Terror acts in Spain

Remove all ads!

Actually they will gain something from this as it will most probably lead to a defeat for the right wingers in the elections that are currently taking place in spain which means that the socialists (who were strongly against the war in Iraq) win the elections.

 

Morgoroth, and in what way will that really help the terrorists?

Differing in the methods of fighting terrorism does not in any way mean supporting terrorism or even being "soft" on it.

 

What happened in Spain proves that the world in not safe because of al-Qaida. While the rest of the world has been arguing about Shrub and his war with Saddam, al-Qaida is still out there and Bin Laden is their leader. Here's the thing: Al-Qaida is not a country. I hate to state the obvious, but it seems there is some confusion about this, which began with the Bush administration's labeling and slogan of the "War on Terror." There is no "war" with Bin Laden and his group of scumy criminals. War exists between two or more reconginized states (governments). It would be like the FBI declaring war on the mafia. Of course it can be war in a figurative sense, but not in any real sense in that we can legally declare war on a group of private people.

Bin Laden and his band of thugs appointed themselves as the "protectors" of Islam against the West. The man is delulsional. He can no more declare a "war" anymore than you or I could. He is an arrogant, dangerous, maniacal murderer who is not a represnetative of anything other than himself and the group of losers with which he surrounds himself.

The Bush administration elevates him to the status of a nation-state with its ridiculous slogan and terminology, which is supposed to encompass everything that is Muslim and opposed to US policy in the Middle East, whether it is an offical representative state or not. The reason for this is purely political and has no test in reality.

We sent the army to Afghanistan to destroy his base of operations and catch or kill the SOB and his followers. In the process we managed to topple a harsh, repressive regime that had no respect for human rights and were harboring criminals which needed to be brought to justice. In this Bush and his guys have partial success. The problem is that now we are engaged in a set of wars that have nothing to do with 9/11 or Bin Laden, but what is commonly termed as nation-building, but is said to be "linked" to the "war on terror." I know most of this sounds elementary, but with Shrub, one must cut through what seems miles of BS to get to what is basically going on here.

IMO, Bin Laden is probably responisible for what happened in Spain. He is full of self-grandious dreams of what he believes himself to be by thinking that he is at "war" with the western countries. If one subtratcts all the acts of "terror" that have been committed against the US over the last ten years, how many can you think of that are not related to him? I always hear this: "well, if we kill him there will be another one hundred to take his place. Oh yeah, who? There have been all kinds of reprehensible acts of terror committed against Israel, by all kinds of Islamic groups; that much is true. But is the US, Israel? Why the confusion here? If you kill the head, you kill the rest of the snake, IMO.

[ March 15, 2004, 02:25: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Not really. When someone "throws down the gauntlet", you either surrender or fight.

If Spain does not retalliate and go to war, they will be seen as weak by those who committed the attack. Even worse, if they soften their policies towards the War on Terror or other aspects that prompted the attacks, they have basically surrendered to terrorism.

We will see if the Spanish Government is like that of France and Germany. I hope not. It would not be good for Europe as a whole to have three of the strongest states cower before terrorism.

The United States has gone to war with groups before in our history - mostly pirates and the like. European states have also gone to war with organizations in their history. Nothing new here.

 

Are you referring to the pirates of the Barbary Coast? If you are, then you know that they were actually countries, such as Morroco, that were demanding what amounted to protection money to sail off their coasts. Almost everyone paid them, including France and England.

 

The Spanish election results

Critical quotes:

My thoughts:

1) The government was whacked for the perception that it was trying to squeeze political advantage from this horror. Says a lot about the backlash potential for Bush's campaign vis-a-vis 9/11, no?

2) Both the Spanish population and al-Qaeda are conflating the war on terrorism with the war in Iraq.

3) The US will now find it much more difficult to secure support for its Iraqi occupation.

4) US supporters like Poland and Australia - with government support and popular opposition - are much more likely to be terrorized, especially near critical political dates (elections, parliamentary votes, etc.).

5) The odds of a terrorist attack occuring in America right before the November election have increased.

I hope I'm wrong.

 

I read up on the results of the Spanish election. Unfortunately, it appears that the Spanish public has cowered before terrorism and elected the socialists.

Sadly too, is that Spain does not have a president - rather instead a prime minister. Which means that the majority party controls the entire government - lock, stock and barrel. Pity.

