Terrorist attack in Spain

[Drakron]

10 days before the bombing they found two trucks with explosives, combined it was half a ton of explosives.

 

I doubt it was for fireworks ...

 

Pre-Franco ETA had points but after it, they are nothing but murders and they had killed many people.

 

As for Al-Queda ... Al-Queda does not profits from this, ETA on the other hand does and even more if they allow the doubt to remain.

 

Europe have lived with terrorism well before 7/11, the fact the North American countries dont does not change the fact that terrorism is nothing europeans had not seen over the last decades.

 

ETA, IRA, LVF, FLNC, Baader-Meinhof, Red Brigades, 17 November ...

[Volourn]

Huh? AQ *does* profit from this. Also, NA countries *did* suffer from terrorist attacks pre 9/11. What world do you live in?

[Dark Lord Revan]

It seems to me that the people of Spain have reacted to the situation emotionally rather than logically. The socialists it seems used the attack to further their own political goals. Now that they are in power, they are saying that they will withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq, but I ask; is that very smart? All they are doing is saying to the terrorists that terrorism acheives viable results. A withdraw from Iraq will be a huge victory for Al Qaeda. Whether the people supported the war or not (I was against it) that is no longer the issue. The issue now is that Iraq is highly unstable and pulling troops out and shifting the burden onto others is a serious error.

[Monte Carlo]

It seems to me that the people of Spain have reacted to the situation emotionally rather than logically.

Agreed.

 

 

The socialists it seems used the attack to further their own political goals.  Now that they are in power, they are saying that they will withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq, but I ask; is that very smart?  All they are doing is saying to the terrorists that terrorism acheives viable results.

 

Well the socialists would use the attack for their political advantage: they are politicians after all. And Aznar's Popular Party also tried to use the possibility of it being ETA (a left-wing bogeyman to many middle-class Spaniards) to boost their vote too. As to if it was smart or not, well I tend to agree with you to a point. My feelings are mixed...one one hand the PP were scheduled for a narrow but not uncomfortable winning margin, but on the other 90% of the Spanish public were against Spanish involvement and support for the USA in Iraq.

 

A withdraw from Iraq will be a huge victory for Al Qaeda.

A political and symbolic victory indeed. But Spain's withdrawal of it's 120 peacekeepers is hardly likely to keep the US high command awake at night, sweating. If the entire contingent had been killed in action it would still be less than perished in Madrid.

 

Whether the people supported the war or not (I was against it) that is no longer the issue.

 

You are absolutely correct. I supported military action against Iraq but was sorely disappointed by the tardy and haphazard approach to post-war planning and reconstruction; Spain's decision hardly helps. Also, as I said before, the peaceniks of the "Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil" Left seem to have conveniently forgotten that 9/11 happened at a time where the USA was military inactive in the Arab (and indeed wider Muslim) world. LIke I said, I'm broadly conservative but even I don't buy the retrospective neo-con view that Iraq is now drawing every jihad-crazed terrorist to the killing zone of Iraq like "squirrels into the wood chipper." I think Madrid put paid to that idea, didn't it?

 

The issue now is that Iraq is highly unstable and pulling troops out and shifting the burden onto others is a serious error.

 

An error, but their perogative. Spain's support is political, not military. The USA and the UK made the decision. The USA and the UK took action. The USA and the UK have the lion's share of lucrative reconstruction contracts and enhanced influence in the region. Natch, the two countries must also shoulder the burden the most.

 

The governments of most mainland European countries view the USA with a mixture of condescension, fear and loathing. The Germans and French want a superpower counterbalance to the USA in Europe but will never get it (not least because they don't want to invest in defence spending, a prerequisite for true superpower status). They are quietly pleased that Spain has given George Bush a bit of a bloody nose. They also seem to think that a softly-softly approach to the problems of the Middle East will deflect terrorism from their borders.

 

They are like the appeasers of Hitler in the 1930's. That strange little man with his odd followers might not be our cup of tea, old chap, but if we leave him alone he'll leave us alone, won't he? Well, in Bin Laden's case, no he won't. If, god forbid, a bomb goes off in Berlin or Paris will the public there blame the USA or Al'Quaeda? Will they wake up and see that their government's mendacity regarding the issue is partly to blame?

