Explosions hit three Madrid commuter trains leaving 131 dead and 400 wounded (and these are just the initial numbers). Fuck all the inevitable discussions that will follow about the US, the war in Iraq, Bush, Israel, Saddam and Bin-Laden. Put it aside and look at the numbers. 131 innocent people who were just going along with their daily schedule were murdered. If we cannot offer people the most basic protection, what good are we?
Edit: Sorry, me and Nacho posted roughly at the same time.
We need not necessarily delete this. Nacho's can be a thread of pure condolence. And in this one I can ask what possible relevance the US, bin laden and Iraq has here, presuming it is the ETA as is widely believed.
Maybe we can use this thread just to help people understand what exactly is the conflict with the ETA, hopefully not with any passions, but it's not a conflict that is as widely known as others, and I'm sure others here would want a bit of background.
Well undoubtedly Bush will send in US troops to "save the day", then Britain and Australia will follow.....
.....sorry, couldn't help it....... ;D
look, really mate, not now.
really.
Please.
Here we go.
ETA are small-time. They have neither the support, nor the resources to pull of something of such magnitude. Since 2003, there were 'just' 3 victims to terrorist attacks by ETA. Furthermore, these attacks have plenty of Al-Qaeda's characteristics: numerous simultaneous attacks and a very crowded target. Also, don't forget Spain was the United States' and the United Kingdom's ally against Iraq. And one more important factor - the elections in Spain are to be held on Sunday. What can convey the message of "Aznar is weak" better? The Basques could have been the executioners, but it is likely that a bigger fish was pulling the strings. This is how terror works.
Common, hate me, I'm waiting for it.
Vampire, I thought you were serious till you edited your post.
Still not appropriate though.
I wouldn't say the ETA don't have the support. Roughly 10% of Basques support them, which is still pretty huge.
DG, on the other thread (bah, what a mess):
QuoteBarcik: It's inevitable that something like this will add fuel to the "War on Terror" spin, so it's no use saying to fuck all discussion on the subject -- It's still an important subject.
DG, I didn't mean it's not important. I just meant "put it aside for a second [while reading my post], and regard the matter simply. [with out all the high-politics]"
You can't look at things like this simply.
Please, let me explain the Political situation in Spain. With no passion, jut political and historycal facts. I hope this works:
Basque country hasn't been historically enemy of Madrid/Centralism... In fact, a whole Shine in the Basque Country is full of "Lords"... Some Kind made them "Hidalgos" the lowest level of noblemen, for helping him in a civil War (I am talking of the XVIIth century)
It was the catalans who fought against Madrid/Centralism. The "war" started in 1706? When two kings fought for the Throne of Spain (actually, this two families of Kings were fighting along Europe, in France, Germany...)
One was Borbon, the other was German (Ausburg?). While the was in Eurpoe was going ok for the Ausburg, in Spain it was not so good, and the Ausburg abandoned the Spanish campaign to fight in Europe.
So, the member of the Borbon family conqueres the "Kingdom of Aragon" composed by Catalunya, PaÃs Valencià  , Aragón and Balear Islands.
That king (Felipe V, I think) was French and tried to copy the French model in Spain (Centralism, Madrid=Paris).
That broght a lot of problems... People of the Kingdom od Aragón had their lenguaje, their laws... all was abollished.
The XXth century passed, with Franco's dictadure the prosecution continued. But catalans are pragmatic. Now they're getting a high level of independence thanks to their work.
Surprisingly... when the democracy came, the catalans felt no special anger against the rest of Spain.
So... Why are the Basques so anger? Franco (A dictator who ruled Spain from 1936-79) tried to join all the Spanish people under a "Unique, great and free Spain!"... There started a great prosecution against people who talked basque, catalán, gallego... And a prosecution against the cultures.
But while the catalans forget all and have a pragmatic view of this remaining (everyday less) fascists, some of the basques still have this feeling. I don't know why, specially knowing that most of the new warriors of ETA are just the sons of inmigrants, and should have nothing to see with that... My conclussion is that when bad people looks for an excuse to kill, they do.
I hope this helps.
How many resources did Mc Veigh have in Oklahoma? How many people had his organisation of 2 killed up to that point in terrorist attacks?
Yet what was the magnitude of his act.
Terrorism requires far less resources than it seems you imply, and the ETA as a possible suspect does have considerably more resources than he ever did. It seems a much more probable hypothesis than speculation on the possible, but les liekly involvement of Al Queda.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Thu 11/03/2004 12:12:04
You can't look at things like this simply.
True enough.
QuoteI wouldn't say the ETA don't have the support. Roughly 10% of Basques support them, which is still pretty huge.
This number seems a bit absurd to me. Do these 10% support terrorist attacks or just the independant claims of the Basques?
LasNaranjas:
As with everything, there are plenty of exceptions. I am well aware that my case is no more than a speculation, and that it is possibly 100% false. Yet, from my little life experience and wisdom, I can say that terrorist attacks are more political tools than anything else, and where politics are involved, everything is a lot more complex than what it seems.
It not absurd -- it's 10% who support the violence, and I got that from CNN's website.
Did you want me to be more specific on how I arrived at that figure?
As a Spanish, I can inform... Basque nationalists, joining the three moderate parties, sum up more than 65% of the Basque population.
The main Basque (EAJ, PNV, or Nationalist Basque party) has total majority, it doens't need alliances to rule, actually.
The "Euskal Habertzaleak" (Basque socialists), the party who wants terrorist fight, has approx 5-10% of the votes.
So.... We can say that Basques want independence, but not terrorism.
In addition... The discussion Al-Quaeda or ETA has not a lot of sense now, but ETA was preppaired two "death Caravans" in Madrid before, with more of 500 kgs. of dinamyte, but they fortunately failed by the work of the police.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Thu 11/03/2004 12:29:53
It not absurd -- it's 10% who support the violence, and I got that from CNN's website.
Did you want me to be more specific on how I arrived at that figure?
If you wish.
Gosh, we are editing a lot, and there are two topics. It's just too hard to follow what is going on.
Well, I don't really wish cause I asked you if you wanted me to explain it.
I'm not explaining statistics for my benefit here -- I already looked them up for my benefit and have no real need to explain them.
Well, please do explain this figure.
There were 2 million Basques who voted in the last election..
Political groups that supported violence to gain independence scored around 200,000 votes.
This equals 10%.
Granted, there are 3 million Basques, but this equals 6-7% -- However, I can't say that for sure because a certain number of non-voters may support violence as a mean of independence.
So the figure stands somewhere between 6-10%, which is close to Farlander's figure.
QED?
Although I call Australia home, I happen to live in Madrid, at least currently. I think I'm the only member of the community.
What I saw today really has no name.
There were basically 13 bombs in several different trains. They all exploted at peak hours in central stations of the city.
I work at one of the universities, I usually walk here in the mornings. I came in today despite the fact that there was a strike.
A lot of my friends didn't. And that saved their lives.
I just came back from a 15 minute silent concentration in the med lawn. There were lots of people there crying. Others were just standing around quietly.