If that happens, it will help G.W. Bush get elected. We don't know yet how much of a hawk Kerry is.

@ Chandos the Red

The U.S. declared war against some rogue pirates (and various other groups). I'm not sure about the ones you mentioned.

[ March 15, 2004, 06:43: Message edited by: Blackhawk ]

 

Barbary coast, something like today's Algeria, was ultimately a rogue state, a true one for a change, as it was literally ruled by pirate commanders.

Interesting comment on Yahoo by Reuters:

So Al Quaeda has become a franchise. So it is not Al Quaeda but people who want to be. It could be described as their second wave.
Something like that happened in Germany when we finally arrested the original cadre of the RAF terrorists. While they, among them the hard left intellectual leaders, were in jail, a second wave formed to free them, less intellectual but much more brutal.
So basically, the Madrid bombings show that original Al Quaeda has become quite weak.

For the morons, like Andrew Sullivan the Madrid bombings seem to have a good aspect too:

Well, we know terror for some 20 more years than the people in the US, we had to bear the brunt of it all through the 1970s and 1980s - when the US were a grey area. It's not as if the US gained a special expertise in how it feels after 911. I don't know what stuff Sullivan's on, but it sure is illegal.

To paraphrase Tony Blair: 'It is as pathetic as the terrorists are opportunistic.'

And where does defining your worldview through terrorism get you? It gets you to a place where, although you don't like to admit it out loud, you secretly, guiltily welcome massacres like that in Madrid, as an opportunity to berate your opponents and as a reminder of your own moral indefatigability. Cheers.

And there we are: New Spanish Govt to Pull Troops From Iraq and Bush Warns Spain Not to Back Off Terror War - because only when you're with us you're not against us ...

 

Apparently, anyone who doesn't agree with Bush is either a terrorist (teacher's union), or "cowering before terrorism".

I think the Spanish are quite well aware of that, considering their long experience with the ETA.

 

Spanish election sets off global shock wave
Al-Qaeda goes to the polls

It is interesting to see the shockwaves of Madrid altering the European political landscape: The bombings, three day before the general elections turned a safe-bet victory of Aznar into a stunning defeat - because of his closeness to Washington and his support for Washingtons, to choose Perle's preferred wording, "bold" foreign policy.

It is indeed, as Sarevok said: Had Aznar not supported Bush Madrid would not have been targeted. Yet it is more complicated: The bombings were carefully aimed on killing Aznar's re-election

As that has worked so well in Madrid, Britain looks forward to their elections with unease.

The point here is not that we mustn't waffle in the war on terror now. Europe will continue to fight terror, as it has done with success in the past - and Spain will hunt down the Madrid bombers - using its police forces, special forces and intelligence services - not by invading Morocco where the bombers liklely came from.

The US spin and war mashines produced better recruiting propaganda for islamic militants than Al Quaeda could ever deliver.
America's invasion of Iraq as their cornerstone in the war on terror has made the world, America's allies especially, less safe. The spaniards only were the first to learn that the hard way.

 

Thats not really a sound advice. No shock when I see where it's coming from.
Declare war - on whom? A pre-emptive strike on a nation that has nothing to do with terrorism? Thereby providing the islamists with yet more support in the moslem community, helping them to justify their horrid actions? And marking ourselfs as hypocrites? No, I think not.
Terrorism cannot be defeated by war.

Oh, and Aznar & party just got what they deserved by the spanish people. For their support of US aggression and their attempt to deceive their people about 3/11. Serves them just right.

 

I agree with your comments about going to war. If (purely as an example) a handful of madmen went and blew up a Moscow hotel, and those madmen just happened to have been born in England, then we would not feel that Russia would be justified in going to war with England.

The same goes for Spain, surely. And, as has been mentioned many times, the same goes for the USA and their 'war' on terror. Deal with the criminals responsible, not the sovereign state that was unfortunate enough to spawn them.

 

Poor bastards, I say.

Thoughts for your friends, families and lovers.

I'm relieved to see that the average Spaniard reacted not by chanting war, but by yelling peace.

Rather than picking up a gun and going on a "hunt for some terrorist blood" to blow out steam like it has been suggested, I hope the Spanish government will be able to apprehend this with a cool and focused mind. Regarding world scale issues: use your brains rather than your balls.

