So, how’s that appeasement working out for ya?
Apparently, not so well:
Police found a bomb Friday on a high-speed rail line between Madrid and Seville, Interior Minister Angel Acebes said.
19 Responses to “So, how’s that appeasement working out for ya?”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 2nd, 2004 at 9:35 am
Even if it wasn’t that Al-Queda related group that bombed Madrid, the subsequent conventionally interpreted soft-line vote only emboldens other terrorists.
April 2nd, 2004 at 11:07 am
Cut it out, Uncle. People love to claim that the Spanish are somehow “appeasing” the terrorists, when they’re doing nothing of the sort.
At the risk of sounding condescending, I expect better from you.
April 2nd, 2004 at 11:12 am
Spain made it clear what they were in favour of and what it was not in favour of. They pulled troops out of Iraq, announced troop increases in Afghanistan. IIRC, Uncle you have said that you see a difference between the war in Iraq and the war on terror.
April 2nd, 2004 at 11:15 am
Tom: Sorry, calling it like I see it.
Manish: Yes, I do. But terrorists whackos don’t.
Both: So, since whackos don’t, they’re playing on the appeasment. After all, they got part of what they wanted (withdrawal from Iraq).
April 2nd, 2004 at 11:35 am
Uncle:
So you’re suggesting that the Spanish should have voted to keep the ruling power (the one that lied to them about who was responsible for the train bombings) in power, just to spite the terrorists? And that their failure to do so constitutes appeasement?
By that rationale, everyone who votes to re-elect Bush is “appeasing” those same terrorists.
April 2nd, 2004 at 11:40 am
I am dumbfounded at your ability to conclude that if I say X, then I must mean something else that is absolutely irrelevant to X.
I am speaking specifically about the decision of the current party to announce a withdrawal from Iraq. I don’t care about the election in Spain.
April 2nd, 2004 at 11:47 am
By that rationale, everyone who votes to re-elect Bush is “appeasing” those same terrorists.
Huh?
April 2nd, 2004 at 11:51 am
And for the record, I have always contended that the Spanish Government is not actively appeasing anyone. Rather, the perception by spain’s enemies that they are appeasing them is an important factor.
April 2nd, 2004 at 1:32 pm
Su
its only an important factor because people like you keep repeating the lie. In your world, the Spanish shouldn’t vote for what they think is right, they should always and forever cower in their voting booths and try desperately to figure out what the terrorist don’t want them to vote for. That, my friend, is not only cowardly, its is to hand the terrorist the victory they want — complete domination of our politics. The Spanish did exactly what they should have — used all the information available to them to make a reasoned decision about their governments handling of the war on terrorism.
And anyone who title the post the way you did cannot possible be claiming that he is not saying the Spanish committed appeasement. You wrote the words Uncle, either apologize for them or defend them — don’t try to weasel out of them.
April 2nd, 2004 at 1:48 pm
I did defend the words, read the whole thing and comments.
And again, since you missed it the first time, i don’t care who the spaniards voted for. I’m concerned about the perception that they’re caving.
And, IIRC, the spaniards voted against the old government because they kept saying that it was the ETA instead of al qaeda.
April 2nd, 2004 at 1:59 pm
Uncle:
OK, now I’m admittedly confused. You’re obviously accusing somebody of appeasement in your post. Who?
And what should they have done to meet your “we’re not appeasing” litmus test?
If the new government changed its tune about Iraq, then the terrorists still get a “big win” because they substantially altered the pre-existing action plans of a political party that is now gaining power.
April 2nd, 2004 at 2:03 pm
SU
I second tom. Who, if not the Spanairds did the appeasing? What, if not for voting how they thought the terrorists would not want them to vote for, should they have done to avoid the appearance of appeasement?
“And, IIRC, the spaniards voted against the old government because they kept saying that it was the ETA instead of al qaeda.”
