I also disagree with your assumption that there was no reason to expect an attack in the run up to the election." I never said that. I said that there was no reason to expect an Al Qaeda attack in Spain.

I was referring to the run up to the Spanish election--thus, I meant an al Qaeda attack in Spain.

And for the record, I am not regurgitating anything. I had this conversation with my boss immediately after the attack. Having studied Eta, the attack didn't fit.

I kind of think you have no right to second guess the Spanish government.

Why can't I second guess the Spanish government? How is that any different than you second-guessing the Phillipino government? I am clearly as entitled to my opinion, and judgement, as you are of yours.

copy/pasting

I sincerely hope you are not accusing me of plagarizing.


"

, pointless. You obviously have a lot more invested in this than meets the eye. I'll stand by my opinion that you have no right to call people liars sitting thousands of miles away with nothing but second-hand, back-facing knowledge to prove your points.

If you want to pretend you could authoritatively second-guess the Spanish government sitting thousands of miles away watching CNN, feel free. Don't expect people to give you the same authority you give yourself, though.

"How is that any different than you second-guessing the Phillipino government?"

I'm not charging them to be politcally motivated, opportunistic liars the way you are characterizing the previous Spanish government. To say that Spain walked out on its commitment to help secure Iraq is *fact*, they invaded, and then before the commitment was fulfilled they left. Whether they did it out of fear or spite is a matter of opinion, but how terrorists view the move is what is important.

the statement :

"there was no grounds to announcing that they were the perpetrators when the government did. If it wasn't flat out lying to save Aznar's butt (as I believe it was) it was hasty and bad decision making on the part of Aznar's advisors. The Spanish government was far to quick in assigning blame to Eta"

...is just biased opinion gussied-up with second hand knowledge. Sorry, but I'm dubious that you spent much time pondering Al Qaeda attacks in Spain, pre 3-11. Seems pretty easy now to be an expert once all the details have been lined up in article after article.

If people expect you to be of normal intelligence and precognitive faculties, it isn't an insult. Don't expect people just to assume you specially gifted, though, unless you offer something more than rehashed CNN facts.

Bakerstreet: Last time I checked this was a blog site where people expressed opinions. In my opinion, the Spanish government knowingly lied about Eta's involvements in the attack. You can be dubious about me and my intentions all you want. I don't have anything invested in this at all. I just find it amusing that you are allowed to state opinions but as soon as I do, my intentions and knowledge are questioned. Almost everything here is opinoin based on second-hand knowledge...that doesn't make one person's opinion any less valid than anyone elses.

biased opinion

how is my opinion any more biased than yours? Biased in what way?

You are the one who feels their intelligence is insulted by a smiley...

You decided to charge the former Spanish government of lying and opportunistically using their worst terrorist attack in history for political gain. If people ask for more than the regurgitated op-ed from any random cable news channel, can you blame them? You make a big leap when you say "lie".

I'm not debating whether eventually it became apparant that the ETA wasn't involved, I'm telling you outright that you weren't in any better position to tell the Spanish government what to believe before the election. What was learned thereafter isn't in the equation, so why keep posting facts that weren't learned until later?

You are biased by a lot of knowledge that the Spanish government did not have previous to the election.

---

I, on the other hand, simply said that Spain made a commitment to Iraq, and then didn't fulfill it. I openly admit that the election could have ended the way it did regardless. That still doesn't change the fact that some people will interperate their actions as a response to the bombing, and for that reason some terrorists will no doubt be heartened by it.

If they had stuck with their commitment to secure Iraq for its people, then there wouldn't have been any misinterpretation of their election. I don't find that to be very subjective at all, unlike accusing people of lying for political gain while doing impossible work in an awful situation.

you like to get your point across by belittling those who disagree instead of discussing the topic.

Yes, I too am finding this a very tiring trait. The last I knew it rarely works to change anyones mind by belittling and brow-beating them, it just creates animosity. I do not delete or blacklist but there are certain users that I no longer read nor respond to. This is a shame because BakerStreet has some good points but enough is enough.

"This is a shame because BakerStreet has some good points but enough is enough."

I invite Muggaz to control his own thread, and if I have been out of line he is welcome to let me know and delete any offending posts. I won't complain a bit. I take the other complaints with a grain of salt, having seen the full spectrum of behavior from them since I had the privledge of joining JU...

Baker - You have been guilty in the past of belittling me many a time... whether intentional or not, however, you have very valid points, and I have not once deleted a comment, or blacklisted a user - this is my blog yes, but I will let people form their own opinions. I just thank everyone for sharing!

At the end of the day, I am not going to tell you to pipe down, because Shades can look after herself quite well... you haven't trodden on my toes because like I told you in another thread - you are as real to me as Sir Peter Maxwell

BAM!!!

Two points:

1. FYI. The only legal way to dispose of the flag of the United States say when it gets all tattered from being flown (fly'ed) over an extended period of time it to BURN it. This is true and was true prior to a bunch of judges caving in to political pressure and declaring it a valid symbol of so-called Freedom Of Speech.

2. We had a gay rally in South Beach (Miami) just about two years ago and the gay's were burning a US flag for some asinine reason (this would have made a great headline: Fags burn Flag, heh heh Not a bad tongue twister either) and everyone thought that was cool, well one dude there didn't think it was cool and he torched a fag flag!! And, of course, everyone didn't think that was cool as it was a gay crowd. Which say's what? Why those dorks place their sexual orientation above their heritage I would say. I think that cat was way cool and the gesture was lost on that crowd.

I think that cat was way cool and the gesture was lost on that crowd.

It's a shame that the cat had to burn the fag flag for the point to be reached - flag burning is very dis-respectful... to some people it's a piece of cloth with pretty colours, but a lot of great men have fought and died for that flag, and it should be treated with the same respect that those men and woman deserve.

Atack the man (John Howard) but not the nation.

BAM!!!