Victory for Terrorism

by Yerusalyim 135 Replies latest social current

  • Phantom Stranger
    Phantom Stranger

    From today's NYT:

    The contest in Spain had always been close between the governing Popular Party, which backed Mr. Bush's policies, and the Socialists, who opposed them. Other issues at stake before the bombings were unemployment, a housing shortage, women's rights and social benefits.

    In March 2003, at the height of opposition to the Iraq war, the Socialists were ahead in polls. With the economy roaring and the Socialist Party in disarray (see my earlier post on the ETA-Catalon scandal), the Popular Party pulled ahead. On March 7, the last date in which polls were published, an Opina poll showed that the gap had narrowed, giving the Popular Party 42 percent, compared with 38 percent for the Socialists.

    Four days later, terror struck. With Madrid under siege, voters were expected to rally around the flag and stick with the party that had talked the toughest against terrorism, at least initially. Even the Socialists braced themselves for that outcome, said two senior party officials.

    But interviews with scores of Spaniards of both parties indicated that a number of things happened after the attacks that shifted the balance to the Socialists. Voters flooded the polls on Sunday in record numbers, especially young people who had not planned to vote. In interviews, they said they did so not so much out of fear of terror as out of anger against a government they saw as increasingly authoritarian, arrogant and stubborn. The government, they said, mishandled the crisis in the emotional days after the attacks.

    Voters said they were enraged not only by the government's insistence that the Basque separatist group ETA was responsible, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, but they also resented its clumsy attempts to quell antigovernment sentiment.

    For example, the main television channel TVE, which is state-owned, showed scant and selective scenes of antigovernment demonstrations on Saturday night, just as it ran very little coverage of the large demonstrations against the war in Iraq last year. It also suddenly changed its regular programming to air a documentary on the horrors of ETA.

    That was the last straw for some Spaniards, who said it evoked the nightmare of censorship during the Franco dictatorship little more than a quarter of a century ago.

    Prime Minister José María Aznar personally called the top editors of Spain's major dailies twice on the day of the attacks. In the first round of calls, Mr. Aznar said he was convinced that ETA was responsible.

    "He said, `It was ETA, Antonio, don't doubt it in the least,' " said Antonio Franco, editor in chief of the Barcelona-based El Periódico de Catalunya, in an interview.

    Mr. Franco's newspaper published a special edition based on Mr. Aznar's call, then Mr. Franco published an editorial rectifying the mistake as new information came to light. "It was shameful to me that the whole world was taking precautions and debating about Al Qaeda except in Spain, where the attack occurred," he said.

    At the Spanish news agency EFE, Alfonso Bauluz, a correspondent and member of the agency's union, said, "I received information from my colleagues, who have good sources, about the Al Qaeda hypothesis, but the editor said we don't want that, don't pay attention. On Saturday, the editor wrote a story with his own byline saying all possibilities of an Al Qaeda connection were thrown out."

    During Mr. Aznar's second call that evening, he acknowledged that other avenues were being investigated, but discounted them, Mr. Franco said.

    Meanwhile, within 24 hours of the terrorist attacks, the Socialists, through their own intelligence and diplomatic contacts in the Muslim world, were already leaning toward the theory that Al Qaeda and not ETA was responsible, two senior Socialist Party officials said.

    Spaniards are still struggling to absorb both the shock of the terror attacks and interpret the result of the upset election on Sunday.

    "The terrorism attack has changed the result of the election, but the people were also deceived by the government, so it's a combination, a mix of the two of things," said Elena Roldán, a 28-year-old law librarian who voted Socialist.

    At the bus and train terminal at Plaza de la Castilla in northern Madrid, Alberto Martín, a 31-year-old nuclear physicist who voted Socialist, said, "If the government had said, `We don't know who did it,' nothing would have happened and Zapatero would not be there. Aznar was making decisions without any consideration for people's concerns. Look at the war in Iraq. Aznar thought he was God! There was no dialogue."

    The election, Mr. Martín added, "is a victory for the people, not for terrorism. You see, I'm now going to take the train."

    <inserted to keep the two posts from being identical...:>~

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    Six,

    Sorry, you're just absolutely wrong on the Saddam AQ issue, it's a proven fact.

    Absolute, unmitigated horse effluence, and I don't mean drool. Not that I have any doubt that yo...... never mind

    Sadaam and Al Q were opposed to each other politically, idealogically, and most importantly, religiously. Would they occasionally sniff each others butt? No doubt, curr dogs everywhere do that, but then so do Lassie and Olde Yeller.

    Read a little history buddy.

    No, there is not a provable link between Saddam and 9-11, but there is circumstantial evidence. However, that AQ and Saddam were holding hands a least a little...quite proven...as are Saddam's link to other terrorists including Hamas.

