Is all this "terrorism" starting to work?

[koboshi]

This is my first post so I'll keep it short and sweet.

What will be the repercussion from the recent election-eve terrorism in Spain?  Is it indicative of a new doctrine of political manipulation by Al Qaeda?  If it happens again, this time before the US elections, what would the reaction be in the polls? Would it work again, pushing the liberal democrats into office or will bush and other conservative republican figures use the attack as a call to arms creating a counter swing?

[Kylaer]

The most obvious result will be that Spain is going to get hit whenever the terrorists want the government to change their course. Also, after such a resounding success in Spain, I have no doubt that they'll try the same course of action in other nations; Italy, Poland, France, Britain, and the U.S. all come to mind.

Appeasement of the enemy is only going to lead to more attacks, same as it did at the beginning of World War 2.

I don't know which way the other nations will shift if it happens to them; I thought Spain would be out for blood, but they voted to run away instead. I don't, however, expect the U.S. to follow their example if such an attack happens here.

[Gorky]

Calling this appeasement is taking a very myopic view of the situation. The incoming premier had actually campaigned on the promise that he would pull back from Iraq unless the UN was to take over, so that has not changed due to the bombing. As to the shift of the voters after the bombings, I think it was more of an outraged vote against a leader who tried to hide facts and attempted to exploit a national tragedy to win votes. There really isn't much they (spanish voters) could have done that would have avoided criticism. In the end they did the only right thing, excercised their democratic rights and voted for what they thought was right. Trying to spin this as 'appeasement of terrorists' is simply more kneejerk self-righteous indignation.

[Snowspinner]

I confess, I don't understand the neocon leaping on the explanation of "They were scared into voting against US allies by terrorists like the weak-willed appeasing Europeans they are." (And before someone decides I'm misrepresenting neoconservative views here, http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20040319.shtml">STFU)

I mean, maybe we should consider the possibility that, you know, the Spanish people might have been pissed off that their President, when faced with a terrorist attack, immediately, and apparently with no evidence blamed ETA. Publicly. To newspapers. And continued insisting on this even when evidence to the contrary came up.

I mean, it can't possibly be that that pissed them off, can it?

[Foix]

As always, The Economist has a worthwhile article posted online about the causes and repurcussions of the Socialist electoral victory in Spain.

[CrashCat]

I mean, maybe we should consider the possibility that, you know, the Spanish people might have been pissed off that their President, when faced with a terrorist attack, immediately, and apparently with no evidence blamed ETA. Publicly. To newspapers. And continued insisting on this even when evidence to the contrary came up.

Yeah, that was boneheaded.  But even if you say that a bombing didn't get people to say "Oh crap, Al-Qaeda wants us to vote for the socialists" there's still the point that it got a lot more people to the polls.  All they really have to do is wait for another situation where people generally feel the way Al-Qaeda wants them to vote and then bomb them to give them a little prod to get up and do something.  

I think it's definitely mistaken to say "just throw a bomb and the people will vote the way the terrorists want", and even more so to think that being scared into action is somehow just a European thing.  But there's a real danger here of a precedent of using terrorist attacks surgically to the desired effect like they did here.  

I don't know about you, but if 9/11 had happened on a day that actually meant something to the USA, I think we would have soiled our pants a lot more than we did.  What I believe we really should be getting out of this instead of "OMG ALQAEDA RULZ TEH WORLD WITH BOMBS NOW" is that they may be getting smarter about when and where to hit.  Either that or Spain just offered up an easy target with high impact that nobody thought was coming.  Both ways seem to me likely to produce a repeat to me.

[Kylaer]

I mean, maybe we should consider the possibility that, you know, the Spanish people might have been pissed off that their President, when faced with a terrorist attack, immediately, and apparently with no evidence blamed ETA. Publicly. To newspapers. And continued insisting on this even when evidence to the contrary came up.

I mean, it can't possibly be that that pissed them off, can it?

The Spanish government's initial reaction was to blame the ETA, due to the fact that they'd recently caught ETA people smuggling large quantities of explosives and planting bombs. It wasn't as if the ETA had been dormant prior to these attacks; there had been previous attempts, and at the beginning it looked like this was one that they'd managed to slip past the Spanish security.

But, as the possibility of the Al-Qaeda link became visible, the government didn't try to hide it. The day after the bombings, they ran a column comparing the possibilities of it being an Al-Qaeda operation versus an ETA operation in their newspaper.

To put the credit for the socialist victory solely on Aznar's initial placement of blame on ETA is incorrect.

