Great article Mugz!

The idea that the Spanish left because they were bowing to terrorism is completely incorrect. The current Spanish government went to the election saying they would withdraw their troops immediately if elected. They were elected and they kept their promise...I believe that is called democracy.
The Philippines government withdrew it's troop a whole 3 weeks early. Technically I guess this is 'bowing to terrorism' but 3 weeks later they would have had the same scenario, no troops in Iraq and a very ugly and unpopular beheading.
Our current government has shown little regard for it's own citizens. I believe the Australian government is the only government not to request the return of it's citizens from Guantanomo Bay. It is also the only government (including the US itself) who are happy for their citizens to be tried by military tribunal.
Downer is a pompous fool who embarasses himself and this country every time he opens his mouth. (I have never gotten over the fact that he had the Australian ambassador to Chile sacked because one time a car was not waiting at the airport for Downer when he arrived in Santiago.)

Pulling troops out before the invasion would be a moral act. Pulling them out afterward, when the Iraqi people needed all the security and help they could get isn't moral at all. At best it is spiteful and at worst it is cowardly.

Spain made a commitment in Iraq, and then backed out when they were needed most. The fact that the government changed hands doesn't change anything. The fact remains that they as a nation offered something to the Iraqi people, and then yanked it away when they had no reason to... other than to cower or make a back-handed political statement to please EU peers.

Spain ended its military involvement. To the best of my knowledge its pledge to give $300 million in aid still stands. Does Iraq really need 1,500 troops who would spend most of their time confined to barracks to avoid attack, or is it better to get the financial and construction support?

No, Iraq doesn't need those troops - but they need the International show of support that troops on the ground bring.

The world needs to know, no governments will held to ransom be by terrorist groups...

BAM!!!

Tell that to the Philipines...

, in the first few hours they said they SUSPECTED the ETA, and after decades of terrorism, who could blame them? What would you have considerd to be the odds of an Al Qaeda attack in Spain had you been asked the week before 3-11? I would have said "No way, but the ETA blows up stuff there all the time..."

The "lies" garbage was all political, and seemed to play well in Spain, sadly. I feel strongly that it is in no way "their best interest" to make terrorists believe that killing people is a good way to sway popular opinion. Maybe they would have voted that way, anyway, but it was taken as positive reinforcement by terrorists around the world.

I'll start them how I like.

Terrorists can change their tactics, and as I said there was no reason to expect an Al Qaeda attack in Spain and every reason to expect an ETA attack.

It's silly for someone sitting so far away to accuse the Spanish government of "lying" when they hadn't had more than a day to piece the situation together. I find it funny that you can tell them that they shouldn't have started with the most-likely suspect, sitting where you are, knowing only what you know.

When I see something silly, I laugh, don't you?

Anyway, the issue isn't whether the terrorists swayed public opinion, it is whether the terrorists believe they swayed public opinion. The Filipino troops were leaving Iraq soon, anway, but do you think that matters to the people who think they bullied a nation into obeying them? As misguided as they may be, people do believe that Spain caved to terrorism, and that is all that it takes to make terrorism seem profitable.

"However, if you find me silly, then I suggest you refrain from responding. I'm no less intelligent that you are, and contrary to your opinion, I do know what I am talking about."

You do seem to have a real grip on everything that was regurgitated over and over by propagandists about the situation months after the fact. On-the-spot knowhow, though? I kind of think you have no right to second guess the Spanish government.

"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.

Listen, you will always be able to sound well-informed when you are sitting months later, copy/pasting what others have found after having investigated, but you have no right to judge the Spanish government and call them liars based on their first few hours of response to an unprecedented attack.

, 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.

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.

"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...

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.