Sadly, Liberals never change.

[AURaptor 1,128]

... instead of by force of arms, and thereby they have averted a catastrophe which would have ended civilisation as we have known it. The relief that our escape from this great peril of war has, I think, everywhere been mingled in this country with a profound feeling of sympathy...Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe.

- Neville Chamberlain, 1938.

"Surely what we need now is a peace conference in the Middle East dealing with all the issues - dealing with Iran, where there's a whole argument about nuclear weapons, dealing with Afghanistan....dealing with Iraq, dealing with Syria,"

claimed Tony Benn, July 7, 2005.

Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. - Karl Rove

[TexasTiger 13,055]

... instead of by force of arms, and thereby they have averted a catastrophe which would have ended civilisation as we have known it. The relief that our escape from this great peril of war has, I think, everywhere been mingled in this country with a profound feeling of sympathy...Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe.

- Neville Chamberlain, 1938.

"Surely what we need now is a peace conference in the Middle East dealing with all the issues - dealing with Iran, where there's a whole argument about nuclear weapons, dealing with Afghanistan....dealing with Iraq, dealing with Syria,"

claimed Tony Benn, July 7, 2005.

Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. - Karl Rove

167954[/snapback]

Idiots with labels can be a dangerous thing. Chamberlain was a member of the Conservative Party. Blair is a member of the Labour Party. FDR was a liberal Democrat. Guess who the "idiot" is in this scenario? Hint: He will sadly never change.

[AURaptor 1,128]

... instead of by force of arms, and thereby they have averted a catastrophe which would have ended civilisation as we have known it. The relief that our escape from this great peril of war has, I think, everywhere been mingled in this country with a profound feeling of sympathy...Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe.

- Neville Chamberlain, 1938.

"Surely what we need now is a peace conference in the Middle East dealing with all the issues - dealing with Iran, where there's a whole argument about nuclear weapons, dealing with Afghanistan....dealing with Iraq, dealing with Syria,"

claimed Tony Benn, July 7, 2005.

Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. - Karl Rove

167954[/snapback]

Idiots with labels can be a dangerous thing. Chamberlain was a member of the Conservative Party. Blair is a member of the Labour Party. FDR was a liberal Democrat. Guess who the "idiot" is in this scenario? Hint: He will sadly never change.

167955[/snapback]

Clearly, some things cross beyond mere party lines. You are that idiot, that is plain to see.

[TexasTiger 13,055]

... instead of by force of arms, and thereby they have averted a catastrophe which would have ended civilisation as we have known it. The relief that our escape from this great peril of war has, I think, everywhere been mingled in this country with a profound feeling of sympathy...Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe.

- Neville Chamberlain, 1938.

"Surely what we need now is a peace conference in the Middle East dealing with all the issues - dealing with Iran, where there's a whole argument about nuclear weapons, dealing with Afghanistan....dealing with Iraq, dealing with Syria,"

claimed Tony Benn, July 7, 2005.

Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. - Karl Rove

167954[/snapback]

Idiots with labels can be a dangerous thing. Chamberlain was a member of the Conservative Party. Blair is a member of the Labour Party. FDR was a liberal Democrat. Guess who the "idiot" is in this scenario? Hint: He will sadly never change.

167955[/snapback]

Clearly, some things cross beyond mere party lines.

167957[/snapback]

Clearly, some things cross beyond mere party lines.

Thus rendering labels rather meaningless things clung to by idiots.

[AURaptor 1,128]

TexasTiger, so ,because a person is from one party , that means they must be either conservative or liberal ? That works only if you ignore the likes of Zell Miller, a conservative DEMOCRAT.

But you're missing the point, on purpose? I wonder. Clearly the appeasers back in the 1930's , like Chamberlain, were all a flutter over being nice and giving in to the demands of the likes of Hitler. Today, there are still some who falsly believe that if we just show the monsters ( Islamic terrorist ) that we want to play nice and we really don't mean them any harm......

'For it is the doom of men that they forget '

- Merlin

[TexasTiger 13,055]

TexasTiger, so ,because a person is from one party , that means they must be either conservative or liberal ? That works only if you ignore the likes of Zell Miller, a conservative DEMOCRAT.

But you're missing the point, on purpose? I wonder. Clearly the appeasers back in the 1930's , like Chamberlain, were all a flutter over being nice and giving in to the demands of the likes of Hitler. Today, there are still  some who falsly believe that if we just show the monsters ( Islamic terrorist ) that we want to play nice and we really don't mean them any harm......

