Spain, no Al Andalus, surrenders again to Islamic conquerors

[johnb]

"Fighting terrorism with bombs, with Tomahawk missiles, isn't the way to beat terrorism, but the way to generate more radicalism."
-Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero of Spain

So Spain has done in 2004 exactly what it did 1200 years earlier, it surrenders to an Islamic conquest.

Since the dhimmi rulers of Al Andalus have demonstrated that they will bow to terrorists and that terrorism will cause the dhimmis of Al Andalus to beg for the "protection" of the shari'a at the ballot box two things are clear:

Watch the nation formerly known as Spain, now rightly called by it's Muslim name, Al Andalus, for the following:

1-Islamofascist terrorists will strike Al Andalus again, until it is not just a de facto component of the Islamic nation, but an integral component of it.

2-The demands made on the dhmini government of Al Andalus will include a segregation, ie, any Muslims living in or passing through the province must be exempt from Spanish civil law and subject only to the Shari'a courts. ((HINT- Shari'a courts are already being set up in Canada for civil proceedings, ie, Muslims in Canada will go to these courts instead of civil courts in disputes between Muslims. Weak and vacillating societies facing an aggressive onslaught from Islamofascists will buckle and crumble.)

IF you ever wanted to see Sunny Spain, go now.....later it might not be quite the vacation spot you care to visit thanks to socialist economics and Islamofascist governance.

[Anonymous]

Terrorists are people and they act for specific reasons. Their methods may be deplorable, but their motivations may not necessarily be so.

Spain recognizes this, the U.S. administration, by and large, does not. If you actually think that the U.S. and its few allies can capture or kill them all, John, then continue to support the U.S. policy. If you think it's going to take a lot more intelligence, a lot more work, and a lot more help, then perhaps we should all take a hint from Spain.

I'm always wondering why you attribute Spain's new attitude to its "rulers" which, I'm assuming, you mean the Socialists. Or, have you finally seen the light and recognized that it was Spain's real rulers, its voting population, that has chosen to disengage from an arrogant and unsuccesful antiterrorism policy. No, I don't think you have, your post seems to lament that, you know, voters, can make decisions.

[johnb]

The rulers al Qaeda has allowed Spain to have, the Socialists, won an election through fear and intimidation. The terrorists won. The Socialists were set to loose that election until al Qaeda murdered 200+ innocent people. The Spaniards deserve whatever "justice" the Islamofascists mete out to them from here on out.

It has been proven in spades now that terrorism against Spain works.

It changed an election for Prime Minister.

The terrorists aren't stupid. They are going to continue to hit targets that give them the greatest chance of success.

France and Spain, look out.

[Anonymous]

I wonder how it is that you know that the majority of Spanish voters were moved by "fear and intimidation." The sources I've been reading and the one Spanish national that I've talked to indicate that people were a) ticked at the Popular Party's attempt to spin the attacks to their own advantage by blaming Eta, which apparently no one in country seriously believed, and b) concerned that aggressive foreign policy doesn't combat the root causes of terrorism and, to that end, had speculated that such a policy was the cause of Spain's being targeted for attack.

That sounds like a pretty reasonable position to me.

Anyway, what do you mean when you write, "give them the greatest chance of success." What have the terrorists succeded in doing in Spain? Surely simply saying "influencing an election" isn't enough; first, because I think it's clear that the PP's actions after the fact had as much to do with the outcome as the actual event and, secondly, what interest does some vague terrorist organization have in merely influencing an election? It's not as if the pressure on terrorists now is greatly lifted with a Socialist administration in Spain.

I'll note for posterity that you wish ill on Spain for exercising democratic freedoms. Schadenfreude is a massively unbecoming trait John, and a particularly jeuvenille one too. Just because they can see clearly how serious terrorism really is and you're still caught in knee-jerk reaction mode shouldn't mean that you'd smile upon further terrorism. To each his own, I guess.

[johnb]

I'll note for posterity that you wish ill on Spain for exercising democratic freedoms. Schadenfreude is a massively unbecoming trait John, and a particularly jeuvenille one too. Just because they can see clearly how serious terrorism really is and you're still caught in knee-jerk reaction mode shouldn't mean that you'd smile upon further terrorism. To each his own, I guess.

No Mark, I don't "wish ill on Spain". I'm simply mature enough to understand that when reasonable people cave in to the demands of terrorists the terrorists will continue to make demands. More terror attacks will come, because against Spain they are successful.

The US caved and cowered to the terrorists all through the Clinton years and the fruit of that harvest was 9/11. We did nothing of consequence when the World Trade Center was bombed the first time, we did nothing of consequence when the Khobar towers was blown up, we did nothing of consequence when the two African embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were blown up, finally, we did nothing when the USS Cole was attacked.

