Article from The Globe and Mail
www.theglobeandmail.com

Spain: an example for us all
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040317/COLONE17/Comment/Idx

Supporters of the Iraq War are calling Spain's comments and expected withdrawal from the war a victory for terrorists.

This article is interesting because it argues that the Iraq War itself has been a boost for terrorism.

Quotes:
"Spain's exit has nothing to do with lack of commitment to fight terror: rather, it was at the heart of the Socialists' electoral platform, and was in tune with the 90 per cent of Spaniards who opposed the war. The incoming prime minister's policy -- making fighting terrorism his first priority without being embroiled in Iraq, and pushing for UN leadership for the Iraqi transition -- is exactly what's needed to make the world safer."

"...the international struggle against terrorism. That struggle's legitimacy has for some time been severely compromised by the Iraq war, and has provoked strong anti-American passions among the world's Muslims, without whose active support the anti-terror campaign cannot succeed."

"The attack on Iraq in the name of fighting terrorism cemented the view that the international anti-terrorist campaign was a cover for the United States' desire to crush Islam and weaken Muslim countries. It gave a huge recruitment boost to terrorist organizations and brought an unprecedented level of insecurity to virtually every region in the world."

Agree or disagree?

Spain pussed out. Three days after a terrorist attack, you don't run and hide and elect a socialist pussy who is going to do exactly what the terrorist want you to do. However one feels about Iraq now, the fact is, what's done is done and the job must be finished. Pulling out troops has the look of a cause and effect relationship for terrorist organizations. They interpret it as..... we bomb you, you become our bitch and do what we say.

One of these days the socialist, pacifists, appeasers in Europe are going to learn that pussing out doesn't work. You can't ignore the problem and make it go away. Some want to send a few policemen out to "police" terrorism. However, there is only one thing these savages understand. FORCE.... and you have to ram it down their God Damn throats.

I can see this thread getting ugly in a hurry.

I agree that Spain shouldn't have pulled out. Even if you didn't agree with the reasons for going to war. The reality is that it's done. The sooner Iraq is stabilized, the quicker it will stop being a rallying point for terrorists.

As to whether or not we should "ram it down their god damn throats"...well, that dead horse is too well tenderized to beat again.

"ram it down their god damn throats" also reminded me that I'll be going to Rio in a few months. Naah-nah-Nah-nah-nah.

Before things get too ugly I'll just say that the overwhelming majority of the Spanish people were against their government's participation in the Iraqi occupation right from the start. As far as the US actions increasing overall terrorism, that is a no brainer even if some people don't want to admit it. We now know that there never were any WMD nor any proven links between Sadam and Al Queda. And here we are stuck trying to control a country where most of the people either dislike us or outright dispise us. Plus, we have legitized all the extremist Islamic nut cases who find a ready and ever growing audiance among the disinfranchised in that part of the world.

A point now increasing understood is that while the US government had a fantastic military stragety to win in just a short time, there was absolutely zero effort put into what was going to happens afterwards. This all relates back to the real reasons behind the war (oil and Israel) and the fact that neither motivation has ever given a damn about the millions of inhabitants of this region beyond how they can expoit them.

I heard that the Spanish were very pissed that the previous government tried to redirect the terrorist attacks away from Al Queda, blaming it on ETA.

Hmm, lie to citizens about terrorists to draw away attention and loose an election. Wonder if it will be a trend?

(Message edited by happyxhoner on March 18, 2004)

"This all relates back to the real reasons behind the war (oil and Israel) and the fact that neither motivation has ever given a damn about the millions of inhabitants of this region beyond how they can expoit them."

Well stated Tight fit. The Israeli lobby is so strong in this country that it compromises America's own national interest. We have become entangled in Israel's war with the Arabs and there is now no end in sight. We have supported Israel with tons of foreign aid since 1948 in the form of state of the art weaponry without which they would have had their asses handed to them. What have we gotten from Israel for all of these many billions of dollars in foreign aid? Nothing but major league trouble.