'For it is the doom of men that they forget '

- Merlin

167991[/snapback]

You don't get the point. I'm saying the terms you place so much supposed value on have limited meaning. "Conservatives" have traditionally been more inclined toward non-intervention. For example, Pat Buchanan is a prototype of that more traditional "Conservative." Woodrow Wilson was considered a "Liberal" , but he espoused views that could be seen as closer to those Bush has espoused since 9/11-- in 2000 Bush strongly disavowed "nation building"-- in keeping with traditional "Conservative" thought. Since being elected he espouses more of a "neo-conservative" view. Clinton intervened in the Balkans and Haiti in an effort to perserve a more democratic government and to lessen human rights abuses. He was roundly criticized by many, though not all, "conservatives" -- although not by "neo-con" Bill Kristol.

And the term "appeasement" has been widely misapplied here, too. Chamberlain ceded the Sudetenland to Hitler. I haven't heard any elected "Liberals" or anyone with any real influence suggest that we formally agree to cede anything to Osama or Al Qaeda-- although one could argue that by overthrowing, instead of containing, Saddam opened Iraq up to Iran in a way it never could have on its own. If a country chose not to support an Iraq occupation which has largely turned an isolated country into a training ground for terrrorists, that doesn't make them "appeasers." In fact, one could argue that when the Spanish government ignored the will of the overwhelming majority of its voters to support the Iraq war, it was appeasing the last remaining superpower.

People who dismiss Spain as "appeasing" terrorists have little understanding of the country or that situation. That election was always fairly close -- within 5 points before the bombing. The then government quickly, and erroneously, claimed, without evidence, that it was the Basque terrorists who were responsible for the bombing. That dishonesty, or utter cluelessness, pissed people off. But Spanish have been dealing with terrorists for decades within their own borders. They still have not responded by allowing the Basque region to secede and form its own government despite numerous bombings and killings. They've been dealing with it for years, and frankly few Americans even know what a Basque is. Yet, many routinely insult the resolve and resoluteness fo the Spanish people because they didn't care to join is in what they saw as a blind-alley, or worse, in the war on Terra.

[AUloggerhead 2,255]

Tex,

Your view of history is a bit skewed. Chamberlain didn't cede anything, and certainly not the Sudetenland. The Prime Minister of the UK has no such authority to cede land not under his control. What he did is the very definition of appeasment: make an agreement with a diabolical dictator that allowed an illegal seizure of another country's land to avoid war at all costs. One can certainly sympathize with Chamberlain's intentions but in the end his actions were terribly naive & shortsighted. By avoiding direct confrontation early on, he invited a larger World War to occur later.

The appeasers of today (regardless of party affiliation or of country origin) would do well to heed the lessons of history. But to compare the War on Terror today with an historical situation, we need to go back about 900 years or so:

A secret order of Muslims called Assasins was founded in the 11th century. The members of the order were distinguished by their blind obedience to their spiritual leader, Nizar ibn al-Mustansir, whom they supported as caliph (known in the West as the Old Man of the Mountain) and by their use of murder to eliminate foes, usually under the influence of hashish (Assasin also means a user of hashish.) The order was founded by Hasan ibn al-Sabbah when he gained control (c.1090) of the mountain fortress of Alamut, located S of the Caspian Sea. The order spread over Persia and Syria, gaining control of many strongholds, and it soon inspired terror throughout the Muslim world. Members were organized into strict classes, according to degree of initiation into the secrets of the order. The most important of the classes were the devotees, who sought martyrdom and were the instruments of assassination.

The Assasins reign of terror lasted until about 1256. It's instructive today to know how they were ultimately defeated: the Mongols invaded, attacked the Assasins in their mountain stronghold and wiped them out. Problem solved.

[TexasTiger 13,055]

Tex,

Your view of history is a bit skewed.  Chamberlain didn't cede anything, and certainly not the Sudetenland.  The Prime Minister of the UK has no such authority to cede land not under his control.  What he did is the very definition of appeasment:  make an agreement with a diabolical dictator that allowed an illegal seizure of another country's land to avoid war at all costs. 

168016[/snapback]

My view of history isn't skewed, I just presented a more complicated situation in shorthand that you chose to read very literally.

Hitler agreed to meet representatives from France, the United Kingdom, and Italy at the Munich Conference of September 29, out of which came the Munich Agreement, which ceded the Sudetenland to Germany.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Sudetenland

[TrueBlue72 0]

It's not about who was a liberal and when, as much as some of our libbie friends would like to make it seem. Maybe the title should read, "Liberals never learn". I suppose that by now, I should expect the libbies on this board to try and divert the attention from the real problem by the use of semantics and historical gaffes. When there is a real problem, and global terrorism is a real problem, we all need to focus on overcoming it rather than trite historical nuances to change the focus.