 

Only time will tell. Scary, interesting times. My wife gets on a commuter train to London every day. And it scares me at the moment, I can tell you. More than the IRA, a hell of a lot more.

 

I'm an old-fashioned kind of guy. Hit me and I hit you. If we have to commit to a fifty-year campaign of low-intensity warfare in godforsaken third world countries to rid the world of the scourge of this new facsism and to protect our families then so be it. There is no other way. No peace conference, initiative or hand-wringing will resolve this one, I'm afraid. And liberal European governments seem to have no other solution.

 

Now please carry on. Nothing to see here.

 

Cheers

MC

[Darque]

Monte Carlo

 

Well I can see your point there, now that you've elaborated You gave the impression that you thought americans were utterly clueless

 

As a side note, since you are so well travelled, I guess you realize what I posted above to be true. While I've never been to LA or NYC... I've been darn near everywhere else.

[Nightblade]

Seems to me that Zapatero now gives AQ exactly the reaction they were hoping for. He withdraws from Iraq, and starts to criticize the US. He shouldn't have done that imho. I believe it'll only encourage AQ to continue their crusade in other countries.

[Howlin]

I agree with the general feelings here.

 

The withdrawl of support now will give weight to AQ's claims that the ends justify the means.

 

How long until the other smaller terror networks take heart from Spains actions and recommence their own little terror wars?

[pregethwr]

I'm sure Zapatero now wishes he hadn't made the withdrawing troops pledge, but you say silly things in election campaigns you don't expect to win.

 

I'm not sure I really buy the 'victory for terrorism', perhaps I'm wrong but things seem more complicated than that, not that the bombs didn't have a huge impact, but I'm not sure spain suddenly turned into a nation of appeasers.

 

1) Higher turnout generally favours the left, the bomb led to a higher turnout. The turnout was particularly high in those Madrid suburbs that were affected by the bombings - these areas have historically voted up to 80% for the socialists.

 

2) Big swing to the left in Catalonia - Azanar had made some inadvisable coments about Catalan nationalism being the same as ETA and criticised some Catalan parties after the bombing for in the past having entered negotiations with ETA, this attempt to tie all the regional movements in Spain in with the March 11th bombings obviously backfired.

 

3) The PPs leads in the polls were less say than Labour's leads prior to the 1992 general election. Pollsters get it wrong.

 

4) Domestic issues like the economy weren't really playing for the PP, plus Azanar's standing down but running and fronting the campaign seemed a bit weird.

 

Seems a bit pat for the results to fall into other countries arguments rather than being domestically driven.

[pulp]

Seems like you can either agree or disagree with Al-Qaeda - or risk an all out rhetorical attack that conflates Al-Qaeda's actions with its grievances.

 

So when Zapatero stands up and condemns the US, he has to qualify that he abhors the actions of these terrorists.

 

Well, of course - "you're either with us or against us", aren't you?

 

Tragic, a world full of either/or's.

[Monte Carlo]

Seems like you can either agree or disagree with Al-Qaeda - or risk an all out rhetorical attack that conflates Al-Qaeda's actions with its grievances.

Indulge me, please. What does this actually mean?

 

So when Zapatero stands up and condemns the US, he has to qualify that he abhors the actions of these terrorists.

 

Yes, he does. Not an unrealistic expectation for a democratically elected politician in an advanced first world country, is it?

 

Well, of course - "you're either with us or against us", aren't you?

Yes, sleepy head. With AQ you are unequivocally for "them" or against "them". Unless you are prepared to accept the Sharia and a frankly psycopathic interpretation of Islamic theology then you're toast. Simple.

 

Tragic, a world full of either/or's.

 

Yep. It's tragic that Islamist militants have put us in this position. Lazy sniping and hand-wringing by liberals will of course prolong the agony. But, hey, what's a few thousand innocent lives when the credibility and conscience of the Left is at stake?

