Terrorists claim victory in Spain

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
That isn't the issue Kagan brings up. He's more concerned with Europe cutting ties with America in the hope that Al Qaeda will spare them to concentrate on the Great Satan. That's what I'm afraid of, as well, and many people in Europe seem to be advocating just such a strategy.

And he makes the valid point that both sides must be interested in ending the terror - I'm quite confident that common interests lead to reasonable approaches on both sides....I don't think AQ will finally make distinctions between Euro or US infidels....

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm quite confident that common interests lead to reasonable approaches on both sides

I hope you're right. Things aren't looking promising, though.

[Bosh]

Well considering that Bin Ladin et. al's ultimate goal is the replacement of the House of Saud with a fundamentalist regime, then people voting socialist is a bad thing for them. If I were Bin Ladin I would want people in the West to vote as right wing as possible, since its right wing people that stir up the Mid-East and to expand his power base Bin Ladin needs the Mid-East stirred up.

[Kidlicious]

Even though it doesn't seem reasonable that Al-qaeda would want socialist govts in the West, the proximity of the attacks to the elections in Spain is suspect.

[Drake Tungsten]

A socialist government in Madrid weakens the US-led coalition and thereby increases the chances of things going wrong in Iraq. Al Qaeda does want the Middle East stirred up and they definitely don't want a successful democratic state in the region providing an alternate model of reform that would rival their Islamist views for the hearts and minds of Arabs sick and tired of the failed authoritarian states they live under. Ensuring Iraq descends into chaos kills both birds with one stone, so it makes perfect sense for Al Qaeda to want a socialist government in Spain.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

If you swear off violent means, as Prodi has done, what is left but negotiation and appeasement?

the fact that you ask this question is the very reason you cannot comprehend that negotiation is actually the only way to root out terrorism. Because, like has been demonstrated, brute force doesn't help a thing. It only appeases the minds of the hatefull....

are you hatefull drake ?

because if the answer to that question is yes, you reason on the same gound as the terrorists you claim to despise...

[Drake Tungsten]

because if the answer to that question is yes, you reason on the same gound as the terrorists you claim to despise...

I guess that's why I understand how to fight them while you're off gallivanting in some naive wonderland where negotiation will actually achieve something with Al Qaeda and its ilk...

[dannubis]

yes...
and on planet tungsten the bombing has helped a lot too i guess ...

and i didn't say you'd have to negotiate with the terrorists directly.

just try to dry out their supply of people to implement their ideas.
and sorry, but showing who's boss doesn't do that

even not on your planet

[GePap]

Ah, the good old appeasement stupidity-always a goody when it is brought out.

Appeasement is as likely to work as confrontation-did the US appease Japan in 1940-41? Nope, the US took a strong line, and after Japan took Indochina, instituted a possibly crippling embargo on oil and scrap metal. Did stading strong vs Japan teach them a leason? No. They attacked the US and sought to secure their resources by war. Appeasement, like confrontation, is a strategy-whether it works or not is based on the eventual aims of the opponent.

Are the Japanese appeasing AQ? The only people who believe it are those that support Iraq. In short ladies and gentleman, this is a by proxy discussion, yet again, of Iraq. IN general, those that supported the Iraq war most stridently are the ones speaking about Spain appeasing AQ- people like Kagan and the WP. But they work on the assumption that Iraq is and always was central to the battle against AQ. Well, maybe BY invading Iraq this has a rign of truth now-but then, of course, 80% of Spanirds opposed going to Iraq in the first place, and supposedly this war is about freedom and democracy. Everyone remember what Rummy said about the looting? Freedoms can be messy. Rely on a "ccolition of the willing", and you pay the consequences, specially if many of the willing joined you not becuase they craed about Iraq at all, but becuase they cared about their relations with the US.

