Are the election results in Spain a victory for terrorists?
 

Are the election results in Spain a victory for terrorists?
Days before the election the ruling party is expected to win. Terrorists slaughter hundreds and the populace, angry at being made a target, vote the ruling party out. Where is the outrage at the murderers? Seems like a big win for the terrorists. Am I wrong?

Nope.

I know nothing about Spanish politics. But I have to admit, that was my first thought when I read the results.

I'm sure someone with more knowledge can explain the results, but it's certainly confusing from the outside.

Maple--

Same here.

The terrorists are celebrating today. A huge victory. The exit polls in Spain indicate that people blame the bombing on government support of the war against terrorism rather than on the terrorists themselves. Couldn't be scripted any better for Al Qaeda - they're a player again.

I would have expected the Spanish to be angrier at the bombers, having suffered from ETA attacks for so long. But perhaps wimpiness is human nature these days, and another attack on America would have people here blaming the administration for going after bin Laden and friends after the 9/11 attack.

Did you watch news coverage of millions of Spaniards demonstrating and denouncing the terrorists? How can you possibly question whether the Spanish people are outraged at the terrorists? They may have retaliated against the ruling party at the ballot box for putting Spain, against popular will, in harm's way, but there is no doubt that they are just as angry at the terrorists as Americans were after 9/11.

And if our take on this is correct, the logical line of thinking (if these people ever use logic) would be that they'd go all-out to try something near our election.

FWIW, I'm very surprised that no one has strapped a bomb to themselves and gone into an American movie theater on a Friday night. I can't imagine that our intelligence is that good.

The new leader said that they would continue to fight terrorism, but that they would use different tactics than the former government did. Bringing their troops home from Iraq is a different matter in their minds. I don't think it can be said that they are throwing in the towel as of yet.

Seems to me that this is a major victory for the terrorists too, and would only encourage more of the same. They have to think that their tactics in bullying countries aligned with the US can work.

I can certainly see the viewpoint that Iraq and terrorism are different issues. I guess my problem with this is that the terrorists' goals seem very transparent. By targetting Spain three days before an election, they were clearly aiming to topple a government whose policies they disagreed with. And then the people went right along with it.

Did Spain just enlarge the bullseye over Europe? What are you going to do if you're al Qaeda? Option 1: Attack the U.S. only to find more troops occupying Muslim countries or Option 2: Attack Europe and troops withdraw from Muslim countries.

So if your country is attacked by terrorists just before an election, you should always re-elect the ruling party? Is that what you all are saying?

I don't think anyway is necessarily saying that. It just appears that the voters played right into the terrorists hands here.

I think some people are forgetting that the ruling party was perceived to be a little too eager to blame ETA and discount Al Qaeda at first, and the Spanish people, with some justification, were a little pissed off about the possibility that there was maybe a little CYA going on there on the ruling party's part because the elections were so close.

I don't think that is what people are saying at all.

From what I have heard, a few days ago it seemed certain that the ruling party would win. After the bombing they lost.

Regardless of whether it would have happened or not without the bombing, it does set a worrying precedent. After this result, I expect to see this kind of thing happen again.

As I read more about this, I'm seeing that theory quite a bit. If that's the case -- that the Spanish people feel that the government tried to score political points by blaming the ETA instead of really trying to get to the bottom of things -- then I think the results are a little more justified.

Still, I can't shake the idea that the terrorists are just thrilled by this news. The new PM says he'll fight terrorism. But what happens if the people responsible for the train bombings are caught and sentenced to life in prison, and the terrorists respond with another bomb? Will the people demand that the sentences be reduced? How far do you go towards placating terrorists in the name of peace?

I think this was definitely a win for the terrorists, like it or not. I think, however, that this won't affect our elections.

The people in Spain feel (rightly or wrongly) that the terrorist acts were the result of Spain taking part in the war with Iraq. Americans don't have the luxury of that line of thinking. War was declared on us on 9-11-01. Therefore, any terrorist act against this country in the days or weeks before the war will only show Americans that the war is not over, and give President Bush a huge advantage (as voters by a 2-1 margin think Bush is tougher on terror than Kerry).

In other words, and I hate to put this in an inflammatory fashion, but the terrorists want John Kerry to win.* Deserved or not (and I think it is deserved), he has the reputation of not taking the war on terror all that seriously.

*Please believe me when I say that I'm not implying a vote for John Kerry equals a vote for terrorism or anything along those lines. You may believe John Kerry will fight the war on terror in a strong and decisive faction, but virtually every public opinion poll says the majority of the people feel otherwise.

I'm not Spanish, but I assumed ETA at first, too. Just as I'd assume Muslim extremists at first if there were another attack here.

I don't think the Populists meant to do anything other than promise a strong response. They certainly didn't try to cover up evidence that the ETA wasn't involved.