The main reason to invade Iraq was to stabilize the oil industry or so we were told and end Sadam's cruel regime once and for all. Those of us who live on the west coast know how unstable(high)oil prices are now with no relief in sight.

The good people of America are about to make a change in leadership in November in spite of corporate America's huge contributions to the Bush campaign. This change one hopes will result in a change in foreign policy.

The point was, you don't back down from terrorists. Spain did in the most visible way. The equivalent for the US would have been after Sept 11th, 2001, we pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia and our fleet out of the Persian Gulf. I know liberals think that sounds reasonable but I don't take anything a liberal says seriously whether it comes from them or their Presidential candidate.

But what if the terrorist attack in Spain never occurred? At least one of the articles I read placed public opposition to intervention in Iraq at 90%. I do not know what level of importance this would have been in relation to the other issues, but I would think it was significant.

I think it might prove a challenge for a politician in the US to be re-elected if one of his major initiatives met with 90% public opposition.

It seems to me more like a deviously plan on the terrorists' part to take credit for something that would have occured anyways.

Now I could be wrong. Perhaps the socialist party supported the war and changed their minds after the terrorist attack. I do not know enough about Spain's politics to say with certainty, but I don't think that this is the case.

D'art,

Pile on theory, perhaps? You know the Titanic is going to sink, so you fly over and drop a bomb and then claim credit for the sinking? It's been done before.....

Keep in mind, from a population perspective, the Madrid bombings are quite a bit bigger than 9/11. Plus, the Spanish have had terrorist issues for decades, with the Basque issues and with ragheads from North Africa streaming across. They have a lot to deal with now, and can be expected to act irrationally, just as the US did (and still is) right after 9/11.

Before the Madrid bombings, the ruling party was expceted and projected to maintian power in most national polls.

What put the socailists in power was a view that the government lied about the investigations, covered up a possible al Qaeda link, and the fact that many first time voters will spurred to the polls after the bombings. Voter turnout was 77% for this election, higher than in the previous election.

d'art... here you are back for more.

Xen is right. Before the bombings, the conservative ruling party was expected to win comfortably. After the bombing, 3 days later they lost control of the govt. However, I don't think that can be totally contributed to the fact that the Spanish govt hedged its bets on whether it was Al Qaeda or Basque separatists. Clearly, it was the work of al Qaeda because of the way it was carried out. Reasonable Spaniards knew that no matter how cautious their govt was being on assigning blame. What happened was a total puss out. They elected their equivalent of Jimmy Carter, a mindless, naive, appeaser.

Here are an article that backs up my statement from above:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/wm449.cfm

"A Bad Start for Zapatero"

"The terrorist bombings in Madrid decisively influenced the democratic process in one of Europe’s biggest nations. For the first time in modern history, terrorists may have dictated the result of a major election. The ruling Popular Party had been widely expected to return to power, but their electoral hopes were shattered by the bombings in Madrid on March 11. The bombings prompted widespread fear in Spain, and as it emerged that Al Qaeda may have been responsible for the attacks, Spanish voters flocked in large numbers to the opposition Socialists. Blaming Madrid’s links with the United States, many Spaniards rejected the Popular Party, and instead swept to power a political movement which has been highly critical of the Bush White House."

However, here is an opinion piece from the Washington Post that rejects the notion that the Spanish vote was an appeasement for al Qaida.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6540-2004Mar18.html

Regardless of what side of the fence someone is on regarding this issue, I do feel that the al Qaida bombings did influence this election. That is quite chilling to think about. The new PM elect has wasted no time in blasting Bush and Washington's policies on Iraq.

One piece I read while in the Philippines suggested that al Qaida has successfully accomplished what 40 years of Cold War between the US and Soviet Union could not - divide Europe and the US.

"...al Qaida has successfully accomplished what 40 years of Cold War between the US and Soviet Union could not - divide Europe and the US."

Good point.

