Spain's Decision: Al-Qeada victory?

[TheDarkling]

Chamberlain was willing to do anything for Peace in our Time. The man across the table was not. The true tragedy is that Chamberlain did not want to or could not see it.

This is where I have a problem, Chamberlain was willing to give Germany some territory that at the time was essentially thought to be theirs (due to the Versailles too harsh crowd and Wilsonian ideas of self determination and grouping together of ethnic populations into nations) because he wanted Hitler as an ally in the fight against Communism. He thought (or gambled) Hitler was a rational individual, he was wrong but he hardly appeased him in the sense people assert, he gave Hitler a token and Hitler proved unreasonable, that is it.

[PrinceofLowLight]

From the AQ perspective:
Spain was doing something we dislike, in addition to being a nation on our shitlist.
We blew up a train in Madrid.
They stopped doing the thing we dislike.
Let's just ignore all the times we did something like this and it blew up in our faces.
This can work! Let's do it more.

[Crown]

Here is a good article by the Economist. Going through the list of what possible reasons the Madrid bombing influenced the Spanish election.

An election bombshell
Mar 18th 2004 | MADRID
From The Economist print edition

The surprise election victory of the Socialists, under José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, has changed Spain's—and Europe's—political map

BY UNEXPECTEDLY returning the Socialists to power, the Spanish election on March 14th has delivered almost as big a shock to Spain, and the world, as the train bombings in Madrid did three days earlier. But, though many were quick to accuse Spanish voters of appeasement in the face of terror, the truth of what happened and what it means is more complex.

The March 11th bombings merit first attention. The death toll is now 201, making this the most savage attack that Spain has suffered since the civil war of 1936-39. At first it was blamed by the People's Party (PP) government of José María Aznar on the Basque terrorist group, ETA, which was known to be planning a spectacular outrage in Madrid. But all later evidence has pointed to Islamist terrorists, possibly linked to al-Qaeda (see article).

The cack-handed attempt to blame ETA, combined with renewed doubts over Mr Aznar's support for the war in Iraq, turned the election round. Though the party's lead had been narrowing, opinion polls had pointed to a win for the PP, under Mr Aznar's hand-picked successor, Mariano Rajoy. In the event, the Socialists under José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero won 42.6% of the votes and 164 seats in the 350-seat Cortes, a big jump from the 125 it won in 2000. The PP got only 37.6% of the votes and 148 seats, down from 183 in 2000. Turnout rose to 77%, from 69% in 2000.

The result sent tremors round the world, especially when Mr Zapatero's first announcement as prospective prime minister was that he would, as promised, withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. He unceremoniously reproached George Bush and Tony Blair for going to war “on the basis of lies”. And he promised a more emollient approach to old European Union allies, delighting France and Germany.

What caused the upheaval? A frightened and disorientated electorate voted with a knee-jerk reaction, said senior PP officials. The voters have done the work of al-Qaeda, some added bitterly. In that the bombings changed the result, they were right. But the underlying reasons may be less flattering to the PP.

The biggest was the three days when the government and the heavily state-influenced media insisted that ETA was the culprit. The assumption was that, if it was ETA, that would be good for the PP,as it would vindicate Mr Aznar's hardline stand against both terrorism and Basque separatism; but if it was an Islamic terrorist group, the PP would suffer, because 90% of Spaniards had opposed the war in Iraq. “A critical point was reached in a spectacular way. We stressed for years: the PP are lying and distorting the truth. It took an important time, when people needed the truth, to discover the level of manipulation, and that day was March 11th,” says Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar, a confidant of Mr Zapatero and member of the Socialist Party's national executive.

The second important factor was higher turnout. The emotional impact of the bombings seems to have persuaded many Spaniards to do their democratic duty and vote. Most were hitherto dormant Socialist supporters. As many as 2m were new young voters, who came of age during Mr Aznar's mishandling of the Prestige oil spill in 2002 and the subsequent war on Iraq. “For the first time in 10-15 years, the majority of 18-30-year olds were voting for the Socialists, but again the message that people wanted change did not surface, because of the PP's stranglehold on the media,” says Mr Lopez Aguilar.

