The Rain in Spain Falls Mainly on the Slain

[wonderwench]

Our Mark Steyn Fix:

The Spanish dishonoured their dead

"When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, naturally they will like the strong horse." So said Osama bin Laden in his final video appearance two-and-a-half years ago. But even the late Osama might have been surprised to see the Spanish people, invited to choose between a strong horse and a weak horse, opt to make their general election an exercise in mass self-gelding.

To be sure, there are all kinds of John Kerry-esque footnoted nuances to Sunday's stark numbers. One sympathises with those electors reported to be angry at the government's pathetic insistence, in the face of the emerging evidence, that Thursday's attack was the work of Eta, when it was obviously the jihad boys. One's sympathy, however, disappears with their decision to vote for a party committed to disengaging from the war against the jihadi. As Margaret Thatcher would have said: "This is no time to go wobbly, Manuel." But they did. And no one will remember the footnotes, the qualifications, the background - just the final score: terrorists toppled a European government.

What was it all those party leaders used to drone robotically after IRA atrocities? We must never let the bullet and the bomb win out over the ballot and the bollocks. Something like that. In Spain, the bombers hijacked the ballot, and very decisively. The Socialist Workers' Party wouldn't have won, except for the terrorism.

At the end of last week, American friends kept saying to me: "3/11 is Europe's 9/11. They get it now." I expressed scepticism. And I v[iery much doubt whether March 11 will be a day that will live in infamy. Rather, March 14 seems likely to be the date bequeathed to posterity, in the way we remember those grim markers on the road to conflagration through the 1930s, the tactical surrenders that made disaster inevitable. All those umbrellas in the rain at Friday's marches proved to be pretty pictures for the cameras, nothing more. The rain in Spain falls mainly on the slain. In the three days between the slaughter and the vote, it was widely reported that the atrocity had been designed to influence the election. In allowing it to do so, the Spanish knowingly made Sunday a victory for appeasement and dishonoured their own dead. (more)

 

[goodboy]

Knee-jerk politics.
I just never saw the connection between Iraq and Al Qaida, well at least not until AFTER we invaded it.
No weapons of mass-distraction either....funny that!

Pre-emptive war = moral can of worms.

Next week: the official opening of Pandora's box....bring a bible and a gumshield.

 

[wonderwench]

Yawn.

Radical Islamic Fundamentalists have declared a Jihad on Western Civilization - and they are counting on people like you to bury your heads in the sand.

 

[goodboy]

And counting on people like you to get scared and incite more war. That after all is what terrorism is for, to incite paranoia and to provoke.

I hate terrorists, we've lived with terrorism in the UK for many, many years. I want them all dead. And Saddam hated terrorists because he was initially a secular dictator, Osama wouldn't have had anything to do with him.

Hunt the terrorists down (they are allin friggin' Europe and Saudi Arabia anyway, not Iraq), investigate through intelligence and remain vigilant and resilient. You sound you think a holy war is actually the solution. Your talk is dangerously subversive.

 

[nbdysfu]

Originally posted by goodboy
And counting on people like you to get scared and incite more war. That after all is what terrorism is for, to incite paranoia and to provoke.

I hate terrorists, we've lived with terrorism in the UK for many, many years. I want them all dead. And Saddam hated terrorists because he was initially a secular dictator, Osama wouldn't have had anything to do with him.

Hunt the terrorists down (they are allin friggin' Europe and Saudi Arabia anyway, not Iraq), investigate through intelligence and remain vigilant and resilient. You sound you think a holy war is actually the solution. Your talk is dangerously subversive.

I don't know if ww is one to be called holy. Perhaps you should bring back that old avatar wonderwench. (It really helps the unfamiliar. )

I think you would be totally right to call out someone if they abused religion to incite war; that is not the contemporary western role of religion.

I am not convinced the jihad is a religious war. It is funded by corrupt leaders who seek to twist certain perceptions of fundamental doctrines of their religion, focusing the rage of the masses that they impoverish away from their own vice and onto 'decadent' america. The fodder of the jihad is motivated by a misconception of its own religion and a distaste for western culture, desparation and bloodlust.

The leadership of the jihad and the left* are motivated to subvert the defense of western culture for one reason only: the desire for power.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by goodboy
And counting on people like you to get scared and incite more war. That after all is what terrorism is for, to incite paranoia and to provoke.

I hate terrorists, we've lived with terrorism in the UK for many, many years. I want them all dead. And Saddam hated terrorists because he was initially a secular dictator, Osama wouldn't have had anything to do with him.

Hunt the terrorists down (they are allin friggin' Europe and Saudi Arabia anyway, not Iraq), investigate through intelligence and remain vigilant and resilient. You sound you think a holy war is actually the solution. Your talk is dangerously subversive.

That sounds all happy happy joy joy. If we were dealing with rational people - your approach would be feasible.