Aldaron, I tend to agree with you that you can't back down against terrorists. However, my point has always been that much of what we call terrorism was either directly or indirectly created by our own government. Our puppet in Iran, the Shaw and his incredible corrupt and brutal regime lead to the Alatohla and a country that is on its way to having a nuclear capability. At one time Saddam was a minor friend in so far as he was able to consolate a region under one central government and offer a possibility of harassment against the soviets. And we all know that Bim Laden and his core group got their initial training in Afganistan with direct US financial and military support. Finally, as Lancer writes above, our actions in Israel of supporting a racist and fascist religious government against the native population has alienated millions of people worldwide. And many of those people in Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, and Palestine and elsewhere see little if any downside in sacficiing their own lives to get back at a nation who they view as pure evil.

I don't like these terrorists, I don't care about their ding dong religion, I think most of them look dirty and mentally ill, but I understand where they are coming from. I'm just sorry they are so screwed up that they have to include innocent people in their Jihad.

Of course I'm back for more.

The polls may have predicted otherwise, but they still represent a tiny sample of the voting population. They are also most likely based on people who have voted in the past, and could not account for a significant portion of younger voters nor politcally disenfranchised older voters who returned to the polls because of their strong opposition to the war, which was well in place before the new terrorist attack.

Even if the polls were correct, Xen went on to state that "What put the socailists in power was a view that the government lied about the investigations, covered up a possible al Qaeda link, and the fact that many first time voters will spurred to the polls after the bombings. Voter turnout was 77% for this election, higher than in the previous election."

I think the "lied" and "covered up" factors are significant. The quotes "hedged it's bets" and "cautious...on assigning blame" are not accurate. The Spanish government, led by Aznar, undertook a coordinated campaign to mislead the public and influence the election. This is well documented in a Washington Post article by Keith Richburg that outlines what happened between the attacks and the election.
Spain Campaigned to Pin Blame on ETA

"Clearly, it was the work of al Qaeda because of the way it was carried out."
If this was in fact clear, why the intense effort by Aznar to blame the ETA?

If an elected US official was discovered to have scrambled to supress information and manipulate the media to influence an election, I think he would surely suffer as a result. I don't think Spain is much different.

I think Spain is backing down in the face of Al-Qaueda. Long term I don't think it is a good move.

I read last week, and I don't remember where, that back in December in an Al-Qaueda associated chat room ( can you believe there is such a thing?) there was a prolonged discussion about attacking Spain. The gist of the conversation was that Spain would withdraw from Iraq with just 2-3 well planned attacks. Their withdrawl would weaken the coalition. Well it looks like it took just one.

The ruling party was projected to win the election and even consolidate power in Parliment. This based primarily on Spains realtively strong economy. Even though popular opinion was against the war, most of the populace had gotten past that. Until this attack. The sad thing is that Al-Quaeda just learned that they may influence elections in Europe through terrorism.

In my opinion the response from Spain should have been " We are going to hunt your asses down and massacre you like we did in the crusades".

I am not at all surprised about the Spaniards reaction though. I lived in Barcelona for three glorious years. I love Spain and the Spaniards but I never have seen more peaceniks in my life. I still am not sure how they went from a unusually cruel and crusading adventurous country to a bunch of socialist euro pansies.

I would not be surprised to see some more big attacks in Europe and possibly another one in the US before the election. Al Qaueda now knows they can influence elections.

You can criticize Bush for a lot of bone headed things he has done. But on the terrorism issue I prefer his "War on terrorism" as opposed to the Kerry approach of "Terrorism is a law enforcement issue in conjunction with cooperating with world bodies". I also have a pretty damn good idea which approach the terrorists prefer. And its not Bushes approach.

Tightfit, whom I almost always agree with, made a statement that I don't completely agree with. He said that there is no proven connection between Saddam and Al-Qaueda. To some extent that is true. There is no "smoking gun". But his association with Islamic terrorists is absolutely provable. Abu Abbas was living openly in Bagdad. Abu Nidal was caught in Bagdad. Al Insalam a group associated with Al-Qaueda was was openly operating in Northern Iraq and had contact with Iraqi intelligence. The Checkoslovacs have persistently maintained, and still do, that the principal ringleader of 9-11 met with Iraqi officials in Prague prior to 9-11. Just because the CIA has not verified that does not mean much. After all the CIA thought Iraq had WMD. Saddam made cash payments to Palestinian suicide bombers, etc, etc, etc.

