|
Terrorism Wins in Spain (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by anuneventrade
Please don't underestimate me. Do you really think I'd post "UPDATE" if it was from 3-11?
|
key word: WAS, despite EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY
trust me, that quote you put is from 3-11. that article is just an account of the mishandling of the case by the PP government.
| quote: | At an afternoon news conference, when a reporter suggested the possibility of an al Qaeda connection, the interior minister, Angel Acebes, angrily denounced it as "a miserable attempt to disrupt information and confuse people."
"There is no doubt that ETA is responsible," Acebes said. |
that news conference took place on 3-11. all lies. that's why the PP went down so drastically in the elections. |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
ultiamately detrimental to Spain and the world in the long run. |
well, that's a valid speculation, but just a speculation nevertheless. there's no way to know whether the defeat of the PP is detrimental to anyone just yet.
my main, immediate concern when it comes to an election is democracy. and in this case i believe the best party with the policies more in tune with the democratic will of the Spanish people won the elections. i don't see anything pointing out to a future imminent danger on Spain because of this results. unless i see otherwise, this is my position. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by YaleTrance
well, that's a valid speculation, but just a speculation nevertheless. there's no way to know whether the defeat of the PP is detrimental to anyone just yet.
|
True it's speculation, but if you ask me it's pretty solid speculation. The bombings were done with a certain goal in mind. That goal was accomplished. Therefore, those who planned the attacks can logically conclude that terrorist acts CAN accomplish desired results, and thus it makes sense to plan more attacks in order to satisfy their agenda.
Keep in mind I'm not saying that the democratic decisions of the Spanish people were bad (unless the entire intent of their vote was the removal of troops from Iraq), I'm criticizing the decision of the new government all things considered. While it's true that their platform of removing troops from Iraq was a pre-existing policy decision, we don't live in a vaccum and they should take into account the consequences of their decisions given the circumstances. |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
True it's speculation, but if you ask me it's pretty solid speculation. The bombings were done with a certain goal in mind. That goal was accomplished. Therefore, those who planned the attacks can logically conclude that terrorist acts CAN accomplish desired results, and thus it makes sense to plan more attacks in order to satisfy their agenda.
Keep in mind I'm not saying that the democratic decisions of the Spanish people were bad (unless the entire intent of their vote was the removal of troops from Iraq), I'm criticizing the decision of the new government all things considered. While it's true that their platform of removing troops from Iraq was a pre-existing policy decision, we don't live in a vaccum and they should take into account the consequences of their decisions given the circumstances. |
So you think the principal goal of the attacks was to alter the election results? I don't know if I can believe that, because that kind of action can work both ways. A similar situation in the US can only help Bush, terrorists would be dumb to attack the US right before the elections if their specific goal was to defeat Bush.
And as I said, the troops won't be removed until the provisional Iraqi government takes over at the end of June. This seems legit enough for me, and I'm no anti-war hippie. Perceptions and symbolisms just fail to convince me. What can possibly make the situation better for the PSOE if they disregarded their campaign promise and treasoned their ideological affinities to France and Germany by keeping their troops there past that date? |
|
|
| DjSway |
| For no matter which reason Spain is pulling out of Irak, good or bad, to the rest of the world this is a sign of defeat and weakness. Even if the new PM talked about removing troops before 3/11, even if 90% of Spain was against the Iraq war. It just looks bad to the rest of the world community. Yes, it is their decision to pull out, for their own reasons. But really, who is going to care? We're just going to (including terrorists) interpret this as a sign of weakness, sad but true.:( |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by YaleTrance
So you think the principal goal of the attacks was to alter the election results? I don't know if I can believe that, because that kind of action can work both ways. A similar situation in the US can only help Bush, terrorists would be dumb to attack the US right before the elections if their specific goal was to defeat Bush.