Madrid is an extremely noisy place, so the silence was all the more impressive. I'm a practising Catholic, so I pulled out my rosary beads and prayed for awhile too, both for the victims and for the terrorists.
At the end there was quite a moving applause.
Official figures from the Ministry of Internal Affairs speak of 173 dead, 600 wounded.
Ok, it's a smaller scale, but the brutality of this is certainly comparable to September 11.
It's not about Basques and Spaniards. It's about human beings.
Anyway, please keep us all in your prayers.
Thank you, DG, I guess I underrated ETA's support. 200,000 is still far from the numbers that surround such organizations as Hizbollah and Al-Qaeda, but it is indeed more than I first believed. I wonder if on Sunday (day of the elections) we shall see such figures again.
Aussie, keep strong.
Apparently, Batasuna says they don't think it was the ETA, and there also seem to be other signs that are unusual for ETA attacks - apart from the scale, I hear the ETA usually send out warnings/threats before their attacks, but as I'm not very familiar with the Basque conflict I'm not sure that that isn't complete bunk.
Hmm.. I haven't heard the news for a couple of weeks, and this is my main reason why I don't watch/listen it.
Always, everyday there is something on the news about boms, terrorism, useless violence, murder, raping and politics. Well... I'm not interested in all of those things. I do not say, that I denie that these things are going on, because it's reality, but what would it add to my life, by hearing everyday news about more suffering and pain?
Oh.. and bytheway, death penalty is not THE answer i.m.o. You shouldn't treat evil, with evil. I think we have to think further than to ask for their death. In my personal opinion, is someone that asks for the death of the killer, from the inside equal bad as the killer himself. CMON people, you can't judge about the life of someone else! Not even if that man/woman killed someone else.
OK, as this is the political thread here's my stuff on the death sentence...
Not to mention that the costs of keeping prisoners on death row and giving them all the appeals required to ensure that as few as possible wrong irreversible sentences are carried out (and yet they still happen) are VASTLY greater than a life sentence... why should we spend so much money on them?
Also, families of victims tend to find that they don't feel any better after the execution.
EDIT: I want to keep this thread shorter than the other one if possible, so all my extra comments are going in as EDITs
The Spanish regions have more autonomy than Scotland does, and yet the Scottish parliament hasn't really changed anything significant here. I don't think the Spanish government is really oppressing the Basques, so they're not really "freedom fighters". I can't believe that voting for a Prime Minister in Vittoria instead of Madrid is really worth the 1000 lives they have obliterated over the years.
That's why I claim for a death penalty who can be ceased by the familiars... Also I just want it for exceptional cases, not just like in the U.S. when 10% of the cases of death penalties are based on mistakes in the trials...
I just demmand a special death penalty for this, I am just talking of 2,3 death penalties for decades (I.E. Oklahoma, Madrid, New York...)
I'm not too sure about this death penalty stuff. I don't really think we can dispose of other people's lives.
I think that only stirs hatred. If it was really ETA that did it, they still have support, and a series of capital punishments of their loved ones, (terrorists do have loved ones), would only harden their position and make the future more difficult for everyone.
It is a certainly a complex issue. Because on the other hand it can be argued that there's nothing wrong with killing in self defense. And society has a right to defend itself.
Still I don't think it's the way to go.
But Farlander, where do you draw the line? Isn't every murder, robbery, and action wich causes terror wrong? What does it matter, weither someone kills 20, or 200 people? Every human-being is important, and if you only punish the people from WTC, Oklahoma, Madrid etc... then that's pretty unfair, against a serial killer that killed 14 people, for example. And NO, I don't know it either how everyone should be judged, and I'm glad that I'm not a judge, but I think every case of an individual is different. For example, you can also give death penalty to the parents of some raper, for not giving any attention or love to their child, that as an effect of that, grew up like a loveless person, trying to fill the emptyness inside himself. It's pretty complicated... all I want to say, is that mankind has no rights to take the life of someone else, whatsoever.Not by terrorism, and not by death-penalty!
Where do I draw the line? Good question, but I think that 100 deaths deserve at least to put some attention on it.
The "funny" thing of all is that in Spain nobody can be more that 30 years in prison. Each day you work during your penalty (And you must work in prison, because there's nothing to do) removes one day of penalty. That means that the penalty for this bastards is redouced to 15 years.
Having in mind that people reaches "third degree" when they accomplish 2/3 of the penalty, we are talking that a 176 people killer can be in the street in 10 years.
One thing is not to agree with the death penalty, I understand and respect it, but another thing is to be too naive and to see how this people laughs of us.
The members of ETA, enter to the prison saying to the familiars of the victims "hey, don't worry for me, I'll be back in 3 years!"
That's disgusting.
We had enough of laws which rather protect the criminal than then victims.
Ok... No death penalty... what about perpetual penalty?
Too many hands. Can you three have three seperate avatars? It's starting to scare me.
Quote from: Robert Eric on Thu 11/03/2004 14:36:03
Too many hands. Can you three have three seperate avatars? It's starting to scare me.
I changed the colour, is this better?
I feel for you guys. We never thought anything like it would happen in Oklahoma either.
The sad thing is that the Federal building and World Trade Center were political targets.. but buses in Israel and trains in Madrid are simply for terror.
Disgusting, really. It accomplishes nothing.
QuoteI think that only stirs hatred. If it was really ETA that did it, they still have support, and a series of capital punishments of their loved ones, (terrorists do have loved ones), would only harden their position and make the future more difficult for everyone.
I would argue that a group of people who are willing to kill civilians in cowardly acts of terrorism are already pretty hardened in their resolve. These scumbags don't deserve to share the air on this planet. If the message that is sent is, "Well ... if we catch you we're going to paddle your bottom and then put you in prison where we'll have to pay to keep you for 10 life sentences ..." this is pathetic.
If they had the balls to attack soldiers and military targets instead of weak and defensless civilians it would be a different story (at least to me), but no, these cowards go after civilians. If you, as a terrorist, take even just 1 human life on purpose, you lose the right to your own life. You took something from that person you had no right to take and hence you forfeit your own.
Slaps on the wrist and prison time are worthless when it comes to terrorism.
In my opinion there should be a world law that says, "If you're proven to be part of a terrorist group you get a 'short drop and a quick stop' and that's it." [ hanging ]
There's no excuse, nor justification, for terrorisist attacks on civilians.
[ end rant ]
Sorry ... I really don't want to offend or inflame. Just wanted to express my opinion.
~ d
Hmm, so now after looking at some more detailed coverage of the attacks I'd say it looks more like the ETA now, but of course it's still all speculation.
About the whole death penalty thing... well, I can understand if many people want to give way to the voice that tells them to destroy them all, especially when the crime is as... not nice as this. I have to admit, even I can see the appeal.
But it's no good.
One, it's definitely not going to deter anybody who's serious about the whole terrorism thing.
Two, it will add to the group's ability to pretend it's fighting against oppression.