Pretty much. I got the impression form the British press that th gap was already closed by the time of the bombings, and that the lies motivated people to come out an vote in slightly greater numbers than in the past. Most of those people also opposed the war, as did most Spanairds, so its possible that some of their motivation was provided by the bombing in the sense that it highlighted the fact that their government was involved in a tactic that they did not approve of.
April 2nd, 2004 at 2:07 pm
Tom and Kev:
Huh?
Seriously, for (at last count) the third time, the appearance of appeasement is what I am addressing.
April 2nd, 2004 at 3:55 pm
Exactly Uncle…the appearance of it emboldens the terrorist spirit.
I find it puzzling that the people who say that the bomb found today is totally unrelated to Spain’s vote were the ones who weeks ago said that the Madrid bombings WERE IN FACT direct responses to Iraq’s support of the war in Iraq. That calculus doesn’t make sense.
April 2nd, 2004 at 4:50 pm
Uncle:
And again, since you missed it the first time, i don’t care who the spaniards voted for. I’m concerned about the perception that they’re caving.
With much of what you post, it’s not what you say but what you imply.
Implicit in that, however, is that you think they ought to be doing something differently than they are. Precisely what do you suggest they should be doing differently?
With its ties to Hitler, the term “appeasement” isn’t one that I take lightly when I see it thrown around. Or is it mere coincidence that you picked that word, with Hitler never even crossing your mind?
Anyway, as I’ve already pointed out, any possible course of action taken by the Spanish could be spun by the terrorists as a victory. So why should we even give a second thought to what the terrorists spin as victory?
April 2nd, 2004 at 4:54 pm
With much of what you post, it’s not what you say but what you imply.
So, i can’t use literary devices? Another thing to not for future reference.
I did not choose appeasement because of hitler i chose the word because of its meaning. In terms of what to do differently, don’t run out to the world and say we’re pulling out of Iraq a few days after we got bombed.
April 2nd, 2004 at 5:02 pm
SU
Sorry, but if you say “So, how’s that appeasement working out for ya” ina story about a bomb found in Spain, there is no other way to read that than you thyink the Spannish have appeased.
As for this:
“In terms of what to do differently, don’t run out to the world and say we’re pulling out of Iraq a few days after we got bombed.”
Except that the Socialists ran on pulling out. So if they didn’t pull out, they would have changed their position as a result fo terrorist action. And we have no real idea if the terrorists want Spannish troops in Iraq or not. The more western troops in iraq, after all, the easier it is to paint this as a new crusade.
April 3rd, 2004 at 2:04 am
Manish: Yes, I do. But terrorists whackos don’t.
Both: So, since whackos don’t, they’re playing on the appeasment. After all, they got part of what they wanted (withdrawal from Iraq).
do you have any proof or otherwise that the terrorist whackos don’t see the distinction between Iraq and the war on terror? I would argue they see the difference better than many Americans do. It seems clear to me that they knew exactly what they were doing and what would happen as a result. In fact, I would argue that leaving a van at the scene with arabic tapes was probably intentional so that people immediately knew that ETA didn’t do it.
And the other question is who do you think did it and what were they hoping for? If its ETA, I think its clear that Spain isn’t going to back down on terror with regards to ETA. If its Al Qaeda, Spain has already announced a doubling of troops in Afghanistan and again, I don’t see them backing down. In both cases, its due to popular support for these missions, while Iraq was opposed by 80%-90% of the population.
April 5th, 2004 at 12:47 am
Uncle:
So, i can’t use literary devices?
Actually, you can use them all you want. Just understand them and be prepared to defend them. Kind of neat how a comparison to Hitler is an indefensible smear when leftists do it, but when you do it indirectly, it’s a “literary device.”
Even ignoring the Hitler thing, “appeasement” means “the policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.” Motive is inherent in the meaning, and nothing in Spain’s actions or in their descriptions of their planned actions indicates that they’re doing this because the terrorists want them to. If anything, they’re redoubling their anti-terror efforts (and wisely noting that none of the anti-Spain terrorists are anywhere near Iraq).