Spain face new terror threats

Great Debates
1

According to El Periodico, Spanish police have now found a video recording threatening Spain to withdraw from Iraq within one week. This comes on top of last week’s foiled bomb attack on a Spanish high-speed train (right in time for Easter, just to show how much respect Islamic terrorists have for other religions) as well as threats from (yet) another fundamentalist Islamic group closely tied to Al Qaeda, wherein Spain was given until 28 April, “four full weeks”, to withdraw from both Iraq and Afghanistan or face “a campaign of attacks on Spanish interests in the Arabic world”.

“Unless withdrawal doesn’t happen, Spain will regret it” warns the terror organisation which threatens “the car bombs are already ready.” You have been informed that the targets are embassies, consulates and Spanish interests and that neither diplomats nor their relatives will be safe.”

Is Spain harvesting the inevitable fruits of appearing weak on terror or appearing to try to pay terrorists off? And if they also accommodate the terrorists on these last threats, who wants to wager how soon Spain will receive threats to withdraw from their African possessions and islands or fear car bombs outside their children’s’ schools? And after that…
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040403/325/eq7xb.html

Have you first paid the Danegeld you’re never going to get rid of the Dane. Have you first taught the terrorist terror pays off, he’s going to come back and back and back.

2

O_o What is that statement supposed to mean?

Like we give a damn about bombing the crap out of Islamic countries during their holy months and holidays?

Poor Spain. Al Qaeda is playing the conservatives like a harp. First AQ make everyone think that AQ determined the election, then they move in and start being pushy about an already decided policy to show that they can “bully” people into doing what they want, and Spain can’t do much about it - and conservatives bite it hook and sinker, just like the Islamic audience they are trying to reach probably does.

Yep. Just running around shooting people has worked wonders for Israel and Russia.

O_o

3

No and neither should we. However it’s not us that are claiming to be all fired up in pious religious jihad. Still let’s remember this next time they go on about how we disrespect their religion, attack them in their holy places etc.

I didn’t know Russia or Israel have been “running around and shooting people”, but whether whatever they have been doing have worked wonders, pretty much depends on how you define that term. I should think the mere fact that Israel still exists after a gazillion wars and terror bombings, with little help from the outside and surrounded by 300 million people that would rather see them dead and forgotten could be considered something of a wonder.

4

You may want ot make a reality check about those two items.

5

Lemme get this straight… we disrespect them so they disrespect us so we disrespect them so they disrespect us so we disrespect them so…

It is called being the bigger man. Try it some time. Unless you like stooping to their level? Well, I guess the 10,000 dead Iraqis would agree, so maybe you have a point.

So you would be happy living in Israel?

And they haven’t gotten help from the outside? Are you crazy?

Places like Russia, Israel, Rwanda and the like are perfect examples of how “fighting fire with fire” only gets you burned badly, rather than solving the problem. While I would not suggest that we smugly go about our business, taking a rock-solid stand where we are and starting to blow the holy crap out of anyone who blinks at us is hardly going to win us many friends. We’ve lost all of the international support we had from 9/11, and we’ve managed to make good chunks of the world turn that into absolute hatred.

If you haven’t been caught up on Russia’s situation, which is a little more like America’s than Israel’s is, maybe you should do a little reading up. For that matter, you can read up on Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Columbia, Malaysia, and other countries that have been dealing with terrorism for some time now, and decide for yourself how much being trigger happy gets you.

This isn’t a simple problem with simple solutions - there is no enemy to kill and end the threat. The more you do, the more enemies you make. This is an unconventional war, and stumbling around the globe like a cartoon character being swarmed by bees is only going to make it worse.

Do you know Russia’s solution to terrorism? If it could, it would be doing open genocide in Chechnya right now. In fact, it is getting very close to doing just that. Unfortunately for Russia, that means they make more enemies, and , of course, the government needs to make itself more resistant to change. Putin went from being a democratic president to accused of making himself a tyrant. You want to see this kind of thing happening in the US? I certainly don’t.

And don’t tell me “slippery slope” unless you can point out one government that went to war on terrorism that didn’t result in losing a good chunk of its democracy and being embroiled in a decades long bloody war that has claimed the lives of tens and even hundreds of thousands of civilians.

America isn’t any better than any other country. We can easily fall to the same traps.

6

uh? The first item (“whatever they have been doing have worked wonders”) is part of a larger sentence that question Zagadka what his wonder criteria were. If they are so obvious they should be part of everybody’s reality I sure missed the memo on that one. As for the other, you come back to me when you see foreign troops fighting alongside Israelis or when you see Israel invited into a mutual defence pack a la NATO.

