ANALYSIS-Al Qaeda Hijacks Spanish Election

MADRID (Reuters) - If al Qaeda did mastermind Spain's bloodiest bomb attacks, its militants could claim to have caused a spectacular election upset in Madrid, but some analysts said the defeated government only had itself to blame.

The train blasts that killed 200 people triggered a backlash against the party of Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar -- a staunch ally of Washington over the Iraq war -- and handed power to the Socialists who opposed the conflict.

"If the al Qaeda network is behind these attacks, then you can certainly say that al Qaeda is responsible for removing the Popular Party from government," said Charles Powell, assistant professor at San Pablo-CEU University.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=reutersEdge&storyID=4564706

Claiming "Al Qaeda removed the PP from power" is a remarkably anti-democratic statement.

You are right, no respect whatever for the Spanish voters.

and besides they are just some focus group anyway :D

Just like Selection 2000, Haiti, Venezuala and all the others.

Can't have too much, you know, real democracy.

Sometimes people just can't be trusted to decide for themselves what they really want.

the terrorist attack.

CNN is reporting tonight that Aznar's government is "the first of the Iraq-war alliance to fall" (or close). It's odd that al-Qaeda would take some sort of comfort in turning over governments it professes to hate. Turning over the Spanish gov't isn't exactly a great military victory.

I'm reminded of the conventional wisdomn aout the Provisional IRA during the early 1990's, before Clinton cut a deal for the Republicans with the Brits. At that time, the Provo's were considered more dangerous when down and out -- because they were desperate.

Here's how it works:

1) We assume al-Qaeda are rational actors. Indeed, the Republican spin assumes just that: Al-Qaeada has a set of strategies and goals, and uses force to implement its goals, based in part on precedent. The assumption here is that all rational actors consider precedent carefully when making decisions (i.e., rely on induction as a form of reasoning about action).

2) All recent precedent has shown that populations of Western/Westernized countries under terrorist threat behave more rather than less conservative. For evidence, we would show the rightward shift in the US immediately following September 11, the pro-government feeling in Australia immediately following the Bali bombings, and the general rightward leaning of the Israeli population as each intifada expanded its scope.

3) If al-Qaeda are rational actors, and precedents point to a rightward shift, then one could conclude that the bombings were intended to produce a rightward shift in Spain, turning the PP's victory from slim to huge, thereby radicalizing the Spanish populace and furthering polarizing the EU. In fact, a leftward swing seems stupid given al-Qaeda's objectives of instigating an intensifying conflict between the West and Islam.

4) Therefore, the Spanish people's decision to oust their rightwing government was NOT a victory for al-Qaeda, but precisely the opposite of what they expected and desired.

QED;-)

Cuts to the heart of things better than the hypothetical I've been spinning all day, namely if the PP had won by a bigger than expected %, then AQ would have still effected the results and thereby "won" that way too--or at least one would think from this and kindred "analysis."

But your approach dispenses w/ the "what if" bit nicely.

:toast:

The terrorists involved in this action had no reason to think that the elections would bring the socialists to power. In fact, they had every reason to expect the opposite result. That's the big flaw in the "Al Qaeda wanted the Socialists to Win" argument. That argument plays it as if every Western population HASN'T turned hard right in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack. But that precisely contrary to precedent. If we are to grant al-Qaeda strategic intention, then we can only infer that their intention was to effect a PP landslide. The Socialist turn in Spain was a surprise to everybody - I think al-Qaeda included! It was a rejection of the current trajectory of the war tout court; the current trajectory, of course, is decidedly to al-Qaeda's benefit, which is why they wanted to intensify it by creating the illusion of a conservative mandate in Spain. In this intention, the bombers failed utterly, thanks to the wisdom, patience, and deliberation of the Spanish people.

-aQ WANTS to incite a world-wide holy war
-aQ uses "fear" tactics to generate incitement
-aQ is rewarded when conservative "warriors" are spurred into war-mongering
-aQ failed to get its anticipated outcome

(in a way, aQ uses fear the same way conservative war-mongers do)

Spaniards refused to be ruled by fear tactics.
They demonstrated both reason and courage.

I think that they realize that their goals must be based on assymetrical engagement for the foreseeable future.

