US criticises Spain

[London Irish]

There is only one active way to make ourselves safer (outside of bomb-proof letter boxes etc) and that's to go on the march on Saturday in London or demonstrations around the country.

Well said

 

[bhaexpress]

Sorry but the lads are at home.

 

[Eastleigh Seagull]

I think applause is due so far for a sensible discussion on this issue without too much degeneration into the usual American bashing that occurs on the board.

 

[Easy 10]

I think both you and Easy should be very wary of giving credit to the bombers for winning the election. But if you want to go down that road, that's up to you

As I've said already on this thread, I am not giving credit to the bombers "winning" the election - I am stating that their actions put the ruling party in such a position that their response to the bombings heavily influenced the outcome.
You seem to be dismissing the bombings as being an irrelevence to that election and its outcome, and that they were on their way out anyway because of their support of the war in Iraq. All the evidence I've seen points to the contrary.

 

[London Irish]

I guess I will just repeat exactly what Easy wrote - sorry. But of course you can never have too much ignorant US Republican analysis - whatever the facts say

Eastleigh, to be fair, I would never accuse you of ignorant US Republican analysis. Only ignorant Blairite analysis. Are you still a big fan of the Hutton report by the way? Or are you keeping a bit quiet about that now?

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

The bombings almost certainly influenced the outcome. But I guess that sense has to reign at some point. Either both sides keep escalating this global war, or one side backs down at some point to minimise the suffering. The Spanish appear to have done that. I doubt we'll see another Al Qaeda attack in Spain, but I'm sure we'll see more in the States, and probably in Britain as well.

 

[Sorrel]

As I've said already on this thread, I am not giving credit to the bombers "winning" the election - I am stating that their actions put the ruling party in such a position that their response to the bombings heavily influenced the outcome.

But if the ruling party hadn't tried to play the Spanish Electorate for fools with their "It must be ETA" line, they'd probably still be in power.

The government in Spain were voted out for treating the Spanish people like idiots in the aftermath of the bombing. The bombers did not cause the ruling party to do that, they did it to themselves - so while the bombbers did create the position, they had nothing to do with the outcome.

 

[Eastleigh Seagull]

Eastleigh, to be fair, I would never accuse you of ignorant US Republican analysis. Only ignorant Blairite analysis. Are you still a big fan of the Hutton report by the way? Or are you keeping a bit quiet about that now?

Sorry mate I thought in your book Blair and Bush were as one? Still a big fan of the man Hutton and his balanced report based on the evidence submitted and the remit of the enquiry.

 

[London Irish]

As I've said already on this thread, I am not giving credit to the bombers "winning" the election - I am stating that their actions put the ruling party in such a position that their response to the bombings heavily influenced the outcome.
You seem to be dismissing the bombings as being an irrelevence to that election and its outcome, and that they were on their way out anyway because of their support of the war in Iraq. All the evidence I've seen points to the contrary.

Easy, it was Aznar's CHOICE to be put in that position where he f***ed up so badly. The bombers didn't FORCE him to blame ETA or to generally use the atrocity to fuel his rightwing agenda, that was down to his faults as a politician and the ideology of his party.

The Spanish people smelled bullshit and punished Aznar. That is what happened.

I've raised the point about the movement in the last recorded polls to counter the argument put forward by those who cry "appeasement" that Aznar would have easily won the election without the bombings. That statement is open to doubt and interpretation and should not be reproduced as "fact".

We must be precise about this. There will be a lot of politicians in Washington and London spouting crap that the Spanish people appeased the bombers - this tortured logic must be exposed.

The Socialists won the election, Aznar's blunders lost the election, the Spanish people decided the election, the bombers killed innocent people - that is the correct equation.

 

[Easy 10]

But if the ruling party hadn't tried to play the Spanish Electorate for fools with their "It must be ETA" line, they'd probably still be in power.

The government in Spain were voted out for treating the Spanish people like idiots in the aftermath of the bombing. The bombers did not cause the ruling party to do that, they did it to themselves - so while the bombbers did create the position, they had nothing to do with the outcome

I think Al Qaeda knew exactly what the political fallout would be if they bombed Madrid a few days before an election, but the governments reaction was so misguided that it played into their hands even further.
Al Qaeda already knew that the vast majority of Spaniards were vehemently against their governments involvement in the war in Iraq. By detonating bombs in Madrid on the eve on an election, they must have KNOWN that the Spanish public would react to this by "punishing" the government and voting them out, blaming them for bringing a terrorist atrocity to their capital. The fact that Aznar then went off on one blaming ETA and dismissing all other possibilities in an attempt to cover his own political hide, merely strengthened the resolve of the voters against him. An added bonus for Al Qaeda, which they may, or may not have forseen.

 

[London Irish]

Still a big fan of the man Hutton and his balanced report based on the evidence submitted and the remit of the enquiry.

Fair play, at least you don't get blown about by fashionable opinion.

