Elections in Spain

[zenith-nadir]

I can't help but think that the terrorists have learned how easily they can influence Spanish elections through the killing of innocents. No doubt they will try to apply this lesson to other countries in the future.

Will the politicians now bend over backwards to appease the terrorists, especially in Europe?

It's a dangerous precedent.

BINGO.

Now the terrorists know that if they do enough harm they can influence. Sad.

 

[Ziggurat]

Will the politicians now bend over backwards to appease the terrorists, especially in Europe?

It's a dangerous precedent.

Yes, it is dangerous, but it's not especially new among the Europeans either. France, for example, is placing its faith in a new Maginot line by banning headscarves. If they can pull their heads out of their collective rears, they'll realize the peril they face. Look for what happens in the UN. If the UN gives more explicit approval for the coalition's military role in Iraq, the Spanish may end up staying, and this is what will happen if they're smart (they can argue on form that they departed from the former government's path, but in substance little will have changed). If not, then that's pretty good evidence that they don't understand the danger they've placed themselves in.

 

[Fendetestas]

I'm in Madrid, and I know a lot of people have changed their vote because I've seen it. You can argue about how the initial surveys had an error margin and how the Spanish people didn't like the government before the attacks, but I tell you the bombs have chaged the elections.

Nobody liked the war, nobody liked the government behaviour with the Prestige incident but the truth is that they were going to vote for them anyway, or not vote for anyone at all. The attacks have changed some votes and have made a lot of people who weren't going to vote change their minds and vote against the PP and that's wrong.

Another thing is that ERC, a catalonian party who talked with ETA some months ago (ETA declared a truce only in Catalonia) has jumped from 1 seat to 7 and that's quite strange don't you think?

 

[Elind]

Well, Zapatero, our new PM, had said (before the 11M) that, should he win, we would be out of Irak in May so...

He's speaking right now. "My first priority is the fight against all kinds of terrorism (..) tomorrow I will try to get all political forces together in this issue", "The change will be a quiet one" "Power will not change me" are some of the things he's said. (I'm writing this as I hear it, so please excuse the possible inaccuracies)

With 94.6% PSOE 163 PP 149. PSOE won't get an absolute majority, we'll see who it allies with.

A question: If they are going to cut and run from Iraq, what is the logic in waiting until June? Why not do it now, or perhaps they have to wait to take power?

 

[Fendetestas]

A question: If they are going to cut and run from Iraq, what is the logic in waiting until June? Why not do it now, or perhaps they have to wait to take power?

Well, they have to form a government and to do that they must ally with at least two other parties if they want majority. It's not so simple.

 

[Elind]

I don`t get you point...sounds like another non sequitir but don`t worry, there seems to be a lot of it about.
Spaniards blew Spain back into Socialism...don`t insult them by attributing their decison to al-Queda. They voted, that`s democracy. Just because you don`t like the way they voted and the message it sends to warmongers then tough.

You seem to miss the points of others quite consistently, given your love of "non sequitir" (which is spelled sequitur, by the way).

What you achieve is the gratitude of tyrants and terrorists everywhere, because you sound like the commies of my youth who could only see the evil in their own society, not in that of their true enemies. The people Stalin called "Useful idiots".

 

[Luke T.]

Spain has just told the terrorists that terrorism works. I would say that the U.S. is in even astronomically greater danger of an attack before our elections as a result.

 

[rikzilla]

"I was going to vote for one side, and now I ended up voting for the other because of the attacks," said one voter, Manuel Yunta. "The thought that it could be al Qaeda behind the attacks changed my vote, because I blame the government for the massacre."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57707-2004Mar14.html

A guarantee of more terror.

Wow SG. You get it don't you? I know our politics are very different, but you are an honest man and I respect you.

The idea that terrorists have directly affected the outcome of an election in a modern western democracy is obscene. Al Qaeda could not have hoped for a more favorable reaction. With our own elections coming up later this year I can only imagine that they will pull out all the stops to make a successful attack here and hope for the same kind of reaction from American voters.

My own reaction is a profound sadness for the Spanish people, and a fear that the UK and US will soon stand alone against international terrorism.

I cannot find it in my heart to blame the Spanish people, it seems to me that they've voted with their hearts instead of their heads. But who can blame them? But such a huge reward for the murder of 200 people? It's horrifying.

-z

 

[richardm]

Al Qaeda could not have hoped for a more favorable reaction.