As we now see the extent of the attacks, we realize that ETA is simply too small and inexperienced to have pulled off that coordinated and deadly an attack.

What were the polling results exactly?

My problem with this analysis is that it dictates the answer by defining the question in a binary war metaphor. When the only alternatives are victory and defeat and there is a presumption that you can't win and lose, we have already created a zero-sum world where the terrorists must be vanquished. I think that perspective is near-sighted and precludes viable alternative perspectives.

Did the terrorists "win" by the Spanish attack? (Presuming they were attacking to get Spain out of Iraq) Probably.

Did the Spanish "lose" by the election results? That remains to be seen. It is quite possible that they "win" in the long run by ending their part in the war on terror.

I don't know what will happen in this particular case, but the win/lose, victory/defeat paradigms for viewing international relations are outdated and only serve to create "easy" solutions to "hard" problems.

"Asked if last week's attacks that killed 200 affected the election outcome, [Spanish PM-elect] Zapatero said if the actions of terrorists can affect elections, that is not a victory for them."

Huh?

May I counter your lawyerly post with a down to earth response of "horseshit"? :)

Perhaps all is not a varying shade of grey. Perhaps there really are people in this world that want to kill you simply because they see you as "the enemy". And perhaps these people will use whatever excuse necessary to try and justify blowing you to pieces.

Now, you can try and understand these people, and empathize with their plight, and strive towards a greater commonality between two disparate groups of people. In the end, however, you'll still be dead. To have a dialogue, both sides must be willing to come to the table. I've yet to see any indication that we're dealing with reasonable individuals who just happen to disagree with our philosophies and methods when it comes to foreign policy.

And I thought the French were gutless.

It's amazing how you can be so self-righteous, Cam, in just over two paragraphs, and yet completely miss the point of John's post. :)

He's not talking about how evil the terrorists are, nor whether they "want to kill you simply because they see you as 'the enemy'". He's talking about whether the election could benefit Spain in the long run by reducing/removing their role in a questionable war. Whether it will or not remains to be seen (as it must). But please don't fall back on jingoistic "they're evil, and so not fighting with everything we've got against them will hurt us" when it comes to the Iraq situation.

Yes.

I think it is a broadbrush mistake to confuse war with international relations.

This is where I think realist international politics goes awry. I'm not arguing that people who want to kill others exist. Nor am I arguing that everything is a shade of grey. What I'm arguing is that achieving victory doesn't always improve the situation and being defeated is sometimes better in the long run. And sometimes you can win and lose. We don't know if this is a win or a loss yet and won't very a great many years (and I'm not talking about the attack itself which is clearly a "loss"). I think the important thing here is to understand how we reached this ugly place in order to understand how we can get out of it. Simple winner-take-all analysis misses too many nuances and prevents us from ever understanding alternate perspectives.

And finally, the presumption of pure "evil" is just as deadly as the presumption of pure "good."

did you even wave at Cam's reaction as you shot by it?

Well, since you said "please"...

No, seriously, will this stop terrorist attacks against Spain? Doubt it. As has been noted, what happens when it's time to sentence the five people already arrested? What happens when ETA sees that the populace can be ground down as long as the violence is spectacular enough?

I understand the vote. We are conditioned to want to survive. It's human nature to do what we can to avoid conflict. In this case, however, I think it's giving in to the terrorists.

BTW, my response was to JG's use of words like "binary war metaphor", "viable alternative perspectives", and "victory/defeat paradigms". He wasn't speaking of the war in Iraq, and neither was I. 'Kay?

Give it a thought: maybe the Spanish want to get back to their own battle against ETA and have the USA fight their battle with Al-Qaeda?

It was my first thought too that this makes it 1-0 for the terrorists, but it is even worse knowing there is nothing clear about who did this terrorist attack (or did I miss the popping up of more video tapes?)
The politician that claimed the pulling of troops from Iraq makes it look like a victory for Al Qaeda, but we (as outsiders) know nothing about Spain.

Maybe "we" should wait discussing these things without asking our correspondents in Spain first, since we have at least three of those.

And I'll couch this in stating up front that I don't know what the effect of this election will have in terms of the larger 'war against terrorism'--I don't have the background on Spanish culture or politics that would enable me to come to any kind of reasonable conclusions about whether or not booting the former ruling party is a result of (or will help) terrorists.

That said, your gut feeling that you "doubt" it will help Spain is just a gut feeling. The outcome of the issue remains to be seen. What if the new party decides to be even more severe on treating terrorism/terrorists because of the bombing?

