Truly sickening
I’m absolutely appalled by what I’m reading about the Spanish election results. It’s perhaps the worst — certainly the most offensive — case of sore loser syndrome I’ve ever seen.
There is no reason to think Al Qaeda committed the recent atrocity in order to secure a socialist (read: “third way”) government. The conventional theory is that terrorist attacks drive voters to the security offered by incumbents and conservatives. If Al Qaeda gave a shit who ran Spain, the bombings make more sense as an indication of its support for Aznar. But they don’t care, so the point is moot.
Failure to vote the approved warblogger ticket does not indicate support for terrorism. It is absolutely fucking disgraceful to suggest otherwise. I can’t believe the utter contempt in which so many bloggers hold the Spanish people — for exercising the democratic right those same bloggers profess to hold so dearly!
It’s truly sickening. Fuck you all.
I think you have missed their point Rob. Its not that they voted out Aznar but that the Socialist Party’s vote was much more than than the polls predicted. If this means that the bombings had an effect of the elections then we’re all in big trouble. However if some bloggers think its a great tragedy that the Spanish didnt vote more rightish in reaction to terror then they’re being are dickheads.
*thunderous applause*
Please note the following excerpt from the Norwegian language newspaper - not an overt pro-US rag - translated by Bjorn Staerk at http://www.bearstrong.net/warblog/000627.html#comments.
The research group [Norwegian Defense Research Establishment] regularly gathers information which appears on Islamist website on the Internet, but doesn’t have time to go through everything in detail. After the attack in Madrid yesterday, they did a search on “Spain” in the documents they have gathered, and made an interesting discovery. ..
- What we found was a 42 page strategy document, where an anonymous author discusses what strategy to use to force the coalition lead by the US out of Iraq, says researcher Thomas Hegghammer. .. It concludes that one should go for a domino effect, where one first pressures one country to pull out, so the others may follow. The author points to Spain as that country in the coalition which it would be most convenient to attack.
Of the 42 pages in the document, which is written in Arabic, and was probably made last autumn, there are six pages about Spain.
“To make the Spanish government pull out of Iraq, the Muslim resistance forces must direct blows against the Spanish forces, and these must be joined by information about the situation in Iraq .. one must take maximum advantage of the approaching election in Spain in March next year .. we expect the Spanish government won’t withstand more than two, maximum three, such attacks, because of pressure from public opinion. If they nevertheless should remain in Iraq, their continued presence will become an important issue for the Socialist Party.”
The information in the document indicates that the person who wrote it is familiar with Spain and Spanish politics. It contains a discussion on Spanish election results all the way back to 1982.
well said, Robert. You do impress from time to time.
[Comment spam deleted.]
Hear, hear to Robert’s post. As to mr Chamberlain’s reponse above I am so entirely sick of the supposed parallel between 1930’s Nazi Germany and Iraq that I feel compelled to quote from the Guardian.
On the money Rob. I was reading Tim Blair’s blog et al yesterday and was faintly amused to see how conservatives were saying Spainish voters were pandering to terrorists.
I doubt most of these bloggers know anything about Spainish domestic politics (outisde of a five minute Google search) and there wasn’t a scrap of interest in Spain’s election until the bombing.
Good on the new government for wanting to pull troops from Iraq. I dunno if its the best way to go, but at least it proves the Socialists are sticking to their policies and ignoring what the US wants, something you won’t see Australia do for a very long time.
Why do people who appear bright on the surface feel the need to swear to make an obvious point.
People felt they were manipulated by the Governmenr after the bombing so they voted them out. I see nothing to say the New Government will not engage in the ‘war’ against terror. Pulling troops out of Iraq has nothing to do with that.
( Where is Usama?)
On another point Nazi Germany did not have the resources to ‘win’ a war in Europe until 1942!
Parallels with Iraq are absurd.
If they weren’t pandering to terrorists, why was virtually the first move by the new Spanish government was to withdraw troops from Iraq? Seems to me the terrorists have won in that neck of the woods. You leftists are so naieve it makes me giggle; want to buy some shares in the Harbour Bridge?
Iraq is not part of the war against terrorists.
Based premise? El Que’da obviously thinks it is, even if you don’t.
So I have to agree with Al Qaeda now?
In any case, they think it’s part of a centuries-old holy war against Islam, which is different.
Whiplash, the story you cite is an interesting one. So far the authorities (and even the researcher) says the document can’t be verified as being a genuine Al Qaeda document. I’ll wait until they do that before forming a judgment.