Three, it contributes to turning the judicial branch into institutionalized vengeance, which in my opinion is very much the wrong way to go.
Four, you're killing somebody. In my view, that's wrong under any imaginable set of circumstances and excusable only if you really, really can't avoid it. In such cases as this, it brings no added security to the remaining population, and it doesn't bring the dead back to life.
There's no point other than spite.
Quote from: Fuzzpilz on Thu 11/03/2004 19:50:40One, it's definitely not going to deter anybody who's serious about the whole terrorism thing.
Two, it will add to the group's ability to pretend it's fighting against oppression.
Three, it contributes to turning the judicial branch into institutionalized vengeance, which in my opinion is very much the wrong way to go.
Four, you're killing somebody. In my view, that's wrong under any imaginable set of circumstances and excusable only if you really, really can't avoid it. In such cases as this, it brings no added security to the remaining population, and it doesn't bring the dead back to life.
There's no point other than spite.
Some VERY good points ...
What about if we just give them an injection of something that doesn't kill them, but turns them into a living vegetable?
Or we could put them in sensory deprivating tanks and slowly brainwash them into zombies who only like to make origami.
Hmmm ....
But we can't do these things because we
certainly wouldn't want to inconvenience the nice terrorists.
~ d
I wasn't really trying to argue against the death penalty - I was mainly stating my own reasons for disagreeing with those who call for it, or in the case of e.g. the US wish to retain it. A real discussion of all this would lead this thread far off-topic, and it would be of no benefit to anybody.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Thu 11/03/2004 20:19:38
But we can't do these things because we certainly wouldn't want to inconvenience the nice terrorists.
(If I misinterpreted that part of your post, tell me so but otherwise disregard the following)
Now that's just unfair. I resent your implication that I'm somehow in favour of terrorists - is it so hard to accept that some people don't believe in the whole revenge thing? Is everybody either on the terrorists' side or in favour of throwing nuclear bombs filled with machine guns and ninjas and poisoned sausages at everyone who might be a terrorist?
I really don't like discussing in detail how action X is worse than action Y by Z number of EvilPoints(tm), but in general I obviously do think that a terrorist attack that kills dozens of people is "more evil" than executing or otherwise mistreating those responsible and the setback for the abolition of such practices this entails. (But if they are not yet legal, then the action of changing the law to make it so is quite a different matter to me.)
In terms of the death penalty, often it doesn't give victims the relief you would imagine. We had a doctor who was recently given a life sentence for killing over 200 of his patients; he then committed suicide in his cell, and the relatives of the victims all felt cheated that he took the easy way out.
The greater difficulty is, if this was a suicide attack (which of course we don't know yet), what can you do to stop it? No punishment in the world is going to be effective as a deterrent against people who are prepared to sacrifice their own lives for their 'cause'.
From DebkaFile (http://www.debka.com):
QuoteAl Qaeda claims Spain bombing in letter reaching London-based al Kuds. Spanish official earlier reported Arabic tape with Koran verses found in van packed with explosives near Madrid.
As the toll of the Madrid rail attacks climbs rapidly to 190 dead, 1,200 injured, terror experts note their appalling scale dwarfs any previous ETA assaults. They suggest the hand of al Qaeda or collaboration between the Islamist group and Basque terrorists behind the bombings. A senior Washington security official sees definite al Qaeda hallmarks. No group has claimed responsibility.
Fuzz - I totally meant it when I said you had some good points! I wasn't AT ALL trying to say you favor them. I apologize for ANY confusion there.
That part of my post was more to point out that there really isn't a solution to the problem! Because yes, killing somebody because they killed somebody IS, in the end, a little hypocritical.
It's such a sticky situation ...
Pumanman - that's always been my thought about Terrorism ... how can threatening to execute them be a detterent, when they're willing to die anyway? Kind of hard to threaten them ...
[irony] although dying by the hands of the infidel is worse than glorious suicide. [/irony]
Cooperation between Al Qaeda and the ETA seems unlikely to me. I'm no expert on either organization, but I don't think their ideologies are compatible, and they do seem to be quite devoted to their causes.
From what I hear, experts are arguing back and forth on this, of course. We'll probably know more soon, though.
(Thanks for clearing that up, Darth, and sorry for all the yelling - it's a point that's important to me, that's all.)
Quote
But Farlander, where do you draw the line?
I suppose, when there are no longer terrorists.
Quote
Isn't every murder, robbery, and action wich causes terror wrong?
Absolutely not. Terrorism is about money, power, and fanaticism. Your question seems to imply there is justification for terrorist acts such as this one, I couldn't disagree more. In my opinion groups who resort to terrorist acts give up any claim to anything.
Quote
What does it matter, weither someone kills 20, or 200 people?
I suppose it would be important to at least 180 folks and their families, friend, coworkers, etc.
Quote
Every human-being is important, and if you only punish the people from WTC, Oklahoma, Madrid etc... then that's pretty unfair, against a serial killer that killed 14 people,
Unfair to whom?? The terrorists or the seial killer?
Quote
One, it's definitely not going to deter anybody who's serious about the whole terrorism thing.
I disagree. There are a finite number of terrorists, so if you find out who they are and kill them all, including their leadership and supporters you will put a serious dent in their desire to continue. Perhaps if death is not a deterent to such people that penalty is not harsh enough?
Quote
Two, it will add to the group's ability to pretend it's fighting against oppression.
Such groups and individuals have already prersuaded themselves of this anyway. In the case of radical islam they have been brain washing their children for half a century o motre to blame everything on the Jew and the West. They can only possible benefit can be achieved if the rest of us buy into that proposition.
Quote
Three, it contributes to turning the judicial branch into institutionalized vengeance, which in my opinion is very much the wrong way to go.
One could say the same for any form of goverment imposed sanction.
Quote
Four, you're killing somebody. In my view, that's wrong under any imaginable set of circumstances and excusable only if you really, really can't avoid it.
Do you not believe that defending the lives of yourself, your family, and fellow citizens is such a case? So how do you propose to eliminate terrorism?
Quote
In such cases as this, it brings no added security to the remaining population, and it doesn't bring the dead back to life. There's no point other than spite.
Let's suppose your family's entire life savings are stolen by a criminal.
Further, let's suppose this criminal spends the money in a non-recoverable manner. Should we not bring this guy to justice because we can't recover the damages. Suppose the penalty for such a crime is only 6 months in jail and others are not deterred by this penalty. What would you suggest? By your above logic you would reduce or just elimiate the penalties all together.
Quote
Hmm, so now after looking at some more detailed coverage of the attacks I'd say it looks more like the ETA now, but of course it's still all speculation.
Actually the last news report I heard disagrees with this notion. Apparently a suspicious van was found abandoned nearby containing Arabic stuff, and also authorities noted that the ETA has yet to claim responsibility, which I understand is the normal case. Not conclusive obviously, but it seems that the ETA are not the only suspects.
IMHO, I think one needs to think about how terrorism can be eliminated before rejecting other proposed solutions. Suggest something better that get's the job done.
I think the terrorist should be solved fixing the base problem. That's why I was against Irak war: you can kill Saddam, but in 5 years you'll have another Saddam if you don't solve the problem in the right way.
The frontiers hasn't been elected democratelly, if a group of people decide to do independent I can't see any reason to deny it.
I'm not deffending the army way (I'm completelly against it) but the Spanish goverment obssession to solve the problem only with the police is IMO a mistake.
Quote from: RickJ on Thu 11/03/2004 21:40:38
Quote
But Farlander, where do you draw the line?
I suppose, when there are no longer terrorists.
Hmmm. So just kill all the terrorists, yeah? And what if (as it has done in every country where this tactic has been used), the terrorists simply grow in number and strength as a reaction to this repressive measure?
Most terrorist attacks in Israel follow further repressive measures by the Israeli government. Sharon was among the first to reckognize this, and in many talks, he has made clear he believes the likely result of further repressive measures/counter attacks is further terror. But don't take Sharon's word on it, try reading the history of the Iranian revolution, the Russian revolution, the Spanish Revolution, the French Revolution, all of which included mass terrorism that broke out after repressive measures by the state. Look at Mexico, or Peru, or even the anti-globalization protests. The Weather underground in the US, the Berkley demonstrators, even Britain in the Blitz--being attacked almost always leads to retaliation, whether the victims of repression (such as the death penalty) are "good" or "bad".
Further, all reliable studies suggest that the death penalty does not deter crime. When Canada eliminated the death penalty, for example, violent crime fell substansively. Crime is a reaction to a sense of powerlessness (at least if you believe all the reliable studies ever produced), even if unjustified, and violent crime falls in periods of greater equality.
Quote
Quote
Isn't every murder, robbery, and action wich causes terror wrong?
Absolutely not. Terrorism is about money, power, and fanaticism. Your question seems to imply there is justification for terrorist acts such as this one, I couldn't disagree more. In my opinion groups who resort to terrorist acts give up any claim to anything.
If that's the case, what about the terror that began the American revolution? Or the French Revolutionary terrorists? What about the Russian anarchists of 1910, or the more recent struggles of the FARC and Zapatistas in South/Central America. All of these struggles began with terrorism/civil warfare.
Are you saying the American revolution was meaningless?
Terror ALWAYS has an interest in social change, whether that change is good or bad. If you actually want to combat these groups (which people who just want to kill them seem to have little interest in doing), you have to understand them, and not just ignore them or act as if they're completely irrational. Terror will continue to grow unless you can address the structural conditions of international inequality.
Of course, you're entiteled to disagree with me, but if you're right, we should watch the swift international response and see if terrorism ends after that (like it was going to after the "War on Terror). If you end terrorism that way in the next, say, 20 years, I will personally mail you 5000 dollars and an official apology. But if terrorism rises through the strategy of active warfare, then maybe it's time we tried another method.
Quote
Quote
What does it matter, weither someone kills 20, or 200 people?
I suppose it would be important to at least 180 folks and their families, friend, coworkers, etc.
Agreed.
Quote
Quote
One, it's definitely not going to deter anybody who's serious about the whole terrorism thing.
I disagree. There are a finite number of terrorists, so if you find out who they are and kill them all, including their leadership and supporters you will put a serious dent in their desire to continue. Perhaps if death is not a deterent to such people that penalty is not harsh enough?
See my above notes.
But in terms of practicality, the idea of "kill them all" (which is EXACTLY the terrorist's attitude) is just not do-able. You say kill all the teorrorists and their leader--well, on the one hand, that shows a very ironic disregard for the lives of the non-terrorist families, friends and loved-ones of the terrorists. Remember, terrorists are not magic demons, but have relationships of their own, children, etc. You kill these terrorists, what are their families going to do? Children? Probably join the cause. But that's okay, right, because you can just kill them too. And their friends and families. All the while it's in the name of "respect for human life.
And then how do you reach the leader? Bush (whose family has long had economic deals with the bin laden family) has still not found bin laden. He found Sadam Hussein, a professed enemy of bin laden, and a national leader, but certainly not laden himself. So how do you expect them to find all the terrorist leaders?
Further, according to the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI and most other intelligence services, these groups act by a "leaderless cell" system, which means they all share an ideology, and do not need direct leadership. This is the official information of international intelligence--I know some people think they know otherwise without any evidence, but if you trust the best minds in the country, you will agree that killing the leaders will have no detrimental effect to these groups at all. In fact, if you read national reports, and history, you will know that it is likely to create "martyrs." If you die in a holy war, you go to heaven, after all.
It is a problem when people believe they can kill an idea. An ideology, however odious and terrible, is not killable. In Viet Nam and throughout east asia, Communism was the evil idea that the US government (against the will of the majority of US people) tried to stamp out through murder. It failed. Because you can't kill and idea. An idea travels as long as there is one person on the earth who can speak or write. Even then, ideas persist. You can't kill an ideology, you can only affect the structural conditions.
But if you're right, and we do kill all the arabs and that solves terrorism, I will personally send you money and an apology.
Quote
Quote
Two, it will add to the group's ability to pretend it's fighting against oppression.
Such groups and individuals have already prersuaded themselves of this anyway. In the case of radical islam they have been brain washing their children for half a century o motre to blame everything on the Jew and the West. They can only possible benefit can be achieved if the rest of us buy into that proposition.
I assume you have studied radical islam and sociology of those countries extensively, say 3 years reading the holy texts, and another three observing in those countries, because otherwise, these would just be racist assumptions with no logical or empirical backing.
Quote
Quote
Three, it contributes to turning the judicial branch into institutionalized vengeance, which in my opinion is very much the wrong way to go.
One could say the same for any form of goverment imposed sanction.
Yes... so...
Quote
Most of the rest of this "debate" is repetition, so I'm snipping it for brevity's sake.
Quote
In such cases as this, it brings no added security to the remaining population, and it doesn't bring the dead back to life. There's no point other than spite.
Let's suppose your family's entire life savings are stolen by a criminal.
Further, let's suppose this criminal spends the money in a non-recoverable manner. Should we not bring this guy to justice because we can't recover the damages. Suppose the penalty for such a crime is only 6 months in jail and others are not deterred by this penalty. What would you suggest? By your above logic you would reduce or just elimiate the penalties all together.
Okay, but we're not talking about money, we're talking about people's lives. And if the sanctions aren't working, increasing them isn't going to help. It's like if you can't get a square peg into a round hole, so you just hit it harder. Even if you do get that peg in, you're going to split the wood.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind -Gandhi.
Quote
Actually the last news report I heard disagrees with this notion. Apparently a suspicious van was found abandoned nearby containing Arabic stuff, and also authorities noted that the ETA has yet to claim responsibility
And neither have Islamic fundamentalists. Why assume that they're the bad guy just because there was a van with some arabic sayings? Remember Oklahoma city? The unibomber?
Quote
IMHO, I think one needs to think about how terrorism can be eliminated before rejecting other proposed solutions. Suggest something better that get's the job done.
Perhaps if we thought about all the methods that have failed (such as warfare), and all the methods that haven't been attempted (such as listening to the cause of terror) then we might be closer to a real solution.
Quote
I think the terrorist should be solved fixing the base problem.
The base problem is that there are people who desire power and money and will resort to any form violence to obtain it. So how do you deal with that?
The IRA problem was solved through a negotiation process. The Spanish goverment is completelly against to negotiate with ETA.
I only say that when someone is asking for something, you can negotiate or try to win in a battle of innocent deads.
If the goverment doesn't want to negotiate until the terrorists stop killing and the terrorists won't stop killing until the goverment start to negotiate, that's a stupid situation, which only gives us blood and revenge.
USA fighted Saddam and Bin Laden, killing innocent people. They claimed for venjance and kill our people. What will do USA if the Madrid attack is conffirmed to be made by AlQuaeda, more bombs?
We should stop that.
There is a thing I want to ask... When people claims to be patient with the terrorists... who do they think the terrorists are? Poor guys, romanthic fighters who are fighting for a noble reason or something?
I think that terrorists are criminals whose work is to kill, and the political stuff is just an EXCUSE they use to make it. We're talking of rubbish, inhuman beings, psycos who really enjoy blowing people's lifes, because they are just fu*ing bastards who have envy of the relaxed existence of the civilians...
The nice image that Hollywood gives of the terrorist (A lovely family man who has lost his family and fights against the opressor...) bah, rubbish... They're a mob... Do you imagine what could happen in the Spanish government says tomorrow: "Well, you got it, Pays Basque will be independent!"? What would that web of terrorist do? They would be unemployed! I can bet that they will find something to complain and start the "war" again.
We can't negotiate with them, becase they don't want nothing!
What should the US do to avoid Al Quaeda strikes? To abandon Saudi Arabia? That's impossible, most of the arabs WANT the americans to be there and to make business with them.
In fact... Al Quaeda demmands all the "occidental" signs to dissapear of the holy lands of Islam... We're talking that his bastards won't stop the fight till the last can of Coke dissapear of their countries... Do you think that his is logical???
What should do the Jews for not being attacked by Palestinians? The foundational letter of the Palestinian terrorist groups want the total destruction of the sionism entity, anywhere they are, so... if we want the Palestinian terrorist groups to be dissolved we should pray for a Jews massive suicide???
We can't negotiate with them because they demmand something impossible to do.
So... we must eliminate them... Maybe not killing them, but we surely must take them out of the civilian life.
I think terrorists don't kill for fun. They kill because they HATE their enemy. And fighting with violence oly makes grow that hate in both sides, which is very far from a solution.
Whats your explanation to the IRA solution? What are these terrorists working at now?
I don't have a romantic vision of the terrorists, but I don't have a romantic version of the Goverments, it's intentions or the information that we get from the TV.
If the goverment shows the terrorists as mad people without any reason to kill is probably because the Goverment don't want the people to know that reasons or because it's easy to justify wars this way.
The American Revolution = Terrorism??
Americans didn't go to England and kill thousands of civilians. They declared war and fought, in the open, against their oppressors. Now, being greatly out-numbered, they resorted to tactics that could be considered 'questionable' (covert destruction, the targetting of officers, etc.) but they were attacking military targets.
Now, if you're referring the British tactics during the American Revolution well ... that's another story altogether ;)
Modern terrorists should declare war if it's really want they want.
Take on the military might of those they oppose, not target defensless civilians.
Since America has declared a 'War on Terrorism' it would be understandable if these fanatics would then attack American military forces (as they're at war with you if you're a terrorist) but no, they attack innocent people who have nothing to do with anything.
Pau - They [terrorists] may have what they consider justification for these cowardly acts of terrorism, but that certainly doesn't make killing innocents right and/or justified. But I do see the point you're making.
~ d
Quote
Pau - They [terrorists] may have what they consider justification/i] for these cowardly acts of terrorism, but that certainly doesn't make killing innocents right and/or justified. But I do see the point you're making.
I think
rationalization[/i] is perhaps a more correct word in this context.
Quote
They kill because they HATE their enemy.
Nope, they kill to gain gain political power and huge amounts of cash. Now that this is big news of a successful attack the money will come rolling in. HATE of the enemy is used to persuade others to aid and join them, hate is just a tool of their politics. Those who organize these kinds of things love their enemies because without enemies they are out of business. That's why they will never satisfied, there is no concession you can make that will satisfy them. That's why a death peanlty is the only answer for people who subscribe to this kind of philosphy.
RickJ: I believe you misunderstood Minimi's question "where do you draw the line." There are many actions that cause "terror" (which is becoming a rediculously overused word) that do not involve bombs and hundreds upon hundreds of deaths. Should you kill those "terrorists" too? I'm freaking terrified of a guy back home who beat me up at least once a week for a whole school year. Shall we give him leathal injection, hang him, or perhaps behead him? Is that going too far? How many people have to be hurt before it's enough? 20? 50? 100? Give me a number and get back to me.
Darth:
QuoteAmericans didn't go to England and kill thousands of civilians. They declared war and fought, in the open, against their oppressors. Now, being greatly out-numbered, they resorted to tactics that could be considered 'questionable' (covert destruction, the targetting of officers, etc.) but they were attacking military targets.
I think you need to go and look at your history book again, my friend. Have you ever heard of the Swamp Fox? He was an American Revolutionary named Francis Marion. He would take his men into the woods and hide behind the trees. As columns of British soldiers marched past, they would open fire. Because it would take too long for them to load their muskets and they would be surrounded, the Redcoats didn't stand a chance. As a result, they often refused to enter any wooded area. If you don't feel like looking it up, Mel Gibson's character in "The Patriot" is loosly based off of him.
Furthermore, have you ever heard of the United Empire Loyalists? They were the civilians living in North America who wanted to remain loyal to the crown. If it was found out that you were a "British Sympathiser," you could be tarred and feathered, have scalding tea poured down your throat (as a protest against the East India Company monopolies), and "hung by the neck until you are dead". Just because you wanted to remain British. I call that pretty terrifying.
Yeah, that was a bit off topic. Sorry. Please continue with your regularly scheduled debate.
Dragon Rose: 1
I didn't realize it was competition ...
QuoteI think you need to go and look at your history book again, my friend. Have you ever heard of the Swamp Fox? He was an American Revolutionary named Francis Marion. He would take his men into the woods and hide behind the trees. As columns of British soldiers marched past, they would open fire. Because it would take too long for them to load their muskets and they would be surrounded, the Redcoats didn't stand a chance. As a result, they often refused to enter any wooded area. If you don't feel like looking it up, Mel Gibson's character in "The Patriot" is loosly based off of him.
I know who he is/was. However, this doesn't really counter my point. They were still attacking military targets. I would counter that those tactics, used by the Fox, were far smarter than the ways wars were fought back then with Napoleonic tactics.
QuoteFurthermore, have you ever heard of the United Empire Loyalists? They were the civilians living in North America who wanted to remain loyal to the crown. If it was found out that you were a "British Sympathiser," you could be tarred and feathered, have scalding tea poured down your throat (as a protest against the East India Company monopolies), and "hung by the neck until you are dead". Just because you wanted to remain British. I call that pretty terrifying.
This is something I knew about ... and it is unfortunate. In a war, and it was a declared war, if I found out that a certain person was giving the enemy information about me and my comrades they cease being neutral and become the enemy. There were hundreds of "United Empire Loyalists" who lived out the war without being harmed because they didn't aid the British in anyway other than wishing to remain under the control of the crown.
I didn't say Americans were guilt free of committing atrocities, just that events back then don't really relate to modern terrorism.
Perhaps you consider them linked, I don't.
~ d
There is a basic problem if we talk with terrorists:
a) If we talk to somebody who kills 200... which is the message we send to the little terrorists groups which have killed, let's say, 10 people? kill 190 more people or we won't take you seriously?
Remember that there is another terrorist group in Spain, Grapo, and if they see that the bombing is a good argument to sit in a table and negociate they can feel tempted to increase the fight.
In addition, we can't really use the IRA like an example that terrorists can abandon the fight and negotiate, because the target of IRA was very clear from the beginning: The Ulster to reach the same status as the "free" Ireland. On the other hand we have most of the rest of the terrorist groups, whose objectives are vaguely defined and can be regularily "updated" by their leaders if needed.
Let me put an example: ETA wants a "free and socialist Basque County"... So... Where would them draw the line? In the independence? Probabl not, I think that they go on fighting if they were independent, but ruled by PNV (conservative) because they are also radical socialists. Actually, I think that they're just a mab with an excuse to work in something they love... kill people.
So... why talk to them? We won't never be able to give them something they would feel acceptable to stop fighting.
Maybe so, but you're going to get far more support for an independent Basque country than you will for a Basque communist coup... support meaning peoples hearts, minds and wallets. If there was an independent Basque country, then ETA support would diminish greatly and they might fizzle out. No doubt when Ireland eventually is unified (which will evantually happen democratically due to higher birth rates amongst republicans...) there will still be some extremists but their support will be tiny and they will be fighting their own poilce...
The greater problem is actually more liekly to be that any form of Basque independence would be done by referenda in Pais Vasco, Navarra, and any other region claimed by ETA. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those regions said "no" and so ETA would carry on the fight for those regions. Pretty much what happened when the northern counties of Ireland voted to stay in the UK...
I'm sorta hoping that it is ETA, not for any political reasons on global powers or the like, but just that it may be better for Spain.
It would seem to increase the liklihood that those responsible would be able to be found and tried without the need for a war which to a degree gives them status as soldiers, and a sort of mandate that violence is a legitimate tools.
Trying someone is a far greater indication that what they did is unacceptable. Moreover is displays all the virtues of Democracy and the notions of freedom we are meant to be upholding. Victory in a war, unless you claim the weight of god, can easily be seen as only superior arms, whereas a fair trial has all the weight of authority.
That wasn't possible in the case of Sept. 11, and there too the war failed in aims to bring organisers to justice. The wound will take longer to close.
It was thus very lucky for my region that those who caused the events in Bali were subjected to trial. It helped curb the inevitable and self defeating need for vengence which is sadly natural. So anger was drowned out by condolence and mourning, and shared pain is lessened.
I wish however that they had not imposed the death penalty, for simple reasons both pragmatic and in a search for the most appropriate punishment. It's illogical to to choose death as a punishment for a man who believes his crimes will take him to paradise. A wasted life in prison, seeing the futility of what he has achieved and eventually having to face what he has done, seeing dreams of glory evaporate seems a greater punishment. And if we imprison him til the end of his days, there increases the chance he may face what he has done and show remorse. A show of remorse would give infinitely greater comfort to victims than the illusionary pleasure of execution.
On the pragmatic side, imprisonment works for the images of men like Mandela and Gandhi. They don't work for those of men who would blaze in glory. The former had a great weight of justice about their cause, enforced by the patience with which they pursued it. The violent ideologies that spawn acts of violence work on illusions, on smoke and mirrors and a need for heroic martyrs.
Seeing figures like Mandela in a cell, waiting, only compliment the virtues of patience and the aura of justice. A would-be martyr sitting in a cell is just sad. It helps dispel the dreams of heroic martyrdom, the delusions of grandeur on which terrorism and other violent means base their recruitment.
Execution creates a martyr, an asset to terrorism, imprisonment brings a liability.
But anyway, hope for a trial, for Spain's sake.
SSH wrote a good point: ETA does not just want the independence of the Pais Vasco... they also claim for lands in France and Navarra... They also count with à Âlava, a basque nations governed by "Unión Alavesa" (part of the Popular Party). It is quite clear demmand things that can't be archieved. Which is the purpose of that? Imo, their intention is to delay the conflict as much as possible.
On the other hand, whereas people vote independist parties, this very parties are reluctant to give the final step of claiming for the independence... They're pragmant, they just want a high level of authonomy, and if there was a referenda about independence, people should say no, that's quite clear.
For instance, Catalunya has been governed during 20 years by a nationalist party and they have never been INTERESTED in making a serious claim for independence.
The referenda stuff is just useless, because terrorists wouln't give up if they loose it.
Edit: 199 deaths, the last one a 7-month baby girl.
Here's a political analysis I have read:
The Iraqi war is very unpopular among the Spanish population. In fact, George 'Jorge' Bush is one of the most widely disliked people in Iberia. Seeing as Aznar was the man who sent Spanish troops to Iraq, the governing pary PP is widely associated with this war. If indeed it is Al-Qaeda behind the attacks, then the anti-war feelings will become stronger, and the PP's electoral campaign will be harmed.
Edit: Top reason not to negotiate (under their terms) with terrorists: Oslo 1993.
7 islamists arrested: 5 moroccan, 2 indian and 2 muslim spanish...
It's evident that this hasn't added points to my "religion-o-meter"...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/spain_bombings_arrests (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/spain_bombings_arrests)
DebkaFile's full analysis. (http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=804)
Hang on. Woah. Stop. Rewind.
Quote
The IRA problem was solved through a negotiation process. The Spanish goverment is completelly against to negotiate with ETA.
Did I oversleep or something? The IRA problem got solved?!
The IRA problem did not get solved. The IRA were 'replaced' with 'The Real IRA', or in other words the members renamed themselves when a couple of their leaders agreed to dissolve the group. The IRA are still active, still angry, still pining for their cause. They're not 'solved' at all.
Which aims to the same direction I told before: Terrorism is their business and they will allways find a reason to go on.
Thanks Yufs.
Terrorists, catholic, muslim or whatever, believe in their cause beyond the level we can comprehend. It has nothing to do with money, violence or thrill and everything to do with revenge, hatred and faith. They believe what they're doing is right and makes the world a better place. They believe they're fighting against the scum of the world and everything that is evil. They believe they're the good guys. They see themselves as freedom fighters, heroes and martyrs. They see their actions not only justified but as a greater form of goodness.
It's easy to underestimate them when we don't agree with their views, goals and means. We all can understand reasons why ETA hates the Spanish, IRA hates the Brits, Palestinians hate the Jewish and Al Qaeda hates the Americans. What we don't understand is their level of hatred and what they are willing to do because of it.
Makri, you described the terrorists themselves. Yet, we mustn't forget that there is always a bigger fish. Behind the terrorists stand polticians, who use these fanatics as tools. They do not acted from hatred, but from hard cold logic.
It's a sad world we live in, where terrorism dictates what goverments will fall and what governments will rise.
It's never that simple, Barcik
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/36245.html
Some things were perfectly clear
Seen with the vision of youth
No doubts and nothing to fear
I claimed the corner on truth
These days it's harder to say I know what I'm fighting for
My faith is falling away
I'm not that sure anymore
Shades of grey wherever I go
The more I find out the less that I know
Black and white is how it should be
But shades of grey are the colors I see
Once there were trenches and walls and one point of every view
Fight 'til the other man falls - kill him before he kills you
These days the edges are blurred, I'm old and tired of war
I hear the other man's words
I'm not that sure anymore
Shades of grey are all that I find
When I look to the enemy line
Black and white was so easy for me
But shades of grey are the colors I see
Now with the wisdom of years, I try to reason things out
And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts
Save us all from arrogant men, and all the causes they're for
I won't be righteous again
I'm not that sure anymore
Shades of grey wherever I go
The more I find out the less that I know
Ain't no rainbows shining on me
Shades of grey are the colors I see
Quote from: SSH on Mon 15/03/2004 13:45:37
It's never that simple, Barcik
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/36245.html
Despite all that he said, there is still one fundemental fact here - before the attacks, PP had the lead in the polls, and they lost. Obviously, the politicials tried to take advantage of the situation, and I couldn't have expected them to do otherwise. In fact, I think it is silly from the writer to criticize them for giving the tragic attacks a political spin - this is their job. It's obvious that any incident of such scale and importance will cause a political battle of wits. But we can't forget that it was this terrorist act which formed the political settings under which Aznar and the PPL lost.
It could be that Al-Queda are very very cunning. Why would they attack Spain? Well, Spain is the "Coalition against terror"'s biggest supporter that they could influence like this. In the UK, the main opposition party was also in favour of the war in Iraq, so they couln't swing an election like this. In the US, too many of the public were in favour of the war too and also the Democrats have only retrospectively been very against the war. But in Spain the main opposition were close enough to swing like this, and the population were massivley against their own government's involvement in the war. Now, human nature being what it is they couldn't be sure to have as large a swing as they did, but it was bound to have some effect if it was known that Al-Queda were behind it. Like with September 11, they couldn't have been sure that the towers would collapse and kill so many, but they could be sure of causing plenty of deaths anyway.
Their next big attack won't be the same. London has put extra secuirty in the Underground, but I doubt that the next attack will be with aircraft or trains, or just before an election, or whatever. All these measures are closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. However, one thing is for sure: those countries that have been very vocal in supporting the US are going to be targetted. I'm not sure that if there was a "Pull out of Iraq and apologise for it" party that I wouldn't vote for it.
It's all very well saying that "We don't negociate with terrorists becuase if we acquiese, all the other terrorists will think they can succeed, too". But ultimately, there is a number of lives at risk that negates that logic. Funnily enough, "24" series 3 deals with that situation: President Palmer asks Jack to give the terrorists what they want, but in a way that it looks like he didn't. But if the terrorists can kill all of your population, simple maths shows that any future terrorists couldn't do anything worse and you must acquiescs. From there down, it's all shades of gray and the line gets drawn somewhere. Typically, small terrorist groups don't have that kind of power, but "terrorist" states can. People vilify the Vichy government, but would it have been better for France to fight until all its people were dead? Should the US have stayed in Vietnam?
I am angry with George Bush and Blair and Aznar for putting the UK and Spain in this position. The war in Iraq has increased terrorism in Iraq and throughout the world, so arguments about it saving lives are bunk.
Considering campaigning was suspended, it's hard to claim that the opposition deliberately exploited the bombings, since there was no capacity for them to do it. Rather the the shameless exploitation made of terrorism by leaders such as our Prime Minister in the 2001 election or the wonderfuls ads being aired by the Bush campaign at the moment.
So really, why it may have had some effect on the election, it wasn't an exploited issue, and rather reflects the nature of democracy, which is what we're told we're trying to protect.
Quote
It could be that Al-Queda are very very cunning. Why would they attack Spain? Well, Spain is the "Coalition against terror"'s biggest supporter that they could influence like this. In the UK, the main opposition party was also in favour of the war in Iraq, so they couln't swing an election like this. In the US, too many of the public were in favour of the war too and also the Democrats have only retrospectively been very against the war. But in Spain the main opposition were close enough to swing like this, and the population were massivley against their own government's involvement in the war.
You seem to be saying that the Spainsh population's political views have made them targets and that in other countries whoose populations are not as easily swayed to political views favorable to the terrorists were relatively immune. If this is true then their new president, who campaigned on policies favorable to terorists, is likely more responsible for the attack that the previous president's support for the US.
Quote
Now, human nature being what it is they couldn't be sure to have as large a swing as they did, but it was bound to have some effect if it was known that Al-Queda were behind it. Like with September 11, they couldn't have been sure that the towers would collapse and kill so many, but they could be sure of causing plenty of deaths anyway.
However they mis-calculated the character of the American population, who, instead of aquiesing decided that enough is enough and launched an agressive policy to deal with the individuals and groups involved.
Quote
... People vilify the Vichy government, but would it have been better for France to fight until all its people were dead?
Yes ;), because if they had that mentaility they quite probably would have defeated the Germans. Didn't England face a similar choice during WWII as France and choose otherwise?
Quote
Should the US have stayed in Vietnam?
We should have fought it to win in the first place. The liberal party that was in power at the time wanted to appease the China and so instead of trying to defeat the enemy they said ok here is this line and you guys stay on your side and we'll stay on our side. The other side, however was playing to win. So the result was that 50,000+ died over there so that a bunch of politicians over here didn't need to make tough decisions. The other party took over in 1968 so they got tough for awhile but by that time the entire US population had enough and wanted it over with. So they negociated their way out. If they stayed in they would have eventually won and Vietnam would have been much better off for it today.
Quote
I am angry with George Bush and Blair and Aznar for putting the UK and Spain in this position. The war in Iraq has increased terrorism in Iraq and throughout the world, so arguments about it saving lives are bunk.
I'm confussed now. I thought that there isn't connection between Iraq and Al Queda? Why Wouldn't Al Queda be more pissed off about getting their asses kicked in Afganistan than a war in a country where they no connection and that resulted in liberation of thw population. Will they now target France for sending troops to helping the US in Hatti? I guess you're agreeing with Bush and Blair then, that there was a nexus between the former Iraq and Al Queda.