It may be a simplistic view, but whenever I see Israël's response to Palestinian terrorism (occupying land, killing people, destroying stuff...), Russia's answer to Chechen terrorism (occupying land, killing people, destroying stuff...) or America's answer to OBL's terrorism (occupying land, killing people, destroying stuff...) and see just how well it has worked, I can't help but think this is not the way to go.

 

The terrorists of course - and any government that sponsored it.

Because Spain has changed their policy as a result of a terrorist attack - they will be attacked again. From the terrorists point of view, they can change Spain's policies at will. If another issue arises that aggravates those behind the attack, they will attack again.

Spain is a far less safe place to live now that they are cowered.

As far as the War on Terror causing the attack ... of course. If you attack people without honor or respect for democracy, human life, etc.... they will attempt to kill your people.

However, this is just one issue. Any issue can give terrorists the desire to attack. The French Government's new laws banning certain religious practices, may very well result in an attack.

So what are we to do?

Are we to check with the terrorists if a law or policy is valid before its passed? Are they the new national Supreme Court? Please.

 

For starters, we can take the Press to task for irresponsible reporting. With headlines like "Spain surrenders to Al Qaeda", they might as well be handing them an invitation to do it again. The press handed al qaeda their "victory", not the electorate expressing their disgruntlement with the ruling party.

 

Code:

 The terrorists of course - and any government that sponsored it 

You dont say. I think they have already declared war on us.

But I cant agree with you, Blackhawk.

There is no such thing as a 'war against terror' because there is no nation named "Terror". Nations go to war, but terrorism doesnt have a homeland. Semantics can be important.
You can *fight* terrorism, at times maybe even by military means. But you will only defeat it by winning over the hearts and minds of the people the terrorists claim fighting for. And that will never happen with bombs and tanks and occupation. Not to speak of arrogance.

Convince the people and they will isolate the terrorist, will no longer hide him or think that they have something in common with him. Take away the enviroment that created the terrorist or it will never end. Israel should know.

As it is your proud nation has furthered resentment against the western nations with its invasion of Iraq around the globe.
How could it be any different - war is another form of terror and will breed nothing but terror.

And thats the reason, me thinks, why Spain may reconsider its political allegiances.
Not because Spain cowers, as you have put it so inappropriate (please, have some respect for the dead), before terrorists. But they see that the way of the US is shortsighted, fatal and simply does not keep what it promises. The killing has not stopped, it spreads.
Drag your own nation into this mess if you must. But I dont want to see european blood spilled for Americas misguided dream of a better world pursued by the wrong means.

 

Was that a hinted answer to my post. You know, Spain, chivalry, windmills, famous guy ? Your views lead into a similar direction, imo. Generally, a bomb doesn't turn crap to gold nor make an unwise decision wise. Whatever your doing in Iraq, I seriously doubt that it has anything to do with terrorism. This isn't a John Wayne B-movie, where you go to find the indians, shoot them all and ride into the sunset to live happily ever after. If they won't declare war at windmills, they wouldn't look weak, they mainly wouldn't look like fools.

Well, a presidental system surely wouldn't be my beef. I do not know why you actually pity that Spain has a parliamentary system. This circumstance actually made it possible for Aznar to get so close to your Iraq-invasion. As he could go that way, because his party had a solid absolute majority in the parliament, which allowed Aznar to act against the will of the people, in a country where 90% of the people deem the invasion of Iraq as morally wrong. If one thought that a change in the political landscape wouldn't change the Spanish goverments attitude on that issue, one should have a reality check. In Italy, things are similar. Yet, in both countries, the war wasn't high on the domestic priority list until very, very recently.

 

FFS Harbourboy

 

There is no way to seek and destroy terrorists. Sure you can kill the head of an organisation, but then you can be sure one of his top men that you didn't kill will start his own personal crusade against those who killed his master.

Invading a country that harbors tarrorists has its own problems too. Some other terrorist from a similar religion to that country that was invaded will start his attempt of vengence on the invading country.

Now, a country could decide to not retaliate at all, but since when has a conflict been won against a hostile force by only defending? No matter what security systems you have in place someone will always be able to sneak in.

Still I must condemn those terrorists for their actions. At least they could have the courage to attack the person whom they have the beef with, not innocents. How can they justify their actions when they kill civilians who had nothing to do with their problems. They might as well shoot the weatherman because of a drought