I think the goal they are pursueing is to wreck the coalition, regardless of who is running individual governments. I think the attack in Madrid forced the Spanish voter into asking how far they were willing to go to support Bush and they had a clear answer.

It did create a situation where aQ benefits from just the sort of government they purportedly dislike, a secular Democracy.
By strengthening democracy, I think aQ did themselves a long term disservice with this attack. An absolute ruler (or one who acts as such), such as GWB can be free to piss into the wind as long as the money lasts.

Here in America, where the journalists have for the most part been co-opted by the administration, it will take a bit more than a single well timed attack, unless that attack is either unimaginably massive, a decapitating strike, or extensively targets the media.

George Bush has made no one safer since he invaded Iraq, and now the proof of his folly is blowing back into his too closely set eyes.
The spin is trying to obscure that message. But the message is too clear and too large to spin, even our allies do not feel safer today than before the occupation. Next government out -- Britain... Ukraine, Poland?

Go back to the protests last spring... look at which nations were least enthused by their government's participation.

If this gets the Iraqi adventure over quicker and gets the UN into Iraq faster, then aQ will have won a small strategic victory at the cost of a renewed effectiveness of Interpol and the other agencies who really should be countering terrorism.

It is awfully hard to bomb a crook into surrendering without making his neighbors feel a bit miffed with enforcement.

But we need to actually use some intel, as opposed to just spinning it to the whim of a disconnected bunch of ideologues. We need a campaign of spies and wet boys, not an invasion of National Guard kids.

Of course, it wouldn't hurt if we actually were serving a worthy middle east policy, but that would take energy conservation, and no one named Bush is going near that one.

Don't get your hopes up that all them things that happened in the last two or three years were really CO-WiNky-DinKs

I also don't know what,who,why or any other of the w's you were referring to but did it kind of made me wonder when you posted

It is awfully hard to bomb a crook into surrendering without making his neighbors feel a bit miffed with enforcement.

It seems a little ensconced in the rhetoric, but some here can read

Btw, are you sure you at the correct URL :eyes:

Nor did Tora Bora accomplish much toward actually restoring Afghanistan to statehood. If anything, we have made it a lot harder to actually pursue terrorists, within the chaos and hostility we are generating in the ME, aQ is being given more opportunities to achieve their strategic goals.

Want peace? With one hand work for justice, and with the other smack the malefactors.

Otherwise, look to the same sort of success that Israel is having with its one handed approach to Palestine.

And I think I do rather belong at DU.

sentence, it did get a little close to home. I misread the statement

I do agree about the need to work together with Interpol, but you got to know these kind of things just don't pop up because someone in another country is bored (more like they are sick of yoke that's been fastened to their country and Friends from other entity's)

Peace without justice is simply the same old tyranny, and cannot you see they work in parallel? We won't be able to have it, if others don't

a just peace worldwide. That is why unilateral interventionism is so bad. But what we are doing is far worse than unilateralism, we are bribeing other countries away from multilateralism in favor of empire.

This undermines the entire global political system, and we will pay for it with the mother of all blowback, IMO.

,...I am writing down that wonderful basic principle, nolabels! :bounce:

Willing after all. Could have been a low turnout also, but the bungling of the RW seems to have even nixed that. Really to me it's just wonderful, * and his buddies really are exporting Democracy (probably not how they expected though :-) )

spot on! :toast:

analysis. I think it is absolutely awesome that in the face of the thursday horror, the Spanish voters DID NOT inch right.

A big salute to them !

I heard a more or less truthfull CNN reporter in Madrid reply beautifully to a mean question by this Richard dumbass on CNN Business central this morning.

Q: Surely, the vote in Spain cannot have to do with the PP's war policy being unpopular, because if that was the case, the PP would have already been behind in the polls prior to the bombings.

A: What I think the bombings did, Richard (asshole), is re-awaken the very strong Spanish anti-war sentiment.

Eat dust suckers.

First read this:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/16/spain.invest0700/index.html

The money quotes:

from Al Queda: "'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."

OK.

"We assume al-Qaeda are rational actors. Indeed, the Republican spin assumes just that: Al-Qaeada has a set of strategies and goals, and uses force to implement its goals, based in part on precedent. The assumption here is that all rational actors consider precedent carefully when making decisions (i.e., rely on induction as a form of reasoning about action)."