Still, it would have taken an electoral crystal ball to predict the outcome of the election. As I pointed out, it goes against all conventional expectations. Certainly if Aznar had not immediately tried to sheet home blame to ETA the result would have been different. How could the terrorists have accurately predicted that?
As to Dead Ed’s comment that “Its not that they voted out Aznar but that the Socialist Party’s vote was much more than than the polls predicted,” we need to ask what would have happened if the conservative vote ended up being much more than the polls predicted. Would the outcry against terrorists influencing elections be the same? No, of course not.
By the way, it’s probably worth reminding everyone that I don’t support the withdrawal of Western troops from Iraq.
“Would the outcry against terrorists influencing elections be the same? No, of course not”
probably not from the Right bloggers, but the Left sure would have a whinge.
“the supposed parallel between 1930’s Nazi Germany and Iraq”
Hey thanks guys. You know I never though about it before but Iraq starts with a ‘I’ and but Germany ‘G’ so that must mean that there are no terrorists being iced right now in Iraq!
But wait a minute, Hitler and Saddam both had moustaches so maybe I’m wrong.
Surely those people who believe that AQ produced a Socialist Government in spain by their terrorist act MUST be waiting for one in Australia near election day!
Rob: The comment you deleted was not spam. I read it earlier, as did a few others who have already replied to it. If you are going to censor it, that’s your call, but it’s dishonest to say that it was spam.
It’s pretty unfair to whoever posted it to say it was “spam” and give them no recourse to reply. You have the option to remove it completely, ya know?
I doubt the election of a socialist government in Spain was their intention, but it was the result.
In my view I doubt EQ are opposed to the liberation of Iraq- they didn’t have a hope in hell of Islamicising Iraq under Saddam, but with laughing boy gone they have a chance of destabilising the place and allowing a ratbag Shi’ite regime to take over.
Spain was a target because the cetic/visigoth population drove out the Moors in the 15th century.
Yobbo is quite right. The comment was sarcasm and mischievous, but it made a very valid albeit debatable point. It was only offensive in that the likes of Robert Corr and Chris Shiel disagree with its sentiments with some virulence, as is their right. It also their right to bar my ip address, which Robert hasn’t done yet, although I suspect that Chris Shiel may have communicated his displeasure to Robert. Nonetheless the episode clearly demonstrates the closed-mindedness of these two bloggers. The same comment has been (more recently) placed on Tim Dunlop’s blog and he either hasn’t noticed it yet or alternatively has had the maturity to ignore it.
I agree with Homer’s assessment that the real influence on the election was the Aznar government’s idiotic insistence for political gain that an obvious Al Qaeda attack was perpetrated by ETA. To this extent, the shift in public sentiment is understandable and arguably justified.
Nonetheless, we (warbloggers) DO have every right to complain that the Spanish electorate got it wrong (just as you have every right to argue they got it right) - I think that, in the wake of a massive terrorist attack, the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq and a sudden surge of opposition to the Spanish government that sent them there sends a dreadful message of weakness to the Islamists, and avoiding that outcome was more important than punishing Aznar’s party for its clumsy opportunism and deception.
Frankly Rob, from the limited selection of blogs I’ve read this busy week, I think you’re wildly overreacting. Nobody I’ve seen is questioning the right of the Spanish to vote as they please, but questioning the wisdom of their exercise of that right is perfectly legitimate.
And I suspect that no one has characterised a vote for the socialists as a vote of “support for terrorism”, as you claim, but rather as a vote in favour of appeasing terrorists. The latter is still ignorant, but not so morally reprehensible, and I think it is a reasonably accurate portrayal of the views of at least a large segment of the Spanish electorate.
If you wander through the blogosphere reproducing the same comment again and again, which is not actually relevant to the thread concerned, and you use an assumed name picked for the occasion …
that’s pretty close to spam. Or at least advertising the one joke again and again and again..
A minor clarification: The new Spanish government has said it will withdraw its troops from Iraq by June 30 unless a new U.N. mandate is granted before then. An important distinction, but one which seems to be missing from most of the apoplectic anti-Spanish rants going around.
Isnt 30th s’posed to be when the US plan to hand over control to th IGC. If so then whats this stuff about a UN mandate? I dont get it can someone explain?
Mark Steyn was my favourite with his “Spanish voters dishonour their dead” or some other crass, sick bile.
He also claimed that Al-Qaida hated Spain anyway because of “…the tragedy of Andulasia” - as Bin Laden referred to the explusion of the Moors - and it would have happened anyway.
The last Moorish enclave in Spain fell in 1532 (I think). Al Qaida sort of formed in 1979-1980. Their first attack on Spain was in 2004. Do the fucking maths Mark.
By the way, I don’t think the Spanish voters took to kindly to being FUCKING LIED TO by their government about who committed the attack.
Zapatero has said that he will request a new U.N. mandate for coalition troops to remain in Iraq after June 30, i.e. after the scheduled transfer of sovereignty.
Interestingly, the U.S. is not entirely opposed to the idea.
Torre, it is not Mark Steyn but Osama who should do the maths. After all, Osama is the one who brought up the “tragedy of Andalusia” half a millenium later. Steyn was quite legitimately pointing out that this reflects a grievance-mongering attitude which is unlikely to be satisfied by contemporary concessions.
I didn’t delete the comment for its content, but rather (as David Tiley pointed out) because the same comment was posted verbatim at a number of blogs I read. It was not a real response to my post, it was just ideological spam. And they do have a recourse to reply — leave another comment! Of course, I doubt they’ll be back. They’re just wandering aimlessly through the blogosphere, recycling the same comment.
Rob: I suggest you keep some outrage in reserve,
‘cos you’ll need it if a bomb goes off in Paris. The “kill all the wrong-thinking brown people NOW!” crowd is already pre-emptively gloating about it.
Oh, btw, happy St. Patrick’s Day!
I’m amazed at how many experts on Spain have been lurking in the blogosphere. They gave no hint of their finely tuned understanding of the Iberian Peninsula until last week. I’d like to express my heartfelt thanks to them for letting me know what the people of Spain are thinking (my mindreading skill seems to have diminished to almost nothing).
“Mark Steyn was my favourite with his “Spanish voters dishonour their dead” or some other crass, sick bile.
He also claimed that Al-Qaida hated Spain anyway because of “…the tragedy of Andulasia” - as Bin Laden referred to the explusion of the Moors - and it would have happened anyway.
The last Moorish enclave in Spain fell in 1532 (I think). Al Qaida sort of formed in 1979-1980. Their first attack on Spain was in 2004. Do the fucking maths Mark.”
Or, alternatively, you could do some research on the motivations behind Islamofascism, wherein, you’ll discover that the loss of al-andalus features prominently - along with the loss of the Caliphate, etc, etc. Spain was once part of the Muslim world. From the 9th to the 15th century, the Christian kingdoms of Spain engaged in the Reconquista against Islamic rule which indeed ended with the Muslims losing Granada, their last foothold, in 1492.
Whatever you might think of Steyn’s conclusions, he’s absolutely right with this casebuild. bin Laden himself has referred to it.
Whilst you cant believe a lot of the bullshit they harp on about, some of you might learn something from actually lister to what the terrorist say instead of designing their motivate and ‘root causes’ to suit your own beleifs.
sorrry ‘motivate’ shoudl be ‘motives’
Of course terrorist attacks can affect national politics - show me a country where they haven’t! Accusing the Spanish people of “pandering to terrorists” is simply sick, twisted and childish…doubly so when accuastions started flying before the bodies were even cold. The Spanish population had a wide range of reasons to elect a new government, both before and after the attack, and not all of them (shock! horror!) related to Iraq or Al Queda. Suggesting that they should have made some kind of directed effort not to elect a different government after the attack in order to proove some kind of pathetic moral point to the “terrorists” (who wouldn’t give a shit anyway) is not only undemocratic, its inhuman to expect it of people who have just gone through what they have.
Now, Osama hates the West, Jews and liberty in general.
Osama hates Spain because of the explusion of the Moors. He also hates Spain because they are decadent infidels. He also hates Spain because they supported the war on Iraq.
Two points -
1. The question isn’t really about whether the attacks were part of an Iraq-related backlash. OF COURSE they were. Al-Q believe in absolutes. They are opposed to all countries who don’t have sharia law, ultimately, but Spain was high on the list becaue they were a high-profile supporter of the war on Iraq. But that’s besides the point. For me it is about whether it’s worth it. Osama hates Oz because of (among other things) East Timor, 1999. Well fuck him, it was worth it. Iraq wasn’t.