Even if it does, in the end, turn out to be Eta after all, I'm sure Al Qaeda will have sat up and taken notice. With a minimum of effort they've got a country to withdraw from Iraq. Simple. Much easier than blowing up armed troops on the ground.

Although I see that the new PM is already giving ground on that stance, saying "We'll withdraw unless the UN takes charge", which seems different to what was being reported this morning.

 

[bjornart]

Spain has just told the terrorists that terrorism works. I would say that the U.S. is in even astronomically greater danger of an attack before our elections as a result.

I think this interpretation is wrong. The terrorists might think they've been told this, which might cause them to aim for attacks at the next US and UK elections, at least, but they probably won't have the same effect.

Polls in Spain showed a very significant oposition to participation in the war in Iraq, and the party responsible was still looking to win the elections. Would a significant number have changed their vote based just on the terrorist act, and a sense of "They are responsible?", perhaps, but it's significant that the government of Spain went out and pointed the finger at ETA, immediately and without much evidence. Why? Because they couldn't be blamed in the same way.

Americans are mostly in favour of the war on Iraq, they're already on the top of the terroist "to do" list, and you've been innoculated with the "we won't be influenced" idea. Unless they can attack the US in a way that the government should have been able to prevent, they won't influence the presidential election.

And the idea of never giving in to terrorists is stupid. Do you think abortions should be forever legal because of pro-life terrorist actions? Do you think Northern-Ireland should forever be a part of UKaNE because of terrorist actions from those who oppose that?

Personally I think Spaniards who changed their votes based just on the participation in Iraq/bombs on trains - link are wrong. If they based it on the stupidity of the government in dealing with the possibility of such logic, they were within their right to do so.

 

[subgenius]

An attack on this country would guarantee Bush's re election.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Luke, Rikzilla


I think your analysis of the Spanish Voting results will have to be supported by evidence and a "wait and see", but my feelings and thoughts are along the lines as your statements.

the message the results send is worrying. I fear more attacks, not less.


Who is this Socialist Party anyway? I understand they were in power until the mid-90s until the Spanish get fed up of corruption in the Party. What kind of socialists are they? Why such a knee jerk reaction so soon after the election to pull troops out of Iraq?

 

[Elind]

And the idea of never giving in to terrorists is stupid.

Say that again?!

The fact is that there seems to be an underlying sentiment in Spain, that if you keep quiet and don't make any threatening moves, then terrorists will pass you by for other targets, or they won't get angry at all and everyone will get along just fine.

That's what Saudi has done all these years, to the extent of paying them off and in effect legitimizing the degeneracy in the eyes of many "useful idiots", to use the term again.

 

[rikzilla]

An attack on this country would guarantee Bush's re election.

I agree.

Americans are not like Europeans. I don't know why, we just are. If we're attacked we tend to come together in severe pissed-offed-ness. The Spanish have responded in a different way. I know I'm now, per my reputation, supposed to say something bad about Spanish courage, etc... I can't do it though. The Spanish have been victimized enough.

If Al Qaeda manages an attack on US soil prior to our elections it will certainly back fire on them. Personally I'd rather have Kerry as President than see another attack here. Honestly though, I don't think it really matters who our President is, Al Qaeda will hate us just as much as they do now.....and likely respect our power far less. After all, Al Qaeda didn't take it easy on us when a liberal Democrat was in the Oval Office before.

The only real choice we have is to make war on these terrorists. Just because we cease to war on them doesn't mean they will stop warring on us. It just means they can war on us in a safer environment.

-z

 

[peptoabysmal]

I don`t get you point...sounds like another non sequitir but don`t worry, there seems to be a lot of it about.
Spaniards blew Spain back into Socialism...don`t insult them by attributing their decison to al-Queda. They voted, that`s democracy. Just because you don`t like the way they voted and the message it sends to warmongers then tough.

Original statement:
I'm not surprised that you don't get my point.

edited to add:

After posting this I realized it appears as a rude personal statement and I apologize.

I just don't get how some folks can think it's wonderful that a terrorist organization was able to influence an election, yet a country who went to war to remove a cruel dictatorship that defied the U.S., the U.N. and the world for over a decade is considered warmongering. The first Iraq war was never over and Saddam was bound by the terms of the cease fire agreement, which he refused to honor.

 

[subgenius]

I agree.