No argument here.

"All recent precedent has shown that populations of Western/Westernized countries under terrorist threat behave more rather than less conservative."

Until now.

"For evidence, we would show the rightward shift in the US immediately following September 11, the pro-government feeling in Australia immediately following the Bali bombings, and the general rightward leaning of the Israeli population as each intifada expanded its scope."

I'm not surprised that America, Israel and Australia would trend right after an attack. They're cultures that value self-reliance. But Europe is another matter. There's a lot of appeasement sentiment. OK stop now--Just because I believe in confronting terror doesn't make me a Republican.

"If al-Qaeda are rational actors, and precedents point to a rightward shift, then one could conclude that the bombings were intended to produce a rightward shift in Spain..."

Apparently that's not what Al Queda thought nor the way it turned out.

"Therefore, the Spanish people's decision to oust their rightwing government was NOT a victory for al-Qaeda, but precisely the opposite of what they expected and desired."

I disagree.

look for more attempts to effect elections with bombs.

1) markses: "All recent precedent has shown that populations of Western/Westernized countries under terrorist threat behave more rather than less conservative."

sam7: Until now.

Proplem w/ accepting the "rational actors" premise and the notion of precedent but dismissing w/ an "until now." The "document" you site does not bridge the gap. Even if real? How did the bombers know precedent wouldn't follow?


2) sam7: "And having been successful look for more attempts to effect elections with bombs. "

If the election had been swayed to the PP side, would you still have a problem with the fact that the "election was effected"? Or are the results a problem?

In addition, I feel an overlooked aspect of this entire episode is turnout. What, 79% of reg voters voted, as opposed to 63% in previous election? It's possible that patriotism and national unity spurred the Spanish people to vote in large numbers. In the US, what party would win if 80% showed up to vote?

I find this mysterious "internet messageboard posting," quite frankly, laughable. Why has a copy not been splashed all over the front page of every paper in America and Europe? CNN is in possession of it? Let's see it; let's get some independent parties (CNN - given its duplicitous behavior on this matter - is surely not that) to confirm its provenance. Perhaps it will be as authentic and verifiable as the infamous Niger documents, or the magical mobile labs of evil.

Second, one might ask why, if this information was freely available, did not the Spanish authorities 1) go on full alert immediately and 2) recognize the strike as al-Qaeda immediately rather than persisting in an obvious lie and covering up evidence in order to play the ETA card. I suppose in the case of 1) we might not know, but the case of 2) is clear, if such information were circulating in intelligence circles. It was the lie, after all, that swung the election, not any "sentiment of appeasement."

I take objection to that phrase as well (it betrays your sympathy more than your false boast of "confronting terrorism"). The Iraq war does not "confront terrorism." If anything, it supports terrorism by boosting al-Qaeda's recruitment and financing, while allowing their propaganda to ring true.

Now, you should admit that even US experts (including within the State Department) predicted that any terror attack in Europe would cause a swing to the right. In fact, in the immediate aftermath of the Madrid bombings, these same experts were saying the same things. Is al-Qaeda smarter or more able to divine the feelings of people than our State Department, and high level figures within the administration, or were those figures just operating according to wishful thinking, and ignoring the supposedly obvious "sentiment of appeasement" that you supposedly see so clearly. If our intelligence community had information that al-Qaeda was targeting Spain for the elections, why wasn't anything said or done? Why did even Powell persist in the ETA claim if we had this information? And why didn't they take seriously "al-Qaeda's" expectation that an attack in Spain would swing the country left? Why were they predicting the opposite? It simply doesn't make sense.

claiming responsibility for the bombing from the Abu Hafs Al-Masri Brigades of Al-Qa'ida:

"The Death Brigades penetrated into the European Crusader heartland, and struck a painful blow at one of the foundations of the Crusader coalition. This is part of a settling of old accounts with Crusader Spain, the ally of the U.S., in its war against Islam...

"Where is America, Aznar? Who will protect you? Who will protect Britain? Who will protect Japan, Italy, and other agents? By striking at the Italian forces in Nasiriyya , we sent you and America's agents a warning, demanding that you quit the coalition against Islam, but you did not get the message..."