|
Yes I do. The timing and location of the attacks are far too convenient to say that it only circumstancially happened in Spain and right before the Spanish elections. Thought was put into deciding the timing and place of the attack and a simple numerical similarity with 9/11 doesn't strike me as being the entire reasoning for that decision. Furhermore, a terrorist attack in Spain could have emboldened the incumbent government like the US, but it's not bloody likely since the Spaniard mindset was overwhelmingly against the war prior to any attacks occurring at all. I think it's fairly logical to assume that if the spaniards didn't want to take part in the war, and are punished for taking part in the war with bombings, then they will view that as a sign that they should definetely not continue to take part in the war. The popular party knew this, that's why they tried to cover up responsibility. So why would AL-Qaeda not think this way?
| quote: |
And as I said, the troops won't be removed until the provisional Iraqi government takes over at the end of June. This seems legit enough for me, and I'm no anti-war hippie. Perceptions and symbolisms just fail to convince me. What can possibly make the situation better for the PSOE if they disregarded their campaign promise and treasoned their ideological affinities to France and Germany by keeping their troops there past that date? |
Like I said it's a catch 22. If it were me though, I would sacrifice ideaology in order to avoid encouraging terrorism. That's only me though ... I'm not spanish so I'm not in their shoes. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Hasn't there been any conservatives out there that have attempted to tie in the Spanish socialists in cahoots with Al Queda yet?
Geez, am I the only one to think of these conspiracy theories?!? |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Yes I do. The timing and location of the attacks are far too convenient to say that it only circumstancially happened in Spain and right before the Spanish elections. Thought was put into deciding the timing and place of the attack and a simple numerical similarity with 9/11 doesn't strike me as being the entire reasoning for that decision. Furhermore, a terrorist attack in Spain could have emboldened the incumbent government like the US, but it's not bloody likely since the Spaniard mindset was overwhelmingly against the war prior to any attacks occurring at all. I think it's fairly logical to assume that if the spaniards didn't want to take part in the war, and are punished for taking part in the war with bombings, then they will view that as a sign that they should definetely not continue to take part in the war. The popular party knew this, that's why they tried to cover up responsibility. So why would AL-Qaeda not think this way? |
This could be true, but it just seems as an assumption to me unless i see any evidence. Logical assumption, but still an assumption. I think that the PP would have been in a better position if they hadn't dismissed Al Qaeda and accused ETA with so much certainty on 3-11. For me the elections went down the way they did as a result of many rational domestic policy actions. Was the timing of 9-11, the Cole bombings or any Al Qaeda attack strategic as well?
| quote: | | Like I said it's a catch 22. If it were me though, I would sacrifice ideaology in order to avoid encouraging terrorism. That's only me though ... I'm not spanish so I'm not in their shoes. |
Yes, Catch 22 indeed. But from the Spanish perspective being an active member of the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq encourages terrorism more than anything.
| quote: | Hasn't there been any conservatives out there that have attempted to tie in the Spanish socialists in cahoots with Al Queda yet?
Geez, am I the only one to think of these conspiracy theories?!? |
There's no way that could be possible. Not a valid theory at all. :p |
|
|
| Yoepus |
YaleTrancer,
A question, if you were the spanish PM today, would you order your troops to pull out July 1st, or would you tell your people you must re-evaluate this decision in slew of today's new reality?
Lets assume you promised them in your bid to PM that you would remove the troops. |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
YaleTrancer,
A question, if you were the spanish PM today, would you order your troops to pull out July 1st, or would you tell your people you must re-evaluate this decision in slew of today's new reality?
Lets assume you promised them in your bid to PM that you would remove the troops. |
I would remove the troops by July 1st when the provisional government of Iraq assumes power unless extraordinary circumstances would demand otherwise. I'm pro-PSOE, why would I do something different? Today's new reality doesn't change much really, we have to wait and see what are the long-term outcomes of the attack and elections. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Hasn't there been any conservatives out there that have attempted to tie in the Spanish socialists in cahoots with Al Queda yet?
Geez, am I the only one to think of these conspiracy theories?!? |
I think it's a toughie. This is the closest article I could find that touches on both. Asks some interesting questions on a broader perspective(It was even written by a JOO!;)):
Link
| quote: | Linking Al-Qaida and Iraq
Jonah Goldberg
March 17, 2004
As it becomes increasingly clear that al-Qaida was responsible for the horrific attacks in Madrid, one question keeps popping up: If there's no link between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, why did al-Qaida blow up those trains?
Critics of the Iraq war have been saying for more than two years that there was never any al-Qaida-Saddam link. After all, they'd say, Saddam is secular and bin Laden is a religious fanatic. When Howard Dean was trotted out for last Sunday's "Meet the Press" to square off against Condoleezza Rice, the former Vermont governor rehashed the familiar complaint.
"It turned out that there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida .even though the administration tried to lead us in an opposite direction," Dean asserted. "The administration simply did not tell the truth about Iraq. The debate is not about whether we should fight terrorism. I supported the war in Afghanistan. . But fighting Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism."
Now, I should help Dean here. He surely means Iraq had "nothing to do with terrorism" aimed at us by al-Qaida in recent years. After all, nobody disputes that Iraq has been a huge sponsor of terrorism.
A new study from the Hudson Institute details how Saddam provided money, support and shelter to a league of extraordinary terrorists. Abdul Rahman Yasin, the chemist for the first World Trade Center bombing, was given sanctuary in Baghdad after his U.S. indictment. Abu Nidal, the terrorist mastermind who killed hundreds including 10 Americans, lived in Baghdad from 1999 until he was murdered in 2002. Abu Abbas, the architect of the Achille Lauro hijacking that resulted in the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, was captured in Baghdad by U.S. forces.
The list goes on and on. Never mind the fact that Saddam funded suicide bombings in Israel, the gassing of Kurds, the attempted murder of George H.W. Bush and other acts that at least some of us consider "terrorism."
Regardless, let's interpret Dean as charitably as possible. If Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaida, why did al-Qaida feel the need to attack Spain, one of America's coalition partners? I mean why not blow up 200 people in Minsk? Or Bogata?
Supporters of the war say the reason al-Qaida is trying - and, alas, succeeding - to tear apart the coalition is that they cannot afford to see democracy win in Iraq. A stable and prospering Iraq will transform the Middle East, over time, into a region where the bloody fanaticism of bin Laden has no appeal.
The anti-war critics have an answer, too. They say al-Qaida is merely taking advantage of the moment. It's opportunistically using Iraq as a recruiting ground and the backlash against the war as a recruiting tool. Dean summed it up by saying, "We know al-Qaida is in Iraq now, even though they were not in Iraq before we went in."
Fine. I fail to see why both of these explanations cannot both be true. But in wars, at some point, speculation about motives needs to take a back seat to sober appraisal of fact. For example, there were plenty of plausible, interconnected reasons for Hitler's alliance with Japan. Hitler wanted to see the U.S. bogged down in the Pacific; he wanted to cut off the British from their colonies; he liked the way the Japanese cooked vegetables, whatever. Ultimately, who cares?
Right now - not last year or 10 years ago - the connection between al-Qaida and Iraq is obvious for anybody willing to see it. Al-Qaida benefits if Iraq descends into chaos; it benefits if the Western world bickers with itself and dickers with terrorists; it benefits if America is isolated. Conversely, al-Qaida suffers if Iraq prospers, if the West stands together, if America leads.
The tragedy is that many people and nations refuse to see it that way. They want to pretend that Iraq is America's problem and that it has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. The incoming Spanish prime minister - a man with a thoroughly anti-American record - has declared the war in Iraq a "disaster" and will pull all of Spain's troops out of Iraq.
Meanwhile, in a statement that is surely the Chamberlainesque "peace in our time" of our generation, European Commission President Romano Prodi declared: "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists." Prodi's evidence is the increased terrorism since the Iraq war. By this logic, shooting bears is not the best way to kill them, since a wounded animal is the most dangerous kind.
The champions of "nuance" would have us believe the Spanish vote and Prodi's preference for taking a prone position toward terrorism are more sophisticated and complicated than they seem. Fine. Bully for them.
But again, who cares? Certainly not al-Qaida. They're too busy basking in their victory and planning their next attack on complicated Europe. |
|
|
|
| halexander837 |
Somehow, someway, we have to do a better job in controlling terrorism.
As for Spain, OMG I hope this country does not get involved in another Civil War! |
|
|
|
|