2 - Mark Steyn argued that the Spaniards betrayed their dead by voting out Anzar - that’s revolting. The more neo-con screamers claim the election result was a victory for terrorism them more it is a victory for terrorism. The more Pundits argue that it was the grand act of deceit perpetrated by the Aznar government in the three days after the attack that earned the ire of the Spanish people, the less likely it is that Al-Q will be sure that they swung the election. Don’t forget that Aznar et al bullshitted Spain on a pretty bloody serious issue, that usually hurts your standing with voters.
Personally I don’t think Spain should withdraw their troops just yet. They weren’t part of invasion force and so have no obligation to stay under the 4th geneva convention but they most likely have a useful contribution to make to post-war Iraq. Abandoning Iraq now would be a terrible mistake.The Spanish socialist position at the moment sounds quite reasonable.
Well said, Jeeves.
“Personally I don’t think Spain should withdraw their troops just yet. They weren’t part of invasion force and so have no obligation to stay under the 4th geneva convention but they most likely have a useful contribution to make to post-war Iraq. Abandoning Iraq now would be a terrible mistake.The Spanish socialist position at the moment sounds quite reasonable.”
But the incoming government’s position is diametrically different to the position you just defined yourself as “reasonable.” They do wish to “abandon Iraq” - in about 10 weeks time to be precise. This despite the fact that they weren’t part of the initial invasion force and they’re there, ostensibly, for peacekeeeping and reconstruction. They still intend leaving.
Nonsense, Geoff. They intend to withdraw if the UN doesn’t involve itself. The US is leading the push to involve the UN. Spain’s threat of withdrawal may assist in that push.
“Nonsense, Geoff. They intend to withdraw if the UN doesn’t involve itself. The US is leading the push to involve the UN. Spain’s threat of withdrawal may assist in that push.”
The UN won’t involve itself until the situation “stabilises.” A Catch 22 potentially looms within which the Spanish have a tough decision to make.
The new Spanish government has said it will withdraw its troops from Iraq by June 30 unless a new U.N. mandate is granted before then.
I believe that the Socialists have held to this position since a long-time before the Madrid bombings. I also believe that said Socialists assume the UN will issue a new mandate unless a miracle occurs in Iraq over the next two and a half months.
you know it’s not as if those dickhead spanish folk have ever had experience with terrorists, the chickenfuckers. Here in Oztraya, we’ve had the Hilton… and, and, and… well, we know best anyway.
If only life were as simple as some want to believe.
I wonder: will Norman ever stop talking in horoscope-style truisms?
IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:—
“We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ‘em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!
It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:—
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to says:—
“We never pay any one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost,
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”
— Kipling
Bullshit Rob. Complete and utter bullshit!
Aznar was beaten because the Spanish chose to capitulate to the demands of the terrorists. Iraq was unpopular with the Spanish electorate before the bombs exploded but that did not prevent every single poll indicating a significant win for the PP.
Despite all the speeches and campaigning and debates and newpaper editorials, the fact remains that the single event of the bombings at Atocha station reversed an inevitable result in a democratic election. It proved to the terrorists that terrorism is stronger than democracy (at least in Spain). All democracies will now pay a huge price for the cowardice of the Spanish.
BTW. The accusation is not that the Spanish support terrorism. The accusation is that they are a pack of pathetic gutless fucks who through their spinelessness has endangered the citizens and institutions of other democracies. My accusation could not be more perfectly summarised by the words of John Stuart Mill:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
Sounds a bit like yourself Rob…
which might all make sense, except the spanish have been fighting terrorists for the last 37 years.
g
Point taken. However:
- ETA has never been anywhere near as murderous as Al-Qaeda
- The Spanish are familiar with ETA, their grievances and what makes them tick
- They are not familiar with Al-Qaeda and have willfully bought the notion that they are a target because they sent some medics, intelligence agents and engineers to Iraq, rather than accepting the reality that they are a target because of Al-Qaeda’s commitment to return Andalucia to the control of a Muslim Caliph.
- They think that they can disengage themselves from the enemy (Al-Qaeda) by not participating in an active war against them, whereas they realise that they cannot disengage themselves from ETA, since ETA operates from within Spain.
Murph, two points:
1. The fact that ETA are nowhere near as murderous as Al Qaeda, coupled with the fact that the Spanish are familiar with ETA, goes a long way to explaining why they were so angry when the government wrongly tried to pin blame for the bombing on Al Qaeda.
