTICIPATED IN OPERATIONS IN IRAQ?
Nope. Because the Jihadists were able to coerce Spaniards to behave as the Jihadists wanted them to through the use of violence. Jihadists may be crazy, but they aren't dumb. If you a certain behavior is rewarded, you can be sure that behavior will continue. "We wanted them to pull out of Iraq. We bombed them and they did. We now know that bombing them works. Let's bomb them so more so we can get them to do other stuff we want them to do!"
Aren't we addressing Spain and Iraq?
Nice dodge. Use a generic metaphor, then ignore any response pointing out the flaws in the metaphor. I'll make you a deal -- you restrict your comments to Spain and Jihadists and I'll do the same. No more talk of hornets and hornets nests.
What you CONTINUOUSLY ignore are the very words of OBL and the leader of the first World Trade Center bombing, who EXPLICITLY refer to U.S. foreign policy as a major motivation.
Are we talking of Spain and Jihadists or are we talking of Jihadists in general? Make up your mind. But to answer your evasion, it is clear I cannot convince you that Jihadists are not doing the things they do solely because the West has made foreign policy decisions of which they disapprove. Osama bin Laden claims the attacks on America were due to America's defiling of the Holy Places through the mere presence of infidel feet on that sacred soil -- specifically the feet of infidel troops stationed on the Arabian peninsula. Need I remind you there have been Jihadist attacks on many countries -- the majority of them Muslim countries? What relevance does ObL's explanation have to attacks on countries other than the US?
I have read their explicit words about U.S. foreign policy. Why do you discount this?
Because you wilfully ignore the references they make to everything other than US foreign policy. I ask again, what was the reason Jihadists attacked Turkey, Bali, Iraq, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, the Philippines, etc.? I have never seen you comment on their oft-repeated claims that the Kaliphate must be restored, or their seething over the loss of Al-Andaluz over half a millenium ago, for example.
Was bin Laden pissed that the house of Saud invited America to garrison troops in Saudi Arabia to dissuade Hussein from invading? Of course he was. Is that the reason Jihadists carried out attacks in Morocco? Of course it wasn't.
So, are you suggesting genocide?
Nope. We are repeatedly assured by the chattering classes that the murderous Jihadists constitute just a "tiny fraction" of the followers of the Religion of Peace. It is therefore not necessary to kill all Muslims or all Arabs. No genocide required.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: So much for the appeasement strategy [Re: GazzBut]
#3255579 - 10/20/04 10:34 AM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
GazzBut writes:
How many countries who didnt take part in the illegal war in Iraq have been targeted by Muslim terrorists then?
Bali, Turkey, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Canada (threatened repeatedly), Japan (threatened repeatedly), the Netherlands (threatened repeatedly), Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Pakistan.
That enough for you? I've probably forgotten some. I was tempted to add the African countries where embassies were blown up and hundreds of Africans killed back in the Clinton years, but since they were American embassies (even though America hadn't invaded Iraq at that time) I figured you'd say those countries wouldn't count. So let's leave them off the list.
pinky
--------------------
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: So much for the appeasement strategy [Re: Phred]
#3255614 - 10/20/04 10:48 AM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Threatened repeatedly?? Hmmm questionable.
As for the others, you know full well the targets were mostly western even if they were in other countries..try again.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: So much for the appeasement strategy [Re: Phred]
#3255656 - 10/20/04 11:02 AM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
There is enough information in the article to determine that the new Spanish government's withdrawal of Spanish forces from Iraq (which the Jihadists wanted done, and as a result of which Jihadists publicly declared a "truce" with the people of Spain) has not prevented the Jihadists from continuing to attack Spain.
Obvious conclusion -- appeasing Jihadists does not stop Jihadists from attacking you. Who knows why they continue to attack? Who cares? The fact is they continue to attack. I ask you the same questions I asked Grav --
You are grouping all Jihadists together. That collectivist groupthink doesn't take into account the fact that there are several Jihadist groups out there, only one of which(Al Queda, I believe) promised a truce in exchange for their withdrawal. If these Jihadists are Al Queda operatives, then your point stands. I don't see anything in that article saying which Jihadist group these terrorists were affiliated with, so until then, there is not enough information to reach such a conclusion.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: So much for the appeasement strategy [Re: silversoul7]
#3256078 - 10/20/04 12:49 PM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
LOL! You guys are priceless.
Who the fuck cares if it was members of the same group attempting to carry out the latest attack? The point -- which no one in this thread can dispute -- is that acquiescing to the Jihadist demands accomplished exactly zero. Jihadists are still attacking Spain. Who cares if it's the same Jihadists as the group who did the bombing? What difference does it make? NONE WHATSOEVER! Spain is still being attacked by Jihadists.
Appeasement as a strategy for dealing with terrorists is a non-option, because they can't be appeased. How much more clear an empirical demonstration of that do you require?
I ask you all again --
What more must the government of Spain do in order to stop the Jihadists from attacking Spain?
None of you has answered this question, because none of you will admit there is nothing more the government of Spain can do -- except kill them. The government of Spain has rejected that option, so the attacks will continue.
