I’m sorry, but it is not at all clear to me. From what I have seen and read, most Spanish people also assumed that Eta was responsible, so I don’t see why they should suddenly be angry at the government for thinking the same way, whether or not that thinking was correct. There have been anti-government demonstrations today, if that is what you are referring to, but nothing more than you’d expect in a democratic country with elections looming. I really don’t see how the attack is going to affect the outcome of the election.
Hope you are right. We’ll know this time tomorrow. If the Socialists win, after polling had shown the People’s Party ahead a few days ago, it will appear that the terrorists* have found a workable strategy. There would then be a strong incentive to try to interfere with other democratic elections.
The 9/11 hijackings were truly unintelligent. By hitting a US military and civilian target the same day, the Islamofascists cemented love between the US and its military for a generation. This ruin the election strategy, sadly, shows more promise.
- Some don’t like this word. I am using it because our enemies here are shadowing. I could say AQ, but it doesn’t mean much more.
Another AQ claim.
The impression I get is that, while most Spaniards did initially assume ETA was responsible, many of them are angry at the Government’s continued insistence of it in the face of all evidence to the contrary. One cite. Another cite. Whether it will sway enough voters against the Government to make a difference, I don’t know, but it certainly looks as though it’s going to sway some of them.
It was Al Qaeda.
The van, the fax, the videotape, and ETA’s denial. How many pointers do we need?
I wonder how this will affect the election, which started 3 hours ago.
Oh please, come off of it. Would you pople please quit trying to put words in my mouth? I say the obvious that there would need to be change, and everyone gets all offended or starts looking down their nose. All I meant was that if large scale terrorist attacks like this begin to be common place “Which would be new, actually” then Europe and the USA and the rest of the world will likely take a different role in stopping terrorists from becoming terrorists to begin with. I think that would probably have something to do with facing head-on problems in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and a number or states that breed terrorists.
I am not trying to say that “We are going to have to give up liberties” to deal with this. I’ll be the last one to want to do that. I’ll never advocate that position either. I think it would really suck if it came down to that. And no I am not talking about invading countries specifically, but maybe it would be required. I think at some point we’ll look at helping developing nations as a defensive measure rather than chairity. And I wouldn’t necessarily be against conflict, depending on the circumstances. I was against the war in Iraq and I am against Bush in general. One example would probably be how the entire world would put more weight on the Isralies and palestinians. But our currurent response to terrorism at the moment is that we’ll do the best with our police and airport security, and we hope to catch any terrorists before they do something bad. There is no way you can put security on a train system. It would be like having to pass through security anytime you wanted to enter a city, which would be insanity.
Honestly I really try to make a comment that can be interpreted as broadly as possible to avoid offense, and people immediately take the interpretation that offends them the most. :rolleyes:
And you have been proven absolutely right. Guess I misjudged the Spanish public mood.
Sorry dude, i wasn’t really ranting at you, more about the whole situation.
The thing is, it will, and has, come down to that, and it is the only way it is going to go
I’m guessing that is something for the future, but the beginnings, on the back of the “war or terror ™”, are already here on in the pipeline.
In the UK they are already looking to put “marshals” on the busiest trains routes, just to make everyone feel a bit more concerned, sorry, i mean safe.
Once the biometric passport/ID cards comes in here, the sky is the limit, but what what we see now is just the start, its the only sensible conclusion.
Oh crap - the PP lost and all the info points to AQ, but i still have a gut feeling this isnt AQ. Its an ETA splinter or something new. Dont know why.
I really wish the Spanish hadnt changed their view after 11th. Whatever happens now, the terrorists got a popular gov out in 3 days.
sin
Despite the name of the now-outed party, they were not that popular. Aznar’s decision to go to war obviously pissed off a lot of people (other Dopers have said polls showed 90% of the Spanish people against it), they’d lost ground in more recent elections, and this one was shaping up to be close. The attacks seem to have affected the result, but it’s not like the government suddenly lost all support on the basis of this attack alone.