Yes, foolish appeasers have come in all political flavors over the decades, but TODAY, they are concentrated within the liberal/democratic/progressive camp.

Just as appeasement allowed Hitler to amass enough power to endanger the world 65 years ago, it would have allowed Saddam, or the Taliban, or Al Queda to do the same today.

[WarTim 3,457]

Amen. "Those who do not learn from History............"

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I haven't heard any elected "Liberals" or anyone with any real influence suggest that we formally agree to cede anything to Osama or Al Qaeda

168001[/snapback]

I've heard several liberal politicians call for us to leave Iraq, which would be the same as ceding it to Al Qaeda wouldn't you say?

If a country chose not to support an Iraq occupation which has largely turned an isolated country into a training ground for terrrorists, that doesn't make them "appeasers."

168001[/snapback]

They were training there before the liberation. Saddam was supporting Al Qaeda, too. You guys either look over this info or ignore it all together

In fact, one could argue that when the Spanish government ignored the will of the overwhelming majority of its voters to support the Iraq war, it was appeasing the last remaining superpower.

168001[/snapback]

One could make that assumption, but the other side of the coin says Aznar felt the need to support the greater good of mankind.

People who dismiss Spain as "appeasing" terrorists have little understanding of the country or that situation.  That election was always fairly close  -- within 5 points before the bombing.  The then government quickly, and erroneously, claimed, without evidence, that it was the Basque terrorists who were responsible for the bombing.  That dishonesty, or utter cluelessness, pissed people off.  But Spanish have been dealing with terrorists for decades within their own borders.  They still have not responded by allowing the Basque region to secede and form its own government despite numerous bombings and killings.  They've been dealing with it for years, and frankly few Americans even know what a Basque is.  Yet, many routinely insult the resolve and resoluteness fo the Spanish people because they didn't care to join is in what they saw as a blind-alley, or worse, in the war on Terra.

168001[/snapback]

I lived in Spain for over 6 years. You give the unity of the Aznar sackers way too much credit, but the bottom line is that appeasement won over backbone in the case of the elections. Try and spin it as you may, but the Spaniards knuckled under and obeyed the terrorists in a ill-fated attempt to protect their cowardly butts....and nothing more.

I could really go into how the majority of the Zapatero supporters were from the big cities (Madrid, Barcelona, Seville) and, like their American counterparts, are liberal to a fault. What the bombing did was bring the fence sitters over to the side of Zapatero due to his promise to bring the troops home from Iraq if elected. They saw this as a way of avoiding another attack. The newspapers there even went so far as to carry Bin Laden's congratulations and promise of safety after the election.

As far as the erroneous claim of ETA involvement in the Madrid bombings, the ETA separatists have been on a bombing campaign against the Spanish government since the early 1970's. During this period, several hundred bombings have occurred that were the work of the Basque separatists. They wrongly assumed ETA was responsible here as well. The error Aznar's group made was hanging tough to that assertion. They went with persistence and continuity in this case and it bit them in the end. You insisting it was a grand rebellion by the united Spanish populace is quite humorous. It wasn't like that at all.

[TexasTiger 13,055]

[

People who dismiss Spain as "appeasing" terrorists have little understanding of the country or that situation.  That election was always fairly close  -- within 5 points before the bombing.  The then government quickly, and erroneously, claimed, without evidence, that it was the Basque terrorists who were responsible for the bombing.  That dishonesty, or utter cluelessness, pissed people off.  But Spanish have been dealing with terrorists for decades within their own borders.  They still have not responded by allowing the Basque region to secede and form its own government despite numerous bombings and killings.  They've been dealing with it for years, and frankly few Americans even know what a Basque is.  Yet, many routinely insult the resolve and resoluteness fo the Spanish people because they didn't care to join is in what they saw as a blind-alley, or worse, in the war on Terra.

168001[/snapback]

I lived in Spain for over 6 years. You give the unity of the Aznar sackers way too much credit, but the bottom line is that appeasement won over backbone in the case of the elections. Try and spin it as you may, but the Spaniards knuckled under and obeyed the terrorists in a ill-fated attempt to protect their cowardly butts....and nothing more.

