Atocha Station: ETA, Al-Qua

[nemafakei]

Jos

[Filo]

Shocking, yes, the word is weak...

Surely Al-Qaeda. Same method, same blind mercilessness, and proofs found in a cattle-car near the departure station, and above all they claimed the act by the same ways than before.

It's a pity, especially because the whole spanish people, like french people did, refused to be involved in that war in Iraq ; it was Bush's bloody nonsense, and some shady european leaders, not theirs.

And who pays now? Innocent people, as usual.

Now, how can this vicious circle of violence and stupidity ends?

I'm sure re-electing a guy like Bush won't help anyway.

[ordos45]

Plus ETA claims responsibility for their actions, that wasn't the case this time.  So I'll believe they didn't do it, from that fact alone.  Call them what you will, but they are honest about which lives they take.

As for the never ending cycle of stupidity...I doubt it will ever end.  We humans tend to do stupid things more often than not.

[Filo]

Good exists as well, happily.

The fact is, like I said in a previous topic, bad acts remain more in memories and History.

There's much stuff by our times...

[Caid Ivik]

It could be only al-Kaida. Surprise attack on a place no one would expect, but with terrific damage. And again, fully another scenario. Once they attacked from air, so we started to watch airports as insane. Then Bali, peaceful holiday place with ground bombs. We can be sure there is no plan against ie olympic games or US presidency elections, but I would reconsider things like visit of museum on roman Capitol...

[Filo]

Terrorism is the new weapon. The cheapest, the most frightful and merciless. It isn't a war beetween two armies, but beetween a despondent minority against a whole innocent people.

My neighbour could be a militant of one cause or another, and could decide tomorrow to blast my son's school. All the stuf he needs can be found in the shops.

We are afraid, and I guess it's only a beginning.

[thomas]

you truly beleive the terrorist attack on spain is caused by Bush's actions? Idiots. Spain has been fighting terrorism internally for over 30 years, in those three decades over 800 have been killed and thousands injured. and Filo you are wrong once again, Spain has about 1,000 men in Iraq.

[ordos45]

The Olympics would be a rather soft target actually...heavily defended but with millions living in Athens, plus tens to hundreds of thousands of tourists, that's a lot of people to cover.  Interestingly enough, the United States is partially running the security, the Greeks invited our troops in to help this summer.

[nemafakei]

"you truly beleive the terrorist attack on spain is caused by Bush's actions? Idiots. Spain has been fighting terrorism internally for over 30 years, in those three decades over 800 have been killed and thousands injured. and Filo you are wrong once again, Spain has about 1,000 men in Iraq."

Firstly are you suggesting that this was ETA? This indiscriminate killing would increase ETA's count by 20-25% in one blow (Very strange, for them) - and acheive nothing.

Secondly, I think his point was that the spanish people were not particularly in support of the war, but Aznar was, so Al-Qua

[thomas]

but he said their "non-involvement" and making a relation to the french who are not involved with the war, but the spanish are (correction) spain has roughly 1300 troops in Iraq ATM. No I'm not suggesting it was ETA, I am saying this not in correlation with spains involvement in Iraq. Why would they be attacked for their presence in Iraq? all of there men there are medics and doctors, infact they sent a mobile hospital ship there aswell, but they aren't aggressive.

[thomas]

oh and he was also suggesting they were paying for Bush's involvement in Iraq but that is total Bull, as stated before Spain has had it's own war on terror for over 30 years.

[Edric O]

Spain's 30-year "war on terror" was against ETA, not Al-Qua

[Edric O]

News just in: According to the exit-polls, the socialists crushed Aznar's conservatives. :)

(for those of you who don't know, the Spanish elections were held today)

[nemafakei]

And confirmation:

Socialists (PSOE): 42% (164 seats)

Popular Party (PP): 38% (148)

Catalan Regional Party (CiU): 3% (10)

Republican Left of Catalonia (ERC): 2.5% (8)

Basque National Party (PNV): ?% 7)

United Left (IU): 5% (5)

Turnout: 77%

Note that Batasuna and similar parties whom Aznar's government accused of supporting terrorist groups were excluded from standing. The PNV is a moderate party in support of Basque nationalism and has long been the ruling power in the Basque regional assembly, but holds little sway elsewhere.

[Caid Ivik]

Nice, those socialist hyenas perfectly blamed Aznar's active politics for the tragedy and won. Extremely disgusting, I wouldn't be surprised if the blast was arranged by Zapatero's people...