2. The war in Iraq is not a war with Al Qaeda. Disengagement from Iraq does not constitute disengagement from war with Al Qaeda. In fact, it will probably allow them to focus on the real threat they face.
“The war in Iraq is not a war with Al Qaeda. Disengagement from Iraq does not constitute disengagement from war with Al Qaeda. In fact, it will probably allow them to focus on the real threat they face.”
You could believe that, if you’re going to take a reactionary stance.
The war to destroy the Iraqi regime was correct on many levels.
- The creation of a democracy in the Arab ME which will serve as a model for others to follow is absolutely essential to defeat Islamic terrorism. Arab nationalist regimes create Islamic terrorists because they do not allow for a free exchange of ideas.
- Despite the fact that the Monday’s experts feel exonerated by the lack of WMD stockpiles, the reality is that everybody, including the intelligance agencies of France, Germany, Russia and Iran, as well as Hans Blix and Richard Butler, considered Iraq to have an active WMD program. Continuing sanctions and inspections were a complete and utter waste of time, prolonged the agony of the Iraqi people and only delayed the inevitable.
- Whilst there have been no clear links established between Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Ba’athists, Saddam was a fervent supporter of secular Arab terrorist groups. That is utterly undeniable. Remember, this is a war on terrorism, not a war on Al-Qaeda. They’re peas in a pod and deserve the same treatment.
You may rightly claim that the invasion of Iraq increased our exposure to terrorist threats, however, the threat of retaliation by despots is not and should never be a reason for the free-world to back down. You may as well lay blame on the British government for the Blitz since the British army engaged the Nazis in France.
- Lastly, the Coalition foothold in the ME has created “flypaper” on which many Jihadis are being turned into Shahids on a daily basis. The Americans have taken the war to the enemy and are dictating the battlefield.
Glad to see you’ve finally come on board, Robert, in your acceptance of my suggestion that you tend to oversimplify issues in line with your prejudices. Now that you’ve bitten the bullet, and accepted [as you call it] this “truism”, we can expect a more careful analysis of material?
Who knows, you may come to realise that even someone who spins off items just to attract attention via shock [[ not you in this case, but Germaine] ] may sometimes have an important issue implicit in what has been raised?
Norman, it’s a truism because it’s meaningless, not because you’re a wise old sage. Get over yourself.
Communication succeeds at last, Robert. You’re under the assumption that “truism” simply means meaningless. Had I realised your problem earlier, I’d have responded differently. My comment again, or near enough, was, “If only life were as simple as some WANT to believe” [[emphasis not in original but added here in the hope of helping your understanding]]
Clearly my irony was far too gentle, Robert. I was suggesting that all too many people, especially when confronted with material which fails to support their “true believer” view of the world, fall back upon quite incredible oversimplifications of anything which endangers their security blankets. [[To avoid further confusion, Robert, I should probably point out here, that I’m referring to metaphorical blankets?]]
Perhaps this is the origin of one of my favourite Yugoslav proverbs, which is: —-
“Tell the truth and run”.
Must fly now. Go in Peace.
I didn’t say that truism = meaningless. I said that your statement was so vague as to be meaningless, which means that it can’t be contradicted, which makes it a horoscope-style truism.
Read what you wrote, Robert. You said “it’s a truism because it’s meaningless”. When I suggested the world might be a better place if the problems facing us were as simple as the superficial assumptions made by all too many of the various “faithfuls” believe, you might have attempted to refute my statement by arguing either a] There isn’t a strong tendency among people to engage happily in this form of self-comforting delusion, OR b] if there is, more people relying less on deluding themselves wouldn’t help make society better.
You could even have attempted to argue BOTH my premises were mistaken!
But I’d suggest that simply to call it a “truism” [whether it be in a “horoscopic” or any other sense of the word] is precisely the sort of defence mechanism which leads so many of us, on so many “sensitive” issues, to adopt the suprtficially simple interpretations which led to my initial comment.
It’s a worry when the person has made a statement can see the grounds on which it might be challenged, but his “critic” can’t?
I don’t want to refute your statement, because it’s true: the world would be a better place if (a) it were simpler, or (b) people engaged more with its complexities.
You seem to think I disagree with you.
Can you go troll someone else now, please?
Pardon, Robert? Am I to blame if the original irony was missed by you, which strikes me as unlikely, or it hit home with one of your weaknesses that you’d prefer to not acknowledge?
In future, I shall endeavour to not laugh too much at any of your many sacred cows.
Via con dios.