This is not exactly rocket science, here.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: So much for the appeasement strategy [Re: GazzBut]
#3256115 - 10/20/04 12:56 PM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
GazzBut writes:
As for the others, you know full well the targets were mostly western even if they were in other countries..try again.
Try what again? Re-read the question you asked. Then re-read my answer. Please indicate to us which of the countries I listed supported the invasion of Iraq.
*sound of crickets chirping*
If you don't want me to list countries attacked by the Jihadists which didn't support the invasion of Iraq, then don't ask, "How many countries who didnt take part in the illegal war in Iraq have been targeted by Muslim terrorists then?"
pinky
--------------------
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: So much for the appeasement strategy [Re: Phred]
#3256190 - 10/20/04 01:10 PM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pinksharkmark said:
LOL! You guys are priceless.
Who the fuck cares if it was members of the same group attempting to carry out the latest attack? The point -- which no one in this thread can dispute -- is that acquiescing to the Jihadist demands accomplished exactly zero. Jihadists are still attacking Spain. Who cares if it's the same Jihadists as the group who did the bombing? What difference does it make? NONE WHATSOEVER! Spain is still being attacked by Jihadists.
If the group that made the demand has kept their end of the bargain, then appeasement did work for them, and they cannot be held accountable for other Jihadists any more than I can be held accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib(sp). PEOPLE ARE INDIVIDUALS!!! You of all people should know that. Even when they do organize, those organizations are separate from other organizations, even if they have a similar purpose or ideology(hence, the Democrats and Green Party are two different organizations, even though they are both classified as "liberal"). One organization cannot be held responsible for the actions of another organization(no matter how similar) if it was not directly behind it.
This sort of groupthink is dangerous. By this same logic, someone could say that appeasement to blacks has done nothing to curb their criminal tendencies, and therefore the only solution is to annihilate them.
Quote:
Appeasement as a strategy for dealing with terrorists is a non-option, because they can't be appeased. How much more clear an empirical demonstration of that do you require?
One which takes individual accountability into account.
Quote:
What more must the government of Spain do in order to stop the Jihadists from attacking Spain?
They'd have to create a perfect world in which no Jihadists hated them. Failing that, they can only hope to ease tensions with Jihadists by minding their own business and uncovering terrorist plots before they come to fruition(as they did here).
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: So much for the appeasement strategy [Re: silversoul7]
#3256270 - 10/20/04 01:24 PM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
silversoul7 writes:
If the group that made the demand has kept their end of the bargain, then appeasement did work for them, and they cannot be held accountable for other Jihadists any more than I can be held accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib(sp).
Sigh. Is Spain still being attacked by Jihadists? Yes or no.
Did Spain's caving to demands of Jihadists stop Jihadists from targeting Spain? Yes or no.
Watching these torturous twistings and evasions would be amusing if the stakes weren't so important.
They'd have to create a perfect world in which no Jihadists hated them.
How? Give us some specifics, please.
Failing that, they can only hope to ease tensions with Jihadists by minding their own business...
As the above news indicates, that hasn't made a difference.
... and uncovering terrorist plots before they come to fruition
And if they are too late uncovering all the plots?
I can't help but note that none of the above comments from you answers the question I asked. Your "solution" is the Kerry way of handling things -- treat it as a law enforcement issue. This doesn't stop the Jihadists from attacking Spain.
pinky
--------------------
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: So much for the appeasement strategy [Re: Phred]
#3256315 - 10/20/04 01:35 PM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pinksharkmark said:
If the group that made the demand has kept their end of the bargain, then appeasement did work for them, and they cannot be held accountable for other Jihadists any more than I can be held accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib(sp).
Sigh. Is Spain still being attacked by Jihadists? Yes or no.
Yes. Is Iraq still being occupied by the US?
Quote:
Did Spain's caving to demands of Jihadists stop Jihadists from targeting Spain? Yes or no.
No
Quote:
Watching these torturous twistings and evasions would be amusing if the stakes weren't so important.
I noticed you avoided addressing the very important point I made right beneath what you quoted. I wouldn't say I'm the only one evading.
Quote:
They'd have to create a perfect world in which no Jihadists hated them.
How? Give us some specifics, please.
That's the point. They can't. Neither intervention nor non-intervention will create this perfect world because a perfect world is impossible. Interventionism, however, has been shown to piss off more people, however.
Quote:
Failing that, they can only hope to ease tensions with Jihadists by minding their own business...
As the above news indicates, that hasn't made a difference.
No, it hasn't solved the problem. Can you say with certainty that Spain wouldn't be getting hit with daily or weekly terrorist attacks(much like what Israel gets) if it hadn't withdrawn its troops? Success is not always 100%.
Quote:
... and uncovering terrorist plots before they come to fruition
And if they are too late uncovering all the plots?
Then they're too late. Can you explain to me how interventionism would do a better job of preventing such attacks?
Quote:
I can't help but note that none of the above comments from you answers the question I asked. Your "solution" is the Kerry way of handling things -- treat it as a law enforcement issue. This doesn't stop the Jihadists from attacking Spain.
I would really like to hear your logic on how your way would accomplish this better.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
phreedom420
1 2 all )
Evolving
Los_Pepes
Phred
Ellis Dee
StroFun
afoaf