And:

"The peoples of America's allies must pressure their government to withdraw immediately from their alliance with America against terror (Islam)... And if you renounce , we too will stop fighting you."

Clearly they were striking at Spain in order to separate Spain and other allies from America. Which Spanish party had already expressed a willingness to leave Iraq? The Socialists.

Al Queda can read newspapers too. Undoubtedly they knew that 90% of the voters were against the war and as their message board post states
also knew that a little push would bring down Aznar.

Now weather or not it was logical for Al Queda to expect a move to the left is really not important. This statement and the one I mentioned on CNN in the previous post taken together, clearly indicate that a move to the left was what they WANTED. And what they got. They will view their actions as "successful" weather you do or not. Mark my words, they'll try to effect an election again.

"Spain cut the number of police units responsible for watching radical Islamists in the months before last week's Madrid bombings, reducing numbers by up to a half in some cities and sending them back to ordinary police work, it was claimed yesterday.

A report in the newspaper El Mundo emerged amid numerous signs of serious police and intelligence failures in the run-up to the attacks that killed 201 commuters."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,2763,1170913,00.html

My, my, my. So, here are the "facts" as we are to believe them. In December 2003, a posting on a message board frequented by al-Qaeda operatives urges specific terrorist actions against Spain in an attempt to unseat the Popular Party. One can only assume that Western intelligence agencies were aware of these threats at the time (one assumes, that is, that the al-Qaeda message board is one of the sources of "chatter"). Yet there are no explicit warnings. yet there are no alerts. Yet nobody says a thing about these threats as the election approaches in Spain. Quite the opposite: in the months before the bombing, Spain pulls its attention from Islamicists and redeploys them to...what?..picking up heroin fiends and pickpockets?!? How do you square it, my friend> How do you square your phantom document?

who supposedly posted this memo on an internet chat room last December.

Could it be the infamous Daleel Almojahid?

There seems to be some problems with your argument...

1) (a)One of the last messages out of Afghanistan from Osama started off with "Let the whole world know that we shall never accept that the tragedy of Andalusia would be repeated in Palestine." That's the liquidation of the last Moslem hold-outs in Spain...by His Catholic Majesty Ferdinand...in 1492. Maybe the low-level mad bombers are rational, but the man upstairs still dream of challenging the Christian reconquest. But...

1)(b) People who think blowing up old people and children will lead to eternal bliss with 72 virgins/dates cannot be THAT rational....speaking of which...

1)(c) Aren't religious fundamentalists irrational? All that talk about faith being the evidence of things hoped for? Mel's a freak for making "The Passion," but superstitious Moslems killing rape victims are...?

2) What you mean by "conservative" is unclear...let me hazard guesses...

2)(a) By "conservative," in this context, you must surely refer to Defense and you mean "more national security conscious," "more willing to cut geriatric pay in order to increase war spending," "more willing to respond with violence." I agree, not responding would be suicide, and THAT's irrational. But...

2)(b) Security awareness shouldn't be divided into a conservative-versus-liberal situation, since your obvious slander would be: conservatives are able to take measure in self-defense, liberals bend over and take it? Surely wrong. Perhaps you consider...

2)(c) "Conservative" to mean "more apt to ban universal health care and cut taxes?" But that would seem a non sequitur, surely you are not referring to policy positions not having to do with Defense. But what else could you mean by "conservative" in this context?

3) Let's pull out Occam's Cliche and do the right thing: go with the obvious answer, the answer that was given in the recording confessing to crimes against the species. Al Qaeda did it to pay back Spain and Aznar for sending Spanish troops into Iraq and generally supporting the US. And in response, the Spanish race votes in men willing to back down and go home in the face of violence...

4)(a) Thought exercise: what do we as men think of other men who back down in the face of violence? What do men think of teammates who pack it up and go home if their opponents happen to score a couple of points on them?

4)(b) How does one say "appeasement" in Spanish?

Good liberals should lament the fact that a democratic election was twisted by violence and a democratic government backed down in the face of hoodlums.


"Never mind the pretentious quotes that signal my expensive education. That sort of thing is for Smith grads who name their cats Clytemnestra or Turandot."

1(a)-(c) - By rational actor here, I mean merely that al-Qaeda establishes goals, looks at precedent, looks at the situation, looks at possible outcomes, and attempts to implement the actions that would best effect their goals. In fact, 1(a) through (c) are irrelevant, since you yourself assume each of these facets of al-Qaeda's activity. For instance, you say "Al Qaeda did it to pay back Spain and Aznar for sending Spanish troops into Iraq and generally supporting the US." In other words, al-Qaeda has a goal (to pay back Aznar), conceives of a way to implement that goal based on a reading of the situation (the train bombing), then acts in accordance with that goal and that reading. By making this claim, you yourself accept al-Qaeda as rational actors according to my definition. All this business about their irrationality is irrelevant. One can have irrational goals and remain a rational actor.

2(a)-(c). What I mean by conservative should be clear: They have thrown their support to the party generally identified as conservative within the local ideological system. I am not identifying conservative anymore specifically than that, nor do I need to for my point to be valid. There need not be concrete differences between the conservative and liberal positions to effect this identification, so your speculations are unnecessary. For someone professing Occam's razor you sure do go on at great length unnecessarily! Th precedent is clear. One could even excise the whole business and generalize the claim to "the current party in power," which would hold equally well, regardless of party.

3. That the bombing was meant to punish Aznar's decision does not mean that it was meant to get the Socialists elected. That is an unlikely result given the precedent, in any case. The rest of your statements in part 3 are utter nonsense and do not even merit a response.

4. Since I don't agree that the Spanish voters backed down, and since you have provided no argument to that effect, I find section 4 irrelevant, or at least incomplete.

PS. My cat's name is Willy. And I grew up poor in NYC and went to a SUNY school on partial scholarship and waiting tables. Since I don't know you, I wouldn't presume to characterize your life.

1) Now I have issues with your concept of rationality, but I've already conceded that though their goals are goofy in the extreme, they exhibit rational-like behavior, at least on the part of middle-management.(Perhaps I want to say "As an institution, they are efficient, deliberative and cunning, but as individuals, goofballs.") They respond to favorable and unfavorable stimuli, remember previous reactions to their actions and formulate long-range goals and plans thereon, perhaps even make an innovation, but so do Chessmaster 100,000 and my dog, Mithridates VI Eupator. I can't answer your assertion that irrational goals can be possessed by a rational actor; it strikes me as possible, like a French army not running at the sound of Germans, but...somehow inconsistent. Perhaps Rational didn't turn his abilities on his own objectives?

2) I'm not sure which I like more, your original, "Vote for conservatives and the terrorists got their way" or the new "Vote for the incumbent party and the terrorists got their way." Both seem probable, but my "liberal-baiting slander charge" still apply to the former, while the latter at least has precedent, I think Netanyahu and Likud got into power some time ago over incumbent leftists because of terrorist-inspired unease. But you shouldn't change. The original proposition ("conservatives yadda yadda") is vital to your original "thwarting" argument I think, otherwise, all you are saying is that "by voting for the non-incumbent challenger, Spain thwarted terrorism." Which passes strange.

Further, I would also look askance at any tortured logic that ends up supporting my own position (Defeat Terror, Vote Democrat!). But I presume...

3) Hurting Aznar and helping the Socialists are not dependent, I might have misstated, but let's direct our attention to CNN at http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/15/spain.invest/index.html, which quotes, "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."

4) Oh, I hadn't provided an argument and rationale, sure: (a) conservative Spanish gov't sends troops to Iraq in support of war on Iraq; (b) Moslem terrorists go boom in Spain, stating their reasons for this was (a) above and how they want Spain to go home; (c) Spanish voters reject incumbent conservative gov't in favor of liberal challenger party who has campaigned on removing troops out of Iraq; (d) liberal party promises to pull out troops from Iraq. Therefore: terrorists got everything they wanted for the low low price of 11 bombs (and 1 dud). It took the Germans whole divisions to take France.

Some Spaniards argue that the vote was a reaction to the crisis-management technique of Aznar and not out of soul shaking fear, but that is of no moment: we look not to their motivation but to their effects, the precedent that terrorism works and the lingering taint that old Europe haven't moved past Munich appreciably. Admittedly, the Spanish join the august ranks of the British, who had already surrendered to the IRA, and the UN, who recognized Arafat and Palestinians only after they blew themselves and others up. Note that the Kurds and the Tibetans get no such love from the powers that control them, they don't blow up children.

