Le Monde said this. . .????

Justin,

We are dealing with a significant issue. A single thread wouldn't be enough to do this issue justice, never mind a single post. And long posts get boring and aren't read by very many.

11th September 2001 was a significant day. A group of terrorists carried out a vicious and unjustified attack on the free world by attacking it's arch proponent, the USA. Make no mistake, this was an attack on the free world, not just the USA.

This group of terrorists have perpetrated its inhuman crimes in other places since, making it absolutely clear that its targets are the free world.

It was also significant in that it marked a new, unlimited depth, to which this terror group is willing to descend to wreak havoc and dismay with its absolute, unlimited, totally indiscriminate and inhuman use of force on completely innocent people.

There is absolutely nothing that justifies its activities.

I am dismayed at the lack of persistent and utter condemnation of these attacks by some parts of the free world and by other influential bodies such as the Leaders of the World's main faith groups. I wonder whether, somehow, these groups (wrongly) think these atrocities can be justified.

The war in Afghanistan should be pursued by all right-minded people, as should the hunting down of the world-wide terror groups linked thereto.

The war in Iraq was completely different. It is a pity the world wasn't more united on the issue. Iraq should be returned to its own self-governance as soon as sensibly possible. I fear that terror groups are now exploiting the current situation in Iraq to confuse and divide the free world.

Cheers

Don

Don
Well said, and well put.
Martin

quote:

---

Again, I only have CNN's language. Perhaps somebody who speaks the language can help me with this word.

---

If it was in Le Monde, post me a link to the article.



Regards,

Steve.

No no,

The "provoke" language was from CNN. It was just a report (perhaps AP, I don't know) which said that when asked, the protesters said that the attack was "provoked" by Spain's support of the war. This is CNN's analysis:

"Turnout was high at 76 percent with voters seeming to express anger with the government, accusing it of provoking the Madrid attacks by supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which most Spaniards opposed.

Spain's general election was thrown wide open by a reported al Qaeda claim that it was responsible for Thursday's Madrid train bombings to punish the government for supporting the Iraq war."

It is THAT analysis which forms the basis of my question. What does it mean?

The le Monde language is offered as a counterweight to what I gather the CNN analysis is suggesting of the Spaniards.

Judd

Well, who cares about this anyway. It's all academic. What is clear is that Bin laden (or whoever) was able to change an election in Spain. Apparently terrorism DOES work.

Judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justin:
Apparently terrorism DOES work.

Judd

---

Was there ever any doubt? From Menachem Begin to Gerry Adams, yesterday's terrorists are tomorrow's leaders.

Countries that have suffered from terrorism have long modified behavious as a result. It may be seemingly trivial - such as trying to find somewhere to dispose of trash in a London station (the IRA used litterbins/garbage cans to hide bombs). It may be more worrying - like changing the course of an election. Or launching a preemptive war.

Regards,
Davie

Spain joined the US in the Iraqi war despite 90%+ of the population opposing it. How that influenced the election versus the awful terrorist bombings, I have no idea. How many voters saw those events as mutually exclusive, or related, or one more significant in their decisions? Dunno.

Ludwig,

The polls prior to the bombings in Madrid showed the populist party with a clear majority. Despite 90%+ being against the war in Iraq, the electorate was prepared to go Populist again. But for the attacks, the Socialists would not have won. The attacks were the relavent variable.

Besides, the war in Iraq was supposed to have nothing to do with Bin Laden, remember. We were told that Secular Saddam wanted nothing to do with Bin Laden, and vice versa. Why, then, is Bin Laden killing hundreds of Spaniards for Spain's support in Iraq. Surely, the answer is that Bin Laden has much more to be upset about regarding Afghanistan, his [former] base of operations and safe-haven. Were the Spaniards killed for going into Afghanistan? Even Europe supported that war. What then?

Judd

The point is, the argument splits hairs. Al Queda doesn't give two shits whether US actions (and therefore European support for those actions) is justified or not. Why should Bin Laden consider Spanish involvement in Afghanistan understandable, but that in Iraq not so? The answer is that he doesn't (and why would he).

Confining ones-self to so-called "justified" operations against terrorists (such as those in Afghanistan) does not insulate Europe from attacks like these. Even where the war is justified, the enemy is still Bin Laden. Even a "legitimate" European response to terrorism invites reprisals. This is appeasement. This is appeasement.

Judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justin:
The polls prior to the bombings in Madrid showed the populist party with a clear majority.

---

I hadn't read or heard that yet, but I was getting there. (Selfishly) too much basketball this weekend (even the Washington 4A girls championship!).

quote:

---

Why, then, is Bin Laden killing hundreds of Spaniards for Spain's support in Iraq. Surely, the answer is that Bin Laden has much more to be upset about regarding Afghanistan

---

I imagine the people of Bin Laden's social movement see any presence or action in the Arab and Islamic worlds by the US and its allies as equally obnoxious.

Now that I think about the election, many Spaniards who opposed the war in Iraq probably concluded "the war will lead to more terrorism, not less" (as many Americans did). Why? I'm not a psychologist, but maybe because they themselves had an easier time justifying the action in Afghanistan, they discounted its impact on terrorist activity. Maybe Mekon can school us.

The war in Iraq was always going to cause more terrorism not less -- that much was always apparent to most sane observers.

Madrid probably wouldn't have happened without the Spanish involvement in the illegal attacks on Iraq. But of all the very good reasons for not getting involved not wanting to make oneself a target for terrorists sounds like the least persuasive and of course Al-Quaeda would have found some other resason to blow some people up somewhere. I suspect the prime motive in their operations is opportunity.

I get the tube to work every day. If there isn't a major bomb somewhere on London Underground before the end of the year I will be amazed.

Matthew

The PP lost not just because of the attacks but significantly because of how it was generally perceived to have manipulated the handling of the tragedy for it's own ends. As late as yesterday, Ana Palacio was still blaming ETA when several Al Queda connections were appearing and ETA had categorically denied any involvement. It was seen as clumsy and blatent opportunism. The Spanish electorate, having being ignored in their rejection of the Iraq invasion and seeing that the WMD intelligence was shrouded in lies, obviously felt that this was one government spin too many. It also appears not that conservative PP supporters turned but that many younger voters who in earlier polls stated that they were disinclined to vote, were galvanised to vote against the government's perceived dishonesty.

I too commute daily by tube and would also be astonished if we were not to be caned in a similarly fashion. I can honestly say that the general mood at work and amongst friends is that, in our generation, we have never felt more vulnerable. How the hell can this be a good thing? Of course we can directly blame the terrorists that plant the bombs and yes they are murdering b******s but if we fail to look beyond physical preventative measures and at what now drives these people to do these things, then I guess that we're in for the very long haul.

The only potentially silvery-grey lining of the events of the last week is that a shadow has been cast over Bush's re-election chances and the political futures of Blair and Koizumi.

As my moniker indicates, I actually live in Madrid. I have riden the very trains bombed, and I heard the initial reports on Spanish radio.

It it true that the Interior Minister (Acebes) blamed ETA on the morning of the attacks, and all too easily dismissed any other hypothesis at the time.

However, the vast majority of commentators, politicians (notably, the Basque separatist leader Ibarretze)and people I heard on the street also assumed on Thursday morning that ETA was to blame.

This it not surprising given that ETA has a 30- year history of terrorism in Spain. It was caught red handed attempting to bomb the other principal Madrid train station in December. I have not lived very long in Spain, but my own office windows were blown out by an ETA car bomb.

Acebes did back off from this claim as evidence came to light that there was a radical Islamic connection. However, it was by then too late: many were willing to believe that this was yet another government "lie". The opposition, whose campaign theme had been essentially "no more lies", quickly took advantage of the situation.

I think Spaniards fervently hope that the newly-elected PM will save them from future attacks by pulling Spanish troops out of Iraq in July. Unfortunately, I believe this is wishfull thinking. German security is high for good reason: they participate in Afghanistan. French security is high: Al-Qaida has threatened them for restricting veils. Remember, too, the plot to poison the Roman water system.

In influencing the Spanish elections, Al-Qaida can be forgiven for concluding that it´s acts can have an effect in Europe, which means more than in Spain.

I think the Le Monde article is sensible in that the European mentality may be forced to change. Until late last week, it was impossible to see a Spanish media report which did not refer to American security measures without also referring to a collective "psychosis" of the entire U.S. population. I suspect this may change. Perhaps the next time I pass through the Madrid airport, the security personnel will do more than talk to their colleagues about the previous day´s Real Madrid football match.

The Le Monde article is bit rubbish IMHO. It was always very obvious that events such as those in Madrid were going to happen in Europe sooner rather than later so I am not sure why it should make us revise our views on how to solve the problem of Al-Quiada. Indeed to suggest that it does rather implies that one didn't care as much about the Americans as one does about the Spanish.

Of course it might make you change your approach to security but I don't suddenly find myself supporting, say, Guantanemo Bay becuase there has been a major terrorist incident in Europe.

Matthew

quote:

---

I think Spaniards fervently hope that the newly-elected PM will save them from future attacks by pulling Spanish troops out of Iraq in July. Unfortunately, I believe this is wishfull thinking.

---

Apparently not. The new PM has just announced that Spanish troops are to be withdrawn by June, effectively handing victory to the terrorists. Presumably this stance also reassures ETA that their terrorist acts should be resumed.

quote:

---

The new PM has just announced that Spanish troops are to be withdrawn by June, effectively handing victory to the terrorists

---

Only two weeks ago, the new PM´s position was that the Spanish troops would be withdrawn, unless there was a new UN mandate prior to July. To suddenly change this criteria reflects the shock felt here.

"The new PM has just announced that Spanish troops are to be withdrawn by June, effectively handing victory to the terrorists"

Nonsense.

a) He had pledged to withdraw the troops anyway.

b) Withdrawing the troops by the 30 June deadline *unless the UN has taken over* is about ending the illegal occupation of Iraq and not to do with responding to Al-Qaida's demands.

Matthew

This thread clearly needs some upbeat input from Swindon. After all, we did "secure" the oil supply, didn't we? So everybody's happy.

Madrid, perhaps security in France and Germany is up higher than in eSpain, but trust me, no amount of security is going to prevent a terrorist attack, especially when suicide attacks are not out of the question. Just look at Israel, which is pretty much a territory between vacuum walls.

Herman

quote:

---

Besides, the war in Iraq was supposed to have nothing to do with Bin Laden, remember. We were told that Secular Saddam wanted nothing to do with Bin Laden, and vice versa. Why, then, is Bin Laden killing hundreds of Spaniards for Spain's support in Iraq. Surely, the answer is that Bin Laden has much more to be upset about regarding Afghanistan, his [former] base of operations and safe-haven. Were the Spaniards killed for going into Afghanistan? Even Europe supported that war. What then?

---

My first reaction following the bombings in Madrid and the effect they had on the election results was to conclude that the best course of action against the threat of terror would be to remove ourselves from the list of Al Quada targets by not supporting a war in Iraq (originally justified by a pack of lies told by Mr Blair) and by not supporting Israeli acts of terror against Palestinian civilians.

Certainly the Bush and Blair method of tackling terror is no more effective than tackling a wasps nest with a rolled up newspaper.

Whilst Al Quada's actions can never be condoned, their argument that if you come to our lands and kill our people then we will come to yours and kill you does at least make limited sense.

However, the notion that if you don't let our people in your land wear a veil in school we will come to your land and kill you, makes no sense whatsoever and thus I doubt that appeasement alone could work. If we appease Al quada they will ultimately be telling us that if we don't want them to come to our lands and kill us, then we must all wear a veil...



Regards,

Steve.

Yes Steven the ultimate goal of bin Laden is to see you in a Burkha. The evil swine!

Matthew

Well, whether Bin Laden can change elections to or against his favor is matter of general public opinion before whatever terrorist action he may take leading up to an election.

For instance, the US is not like Spain. A terrorist attack her shortly before our November elections will entrench the hawks, not push them out. The opossite happened in Spain (and would happen in UK, France, Germany, etc.).

Judd

Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justin:For instance, the US is not like Spain. A terrorist attack her shortly before our November elections will entrench the hawks, not push them out. The opossite happened in Spain (and would happen in UK, France, Germany, etc.).

---

Not sure that this would really be the case in Germany. in the next general election here, due in late 2006, the current (Social Democrats + Green Party)government will almost certainly be given the boot. If a terrorist attack would happen before the election, it would be seen as the fault of the current government ("They kept us out of Irak, and still we're being attacked. They can't do anything right.") If it happens after the change in power, the conservative will feel vindicated in the harder stance they have proposed all along.

I'm sure Germany will get its share of islamistic terrorist activity, but it will probably happen later than in other countries. In the perverse logic of these things, many Arabs apparently still like Germany because it killed so many Jews.

quote:

---

perhaps security in France and Germany is up higher than in eSpain, but trust me, no amount of security is going to prevent a terrorist attack, especially when suicide attacks are not out of the question.

---

I agree that there is no absolute security against hyper-terrorist acts. On the contrarty: imagine that these terrorists had access to more lethal weapons.

My point is not that we living in Europe ought to send suspected Al-Queda members to Guantanamo to dissuade them.

My point isthat must come to terms with our vulnerabily to the mega-terrorism of Al-Queda, that the threshold for being its target is very low, and that avoiding photos with the U.S. president in the Azores or otherwise professing to be good anti-Americans will not be sufficient to free ourselves from this risk.

Look, for instance at a country that will soon be a member of the E.U. (at least it aspires to be), whose parliament duly rejected U.S. use of its territory and airspace in the Irag war, and which can hardly be accused of being a member of the Christian "crusading" nations.

Have people already forgotten that Turkey has also been subject to the terrorist wrath of Al-Queda.

quote:

---

For instance, the US is not like Spain. A terrorist attack her shortly before our November elections will entrench the hawks, not push them out. The opossite happened in Spain (and would happen in UK, France, Germany, etc.).

---

The hawkish mindset (entrenched or otherwise) in the US is based on a mistaken belief that America has global supremacy.

In conventional warfare this is probably true...

In Europe we don't have such delusions of grandeur (apart from Mr Blair who wants the UK to be America's puppy dog.)



Regards,

Steve.