But we are not. They have declared war on us. Sitting back and waiting to be attacked is not an option.

Sadly, much of Europe is now on the appeasement track. So it will be up to the U.S. to save the world from itself.

 

[Bry]

Yesterday was the anniversary of the famous meeting in the Azores of three democratically elected leaders. In the US, the photos of that meeting might have been considered comforting. The Americans would not be alone in their preemptive invasion. However, by the majority of the citizens in the other two of those nations which were represented by their democratically elected leaders in the Azores, the photos of that meeting represented an unconscionable betrayal. Precisely in Spain, more than ninety percent of the population was against supporting the American invasion of Iraq.

Turn forward to what has just transpired here in Spain. The governing party has been removed from power in Democratic elections in the wake of a tragic attack on the population of Spain on the part of Islamic extremists associated with Al Qaeda. In the four days that passed between the attack itself and the elections, the government (it has been DEMONSTRATED) took every opportunity to hide the truth, pressure and intimidate the international press corp, and in select moments to lie outright. A poll conducted on the eve of the election, the results of which were not released until today, Tuesday, showed that 51% of the Spanish population were convinced that their government was manipulating information. 29% believed that the information offered by the government was released unaltered and in a timely manner. This poll was conducted BEFORE it was conclusively demonstrated that the government had in fact occulted, delayed the release of, and in some instances changed the information it was their obligation to present to the public. In any case, the assertion that the ruling party, in the absence of the bombing attacks, would have carried the day, is patently unfounded and absurd. A week before the election (days before the bombing), several polls declared the campaign a virtual tie, and no poll showed the ruling party with more than a five percent edge. The election results, if anything, show the Spanish refusal to surrender themselves to corrupt politics, not to Bin Laden.

The opinion which you have selected for us, WW, is not informed. It fails to offer even a token of an understanding of what the Spanish people have lived in the last year and a half. What it does do is participate in the shameless right-wing propaganda that would have us believe that the only way to fight terrorists is to pre-emptively invade countries, and to equate a failure to support such an invasion even under the extreme conditions which the Spanish government has created for their constituency, with cowardice. I can tell you because I am living it. The Spanish reaction the the sad turns of events in the last weel has been anything but cowardly. The elections Sunday produced an unprecedented participation of nearly 80%. Protests went around the clock, as the people demanded that their government act like the democratically elected REPRESENTATIVES that they are. To call such behavior cowardice is blasphemy against the very precepts of democracy.

If some unpublishable jackass wants to opine (and you, WW, want to agree) that Spain has acted in a somehow cowardly way by voting out this government which has for years systematically abused their power, and in the last week put their will to deceive and manipulate the public on display for all the world to see, don't be surprised if someone takes offense. It doesn't take a genious to realize that for better or for worse, Spain was never on board when it came to the war in Iraq, and it is frankly insulting for some idiot to somehow equate a nation's unwillingness to be manipulated and browbeaten by their elected officials into supporting that war and its consequences, with a cowardly submission to Bin Laden and his henchmen.

 

[wonderwench]

Bry,

My sympathies are with the Spanish people. I don't think they yet understand the import of their decision.

The terrorists strikes were conducted to instill fear and topple the government. They succeeded. And the are further emboldened to continue attacking other coalition members in the hopes of turning their populations against the government.

Like it of not, Radical Fundamental Islamic Radicals have declared war on Western Civilization. Appeasement doesn't work with people who believe God has ordered them to kill you. Call it rightwing if you like - I call it realistic.

 

[Bry]

I agree that it is possible that Al Qaeda will interpret the election results in Spain as encouraging to their modus operandi. That would be an unfortunate result of two unrelated circumstances. The people of Spain have spoken to remove from power a thoroughly abusive government. That is their obligation as citizens of a democracy. To suggest that their actions are in some way equivalent to a capitulation to terrorists is nothing short of grotesque. -the existence of terrorists in no way obligates the people of Spain to remain under the sway of an abusive government, and to suggest otherwise is nothing short of insulting.

The president elect has made it clear that troops will remain in Iraq past the previously established June 30th end of their mission, if and only if control of Iraq is turned over to UN authority. Apart from his unwillingness to continue supporting the US presence in Iraq, he has stated that he intends to stand strong against terrorism. By referring to such a stance simply as "appeasement", you are doing nothing more than playing the partisan game of "you're either with us or you're against us". I would only ask that before you post vitriolic garbage about the slain in Spain, that you make some effort to inform yourself on the circumstances which are involved.

