http://windsofchange.net/archives/004722.php
But sure about all of the opinions, but Darling is always a worthwhile read. I would say the only thing that is certain is somebody in Europe going to be next, the question is who, when, and how bad.
The analysis is absolutely correct.
Al-Qaeda (or, more accurately, the like-minded constellation of extremists who have re-branded themselves as al-Qaeda) successfully used atrocity to swing a national election toward isolationists.
There are some important questions to ask in the wake of Spain’s vote. Among them:
-
Does al-Qaeda now hold an election-weekend veto in European countries? More relevantly, does it now believe it holds such a veto? (This, of course, being the only question that will matter to you on the streets of Paris or Rome or Berlin.)
-
Did Spain’s involvement in the Iraqi War bring this terror upon them? If so, then what does one say to poor Morocco, which remained neutral in that conflict and yet suffered a horrific post-war terror bombing in 2003? Would neutrality have bought peace in Madrid when it did not buy peace in Casablanca?
-
Even more distressingly, what does one say to Turkey, which famously refused to be a party to the invasion of Iraq, and yet which saw not only the post-war bombings of synagogues but also that nightmare bank bombing which claimed mainly the lives of Islamic Turks? Would neutrality have bought peace in Madrid when open refusal to help the U.S. did not buy peace in Istanbul? 90% of Turks opposed the Iraqi War – so why were they among the first to be blown to smithereens by al-Qaeda?
One would have hoped that Europeans had learned the lessons of the 1930s. Spanish voters have just secured catastrophe in other European capitals.
P.S. Take a break from the blogs and read some experts for a change. http://www.csis.org/europe/040316_madridbombing.pdf
The analysis is absolutely correct.
Also completely wrong, since it ignores that whole unfortunate “we know the ETA was behind this” thing the PP tried to pull in the first day or two after the bombings. But apparently making shit up to take advantage of a terrorist attack on the eve of an election doesn’t really warrant kicking somebody out of office.
Wrong again. You must have missed this quote:
“Ultimately, when evidence surfaced that it was al-Qaeda and not the ETA, the Popular Party was literally backed into a corner from a rhetorical standpoint and it was quite easy for the Socialists to convince voters that not only had Aznar provoked al-Qaeda but also that he had deliberately covered up evidence to that effect in order to shore up his party’s electoral position”
Oh, bullshit, Dan. The spanish socialists aren’t isolationists; they still have troops in Afghanistan and want to keep them there.
Get with the times, Jason. Afghanistan is meaningless, haven’t you heard? It’s LAST year’s war. We don’t even want to pay for it anymore! Sure, sure, you helped us THEN, but what have you done for us LATELY, baby? Fucking spanish! I wish they made some wine, so we could organize a bottle-smashing session. Could we maybe rename “spanish omlettes” to “Freedom Omlettes”?
I’ll wait patiently for any of my questions to be addressed.
Explain Morocco.
Then explain Turkey, and its Islamist anti-war government, and its refusal of billions of dollars in U.S. payments to open up a northern front in Iraq.
Please explain to me how neutrality or even outright rejection of U.S. war aims buys a nation peace, given the examples of Morocco and Turkey.
This should be good.
Is it now isolationistic to demand UN/wider international support for actions you partake in?
- Does al-Qaeda now hold an election-weekend veto in European countries? More relevantly, does it now believe it holds such a veto? (This, of course, being the only question that will matter to you on the streets of Paris or Rome or Berlin.)
The first part of that is just inane, Dan.
Now, do they believe they do? Well, if they listen to American media, then certainly. But Spain being struck mostly for being European, who knows if it will inspire more deeds? It will be an additional inspiration, probably, but the difference will just be “more murderous” so if it will be a change in quantity is impossible to say.
- Did Spain’s involvement in the Iraqi War bring this terror upon them? If so, then what does one say to poor Morocco, which remained neutral in that conflict and yet suffered a horrific post-war terror bombing in 2003? Would neutrality have bought peace in Madrid when it did not buy peace in Casablanca?
Now, I don’t believe not going to war against Iraq would have helped to dissuade terrorists, necessarily. However, had the strength “wasted” (from a fight-on-terrorism point of view) on Iraq been set upon more worthwhile operations, it is possible that the terrorist organisation behind this had already been dealt a crippling blow.
This one really is in the eye of the beholder. Based on what we think we know Al Qaida wanted to change the Spanish government to one inclined to withdraw from Iraq. It planned to do this by having a bombing before the elections.
-
How did they know this would lead to an ouster and not rallying? In Italy when soldiers were killed in Iraq the population, largely antiwar, spiked up in support for the war after the deaths. The reaction of the US to September 11th was hardly retreat from engagement (aside from the moral victory gained by our withdrawl from Saudi Arabia).
-
Most serious coverage I’ve seen suggests that the not-so-Popular Party was already on the ropes as 90% of the Spaniards never did support the war in Iraq. Other domestic issues had them leading by a thin margin. It’s the seeming coverup of the Al Qaida involvement, by the government, in the bombings that reignited rage towards them and got the Socialists elected. If there was a victory for Al Qaida here it’s only because the government ignored the will of its people back in 2003. I’m only surprised they were doing as well as they were in the polls before the bombing.
-
As noted, Spain regardless of party takes terrorism seriously. They are cooperating with the real war on terror and plan on keeping troops on the ground in Afghanistan.
Let’s stop hyperventillating about this. See, the messy part of democracy is that if a government folds itself into the pocket of foreign interests against the will of its own people, that government will fall. This is why we never did much like democracies in the middle east as our oil importers and military exporters really feel more assured when they own foreign leaders in states with vital resources.
“Ultimately, when evidence surfaced that it was al-Qaeda and not the ETA, the Popular Party was literally backed into a corner from a rhetorical standpoint and it was quite easy for the Socialists to convince voters that not only had Aznar provoked al-Qaeda but also that he had deliberately covered up evidence to that effect in order to shore up his party’s electoral position”
Also totally wrong. Journalists have said they were called up by government officials and assured that ETA was behind it and that they should take that angle in their reporting. Whoops, honest mistake, no big deal.
This should be easy. Did the fact that Morocco and Turkey are Muslim nations somehow escape you? Simply being neutral is considered a betrayal by militant Islamists. For the same reason, the House of Saud is widely hated by the fundamentalists… their wishy washy stance really infuriates people who think they should be staunchly Muslim. (read: militantly anti-American) People always hate traitors even more than they hate the actual enemy.
As for neutrality buying peace… it doesn’t. But that’s not what the Spanish were shooting for when they elected the socialists, nor is it what the socialists are shooting for by pulling out of Iraq. They even explicitly said that they’re going to continue the War on Terror… but they’re going to do it on European terms, not American ones.
Is this what Al-Qaeda was trying to accomplish? Probably. But sometimes, doing what the enemy wants isn’t the wrong thing to do.
What the fuck are you talking about??? You stated that the article’s analysis was wrong, because it ignored the government stating “we know the ETA was behind this”. That’s complete bullshit. Here’s yet another reference to that exact point in the article:
I myself would be rather skeptical of this because at least one of the factors that contributed to the Socialist victory in Spain was that both sides immediately politicized the attack, with the Popular Party very much insinuating that the ETA had masterminded it (thereby justifying Aznar’s hard line against the organization)
Dan, we don’t share you assumption that “Iraq was part of the war on terror.”
“Explaining Morocco” is totally meaningless - them getting bombed had nothing to do with Iraq.
Yet clearly it is part of the war on terror. No matter what your views are on whether or not it was a sensible target in that war, it clearly has been driven into it, in the same way that Cambodia was drawn into the Viet Nam war.
What part of “Saddam had no ties to Al Queda” do you not understand?
I think it’s the part where it disagrees with his preconceived notions.
Eurosocialism, by hitching its wagon to the fortunes of militant Islam has put itself at it’s mercy.
Next up: Schroeder is the reincarnation of the Saladin.
No idea what point you were trying to make with that link, dude.
Humour, I hope.
You’re the idiot who can’t understand. Whether or not Saddam had ties to Al Quaeda is only a factor in determining whether or not you think the attack on Iraq was appropriate or just. The merits of that decision are irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether or not Iraq is now a battlefield in the war on terror: they’ve been drawn into it, in the same way Cambodia was drawn into Viet Nam, even if that wasn’t the right thing for us to do.
Another example: The British attempted to take over Norway in 1940 (but were beaten to it). Would attacking Norway be the “right thing to do”, for the British? Maybe, maybe not. But the attack on Norway by the British would still be considered part of the war against fascism. Iraq is part of the War on Terrorism, either because you think it always was, or because they were drawn into it.