According to the BBC the recent bombs led to a larger than normal turn-out for the election . In recent Spanish history a large turn-out always favours the socialist party. So this time it just tipped the scales when the Popular party was about 4% in the lead leading up to the election.
Thanks guys - im glad there wasnt such a large effect.
sin
Insanity or not, there have already been calls for just that.
Last Thursday was quite surreal for me. I turned on the TV for last minute weather info (right now, my area can experience sun, rain, and snow all in one day, with temperature swings from 20 to 60 F. That’s about -5 to +15 C, if I did the conversion right. So dressing for the weather is frequently an exercise in futility). I saw the reports of carnage in Spain.
What did I do? I got on a crowded commuter train to go to work…
Yeah, it bothered me. It still bothers me. It’s going to continue to bother me. I’m also going to continue to get up in the morning and go to work on those crowded commuter trains.
Are others concerned? Yes. I overhear the conversations with the conductors, the other passengers. They’ve got posters up in all the trains telling people to keep and eye out and report anything suspicious at all. I think the half million or so folks going in and out of Chicago on trains every day keeping a sharp eye out might be the cheapest and potentially the most effective security measure we have. I mean, no one cares about my personal safety more than me. Let’s put self-interest to work, right?
Well, if we can keep Mayor Daley from bulldozing Union Station (he has a nasty habit of “solving” problems in that manner) to save us all from terrorists, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a contingent out there that will want us to pass through metal detectors and submit to baggage searches twice daily for the “privilege” of communiting to Chicago to work, and expect us to be glad of the body searches. No dout they’ll also want passenger screening, to prevent anyone who’s ever been in the least trouble with the law from boarding a train. Then they’ll bitch because ridership has gone down again, gosh darn it!
Insanity? Yes. Doesn’t mean it won’t happen.
If they started with the metal detectors and bag searches to get on a commuter train I’ll have to ask myself - is my job worth it? Well, a lot would depend on whether I can even find a job with a living wage in my town. Then, with the cost of gas where it is (yes, I know the Europeans pay more) I have to balance the cost of the train vs. daily driving. Ugh!
Personally, I don’t think airport-style security is the answer - hell, I’m not at all sure it’s working even for the airports. Know how much stuff gets through screening? But I am absolutely sure there’s a crowd out there who is will to surrender all freedom and dignity in the name of “safety”. They still haven’t learned - the world is not perfectly safe, never has been, never will be. The only think you can do is figure out level of risk is acceptable to you, or that you can live with.
Nevertheless, I know someone is going to start pushing for the guards and detectors and all that other happy horseshit.
In response to some non-existant threat, eh? Try telling that to the people of Madrid.
Reasonably effective security on a commuter rail system does not necessarily require that all passengers be screened as they are in airports. A bit of perspective: France endured a similar wave of train bombings, although on a smaller scale, in 1996-'97. The first device, in a piece of luggage left aboard a Paris regional express, killed 12 and wounded more than 70 at Port Royal station. Initial response was to mobilize soldiers and CRS (riot police) to intensely patrol trains and stations, and to remove all trash bins, in the streets and in stations, that might be used to hide a device. Additionally, a major media campaign was launched to remind passengers to be on the lookout for unaccompanied luggage and other supicious packages on trains.
The system, in general, worked, even though the terrorist cell responsible was not identified and broken up for close to a year. IIRC, there were two more attempts at train bombings, and while there was injury and loss of life, it was considerably less than in the first bombing. Frustrated, the cell switched to setting off devices in public markets (at least three were exploded, IIRC), but the combination of public awareness and the crudity of the devices (mostly household propane tanks packed with black powder and nails) made them less and less effective. Going on memory, by the time the cell’s ringleader was killed in a shootout with police, Paris had not had a successful attack in several months.
Any other country, including the US, could choose to implement such a security scheme at any time, as long as it is willing to shoulder the added cost , and while it would not necessarily prevent any given attack, it would make it much more unlikely that any individual bombing would result in major loss of life.