|
Terrorism Wins in Spain (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| imokruok |
| quote: | | Originally posted by YaleTrance Thank God there are people with your wisdom and knowledge from an European perspective in this forum to counter the generic and superficial political thoughts of American conservatives who buy into the Bush agenda and can only think in black and white terms. |
Should there be any moral relativism in deciding what to do with a group of terrorists who seek death at any cost? If we don't view it in their terms, it is impossible to see that appeasement is never going to work. Perhaps Spain would not have been a target had they not participated in the war, but to note the actual tape seized by Spanish authorities, this bombing was in revenge for the final defeat of the Moors in 1492!! Do you plan on reasoning out of that?
European isolationism can only work for so long. Then it's either fight back, or roll over completely. Note the last sentence of the Telegraph editorial.
| quote: |
telegraph.co.uk
15 March 2004
Editorial Staff
The thumping defeat inflicted upon the Right-wing Popular Party in yesterday's Spanish elections was a blow for the war on terrorism. Jose Maria Aznar, the outgoing prime minister, took big risks to back the United States after September 11, and most especially to send troops to Iraq. Even his decision to take on his home-grown insurgency in the Basque country went against the grain of much elite opinion. He may well have mishandled last week's terrorist atrocities in Madrid. But whoever was responsible - whether al-Qaeda or ETA - will be pleased to have intervened so successfully in a democratic ballot. Spaniards died in industrial quantities, and the first instinct of many voters was to take it out on their government. If terrorism has succeeded there, where will be next?
The election will be remembered as heralding the rise of ‘‘euro isolationism''. Large numbers of Spanish voters succumbed to the delusion that if Mr Aznar, had not lent support to the Anglo-American coalition, then their homeland would be safer. The credibility of the government was affected, as in this country, by the apparent failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This, in turn, impacted upon the public trust placed in their interpretation of who was responsible for last week's atrocities. It also appears that elements in the Spanish security forces were angered by what they considered to be their government's opportunism in initially blaming the more obviously unpopular target of Eta (rather than al-Qa'eda) and went over the heads of the Interior Ministry to speak to the opposition Socialists and to the press. They seem to have based their reasoning upon the need to alert Europe as a whole to the Islamist threat, but the effect appears to have been to hand victory for the Socialists who have taken a far less robust view of the war on terror.
Why do such wide swathes of Spanish - and, indeed, British opinion - take a "nothing to do with us, Guv'' view of international terrorism? Partly, it has been a failure of communication, not least of American public diplomacy. The European Left, no less than Islamist polemicists, has for years been besmirching the United States as the ‘‘Great Satan''; and, in the face of that, most American missions have for much of the time emitted little more than a pip-squeak. Above all, the Americans and sympathetic European governments have not managed to convey the idea that there is no policy shift which they might undertake that would appreciably alter Islamist behaviour. The idea abounds that if the West somehow withdrew from Iraq or transferred more wealth to the mases of the Maghreb that all of this would stop. De-ideologised, post-modern man is particularly bad at grasping the ideological nature of its foes. The fact that many Islamists believe in reversing the reconquista of the Iberian peninsula appears to have made little difference to millions of Spaniards. The desire not to take our enemies at face value, in word and deed, is the hallmark of much of contemporary Europe.
|
|
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
Should there be any moral relativism in deciding what to do with a group of terrorists who seek death at any cost? If we don't view it in their terms, it is impossible to see that appeasement is never going to work. Perhaps Spain would not have been a target had they not participated in the war, but to note the actual tape seized by Spanish authorities, this bombing was in revenge for the final defeat of the Moors in 1492!! Do you plan on reasoning out of that?
European isolationism can only work for so long. Then it's either fight back, or roll over completely. Note the last sentence of the Telegraph editorial. |
It's not moral relativism to have a greater depth of understanding in politics. No one here is making excuses for terrorism, I hate it as much as you and the next person. The PSOE has pretty much the same policy on terror that the PP has, with the exception that they wouldn't have joined the Coalition of the Willing, and rightly so as proven by this attack.