 

[kcmcdonald]

Bry,
I understand you live in Spain and the majority of the public did not support the war. However before the attack anzar's government was expected to maintain a majority. With the attack the spainish people descided against the ruling majority blameing them for the dealths and gavanizing the country against the war. However you're first president realized what the true threat of terror is. That it is beound the UN it is beyound spains borders, your next president does not, he looks at it as an internal problam. terror is interantional not national and the mass movement of the populouses in Europe remind me of the 30's. I can't sit by and let a population who sat ideally by while the worst murder in history(as of YET!!!!!) gained power and then when action was taken it was to late. I'm sorry for the losses and the fear, but that's what the terroists want, you to be affarid and to run and hide, that's what the spainish electorite just did, they ran and hid away from the world war on terror.

 

[Annie]

Hey Bry, I agree with KCM, the people of Spain have spoken. I also will defer to you regarding the government of Spain, regardless of their support of the Iraq war. In any case, one can more than reasonably expect that sympathizers of UBL will see this as a major victory; they were able to change the outcome of an election in a 'democracy.' All of us democracies: US, France, UK, Germany, Poland, Israel, etc will see more of this in the not so distant future.

Spain is no more to blame than the US for all the years they ignored and underresponded to direct attacks on our interests. UBL said so, we did not respond-didn't have the stomach for it. 9/11 changed it in the US for most people, Europe has a much higher threshold.

 

[nbdysfu]

Hey, I just noticed this unpublishable jackass has quite a bit of syndication. Just look at the list of newspapers he publishes to on the left side of this page
And hey this article was in the uk's Telegraph. How is that?

Come to think of it I think I have seen many editorials from him. I have always thought that he was able to make clear and concise points. However, we all know how that isn't the criteria for gaining a position in the 'mainstream' media.

 

[Annie]

Some in Europe are beginning to see the threat, others won't til it bites them in the arnse:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62387-2004Mar16.html



washingtonpost.com
Europe Faces a New Era
After a Mass Terror Attack in Madrid, Voters Reject Bush Ally

By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 16, 2004; 8:30 AM


For Europe, March 11 equals September 11. The mass terror attacks in Madrid last week, say European online commentators, mark the beginning of a new era in which Europe will have to learn to defend itself from al Qaeda-style terror operations.

The bombings of four commuter trains that killed 201 persons proved potent, militarily and politically. The authors of the attack inflicted the highest civilian casualties of any terrorist attack in Europe, manipulated the Spanish parliamentary system and prompted the new prime minister, anti-war socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, to call for the withdrawal of 1,300 Spanish troops from Iraq.

The Islamist forces behind the Madrid bombings "confirmed that they can choose the moment and the target with a frightening precision," says the French daily Le Figaro (in French).

"The bombs of Madrid have shown us how much we are without defense and how much our knowledge of the terrorists is insufficient," says Le Figaro. "Each country can be hit, whether or not it has participated, like Spain, in the Iraq war, whether or not it has decided, like France, to forbid Islamic headscarves in the schools."

March 11, said the Milan daily Corriere della Sera (in Italian), "is going to be more important than 11 September" for Europe. The Madrid attacks they say, mark the beginning of "a European war that the [European] Union is going to have to fight from now on with a far greater degree of unity and solidarity than it has shown over the past few months."

In London, the Guardian says "emergency security meetings across Europe yesterday signaled the deepening recognition that the 200 deaths in four trains blown up in Madrid on Thursday probably constitute more than just a domestic Spanish terrorist event." The leftist London daily says no European nation will be spared, no matter what its past stance on the war on terror or Iraq.

"Only a dreamer would believe that Germany will not be attacked," say the editors of Bild, Germany's best-selling tabloid. "Islamic terrorists are waging a war against the West, not just against individual countries."

Sociologist Emilio Lamo de Espinosa says Europeans have been dreaming. Writing in Le Monde (in French), Lamo says Europeans have thought they would be spared because they haven't supported the Bush administration's policies.

"When the Americans declared war on terrorism, many of us thought they exaggerated. Many thought terrorism was not likely to occur on our premises, [inhabited by] peaceful and civilized Europeans who speak no evil of anybody, who dialogue, who are the first [to] send assistance and offer cooperation. We are pacifists, they are warmongers. . . . . Don't we defend the Palestinians? Are we not pro-Arab and anti-Israeli?"

"Can we dialogue with those who desire only our death and nothing but our death?" Lamo asks. "Dialogue about what? The manner in which we will be assassinated?"

"The war against terrorism will be long and difficult," he concludes. "It was that cretin, President Bush, who said that."

But in Madrid, the editors of El Pais (in Spanish, subscription required) say the Spanish public has rejected Bush and Aznar's strategy for fighting terrorism. Aznar's party lost on Sunday, they say, because of the "sense of manipulation and deception the electorate felt" over his government's reaction to the Madrid bombings.

"It was the offensive use of the argument of the war against terror to justify just about any policy . . . Blatant opportunism and puerile arrogance . . . caused those in power to lose it yesterday," they conclude.

This is the new politics of mass terror. In Spain, the Madrid attacks helped to defeat a pro-U.S. incumbent with an unpopular stand on the war in Iraq.

Americans now have to contemplate a scenario that al Qaeda leaders may already be planning: What effect would a terrorist attack in the United States have on voters choosing between Sen. John F. Kerry and President George W. Bush? Will America have its own March 11 next October?


© 2004 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive

 

[Bry]

First of all, Spain is not the only population which generally speaking was against the stance of their government regarding the invasion of Iraq. The same is true of England, and THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE US. The majority of the population in the US supported the invasion only under the now highly questionable thesis that Iraq represented a chemical, biological, and nuclear threat. You can see for yourselves how the poll numbers have changed as it has become increasingly clear that WMDs will not be produced in Iraq. Now, Kerry is sitting pretty to turn the tables, to say nothing of what will happen to Blaire, whose position is interesting in that he is a socialist. Interesting that the anti-Iraq-war vote in England may have to turn to the conservatives. Also keep a close eye on Italy, signs indicate Berlusconi is finished as well.

Second of all, the analysis here given are not even suitable for a comic book. The Socialists in Spain are not "anti-war", but rather anti- Iraq-war. I expect the difference will not be lost even on the right-wing polemicists. The fact is that the Spanish government offered false information to the public and to the world. (I see today that the Washington Post has today supported what I have been saying on this board since before the election, though their phrasings continue to be objectionable. EG. .) At the UN, two false arguments were given: one that the explosives used in the bombings were identitical to those used in previous attacks by ETA. Secondly, they did not inform the UN when the first five arrests were made in connection with the bombing, and that three of the five were Morroqui, while none of the five were Basque. As a result of these lies, the UN has passed a resolution which wrongly attributes the bombings in Madrid to the Basques.

The only correct analysis of this situation is the following: the Spanish people have removed from power a government which knowingly lied and manipulated information. Say what you want about the war on terror, democratically elected governments cannot systematically deceive all the people all the time. The only source of failure for the conservative party in Spanish politics is their own poor behavior. It remains to be seen whether we will be able to say the same about England and the United States.

That Europe is "beginning" to see the threat posed by Al Qaeda is also an absurd proposition which tells more of the ego-centrism of American commentarists who always think they are light years ahead of the rest of the world in seeing the obvious, than it says about the real political environment in Europe. Of course, the bombings has prompted a flurry of movement on the part of European governments, but that is not the same as to say they were ignorant of the threat before the attacks in Madrid. The commentary offered in this editorial from the Washington Post is patently false on several points.

The authors of the attack inflicted the highest civilian casualties of any terrorist attack in Europe, manipulated the Spanish parliamentary system and prompted the new prime minister, anti-war socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, to call for the withdrawal of 1,300 Spanish troops from Iraq.

The attack only manipulated the Spanish parliamentary system in that it provided the government with the opportunity manipulate information. The fact that the government decided to seize that opportunity is only attributable to themselves, not the terrorists. That the terrorists provided the president elect with the opportunity to call for the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq is also false. He has been calling for their withdrawal since before they were deployed. That Zapatero is an "anti-war socialist" is also false, as it was his party that supported the referendum in Spain to join NATO in the 80s, and it was the Socialists that supported the US in the first gulf war. They also largely supported the action taken in Kosovo. That someone does not support one particular war does not make them "anti-war", any more than not supporting the German invasion of Poland in WWII does not imply that someone be anti-war.

Yes, Europe is taking steps to bolster their security. Any other commentary is specious.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Bry

First of all, Spain is not the only population which generally speaking was against the stance of their government regarding the invasion of Iraq. The same is true of England,

Indeed, this portion is accurate and entirely relevent to the attacks in Madrid. That's not a good thing for them you know.

and THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE US.

NOT TRUE. Public opinion polling as current as YESTERDAY where these particular facts regarding Spain and the UK were re-iterated, concluded also that the US as a majority (+50%) STILL BACKS the Iraq war despite any WMD issue.

The majority of the population in the US supported the invasion only under the now highly questionable thesis that Iraq represented a chemical, biological, and nuclear threat.

False. The latest international poll, even with a "-" applied to the +/- margin of error, concluded the US as a whole BACKS the war despite the lack of discovery of WMD's in any significant amounts.

You can see for yourselves how the poll numbers have changed as it has become increasingly clear that WMDs will not be produced in Iraq. Now, Kerry is sitting pretty to turn the tables, to say nothing of what will happen to Blaire, whose position is interesting in that he is a socialist. Interesting that the anti-Iraq-war vote in England may have to turn to the conservatives. Also keep a close eye on Italy, signs indicate Berlusconi is finished as well.

My gut feel is that based on Spain's reaction, and the anti-war sentiment clearly opposed to Iraq in the majority in the UK, as well as their role as the #2 most active party to resisting A.Q. goals, makes them priority #1 on the hit list. From now on the terrorist network of A.Q. would be most rewarded from any and every attempt to kill as many UK civilians as possible prior to their own election this year.

FYI Spain was only #6 on the OOB, no money invested beyond that, and means little. But a favorable UK reaction to any pre-election attack would be a real victory they could gloat over.

Second of all, the analysis here given are not even suitable for a comic book. The Socialists in Spain are not "anti-war", but rather anti- Iraq-war. I expect the difference will not be lost even on the right-wing polemicists.

Yet Spain now has no active role in the WOT, not in Afganistan nor in Iraq, and now intends to have ZERO active contribution to confront Islamic Fundamentalism and it's terrorist tactics. They have this luxury purely due to the coalition's continued sacrifice as individual nations. They have chosen to have NO ROLE in the conflict, except to validate terrorism as a political device to influence Democracy in choosing submission over confrontation.

The fact is that the Spanish government offered false information to the public and to the world. (I see today that the Washington Post has today supported what I have been saying on this board since before the election, though their phrasings continue to be objectionable. EG. .)

The very first time that any statement or evidence conflicted with the suspected ETA source as Interior Minister Ascabes first proposed, was based on statements from Interior Minister Ascabes. See that? Do I need to link to each breaking development proving that you have no basis for this "lie"?

The UN, two false arguments were given: one that the explosives used in the bombings were identitical to those used in previous attacks by ETA. Secondly, they did not inform the UN when the first five arrests were made in connection with the bombing, and that three of the five were Morroqui, while none of the five were Basque. As a result of these lies, the UN has passed a resolution which wrongly attributes the bombings in Madrid to the Basques.

The UN has never played any active role in the WOT, since 9-11. It was NATO under US encouragement who finally decided to back the Taliban opposition and close down the terrorist camps therin. If the UN represents a morally correct force for you (why?), remember that Russia and China and France all failed to back any real effort at the outset in Afganistan. The UN simply does not address a violation of human rights with any proven consistency, and if the US doesn't personally get involved not one ounce of morality over such issues applies, at all.

It remains a body w/o a primary interest in advancing liberal democratic government and entirely powerless without a committed national force backing any of it's goals. Sixty years on the powers of reknown ala 1946 are simply archaic bodies of varying importance. The all-empowered security council vote, which itself never once had universal approval by all five WWII victors to act as a unified force, always and forever remains devoid from any real potency. Action in Korea, Isreal, Iraq, all part of a coalition and never a unified UN body... All were split along an axis of political gamesmanship which today is a bare shadow of reality in today's actual political balance of power.

Roughly: France is 1/4 of US power, the remnants of USSR is 1/5, the UK is 1/3, Japan is now 1/2, India is 1/2, China is 2/3 and growing, etc.

Yet somehow 1 unit of moral authority = USA = UK = France = China = Russia, today, right?



Today's contributors to US action (ex. Japan) now represent the true hierachy of power in todays world order. So you give the UN credit when no credit is due, and lend credibility to an organization which chose safety over sacrifice very early on in Iraq.

All the UN has proven to OUR ENEMIES, is that w/o US support, it's resolutions are empty threats. And where ACTUAL US force reacts to enforce prior resolutions some 3/2 split vote might oppose, we've demonstrated that you can kiss your tyrant ass goodbye anyway.

You mistake an organization entirely dependent upon diplomatic and non-binding arbitration for a legitimate and functioning fact finding agency.

Did you forget that even the UN's opposition to US invasion of Iraq failed to save their headquarters in Baghdad from arbitrary selection as a target? And they never did come back, did they?

The only correct analysis of this situation is the following: the Spanish people have removed from power a government which knowingly lied and manipulated information. Say what you want about the war on terror, democratically elected governments cannot systematically deceive all the people all the time. The only source of failure for the conservative party in Spanish politics is their own poor behavior. It remains to be seen whether we will be able to say the same about England and the United States.

England perhaps, but I daresay the US is not about to rollover to a terrorist attack. Consider the same sentiment arising from a people used to acting from a position of great influence. Overwhelming popular support for Putin in Russia as "strong on terror" ensured every act of Chechnya terrorism has provided Putin's government with additional backing, and furthers nationalism and gives license to their government to further escalate the conflict. This is far beyond reasonable expectations of rational sensibility, yet his recent re-election support dominates all other sentiment. Our own outrage to any attack on the US homeland is considerably untapped. Our expected role of dominance and leadership from a realistic position of undisputed power ensures a response to any A.Q. consistent with our national history since WWII, one seeking the destiny and righteousness most Americans believe to be true, whether or not it's deserved. The end results of such an attack is that most here will react with futher outrage. They know, we know it.

That Europe is "beginning" to see the threat posed by Al Qaeda is also an absurd proposition which tells more of the ego-centrism of American commentarists who always think they are light years ahead of the rest of the world in seeing the obvious, than it says about the real political environment in Europe. Of course, the bombings has prompted a flurry of movement on the part of European governments, but that is not the same as to say they were ignorant of the threat before the attacks in Madrid. The commentary offered in this editorial from the Washington Post is patently false on several points.

The attack only manipulated the Spanish parliamentary system in that it provided the government with the opportunity manipulate information. The fact that the government decided to seize that opportunity is only attributable to themselves, not the terrorists.

Abject capitulation of such magnitude cannot simply be based on initial government suspicions when actual government evidence from same officials proved their ealier suspicions wrong. Don't be foolish.

That the terrorists provided the president elect with the opportunity to call for the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq is also false. He has been calling for their withdrawal since before they were deployed. That Zapatero is an "anti-war socialist" is also false, as it was his party that supported the referendum in Spain to join NATO in the 80s, and it was the Socialists that supported the US in the first gulf war. They also largely supported the action taken in Kosovo. That someone does not support one particular war does not make them "anti-war", any more than not supporting the German invasion of Poland in WWII does not imply that someone be anti-war.

True enough. Churchill was not given popular support over Chamberlain until the appeasement approach became utterly self-defeating. You miss the fact that it was the terrorist event alone which effectively deposed a party strong on terror and replaced it with one intending to appease to it's threat. It was the people's choice, and they knew exactly who stood where. Shame on them.

Yes, Europe is taking steps to bolster their security. Any other commentary is specious. [/B]

I take much more comfort in the fact that America's reputation and history demonstrates that the more we suffer from another power the greater our conviction and solidarity grows.

Being a so called "warmongering" and "unilaterial" power in the world view is cause for hesitation from A.Q. in attacking the US. That perception, valid or not, is a force to deter further terrorist attacks.

As the only historical power to have shown a willingness to surpass the nuclear threshold, can we be expected not to use the same means to utterly destroy all possible challenge to our predominance? All it takes is one more serious attack and we'll see our soccer mom's organize for a reaction far more consistent with our ability and less concerned with "morality", becuase we ALL MOST CERTAINLY recognize our ability to destroy this threat with far less sacrifice and far more certainty than any "popular" kind of reaction. We have yet to feel truly threatened as a nation.

A.Q. will pause and think back to how Bush went from odd duck to 85% approval ratings based on one successfull attack. Americans identify their role very much apart from Spanish citizens. An attack on our dominance and self-esteem as the leader of the world will backfire. It is for THAT reason alone, I feel, ZERO attacks since 9-11 have materialized.

If the world is a prison, we are the biggest, baddest, most aggresive mofo in the pen, and if that image is shared worldwide, and A.Q. has any sense, their own success and survival depends on not provoking our full capablity for violence. Absolute victory over the US is a ridiculous concept given our full capability, and without a serious challenge comparable to the former USSR, even mutual destruction is a stretch.

 

[Bry]

Here ya go, Comrade. I backed my claims, now you back yours. Including that speculation about how Spain now intends to have "ZERO" active contribution to confront islamic terrorism, that you pulled out of your ass.

If you really want to discuss the relevance of OOBs and WOTs, you'll have to tell me what they are. And if you're going to throw Acebes' name around like it means something to you, you should at least spell it right. I was here. I listened to all his press releases as they were released, in Spanish, along with the releases from Aznar, Zapatero, Juan Carlos, and I listened to the commentarists and the leaks that came out on the radio. Acebes was not the first to present information about links to Al Qaeda, he was just the first member of the governnment to acknowledge the information, thanks to mass protests demanding the truth and news reports on leaked information.

You will notice that in the article I have here reproduced in its entirety, Aznar (the president) bussied himself with calling the news papers around the country to try to convince them to publish articles attributing the attacks to ETA. The next time you call me a liar, you should know something.


Spain Campaigned to Pin Blame on ETA
Wed Mar 17, 8:04 AM ET Add Top Stories - washingtonpost.com to My Yahoo!


By Keith B. Richburg, Washington Post Foreign Service

MADRID, March 16 -- In the first frantic hours after coordinated bomb blasts ripped through several packed commuter trains Thursday morning, the government of outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar undertook an intense campaign to convince the Spanish public and world opinion-makers that the Basque separatist group ETA had carried out the attacks, which killed 201 people and wounded more than 1,500.



Beginning immediately after the blasts, Aznar and other officials telephoned journalists, stressing ETA's responsibility and dismissing speculation that Islamic extremists might be involved. Spanish diplomats pushed a hastily drafted resolution blaming ETA through the U.N. Security Council. At an afternoon news conference, when a reporter suggested the possibility of an al Qaeda connection, the interior minister, Angel Acebes, angrily denounced it as "a miserable attempt to disrupt information and confuse people."


"There is no doubt that ETA is responsible," Acebes said.


Within days, that assertion was in tatters, and with it the reputation and fortunes of the ruling party. Suspicion that the government manipulated information -- blaming ETA in order to divert any possible link between the bombings and Aznar's unpopular support for the war in Iraq (news - web sites) -- helped fuel the upset victory of the Socialist Workers' Party in Sunday's elections. By then, Islamic extremists linked to al Qaeda had become the focus of the investigation.


Government officials insist that they never misled the public, and that they released in a timely manner all the information and evidence they had gathered. "We told the truth at all times to the Spanish people," Acebes said on Monday.


In retrospect, however, there were signs that the government was at least selective in releasing information about possible culprits. By 11 a.m. Thursday, police had already discovered an abandoned white van in Alcala de Henares -- a town where the bombed trains passed through -- containing seven detonators and a cassette tape with verses of the Koran recited in Arabic, officials said later. Sources familiar with Spanish intelligence services said the CNI, the National Intelligence Center, had suspected al Qaeda from the beginning.


The existence of a potential link to Islamic radicals was not revealed to the public until just before King Juan Carlos spoke on national television at 8:30 p.m.


Significantly, Spanish observers said, the king, in his solemn address, expressed confidence that "the criminals will be put in prison," but never mentioned ETA or any other possible culprit. Asked whether the king was satisfied with the way the government had handled information, the palace declined to respond, citing its customary refusal to comment on government matters.


The first bomb went off at 7:39 a.m., on a jam-packed commuter train at the Atocha station in central Madrid. By 7:42, 10 bombs had exploded -- seven at Atocha, two at nearby El Pozo station and one at Santa Eugenia. Although the initial figures put the death toll at about 20, authorities knew the number would rise dramatically and that this would be the worst terrorist attack in Spanish history.


That was when officials began their campaign to pin the blame on ETA, which the Aznar government has pursued vigorously and successfully.


The government had good reason to suspect ETA, whose initials in Basque stand for Basque Homeland and Freedom. The group has killed hundreds of civilians in terrorist attacks stretching back decades. Police reported on Christmas Eve having thwarted an ETA plot to set off two bombs at a Madrid train station. On Feb. 29, police arrested two ETA members near Madrid as they drove a van packed with a half-ton of explosives.


Immediately after Thursday's bombings, Foreign Minister Ana Palacio telephoned her British counterpart, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, to say that it was ETA, according to a British official, who added, "We had no independent evidence of our own that the Spanish were wrong." Less than two hours later, Straw was on television saying, "It looks to be an ETA terrorist outrage, and that is the information we've received from Madrid."


At the same time, the Spanish Foreign Ministry was sending instructions to its embassies, saying diplomats "should use any opportunity to confirm ETA's responsibility for these brutal attacks," according to a copy of the letter published in the Spanish daily El Pais. Spanish officials have confirmed that the instructions went out, but said they were only for "guidance."


Meanwhile, Arnaldo Otegi, head of the banned Batasuna party, which Aznar's government alleges to be ETA's political wing, condemned the attack, which experts on the Basque situation said was unusual. Otegi's condemnation was given wide coverage on radio stations outside Madrid. Between noon and 2 p.m. Thursday, Catalan radio was airing discussion programs exploring the possibility of al Qaeda involvement. On one Catalan station, 91.0 FM, Otegi said in an interview that the attacks were carried out by "the Arab resistance, possibly in retaliation for the Spanish presence in Iraq."


But in Madrid, radio stations were referring to "the ETA attacks" and carried none of the discussion about whether others might have been involved.


Managing the coverage of the disaster became a priority for the government, which contacted both the Spanish and international news media, stressing the official line that the bombings were the work of ETA.


El Pais, which was preparing a special edition on the attacks, received several calls directly from Aznar, its reporters confirmed. The editor of the Catalan-based paper El Periodico said Aznar called twice. Aznar "courteously cautioned me not to be mistaken. ETA was responsible," the editor, Antonio Franco, wrote in an editorial Tuesday. At a news conference on Friday, Aznar said he had called several newspapers, saying he wanted to explain the government's view.



The government spokesman's office at Moncloa, the prime minister's office, also placed calls to at least 10 foreign correspondents during the day, according to Steven Adolf, a Dutch reporter for NRC Handelsblatt and president of the foreign correspondents club here. Most of the calls were identical, journalists said.

Henk Boom, another Dutch journalist, said he received a call from a spokeswoman at about 5 p.m. "She said she was told to tell foreign correspondents that there was one official version -- that ETA was responsible for the attacks, and only ETA," he said.

Reading from a text, the spokeswoman gave three reasons why ETA was the culprit, Boom said: No one had asserted responsibility, which followed ETA's style of not making claims for at least a week; the type of explosive was similar to that normally used by ETA; and there was no call beforehand warning of the attacks, another characteristic of ETA -- a point some journalists have disputed.