[Wolf]

Now Zapatero is promising to pull out of Iraq! Regardless of where you stand on the war, you know what this means. Al Qeada has won -- they have convinced not just one man, but an entire people, to give in to their desires through murder and terror. Who really gains out of all of this? The Spanish? No, not after the tragedy that befell them. The Americans? They're losing an ally. The Anti-war Nations? There is still war, one way or the other. No. The only people who really win is al Qaeda, and they have won big.

[Caid Ivik]

Again, fear showed, that it is more powerful weapon than tanks and missiles...

[nemafakei]

"Extremely disgusting, I wouldn't be surprised if the blast was arranged by Zapatero's people... "

Uh, the PSOE is a rather different style of party to the likes of Batasuna and Sinn F

[Wolf]

It would seem that Spanish policy fits quite nicely with al Qaeda goals. I am somewhat unconvinced of your arguments, Nema, when such Spanish policy is instituted after a terrorist attack carried out by al Qaeda. Perhaps the method in which I made my points were wrong, but the fact is that terrorism worked. A terrorist attack shifted polls away from Aznar and to the Socialist party. This is not bad in and of itself, what is bad is that the goals of terrorists were fulfilled by an act of terrorism. Therefore proving that, yes, as long as you kill people, you can get what you want. This will serve to encourage terrorism, as there is no better encouragement than success.

*EDIT: Furthermore, Nema, I'd like to see where you came up with the "90% of the people, number". I am not challenging the argument it presents, however, I will be even further less likely to be swayed by your arguments if I discover that you just invented a statistic.

[nemafakei]

"The Spanish Government backed the US-led invasion of Iraq last year despite polls showing 90% opposition to it from the Spanish public."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3511886.stm

I don't post statistics without good reason.

That terrorism affects politics is beyond doubt. But to suggest that terrorism softens international resolve against it is to fail to look beyond the most obvious effects of terrorism.

The first think Sr Zapatero said publicly about his policies was that he was determined to pursue policies to expel terrorism. Spain is not a country likely to give up and go away because it's been bombed... when I lived there a few years ago, every terrorist action by ETA provoked more disapproval, and a firmer stance - even among the people of the Basque country (I was in its capital, Vitoria-Gasteiz). Any terrorist who is celebrating is ccounting their proverbial chickens. I suspect Spain will become only more determined to stop terror and aggrssion in the international context - be it performed by covert societies or powerful countries.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, my conclusion that Zapatero was behind it wasn't serious. However, we can't look at acts of terrorism by american way. Basque terrorists are part of spanish society, which are fanatical to part from it. They form an inconform subculture inside Spain, which doesn't want to accept the fact it became a democratic country, where will of majority is over them. When they started of course, there was Franco, it would have a sense. However now is ETA terror only annoying and obsolete, which will be always condemned by vast majority of both Spaniards and Basques.

Al-Kaida is another form. It is a hidden group with uncertain goal. They are band of people angered by western influence: cultural, economical and also political. Nothing new, it was just harder to pass trough secret services in Cold War. But now we have a monopolar world, so it looks like USA are the main source of this influence. To be sure, we europeans see it like this. Also we conclude from it, that Al-Kaida is fightning against USA, and attacking their allies, same for USA (altough they do it by another, undoubtely more civilized way). European "anti-war movement", which holds socialists in Germany, France and now also Spain, is a champion of this thought.

However, it may be a fatal error.

[filecore]

Spain's 30-year "war on terror" was against ETA, not Al-Qua

[Wolf]

I think you're right Caid. The international community has two expectations of the United States; that we clean up terror without their involvement, and that we get legitimacy. The only problem is, we cannot achieve international legitimacy unless the international commuinty involves itself! America is incapable of handling this problem alone, simply because it needs Western solidarity to help it. The war on Iraq was an incredible mistake perhaps simply because it fractured the Western alliance.

[Caid Ivik]

But if the war wouldn't be waged, do you think there would be no bomb in Madrid? I simply can't imagine fall of WTC and then Bush preparing counterattack saying to nation "sorry, some of our european allies don't want to go with us" and sit waiting for another attack. There is a big movement spread across the muslim world hating our culture. Now they abstain, but as the conflict will rage, they will join USA again.

Or alternative will be that USA will control whole Middle East without western Europe. This would end up in new cold war.

[nemafakei]

"but why hasn't anyone made a try?"

Uhhh, they have. You just won't hear much about one until it succeeds.

Be aware that some (probably most) of the anti-war movement oppose it for diffeent reasons than just the thought of whether or not they are at risk! There are other issues involved, and only some of those who oppose war do so on this assumption you suggest, Caid.