The Reconquista claim is obviously rhetorical, things are not that simple as you put them out to be. There is no way that this would have ocurred if it wasn't for Aznar's misguided policy, THAT is common sense. I bet there were some economic benefits for Spain in doing this, but at the end it wasn't worth it.
I'm thinking of what's best for Spain and its security because I'm 50% Spanish and have many family members there. I care about their safety, and I'm sure that this will make Spain a safer country. The PSOE doesn't negotiate with terrorists but doesn't incite them at the level that Aznar did. You're just thinking what's best for the ill-grounded agenda of Bush's "you're with us or against us" war on terror. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
I have mixed feelings
1. I'm happy that the Popular Party was voted out. The majority of ppl didn’t support the Iraq policy and the government ignored them. While I appreciated the military aid in Iraq, its government obligation to represent their ppl's wishes. So it's a big win for the ppl.
2. I'm worried that change in outcome in the election due to the bombing sets a dangerous precedent, encouraging the terrorist to repeat this tactic. In some ways its a lose for the common man who is increasingly becoming the target for these terrorist attacks.
3. I was bewildered at first why the Spanish government was pointing its finger at the ETA and anywhere else except Al Quida. When the evidence started to immerge, it was clear what the Popular party's was up to. American's have seen this type of irresponsible behavior by the bush administration too often, so I'm glad it backfired on them. |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
I have mixed feelings
1. I'm happy that the Popular Party was voted out. The majority of ppl didn’t support the Iraq policy and the government ignored them. As an American appreciated the military aid in Iraq, but the government is suppose to represent the ppl. So it's a big win for the ppl.
2. I'm worried that change in outcome in the election due to the bombing sets a dangerous precedent, encouraging the terrorist to repeat this tactic. In some ways its a lose for the common man who is increasingly becoming the target for these terrorist attacks.
3. I was bewildered at first why the Spanish government was pointing its finger at the ETA and anywhere else except Al Quida. When the evidence started to immerge, it was clear what the Popular party's was up to. American's have seen this type of irresponsible behavior by the bush administration too often, so I'm glad it backfired on them. |
Good points. I'm worried about that precedent too, but the facts were there and no one could expect the Spanish people to vote for the PP out of fear. That might happen here, but it certainly did not happen in Spain. Then again, electorates behave and react differently to similar circumstances in different countries. Wouldn't a terrorist attack a week before the American elections actually HELP Bush? I think it would. |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ahlamalek
if Canada had gone to war in Irak, I could bet a 1000$ that we would be targets to some retaliatory terrorist attacks...
who he plays with fire get burnt... |
ill second that... everytime u go to war, epect concequences |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by YaleTrance
Wouldn't a terrorist attack a week before the American elections actually HELP Bush? I think it would. |
Thats a good question, but its hard to say. Because the republicans would spin it as "see we were right military action is the only way to deal with them. This proves they're getting more desparate because we are defeating them and Iraq is turning out so well. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
Hey Vesa! Let me welcome you back as well.
Good to have our neo-conservative corospondent back ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
My guess is that Al-Qaida considers all historical core areas of Islam as its own turf, independent of whether they now have a presence there or not. Any stay of Western troops inside their kingdom-to-come upsets them badly. |
My theory is all historicacl Islamic land plus current areas today where an Islamic minority exist of say 5% or so... hehe hows that for straight out their opinion?
| quote: |
Similarly, Al-Qaida has other priorities right now than Europe. They need to first secure more bases in the Muslim world, and strengthen their network before a realistic all-out attack against Europe is possible. |
But you said it yourself, why should Europe appease the terrorist? Because they are weak, they are not "ready for the fight". Its now or never for Al Qaeda to strike Europe and paralyize it from becoming strong.
Europe is ridicilously weak, it can't retaliate to any strike or threaten any nation. It poses no threat to anyone unless it works as a coalition to draw support and finances fomr.
If they can destroy Europe's role as a coalation partner to the west, it becomes completely usless in the West v. Islamo-facist war and this would be a great lose for the west, and a great victory for the Islamo facist.
Personally, if I was an Islamo-facist, and after witnessing the great success of Madrid, causing a coalition partner to rethink its strategy and go hide under a chair in a corner, I would plan fairly large terrorist attacks in all coalition supporters except the UK (beacuse that would just be a waste of resources and have the reverse effect I beleive) every six months (so the Europeans wouldn't realize what is happening) first with allies, such as Spain and Itlay, next moving into France and Germany to make sure they get no second thoughts.
Imagine Madrid style bombings in all the Western European capitals over the next 3 years, and you have completely paralized Europe from any service to the West. Al Qaeda now has only the USA to face.
| quote: | | Basically, Al-Qaida currently needs co-existence with neutral European countries. It's a kind of Cold War. |
Yes it needs that, but European countries aren't co-existing with Al Qaeda in a level neutral countries should be. Al Qaeda should attack, and probably will continue to attack, Europe to a level where they are complete indifferent to this war, perhaps even championing the Islamo-facist side, as France came close to do during the Iraq crisis.
If Islamo-facist can also strike and create large damage to refineries and pipelines in Saudia Arabia, it can blackmail Europe to a crippiling halt.
| quote: | | Terrorism is a serious problem. |
Then why run away from it and hide, as you applaud Spain for doing?
| quote: |
Europe is also a target for such terrorism, but this has much to do with the greed, impotence and indifference of European politicians. In an unjust society, even a minor terrorist group can get a foothold inside the rotten societal structures. |
Oh I like this, a European calling Europe an "unjust" society :D
| quote: | | A worldwide group like Al-Qaida may actually be more likely to not carry out opportunistic minor terrorist attacks because they have their long-term success at stake. |
I don't think this was oprrotunistic. I believe Al-Qaida has planned an attack on Spain for quiet a while, the elections had just convientally come up.
I think Spain was an excellent target for Al Qaeda for the following reason: 1) Historical Muslim Just Cause
2) ETA assistance and open and available black markets to for arms and logisitcs in Basque country (remember they traced the explosives back to the type the ETA uses, one stolen from the French about a year ago. This was circulated on the news channels about a few hours after the bombing, if it is true, it means either some independent stole the TNT and sold it to ETA and Al Q in the blackmarkets, or Al Q bought it from ETA)
3) Easy access, Spain has long extended borders, infiltration is easy.
4) Ethnicity - Spanish, Arabs they all look the same.
5) Spain was a coalition partner in Iraq.
6) Hey its Europe, almost!
| quote: | | It's still unclear whether Al-Qaida is going to retaliate against governments who fight Al-Qaida affiliates but not Al-Qaida itself. My guess is that countries which only fight local cells will not draw fire from the Al-Qaida leadership, but fighting the international core organization would provoke retaliation. |
Again, who has said this is a retaliation???
Extending Izzy's point. The Bali bombing was not a retaliation for Indonesia's stance on the war on Iraq.
And another, better example, less than 6 months ago, Al Q claimed responsibility for the blast in Turkey (a European nation, NATO allie, and soon to be EU member) that killed scores of people. Turkey wasn't involved in Iraq, in fact if anything it appeased the Islam-facist in the war for Iraq by impeding US military war plans and preventing their NATO allies fly-over, and basing rights.
How come when Turkey's citizens were killed by Al Q's bombs no one cried "Its because the war in Iraq! If only Turkey would have been more forceful against the USA this would have never happened!".
I think it is again, more opprotunist that the Spanish have linked this Al Q bombing to Iraq. I'm fairly confident (and this is my own opinion of course) that the Madrid bombers had no such intentions. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Again, who has said this is a retaliation???
Extending Izzy's point. The Bali bombing was not a retaliation for Indonesia's stance on the war on Iraq.
And another, better example, less than 6 months ago, Al Q claimed responsibility for the blast in Turkey (a European nation, NATO allie, and soon to be EU member) that killed scores of people. Turkey wasn't involved in Iraq, in fact if anything it appeased the Islam-facist in the war for Iraq by impeding US military war plans and preventing their NATO allies fly-over, and basing rights.