Relevance: it offers an explanation (election was terrible) directly challenging your offered explanation (election was good).

p.s. ignore everything in quotes at the bottom, it is directed at no one in particular. My cat's name is Lunch.

p.p.s. I think the Spanish word may be pacificacion.

"There are somethings that just aren't meant to be eaten." - Homer

1) Since you concede the rational actor point, I'll not deal with it.
2) You mistake two different levels of the argument here. The precedent says that the population will turn to the conservatives, and it is the precedent that a rational actor works on. The point here is that it is improbable that al-Qaeda would expect a Socialist victory given the situation. That the population voted contrary to precedent is all that is necessary to make the "thwarting" argument, since the precedent gives us a picture of the actors goal in itself. Needless to say, one could bolster the specificity of the thwarting argument by turning to content, but it is not necessary here.
3) I've addressed the suspect CNN story at length in this very thread, and will not do so again here.
4) Your argument assumes that al-Qaeda wants the Spanish to pull out of Iraq. I don't think that argument has sufficient foundation, especially since I find the CNN story suspicious in the extreme, and contrary to other facts on the ground (especially the weakening of surveillance on Islamic extremists in Spain after the supposed publication of this message, and the lack of any heightened state of alert going into the elections).

PS. Forgive me. I must have been feeling guilty about the over-education I scratched and bled for. Must be the New York City public schools that made me paranoid. At the same time, I'm glad I posted a response, if only to alert others who also imagined the implication. :eyes:

Only ignorant sheeple would buy that line-they are trying to set terms of the debate once more to support the right wing or you are with the terrorists-it is reeking GARBAGE and we all have to fight it.

.....in the first sentence! :evilgrin:

"ANALYSIS-Al Qaeda Hijacks Spanish Election" - "some analysts said the defeated government only had itself to blame" :shrug: :crazy:

this is what happens when you ignore the will of the people.

NINETY PERCENT of the Spanish people were against the Iraq fiasco. Any attempt to downplay Spanish anger is outright spin and lies.

The Spanish people voted out the people who FAILED TO PROTECT THEM from the terrorists.

And it's not like Al Queda is going to lay down their arms when conservatives are voted out. If the rest of the West goes the way of Spain Al Queda will still be after us. 9/11 would have happened regardless of the leadership of this country.

Desperate, pathetic conservatives will try to spin it otherwise, yet brute reality is starting to catch up with their fantasies.

This is DEMOCRACY in action, if you don't like it, leave.

Suck on that, freepers!

If ousting the ruling party in a fair election is a victory for Al Qaeda, then it follows that no election should have been held. That would seem to be the logic that the wing nuts are pushing. What a bunch of ass clowns.
Their days are numbered - democracy works. keep the faith.

into voting for war-mongers who would help al Qaeda in its quest for a world-wide jihad.

Since the Spanish authorities obviously had access to the chatter and did not launch a pre-emptive attack on aQ, exactly when *should* a coalition power exercise the pre-emption doctrine? Or is pre-emption an exclusive right of the US?

I prefer the argument that goes-- 'We haven't the slightest freakin idea how to actually stop aQ, and we are spinning this like mad for our own political gain.'

That strains my credulity far less.

Remember, PP was leading PSOE by a comfortable margin just days, even hours before the attack. If the Spaniards were soooooo adamantly against the right and its support for the war on Iraq, why were they ahead in every poll? Aznar's problem was that, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he insisted ETA was the prime suspect. Had he been more forthcoming with his country, Rajoy would probably have been elected and the PP would still be in office. Aznar, Rajoy and the PP lied (or didn't tell the whole truth) about the investigation, and the voters made them pay for it. One of the purest examples of Democracy I can think of.

The PP lied and they told where to go.
Unfortunantly, the PSOE doen't have a clear majority, 164 seats out of 350. The PP had 184, they are down to 148.
Still, it got a lot of people out to vote.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I have only heard/read of about a 5% margin, and I have also seen on TVE (Spanish television) that of 3 different networks' polls, only 1 gave the PP the lead. The other two showed the 2 main parties getting approximately the same number of seats.