Also, after eight years of the PP and a growing fatigue over Mr Aznar's authoritarian style, Mr Rajoy's chances of winning may never have been as sure as they looked. The bid to sell him as the same product but with an improved tone did not mobilise voters. The PP even began to believe its own propaganda. Strangely, so did everybody else: it was no secret that hardly anyone in the Socialist camp expected to win. Yet Mr Aznar was never as personally popular as his charismatic Socialist predecessor, Felipe González. In a crisis, people proved ready to back away from him and his party.

In Catalonia and the Basque country, both the blaming of the bombings on ETA and Mr Aznar's fierce anti-regional rhetoric backfired spectacularly. His government demonised the Socialists when their coalition partner in the Catalan regional government, the Catalan Republican Left (ERC), was found to have done a secret deal that led ETA to declare a ceasefire limited to Catalonia. The ERC jumped to fourth political power in Spain, with eight seats in the Cortes, up from one in 2000. In Catalonia the Socialists won almost four times as many seats as the PP, which has now become almost a fringe party in the region. In the Basque country, the PP slumped from second to third, behind both PNV nationalists and Socialists.

Mr Zapatero, known for his youth as Bambi, will form a minority government that will function, like some previous governments, by forming informal alliances with nationalist and left-wing parties. He lacks the fiery rhetoric of Mr González, who was prime minister from 1982 to 1996. But his style is attractive after the years of bad blood created by Mr Aznar's high-handed manner.

In a marked change, Mr Zapatero telephoned the Basque leader, Juan José Ibarretxe, instantly restoring relations between Madrid and the region. Mr Aznar had not spoken to Mr Ibarretxe since 2001. Mr Zapatero's first statements on foreign policy signalled that Spain would return to its old loyalties in Europe (see article) rather than its newer pro-American stance. He also wants to revive the notion of Spain as a link between Latin America and the EU.

Mr Zapatero's domestic policy is less clear. Before the election, he appointed a committee of notables who are a mixture of new savvy and safe old guard. According to his circle, Miguel Sebastián, who is not a party member, will be finance minister. An economist and a former banker, he wants to reduce government intervention in business, combat tax fraud and support innovation, research and development. But the new government may also reintroduce labour-market regulations that Mr Aznar had sensibly junked.

Elsewhere José Bono, regional president of Castile La Mancha and a party strongman, is expected to be security minister. Javier Solana may be recalled from Brussels to be foreign minister. Jesus Caldera, Mr Zapatero's right-hand man, will surely have a plum job; a grand old man of the left, Gregorio Peces Barba, could head the culture ministry; María Jesús Sansegundo will get education.

Optimistic Socialist voters talk of a second democratic transition. Areas where Mr Aznar had failed to make improvements, such as government control of the powerful state media and Madrid's testy relations with the regions, may see early action. As crowds gathered to celebrate Mr Zapatero's victory in Madrid, hundreds of young people chanted: “Don't let us down!” No doubt he will try not to; but assuming office when his country has just been bloodied by international terrorists will present a huge challenge to an inexperienced prime minister.

A little more complicated than appeasement, no?

[Master of Ossus]

This is where I have a problem, Chamberlain was willing to give Germany some territory that at the time was essentially thought to be theirs (due to the Versailles too harsh crowd and Wilsonian ideas of self determination and grouping together of ethnic populations into nations) because he wanted Hitler as an ally in the fight against Communism. He thought (or gambled) Hitler was a rational individual, he was wrong but he hardly appeased him in the sense people assert, he gave Hitler a token and Hitler proved unreasonable, that is it.

Chamberlain also didn't recognize the warning signs from Germany: massive military build-up, continuing aggression towards smaller nations, continued dismissal of the Versailles terms, repeatedly making a promise not to do something and later doing it, forming alliances with other very aggressive nations that actually seized territory that was never theirs to begin with. These are not mere "tokens," and there was more than one. Chamberlain watched as the German military went from being a piddling force barely capable of policing the country to being a serious military power in the region. He watched Germany expand its borders, and allies of Germany conquer territory as far afield as Africa. He continuously negotiated with Germany by agreeing to ignore the Treaty of Versailles in exchange for promises, and responded when Hitler violated these agreements by... negotiating for more promises! His unwillingness to take a stand or enforce Germany's agreements made him an appeasement monger and an apologist.

[Stormbringer]

The simple fact that the Spanish changed their minds and voted in a government that pulled out of Iraq is only going to encourage Al-Queada. They're going to see the people changing their minds and voting for a government that gave them one of their objects. That's going to be what the world and the terrorists see, so yes this is a victory for them even if that was not the Spanish intention.

[Darth Wong]

The simple fact that the Spanish changed their minds and voted in a government that pulled out of Iraq is only going to encourage Al-Queada. They're going to see the people changing their minds and voting for a government that gave them one of their objects. That's going to be what the world and the terrorists see, so yes this is a victory for them even if that was not the Spanish intention.

Nice wall of ignorance you've got going there. Would you like some more bricks and mortar?

The people DID NOT CHANGE THEIR MINDS about Iraq, for fuck's sake. They were against the Iraq involvement SINCE BEFORE IT BEGAN.

[Crown]

Nice wall of ignorance you've got going there. Would you like some more bricks and mortar?

The people DID NOT CHANGE THEIR MINDS about Iraq, for fuck's sake. They were against the Iraq involvement SINCE BEFORE IT BEGAN.

No Mike you don't get it; the simple fact that the people's wishes and views coincided with AQ, means that quite simply AQ has won. Don't you see? It is rather simple.

[Rogue 9]

No, they didn't change their minds about the war, but they did change their minds about the government as a whole. The war and the lack of support for it notwithstanding, the incumbent government was still leading the polls until the bombing.

[Darth Wong]

No, they didn't change their minds about the war, but they did change their minds about the government as a whole. The war and the lack of support for it notwithstanding, the incumbent government was still leading the polls until the bombing.

Then it was their election to lose, and lose they did, in spectacularly Shakespearean fashion by trying to deceive the public for political gain.

Are you people suggesting that the Spanish people should have forgiven the government for not only defying the will of the people on Iraq but also shamelessly using the March 11 bombs as an opportunity for crass political gain? Or that they were obligated to forgive these offenses for fear of being labelled "appeasers" by America?

Here's a news flash for you: in many parts of the world, the word "appeasement" is not brought out and dusted off to evoke irrelevant events from half a century ago. It is, instead, used to describe those politicians who presently spread their ass-cheeks for the thrusts of American foreign policy. The mere fact that Americans view the Spanish election strictly in terms of their own foreign policy interests no doubt confirms their feelings.

[Crown]

No, they didn't change their minds about the war, but they did change their minds about the government as a whole. The war and the lack of support for it notwithstanding, the incumbent government was still leading the polls until the bombing.

Yes, but did they change their minds because of the bombing or because the way the incumbent government handeled the bombing, media and electorate afterwards?

Could you at least read the article I posted?

[Stormbringer]

The simple fact that the Spanish changed their minds and voted in a government that pulled out of Iraq is only going to encourage Al-Queada. They're going to see the people changing their minds and voting for a government that gave them one of their objects. That's going to be what the world and the terrorists see, so yes this is a victory for them even if that was not the Spanish intention.

Nice wall of ignorance you've got going there. Would you like some more bricks and mortar?

The people DID NOT CHANGE THEIR MINDS about Iraq, for fuck's sake. They were against the Iraq involvement SINCE BEFORE IT BEGAN.

Nice to see your reading comprehension hasn't improved.

The Spanish support for the war didn't change. But as has been mentioned before prior to the election the Socialists were losing. The Spanish were prepared to vote in a government that would have kept Spain in Iraq. The attacks apparently changed that.

It didn't change support for Iraq but the attack sure as heck changed the results of the election. And that in turn changed whether Spain would have stayed in Iraq.

[Rogue 9]

I realize that. You'll notice that I didn't condemn them for what they did. They changed their minds about the government, not the war, and I merely stated the fact. Its their government, and Spain is a republic. I'm not about to condemn them for choosing their own government like they have every right to do.

[Axis Kast]

Then it was their election to lose, and lose they did, in spectacularly Shakespearean fashion by trying to deceive the public for political gain.

Are you people suggesting that the Spanish people should have forgiven the government for not only defying the will of the people on Iraq but also shamelessly using the March 11 bombs as an opportunity for crass political gain? Or that they were obligated to forgive these offenses for fear of being labelled "appeasers" by America?

Here's a news flash for you: in many parts of the world, the word "appeasement" is not brought out and dusted off to evoke irrelevant events from half a century ago. It is, instead, used to describe those politicians who presently spread their ass-cheeks for the thrusts of American foreign policy. The mere fact that Americans view the Spanish election strictly in terms of their own foreign policy interests no doubt confirms their feelings.

And yet that doesn't matter according to the terrorists. For them, Spanish withdrawal from Iraq is the same, whether it comes as a result of crass fear or determined opposition to bad domestic government by the PP.

The facts are plain for all to see: without the bombing, the PP was projected to win. After the bombing, many Spaniards suddenly voted for the opposition party because they felt the PP had invited the threat of terrorism to their soil.

Now al-Qaeda is more likely to hit European targets with confidence.

Are the Spanish low-down, dirty cowards? Of course not. But is al-Qaeda heartened by what happened? Absolutely. It's really a Catch 22.

[0.1]

Wong, I don't usually nitpick, but Stormbringer said:

"The simple fact that the Spanish changed their minds and voted in a government that pulled out of Iraq"

It's two parts, he isn't saying the Spanish people changed their minds about Iraq. My goodness, I have to agree with Stormbringer there, you're imposing youre views on what he is saying. Do you actually read any of what was written or do you just jump to conclusions?

[Darth Wong]

Nice to see your reading comprehension hasn't improved.

How so? Because I don't buy your bullshit that the Spanish people voted out the government solely to get out of Iraq due to fear?

The Spanish support for the war didn't change. But as has been mentioned before prior to the election the Socialists were losing. The Spanish were prepared to vote in a government that would have kept Spain in Iraq. The attacks apparently changed that.

See your own retort above. You apparently lack the ability to read plain English.

It didn't change support for Iraq but the attack sure as heck changed the results of the election. And that in turn changed whether Spain would have stayed in Iraq.

No, it was the idiotic behaviour of the conservative government that vaulted the socialists into power. Read my previous two E-mails again, this time without being an imbecile.

[Darth Wong]

Wong, I don't usually nitpick, but Stormbringer said:

"The simple fact that the Spanish changed their minds and voted in a government that pulled out of Iraq"

It's two parts, he isn't saying the Spanish people changed their minds about Iraq. My goodness, I have to agree with Stormbringer there, you're imposing youre views on what he is saying. Do you actually read any of what was written or do you just jump to conclusions?

I like the way you cut out the part where he claimed "They're going to see the people changing their minds". There was no evidence whatsoever that the people "changed their minds" about anything, nor did they make a decision due to terrorist threats rather than conservative idiocy. Period. Your obstinate refusal to accept that fact does not eliminate it from consideration.

[0.1]

LOL, Wong, you are so funny.

You mean to tell me Al Qaeda isn't going to interpet the results of the election occurred directly as a function of their bombing?

I don't disagree that the Spanish people made a decision based on the mistake that the Aznar govt made trying to pin this on ETA before all the evidence came through. But you're automatically linking this to Iraq as if that became the sole source of their decision.

Speaking of facts, you need to check yours, Wong.

Ask yourself, what was the poll like for the Spanish government prior to the incident?

Then ask yourself, if the bombing never occurred, would the election have still gone down the same way? And don't pull the "well, we'll never know" crap.

The result of the election was a screw up by the Aznar govt. The impression terrorists got was "look, we can change govt. with some explosives." And you're just ducking the fact that you can't read.

[Darth Wong]

Here's a question for Storm and 0.1: what do you seriously think caused the Spanish people to vote for the socialists? Let's look at the two competing theories:

1. They "changed their minds" due to the March 11 bombings.
2. The government's deception was the last straw, and they decided they were sick of a government that habitually ignored and lied to the people.

You have both selected theory #1. Why?

[Stormbringer]

How so? Because I don't buy your bullshit that the Spanish people voted out the government solely to get out of Iraq due to fear?

Did I say that they did? Nope. What I said was that the Al-queda attacks suceeded in changing the out come of the Spanish elections and consequently affected a major change in Spanish foriegn policy.

See your own retort above. You apparently lack the ability to read plain English.

I can understand English just fine.

No, it was the idiotic behaviour of the conservative government that vaulted the socialists into power. Read my previous two E-mails again, this time without being an imbecile.

Since I'm not a mind reader, I can't very well read your posts before they're posted. So fuck you and the high horse your rode in on.

And even with what you said, I think this one still has to go down as a mission accomplished for the bad guys.

[Darth Wong]

LOL, Wong, you are so funny.

You mean to tell me Al Qaeda isn't going to interpet the results of the election occurred directly as a function of their bombing?

If they're as stupid as you, perhaps. That doesn't make it a "victory for Al-Quaeda".

I don't disagree that the Spanish people made a decision based on the mistake that the Aznar govt made trying to pin this on ETA before all the evidence came through. But you're automatically linking this to Iraq as if that became the sole source of their decision.

it's funny to see someone inadvertently describing himself.

Speaking of facts, you need to check yours, Wong.

Ask yourself, what was the poll like for the Spanish government prior to the incident?

Then ask yourself, if the bombing never occurred, would the election have still gone down the same way? And don't pull the "well, we'll never know" crap.

Ask yourself: what was the poll like for George Bush before September 11 2001? Then ask yourself, if the destruction of the WTC never occurred, would his popularity have gone up? And don't pull the "well, we'll never know" crap. Clearly, it was appeasement for the American people to favour George Bush. See the problem with your logic?

The result of the election was a screw up by the Aznar govt. The impression terrorists got was "look, we can change govt. with some explosives." And you're just ducking the fact that you can't read.

Speak for yourself.

[Sea Skimmer]

It's certainly going to be viewed as a victory by the terrorists and will strongly encourage them since it represents the only way they can win. Though I also think the Spanish change in government and withdraw from Iraq would have occurred anyway. How much impact it will have on the future is yet to be seen, and won't be until another US supporter is hit.

[Darth Wong]

Did I say that they did? Nope. What I said was that the Al-queda attacks suceeded in changing the out come of the Spanish elections and consequently affected a major change in Spanish foriegn policy.

Wrong. The conservative government screwed itself out of the election. They probably could have won it if they hadn't fucked themselves.

Since I'm not a mind reader, I can't very well read your posts before they're posted. So fuck you and the high horse your rode in on.

And you can't read Crown's post either? You can't read any of the number of times people have posted in this thread explaining that the Spanish people did not think "oh, we've been bombed! We'd better vote Socialist!"?

And even with what you said, I think this one still has to go down as a mission accomplished for the bad guys.

In other words, you think the people should have forgiven a bunch of lying assholes just because it will piss off the terrorists. Oh wait a minute, that's also why you support George Bush, isn't it?

PS. Look up "false cause fallacy", particularly with respect to "complex cause" variant.

[Axis Kast]

And yet so many Spaniards have said: "We voted this way because the PP opened us to terrorism."

On top of the fact that discussing the actual cases of the PP's defeat is moot so long as, no matter what, terrorists are still heartened.

[Crown]

And yet so many Spaniards have said: "We voted this way because the PP opened us to terrorism."

On top of the fact that discussing the actual cases of the PP's defeat is moot so long as, no matter what, terrorists are still heartened.

And yet the ariticle I quoted suggests that that is an oversimplification propergated by media looking for a flashy title, and not the primary reason for the PP's election defeat ... hmmm

[Darth Wong]

And yet the ariticle I quoted suggests that that is an oversimplification propergated by media looking for a flashy title, and not the primary reason for the PP's election defeat ... hmmm

Isn't it kind of amusing how all of the people supporting this particular false-cause fallacy have conspicuously avoided or even mentioning the article you quoted? It's as if it was censored on their screens or they put it in a killfile.