Untill then back to Spain and the wonders of appeasement…

Goodnight
/Rune

7

I dunno, you cut out the part where I talked about the “wonders of appeasement” pretty well when you replied to my first post, in the interest of defending the glorious and victorious campaigns against terror waged by the likes of Russia and Israel.

IMNSHO, AQ is playing both sides like a fiddle. They win either way.

8

The OP makes no sense whatsoever and appears to not be very well informed of what’s been happening in Spain lately. And he seems to take a certain glee is saying “see, that’s what happens when you are weak”. But, as long as we are using really simplistic reasonings, if suffering terror attacks is a measure of weakness for terrorists then Israel is the worst of the lot. And the USA in Iraq is close behind. It seems then that America is just too weak in Iraq. Not resolute enough.

The OP just assumes and fails to prove these events in Spain are a consequence of the elections which is easy to disprove because the police have evidence they were planned before then. So, the OP is either ignorant or willfully misrepresenting the facts. The facts are that this group had been planning these actions for quite some time before the elections so right there the OP is disproved.

After the bombings the police have arrested a bunch of people and gained information on the group. The bomb planted on the rail tracks had been planned for a long time. Luckily they did not have time to complete the installation and it did not explode. Trying to connect that to any religious festivity is just plainly ridiculous. It would be like saying a terrorist attack on December 15 was done as an insult to Christians getting ready to celebrate Christmas. Laughable.

Then, a few days ago the police in Madrid surrounded a building where some of the terrorists were and the siege started with a gun battle and ended when the terrorists blew themselves up with the building. I am not sure how this fits into the “going soft on terrorists” strategy.

But the proof is in the pudding and I ask the OP: Do you believe Spain will comply with the demands and pull their troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan before April 28? What is your analisys if they do and if they don’t? Will you commend Spain for standing firm against terrorism if they don’t?

9

And yet, you seemed to make some sense after all. And I suspect I’m a great deal more informed than you – remembering some other Spanish blunders made by you and having half my family from there. As for the “certain glee”. Stick that!

The argument is simple enough, not mine and far from new: “Never negotiate with terrorists. Give the terrorists some of what he wants and he’ll come back for more.”

It gives little insight to claim Israel (or Russia et al) is a proof it’s a good idea to be “weak” or make compromises with terrorists – unless you believe Israel would be better off had it negotiated with the likes of Hamas. Or America would be better off giving concessions to the remnants of Sadams regime of Al Qaeda or whatever.

You seem to be unable to formulate a sentence without a little snipe at me, and I do not assume but find it highly likely that the latest threats are the result of Spain appearing to give concessions to the terrorists (you I assume, believe no such connection exists at all). As for the firsts bombs; that they were set off so close to the election seem to indicate they wanted to influence it one way or the other. Subsequent letters, such as the latest threats, seem to indicate they believe they were successful beyond measure. If you read the OP again I’m sure you’d agree I’ve nowhere claimed the bombs were set there explicitly because of the Christian Easter – only that I found their lack of respect for other religions telling, seeing as they seem to hold that everybody should respect theirs the more.

Personally I can hardly imagine any scenario wherein Spain will pull their troops out of neither Iraq or Afghanistan before April 28. The demand is ridiculous, the time frame is too short and the appearance of caving in to terrorists would be too obvious. However, if they do. We’d all pay with an increase in terrorism – as the terrorists see their handiwork paying off. If not. I’d be content to the extend of seeing a country doing what is right. I disagree with, but have much respect for France position regards to Iraq. I have none for Spain’s should she withdraw before the job is done, before or after April 28 – especially if prodded by a wish to avoid terror. You decide to invade a country – you better stay there until you can leave without anarchy. As for Afghanistan. What possible good could come of leaving there. Almost everybody accept that the war in Afghanistan was legitimate and leaving before the job was done was wrong after the Soviet withdrawal and would be wrong now. Now perhaps you’d share your analysis: “Does it pay off to negotiate with terrorists (of the Al-Qeada strain).”

10

Your OP is inflamatory and insulting. And it was not Spain who paid the danegeld so stick the quote elsewhere.

Spain is doing the right thing and if the right thing happens to be what the terrorists also want that is no reason to not do it. Getting out of Iraq is the right thing to do. Blame GWB for having created the present state of things.

>> You decide to invade a country – you better stay there until you can leave without anarchy

Spain did not invade Iraq. It did not participate in the invasion. Let’s start with that. The Spanish government, against the clear wishes of the Spanish population, in a cowardly move gave in to the arm twisting of the US rather than stand up to it and agreed to provide some occupation troops.