I could really go into how the majority of the Zapatero supporters were from the big cities (Madrid, Barcelona, Seville) and, like their American counterparts, are liberal to a fault. What the bombing did was bring the fence sitters over to the side of Zapatero due to his promise to bring the troops home from Iraq if elected. They saw this as a way of avoiding another attack. The newspapers there even went so far as to carry Bin Laden's congratulations and promise of safety after the election.

As far as the erroneous claim of ETA involvement in the Madrid bombings, the ETA separatists have been on a bombing campaign against the Spanish government since the early 1970's. During this period, several hundred bombings have occurred that were the work of the Basque separatists. They wrongly assumed ETA was responsible here as well. The error Aznar's group made was hanging tough to that assertion. They went with persistence and continuity in this case and it bit them in the end. You insisting it was a grand rebellion by the united Spanish populace is quite humorous. It wasn't like that at all.

168199[/snapback]

You're imagining things again. And not really responding to me.

You insisting it was a grand rebellion by the united Spanish populace is quite humorous. It wasn't like that at all.

Does the Army ever drug test you? I hardly insisted any such a thing. The race was always fairly close, undecideds typically break away from an incumbent, and Aznar wasn't overwhelmingly popular. It didn't really take that much, but his botched handling of a terrorist attack on his own people was hardly insignificant.

Besides, most of the world has never equated our invasion of Iraq with the War on Terror. Most people just thought it was a bad idea with little connection to terrorism. Now, even most American think it was a mistake. Most Spaniards believed that all along.

Again, the Spaniards have been putting up with homegrown terrorism for years and haven't buckled yet. You disregard the facts and are extremely arrogant and disrepectful to not respect the backbone they have shown in the face of it.

[Tigermike 3,067]

Besides, most of the world has never equated our invasion of Iraq with the War on Terror.  Most people just thought it was a bad idea with little connection to terrorism.  Now, even most American think it was a mistake.  Most Spaniards believed that all along.

168259[/snapback]

Most of the world has been wrong all along. No most Americans don't think it was a mistake.

Democrats have continuously ranted against the Iraq phase of the War on Terrorism. It is not surprising that polls show what they do, since you guys have been non stop for the past EIGHT years.

[WarTim 3,457]

Much like the "Bush stole TWO elections" arguement, they can't win this one either.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Does the Army ever drug test you?  I hardly insisted any such a thing.  The race was always fairly close, undecideds typically break away from an incumbent, and Aznar wasn't overwhelmingly popular.  It didn't really take that much, but his botched handling of a terrorist attack on his own people was hardly insignificant.

Besides, most of the world has never equated our invasion of Iraq with the War on Terror.  Most people just thought it was a bad idea with little connection to terrorism.  Now, even most American think it was a mistake.  Most Spaniards believed that all along.

Again, the Spaniards have been putting up with homegrown terrorism for years and haven't buckled yet.  You disregard the facts and are extremely arrogant and disrepectful to not respect the backbone they have shown in the face of it.

168259[/snapback]

The race was not always close. Prior to the election, Aznar's conservative popular party was expected to win easily. The bombings changed that, and Zapetero's socialists won a narrow victory. I didn't say the botched blame placement for the bombing was insignificant, I said the grand uprising of the Spanish voters against Aznar's party wasn't due in large part to this action. The Spaniards taking the terrorists offer of protection from further attack if Aznar were defeated played a significantly higher role in gettting Zapetero elected than anything the Spanish investigators did. BTW, the media in Spain clung to the ETA connection as well, so this assertion isn't a big cover-up conspiracy by the Aznar administration as your post so foggily hints.

The ETA terrorists that the Spanish government has been dealing usually call ahead well before bomb detonation to warn of an explosion. This allows (generally) ample time for people to get out of the way before the fireworks go off. The Spaniards see it as more of a nusiance than anything but, as long as you're not employed by the Guardia Civil, chances are you would give 2 hoots in hell about the the Basque separatists. A lot of the Spanish would rather see the Basque people get their independence....the Catalans and Galacians too for that matter. They think this would shut them up and therefore allow them to eat their tapas in the swank hangouts in Madrid in peace. Spain is a pretty fragmented country if you dig down deep into the weeds. That backbone you refer to isn't all it appears to be. You actually contradict yourself by championing their brave struggle against homemade terrorists. No one (other than Franco) fought the separatists more than the Popular Party. They absolutely refused to deal with ETA, and conducted regular anti-terrorism sweeps against them.