[Snowspinner]

The Spanish government's initial reaction was to blame the ETA, due to the fact that they'd recently caught ETA people smuggling large quantities of explosives and planting bombs. It wasn't as if the ETA had been dormant prior to these attacks; there had been previous attempts, and at the beginning it looked like this was one that they'd managed to slip past the Spanish security.

It was also a much larger attack than ETA normally does, and, on top of that, ETA was immediately denying responsibility, exactly the way that terrorist groups don't.

But, as the possibility of the Al-Qaeda link became visible, the government didn't try to hide it. The day after the bombings, they ran a column comparing the possibilities of it being an Al-Qaeda operation versus an ETA operation in their newspaper.

The day after the bombings, they were still making press releases saying that they were not considering Al-Qaeda as a suspect, and that they remained convinced it was ETA. And buying time on television to run documentaries about how evil ETA is. While the rest of the world was widely reporting Al-Qaeda connections, the Spanish government had its head in the sand. TWO DAYS after the bombing - on Saturday, the Spanish government announced that that http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03192004/nation_w/149255.asp">it had not ruled out the possibility that ETA may have been working with an Islamic militant group. Yeah, that gives me the sense that they were right on the Al-Qaeda angle.

To put the credit for the socialist victory solely on Aznar's initial placement of blame on ETA is incorrect.

I don't know. You think Bush's popularity after 9/11 would have spiked if he'd spent two days insisting it was right-wing militia groups even as the rest of the world came to the conclusion that it was Al-Qaeda? No. If he'd completely botched the handling of 9/11 like Aznar did, his popularity would have plummeted in the short term.

Much like Aznar's did. The election was held days after a 9/11 scale terrorist attack. And Aznar totally botched the handling of that attack. I'm guessing that probably cost him a whole lot of votes.

http://iblnews.com/noticias/03/103403.html">Spain Campaigned to Pin blame on ETA
http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=22921">Silencing the Truth About the Attacks

[Calantus]

In this sort of situation reality means exactly dick, and perception means everything. Do you really think Al Queda is thinking "Gee, that last president really got screwed over for lying to his people", or "The opposition actually did what it was promising to do for ages if it ever got into parliament"? Remembering of course that these people are fanatics (blind, unreasonable, willing to believe anything despite evidence) and VERY self-important.

When Spain changed the vote from its current government to the opposition, and said opposition immediately declared they would pull out of Iraq... what Al Queda heard was "Okay Osama, we'll be your bitch now, please don't spank us again".

Whether it's true... again, don't mean dick.

[Snowspinner]

Actually, I suspect what Al Qaeda heard was "Ha! More infidels dead!"

I mean, really, enacting political change in the West... not their major goal.

[Belzac]

With the upcomming US election, ya think they might try to influence the outcome with some new state side bombinngs?

[Arydon]

With the upcomming US election, ya think they might try to influence the outcome with some new state side bombinngs?

If they have a fraction of a brain among them. Seriously, they're starting to piss me off. The U.S. is so open it ought to be one giant Jihad Colosseum.

Not that I ever *want* to see anything bad happen, but if I were a terrorist, I would be wreaking some major havoc nonstop. Maybe I misunderstand what these terrorists are all about.

[koboshi]

Seriously, they're starting to piss me off. The U.S. is so open it ought to be one giant Jihad Colosseum.

...

Bring 'em on, I'd prefer a straight fight to all this sneaking around.

[Murgos]

Actually, I suspect what Al Qaeda heard was "Ha! More infidels dead!"

I mean, really, enacting political change in the West... not their major goal.

You are truly one of the stupidist people I know.

ter·ror·ism    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (tr-rzm)
n.

    The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons

The goal of terrorism is political change, at home or in the west it doesn't matter.  Whereever anyone doesn't agree with them they will kill someone to get attention for thier cause.

[Mediocre]

I think an amalgam of the opinions of posters on this thread have hit the nail on the head.

On the one hand, Al-Qaeda will see this as a victory for themselves.  However, it's clear that Spanish voters had legitimate reasons for switching their votes in the aftermath of the bombing -- they're not just scaredy-cat internationalists.  Did some of them switch their vote out of appeasement?  Maybe, but I'd wager that the vast majority were pissed because the bombing exascerbated legitimate political grievances they had with the Popular Party.

The question then becomes: Assuming that the vote in Spain was a legitimate expression of democratic feeling not unduly marred by fear/appeasement of terrorists, should they have shucked aside their democratic feeling to present a "hard line" to Al-Qaeda so AQ wouldn't feel like it had won something with the attack?

I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.

[Speedy Cerviche]

Why would that be a stretch? The USA did that...

I think the Spanish people handed over a victory to the socialists because of the bombing, and it was a knee-jerk reaction. I'm not really blaming them or calling them cowardly, who can really say our own nations wouldn't of done the same 3 days after an event like that with emotions running high and a wide perception of the state handling it ineptly?

Al-Quaida's gloating ("victory over crusader Spain") and as most here widely believe, their belief they can now mimic this attack in other western countries and make them their bitches as well, will have long term reprecussions that will eventually result in a backlash IMO. Once the dust settles in Spain in a few months and it's not so emotional, this is prime material for a more hard line official to use to rally people with (the appeasement and crusader rhetoric especially will become heavy).  

I'm pretty sure if they tried it again in another western country, there would be a heavy backlash, in the other direction. The shock and surprise of the whole thing may have swayed one election, but in the future people will have more of an expection of it, and will be more resolved and not so easily cowed and the same way it's going to be pretty much impossible for anyone to ever hijack planes, as the passengers would now rather rush the hijackers and possibly die in process than be used as guided missiles for attacks on cities. A lot of European nations (France, Austria, Germany, Holland) already have strong facist parties as a result of friction between the natives and (largely moslim) immigrants, can you imagine what would happen if some north africans tried this in France? They would  be handing the next election over to Le Pen. This really could lead to facists rising in again in Europe by playing on the fears of native cultures with the promise of protection and security, with negative consequences for the EU movement.

[Snowspinner]

The goal of terrorism is political change, at home or in the west it doesn't matter.  Whereever anyone doesn't agree with them they will kill someone to get attention for thier cause.

Because I'm sure Al Qaeda takes their goals right out of the dictionary.

Their idea of political change is not "The liberals in power instead of the conservatives"

Their idea of political change is "The west loses its dominance on the global scale."

[Mediocre]

Why would that be a stretch? The USA did that...

The difference in situations between 3/11 in Spain and 9/11 in America are so vast, especially when discussing political ramifications, that to make a simplistic comparison between the two and equate them is simply not correct, IMHO.

Because I'm sure Al Qaeda takes their goals right out of the dictionary.

Their idea of political change is not "The liberals in power instead of the conservatives"

Their idea of political change is "The west loses its dominance on the global scale."

I disagree, Snowspinner.  From WorkingForChange, a source which is ideologically on your side of the overall debate: Link

In fairness, there is chilling evidence suggesting that the ultimate outcome of Spain’s elections was exactly what al Qaeda had in mind. According to CNN, a December posting on an Internet message board used by al Qaeda and its sympathizers spelled out their plan to topple Spain’s incumbent government.

“We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it,” the al Qaeda document says. “If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed -- and the withdrawal of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto.”

For reference purposes, the CNN story which WorkingForChange is referencing can be viewed here.

Snow, I'm partially with you in the view that the Spanish people are making choices out of their self-interest, not out of fear.  However, I believe you're misguided as to Al-Qaeda's aims -- the destruction of the West doesn't happen overnight.  Their leaders are not autistic lepers who fell off the country bumpkin Islamist turnip truck; they can think logically and plan steps towards pragmatically achieving their goals.  The attack on Spain, and attempting to help usher the Socialist party into power, was part of that.

[Snowspinner]

The 9/11 attacks were supposed to collapse the US economy.

The plane that went into the Pentagon and the one that went down in the field were supposed to hit the White House and the Capitol.

They were looking, in short, to bring down the US economy and government.

They are not looking for Kerry to win in 04. They're looking for the US government to collapse.

[Mediocre]

The 9/11 attacks were supposed to collapse the US economy.

The plane that went into the Pentagon and the one that went down in the field were supposed to hit the White House and the Capitol.

They were looking, in short, to bring down the US economy and government.

They are not looking for Kerry to win in 04. They're looking for the US government to collapse.

Veracity of your above statements aside, do you realize they're not at all in reply to the evidence I've presented before you re: the events in Spain, which you've chosen to ignore?

[Romp]

I think there is a big difference between appeasing terrorists and not supporting the war on Iraq.

The war on Iraq was something which most liberals (in fact most people worldwide) were against.  It so happens that Al Qaeda was also against it.  It really had nothing to do with the war on terrorism.  The Spanish government and every European government is committed to the war against terrorism, just not some of Bush's policies such as the Iraq war.


On that one issue, Al Qaeda could get its way by influencing elections to get liberals in power but getting liberals in power will not really help Al Qaeda at all in its overall goals or much at all besides Iraq policy which was really only the one issue which is dividing the west.

It may be that dividing the west could be Al Qaeda's political goal and it could try to do so by influencing elections. if that is the case then if it was going to influence the US election it would want Bush to remain in power.  I think with a Kerry government you would see a much more unified west against Al Qaeda, even the US's greatest ally, Britain, I'm sure would much rather deal with Kerry than Bush.

[Murgos]

Look dumbass you said "Enacting political change in the west is not thier goal."

Yes actually it truly is thier goal.  Even if it's just getting the west to 'butt out' of thier issues that is still POLITICAL CHANGE being enacted on the WEST.  It cannot be spelled out any clearer for you.

[Gromski]

The issue increasingly strikes me as nonsense, if for no other reason than those who are talking about ‘appeasement’ seem to be arguing that once the bombs went off, the Spanish people were duty-bound to vote conservative or else hand a victory to al-Qaeda, no matter what other issues intervened.

The change of government will make little or no difference to the war against terrorism, besides slightly improving the West’s prospects in the war by removing stupid and dishonest people from power. AQ and its associated groups have limited resources that aren’t going to be increased by the election of a Socialist government, and their strategy was already based on causing the maximum chaos and media attention anyway, so I doubt they’ve learnt anything new from the attacks.

Will the Bush administration be embarrassed by the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq? Probably, but they’ve only got themselves to blame for indulging in a widely unpopular military adventure at a time when the fight with AQ should have taken precedence over everything.

[Snowspinner]

Look dumbass you said "Enacting political change in the west is not thier goal."

Yes actually it truly is thier goal.  Even if it's just getting the west to 'butt out' of thier issues that is still POLITICAL CHANGE being enacted on the WEST.  It cannot be spelled out any clearer for you.

Wow! You're right! When you take my words out of context, they can mean whatever you want them to!

Please give the address to which I should send the brass band to celebrate your momentous achievement.

[Mediocre]

The issue increasingly strikes me as nonsense, if for no other reason than those who are talking about ‘appeasement’ seem to be arguing that once the bombs went off, the Spanish people were duty-bound to vote conservative or else hand a victory to al-Qaeda, no matter what other issues intervened.

I get what you're saying, but I think you might be off a bit; I don't think the people screaming 'appeasement' (of which I am not one) are saying that they were duty-bound to vote conservative; I think they were saying that the Spanish people were duty-bound to keep their votes what they were, and not change them because of the bombing.

Which, as it stood, would have resulted in the ruling Popular Party coalition in Spain staying about the way it was, with some minor pickups for the Socialists in terms of seats.

[CrashCat]

I think whether a terrorist attack on the US boosts Bush or Kerry will depend on when they do it.  It's coming in now that Bush got a little boost from the Madrid attack.  The take I heard, and it makes sense to me, is that the attack woke a few people up who wrote off the war on terror as over (probably when we got Saddam).  If they throw an attack at us in the next few months, where there's plenty of time to stump for it, the Kerry camp can have time to pretend to support the President and then pound it into the ground that Bush's plan is failing us and capitalize on the event.  If they throw an attack at us just before (say within a month or two) of the election, it'll be harder for Democrats to come up with the time to methodically pick it apart the same way they did with 9/11. So in that instance Bush would probably gain ground from it since he can point to Madrid, say "I told you so" and tell the people they must not bend to the terrorists' will.  

Then again, there's always an option C, and who knows what that is...

[sergex]

Al-queda's stated goal is to get Western Influence out of the muslim countries of the world, and Spain's decision to pull their troops out of Iraq is playing exactly into their hands.  Therefore, it does send a signal to these terrorists that their plan of killing innocent Western civilians is the right track for them.

I wish people would take their heads out of the sand already and learn that the only proper way to deal with terrorists to send missles into their houses like they do in Israel.

[koboshi]

I wish people would take their heads out of the sand already and learn that the only proper way to deal with terrorists to send missles into their houses like they do in Israel.

Yea, 'cause that's working SO well for them.

[sergex]

They're still in existance right?

[daveNYC]

So are the terrorists.  Just not the exact same ones.

[Margalis]

They're still in existance right?

So are we. So is Spain. So is every currently existing country. Terrorist attacks in Israel happen weekly - they aren't even news. Clearly their strategy isn't a model for success.

If Al-Queda were to launch another attack on the US, the next US President (whoever it may be) would have to be that much tougher on them. If anything it would force us to spend more time fighting terrorism and less time fighting Iraq-style "terrorism."