The new prime minister has said that he does not believe Iraq has anything to do with the fight against terror and I happen to agree. It is a bullshit argument used by the US government to justify the unjustifiable aggression and if it were up to me the troops would leave tomorrow morning. And if you consider that appeasement, so be it. What Spain has been doing is appeasing the USA.

Blame GWB for forcing a country unwilling to support him. The Spanish people did not want to send troops and GWB ignored that and twisted Aznar’s arm. If there is any one who is a coward who caved in and did not stand up for right it is Aznar. he is the one who should be ashamed of having sold himself and his country. And if the US government had any principles they would not have thwarted the will of the Spanish people by subverting their government. Good riddance to Aznar and I hope GW follows soon.

So Israel can claim success against terrorism because it still exists? Well, Spain still exists. This argument is unwinnable because anything that happens in Spain, no matter what, will confirm your view that they are appeasing terrorists and they are paying a price and anything that happens in Israel, no matter what, will confirm your view that things would be worse if their government was prepared to compromise.

And I have no idea what blunder of mine you are referring to so please refresh my memory.

11

How about Afghanistan? Should Spain get out of there, too? That’s also one of the demands.

12

You don’t seem much more informed about Russia O_o

You still haven’t answered as to sailor’s and my questions as to how you made your presumptions that the terror events were in response to the election, as opposed to being pre-planned (as all evidence indicates), by the way, nor as to accounting for the fact that it was likely that the liberals would win the election anyway.

I mean, if you feel bad about Al Qaeda playing you like an instrument, that’s OK, but at least stand up for your points.

Ooh! Cliche wars!

“It is better to bend like the reed than fall like the oak.”

Well, they were on the verge of a milestone of peace before some asshat decided that assassination was better. We’ll never know, now, will we?

In fact, it would. Like many conservatives (I presume that is your position), you seem to take a very black and white view on the world. It is either live or die, conquer or fail, stong or weak. If America had taken a policy of behaving better in the Middle East instead of continually playing its games, we may well not be in the position we’re in today. Much like international politics, there is surrender, and there is surrender. There are many levels - standing up and fighting AQ while at the same time quietly releasing our pressure on the Middle East would have likely made tensions ease, and make AQ lose much support. Had we followed that policy after 9/11, we would still have most of the Muslim nations supporting us out of sympathy, as opposed to having over half the people thinking that terrorist attacks in Iraq are justified.

Well, duh. You are approaching the terrorists like they mean to make reasonable demands. They mean nothing of the sort. Their demands are how they do politics - and it is very similar to how real nations do politics. You think America never threatened to decimate someone if they didn’t submit to an unrealistic timeframe? Welcome to international politics!

13

I have no opinion on whether Spain should stay in Afghanistan but the new Spanish government has said they are staying there and, maybe, even willing to increase the number so I say it is a fair bet they are staying no matter what the terrorists demand.

14

I disagree with this statement. There was no need for an arm twist. Aznar was perfectly willing to support Bush’s policies. Not because he particulary thought that war had to be waged against Irak, of course, but it was a deliberate and major political choice by him to strengthen the ties with the US rather than playing a second role within the EU. And he still defended his choice after his defeat.

15

Well, that would be another whole thread but the fact is that he went against the will of the people and that is what counts. Whether he was pushed or he sold out or whatever is not of the essence of this thread, only that he did not represent the will of the people.

As an aside and without wanting to sidetrack the thread: The perception in Spain is that, last summer, when Morrocco took the islet of Perejil, Spain asked for diplomatic backup from France and France refused so Aznar went to the US. It is said Colin Powell struck a deal with Aznar that the USA would get Morrocco to leave Perejil in exchange for Spain supporting the USA in the eventuality of war in Iraq. Now, at that time the prospect of war in Iraq seemed somewhat remote and Aznar may have believed he was not committing to much. OTOH it lends credence to the notion that the USA had pretty much decided it was going to war. Aznar might have been duped into thinking he might not need to make good on his promise. At any rate, it was arranged that Spain would retake the islet so Morroco could save face and the rest is history. When France later opposed the USA on the matter of Iraq I bet they were sorry they did not help Spain out and have them on their side now. Because what the USA did France could have done just as well.

Aznar is an arrogant SOB. He was arrogant while in power and after losing the election I saw him interviewed on TV and he was still arrogant as hell. I was expecting him to say the Spanish people didn’t deserve him. What an asshole. He has been a disaster for Spain’s foreign relations and good riddance.

16

Naw, I don’t buy it. Firstly, there has been no appeasement, in any sense of the term, by the Spanish government or the Spanish people; the Socialists, I believe, were already on record as opposing Spanish involvement in Iraq, and their statement concerning the withdrawal of troops merely confirmed a policy of previous standing, without the need for coercion by anyone. No demand of any kind was made, that I know of, by any credible organization, prior to the Madrid bombings. I find ludicrous the OP’s implied assertion that the Spanish people were somehow required by a single terrorist act to vote for a party they already were highly ambivalent about.

In late March, France voted overwhelmingly in favor of its socialist party, and against Chriac’s ruling UMP in regional elections, forcing Chirac to form a new cabinet. I await an explanation as to why Spain’s selection of a governing party with similar political leanings is so very different. Perhaps the OP would like to put forward an argument that the French election as well was somehow “appeasement” of terrorists.

Meanwhile, the OP presents no evidence that the Spanish government has any intention of accomodating the supposed demand that they withdraw from Iraq within four weeks, and the OP presents no rational argument that I can see showing that the retention of the previous government would necessarily mean that the current demands would never have been made.

Lastly, the newly elected government has already stated that it will withdraw Spanish troops after the June 30th deadline for self-rule in Iraq unless the occupation is handed over to UN control. Any further actions against Spain at this point would risk that timetable. I realize that not all terrorist motives are rational, but this would be blindingly stupid.

17

Well, hopefully the guys who were supposed to carry out said threats blew themselves to hell (literally, I should think) last week.

What awful threats to make.

18

Some people seem to think terrorists are bad people who come from the middle East and they seem to have the notion that terrorists exist no matter what and need to be exterminated like rats. But the first you need to do is remove the causes which promote their multiplication. And they do not necessarily come from abroad. You cannot seal your country against terrorists.

The terrorists who did the bombings in Spain were not middle eastern. They were mainly of Morroccan descent and had lived in Spain quite a few years. They did not come to Spain to kill. They lived in Spain. They were not outsiders no matter how much we like to think in terms of us (good) versus them (bad).

I hate this rhetoric that anyone who disagrees with Bush is on the side of terrorism and that not supporting Bush is appeasing terrorists. It is Bush who has painted himself into that corner and made enemies. His rhetoric is that you cannot agree with the ends without supporting the means those who want those ends use. You cannot say the USA should get out of Iraq without supporting terrorism because some who want the USA out of Iraq support terrorism. This is a big lie, of course. As big a lie as saying that if you are against terrorism you have to support any and all means, even immoral. Well, no.

19

BTW, Rune, here is what the Fearless Leader has to say on the situation in Chechnya and the Russian war on terror:

And of course, his famous and dedicated support of Sharon:

20

The appearance of appeasement was in the fact that most (yes I know of those that didn’t) of the polls before the bombings showed overwhelming victory for the conservatives, while the election three short days later was a remarkable reversal of election fortunes, which would be pretty much inexplicable if you disregard the terror bombings. Of this (the reversal) most people agree, though some attribute the change of electorate heart to the alleged mishandling of the terror investigation by the conservative government. Also the fact that many voters on subsequent interviews (I saw in Spanish television) said that their voting was spurred precisely by the wish to avoid more terror by getting out of Iraq. Next one of the first statements by the victorious Socialist president was his demands to the US regarding Iraq. Now this was clearly his stated policy before the bombings – still had he had any sense he would have had postponed such demands for a few months, letting things settled down a bit and putting a bit of air between the terrorist actions and threats and his Iraq demands. As it stands now, the appearance of backing off in the face of terror is simply too vivid.

Come now El_Kabong. The comparisons are pretty much non existing. Regional voting vers. national voting. Spanish vocal supporter of Iraq war vers. France vocal opposition (I suppose the terrorist claim would be to demand France invade Iraq). Big terrorist attack in Spain vers. none in France. Spain: surprising election result vers. France: pretty much as expected. Spain: Dramatic change of international policy vers. France: No change of international policy. etc. As the article says, the election in France was mostly about financial situation, welfare reforms and the like (it should be noted that most everybody agrees Aznar has riddled Spain with a stellar economy) If I have written anywhere that any and all elections can be attributed to terrorists please show me where. Also as a side I note that similar threats have not been issued to France (or Germany, Italy, Canada, Australia or any of the other many countries in the coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan). Also I now see that neither Japan nor Korea seem to buckle under terrorist demands.

Of course not. And how does their likely refusal to accomendate the terrorists a second time have any bearing on whether a show of apparent accomedating the first time likely or not enbolded the terrorists to make further threats?

The arguments, if you want me to restate them, are that the show of apparent appeasement by the Spanish government spurred the terrorists to make new demands when they saw their previous demands were accepted. As I said the principle of never giving in to terrorists, blackmailers and the like is not new. And for the record I’d like to know whether you agree with it in principle, but just think this particular instance doesn’t fit the mould or whether you think something good can come of giving concessions to terrorists (of the Al-Qaeda kind)