By Thursday night, with the announcement of the discovery of the van with the Arabic tape and the claim of responsibility on behalf of al Qaeda in a London Arabic-language newspaper, public doubt began to set in. The morning newspapers Friday ran side-by-side articles comparing the possibilities of al Qaeda and ETA involvement.

By Friday night, police found new leads -- the discovery of a sports bag containing undetonated explosives and a mobile telephone. At a news conference, however, Acebes continued to insist ETA was the main suspect. "How is it that after 30 years of attacks, they are not going to be the prime suspects?" Acebes said. Still, he said, "We haven't closed off any line of investigation."

At the makeshift shrines set up to honor the victims, young people gathering to light candles and lay flowers were starting to voice skepticism about the ETA claim.

On Saturday night -- hours before the polls opened -- the government announced the arrests of three Moroccans and two Indians, and the discovery of a videotape from a purported al Qaeda official asserting responsibility for the attacks. Thousands of Spaniards responded by taking to the streets, banging pots and pans in protests and denouncing the government.

That voter anger swept the Socialists back to power for the first time in eight years.

Special correspondents Pamela Rolfe and Robert Scarcia contributed to this report.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Bry

Here ya go, Comrade. I backed my claims, now you back yours. Including that speculation about how Spain now intends to have "ZERO" active contribution to confront islamic terrorism, that you pulled out of your ass.

For me to poop on!


http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=20994

No money;

“The other European Union (EU) countries -- Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain - have not made any promises on the 0.7 percent target.’

No troops;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...ml&sSheet=/portal/2004/03/15/ixportaltop.html

“Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar, one of the leading Socialist Party figures, told the Telegraph yesterday that it would put withdrawal from Iraq at the top of its agenda.

Where is carrot OR the stick?

 

[Bry]

Comrade,

Your first quote and the article it's taken from is about money promised to help undevelped countries. In the entire article, the only reference to the confronting of Islamic terrorism was to say that the enormous quantities being spent on militaries and wars put the quantity spent to help Underdeveloped nations in perspective: squat. Did you read the article? The quote you took was from near the end of the article, so you must have skimmed it , at least.

Taken from the article you referenced: Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Socialist leader, said: "My most immediate priority is to beat all forms of terrorism," after asking for a minute's silence for the victims.

 

[Comrade]

Bry,

Nothing you say is inconsistent with what I said very simply.

No money committed to the WOT, let alone any other fund set up to help underdeveloped countries reduce growing terrorist theats.

And yes, I agree it is costly to field active force to fight it. And I think I just proved this other point, didn't I? BTW, I've not heard of Spanish troop precense in Afganistan either.

Despite his words alone the only action to be taken will be a direct withdrawal of their troops in appeasement.

I also find particular assertations made in your link beyond belief.

The President calling the two biggest leftist papers to threaten them personally while they obviously have printed what they want anyway, seems preposterous. That he would do that for them to record??? What a crock!

There's every indication the "Coverup conspiracy" over ETA was a propaganda campaign of the socailist media and party, and I can walk you through the timeline and prove it if you like.


If you reread closely you can clearly see how they link this directly to Aznar with convoluted and flawed logic.

1. Aznure made call to newpapers. (So what)

2. A head government spokesman also did and his message was consistent (What was it?)

3. One particular call from "a spokeswoman", is assuring the ETA did it. (An Aznar linked government employee? Who knows?).

They just let YOU assume what they want you to see, from three unrelated facts. It's very obvious that they want you to draw a conclusion the facts don't support. The only real fact I know to be true, is, Aznar is on the record in the puplic already, before this 5pm call from this un-named 'spokeswoman' on the very day of the bombings, and he said something VERY DIFFERENT already IN PUBLIC and said NOTHING LIKE this. So you see how stupid this is?

And I also do not deny there was an early morning statement from a single government member which affixed ETA as the primary suspect. So let's talk about propaganda and how this led the socialists to victory.

 

[Bry]

Okay, Comrade, for the sake of a laugh, why don't you walk me through those events and pronouncements that I lived and listened to.

Spain is in Afganistan. Don't you remember the plane crash in Turkey that killed fifty some Spanish officers in Turkey? They were in route from Afganistan.

It is stupid to talk about the lack of funds that a president elect has not yet had the chance to pour into the war in terror.

Everything that was pronounced in the "left" media proved to be accurate. The same can not be said of Aznar's government. If you think it's normal for the president to be making phone calls to news papers to tell them what information they should or should not publish, you and I probably have deological differences more basic than what has or has not happened in Spain.

My link, which you find questionable, was the Washington Post. If you think you can disprove any of the information there presented, feel free.

As for what Aznar said in public, before, you say, the phone calls were made to newspapers, He was distincly and inequivocably linking the attacks to ETA. I heard the speech myself, in Spanish. If you want to debate the exact content of the speech, feel free to present the text in its entirety. Until you are able to do that, your insinuations about the voracity of what I know I heard and lived are uninteresting.