You want to look at popularity? Look at Zapetero now, he is cutting social welfare programs and forging deeper relations with Morocco, which isn't sitting well with the voters that put him in office. A lot of the arrests on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid bombings were Moroccans. Yet another in a long line of attempts to snuggle up to the threat in hopes of appeasing it (rather that dealing with it man-to-man). But alas, that is the European way. Ignore the problem and resist the urge to protect oneself until it is too late. That's the reason the continent has given birth to such grand movements as the Third Reich, Francisco Franco, Tito, and the mess that used to be Yugoslavia in the '90s.

[TexasTiger 13,055]

Does the Army ever drug test you?  I hardly insisted any such a thing.  The race was always fairly close, undecideds typically break away from an incumbent, and Aznar wasn't overwhelmingly popular.  It didn't really take that much, but his botched handling of a terrorist attack on his own people was hardly insignificant.

Besides, most of the world has never equated our invasion of Iraq with the War on Terror.  Most people just thought it was a bad idea with little connection to terrorism.  Now, even most American think it was a mistake.  Most Spaniards believed that all along.

Again, the Spaniards have been putting up with homegrown terrorism for years and haven't buckled yet.  You disregard the facts and are extremely arrogant and disrepectful to not respect the backbone they have shown in the face of it.

168259[/snapback]

The race was not always close. Prior to the election, Aznar's conservative popular party was expected to win easily. The bombings changed that, and Zapetero's socialists won a narrow victory. I didn't say the botched blame placement for the bombing was insignificant, I said the grand uprising of the Spanish voters against Aznar's party wasn't due in large part to this action. The Spaniards taking the terrorists offer of protection from further attack if Aznar were defeated played a significantly higher role in gettting Zapetero elected than anything the Spanish investigators did. BTW, the media in Spain clung to the ETA connection as well, so this assertion isn't a big cover-up conspiracy by the Aznar administration as your post so foggily hints.

The ETA terrorists that the Spanish government has been dealing usually call ahead well before bomb detonation to warn of an explosion. This allows (generally) ample time for people to get out of the way before the fireworks go off. The Spaniards see it as more of a nusiance than anything but, as long as you're not employed by the Guardia Civil, chances are you would give 2 hoots in hell about the the Basque separatists. A lot of the Spanish would rather see the Basque people get their independence....the Catalans and Galacians too for that matter. They think this would shut them up and therefore allow them to eat their tapas in the swank hangouts in Madrid in peace. Spain is a pretty fragmented country if you dig down deep into the weeds. That backbone you refer to isn't all it appears to be. You actually contradict yourself by championing their brave struggle against homemade terrorists. No one (other than Franco) fought the separatists more than the Popular Party. They absolutely refused to deal with ETA, and conducted regular anti-terrorism sweeps against them.

You want to look at popularity? Look at Zapetero now, he is cutting social welfare programs and forging deeper relations with Morocco, which isn't sitting well with the voters that put him in office. A lot of the arrests on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid bombings were Moroccans. Yet another in a long line of attempts to snuggle up to the threat in hopes of appeasing it (rather that dealing with it man-to-man). But alas, that is the European way. Ignore the problem and resist the urge to protect oneself until it is too late. That's the reason the continent has given birth to such grand movements as the Third Reich, Francisco Franco, Tito, and the mess that used to be Yugoslavia in the '90s.

168364[/snapback]

Basque terrorism has cost over 800 lives. Call that insignificant if you want.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I didn't say they were insignificant, I said:

The ETA terrorists that the Spanish government has been dealing usually call ahead well before bomb detonation to warn of an explosion. This allows (generally) ample time for people to get out of the way before the fireworks go off. The Spaniards see it as more of a nusiance than anything but, as long as you're not employed by the Guardia Civil, chances are you would give 2 hoots in hell about the the Basque separatists. A lot of the Spanish would rather see the Basque people get their independence....the Catalans and Galacians too for that matter. They think this would shut them up and therefore allow them to eat their tapas in the swank hangouts in Madrid in peace.

Once again, given ETA's habit of calling ahead to warn of bomb detonations and their focusing of attacks on government, I still stand by my statement that the average Spaniard citizen sees them as nothing more than a nusiance. I know this for fact....I lived there for a long period of time.

The death toll you gave was kind of misleading. The number was right, but of the 819 total people killed over the 44 year period, only 339 of them were civilian. The majority of the deaths attributed to ETA attacks are government officials, military, and the police. Average it out, and we have a little over 7 civilian deaths per year. I'd wager we have lost at least twice this many due to racial violence in the US. Again, the deaths are not insignificant but, in the eyes of ordinary Spaniards, the Basque terrorists are not the big deal you make them out to be.

