Spain's Decision: Al-Qeada victory?

[Crown]

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.

Well I was going to comment that I think that the fact that it's from the Economist (which I believe is really a right wing mouth piece, or at least no friend of socialist European governments), means they can't scream bias straight away and run.

[Darth Wong]

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

Please show us the statistics indicating that a significant portion of the population of Spain actually said this.

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.

Yes, this would be the "cut off my nose to spite my face" theorem.

[PrinceofLowLight]

I think people are arguing two different things in this thread. I don't think the topic was really whether the Spaniards were justified in voting for thr opposition party (that's someone with a better understanding of Spanish politics to decide.) It's more about whether the results of this are going to increase the likelyhood of bolder movement by AQ. No matter how justified the Spaniards are for bringing the conservative government down, the terrorists are going to only see their own hand in this.

[RogueIce]

I'm not going to get into this in a major way, just one thing:

Darth Wong asked how they might've handled it differently. Well, my idea was to put off announcing that fact (especially since the one story I read on it said they're staying until 30 July anyway) for at least a month or so, so there wouldn't be as much of an appearance of a knee-jerk pull out because it was announced so soon after the attack. If they waited for, say, July 30 or sometime close to anounce it (when they're pulling out anyway), then it would be harder for people to say it's appeasement instead of simply what it was: a promised action.

What do you think? It may be a bit jumbled, but it boils down to this: put off the announcement until some time has passed since the attacks, to avoid the appearance of appeasement.

[Darth Wong]

What do you think? It may be a bit jumbled, but it boils down to this: put off the announcement until some time has passed since the attacks, to avoid the appearance of appeasement.

Is the appearance of appeasement particularly important, as opposed to the substance of appeasement? Some people are saying that even if it's a complete false cause fallacy (which it is), Al-Quaeda will read what they want into it. Well duh, but won't they read pretty much what they want into anything that happens? If they weren't discouraged by having Afghanistan pulled out from under them, why would anyone think that they're obsessing over the effect of their behaviour on public opinion polls?

[RogueIce]

What do you think? It may be a bit jumbled, but it boils down to this: put off the announcement until some time has passed since the attacks, to avoid the appearance of appeasement.

Is the appearance of appeasement particularly important, as opposed to the substance of appeasement? Some people are saying that even if it's a complete false cause fallacy (which it is), Al-Quaeda will read what they want into it. Well duh, but won't they read pretty much what they want into anything that happens? If they weren't discouraged by having Afghanistan pulled out from under them, why would anyone think that they're obsessing over the effect of their behaviour on public opinion polls?

True... I'm just wondering if AQ (and, for that matter, a good chunk fo people it seems) will read it as appeasement if the announcement was timed later as opposed to about three days after the attacks (the first announcement of the new PM, IIRC from Crown's article). Especially if, perhaps, the people get all vocal about it and start to "remind" people (by saying it repeatedly in protests) they promised to do so long ago.

Maybe not some of the whackos in AQ (one can hope, but you never know) but at least most other semi-reasonable people wouldn't be able to say this now.

[Rogue 9]

Okay. The Socialist victory was a result of the incumbent government's mishandling of the bombing. I can buy that, and in fact I have bought that well before this thread. But since when does reality have any relation to what Islamist terrorists believe about their actions? Whether the bombs directly caused the election results or not does not matter to them. Al Qaeda will believe that it did it. Even if it doesn't, the organization's spokesmen will trumpet it all over the Arab media anyway because it makes them look good and heartens the troops, such as they are. The effect is the same no matter what the cause is. This is merely the way it is.

I am not saying that the Spanish electorate should have voted to keep the old government just to spite the terrorists. I'm saying that the terrorists are unreasonable people who will twist this into a victory for themselves in their own minds whether it really was or not. And what they think of it is the only factor that matters in whether they are incited to more attacks. Morale is based on perception of reality, not objective reality.

[Crown]

You are giving AQ too much credit, these people who have the same mentality as the people who said that it was 'Allah's will' that they space shuttle blew up.

EDIT :: Err this post was meant to be a reply to the second post above by RogueIce.

[RogueIce]

You are giving AQ too much credit, these people who have the same mentality as the people who said that it was 'Allah's will' that they space shuttle blew up.

EDIT :: Err this post was meant to be a reply to the second post above by RogueIce.