  • Satans little helper
    Satans little helper
    Read a little history buddy.

    No, there is not a provable link between Saddam and 9-11, but there is circumstantial evidence. However, that AQ and Saddam were holding hands a least a little...quite proven...as are Saddam's link to other terrorists including Hamas.

    Would that be the history where Hamas declared Saddam a sworn enemy of Islam or the history where Saddam victimised the Shiite muslims (Hamas again) in favour of the Sunni muslims of which he is a supporter.

    Or could it be the history where the CIA told the whitehouse that Saddam was not involved in the trade centre attacks? I wonder, which history are you referring to Yeru?

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    Satan,

    It could be the history where Saddam was funding suicide bombers...though you're right, that may be Fatah as oppossed to Hamas.

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    narkissos,

    : My guess is that international war would be the most incredibly stupid response to terrorism, actually confirming that terrorism is the only effective (and still unpunished) subversive action in a one-power (or "empire") world.

    Of course, that hasn't happened.

    :IOW, you are annoyed by the flies (terrorists) and you shoot at the cows (states). You don't realize that a heap of corpses (dismantled states) will bring many more flies than a herd of cows.

    What's your solution, then? Since you consider the liberation of Afghanistan was somehow "bad" and the liberation of Iraq was somehow "bad," how would YOU have handled it?

    :BTW, I'm not an Amercan citizen and I can't even vote for Donald Duck.

    Yeah, but the question is, if Bush was the only other choice, WOULD you?

    Farkel

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    """The fact is that the US government's propping up of so many corrupt dictatorships in the middle east was one of the root causes of 9/11. ""

    Did I miss something? Does anyone know or care about the historical facts of the matter?

    First off, it was British Imperialism that created and carved out most of the existing Nations in the Middle East. Second, every Nation tries to gain ties to other Nations for trade and gain. So What? Have some here forgot the ties of Germany and others to Saddam? So what?

    The "Hate/Blame US first" bunch is again on the wrong side of history....

  • MorpheuzX
    MorpheuzX

    ThiChi, if you don't care about the roots of 9/11 and the roots of what happened in Spain, then I don't even know how to have an intelligent discourse with you -- not that this thread has been one.

    The fact is that the people who are doing these things aren't "EVIL" like our president likes to label them. They're a group of people who have been historically oppressed and disenfranchised and they view their terrorist acts as their only way to escape the influence we have over the region -- which they view as keeping them oppressed.

    If America really cared about democracy, we'd let the Emir of Kuwait fall, the Sa'ud in Saudi Arabia fall, and then after the democratic process in Iraq is complete, the area would really have democracy and we'd see an end to this terrorism.

    That said, I have no problem with the US hunting down Al-queda and exterminating them. It's what they deserve for 9/11 and the bombing in Spain (which they maybe behind). But the US has to have a major sea-change in middle-east politics.

  • blacksheep
    blacksheep

    "The fact is that the people who are doing these things aren't "EVIL" like our president likes to label them. They're a group of people who have been historically oppressed and disenfranchised and they view their terrorist acts as their only way to escape the influence we have over the region -- which they view as keeping them oppressed."

    Ah, what a spin on terrorist activities. The 9-11 terrorists were not evil...just misunderstood. Sadaam wasn't evil...just reacting to years rejection by the US.

    So, it's the US fault. I suppose it is also the US's fault that in pre-war Afghanistan, women were brutally oppressed, could not leave the house, could not be educated, were raped and beaten if they tried to do any of these things? I suppose it's the US's fault that Saddam brutally murdered dissenters, that his sons routinely rounded up virgins to rape them, that people lived in fear. Right. All because they were "misunderstood" and by the US.

    I suppose the guy who just murdered 9 women and children in Fresno was simply misunderstood. Who knows what frustration made him finally blow a fuse.

    I cannot believe your line of reasoning. Terrorist invariable enslave and terrorize their OWN people. Their mind set is all or nothing. While it certainly doesn't hurt to try to understand their culture and frustrations, to paint them as people just lashing out because they've been oppressed is simply supporting terrorism.

  • patio34
    patio34

    edited to remove my post to Blacksheep as it was in violation of Rule # 1

    Pat

  • Phantom Stranger
    Phantom Stranger

    Terrorist invariable enslave and terrorize their OWN people. Their mind set is all or nothing.

    BS, you are lecturing us about terrorists as if you know all about their psychology. Would you mind illuminating us on how you became so familiar with terrorist psychology? And since you say that terrorists are not reacting to their perceived oppression, you must be able to explain to us why they do what they do - would you mind illuminating us on that score as well?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit