|
Terrorism Wins in Spain (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by YaleTrance
the day of the attacks I was so desperate. I have so much family and friends in Madrid, and the phone lines weren't working, I was losing my mind. Thank God that they were all fine.
... I stand by my position that this attack would probably not have happened if Spain had not participated so vocally in the Coalition of the Willing. There's no way to prove or disprove that now, the facts that are out there are all we have. |
since i have no relations in spain its more of philosophical debate for me, but I'm glad to hear all ur relatives are well. I agree the attack wouldnt have happened without their involvement in iraq. The ppl have a right to demand a government that address their need for security and limit their exposure to terrorist. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by YaleTrance
God, the day of the attacks I was so desperate. I have so much family and friends in Madrid, and the phone lines weren't working, I was losing my mind. Thank God that they were all fine.
|
Wish I could've said the same thing on September 11th in the U.S. I lost one of my best friends and nearly lost my father. Talk about frantic. I didn't go back to work for a week.
Caving in to fear is exactly what terrorism is all about. There's no reasoning with terrorists, and that's they the U.S. will never negotiate with them. Backing down and pursuing a policy of appeasement only ensures more attacks and future terrorism. It's not that hard to understand--if they see that their attacks are effective, they will likely double or triple their efforts. Nobody said it would be an easy task. It takes an iron will and stomach to face this global problem head-on.
The Spanish citizens can blame who they like, but in the end I think they're wrong to blame Aznar. Like I said previously, ultimate blame lies in the hands of those who physically chose to commit the wrongdoing. It goes along the lines of the gun debate--do you blame Smith & Wesson because some guy was crazy and shot someone else, or do you blame the moron who pulled the trigger? |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
sorry, i have too litle time to read through all this :(
anyway, here is my view:
even though i do not support the war in iraq, this is really stupid move by spain. First of all it gives al queda right, and also they see that it is a succeesful tactic to use terror. secound, if the coaliation forces in iraq don't succeed with their mission, the terror threat will be even greater... it was stupid to start the iraq war, but it would certaily be more stupid to not finnish it. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
In the end it doesn't matter what reasoning you put behind the change in election results in Spain. It doesn't matter if you say it was due to the public really supporting the Socialist Party all along or that the Popular Party did a poor job of handling things after the bombings. All that matters is that the results of the election are different from what they would have been if the attack did not occur.
When I say the Socialist Party is more in tune with what al-Qaeda wants, I say this for two reasons. First, they want to withdraw their troops from Iraq, which goes along with their goal of removing the West from the middle east. Second, the Socialist Party wants to limit their role in the War on Terror, which obviously benifits al-Qaeda and also can be seen as cutting at least some support of the United States.
All that is important to al-Qaeda is that news agencies around the world continue to report that the results of the election were directly affected by the bombing. That is a victory for al-Qaeda anyway you put it; according to virtually every media outlet on earth, they changed the course of a democratic, free election, and the government that is now in place as a result more closely fits their goals. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| I think Al-Quaeda wants more than "The west out of the middle-east". I think what they want is simply "the West out. Period". 9/11 certainly wasn't an attack on the westerners who were in the east. It was an all out assualt on the west as a culture. Al-Queda simply wants to destroy the west to spread their own warped idealogy. If they were focused on getting westerners out of the middle-east, why would they attack innocent westerners, at home, doing their jobs, In the west? It was clearly a much bigger declaration. |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
All of your Fox News rhetoric sounds nice and all but the fact is that the Spanish people are looking out for their best national security interest. They're not favoring appeasement here, their concern is their own safety. The PSOE does not negotiate with terrorists. The PSOE favors that the US stay in Iraq and clean up the mess that it got the Coalition of the Willing into. The PSOE will remove Spanish troops in June-July 2004 (not right away), troops that are totally unnecessary and inconsequential for the accomplishment of the Iraq war goals.
Al Qaeda is the enemy and the PSOE government will keep hunting cells down in its own turf. Your American conservative perspective is irrelevant for the Spanish people and they proved it in the polls. Thank God for democracy. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by YaleTrance
All of your Fox News rhetoric sounds nice and all but the fact is that the Spanish people are looking out for their best national security interest. They're not favoring appeasement here, their concern is their own safety. The PSOE does not negotiate with terrorists. The PSOE favors that the US stay in Iraq and clean up the mess that it got the Coalition of the Willing into. The PSOE will remove Spanish troops in June-July 2004 (not right away), troops that are totally unnecessary and inconsequential for the accomplishment of the Iraq war goals. |
I wouldn't call it Fox News rhetoric when news agencies from around the world are saying the exact same thing I am, the bombings affected the voting. You can say the Spanish are "not favoring appeasement," but the mere act of voting for the Socialist Party, one that is against involvement in the war on terror does in fact appease the terrorist cause. You may call it "voting for safety," but I guarantee terrorists see it as a victory, not an act of democracy. You may not believe that the Spaniards in Iraq do "anything," but their presence is what matters. It sends a message that the War on Terror is not unilateral. Spain removing its support not only further isolates the US in its endeavour, but shows al-Qaeda that its tactics are in fact working.
| quote: | | Thank God for democracy. |
To me this is a sad day for democracy. It shows that a terrorist event can directly affect a free, democratic election and that election can be turned into a political and moral victory for a terrorist group. |
|
|
| Shakka |
I tend to agree with NeoPhono here.