Lets look at that WaPo story-and see the truth underneath: Aznar did not go into Iraq becuase he gived a damn about the people of Iraq, and given there was no AQ there to begin with, certainly not to fight them. He went becuase Bush said with us or against us, and Aznar believed Spain should be with the US, and if that means joining with a token in Iraq, well, why not? But the people of Spain never agreed with that (if the PP was going to win, it was going to win on voter support for its internal policies, not any agreement with the actions in Iraq). Well, after all that happened in Iraq, staying with the US -or better said, with the Bush administration, no longer seemes something worthwhile to Spain's voters. So they booted out the PP government.

Did AQ want such an outcome? probably. BUt then again, I have asked before, and I will ask again, why should the people of Spain vote on THIER future based on what AQ, or Bush, or anyone outside of Spain, want?

In another thread, Fez said there was nothing the PP could have done to stop this attack from happening. If so, then what service did the war in Iraq serve Spain's security? If being with Bush does not make Spain safer-why should the Spanish electorate stay with that boat? People make the claim AQ's aims are univesalist-world domination and all that blather-well, if after 1 year in Iraq and 2 in Afghanistan Fezzie is right and there was nothing a government like Spain's do to stop a massive terrorist attack like the one in madrid, then what has been the point? And if Fezzie is wrong and the PP government, with different priorities, could have stopped the attack-why re-elect a government that failed in securing Spain?

And then there is the real question- the Spanish government has called for the US to return to the UN-WaPo and likeminded folks call the UN ineffectual and worse-but the fact is, democracy means other people disagreeing with you, and if there is no international mandate for a mission, no international mission, no imprint of legitimacy to the act-then free people's are free to leave at any point-a coolition of thw willing is based only on the desires of people to stick with something, and only if they believe the policy embarked upon has actually given them any benefit. Could Aznar point to a single benefit for the Spanish voter that his unpopular approach in Iraq had brought? He could argue about the future, but of course, he had done that before, and been proven wrong.

[Drake Tungsten]

Are the Japanese appeasing AQ?

Japan has troops on the ground in Iraq. How exactly could they be seen as appeasing Al Qaeda?

If being with Bush does not make Spain safer-why should the Spanish electorate stay with that boat?

To do the right thing for the world and an important ally?

[Arrian]

Re: negotiation/appeasement...

To me, there is a big difference between negotiating with countries in the ME and elsewhere for assistance in the WoT and trying to negotiate with AQ. The former, I'm all for. The latter, I reject. I do not see how negotiations with a group like AQ (considering their stated aims) can possibly bear fruit.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Are the Japanese appeasing AQ?

Japan has troops on the ground in Iraq. How exactly could they be seen as appeasing Al Qaeda?

I meant Spain-had japan in the mind.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by dannubis


the fact that you ask this question is the very reason you cannot comprehend that negotiation is actually the only way to root out terrorism. Because, like has been demonstrated, brute force doesn't help a thing. It only appeases the minds of the hatefull....

An ideological conflict is usually not negotiable. It may be under certain circumstances (east - west under the MAD threat) but that does not lead to a compromize in ideological beliefs either.

[Dauphin]

Terrorist claiming victory is a silly notion given that if people were going to vote only on the issue of Iraq and the War on Terrorism then the socialists would have won by a landside.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by BeBro


An ideological conflict is usually not negotiatable. It may be under certain circumstances (east - west under the MAD threat) but that does not lead to a compromize in ideological beliefs either.

yes, but in this case negotiation led to the fact that no bombs fell ...

and with negotiation i ment negotiating in a broad way...
supplying means for education
giving people a chance to a better life
rooting out situations which are actually degrading

because right now, in both iraq and afghanistan, everybody knows who's boss ...
but events in the past three years have shown that violence only brings about more violence.

i am ideological different from an arab. i always will be. but that does not mean i am going to blow myself up in a bus. why not ? because :
1) i am educated enough to know that blowing myself up doesn't solve a god damn thing
2) my living conditions are way to good to end my life.

bring the same circumstances to the third world, adapted to their whishes and you solve the problem of terrorism. put your boot on the back of their neck it will keep coming back at you ...