The reason I posted was to clarify the point John was trying to make, and not necessarily agree or disagree with it as it applies to this situation. Your post was trying to reframe what John was saying, and that sort of thing gets me feisty. :)

An interesting thought from Charles Kupchan, formerly President Clinton's director for European affairs on the National Security Council:

"One could hypothesize that it would be in the interest of a group like al-Qaida to carry out pre-election attacks to strengthen the political right, in order to escalate the conflict. Just as prior to an election in Israel, Hamas and other groups tend to blow up buses. They don't want the Labor party in Israel to win, because Labor would move forward with the peace track. They want to strengthen Likud, so that there's a stalemate -- and the war continues. "
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ing/print.html

Obviously the article was written before the election results, but it's an interesting theory: that Al Qaida was trying to ensure the government's re-election, and the move backfired.

Actually thats wrong. Spainards didn't blame the bombing on the support of the war on terrorism. They blamed it on the war against Iraq. Many Americans are misimformed about this particular aspect of the situation. The new Spainish Prime Minister isn't going to stop the war on terrorism. President Bush actually called up the new Spainish Prime Minister to congragulate him on his win and they talked about the need to continue the war on terrorism. However, the New Prime Minister is vowing to get the Spainish troops out of Iraq in July. With all this said, I agree that it may be a win for terrorists. Its also a loss for the Bush administration, they have one less ally in the war in Iraq.

Are you sure about that. From what I understand, the Spanish govt. support of the war in Iraq was only favored by about 20% of the population, and the opposition parties were making it a huge issue in the election.

I guess that would be the fundamental difference between American and European perspectives on the war. Many Americans view this as a war to be conducted wherever a terrorist threat does (Afghanistan) or may (Iraq) emerge. Since America suffered 3,000 lost on 9/11, the idea is to prosecute as vigorously as possible to stop a 9/11 from happening again, or at least reduce it to a (such as can be said) smaller event by stopping the enemy before they strike or even consider it a possibility. Europeans on the other hand don't view Iraq as part-and-parcel of the war, but (particularly in the vitrolic circles) rather the son settling scores for the father (or a variation thereof) and thus independent of a fight with Al-Qaeda.

Now, if it is proven that Al-Qaeda or an Al-Qaeda-supported group did the attack and did so because they know it would split Spain from the US efforts in Iraq, then how is what goes on in Iraq as such independent of the War on Terror? The argument could be made that no invasion of Iraq would have led to no bombings in Spain, since Iraq was, in the opinion of many, not aligned with Al-Qaeda. However, that is not the chain of events. If events in Iraq were not tied to the war before, then if this scenario is true, those events certainly are part of it now (saying that implies that Americans through a causality chain are at fault for the bombings...which to many, sounds just about right anyway).

(Hit the send button by accident....)

I think the terrorists just got Wolfpack.

Spain and France should become one country.

Many Spanish hate France for historical reasons (heard of Napoleon ?).

Anyway about being a win for the terrorists, maybe, about being a loss for the Aznar Government, that's for sure.

The votes against them were mainly because they lied about who made the bombings, it appears that they knew a few hours after the bombings that it hadn't been done by ETA and they hide that fact for political reasons only.

Had they say it was Al-Qaeda, they would probably have won the election (but not with the huge majority predicted).

I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who had this thought cross their minds. Honestly, I've been fighting the temptation to draw the same parallel since I first saw this thread.

Don't think I can agree with part of this. From everything I have read, people are blaming the bombing on the war on Iraq, which has little or nothing to do with the war on terror. The war in Iraq is what is unpopular in Spain (at times up to 90 percent of the population opposed it) and while the new PM there has promised to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq, he has also committed to continuing the war on terror.

True enough, except... well, how does a terrorist bombing end up having nothing to do with the war on terror? How can they possibly be unrelated?

Just as the OK City bombing had nothing to do with this "war on terror." While Bush and Americans believe that the war on Iraq is part of the war on terror, Spain, at least sees a difference. That the end result of that war may have been a terrorist attack, doesn't mean that this has anything to do with the "war on terror." Wouldn't all other wars just end up being the "war on war?" ;)

I have a hard time believing they "hid" Al-Qaeda's responsibility for political reasons, though it had been noted that the government would have benefitted more from ETA bearing responsibility. I'm guessing that it was everyone's first instinct that ETA was responsible because they had members busted with explosives recently. Granted my first instinct was that it wasn't ETA but Al-Qaeda or a linked group or a splinter of ETA since ETA doesn't do this sort of mass-casualty attack. But, that's me being an American and our experience with terrorism focuses on Al-Qaeda or a domestic nutjob (McVeigh) as culprits. Spaniards really have only known attacks by ETA. Did the government "want" it to be ETA? Perhaps, but I don't think they "hid" Al-Qaeda since it's been speculated and there was evidence of it being possible almost from the start of the affair that Al-Qaeda was perhaps involved. They never said it wasn't possible that Al-Qaeda or a similar terrorist group could be involved, they just believed ETA was probably the culprits. To say that Al-Qaeda really wasn't involved when it turned out that they were, that to my mind would have been "hiding" them and lying about it.

