Think for a moment about the elections in Spain this past weekend, and tell me how the Spanish electorate behaved any differently after the Madrid bombings last week than Ronald Reagan behaved after the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were bombed in 1983.
By its very nature, any affluent society like ours is always susceptible to the strong-arm tactics of terrorism. You need look no further than New York City to see this phenomenon at work. People in places all over this country that weren't directly impacted by 9/11 were the strongest supporters of this so-called "war on terror," long after the New York City Council had already concluded that cigarette smoke was the greatest threat to the city's existence.
The attack didn't happen in some far away land. It happened in New York City on 9/11/01 and Madrid on 3/11/04. The Spanish gave into the horrible terrorism that happened on their home soil.
Not exactly the definition of bravery, IMO.
But that was a mistake, and 911 should have showed the world that capitulating there, in the African Embassies, the first trade center bombing, the USS Cole etc were all mistakes. We learned from our mistakes, and the electorate did the opposite of your example in the 02 elections.
You need look no further than New York City to see this phenomenon at work. People in places all over this country that weren't directly impacted by 9/11 were the strongest supporters of this so-called "war on terror," long after the New York City Council had already concluded that cigarette smoke was the greatest threat to the city's existence.
You are irresponsibly mixing issues to portray an illusion of NY City being over 911. Link to where anyone said cigarette's were NY's "greatest threat". I doubt any politician of any ideology would marginalize the threat of terrorism as you are trying to say they have. When you overstate your case, because of whatever agenda you have against this so-called "war on terror" you lose credability.