 

The Left's position on this is quite strange. If you wanted to create a stereotypical liberal nightmare then Bin Laden and his homophobic, mysoginistic and religiously hyper-conservative agenda is almost too spot-on. Yet theycan't quite bring themselves to loathe him as much as they do Dubya, Don and Condi. Oh, and McDonalds. When will they grow up?

 

Cheers

MC

[Monte Carlo]

Just as an aside, HERE is an interesting article on the subject courtesy of the BBC.

 

AQ is mutating. Anyone with a nihilistic, anti-Western vendetta can "be" in AQ.

 

And HERE is another view from the inimitable Mark Steyn.

 

Cheers

MC

[Howlin]

Just as an aside, HERE is an interesting article on the subject courtesy of the BBC.

 

AQ is mutating. Anyone with a nihilistic, anti-Western vendetta can "be" in AQ.

 

And HERE is another view from the inimitable Mark Steyn.

 

Cheers

MC

In the second article you linked to, the excerpt seems likely. They (AQ and associated factions) just have to wait for elections in the democratic countries. There one coming up in the US. When are they in the other countries supporting the US?

 

And, if it works in Spain, why not in Australia, Britain, Italy, Poland? In his 1996 "Declaration of War Against the Americans", Bin Laden cited Washington's feebleness in the face of the 1992 Aden hotel bombings and the Black Hawk Down business in Somalia in 1993: "You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew," he wrote. "The extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear." To the jihadis' way of thinking, on Thursday, the Spaniards were disgraced by Allah; on Sunday, they withdrew. The extent of their impotence and weaknesses is very clear.

[deganawida]

The almost definite prospect of a terrorist attack before the November elections is what I find most disturbing (other than the loss of life). It does not matter what Spain says is it's reason for pulling out, Al Qaeda will (and has--on sites affiliated with it there have been claims that they overthrew the Aznar government) claim victory, and that boost of morale insures that we will see something right before the election. It looks almost as if, thanks to the Spanish election, that the terrorists have won, and Western civilization won't last the decade. Of course, I could just be overly pessimistic at the moment, too.

[Monte Carlo]

Hmmm. I suspect that even AQ recognise that the resolve of the US public is a different beast than that of European countries. Even Sen. Kerry has stated that if he wins in November he will keep troops in Iraq....the Pax Americana is too strong for either a Democratic or Republican president to reverse at this point in time. Oh yes, AQ will target the USA, but simply out of murderous loathing than any realistic expectation that they could usher in a malleable government there.

 

Europe, OTOH, is something completely different. I'm genuinely worried that a strategy of deliberately pin-pointed violence will be used to attempt to manipulate European democracies. There may very well be a general election in the UK in 2005, for example. The British public are pretty much 50/50 on the war (with a slim majority in favour) but nonetheless I think the risks are obvious.

 

France and Germany are already on the appeaser's side of the fence. It will be interesting to see if this spares them attacks in the medium term. I doubt it, somehow.

 

Cheers

MC

[tripleRRR]

I find it difficult to understand France and Germany's stand on this matter, if nothing else this recent attack on Spain shows that they cannot expect to come out of this situation unscathed.

 

How far will they go in trying to appease these people? Most of these groups want some radical changes in government, so how far will the french and german governments go to make them happy?

 

I can honestly say I don't understand their views on this issue, especially after the incident in Spain, they won't remain unaffected forever.

 

 

TripleRRR

[Drakron]

Well its not a suprise, pretty much every european country have been at war with each other at some point, there is little "friendly neighborhood" in Europe.

 

Also why sould they? they have their own (more serious and down to earth) problems to addess that to start to colect duck tape and go around in pink alert.

 

Besides the change for a universal policy to fight terrorist groups was lost long ago when the US (Bush really) said "no, thank you".

[tripleRRR]

Well its not a suprise, pretty much every european country have been at war with each other at some point, there is little "friendly neighborhood" in Europe.

 

Also why sould they? they have their own (more serious and down to earth) problems to addess that to start to colect duck tape and go around in pink alert.

 

Besides the change for a universal policy to fight terrorist groups was lost long ago when the US (Bush really) said "no, thank you".