I do agree with you Yaledude, that Spain is looking out for their best interest--I think that should go without saying. That is what freedom and democracy afford them. However, I agree with NeoPhono that the election was clearly, and without a shadow of a doubt, influenced by the events that occured just days prior. How could you come to any other conclusion? If Spain decides that it's in its best interest to withdraw from Iraq, that is their choice, and I respect it, but I can't help but think that their decision is being influenced by an outside force(Al Quaeda), and that, amigo, is a bad thing. |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I wouldn't call it Fox News rhetoric when news agencies from around the world are saying the exact same thing I am, the bombings affected the voting. You can say the Spanish are "not favoring appeasement," but the mere act of voting for the Socialist Party, one that is against involvement in the war on terror does in fact appease the terrorist cause. You may call it "voting for safety," but I guarantee terrorists see it as a victory, not an act of democracy. You may not believe that the Spaniards in Iraq do "anything," but their presence is what matters. It sends a message that the War on Terror is not unilateral. Spain removing its support not only further isolates the US in its endeavour, but shows al-Qaeda that its tactics are in fact working.
To me this is a sad day for democracy. It shows that a terrorist event can directly affect a free, democratic election and that election can be turned into a political and moral victory for a terrorist group. |
It really bothers me that you're so convinced that the results of the elections would've been different if it hadn't been for 3-11. Dude, polls are just polls, and many of them were within the margin of error prior to 3-11! They were just to close to call, the left is an absolute majority in Spain and the constituency of the IU(left-wing third party) decided to follow the charismatic voice of Zapatero. The Spanish electorate is not the American electorate. Neither you nor anyone else has the right to say that the outcome would've been different if it hadn't been for this tragedy. It was a bright day for democracy because the highest vote-getter won. It may be a sad day for you, Aznar, Bush, and Franco in his grave, but democracy ultimately triumphed because the demos freely elected their government in such a way that I'm confident that the attacks had no major impact other than uniting the left into a single and more powerful voice. |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I tend to agree with NeoPhono here.
I do agree with you Yaledude, that Spain is looking out for their best interest--I think that should go without saying. That is what freedom and democracy afford them. However, I agree with NeoPhono that the election was clearly, and without a shadow of a doubt, influenced by the events that occured just days prior. How could you come to any other conclusion? If Spain decides that it's in its best interest to withdraw from Iraq, that is their choice, and I respect it, but I can't help but think that their decision is being influenced by an outside force(Al Quaeda), and that, amigo, is a bad thing. |
Votes are influenced by anything, just like Howard Dean's scream proved in the American primaries. But I'm confident that the results would have been the same regardless of what had happened in 3-11. Why? Just look at the voting trends for the past three elections and you'll see that the PP consituency is still clearly there, the difference was made by a shift from the third party to the second party.
If you understand Spanish I recommend you read this article about the polls written in March 9, two days before the terrorist attacks:
http://www.abc.es/especiales/index.asp?cid=7817
It clearly explains that the PP was losing its momentum in the polls and that the numbers were getting much closer. March ING 9. Was Al-Qaeda responsible for the PP's slump two days before the attack and 10 days before the elections? Obviously not. ;) |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
I read the article.
The only thing it predicts is that the Popular Party would lose its simple majority, or just barely keep it (winning 173-176 seats out of 350). It also talks about the Popular Party realizing that in all reality 10-12 of its seats in the Chamber of Deputies were really at risk of being lost. So what happened? The Popular Party went from having 183 seats to 148, losing triple the amount of seats talked about in the article you posted. The article you gave may have talked about the weakness of the PP in the upcoming election, but it came nowhere near saying that the PP would lose the outright majority or that it would lose over 30 seats. I refuse to believe that in less than a week, the number of seats predicted to be lost by the PP would go from 10-12 at the worst to 32 if the bombing did not take place. I again stand by my claim that the main factor in this election was the bombing. |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| Just like Howard Dean was winning by ridiculous landslides in most polls until the Iowa/scream fiasco, and then we all know what happened. It's all about momentum. The PP was clearly losing its momentum before the 3-11 attack and matters were made worse when they lied and mishandled the crisis for sole political gain. They brought this upon themselves, not Al Qaeda. If Aznar would have acted like Bush did in 9-11 maybe the outcome would have been different. Who knows? That's all speculation and at the end irrelevant because what's done is done. Terrorism will not thrive in Spain because of these results, and that's what's important for the Spanish people who were the ones that voted. |
|
|
|
|
