Appeasment or Defiance?

[zenith-nadir]

It is common knowledge that the majority of Spaniards were against the Spanish government's cooperation with America in the invasion of Iraq.

Then came the bombings on the Madrid subways, an election, and now Spain's prime minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is pulling out the Spanish troops in Iraq.

In a statement to London-based Al-Quds al-Arabi , the Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri said it was calling a truce in Spain to give the socialist government time to carry out its pledge to withdraw troops from Iraq. But the Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri also said "Our brigades are getting ready now for the coming strike, whose turn will it be next? Is it Japan, America, Italy, Britain, Saudi Arabia or Australia?"

Wouldn't it have been better if Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero waited a month or two before he officially announced that he will be pulling out the Spanish troops in Iraq? If the Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri is actually responsible for the Madrid bombings what lesson is Spain teaching the world? Appeasment? or Defiance?

 

[geni]

Definace. The party was planning to get the trops out if they were elected and thats what they are going to do.

 

[Drooper]

Definace. The party was planning to get the trops out if they were elected and thats what they are going to do.

Defiance by the incoming Government maybe. Definite appeasement by the electorate.


Hardline members of ETA must be encouraged by reaction of the general populous. I can see the debate now, those more extreme Catalan nationalists will be arguing that past ETA terrorist actions have been too timid and more bloodshed is needed to force the Spanish electorate into giving them what they want.

 

[Giz]

Definace. The party was planning to get the trops out if they were elected and thats what they are going to do.

I don't know how it can be called defience when they're doing exactly what the terrorists want!? If only people would defy me in the same way when I want something...

At best I would say that the Spanish Governments actions could be called ambivalent (which assumes that with or without the attack they would have pulled the troops out).

 

[geni]

I don't know how it can be called defience when they're doing exactly what the terrorists want!? If only people would defy me in the same way when I want something...

At best I would say that the Spanish Governments actions could be called ambivalent (which assumes that with or without the attack they would have pulled the troops out).

How do you know what the terorists want? If you take ations entirly dependat you on what the terroists don't want you aare being very stupid.

 

[Giz]

How do you know what the terorists want? If you take ations entirly dependat you on what the terroists don't want you aare being very stupid.

Of course you may decide that its in your self-interest to do what the terrorists want (that Al-Q want Spain out of Iraq is not controvertial), and while it may not be appeasement I just dont see how it can be called defiance!!?!

 

[iain]

Defiance by the incoming Government maybe. Definite appeasement by the electorate.


Hardline members of ETA must be encouraged by reaction of the general populous. I can see the debate now, those more extreme Catalan nationalists will be arguing that past ETA terrorist actions have been too timid and more bloodshed is needed to force the Spanish electorate into giving them what they want.

While the people thought that ETA was to blame for the bombings, the governing party (who have a hard line stance against ETA and have accused the socialists of being soft on them) maintained a lead. This does not suggest that the people were voting to reduce the risk of terrorism itself, nor to give in to the terrorists.

The turning point came (as far as I can tell) when people thought that the governing party had been lying to them and pretending it was ETA rather than Al Quaida. It was this deceit, as much as anything, which seems to have persuaded people to switch.

The Spanish people, in their democratic wisdom, voted for a party which has always reflected the view of the majority on the war in Iraq and against a party which (they felt) deceived them about the bombings. The Socialists, once elected, merely followed through their manifesto pledge.

 

[geni]

Of course you may decide that its in your self-interest to do what the terrorists want (that Al-Q want Spain out of Iraq is not controvertial), and while it may not be appeasement I just dont see how it can be called defiance!!?!

Simple. "We are going to do what we like regardless of what you do".

 

[zenith-nadir]

Simple. "We are going to do what we like regardless of what you do".

But was it a strategic error to announce that Spain will be pulling it's troops out 48 hours after the bombings? Doesn't that send a message to the bombers that yes, they can force their political will on democratic countries by using terrorism? Doesn't Spain's immediate reaction empower terrorists around the world with a sense of accomplishment?

 

[geni]

But was it a strategic error to announce that Spain will be pulling it's troops out 48 hours after the bombings? Doesn't that send a message to the bombers that yes, they can force their political will on democratic countries by using terrorism? Doesn't Spain's immediate reaction empower terrorists around the world with a sense of accomplishment?

Terroists are not stupid. They know what the parties policy was they would know that say a 2 week delay was just for the look of the thing.

 

[Cleon]

This is really, really stupid.

The PSOE was elected for two main reasons:

#1, By throwing his unquestioning support behind the Bush agenda, Aznar went against 90% of the population's opinion on the subject. Yes, 90%. Not a typo. Polls showed opposition to the war at 90%. You do something like that and not expect a hit on election day, you might as well swat a rabid wolverine with a rolled-up newspaper and wonder why it's chewing your nuts off.

#2, When the bombing occurred, Aznar tried to use it for political gain immediately. His government did everything in their power to blame ETA and rally the population to support a new offensive against the Basques. It was manifestly obvious that ETA wasn't behind the bombing and his continued attempts to blame them for it made him look like a total schmuck.

 

[Giz]

This is really, really stupid.

The PSOE was elected for two main reasons:

#1, By throwing his unquestioning support behind the Bush agenda, Aznar went against 90% of the population's opinion on the subject. Yes, 90%. Not a typo. Polls showed opposition to the war at 90%. You do something like that and not expect a hit on election day, you might as well swat a rabid wolverine with a rolled-up newspaper and wonder why it's chewing your nuts off.

And yet all the polls up to the time of the bombing showed Aznar in the lead...

 

[iain]

And yet all the polls up to the time of the bombing showed Aznar in the lead...

Indeed. The war was always unpopular but I guess it wasn't the make-or-break issue of the election.

Being lied to by the government to whip up anti-ETA, pro-governing party sentiments probably did the trick.