Can you clarify your second paragraph, I cannot seem to understand what you are trying to say.

 

 

TripleRRR

[Drakron]

France and Germany have ecomonical problems and unemploment problems.

 

Right now that is their priority.

 

Terrorism is not a current serious problem, any resources devoted to that would be better use on solving their ecomonical and unemploment problems.

[Monte Carlo]

France has suffered from significant terrorism problems as a result of it's colonial heritage in North Africa. The Paris metro was attacked by Algerian extremists in the late 90's, and to be fair the French were warning the rest of the Europe about expanding Islamist terrorist networks long before 9/11.

 

The attitude of the French government has less to do with other domestic issues than it's disdain for President George Bush. The French are capricious, haughty, self-interested but utterly ruthless when protecting their own interests. They will not be soft on terrorism. France needs to stop trying to be so sophisticated and trying to fit the whole issue of Al'Qaeda into some wider game of three-dimensional political chess with the USA. Their dream of a European superstate is so totally off-the-wall now that they might as well stop dreaming and get real. And that means some sort of less confrontational dialogue with Bush and Co. Of course, the Spanish affair will goad them onto even more fanciful ideas about building a "progressive bloc" in Europe to counterbalance the USA. Remember, though, the current French government is right-wing and only squeeked in by a narrow margin to avoid Jean Marie Le Pen winning the last general election. Le Pen is, of course, the ex-leader of the deeply unsavoury far-right Front National.

 

Germany is a different story.

 

Joschka Fischer, the foreign secretary, is a hard-left member of the Green Party. He is stuck in a late 60's neo-Marxist time-warp. Under Herr Schroeder's government there is no chance of Germany doing anything other than pandering to the strong pacifist tendency in the German public (but as any neighbour of Germany will tell you, the fact that they now have astrong pacifist tendency isn't necessarily a bad thing). The Christian Democrats used to show a bit of respect for the US, remembering the astonishing charity shown to the country after WW2...but the socialists have no such intentions. And, yes, the high-tax European model German economy is struggling. It's difficult seeing Germany doing anything other than trundle along in full denial and hand-wringing mode. I see Schroeder's struggling government as a prime candidate for some Al'Qaeda "Semtex Persuasion" prior to a general election, even though it would usher in a CD regime!

 

As I said before, the Franco-German bloc is deeply antipathetic to the US and the UK. Both want to he the helmsmen of a united Europe. Both are living in a fantasy land of their own making.

 

Cheers

MC

[The Situationist]

colect duck tape and go around in pink alert.

Ha ha.

[Monte Carlo]

Check this story out, seeing as we're on the subject.

 

It warned the UK, Australia and Saudi Arabia that a "brigade of death" was targeting them and other countries.

 

But it also said it was freezing its operations in Spain as a reward for the new government's stance on Iraq.

 

I'll bet the new Spanish PM is really, really proud to have won the favour of AQ on the back of 200 civilian dead.

[Drakron]

 

Polls shown the spanish did not support the Iraq invasion and part of PSOE campain was to remove Spain from the Iraq.

 

Besides Al-Queda is full of it, I bet Al-QUeda can claim have ongoing operations on the South Pole ...

[Colrom]

The withdrawl of support now will give weight to AQ's claims that the ends justify the means.

Isn't that also the claim of George and the other rightists?

 

A strange position for those who claim to be Christians.

[Howlin]

The withdrawl of support now will give weight to AQ's claims that the ends justify the means.

Isn't that also the claim of George and the other rightists?

 

A strange position for those who claim to be Christians.

The problem is the winners usually write history.... Have to wait and see.

[Deadeye Dragoon]

Europe, OTOH, is something completely different. I'm genuinely worried that a strategy of deliberately pin-pointed violence will be used to attempt to manipulate European democracies. There may very well be a general election in the UK in 2005, for example. The British public are pretty much 50/50 on the war (with a slim majority in favour) but nonetheless I think the risks are obvious.

 

France and Germany are already on the appeaser's side of the fence. It will be interesting to see if this spares them attacks in the medium term. I doubt it, somehow.