Well, for the government perhaps, but not for Aznar, he wasn't going for PM again :D.

--

As to the attack itself. From all I've read it seems many Spaniards were pissed that the government blamed the attacks on the Basques without any proof. It seemed like the government was trying to hush up the fact that it may have been Al Queda before the election. Many Spaniards felt the government was manipulating facts about the bombing for political gain. I'm sure that would make many Americans angry as well (think if Bush blamed militia members for a terrorist attack without any evidence, only to be revealed later it was AQ).

Good point Wolfpack. I think that it would have been a much safer line for the government to take to not blame anyone until more evidence was in, though. These investigations take time and moving to blame ETA immediately, even if made with good intentions, backfired and made it seem like there was some kind of cover-up going on. I don't make any judgements on whether there was one or not, this seems to me more of a decision made under pressure to blame someone, and it turning out to be wrong, than some intentional misleading of the public.

Are you a Saints fan? :D

Looking back at older news stories, the government had a 3-5% lead.

I think it sends the wrong message.

It's pretty clear, from what I read, that the Popular Party, was not "Popular". My understanding was that turnout was going to be relatively low anyway and the bombing sent a huge wave of Socialist voters to the polls that would have stayed home had this not occured. With a 90% opposition rate to the war, it's amazing the Popular Party survived.

Al-Qaeda has to be besides themselves in glee over this. They think they can now influence elections across the globe. It probably was not what Spanish voters intended, but Aznar and his government did some foolish things after the bombings in blaiming ETA after they steadfastly said they didn't do it, along with not being candid with the people on the state of the investigation. Hindsight being20/20, a twoo week delay in the election would have benefitted all sides as the investigation could have proceeded and if the Socialists won then so be it. If I'm Al-Qaeda, I'm looking at disrupting elections all over and scaring people into extreme left isolationist governments.

Don't think that because France, Germany, and Russia are immune because they were against the war in Iraq. All those countries had significant financial obligations with the old regime, and in due time will have them again with whatever the new Iraq regime looks like. We all need to focus on the grander scale of the War on Terror and away from the War on Iraq and finish the job, because we aren't any safer now then Thursday.

I think there are two messages here, one unintentional and very unfortunate message to the terrorists, which has been well articulated already, and one very intentional and very worthwhile message to world leaders:

If you are pursuing a policy that 90% of your people oppose, and something bad happens because of it, you are going to pay a big price.

Exactly. I supported the war when I thought their were WMD's, but when an entire populace opposes it and you press ahead nonetheless, and something happens that you have tried to correlate to it- expect to feel the backlash. I think its fairly ridiculous that people are viewing a pragmatic decision on a shaky war - the terrorists have not won- democracy is not a one way street. Spain undertook an action her people clearly opposed, and the government is being punished for what seems like the unintended consequences of it.

I would say since the bombing specifically turned the tide in favor of the socialists -- pre-bombing projections indicated the incumbant government would remain in power -- then yes, the terrorists got what they wanted and basically made Spain bow to their wishes.

In addition, I've heard most pro al-Qaeda websites are trumpeting the election results as a victory...whether it is true or not, that is what the followers will believe. Wouldn't surprise me to see several more similar attacks in other European nations...even anti-war countries like France and Germany. After all, we're all infidels, and attacks on France and Germany doesn't automatically mean more troops will be coming after them.

Korean election 3 weeks , next target?
 

Many here in South Korea our very concerned that this country might be next with their elections coming in three weeks.The situation is very similar to Spain the conservative ruling party voted reluctantly to send troops but if things were to go bad many would blame them for the fallout.Also, the ploitical situation is not good here these days anyways so who knows.The security here is pretty good but is anyone safe now
adays?

There is a bit of precedent for this in European politics, that MIJB can personally attest to. A couple of years ago, when Pim Fortyun was the leader of a party in Holland, no one was giving his pary much of chance to win the election. He was assassinated shortly before the election, and his party won the election. This was attributed to sympathy votes for his party.

The political party ended up unravelling, and if I'm not mistaken, there was a new round of elections held due to party imploding. If the newly elected party isn't able to lead the country effectively, there is the likelihood of a new round of elections in the next 12-18 months. Parlimentary governments don't have an ironclad length of term like we are used to in the US.

Right. As with most of Europe, including Britain, the Spanish populace has been vehemently opposed (as in 80+% opposing) to the war in Iraq. Very hard to imagine any ruling party winning an election under these circumstances.