 

[Eastleigh Seagull]

The bombings triggered a swing of about 10% in less than a week - that is pretty much unprecedented in any kind of national election unless of course there is a major event that changes peoples minds - ie the bombings. The gap may have been closing very slightly as the election approached but this was a huge swing. The fact as much as we can be certain is that without the bombings the Popular Party would have won. We can only se ein the future is this is a precedent but it would be a foolish person who thought AQ was not taking note of the influence it can have on democracies. The war on terrorism at the moment looks to have taken a knockback and when you combine it with elements like the US troop withdrawal from Saudi (an AQ demand) then it looks like terrorism is working.

 

[fatbadger]

You can trace origins as far back as you like. The election result was due to the Spanish govt's reaction to the bombings. Now, should we push that back as far as 'if the bombings hadn't happened, that reaction wouldn't have occurred, so the bombings were the cause of the result'? Or perhaps we should go back to 'if Aznar hadn't tied his country to the attacks on Iraq, the bombings wouldn't have happened, so the reaction wouldn't have happened, so Aznar's foreign policy is the cause of the result'?

The point is, these things just keep accelerating. A causes B causes C and so on until someone stops it. In the process, people die. The Spanish have courageously stood up and said "we don't want to play any further part in this". They have taken themselves out of the cycle of violence and counter-violence. Good on 'em, I say. It's not cowardice - quite the opposite - and its not appeasement. It is good, honest, intelligent policy.

If only we could do the same.

 

[Jambo Seagull]

In the immediate aftermath of the bombings the received wisdom by the political commentators I heard was that the bombings would make the election of Aznar MORE likely because of his tough anti-terrorist stance, both against ETA and in supporting the USA in TWAT. Before the dust had settled, Aznar was publicly blaming ETA despite the fact that Batasuna were adamant that this was not the work of ETA. In my view, the bombings were a factor in the election. It's difficult to see how they weren't but in my view the real sine qua non was the decision by Aznar to try and pull the wool over the eyes of the Spanish electorate. I think that tipped the balance. It is very facile and typical of the US republican view of the world to suggest that Al Qaeda have bombed the Spanish into submission. After all, Zapatero wouldn't have been the first PM to say something whilst out of office (if I get in we'll pull our boys out of Iraq) and perform a complete volte-face the minute he got into power. Just look at Blair. I still can not believe that a Labour PM has aligned himself so submissively to the most warmongering right wing US President in living memory. But that's what happens to some people when they get a sniff of power. Huge credit is due to Zapatero for keeping his nerve and his principles. Oh that we had a leader with this amount of bottle.

 

[Simster]

After all, Zapatero wouldn't have been the first PM to say something whilst out of office (if I get in we'll pull our boys out of Iraq) and perform a complete volte-face the minute he got into power. Just look at Blair. I still can not believe that a Labour PM has aligned himself so submissively to the most warmongering right wing US President in living memory. But that's what happens to some people when they get a sniff of power. Huge credit is due to Zapatero for keeping his nerve and his principles. Oh that we had a leader with this amount of bottle.

You speak for me, mate.

 

[Scoffers]

If only we could do the same.

So you think if Blair and Bush get ousted at the next elections, and their successors denounce the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan that Al Qaeda will just say, 'oh great, now we are done' and world peace will follow.

Surely it's not as simple as that. Maybe it is for Spain, but I would suggest that we'll be fighting the war against terrorism for years to come, irrespective of any change in our government.

On another note, anyone see the article on the new planes discovered in Iraq? http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_247.shtml

 

[fatbadger]

So you think if Blair and Bush get ousted at the next elections, and their successors denounce the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan that Al Qaeda will just say, 'oh great, now we are done' and world peace will follow.

No, it's a much longer process than that. But it would bring an end to the violence much quicker than continuing in a bellicose manner will.

 

[Scoffers]

No, it's a much longer process than that. But it would bring an end to the violence much quicker than continuing in a bellicose manner will.

I guess it might do, but are we dealing with rational people here? In order to carry out bombings of the magnitude that we have seen required a deep-seated hatred for the West that might never be overturned completely.

 

[Simster]

So you think if Blair and Bush get ousted at the next elections, and their successors denounce the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan that Al Qaeda will just say, 'oh great, now we are done' and world peace will follow.

It's not fair to lump those wars together. One was legal, one was not - we had no business to be in Iraq. You'll never get rid of fanatics in any walk of life, but they can be marginalised. There must be an number of people in AQ grass roots that will not support AQ terrorism against countries that have not broken international law - or those that apologise for their transgressions and withdraw immediately.

 

[Man of Harveys]

An added bonus for Al Qaeda, which they may, or may not have forseen.

I see your argument but would take issue with this last point - personally I haven't the faintest idea what Al Qaeda would regard as a "victory", what it regards as a "bonus", or even what their ultimate objective is. Not a clue. So whether Aznar losing an election is something that they wanted to achieve or not, I suspect that no-one quite knows for sure, possibly you and me included. As far as I can see, they don't actually have any objectives, short of indiscriminate killing - American people, Spanish people and, on an almost daily basis, Iraqi people.

And, as NSC so frequently shows, the sting of the insult varies according to the credibility of the person doling it out. So I'm sure the incoming Spanish government won't lose too much sleep over being insulted by a bunch of old sabre rattlers who have claimed that Germany and France aren't really in Europe or some such crap.