 

Cheers

MC

I don't grok why someone objecting to a War that has little to do with anti-terrorism is labelled an appeaser to terrorism. Nor why the Spanish election result is foremost seen as appeasing al qaeda rather than punishing a Bush supporter. Did Spain support the Afghanistan invasion? That really was about al qaeda, anti-US and Western terrorism, and an adequate judgement for policy. Iraq was hardly a model that we can use to judge any nation's pro/anti-terrorist bent. While al qaeda and others have used the War as a fomenter for their agendas, it isn't because of revenge for the invasion itself; al qaeda and Iraq were hardly connected. Iraq was and is being used as an ideological platform rather than being one of its own.

 

If you cite ansar al-islam, I'll just note they were in the Northern no-fly zone, without much connection to Iraq proper. If you mention MEK, some US congresspeople actually want that group taken off our Foreign Terrorist Organization list and used to undermine/attack the Iranian theocrats, and that we currently have not disbanded the organization but merely disarmed them and given them a fairly free camp to operate in. They are in limbo. If you mention support for Palestinian terrorist bombers, that support went to families of the bombers post bombing, not to Hamas or al aqsa, and considering these families also automatically have their homes bulldozed, seems a balance. Saddam was a bastard and it's great he's gone, but his only real target group was his own people, he didn't join any anti-West terror groups, didn't give them even a single conventional weapon AFAIK, and can hardly be called a terror supporter. Nor did many terrorists orginate from Iraq. Of the 600 or so folks at Gitmo, either 0 or 1 are from Iraq, compared to several hundred from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan each, IIRC. The War on Iraq had little if anything to do with the War on Terror.

 

To your first paragraph, yes al qaeda sees an opportunity to manipulate politics, something they've been doing for for years, a means to their goal of throwing out Western influence from Islamic nations. Doing so by attacks on civilians is unforgiveable of course. But you completely ignore the manipulation of American and other democracies by George Bush's Administration re: the Iraq War and its place in any current consequential strife. Don't seek to place all blame for Aznar's party's loss on al qaeda, put a lot of it on the decision to go to war with Iraq, a decision recognized by Spaniards as foolhardy, great for Iraqis but likely to increase terrorism rather than decrease it.

 

It's too bad that al qaeda decided to push buttons, but IMO the Spaniards voted wisely in the end. This vote could mean that in three years, if/when the US pushes for and invades Syria or Iran or Nation X, Spain doesn't automatically follow like a lap dog to an Imperialistic master. This will mean less dead Spaniards, the ability to focus on Spain's own terrorist problems of ETA and more on actual al qaeda-related movements in Spain, etc. Makes for a much clearer and efficient definition and use of resources.

 

I also don't see this as a highly leftist/liberal/appeaser move; it may be seen as so because the neo-conservative hawkish US agenda is the one that's being voted "against" and politics are often polarised into extremes. But I see the vote as more moderate than wussie leftist. Zapatero may be a leftist, and I don't agree that Spain should pull troops out of Iraq (though they made a foolish decision, there are obligations that go along with it), but don't necessarily judge people's votes by the attitude of the only viable candidate. In the end I don't see it as a vote for an appeasement as much as a vote against extremely foolish and fairly pointless (aside from bettering the Iraqi people's lives, which weren't the justifications proferred) warring on foreign nations. That AQ or the media views it as a singular reaction to the bombings is hardly at the top of reasons for the vote IMO.

 

Basically, folks here (here being the US media mostly) seem to be arguing only two possible reasons and options for the vote, neither IMO palatable or terribly accurate. 1) Vote for Aznar's party=affirming commitment to the "War on Terror" (or if a lefty, to aggressive moves against nations which don't pose much actual danger or link to terrorism), and 2) Vote for Zapatero's party=completely caving in to terrorism, abdicating responsibility for action against al qaeda. Not that definitive at all, I prefer 3) Vote against Aznar, recognizing that the Iraq War was a mistake and punishing him for it, preferring to focus in the future on more domestic dangers to Spain and Spaniards.