FWIW, I suspect that if somebody on either side of the aisle could muster a serious opposition to Blair in Britain, his days might be numbered for the same reason (though the discrediting of the BBC's report on Iraq intelligence probably did help him).

Fortuyn's LPF party got into a goverment with the CDA (Christians) and the VVD (Liberals) after getting about 15% in stead of 10% of the votes.How big the influence was, we never know. Especially as Fortuyn was winning votes per day nearing the election day. Plus, it was clear that he would only have gone into the Dutch national politics to become prime minister, nothing less...
Without Fortuyn as the dominant leader, his party broke up into three parts and within a few months and within 100 days the CDA-VVD-LPF goverment fell.
After new elections, the LPF party was punished for their incompetence, yet the CDA and VVD won again and basically continued with what they were doing.

To get to the point, the Fortuyn murder run through my mind too the past days, wondering how much sense people put into their vote, in stead of the emotion of the past days. But if (in both cases) the difference of votes turning around is 5%, I wonder if those people should have voted in the first place... Voting is not a game, you have to stand behind your decission and make it by thinking out all the pro's and con's, not by living by the day and let yourself be influenced by the kind of tv programs you watch or the news papers you read...

And one last thing:
Were are our Spanish correspondents when we need them?

Well, I´m here (i´m Spaniard). I understand the upset in some of you, fellows, but the main reasons of these elections are internals, and not by the fear of the bombs (we were receiving attacks of the terrorist long before you thought it was a problem).

The reasons.

1- More than 80% of the people was against the intervention in Irak. I do not judge the action itself, but a government have to serve the people, no bother them. The bombs itself create anger against PP, no fear. A lot of people understand the war like an intent of Aznar to make himself a name, and a lot of people is disgusted.

2- 8 years of government are long for any government. The PP government has been specially harsh in some matters and dull in resolving some internal problems. Before the elections, none of them has a great advantage, and the gap was closing

3- The main reason. The des(information). In Spain the public tv channels (and radio) are very important, and their actuation has been horrible. The popular members forced all the situation (media, institutional speeches, embassadors) to blame ETA, even the proofs that point AlQuaida. When the people knows it (internet and cellulars), there was a lot of Anger. We felt like the government was cheating us. And doing this the day before the elections is not a very smart move, when more than 25% of people haven’t decide to vote until these day.

Personally. I had decided to vote PP, but the way they tried to cheat me, I voted in blank. I change my vote not the thursday, but the sunday morning. I usually get in these trains (if the attack would have been the tuesday, maybe I would been in the hospital.. or worse).

We have been fighting against terrorism since 1978. We have used the force, we have negociated. We tried to solve the problem without surrending, even when the rest of the world called them “freedom fighters”. The US has only help us when they saw the problem at home, France just a little before. None American has died in ETA attacks, while we have far above 250 deads (counting Atocha, Irak, and Afghanistan) in islamic-terrorist war.

We are determined to fight terrorism we have been for al my life, but just when our population supports the actions and, more important, when the population believes in this government. The PSOE leader, has said that will retire the force if the forces in Irak aren´t a UN mission, the 30 of june( the day that was suppose to be the change in power).

One last advice. Fighting terrorism by the force, without giving these people a better future, is a 5 years solution.

Nice post, KeyserSoze.

I hope our American fellow boardmembers now see things a little bit more from your point of view.

Eloquently put KeyserSoze.

From Strategypage.com

Thanks, Keyser. I did have one question, though.


I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that using force against terrorists will not work, and that we should instead focus our efforts on improving the infrastructure of countries where the terrorists come from through aid and the like? Am I understanding your correctly?

With your knee in their chest and your knife at their throat.

I guess the problem I have with that line of thinking is that, for some of these terrorists, the very definition of "better future" includes a lot of dead Westerners.

It's nice to project our needs and wants onto everyone else and assume they just want better education, open trade, etc. But in a lot of cases (not all, but a lot) those priorities are very small for them in comparison to, say, smiting their enemies.

What I got from his statement is that force alone won't solve the problem. So you blast Al-Qaeda to smithereens with our firepower. That doesn't solve the root problem that gave rise to the radical groups in the first place. Another group spouting the same beliefs is gonna rise up in it's place to give some glimmer of hope to the destitute and downtrodden.

I put it this way after 9/11. There are around 1 billion Muslims in the world. If even 0.0005% believe in the tenets of Al-Qaeda and other radical groups, that leaves 500,000 potential terrorists out there. To them, it is better dying through a violent act to make a statement than to die after suffering a lifetime of poverty. So the threat of our superior firepower isn't much of a deterrent to them. There has to be some sort of solution to the issue that gives these people more hope to improve their current situation than the short term satisfaction they get from their violent acts. What that solution is, I don't have a clue.

Here we have the dangerous assumption that poverty and improving their life is the motivating factor.