How come when Turkey's citizens were killed by Al Q's bombs no one cried "Its because the war in Iraq! If only Turkey would have been more forceful against the USA this would have never happened!". |
Al-Qaeda attacks don't make sense when viewed from a western perspective or from a conventional military strategy. Their objective is to expell westerners from the middle east and restore power to the religious extremist by any means necessary. Its missing the point to fit their actions into logical framework of a legitamate retaliation related to iraq or some other middle east issue. For example, the targeting of Shias in Iraq on the surface seems illogical at first. Why would Al-Queda attack them? They are both moslems and the Shias have never done anything to them? But when you realize Al-Quiada's objective to incite a civil war, defeating the US plans to install a western democracy, and forcing them to leave, it makes sense.
Btw, Al-Qaeda attacked Turkey just when they were voting on whether or not to send troops to piece keep in Iraq. It wasn't a retaliation, but rather a message sent to the politicians that it wouldn't be in their self interests to send troops. Like in Spain it was very effective in acheiving Al-Queda goals. Al-Queda has realized that its unwise to take on the US directly, they are going after the countries who support the US, but who lack domestic support for iraq. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
I'm sorry it has taken me so long to respond to my own post.
I have read what you all have to say, and instead of addressing everyone, I would just like to clarify what my original post was about. I could really care less who was elected in Spain, although I do think the Socialist Party, as they stand today are much more likely to accomplish some of the goals that al Qaeda is attempting to pursue, such as removal of Spanish forces from the middle east and decreasing its role in the American war on terror.
What has me a concerned, is that prior to "3/11" the Popular Party held a small, yet significant lead in all major opinion polls. It was a foregone conclusion that they would retain their majority and rule. However, in the wake of the recent events, public opinion was so swayed that it single-handedly won the election for the Socialists. In the most simplest of terms, the terrorists won the election for the Socialists. You can argue all you want about 90% of the population being against the Iraq war etc, but the fact is prior to the bombing, they were overwhelmingly in support of the Popular party government. This single event changed they way the public voted, and the course of the Spanish government. That to me is what is upsetting with this election, what message it gives to the world. |
|
|
| ahlamalek |
... |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I'm sorry it has taken me so long to respond to my own post.
I have read what you all have to say, and instead of addressing everyone, I would just like to clarify what my original post was about. I could really care less who was elected in Spain, although I do think the Socialist Party, as they stand today are much more likely to accomplish some of the goals that al Qaeda is attempting to pursue, such as removal of Spanish forces from the middle east and decreasing its role in the American war on terror.
What has me a concerned, is that prior to "3/11" the Popular Party held a small, yet significant lead in all major opinion polls. It was a foregone conclusion that they would retain their majority and rule. However, in the wake of the recent events, public opinion was so swayed that it single-handedly won the election for the Socialists. In the most simplest of terms, the terrorists won the election for the Socialists. You can argue all you want about 90% of the population being against the Iraq war etc, but the fact is prior to the bombing, they were overwhelmingly in support of the Popular party government. This single event changed they way the public voted, and the course of the Spanish government. That to me is what is upsetting with this election, what message it gives to the world. |
There were NO overwhelming leads in the opinion polls prior to the elections. And regardless of what the opinion polls said, they are just polls, elections are decided by votes in an election not polls.
The PSOE always had good chances to win, and the PP was not as popular as you think because they've had a credibility problem for a long time. The PP brought this upon themselves for LYING to the public and using the tragic events to capitalize in the elections. The only message this gives to the world is that the Spanish people were wise enough to fire a government that mas not working for their own best interest, which is their actual security.
Obviously you have this opinion because you don't care or know anything about Spain, you're just watching out for your own American conservative self-interest. I really hope that Bush gets ousted too to see what excuses you people come up with. :o |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by ahlamalek
... |
hmm odd, I thought it was Al Qaeda that was responsible:conf: |
|
|
|
|
