Talk:The terrorists have won
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"On September 19, 2004, Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert asserted that he believed that a new bombing in Spain was intended to urge US voters to vote for John Kerry. His implication was that al Qaeda's goal was to displace George W. Bush, and that a Kerry victory would be a victory for terrorism. This view was roundly criticized by news sources as alarmist and absurd."
What news sources? I don't recall this view (which went beyond Hastert, it was even in Bush political ads) being "roundly criticized." Perhaps by British and Spanish news sources, but not in the U.S.
- Umm, it was in the news sources I was reading. Then again, I'm from Seattle, Washington, which is a pretty liberal place. You must also realize that this is the English language Wikipedia, not the USA Wikipedia. We have editors and an audience from all over the world. The current wording is vague, but in general this was criticized world wide as argumentum in terrorem. Or was that argumentum in terram? No, that was the Tora Bora deal. :)—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 06:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
In any case, I don't see the relevance of that to this article, unless someone can dig a quote up somewhere with the phrase. I'll remove it in a few days. -05:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Onto another issue. I was looking for the original quotation. I'm pretty sure that George Bush used it. And I wanted to say that the meaning, at the time, was that we need to go on with everything as normal or the terrorists win (they win if the terrorists disrupt out lives further, they way we do things, what we stand for, etc etc). I was researching this for a contrast between the initial, "The terrorists win if we change who we are" versus where we are today, "We must change who we are (as a nation) so the terrorists must not win." [re: all the domestic spying stuff.. internet, banking, credit, telephone, etc] --68.97.208.232 18:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)