My point is that any one who says that Saddam did not propogate and support Islamic terrorism is in complete denial of the facts. And all of those Islamic groups have a common enemy. Israel and us. Why? Not because Israel and the US are occupying arab lands, but because they are western democracies that are contrary to everything the Islamo-fsacist believe in.

Tight fit says that Israel is a racist and facist government. It may not be the ideal, but I would not say it was racist or facist. It has Arabs in the Knesset. How many Jews are in Arab governments? It has over a million Arab and Pallestinian citizens who are allowed to vote and worship as they please. In a UN poll of Palestinians on what type of government they wanted, the majority wanted one modeled after Israel's. I wonder why, if it is so racist and fascist. They have mosques in Israel. How many synagogues are allowed in Iraq, Syria, Saudia Arabia? Israel may have some bloody hands but the real fascists and racists are the Arabs.

And it is not just about Israel and the US. Bernard Lewis says " the borders of Islam are bloody". Wherever Islam comes up against another religion there is violence. Islam against Christianity. Islam against the Siks, Islam Against Hindus. Islam against the African animists. Islam against Asian Budists. The problem is with the militant and backward nature of Islam. They feel that they are gettinb revenge upon pure evil. They should take a long hard look inward.

BasterwhomournsforSpain

Even if Spain decided to leave Iraq they should never have backed down so publicly in the face of a terrorist attack. There is plenty of room for political difference and debate but when you are attacked whether it be on a national level or a personal level you must respond with strength an defiance. Debate about pulling out of Iraq should have been saved for another day and should not have swayed the election. Al Queda, by anyones assessment, achieved exactly what THEY wanted. They terrorized the population into bending to there will. It was a fantastic success for Al Queda and with them reveling in there success, they will surely try it again. The sad fact is that based on there success this time, it is almost predictable that Americans and British will die similar deaths before our own next elections.

The Spanish are entitled to chose whatever politicians they want but even a dove should have had the common sense to save his "make love not war" rhetoric for another day.

Tightfit... you are going down the "blame America first " path. The US didn't create the middle east mess. Those were European colonies that drew up indescriminate borders just as they did in Africa without regards to tribal boundaries. When one starts talking about old allies, context is necessary. Stalin was our ally at one time. That's about as deep as I want to go on that. The US didn't create those fanatics that like to blow up people on buses and in coffee shops. Islam did.

D'art....

"Clearly, it was the work of al Qaeda because of the way it was carried out."
If this was in fact clear, why the intense effort by Aznar to blame the ETA?

The same reason the US didn't come out right away and definitively assign blame to al Qaeda for 9/11/01. We are talking less than 3 days in Spain. And don't give me that "disenfranchised voter" shit. It makes me want to puke. What exactly is a "disenfranchised voter"? If you aren't a "disenfranchised voter", are you "franchised voter"? That should be filed in one of those overused phrases like "at the end of the day".

Spain pussed out. Face it. The ruling party was going to win the election. The opposition was campaigning on pulling troops out of Iraq and blaming the US. The bombings happened then all the passivists and appeasers came out to turn the results. What a message to send.

Look... terrorist only respect one thing..... when you drop the hammer on them, just as the Pakistanis are doing now. They don't fear a few FBI agents which is how terrorism was fought during the 90s. With Iraq... we didn't know what we didn't know. All we knew was what every intelligience service in the west was saying about their weapons. The idea that this administration "misled" the public is not a credible charge whn you can go back and look at some of the same comments said by Clinton, Gore, and even Kerry in the last few years. In a post 9/11/01 world, you can't take chances on an unstable regime that has attacked people in the past. Some want to try to build fortress America and sit here and wait to be hit again. I prefer the hammer approach. Iraq will be a stabilizing influence in the middle east one day. We are fighting terrorist there..... not here. Criticize if you want, but there hasn't been an attack in the US since 9/11/01.