Ohh, my name bolded by an Admin in a non-I'm-gonna-ban-yo-ass way!

Anyway, AQ is wacky for the most part, I'll grant that. But, hopefully, some of the more moderate/reasonable people (especially in the ME) out there who don't know a heckuva lot about the Spanish Socialist Party's agenda (Hell, were it not for SDNet, I sure wouldn't) it would've been a lot harder for AQ to effectively spin it as a victory, since it would be a very thin link with time passed.

I remember people saying "hold off the elections until cooler heads prevail!" I guess my idea is to "hold off announcing the pull out until cooler heads prevail."

[Crown]

You are giving AQ too much credit, these people who have the same mentality as the people who said that it was 'Allah's will' that they space shuttle blew up.

EDIT :: Err this post was meant to be a reply to the second post above by RogueIce.

Ohh, my name bolded by an Admin in a non-I'm-gonna-ban-yo-ass way!

Err, supermod.

Anyway, AQ is wacky for the most part, I'll grant that. But, hopefully, some of the more moderate/reasonable people (especially in the ME) out there who don't know a heckuva lot about the Spanish Socialist Party's agenda (Hell, were it not for SDNet, I sure wouldn't) it would've been a lot harder for AQ to effectively spin it as a victory, since it would be a very thin link with time passed.

Yes, but your premise rests on the belief that there are 'moderate/reasonable people' within an organisation which encourages people to fly planes into skyscrapers. I would think that it is a rather overly hopeful assumption.

I remember people saying "hold off the elections until cooler heads prevail!" I guess my idea is to "hold off announcing the pull out until cooler heads prevail."

The tragedy is, the real one, is that if the PP handeled the entire affair more openly, instead of acting like they had something to hide, they wouldn't have spurned the people's anger and would have held onto power. As to holding off the announcement, I can understand that it would have been a better face saving move in western media circlees, but I doubt that it would have made a difference to the cretins running AQ.

[RogueIce]

Yes, but your premise rests on the belief that there are 'moderate/reasonable people' within an organisation which encourages people to fly planes into skyscrapers. I would think that it is a rather overly hopeful assumption.

Oh yeah, I agree with you fully there. I was referring to people outside of AQ in the Middle East, people they'd try and recruit with this, and, for that matter, general world opinion. Sorry if I was unclear.

[Darth Wong]

Oh yeah, I agree with you fully there. I was referring to people outside of AQ in the Middle East, people they'd try and recruit with this, and, for that matter, general world opinion. Sorry if I was unclear.

Excuse me, but if the crushing military defeat of Saddam Hussein in Iraq served as an effective recruitment tool (which it did), then why does Al-Quaeda need to point to public opinion in western countries in order to recruit people? Do you really think any of their recruiting rhetoric revolves around regime change in Spain? It's all Great Satan this, Israel that, defend the Nation of Islam yadda yadda yadda.

[RogueIce]

Excuse me, but if the crushing military defeat of Saddam Hussein in Iraq served as an effective recruitment tool (which it did), then why does Al-Quaeda need to point to public opinion in western countries in order to recruit people? Do you really think any of their recruiting rhetoric revolves around regime change in Spain? It's all Great Satan this, Israel that, defend the Nation of Islam yadda yadda yadda.

Ok, conceeded. What about the rest of the world then? Or is it just not going to matter?

Note I'm talking about the majority of people, not the weirdos who like to say it was all Bush behind 9/11, and AQ is just a scapegoat.

[Rogue 9]

The crushing defeat of Hussein helped recruit those displaced by the war or who were just generally angry about the United States being on Arab soil.

Showing a victory, even a perceived one where one does not truly exist, appeals to a different set of people; those who want to join a winning cause. It gets people who the rhetoric about the United States kicking their ass won't get precisely because they're afraid of the United States kicking their asses. But if Al Qaeda is perceived as able to win they can get more recruits. There aren't all that many people who will jump to join the losing team, you know.

[Darth Wong]

There aren't all that many people who will jump to join the losing team, you know.

You have obviously not studied the mindset of Al-Quaeda or Islamic militancy at all. Their entire rhetoric is based on fear: the fear that Islam is being slowly ground down, wiped out, marginalized, held back by the forces of Western Secularism and the Great Satan. In this way, it is actually very similar to the Bush Administration's political tactics: an ironic little mirror.

Fear is Al-Quaeda's most effective marketing tool, just as it is the main plank of George W. Bush's re-election campaign. Stop listening to nonsensical Bushite rhetoric about what the Muslims think.

[TheDarkling]

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.

The thing is though that Britain had as much intention in abiding by Versailles as Hitler did, the general (and erroneous in my opinion) perception at the time (and to a degree today as well) is that the treaty was too harsh, so when Germany stopped abiding by it Britain’s position was "well it was unfair anyway so letting them off the hook is justified", Germany getting a better army was seen as favourable (Hitler seen as bulwark against the Bolshevik menace) and I don't really see what Il Duce's African adventures have to do with the issue.

Don't get me wrong, Chamberlain was in error but he wasn't placating Hitler because of a fear of conflict but because he wanted an Anglo-German alliance against the USSR (as he stated quiet clearly to the King before he went off to Munich). In essence he was bribing a potential ally so as to not give advantage to (what he saw as) the real enemy. Chamberlains great fault was he allowed his distrust of the Bolsheviks to blind him the real threat (in Chamberlains position I would have sough an understanding with Stalin how was far less likely to cause trouble than Hitler was).

[Rogue 9]

Well, as long as we're off topic, the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh. It bankrupted Germany and took it into the deepest depression the world has ever seen. That condition fomented massive discontent in the German people, which allowed Hitler to go as far as he did. His kind of rhetoric doesn't work too well on people who are prosperous and content. Without the treaty's harsh terms he wouldn't have had near so much to work with.

[Sarevok]

What precisely is Spain thinking this will accomplish? By bowing to this kind of terrorist pressure they merely invite more attacks whenever someone is not happy with their policies.

Attacking sovergein countries under false pretext increases terrorism rather than decrease it.

[TheDarkling]

Well, as long as we're off topic, the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh. It bankrupted Germany and took it into the deepest depression the world has ever seen. That condition fomented massive discontent in the German people, which allowed Hitler to go as far as he did. His kind of rhetoric doesn't work too well on people who are prosperous and content. Without the treaty's harsh terms he wouldn't have had near so much to work with.

Germany's economic problem were the cause of the Great Depression not Versailles, before the depression German was on its feet economically and the extremist parties were losing power (the Nazi parties seats were down to a third and they had almost gone bankrupt).

To put the level of reparations paid in perspective, France paid the same amount in 6 months after the Franco-Prussian war that Germany did in ten years after Versailles and the money Germany did pay back came from US loans (in essence Germany paid nothing back). Germany suffered after the war because of bad management, they started to recover and then the Depression knocked them back down again - enter the Austrian Corporal.

[RedImperator]

The question is, does Al Quaeda now think it can influence Western elections in its favor with well-timed bombings? Because regardless of the truth, that's what they most likely percieve happened in Spain, even if that wasn't their original plan (it could be simply that a local cell decided to blow up trains and managed to succede--it's questionable how much central control still exists in Al Quaeda). We'll find out the answer if bombs start going off in other western capitals right before elections take place.

[BoredShirtless]

The question is, does Al Quaeda now think it can influence Western elections in its favor with well-timed bombings? Because regardless of the truth, that's what they most likely percieve happened in Spain, even if that wasn't their original plan (it could be simply that a local cell decided to blow up trains and managed to succede--it's questionable how much central control still exists in Al Quaeda). We'll find out the answer if bombs start going off in other western capitals right before elections take place.

Assuming the opposition parties in said elections oppose the War on Terror, of course. From the top of my head I can't think of one country in the Coalition of the Willing which has an opposition so vocal in its critisism of its government.

[Colonel Olrik]

Assuming the opposition parties in said elections oppose the War on Terror, of course. From the top of my head I can't think of one country in the Coalition of the Willing which has an opposition so vocal in its critisism of its government.

Portugal does
I'm hoping the terrorists don't know we're actually an independent country and not a spanish state.

[Howedar]

You are?

[Rogue 9]

You are?

*Smack* Yeah, they have been for many centuries at least. I don't know if Portugal was ever a part of Spain, but they were a major trading/naval power as of the 1400s and quite independent of Spain by then at the very least. Although I don't know much about Portugal before that, I think its safe to assume that they were independent for a while before becoming one of the largest colonial powers in the world.

[TheDarkling]

You are?

Portugal is one half of the oldest alliance in Western history, 631 years and still going strong.