The terrorists leared that while Clinton was president they had a free hand to attack and murder Americans. Even US military personnel and US Navy ships were acceptable targets.

You're just angry because George Bush has taken action to prevent the terrorists from continuing to operate as during the Clinton administration. Leftists can't seem to tolerate people who understand the reality that evil exists in the world and acts accordingly.

[Anonymous]

First things first John.

You are not mature. You are not "grown up", you are not "adult." You are shockingly infantile. You are the only member of this forum and, indeed, the only person with whom I have contact that so insists on simply calling people names. You've no end with them, and they find their way into at least half of your posts. You may consider that mature, but the rest of us left that maturity in the 6th grade.

Further, you seem to find it a near necessity to lace the majority of your posts with some denigrating comment that has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand. Often these remarks are directed people who have given their lives to public service, are upstanding members of society, and whom John has no rapport with. Witness the remarks about Dennis Kucinich a few weeks back for but one example. Pure childishness.

And let me here recall Mill's quote regarding the conservative mind.

With that out of the way, may I again ask at what the terrorists were successful in doing? And what were the demands that you imply that terrorists issued, and Spain failed to meet, that resulted in the attacks?

Instead of postulating some bizzare theory that any Islamic terrorist anywhere actually had the thought, "You know, we want things done in Spain, and they're not listening we should bomb them. And, once the Socialists come to power, whom we're thrilled about, they will surely acquiesce to our every demand and we'll be free to further terrorize them and the entire world without any interference!" perhaps you should at least listen to the majority of people affected by the recent attacks. Because those people are of the resounding opinion that engaging in a war on dubious legal pretext, to engage a threat that didn't exsist, managing to kill tens of thousands of Iraqis, while ignoring other serious threats to global peace and security might, just might, piss a few people off enough to make them want to inflict harm of those doing the engaging. Just a thought. Better then to not continue the path of belligerence that brought on the destruction, but to engage terrorism more earnestly, and in a more coordinated fashion, where the threats and chances of success are greatest.

You call that "caving in" I call that ceasing to be moronic and starting to actually be "serious" and "adult" about engaging terrorism. The past 12 months have been a major distraction from a what could have been a coordinated global compaign to ferret out some of the elements endangering the entire world. Instead the U.S. chooses to invade a country, causing resentment, breeding more terrorists, and inviting attacks. Did the invasion disrupt the global terror network? No. It may have been good for Saddam's own people, but the war was sold to the public and congress as a response to a threat of Saddam's terror networking. That has been exposed as a total fraud. Meanwhile the U.S. ignores the largest material breach in weapons proliferation perhaps in history. some of which assuredly found its way into the hands of evil men, all while insisting that the focus should be on a poor, downtrodden country that wanted nothing more than to be left alone.

Also, I'm not sure which history texts you've been reading, but the history I'm familiar with has Clinton, far be it from cowering to terrorists, launching missles at them on a number of occassions. Illegally and immorally I might add - specifically the Al Shifa asprin factory bombing. That aggression, coupled with the U.S.'s blind support for Israel, not cowardice, would be more than enough to provoke many into acts of violence against the U.S.

What's more is that you're still totally missing the chronology of the terrorist's psychology. You don't just attack someone because you preceive that you can, you have to want to independently first. So I'd totally reject as a logical absurdity that a terrorist would count as a reason that he should act the fact that he has acted without too serious a repercussion before. He may feel emboldened that he'll be succeed in whatever act he has planned, but that is not why he chooses to act. That is a fact I don't think you understand, but one you'll have to if you ever want to see the world rid of the people who seek to cause you harm. The reason I think you choose to not understand it is that, with the understanding, comes the culpability for the sources of frustration, anger and resentment felt by terrorists and oppressed people generally. The U.S. is no benevolent, not even begign, actor in the world. It, you, and me, contribute to conditions that lead to violence against the West. We don't deserve to be murdered for it, but we don't deserve to be granted a right of denial either.

Embrace it, own it, and work to change it.

[johnb]

Nice try Mark.

Allow me to help you:

con·de·scen·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knd-snshn)
n.

1. The act of condescending or an instance of it.
2. Patronizingly superior behavior or attitude.


The use of sarcasm, even deliberately mean sarcasm, is an effective way of demonstrating the foolish nature of and delegitimizing the leftist tripe you hawk as a reasonable. responsible, and intellectual means to engage the world around you. It is none of those. It is an abject denial of reality in the fields of economics, world affairs, and national defense.

My condescension and sarcasm are based upon the fact that your socialist economics and authoritarian left wing politics ARE ethically, practically and intellectually inferior. You, clearly, are offended. That's your issue my friend, not mine. If you wish to believe the earth is flat you have no right to demand others stop laughing at you.

What Spain did, since you can't seem to get it through your head otherwise, is back down in the face of terrorism. In terms of international politics, Spain blinked. International politics is NOT akin to some group of left wing nut jobs with guitars singing Kumbayaa around a campfire. It is a poker game and quite often national survival hinges upon having a game face and NOT blinking.

When confronted with the demand to terminate it's participation in the rebuilding of Iraq, that's what the Spanish troops were doing, they were not a part of the invasion, Spain caved in the aftermath of the bomb blast. The Islamofascists figured to impact the Spanish elections and they succeeded. They will repeat actions that produce the desired results. Can you not understand this?

France is on the chopping block as well, over the issue of head scarves for school girls unfortunate to enough to be saddled with the burden of Islam.
(I love the theology, men are pigs, wear this bag.)

You still don't get it. The terrorists are attacking not because they can. They are attacking because they have certain theological-political goals that those attacks are intended to further.

First off, the goal is the unification of the Islamic "nation". That includes all territory ever ruled by a Muslim. Al Andalus is a recognized component of what the Islamofasicsts call their 'Islamic Nation". That the Spanish people may disagree is irrelevant and at this point it is moot. They can be cowed into surrendering easily enough, it's just a matter of the applicaton of sufficient terror/force.

Second, these terror attacks against the West are more directed at their own people as against us. It unifies Muslims around what Osama calls the strong horse. Arab culture is such that weakness and forgiveness are despised. Strength and force are admired and held as the ideal virtures. Islamic states in the middle east are miserable, economically, politically, and by any other measure against the world. The only two things they have is oil and a viscious religion. Very few people derived any benefit from Saddam's rule in Baghdad. Yet Arabs the world over cheered and chanted for that drug addict all because he was theoretically a Muslim and he was belligerent towards non Muslims. The longer the Islamofascists are allowed to operate the fewer and quieter the voices of "moderate Islam" become.

(There was a professor at Nablus University who a few years ago postulated that Mohammed might not have existed, but was a name credited with the evolutionary creation of Islam. His students threw him out of the classroom window to his death. That mentality is the one that is dominant now and rising in Islam, it may not be numerically superior, but it doesn't have to be. It merely has to be ready to act.)

Mark, I am abrasive because I have little tolerance for stupid people. Especially stupid people on a crusade for destructive -isms.

[johnb]

http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/fresh/showpics.cgi?the_new_peseta

[/img]

[johnb]

Seems that even when caving in to the demands of the Islamofascists Spanish soldiers are still getting attacked. Wasn't pulling out of Iraq supposed to convince the Islamofascists NOT to target Spanish soldiers and civilians ?

www.foxnews.com

In Najaf, the shooting broke out after thousands of al-Sadr supporters gathered outside the Spanish garrison. A spokesman for the Spanish headquarters in nearby Diwaniyah, Commander Carlos Herradon, said attackers opened fire about noon.

The Spanish and Salvadoran soldiers fired back, and assailants later regrouped in three clusters outside the base. Shooting continued into the afternoon, he said.

Along with the two coalition soldiers killed, nine were wounded, the Spanish Defense Ministry said in the Spanish capital, Madrid.

The Salvadorans are under Spanish command as part of an international brigade that includes troops from Central America. No Spaniards were injured.

Spain has 1,300 troops stationed in Iraq, and the Central American contingent is of a similar size. Multiple train bombings in Madrid last month killed 191 people and have been blamed on Al Qaeda (search) linked terrorists who said they were punishing Spain for its alliance with the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Spain's new government, elected just days after the bombing, has promised to make good on a pre-election promise to withdraw all Spanish troops from Iraq unless command for peacekeeping is turned over to the United Nations.

In Najaf, the shooting broke out after thousands of al-Sadr supporters gathered outside the Spanish garrison. A spokesman for the Spanish headquarters in nearby Diwaniyah, Commander Carlos Herradon, said attackers opened fire about noon.

The Spanish and Salvadoran soldiers fired back, and assailants later regrouped in three clusters outside the base. Shooting continued into the afternoon, he said.

Along with the two coalition soldiers killed, nine were wounded, the Spanish Defense Ministry said in the Spanish capital, Madrid.

The Salvadorans are under Spanish command as part of an international brigade that includes troops from Central America. No Spaniards were injured.

Spain has 1,300 troops stationed in Iraq, and the Central American contingent is of a similar size. Multiple train bombings in Madrid last month killed 191 people and have been blamed on Al Qaeda (search) linked terrorists who said they were punishing Spain for its alliance with the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Spain's new government, elected just days after the bombing, has promised to make good on a pre-election promise to withdraw all Spanish troops from Iraq unless command for peacekeeping is turned over to the United Nations.