I don't think that anyone here assumes that the sole motivation of the terrorists involved is this - however their recruitment relies upon their being a bedrock of desperate individuals who are willing to sacrifice their lives for a 'cause', if you improve the standard of living for a country then it is less likely that their will find it so easy to recruit people into their organisations (and also less likely to find sympathisers amongst their general populace).

IMHO this is one of the reasons that western terrorist organisations such as the IRA/ETA etc. tend not to use suicide bombers etc., people in western countries have a higher standard of living and so are more reluctant to sacrifice themselves as they have more to lose ...

Poverty is a factor. But a bigger factor is the culture these kids grow up in. They're taught from a young age that it's heroic to die for a cause (much like American kids, by the way), and that one noble cause is the destruction of the Western infidels. So these kids grow up hating America and its allies, and that hate grows when they look around see Uncle Sam occupying countries and dictating policies and basically interfering in their lives.

So the question is, how do you change something as fundamental as the type of education that kids receive, and yet not be seen as interfering in their culture? You can swoop in and change their schools and hand out food and build strip malls, but then they point and say "See, America is destroying our culture and replacing it with their own!" But if you leave things the way they are, you allow the conditions that breed terrorism to continue.

No easy answers here...

I dont wanna make discusion it´s just my point of view. Probably is wrong.Ok lets go.

The terrorist groups are always supported by a big mass of people. In Euskadi there are from 100.000 to 200.000 people supporting the ideals of ETA. Another terrorist group in Spain (The GRAPO) is out of business for lacking support.
Do you think AlQaida is just the terrorist? There are a lot of people supporting them. You can kill all the terrorist, but there will be some people in this group that will take their place.

Look at Israel. They have a long bloody war. Are they safer? The only way out is an agreement or the mutual genocide.

I dont know the solution. You have to fight the terrorists, of course, but you have to correct the main causes (if there are) of their rage.

Look at WWI an WWII. In the First the allies make an harsh peace to the common people. In the second the allies punish the nazi chiefs (maybe japanese too?), but make easier the life of the rest.

I think that the iraqui people has a good group of laws, an economical security, and a sense of being a free country, a few of them will be in the mood to support killers. But if they are poor and think they are dominated, well a lot of them, will replace AlQaida.

I repeat myself. Its my opinion. If you no agree it because you are probably right



I ve read Maple Leafs post. I think you are very right. But if we helped them is less probable to see how they attack you. It´s very difficult I agree. I dont know the right way, but just punish them its not the way I think

That is very true that those are not a motivating factor for Al-Qaeda, but those situations allow for the easier fomenting of support for their causes. Why aren't there widespread Christian terrorist groups? Because for most Christians their standard of life is relatively comfortable. The IRA has lost a lot of popular support as the Irish economy has improved greatly over the past 10 years. They are still active, and probably will be until some resolution comes regarding Northern Ireland, but it is the hardcore IRA that are still active.

I'd look at it like this: Alcohol consumption doesn't make you have sex, it just improves the situation for it to occur. Poverty doesn't make someone a terrorist, but is improves the reception of the message of the radical groups.

My reply was in direct response to the thread I quoted. I don't presume to know the full extent of cartman's thoughts, but he did link terrorism to poverty.

If you want to say the poverty can contribute to terrorism, I will go along. If you want to make that a primary cause, then I can only agree in some cases.

1.) definition
2.) access to other means of political power
3.) differening goals among various peoples

----------

Terrorism is most often about political power. To kid yourself into anything else is a mistake.

Thanks for your response. By the way, I don't think you are wrong at all. I just wanted to be sure I understood your opinion.

Here's one view of the election results, in a historical context, from Salon.com (a very left wing publication, for whatever that's worth). I know next to nothing about Spanish history so I'll leave it to our Spanish members to comment on how accurate this description is.

You didn't have to include the disclaimer... just reading the article is enough ;).

Well, it´s a lefty document, but it´s very accurate in the big lines. It´s fine if you read it with a critic spirit

Another Spanish here, i totally agree with KeyserSoze and also identify with him. I has been another PP supporter during the last 8 years, or better said during the last 7 years. Their economic politic has been good, they boosted our economy to put us at the head of the growing economic powers in Europe, also they reduced the unemployment. However, latelly this economic boost is going agains us, as the Popular party failed on the long term social politics. The problem was that as the banks loans were so cheap, and everybody saw a good economic future, everybody (who could) started to buy new homes, new cars, luxury items, etc that boosted even more the economy but also raised the prices a lot, making now almost impossible for the average young guy to buy his first house. This is a big complain versus Aznar goberment, they worked hard to boost the economy, but as allways happends, the rich are more rich now and the poors more poor, this helps a lot to the growment of the left supporters. Also as KeyserSoze pointed, they have controled mostly of the media and played with the people opinion. In the other hand, the socialists control "el Pais" newspaper and the "Cadena SER" radio station, that are the bigger media companies here (both owned by same group). During all this 8 years and moslty during the last year they have been pushing really hard versus the Aznar goberment and decissions, specially versus the USA support and the IRAK war.

All this factors made the PP to lose part of their supporters, their problem is that in Spain, as that left wing article posted above said, the people here is still afraid of the right wing, as some of their leaders, like "Fraga" were also leaders at Franco dictatorship. The Popular Party is a partnership of all the right parties, some of them moderated but also some of them radical fascists. Aznar managed really well to keep the fascists controlled, claiming that the PP was a center party, but after they got the absolut power at 2000 elections, the turn to the right was more pronounced, this convined with the new ambition from Aznar to become more known around the world is that have made them to lose lots of moderate right wing supporters, including me.

Last sunday, as KeyserSoze, i vouched in blank, i can't support later PP politics, but i also don't like the socialists leaded by Zapatero as i don't think that they are capable of keeping Spain growing on today's world politic and economy scenario. Socialists probably will improve the solical politics left appart from the Populars, but they won't have the big support from the bussinesmen, banks etc as Populars had, and sadly, today's scenario is mostly about economy. Without a strong economy you don't have money to improve your social politics. You must remmeber that in Spain mostly of Schools, universities, hospitals, etc are paid by the goberment, so we need to generate a good amount of income throught taxes, and the bussines is what generates mostly of that taxes income.

After explaning you a bit more the thoughts from a Popular supporter like myself, mybe you will underestand a bit more why us, the moderate right wing supporters punished Aznar past Sunday, that was one of the keys of their defeat.

The other causes that made the socialists to win has been well explained by KeyserSoze. About the polls being wrong, they couldn't count that after the bombing, we beat a record of participation on the elections, with 2 new millions of participants.(Spain has 40 millions of habitants so it's a good %). Mostly this new participants vouched to the socialists to punish Aznar, that leaded us to the war in IRAK against the 80% of Spanish, and also after the bombing lied us about the authors, tried to control the media etc.

As you could see, i don't think this related to Spanish being cowards or not having nuts like some pointed, but i also agree that Zapatero should have waited a bit before anouncing that we will retire from IRAK, as this is not toally true, we will retire in July if the UN doesn't lead the forces in IRAK. So it's not that we are running fast to home afraid of terrorists but that we don't support the ocupation of a country in the name of a supossed "war on terrorism" that hiddes orther interests. We have a war vs terrorism here too and only France supports us a bit as they suffer from ETA terrorism too, i haven't ever seen any USA goberment to help us to fight against ETA.

Mybe too much written at my post, just wanted to show you what the moderate Aznar supporters think. Also remember that are the guys in the center who decide who wins the elections at any country, there are a few radicals at both sides, but the majority is in the middle and heads to one side of the other depending on a lot of factors. The politics that forget this, as Aznar did, are the ones who lose. Too much power to just one party is never a good thing, politics tend to boost their egos with the power and forget why are them at the power chair.

Good info, Icy. Your report is more informative that 90% of the media reports.

Well I have lied you! I dont vote in blank. There´s a party called " Partido del Mutuo Apoyo Romantico" "Mutual Romantic Support Party". I can´t ressist it!


I vote them ;) .

Seriously I agree totally with Icy.

Off topic. In Spain we have so curious parties like this. Did in your country have these kind of groups?

In the US, there are occasionally groups like this that exist but they very rarely can meet the requirements for being placed on the ballot in many (or even any) states.

Typically, they are not intended as candidates anyway, their "candidacy" is either done as a joke or as a publicity campaign.

I know in the UK they also have the 'Monster Raving Loony Party', which has been running in elections for decades...Typical british non-sense... :)

Check out their website at
http://www.omrlp.com/

In Canada, we had (maybe still have) a federal Rhino Party. Their platforms included paving the St. Lawrence River and creating an Olympic Male Synchronized Swimming Team.

For what it's worth, I remember seeing the polling figures.

Before the blast, Aznar was leading like 60-40 and after the blast he was losing 60-40. If I remember correctly.

That is a huge victory both morally and strategically for those who choose to use terror as an effective weapon.

You're not remembering correctly. The difference was something like 3-5 points. PP was probably going to win, it was close, and they were going to lose seats.

Okay.

As I said, "That is a huge victory both morally and strategically for those who choose to use terror as an effective weapon."

From an AP writer, cannot verify this source.

While I have been defending the Spanish voters throughout this thread, because I think that their reaction was completely understandable during the circumstances, I agree that this is an unfortunate aspect of the matter, and the world is less safe right now because of it. However, I think the terrorists, with the threats they have made against France and Germany since the attacks in Spain, have already thrown away the strategic victory. By threatening the countries who didn't back the Iraq War, they are going to unite the world against them more than ever. The strategy and tactics the West uses might be different, but long-term I think this will ultimately heal some of the divisions that occurred over Iraq. Short-term, there are obviously going to be some serious problems, and working them out is probably not going to be a pretty process.

The world will never unite around a common cause for any significant length of time if the United States is a driving force behind that cause.

Discuss.

if you stopped here you would havea good point

Canada needs to get behind the Strange Brew II movement for it to have any chance of being made...

Sorry, the hockey playoffs start soon. We'll be busy for the next few months.

Damn you puckheads...Rick Moranis isn't getting any younger...or funnier...

Not true. I think it depends on how the US approaches the problem. If the US does it in a collaborative, consensus-building way, then it can happen. If the US continues to insist that everyone has to follow its lead, and there's no room for other opinions, then it's not going to work for long.

Yeah, then the whole world will join hands and sing together.

The whole world will never, ever agree on something of value for very long. It is bound to be screwing someone in the world over, so obviously they will be against it.

I posted a lefty view, so here's a view from the right. Waaayyy to the right.

How to deal with terrorists: Sean Connery in the Untouchables "For everyone of yours they put in the hospital, you put two of theirs in the grave."

To Spain: Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Socialism is such a great way of life that Russia ditched it for capitalism and China gets farther and farther away from it every day in the name of capitalism. Spain should be proud of themselves for not only showing the yellow flag to terrorists but also aligning with France and American college campuses as the only other places on earth that are still promoting Marxism (oh yeah, don't forget Cuba!)

One last point: France despite its opposition to all U.S. actions against terrorism is being highlighted for terrorist actions by the same groups you would think would be cutting France some slack for them showing the yellow flag. So Spain, you might have really stepped in it in more ways than one, showing the yellow flag may still get you a terrorist 'kick-in-the-teeth' and you can't run to the U.S. for help.

Could you quantify this remark? Especially since it was the only thing of note in the post that was yours? Thanks in advance.

Name one global cause or initiative in the last 70 years that did not include the United States as a driving force or participant? Name one successful, international-scale humanitarian relief effort in that same timeframe that did not include the US as a significant player? How many successful, international relief missions have Russia, China, Spain, France, and Iran spearheaded without US support in that timeframe?

The perception in many places is the US is the bad guy, but the reality is the US continues to put more food in mouths and more money in the pockets of the lesser privileged around the world than any other country by a very, very large margin. Even Iran of all places took our aid during their recent earthquake.

So folks around the world can make all the negative statements they like to further your own personal biases and agendas, but they still know where to go when the crap hits the fan.

Absolutely true. But so often, it's the perception that shapes the reality. Regardless of all the good the US may do, if the world has decided that the US is going to shoulder the blame for all the world's problems it will be very difficult to build any sort of consensus.

I think my comment has been misinterpreted as a shot at the US. It's not. I just feel that at this point in history, the US could declare that the sky was blue and many around the world would take to the streets to call it green.

Are you familiar with David Frum and his work? If so, the remark wouldn't need qualification. Frum has made his career as a right-wing commentator, first in Canada (he's the son of a famous and respected Canadian journalist) and now in Washington. His recent book was a virtual fan letter to George Bush. With apologies to Anne Coulter, Frum may be the most unashamedly conservative commentator in US politics today. That doesn't necessarily make his wrong, but if you don't think that he's solidly right wing then you're using a different political spectrum than the rest of us.

The misinformation attempts seemed so painfully obvious, a day and a half of Spanish (and US) government ETA blame and Al Qaeda denial at the same time as members of ETA were desparately denying anything to do with it and Al Qaeda were taking credit. As soon as the no longer deniable news came out that it was Al Qaeda Spanish people were understandibly furious about being lied to. In some parts of the world lies will get goverments in trouble.

So he's like Michael Moore, but a right wing guy? I wouldn't pay him much heed, then. But I didn't see what was written as being "right-wing". Unless you put a "right-wing" guy behind the words.

But if Michael Moore were to suggest that terrorism won a battle today, I'd agree with him.

What was the terrorist's mission objective in killing all those people? If not anarchy, surely ousting the current governent was a joyous goal of theirs? Am I wrong?

Not quite Michael Moore. Maybe a better comparison would be Al Franken, without the sense of humor.

Frum is a good writer, and you can certainly give him credit for not being afraid to voice an unpopular opinion. But I believe that it's important to consider the source when you read an opinion piece, so I flagged it here (just like I did with the left-wing Salon article I posted earlier).

Then why didn't you qualify your lefty view post as wayyyyy to the left? Lefties are just as much (if not more so, imo) more extremists in their views than righties.