Madrid Terrorist Attacks

[Barcik]

It's a sad world we live in, where terrorism dictates what goverments will fall and what governments will rise.

[SSH]

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

[Barcik]

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.

[SSH]

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.

[Las Naranjas]

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.

[RickJ]

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.

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.

... 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?    

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.    

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.  

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.  

 

[Barcik]

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?

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.

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.

[Las Naranjas]

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.

[Barcik]

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.

[Las Naranjas]

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.

[Barcik]

I think there is quite the difference between the various things I am allowed to say and the things he is allowed to say.

[Las Naranjas]

That made my day, thanks.

[m0ds]

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.

[aussie]

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.

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 País 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.

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.

He did, on friday, implicitly call Aznar a liar several times.

[Nacho]

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)

[aussie]

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.

[Barcik]

At least... the new Prime Minister is "culé" (FC Barcelona Fan)

The Catalan press seems to very happy.

[Nacho]

An evidence is that I can ensure you that Zapatero is not that handsome...