Americans are not like Europeans. I don't know why, we just are. If we're attacked we tend to come together in severe pissed-offed-ness. The Spanish have responded in a different way. I know I'm now, per my reputation, supposed to say something bad about Spanish courage, etc... I can't do it though. The Spanish have been victimized enough.

If Al Qaeda manages an attack on US soil prior to our elections it will certainly back fire on them. Personally I'd rather have Kerry as President than see another attack here. Honestly though, I don't think it really matters who our President is, Al Qaeda will hate us just as much as they do now.....and likely respect our power far less. After all, Al Qaeda didn't take it easy on us when a liberal Democrat was in the Oval Office before.

The only real choice we have is to make war on these terrorists. Just because we cease to war on them doesn't mean they will stop warring on us. It just means they can war on us in a safer environment.

-z

Agreed on the point that A-Q will do its thing regardless. That's why the timing of Spain's withdrawal will have a negative consequence in terms of giving A-Q encouragement.
I assume this means you were exaggerating with the "dancing in the streets" comment elsewhere.
As far as "war on them" if that's a reference to Iraq its hard to see that its done much good as far as the threat from A-Q.
Here's fark.com's quip:
"Spain's new prime minister: "The war in Iraq was a disaster, the occupation of Iraq is a disaster". Troop withdrawal to ensue, terrorists win."

 

[The Don]

I agree.

Americans are not like Europeans. I don't know why, we just are. If we're attacked we tend to come together in severe pissed-offed-ness. The Spanish have responded in a different way. I know I'm now, per my reputation, supposed to say something bad about Spanish courage, etc... I can't do it though. The Spanish have been victimized enough.

If Al Qaeda manages an attack on US soil prior to our elections it will certainly back fire on them.
-z

And once again, a terrorist act would have influenced the outcome of a democratic election. In fact I consider it almost impossible that a terrorist act on this scale this close to the election in any democratic country wouldn't have a profound efect on the outcome.

What has skewed the result in this case IMO is that the PP were so closely associated with having no truck with ETA and were so quick to claim an ETA attack (and as a resul enhance their chances of being re-elected). IMO they are being punished for their opportunism more than the decision to go to war.

BTW, what was the link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al Queda again ? How was this any closer than the relationship between the U.S. and the I.R.A. ?

 

[peptoabysmal]

BTW, what was the link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al Queda again ? How was this any closer than the relationship between the U.S. and the I.R.A. ?

Let's see now. The president of the U.S. doesn't cite the I.R.A. in his letters after organizing an attack on the U.K.?

Osama mentions U.S. involvement in Iraq in all of his rantings against the U.S. and yet there is no reason to believe that there was any connection between Saddam and Osama? Wanting to be accurate is one thing, and wanting to hide your head in the sand is another.

 

[The Don]

Let's see now. The president of the U.S. doesn't cite the I.R.A. in his letters after organizing an attack on the U.K.?

Osama mentions U.S. involvement in Iraq in all of his rantings against the U.S. and yet there is no reason to believe that there was any connection between Saddam and Osama? Wanting to be accurate is one thing, and wanting to hide your head in the sand is another.

No, but the IRA does cite support from the U.S.A

If you can provide concrete evidence of a tangible link between Al Queda and Iraq then I'd be interested. Ths is as opposed to rhetoric employed by OBL.

At least Iraq wasn't a base for recruiment and fund raising for Al Queda in the same way as the U.S. was for the I.R.A. If you want to attack supporters of terrorism maybe you should look inside your own borders at the people of Irish extraction who for so long kept the Republican Terrorists in guns and money.

 

[peptoabysmal]

No, but the IRA does cite support from the U.S.A

If you can provide concrete evidence of a tangible link between Al Queda and Iraq then I'd be interested. Ths is as opposed to rhetoric employed by OBL.

At least Iraq wasn't a base for recruiment and fund raising for Al Queda in the same way as the U.S. was for the I.R.A. If you want to attack supporters of terrorism maybe you should look inside your own borders at the people of Irish extraction who for so long kept the Republican Terrorists in guns and money.

You're talking about the actions of individuals in the U.S. vs. the leader of a country. Are you saying that if the U.S. government had evidence of one of it's citizens providing aid to the I.R.A., that it wouldn't prosecute? That would be wrong.

We didn't have a hidden camera in the meetings between a clandestine terrorist organization and the leader of a closed society dictatorship? Shocking.

Have you read this report?
Case Closed

It names names and I haven't yet seen a good debunking of it's content. Perhaps you have a link?