Quote
Terrorists, catholic, muslim or whatever, believe in their cause beyond the level we can comprehend. It has nothing to do with money, violence or thrill and everything to do with revenge, hatred and faith. They believe what they're doing is right and makes the world a better place...
This is more or less true of the people that carry out the attacks. But without money and power you are left with a few nuts running around ranting. You get an ocassional Timothy McVeigh but not an enduring and organized movement. The people who run Al Queda gained both power and money as a result of the attack in Spain. They now know that they can pressure the European population to do what they want and with that success they will be able to raise more funds for future mischief.
Quote from: Las Naranjas on Mon 15/03/2004 20:26:21
Considering campaigning was suspended, it's hard to claim that the opposition deliberately exploited the bombings, since there was no capacity for them to do it. Rather the the shameless exploitation made of terrorism by leaders such as our Prime Minister in the 2001 election or the wonderfuls ads being aired by the Bush campaign at the moment.
So really, why it may have had some effect on the election, it wasn't an exploited issue, and rather reflects the nature of democracy, which is what we're told we're trying to protect.
You surely know better than that. Is all political propaganda delievered via speeches and slogans, or do snake comments in well placed spots have an effect as well? Didn't Mr. Zapatero 'hint' that Al-Qaeda is behind the bombings? Didn't he indirectly point at the connect between the war in Iraq and the bombing? He sure did. Such an event, 3 days before the elections is too big for him to overlook it as a potential political tool.
SSH, I am sorry but I didn't really understand your point. Is this a reply to my previous post?
QuoteIt's all very well saying that "We don't negociate with terrorists becuase if we acquiese, all the other terrorists will think they can succeed, too". But ultimately, there is a number of lives at risk that negates that logic.
Both arguments you present here (including the one you negate) are totally equal. None is better than the other. And I say it with considerable difficulty, because of my personal politcal views. We tend to see one as better than the other because of our personal beliefs, but from a hard cold point of view they are both equally bad. How to know which one is better? By the specific circumstances of the occasion. In this case, I think that the elections in Spain were a big victory to terrorists. Bin-Laden managed to sink a major European government. I am afraid of what comes next.
Well, to only hint as he did showed a remarkable amount of restraint, considering the weight of opinion. Any change of votes would have occured had he been completely silent.
I don't think it was restraint. Were he to come out boldly and make a speech about "Aznar caused the attacks", the Spanish people would feel he is exploiting their sad situation and not vote for him.
That's still restraint, regardless of the motivation.
As it stands, since we can only judge people on their actions, not thoughts, he's done no more, rather in some areas far less than many others have done, including yourself. I'm not necessarily making any moral judgements here, I'm just trying to inject objectivity here.
I think there is quite the difference between the various things I am allowed to say and the things he is allowed to say.
That made my day, thanks.
Well, if it was the Al Q'eda, they've effectivly "won", what with Spain now pulling out of the coallition. What happened was terrible, but IMHO, politically Spain now seems to be showing nothing but defeat.
When it comes to terrorism, my advice to people travelling to the UK, is visit anywhere but London. Something is more than likely going to happen within the next year. America and Spain have been pumelled by terrorist attacks, and our defences are no where near as strong as America's. Don't use the tube.
I don't mean to sound paranoid and yes I know "its not worth worrying about", but something is bound to happen to the UK.
QuoteConsidering campaigning was suspended, it's hard to claim that the opposition deliberately exploited the bombings, since there was no capacity for them to do it.
So really, why it may have had some effect on the election, it wasn't an exploited issue, and rather reflects the nature of democracy, which is what we're told we're trying to protect.
The fact is, Las, that even if the campaign was officially interrupted, the opposition
did keep going.
Perhaps the socialist campaign during saturday was not official (i.e. there were no meetings), but it certainly existed:
- Through the media akin to them -and likely to get some pretty juicy contracts out of a socialist victory- (SER radio, El PaÃs newspaper, Tele 5 on tv). These were the only media to break the reflection day previous to the ellection.
- Through a series of mobile phone messages claiming the government was lying about the terrorist attack, and calling for a demonstration at the doors of PP's hq. I myself received a couple, and so did people living with me.
These explain the "spontaneous" saturday afternoon demonstrations at PP's hq. There were about 7000 people there calling Mr. Aznar a liar. They happen to turn up "spontaneously", but all at the same time (!), and they all had the same PRINTED banners and flags (!).
This did have a strong impact on people's perception of what they were "supposed to vote". Especially in the case of the many undediced ones.
In the end, that fact is that the attack suceeded in its main objective: to throw PP -a stauch pro-American ally- off the government. Zapatero, the new president, has announced the Spanish withdrawal from Iraq in the near future.
QuoteDidn't Mr. Zapatero 'hint' that Al-Qaeda is behind the bombings? Didn't he indirectly point at the connect between the war in Iraq and the bombing? He sure did. Such an event, 3 days before the elections is too big for him to overlook it as a potential political tool.
He did, on friday, implicitly call Aznar a liar several times.
The last two days of the "suspended campaign" and the "reflexion" day were disgusting... Everyone who saw the possibility to gain PP's votes made a dirty game. When I mean dirty game, I mean, lying.
I should have seen as "legal" to claim: You've put Spain in the aim of Al-Quaeda for helping Bush, and you haven't been able to protect us!
But PSOE never used that... PSOE said that PP consciently lied when told that it was ETA, but PP actually informed with difference of MINUTES when the evidences started to aim to Al-Quaeda.
Tell people that a party is consciently lying about 200 dead people is unadmissible... specially if they're not doing it.
The government announced saturday that there was a video in a mosque claiming the responsability of Al-Quaeda... People went to bed (The previous day of voting) knowing that it was Al-Quaeda. MOST of the governments of any country should have told nothing about the evidences aiming al-Quaeda till after the elections ("It was necessary to keep the secret to help the police works, bla bla bla...")
Nobody should have really complained against PP more than in many of the scandals that PSOE had in its recent past... But PP acted in the line of its PRINCIPLES.
PP is not really my cup of tea. Whereas the economy management has been called "Miraculous", I really felt that Aznar was keeping too many attention in keeping personal wars sheltered by his absolute majority in the government, in spite of taking care of the confidence that the spanish population gave to him.
In addition, I never really liked PP's attitude in front of the historical communities.
But PSOE is not better... I think I am going to pass 4 years without taking attention to politics.
At least... the new Prime Minister is "culé" (FC Barcelona Fan) ;D
I guess in the end it wasn't PSOE that won the ellection, it was PP that lost it.
Aznar should have paid a bit more attention to all those demonstrations against the war. People ended up seeing it as his own personal battle.
Quote from: Farlander on Tue 16/03/2004 14:24:21
At least... the new Prime Minister is "culé" (FC Barcelona Fan) ;D
(http://www.sport.es/media/articles/000000084000/000000084270000000084406.jpg)
The Catalan press seems to very happy.
An evidence is that I can ensure you that Zapatero is not that handsome...