>>>The sad thing is that Al-Quaeda just learned that they may influence elections in Europe through terrorism.

Yep. Now emboldened, I suspect they're probably making plans to try and do the same thing in Great Britain.

It also wouldn't surprise me to see them try the same thing here in the US just before the election. What they may not understand is that here in the US, that approach is likely to blow up in their faces. Just like all the flags flying after 9/11, if attacked, the US will come together with an even stronger desire for retribution against a common enemy.

Aldaron,

Are you saying that if we had not attacked Iraq that there would have been another terrorist attack in the US by now? If so, how do you know that?

To those who can read Spanish, it all makes sense if you read the national and local Spanish newspapers of the last year or two.

It was widely reported that the majority of Spaniards were against the country sending members of the armed services to Iraq. This sentiment was echoed in all the newspapers who were generally against the war. The Aznar Government originally felt it had to uphold its agreement with the US through its NATO treaty and agreements. This was actually endorsed by the public as Spaniards as well as many throughout Europe feel especially strong about holding to treaties and mutual defense. It's like "we don't like or want to be involved with this was but we will uphold or mutual defense treaties" kind of attitude.

The Aznar government as well as most of Europe felt that the U.S. needed to give the U.N more time to "find the WMD's" that the U.S. assurred it were there. When the U.S. opted for war instead of diplomacy, Spain gave in to a tremendous amount of arm-twisting by the US, acquiecing only when the US made expansive economic and defence enticements to it's allies to go along.

Unlike the US, these bribes were widely talked about and discussed, and many Spaniards felt the current Aznar governement was selling out.

Spain never really supported the war but trusted the government to do the right thing, But the US governement portrayed the Spaniards as "out staunch allies", as opposed to those mealy mouth cowards, the French and Germans.

Imagine when the public found out about the real truth. NO WMD's and on top of that the US probably knew that too. A lot was made in the Europena Press about the "intelligence shopping" the Bush administration did it setting up the Iraq war. The CIA won't give you the intelligence ammo to go to war?? No Problem!. Just invent your own "special intelligence" division, staff it with political appointees, and create your own analysis. So what if it's not true. No one will care when the Iraqi's shower us with flowers for liberating them.

So you can imagine the distaste the Spaniards had for anyone in their government invloved with this debacle.

To add the icing to the cake, The Aznars Government's favorite whipping boy, the Basque Liberation movement, who have not targeted any "civilian" sites for bombing in the last few years, were targeted to take the blame for the Madrid Bombing. The ETA was branded a terrorist movement by the Azmar government, and thus also the US who have anti-terrorist agreements in place, because the Basque people reacted violently when Spain unilaterally rescinded local autonomous rule in the Basque regions that was guaranteed by King Juan Carlos and before him, G. Fransico Franco.Recently the Euskatai have been mounting a broad public relations campaign to but the terrorist tag behing them. They have participated in Spanish Elections, promoting sports and generally showing the rest of Spain and Europe they are not the terrorists they have been titled with. The Madrid bombing was one of the stupidest thing they could have done. Within hours of the explosion they denied all responsiblity for it.

That didn't stop the Azmar government from putting its foot in its mouth, by almost immediatly proclaiming the bombing to be an act of the ETA, ignoring all intelligence information that firmly pointed to an outside terrorist group.

To the Spanish Voters, this was all they needed. In their eyes the Azmar governemnt had Zero credibility. Lie to us once shame on us, lie to us twice, shame on you.

I hope the voters remember this after being lied to repeatedly by the current administration here. Although with millions of dollars and the Fox news channel to spin the news the right way, I expect the Bush administration will expect the voters here to be so continuosly confused as to the truth we could be conviced to vote for Richard Nixon.

No, the Spanish vote was not a win for terrorism as the Bush administration would like to color it. It was a win for Democracy and for those who can see past the lies.

Lie to me and your out of office.

OG

This article is interesting based on the comments in some of these posts:

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aVh1uIkiqTc8&refer=top_world_news

"The White House counter-terrorism coordinator at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks said it's ``outrageous'' that U.S. President George W. Bush is running for re-election based on his record in fighting terror."

"Richard A. Clarke said in a television interview airing Sunday that Bush ``ignored terrorism for months'' before the 2001 attacks, then looked to attack Iraq rather than Afghanistan, the nation harboring the terrorist group al-Qaeda, which launched the attacks."

``I find it outrageous that the president is running for re- election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism,'' Clarke said in an interview with CBS' ``60 Minutes.''

"In the interview, Clarke said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld advocated military action against Iraq soon after the terror attacks of Sept. 11."

"``Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq, and we all said, `No, no, al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan,''' Clarke said. ``Rumsfeld said there aren't good targets in Afghanistan, and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.''"

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aVh1uIkiqTc8&refer=top_world_news

BT.... that's not what I meant, but I'm not going into it any further. I could write all day about this but what's the point? We are all geniuses on here anyway.

Terrorism cannot be "policed" and you can't argue backwards from "I hate Bush". You will lose everytime.

Batster, it ain't easy finding things nice to say about what little I actually know of Islamic culture. And I agree with you that some of their hatred towards us is based on their own cultural failures in a world that is not going in a direction that they can understand or keep up with. I kind of feel the same way about Mexico and the whole issue of illegal, and legal, immigrants here in the US who don't assimilate but that's a whole other thread.

I just don't care for our overall policy towards the Middle East and feel that we are reaping the rewards (not) of too many decades of ignoring the masses of the people in favor of a small elite, and sometimes completely foreign group. The fact that some Arab countries are still living in the stone age makes it hard to be totally sympathetic towards them. It would be great if most Arabs came across on our media as well as the English speaking, joke cracking, home boys that your typical Israeli spokesperson does. And I have always been convinced that if your typical Arab was black instead of a dirty brown that Israeli would be never have become the monster that it is. Or else, the entire civil rights movement would have never taken place in this country.

I still remember the (very) small blurb that I read in some major US news magazine years ago about a huge rally held for Nelson Mandela prior to the collapse of the white ruled South Africa. All the 99% white US audience was having their typical bleeding heart orgasms over Mandela until he shouted that Israeli, and by implication US Jews, was the biggest single supplier of weapons to the racist white government and that black Africa could never be free until their Palestinian brothers were also free. There was dead silence in the crowd. Not exactly what they had come to hear. I suspect that Nelson's donations that day probably dropped a bit. Anyway, if Yassah Arafat would get rid of his red and white table cloth he wears on his head, learn a few good punch lines, and maybe start spreading some serious cash around the powers that be in this country he could do far more good than all his friends setting off suicide cars bombs killing totally innocent people. Like I said, it's hard finding too many positive things to say about this culture.

It occurs to me that folks are glomming all "terrorists" together as a single organized unit. This is simply untrue.

Terrorism, qua terrorism, is a technique, not an end. Frankly, it has a fair amount of legitimacy in a "low intensity conflict" scenario, although for that situation it must be connected with genuine efforts against the established order. This latter condition is increasingly untrue, as terrorist groups operating in the first world have degenerated into publicity-hunting marketing groups.

Regardless, the Basque separatist movement has different aims from the Palestinians, who have different aims from al Qaida (less different, but different nonetheless).

Similarly, if you look on the "other side" of the globe, you'll find terrorism in Sri Lanka, India, Mayanmar, the Phillipines, etc.

I genuinely doubt that the Tamils regard the Spanish withdrawal from Iraq as a significant event in their battle.

Associating an ETA bombing with al Qaida is a media disservice to all of us -- it increases the perceived influence of alQ, while disrespecting the situation in Spain, which has been a festering wound for longer than the United States has been in existence.

Our government's response and the Spanish government's response in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks were not similar. Aznar deliberately attempted to mislead the people to win the election and he got caught when everyone in the media and most of the public figured it out. I agree that it was clearly the work of Al Qaida. I'm sure many Spaniards did too and were incredibly insulted that Anzar would so boldly lie to them.

Perhaps things may have been different if Aznar was honest with his people and the world and made a stand. Aznar could have said, "It's possible Al-Qaida may have attacked us, but let me tell you something, Spain will stand firm in the face of terrorism." Instead he personally called media outlets to push the definitive response that the Spanish government had "one official version -- that ETA was responsible for the attacks, and only ETA"¹

I'm sure some Spaniards, perhaps many, voted due to fear of Al-Qaida, but the attack did not happen in the absense of Aznar's deceptions. "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 -- helped fuel the upset victory of the Socialist Workers' Party in Sunday's elections."¹

Aznar and his administration's credibility was shattered for their blatantly deceptive actions following the attacks. This is one of at least several reasons they lost the election.

¹ Washingon Post: Spain Campaigned to Pin Blame on ETA, by Keith Richburg

Organgrinder,

I like the way you say " The Aznar government branded ETA a terrorist movement". What else do you call a movement that HAS killed innocent civilians? I was in Barcelona in the late 80's when several dozen people were MURDERED in a supermarket by an ETA bomb. I was in Vitoria SPain when two school kids were killed by a bomb intended for their father. I have a freind in Donostia( San Sebastian) who's cousin was killed because he was a PP Alcalde. Killed with a 9 mm HI-Power bullet point blank in the back of the head. So how do you say they are not terrorists?

Just two weeks before the trains exploded an ETA cell was detained en route to Madrid with a truckload of explosives. I suppose they were going to use them in one of their "sporting events". The Socialist government of Felipe Gonzalez also "branded" them a terrorist movement. Because thats what they are.

Tight fit,

Yasser Arafat was a frequent visitor to the Clinton white house and he won a Nobel peace prize. And he has huge popularity with the liberal crowd. I don't know how much more acceptance you can get than that.

Bottom line is that he has always been a terrorist. He has never renounced terrorism. He has never kept any of his committments reached in the Oslo accords. He has no intention of doing so. He runs a thugocracy in Palestine and he is infamously corrupt. Just the kind of loser American governments always pander to. There will be no progress on the Palestine issue until he is dead.

The big uproar now is that Israel should not have killed the Hamas leader. Every one says that the Israeli violence causes more violence. The numbers indicate otherwise. Since Israel began aggressively attacking Hamas leaders in 2003 the number of deaths have dropped on both sides.

Israeli deaths by suicide bombs,snipings etc in 2002 - 451, in 2003 - 213. Total number of attacks in 2002 - 5301, in 2003-3823. Number of Palestinian deaths in 2002 - 1,000+, in 2003- 700. Take out the leaders of terrorist movements and you take out alot of the oomph. The Arab mind understands power. Conceding points in negotiation is seen as a weakness. Under that mindset, peace there is almost impossible.

When Palestinians give up the mantra that Israel cannot exist and take what has already been offered them, land and a completely sovereign government, Kick Arafat and his criminal thugs out, and install a government that they want( the majority want an Israeli type democracy)then some peace will come to Palestine. But do you thin Arafat will just let that happen. He and his cronies skim Billions off of Foreign aide.They are not going to let democracy take root their. This is not about the Palestinina people. This is about a few people maintaining power, money and influence. Arafat does not give a shit about the people, nor does Hamas. Maybe I am just a knuckledragging, "non nuanced", simple minded idiot. But the way I see it Arafat and Hamas neeed to go.

Dartagnan is completely right about Aznar blowing the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. Based on 30 years of ETA experience and the fact that massive quantities of Madrid bound ETA explosives were interdicted just days before would lead anyone to consider ETA as a primary line of investigation. But to immediately try to push the investigation that way and downplay Al-Qaueda influence was stupid. But in light of the unpopularity of the war with the Spanish people and their legendary streak of pacifism and anti americanism, with these bombings this election was going to tip to the socialists anyway. Al- Qaueda knew it. Thats why they did it. They influenced an election. And they will try it again.

Batster,

I would like to know what RECENT terrorist acts were comitted by the ETA.

I'm not here to condone what the ETA has done in the past, but in recent years they have tried to put violence aside and gain political goals by working with the government. Unfortunatly, the Aznar government refused even token reconcilliation with the Basque separatist movement, even going to extreme lengths to discredit peaceful achievements. No one here condones violence, be it by Hamas, ETA, Al-Queda, militia movements or any one of the far-from-center groups that always seem to spring up to fight their cause.

What is disconcerting to me and many people is the state-supported terrorism call "pre-emptive" or strategic asassinations. Or the quick rush to judgement to gain some political end.

The fact is, the Aznar government tried to use a terrible tragedy to further a political end. In this case blaming a hated domestic political group for the actions of a hated foreign political group.

By lumping terrorist causes into one barrel you do not define the problem, you make it worse.

The Spanish Voters saw through the Aznar administration to try and achieve a political agenda through actions that were apart from the tragedy.

Blaming the ETA, no matter how bad an organization it is or was, for something it didn't do, to achieve a political end is one of the lowest forms of political action. The Spanish voters saw this and voted the Aznar out.

Let's hope the voters in the US have the same moral conscience when they se the fact that the September 11 World Trade Center tragedy was NO reason to go to war with Iraq. That Saddam Hussein, while reprehensible in his own right, much like the Spanish may feel about the ETA, Saddam did not have anything to do with 9/11 no matter how Hard Bush and the neo-conservatives tried to push it. The fact is we went to war on the faulty assurances of a US administration that flat out lied on several occasions, whether it was to find a non-existant WMD, or false budget figure to pass a bill. to acheive a political end.

The Spaniards did not vote for the cause of terrorism, or because they were afraid of the consequences of terrorism, indeed they have faced far worst consequences under Franco, they voted against an administration that lied to them.

I hope we remember this in November.

OG

Orgngrinder,

So why the defense of a group that the EU recognizes as a terrorist group? I lived there for a few years and have a pretty good feel for whats gone on. ETA, contrary to what you may believe, does not even have majority support in Pais Vasco. I am just curious whats your connection is and where you are coming from.

What do you suppose the ETA commando that was detained with the truck load of explosives, en route to Madrid, a few days before the last bombings, and with maps marking right of ways in the Alcala de Henares area were up to?

I assume that there intentions were completely peaceful. Maybe they were for a fireworks show or something like that. Maybe they were going to dig some ditches or something.

Also I assume that the bomb that was planted by ETA on Christmas eve last in Madrids Chamartin Train station, that was defused by Spanish police before exploding and causing a massacre, was also a peaceful attempt at diaolog. That bomb was claimed by ETA by the way. The fact that they have not had many notable succsesses lately does not mean they are still resorting to terroristic practices.

I also find it very interesting that while the Spanish Government jumped on the ETA investigation, a perfectly reasonable assumption considering ETA's past meddling in elections, they announced the very same day of the explosions that they were investigating an Al-Qaueda link. In fact before the elections even occurred( a mere three days after the explosions)the government had arrested and highly publicized the arrests of Arabs in connnection with the bombing. I just don't see too much lying going on by the Spanish government. I think more than anything it was a stupid attempt to put off the resurgence of anger over Iraq.

On the other hand, I also saw the PSOE using a national tragedy for their political advantage. Just waht you accused the PP of doing. The same thing that Bush and Kerry are trying to do now. Its all politics.

I still think that more than anything Al-Qaueda knew they could tip the election against the PP. It is very interesting to me to see what candidates Al-Qaueda prefers. To me that speaks volumes about who is really going to do the best job on fighting terrorism.

I am going to Spain for a few weeks in May. ANd I am going to spend a lot of time with my freinds there who are from all sides of the political spectrum. It will be interesting to see whats going on.