Are terrorists capable of overturning our government?

Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog Bookmark this site!

Are terrorists capable of overturning our government? 03.15.04 (4:45 pm)   [edit] As you are likely already aware of, Spain's elections resulted in the removal of the current government leaders. The main reason for this is that 90% of Spanish citizens opposed aiding the US-led war in Iraq, but Prime Minister Aznar backed the war regardless. With the recent attacks in Madrid, Aznar is being blamed for inviting bloodshed by supporting the war. So, does this mean that terrorism effected the replacement of Spain's governing body? And what does that mean to the US? Looking at things from a certain perspective, it does seem that the terrorist attacks resulted in the ousting of Spain's leadership. The message of the terrorists was perhaps given greater emphasis by the voters decision to change the leadership. In this light, it could seem as though the terrorists "won," but I think that is a bit misleading. Since the vast majority of Spain's population was against Aznar's decision to support the war in Iraq, it is quite likely that he would have been voted out anyway. However, I am sure that the attacks convinced any uncertain voters to cast their vote in opposition of Aznar. This could lend some momentum to the terrorist organization, as it shows that their actions do heed results. This, obviously, could have a dangerous effect on the U.S. Al Qaeda members are already equipped with a basic resolve that leads them to accomplish their tasks of terrorism by any means necessary. Knowing that their actions could have a direct effect on our government itself is likely to further this resolve as well as increase the urgency (in the minds of the terrorists) of attacking or bringing down the US. It could very well merely be a matter of time before we are attacked again, and our reactions could determine the course of future terrorist attacks. Could the very same thing happen in the US? If attacked prior to our Presidential elections, would US citizens be more likely to elect Bush or his opponent? I have a feeling American resolve would result in Bush's re-election, rather than the attacks being blamed on Bush. I think Americans have a certain resolve that is similar, although immensely differing, to the resolve of the terrorists. Whereas they have an uncompromising desire to attain their goal of terrorism to achieve whatever it is they hope to accomplish, Americans have a common goal to defend our nation and protect the freedoms we have as Americans. Ultimately, the battle could come down to whose resolve is stronger, and I am certain that the resolve of Americans (liberal, conservative, or otherwise) will prevail.   posted by: WinstonSmith (reply) post date: 03.15.04 (1:54 pm) I disagree entirely. Bush IS responsible. Al Qaida recruitment has skyrocketed since Bush highjacked our government and started illegal & immoral incursions into the Arab world (that had nothing to do with 9/11). The Spanish people were opposed to going in to Iraq ... 90% were opposed to Aznar supporting the Fascist Bush regime. Good for them!!! The one who is aiding and abetting the terrorists is Bush who lusts for wars that he is too cowardly to fight himself-- to enrich himself, his criminal family, Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, etc. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 03.15.04 (1:58 pm) The Spinsters of both parties are already prepared in advance, I am sure, for another attack close to election time. It will most likely even out. I agree about Spain- they probably would have elected who they did anyway. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 03.15.04 (2:01 pm) As I should also mention, terrorists have tried to change our government before- Oklahoma City for one posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 03.15.04 (2:56 pm) I agree that al Qaeda could get the wrong idea. The Spanish people were against the war regardless of this, and the message that could be sent is the wrong one. Ironically, if the same attack came a few days after the election, the election results probably would have been the same, but the people would have gotten an entirely different message. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.15.04 (3:22 pm) Reply to: WinstonSmith Um, I don't recall saying Bush wasn't responsible. My opinion, since you mentioned it, however, is that there are a lot of factors and it would be overly simplistic to simply blame it on one person. I disagree with a lot of the ways Bush has gone about his "war on terrorism" but that wasn't really the point. As you and I both stated, 90% of Spanish citizens opposed involvment or support of the war in Iraq and that is the main reason Aznar was replaced in this election. The attacks only placed a greater emphasis on Aznar's betrayal of the will of his people. posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 03.15.04 (6:50 pm) I think that if enough people were in support of terrorism (as in many Islamic countries) then they could take over the U.S. I also think that just because Spain's former leader supported the war, that is not the reason why what happened in Madrid happened. If you recall, there was no reason for 9-11, other than the issue that Islamic fundamentalism hates non-Muslims. Some say what caused 9-11 was the support of Israel that the U.S. has. What? So now theives and murderers get to dictate who your friends are? I think that one (country or individual) should allie with whom they want to allie with, support who they want to support, and function how they wish to function. And if that means supporting Israel or a war against an evil dictatorship, no one can try and punish you for trying to do what is right, especially murderous lunatics like Al Quaida. So we should live in fear and be careful who we make bedfellows with in order to please some phillistine? Fuck dat shit. The bombing in Madrid was bound to happen, just like 9-11. Those hate-mongers have a boiling point and they can't stand civilization. Fuck 'em. In the civilized world, we respect eachother's differences, not blow them up because they're not Muslim like we are. Fuck 'em. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 03.16.04 (9:13 am) Reply to: RedTigress If enough people were linked to terrorism in any country that there was a serious threat of taking over the US, chances are that the US would wiple them off the face of the earth. I'm not saying that that's the answer, and we are not at the point where that sort of threat is anywhere near reality. But when your very survival depends on something, the rules start to change very quickly. posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 03.16.04 (10:57 am) Reply to: mblog I'd hope so. Perhaps I'm just a pessemist (sp?) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.16.04 (3:56 pm) Reply to: RedTigress Lol, Red you'd make an excellent diplomat- "fuck em!" In all seriousness though, the matter of terrorist motives is difficult to understand. There is a certian irrational rationality that is taught to these terrorists, and it is this that causes them to act the way they do. If I feel like not being lazy tonight, I might elaborate on terrorist motives... ;) posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 03.16.04 (5:39 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 Yea, I agree about the irrational rationale. Are you kiddin'? I'm the best fuckin' diplomat ever! ;) posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 03.18.04 (9:21 am) What I'd like to know is what effect the terrorist act had on elections. There was a fair amount of discussion about the Spanish election. It seems as if 90% of the people were against the war to begin with, and the change in political opinions was not overwhelming, but was significant enough to have an effect. It also seems that many more went to the polls because of this and that was a huge factor. But what was not discussed was the effect in the US. Did Bush become more popular because of it? Will more people now say that they will vote for Bush because this influenced their feelings about national security? It's something that al Qaeda should be considering if they think this was a win for them. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.19.04 (11:01 am) Reply to: mblog You make a very good point, and I think that in the US, such an attack would only result in greater support for our President. Some will perhaps take on the Spanish sentiment and blame Bush for this, but most solely blame al Qaeda and terrorism- thus, Bush's "war on terror" gains support. But that's just theorizing, I don't know any actual facts of the effect this has had on the US and how it will fare for Bush. Also, al Qaeda likely wants the US to engage in 'war' with them. By massive attacks from the evil US, it can be considered indiscriminate violence against Arabs, as the war on terrorism is not a war against another country or countries, but a group within other countries. This unites the Arab world by considering the war to be of a religious nature. So, it's difficult to say whether it would be considered a victory for al Qaeda if Bush is not re-elected. Your Name: Your Comment:

"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins