|
Terrorism Wins in Spain (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| LoCa |
| quote: |
March 18, 2004
Contempt of the World
Hastert, Bush and Cheney on Spain
By SAM HAMOD and ALFREDO REYES
It is no wonder that the Europeans wonder about the "leadership" in America, from the provincial, uneducated president, GW Bush, now to the leader of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert of rural Illinois. Unfortunately, Hastert doesn't know as much as some of his fellow farmers from mid-Illinois. He showed this yesterday, when he said, that Spain was "showing cowardice in the face of terrorism" by voting Aznar out of office and that Zapatero was running away from a battle against terrorism by criticizing the American occupation of Iraq (Zapatero has called the American occupation of Iraq, "a fiasco.")
Unfortunately, Mr. Hastert has made the same wrong assumption that Bush has made, neither of them differentiates between a war against terrorists, and this foolish invasion and occupation of Iraq (which had nothing to do with terrorism, and nothing to do with 9/11 no matter how many lies Bush, Blair and Powell put out into the world). Furthermore, Mr. Hastert has shown the same arrogance that many in the administration have shown toward other nations in the past when they disagreed with American policy in Iraq, that these administrations were cowardly, not interested in fighting terrorism and that the people were wrong to vote the way they did. It's amazing to us that American "leaders" know what is best for other countries--in this case, Spain. Remember, they also knew what was best for Chile when they overthrew Allende, Bishop in Grenada, attempts at present to overthrow Chavez with American funds and training, and the decades of activities against Castro and Qaddafi. There is no end to the chutzpah of American politicians; unless you agree with this administration, there must be something wrong with you and your "democracy."
It is time for the American public to put better people into office than such men as Hastert, Cheney and Bush. Their ignorance is scandalous-- at a time when the world is getting smaller, their world view is smaller and so unsophisticated as to make America both feared and a laughing stock to most scholars, politicians and thinkers in the world. Bush, Cheney and their followers showed their ignorance of Islam and Iraq before they went into Iraq. Now they are letting American troops and those nations foolish enough to follow Bush pay the price of this paid-for alliance; this is true if this bombing sequence in Madrid should be proven to be a Muslim group that is either technically or spiritually connected to Al Qa-eda (there are probably many groups that have never been connected in actuality with Al Qaeda, but take Bin Laden and his group as their spiritual stimulus and model but who operate authonomously).
Rational people will understand why the Spanish people are afraid of terroristic attacks from North Africa; after all, Spain is but a stone's throw across the water from Morocco and Algeria, both of which have had bouts of terrorism in their lands. Add to this that many North Africans live in Spain, and that Spain has a large and growing Muslim population (not only from immigration, but also from Mariscos who have reverted to Islam--their original religion that had to be abandoned for centuries under Catholic rule--and others who are converting in large numbers to Islam.)
Hastert, Bush, Cheney and others are thousands of miles away from the major Muslim nations of the world, so it is easy for them to condemn the Spanish and other Europeans for their fears at this time; if they lived in a Spanish or European geographical location, they would not speak so rashly or churlishly or critically of the vote in Spain and the alarm in Europe. But, of course, they had hoped that Aznar would win and that this would have shown the Spanish people had changed their minds of being against the Iraq war to being in favor of it. But no such thing came to pass.
Furthermore, as Mr. Reyes and I have found with the emails coming to us since our article appeared in CounterPunch, many Spanish and Europeans have agreed with us about the fact that Aznar had a very small (1 to 3% ) lead; but as everyone knows about national polls, most of have error possibility of from 4 to 5%; thus, Aznar might not even have had an actual lead, but only a theoretical one before his loss. Many of these emails were critical of U.S. media and U.S. perceptions of Spain, U.S. criticism of the vote and were upset that the U.S. felt it had a right to criticize Zapatero for doing what was best for Spain by planning to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq unless the UN is in charge.
It is time for American leaders to understand others in the world. This does not mean America will be weaker for this, instead, it means that it is stronger for being able to empathize into the shoes of others. Certainly Hastert, Cheney and Bush's attacks on Spain do not show understanding, wisdom or diplomacy--just as their previous attacks on France and England showed the same lack of these qualities and caused more problems than good. It is time for American leaders to either grow up when dealing not only with Spain and Europe, but also with educated, wise, cunning and intelligent leaders like Sistani, the leaders in China and in Asia. If America doesn't, then it shall be the nation on the outside looking in as the world grows, comes together in unified ways and leaves America isolated intellectually, politically, economically and militarily.
Sam Hamod is the editor of www.todaysalternativenews.com and Alfredo Reyes is a writer based in Madrid, Spain.They may be reached at: [email protected]. |
interesting article i thought...
link |
|
|
| rainbow_marble |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
Yes, very amusing.
How is pulling out of Iraq 'not giving the victims justice'. I was under the impression that catching those responsible (i.e. - those directly involved in the bombing and the Al-Qaeda hierarchy) was the proper way to ensure justice for the victims? What on earth does staying in Iraq have to do with justice for the victims?
Iraq was attacked because they were supposedly a threat to the US and their allies. I don't think anyone ever really believed that, just look at how they capitulated when the coalition invaded. If we can agree that they were never a threat, and that Osama Bin Laden isn't living there, then Why was Iraq even attacked in the first place? Don't just vaguely refer to 'terrorism' either, Why was attacking Iraq under the Bush administration's justification & rationale the right course of action? Why should they be obligated to keep their troops there when the majority of the population was vehemently against the war. The ruling party (PP?) attacked Iraq against the people's will, and in my mind they're perfectly entitled to pull out if that's what they want. It's not 'giving in to terrorism', they never wanted to be there in the first place.
And how the hell would a bunch of primitive Islamic fundamentalists living in caves manage to 'take over Europe'? :conf:
Stop sprouting conservative dogma and actually back up what you say. If not being part of killing 20,000 to 50,000 civilians is being a pushover, then well and good. Now, here's the hard part. Tell me how participating in the Iraq war is a good thing? On the other hand, explain how not participating is a bad thing? In my mind, since the entire war was based on a lie, there's nothing wrong with wanting nothing to do with it. |
Arctic, the war in iraq and the war against terrorism are two seperate things... however are linked.
Iraq was known to fund terrorist organizations in Turkey, and who knows what else? That, combined with the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein who would not cooperate with US or UN is what sparked the war in Iraq. We were able to then drive Saddam out and eventaully capture him.. Was this war successful? Has it made Iraq a better place? I guess you can check occriders thread yourself... It shows a nice poll. http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=168496 I'm sure that all of the world is glad that a tyrant is no longer in control of Iraq... Maybe not, who knows.
As for the war against terrorism, this is against all terrorists who try to inflict harm on innocent people due to their hate for democracy. Yes, we were able to take out some of them in Afghanistan, but there are still several of them hiding around who are still a threat (see Madrid, Spain)
The war in Iraq is essentially over, however the war against terrorism is not. Should we just let the terrorist groups get away with all this? If we do, you can expect another attack.
I have no problem with Spain pulling out, they are a worthless force regardless. I just find it funny that their country behaved exactly how the terrorists wanted them to. I guess thats why I'm proud to be an American? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by rainbow_marble
I'm sure that all of the world is glad that a tyrant is no longer in control of Iraq... Maybe not, who knows. |
John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Ted Kennedy to name a few flaming liberals who would prefer to have Saddam Hussein still in power.:p |
|
|
| rainbow_marble |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Agree with arctic's post...
Now, about the letter...What if the terrorists used a double reverse psychology? They may really think that Kerry is a better president for dealing with terrorism. It's obvious how most people will think that if the terrorists say Kerry would be a better president, they actually think Bush is better. That will result in a higher popular support for Bush and their goals may infact be accomplished! |
Sarcasm, correct?:conf:
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Ted Kennedy to name a few flaming liberals who would prefer to have Saddam Hussein still in power.:p |
haha true |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by rainbow_marble
Sarcasm, correct?:conf:
|
Ya..But I'm tired and my head hurts so today I can't seem to write a coherent paragraph. |
|
|
| occrider |
| Every time I look at the thread title I always think "Tourism Wins in Spain" |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by rainbow_marble
Arctic, the war in iraq and the war against terrorism are two seperate things... however are linked. |
I would argue that they are indeed completely separate things, I was (and still am) 100% behind the US actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan, but am vehemently opposed to the way in which they went about invading Iraq. I agree that they are linked, although our opinions probably differ when it comes to working out how how they are linked.
| quote: | | Iraq was known to fund terrorist organizations in Turkey, and who knows what else? That, combined with the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein who would not cooperate with US or UN is what sparked the war in Iraq. |
Which terrorist organizations in particular? I'd like to check that out.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Saddam wasn't a wit who had it coming to him, no-one here actually supports him or wants him back in power (at least I hope not). I'm simply saying that since the premise on which the so called 'coalition of the willing' based the war on (Saddam being an immediate threat) was essentially rubbish, then we have every reason to question why the war was started in the first place. The Bush administration and their allies (Blair, Howard and so on) have switched to the 'Saddam killed his own people' defence, which is all well and good, but that wasn't why they launched the war in the first place. The Bush administration simply switched their justification when they were caught out. If they had justified the war with 'free the Iraqi people' from the word go, and it was beyond reasonable doubt that they actually gave a about the people of Iraq, then maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. If the war was indeed launched to free the people of Iraq (which I propose it was not), then why Iraq? Aren't there other countries where the situation is far worse? Why not free their people before the people of Iraq?
| quote: | | We were able to then drive Saddam out and eventually capture him.. Was this war successful? Has it made Iraq a better place? I guess you can check occriders thread yourself... It shows a nice poll. |
Undoubtedly getting rid of Saddam was a good thing to do, I'm not saying that it wasn't. My point is that the reasons for getting rid of him the US originally offered simply didn't (and still don't) cut it. If the US had gone in with the explicit reason of freeing the Iraqi people, then all well and good, if the US were in it for the long hall and were launching the war on altruistic grounds, then I would probably be in complete support of the war. Unfortunately, that was not the case. Since the aim of the war wasn't to remove Saddam so as to assist the population of Iraq, I don't think you could call it successful on those grounds. No WMDs were found, and if we operate on the premise that Iraq under Saddam was never a significant threat to global security, then no, the was was not successful, as to remove a threat, there needs to be a threat to remove in the first place.
I also think that we need to make a distinction between whether the Iraqi's think that the country is a better place today, and whether it actually is. I think that we need to look at the amount of daily deaths resulting from resistance to the coalition occupation, the state of essential services and government institutions. In short, how the country is functioning as a whole.
On the other hand, maybe we do need to look to the future and what prospect Iraq has of becoming a relatively free democratic, autonomous state. personally, I would argue that the role many of the countries Islamic leaders have taken up is of primary concern here. Many seem to be calling for the establishment of a theocracy, and I think we can agree that that is never a desirable aim. The prominent role that Islam occupies in the interim constitution is also rather worrying to me (as a strong advocate of strict church state separation). Looking at the situation in Iraq now, I just can't see how it's going to become a functioning representative democracy, with or without US help. The racial & religious differences are a serious problem in my mind, and I simply don't see how they're going to be overcome. Hell, some of the people involved in the drafting of the constitution appeared to object to the involvement of women in the process!
I agree with you 100% here, I for one am extremely glad to see Saddam go.
| quote: | | As for the war against terrorism, this is against all terrorists who try to inflict harm on innocent people due to their hate for democracy. Yes, we were able to take out some of them in Afghanistan, but there are still several of them hiding around who are still a threat (see Madrid, Spain) |
Hold on there, let's check the correct definition of terrorism. Dictionary.com defines it as:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Nowhere does that mention 'due to their hate of democracy'. In fact, it sounds a hell of a lot like what the US and it's allies did in the Iraq war, does it not? Again, I take no issue with the US actions in Afghanistan, I was (and still am ) in full support of us (Australia) sending troops to help the US in it's efforts to root out Al-Qaeda and other affiliated Islamic terrorist groups. We've got our own issues down here, with Jemaah Islamiah (the group that carried out the Bali bombings) right out our doorstep, so don't assume that this is an isolated issue, we're dealing with it as well. I'm saying that Iraq and the war on terror are completely unrelated. I'm completely in favour of weeding out Bin Laden, Abu Bakar Bashir and their goons, but I can't support what the US, Australia & Britain did in Iraq, as I've outlined above.
| quote: | | The war in Iraq is essentially over, however the war against terrorism is not. Should we just let the terrorist groups get away with all this? If we do, you can expect another attack. |
I would argue that whilst the war may be officially over, in practice it is still very much still in operation. The daily attacks on US forces, and more recently foreign aid workers unfortunately illustrates this point. Again, I have no issue with pursing the Islamic terrorist groups, but I see this as completely unrelated to the invasion of Iraq.
| quote: | | I have no problem with Spain pulling out, they are a worthless force regardless. I just find it funny that their country behaved exactly how the terrorists wanted them to. I guess thats why I'm proud to be an American? |
I'm sure the people of Spain appreciate you calling their army worthless just after they've endured the Madrid bombings. :rolleyes:
How are they worthless? Correct me if I'm wrong, but did they not have 1300 troops stationed in Iraq? Doesn't sound 'worthless' to me. Ugh, not this pandering to the terrorists argument all over again. The Spanish people exercised their democratic right to oust their government. The majority of the population was against the war in Iraq, but the ruling party (PP) went against their wishes and invaded. Then, after the bombings, the ruling party repeatedly insisted that ETA was responsible for the attacks, and apparently pressured various media outlets into confirming this view. They conveniently forgot the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea, and tried to use the bombings for political gain. Since they had taken a particularly strong stand against ETA, blaming them would have been advantageous to them, politically speaking. They disregarded the evidence just so they could get re-elected. Evidently, the majority of Spaniards took issue with this, and intern voted them out. Blind American patriotism is teh 1337! :p
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Every time I look at the thread title I always think "Tourism Wins in Spain" |
LOL, me too. These days people really enjoy terrorist bombings, the increased danger always gets the adrenaline pumping. It's a double whammy, go on holiday, and get blown up, and all with one easy payment! :thepirate |
|
|
| halexander837 |
:nervous: :nervous: :nervous: :nervous:
I just had a thought that since "Terrorism won" in Spain, imagine what would happen to the party capital of the world, Ibiza.
Would any of you still go to Ibiza?
I hope to go there in the future and I do not want terrorists ruining my stay there.
:whip: :whip:
I've already had one trip ruined in 2001.
I don't want it to happen again. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| I personally have traveled abroad three times since 9/11. Statistically your chances of being involved in a terrorist event are still very, very small. I can't imagine living in such fear that I'd let these bastards spoil any of my travel plans. The second they blow up my plane/train/boat/bus/car/hotel/restaurant/night club, I'll probably change my mind though. ;) |
|
|
| rizen |
| not going to read all the pages, but let me just say... what a great day for democracy in spain. |
|
|
| rainbow_marble |
arctic, im sorry but i am too lazy to disect all of your flawed and incoherent ramblings... but one vice that made me laugh was when you whipped out the ol' dictionary.com definition
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Nowhere does that mention 'due to their hate of democracy'"
Apparently you failed reading comprehension in school :D! You just pasted the definition and it clearly says 'OFTEN FOR IDEOLOGICAL OR POLITICAL REASONS' then you follow up the definition writing "Nowhere does that mention 'due to their hate of democracy'"...!! :haha:
Anyways, I'm hungry and going to grab a bite to eat. Take it easy. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
Aren't there other countries where the situation is far worse? Why not free their people before the people of Iraq? |
Name another country that deserves freedom more than Iraqis? Is there a law that says you must liberate countries in a particular order of preference?
| quote: | | If the US had gone in with the explicit reason of freeing the Iraqi people, then all well and good, if the US were in it for the long hall and were launching the war on altruistic grounds, then I would probably be in complete support of the war. |
Can you not feel any altruistic excitement in your body seeing freedom taking a foothold in Iraq? It's actually a pretty historic thing to watch. Appreciate it--it's OK.
| quote: | | I also think that we need to make a distinction between whether the Iraqi's think that the country is a better place today, and whether it actually is. |
So you're saying the Iraqi peoples' opinions about the condition of Iraq don't matter? Shouldn't their opinions carry the most weight?:conf: |
|
|
|
|