[TexasTiger 13,055]

I didn't say they were insignificant, I said:

The ETA terrorists that the Spanish government has been dealing usually call ahead well before bomb detonation to warn of an explosion. This allows (generally) ample time for people to get out of the way before the fireworks go off. The Spaniards see it as more of a nusiance than anything but, as long as you're not employed by the Guardia Civil, chances are you would give 2 hoots in hell about the the Basque separatists. A lot of the Spanish would rather see the Basque people get their independence....the Catalans and Galacians too for that matter. They think this would shut them up and therefore allow them to eat their tapas in the swank hangouts in Madrid in peace.

Once again, given ETA's habit of calling ahead to warn of bomb detonations and their focusing of attacks on government, I still stand by my statement that the average Spaniard citizen sees them as nothing more than a nusiance. I know this for fact....I lived there for a long period of time.

The death toll you gave was kind of misleading. The number was right, but of the 819 total people killed over the 44 year period, only 339 of them were civilian. The majority of the deaths attributed to ETA attacks are government officials, military, and the police. Average it out, and we have a little over 7 civilian deaths per year. I'd wager we have lost at least twice this many due to racial violence in the US. Again, the deaths are not insignificant but, in the eyes of ordinary Spaniards, the Basque terrorists are not the big deal you make them out to be.

168572[/snapback]

Talk about contradicting yourself...earlier in the thread you indicated it was a reasonable assumption for Aznar to first think the horrific Madrid bombing was by ETA, since they went with "continuity and persistence." The error, you assert was not originally making the assumption, but rather clinging to it:

As far as the erroneous claim of ETA involvement in the Madrid bombings, the ETA separatists have been on a bombing campaign against the Spanish government since the early 1970's. During this period, several hundred bombings have occurred that were the work of the Basque separatists. They wrongly assumed ETA was responsible here as well. The error Aznar's group made was hanging tough to that assertion. They went with persistence and continuity in this case and it bit them in the end.

Later in the thread you say ETA is merely a "nuisance" and not a "big deal." That would have made the Madrid bombings totally out of character and thus a totally unreasonable conclusion to jump to so quickly. Which is it?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

OK Sparky, here is what the government AND media initially tried to piece together. On Christmas eve of 2003, 3 months before the 3/11 attack, the Guardia Civil thwarted the ETAs attempt to detonate a bomb inside Madrid's Chamartín train station. ETA was also caught attempting to load explosives into a Madrid-bound train in San Sebastián. Another bomb with over 60 pounds of explosives was then found inside a second train passing near Burgos on its way to Madrid. With this freshly in mind in the immediate aftermath of the 3/11 attacks, I can understand why they initally thought ETA was to blame. If we were able to go back and read the posts on this very board regarding the bombing, you would see I said the exact same thing I'm saying now using the above as justification for the ETA assumption by the government. Was the idea of this attack out of character for ETA? Absolutely, but sometimes things happen in life that are totally unexpected or out of the norm. Sane people usually expect some fluctuations from what is considered normal behavior.

[TexasTiger 13,055]

Sparky? Okay, Alfalfa.

The thrust of your posts are still a contradiction. ETA's a nuisance because they've been bombing for over 40 years and killed over 800 people, so if they had been proven responsible for the Madrid bombings the Spaniards would have said, "Oh, ETA...ho hum." But because it was Islamic Terrorists they immediately buckle because they are spineless?

[WarTim 3,457]

My friend in Spain, it is an act of futility to attempt a discussion with a lib.

They lack the mental capacity.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

My friend in Spain, it is an act of futility to attempt a discussion with a lib.

They lack the mental capacity.

168610[/snapback]

Yeah, no joke! I feel I have made a pretty compelling argument in defense of the government's initial ETA accusation. But, as recent history has proven to us, the left is incapable of understanding the concept of human failure. Everything is black and white to them and there is never any variance to any trend or habit among the human race.

The one thing the Aznar administration lacked at the time (just after the bombing) that our anal-retentive liberal superhero has now is hindsight. I'm sure that if he had the luxuary of "looking back over his shoulder" as the liberals always seem to do, he would quickly pin the blame immediately on Al Qaeda despite what ETA had attempted to do a mere 3 months earlier. I'm certain that if the roles were reversed, if ETA had done the attacks and Aznar blamed Al Qaeda, the left would have criticized him for missing the obvious Christmas eve connection.

[WarTim 3,457]

I feel quite certain that, when all is said and done, "they" will be able to blame the attacks on Karl Rove!