I agree with your points about Aznar's lies or manipulations having an effect on the election.

Who has heretofore been responsible for most, if not all, of the terror attacks in Spain in recent times?

If a terror attack occurred tomorrow in Northern Ireland, would the British government immediately attribute it to "Al Qaeda"?

As much as anything else Europe's Intel agencies
have been designed for 2 things.
1-thwart autonomous local movements
2-maintain a fertile environment for Fascism

OPERATION GLADIO

http://www.thejohnfleming.com/gladio.html

the book 'Stakeknife: Britain's Secret Agents in Ireland'
is not about Mr Scappaticci himself, it is rather about
the British state participation in terrorism and its
willingness to engage all protagonists by proxy.

I don't believe I need to go into detail about the
volunteers
killed as 'informers' who were not, I believe the book
deals
with that; families who had funerals at which there were
a handful of mourners will be asking new questions;
relatives
will also bear grudges.


http://lark.phoblacht.net/mingram.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/chomskychat.html

it will be al qaeda's fault ..... the media's fault ..... the fault of people voting solely on their emotions ............

anyone's and everyone's fault but bush's.

the Spaniards voting against a leader who failed to protect from a terrorist attack, be supporting terrorists?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/

Spain's election results:
Will it encourage terrorists to influence other elections?

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

"So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

You're for the Terrorists!

AlQaida basically punishes anyone who supports the US. Britain could be the next target. Had the population suported Aznar in the first place, they would not have voted him out resulting from last weeks events. But they already were opposed to this alliance, and having to be punished for something they didn't want in the first place was too much. I also agree that Aznar's obvious lies about the curprits in order to protect his party in the election was probably what really pushed them over the edge. So it isn't that the terrorists won, it is that truth won over lying.

If the American public buys this line that al-Qaeda bombed to get a regime change, then it may solidify (and even throw some) support for * if an attack happens here.

The idea that, if you vote a leader out who's country was bombed, then you are helping terrorists is a powerful message.

I think al-Qaeda wants to kill us all. They attacked during the Clinton administration didn't they? Was that so Bush could get into office? Did they win because the Supreme Court selected Bush?

If they don't bomb the US before the election, does that mean they want Bush to stay in office over Kerry?

We have to fight the line of spin that al-Qaeda wanted Aznar out so they bombed to help the Socialists. Otherwise, that type of analysis works directly for the Republicans.

so aQ is supporting the Republicans. The 9/11 attack was an attempt to sway munipal elections across the US. :)

Blair could be in trouble in June…
The twit “is” in trouble in November…

Having the socialists topple Anzar was great, but…while I’m certainly no fan of Blair, I’m also not to keen on Labour losing out to the Torries….maybe Labour needs to take one on the chin for backing Blair….

As for the twit…well, that’s a fucking nobrainer….

Very impressive.

If only our voters had enough sense to oust Bush.

Truth is, an attack like this could cut either way in an election, so to say that al-Qaeda knew in advance that the attack would help one party or another would be giving them too much credit.

What if al-Qaeda had been caught and captured in the attempt? That would surely play right into the hands of Aznar's party, as would their their capture before the election. We at DU have been fearful of an "October surprise" by shrubco orchestrated here in the US for the purpose of bolstering HIS chances-- so the claim that al-Qaeda did this to help the Socialists to me, is absurd.

What I find interesting is that reportedly 90% of the Spanish people were against sending their own troops into Iraq. How on earth did the leaders responsible for that get somehow ahead in the polls?

Personally, I think that the attack brought about a heightened sense of nationalism in Spain, much like the 9/11 attacks did in the US. This increased voter turnout, and tapped into a segment of the population that had shut out politics because they felt they had no voice-- much like Dr. Dean's assertion of the US voting population.

there is nothing negative being said about the embarrassment to Bush. The PR companies are working overtime on this one.

Bush has got to realize what this means--backlash might happen to him--immediately the ire and the revenge mode of the American violent reptillian red necked slobs has got to be stoked up again and that is what they are working on.

I hear them saying now--We in American would not appease terrorists like the Spanish . Big tough guy on CSpan just called the Spanish people "cowards" Bush has enabled the crass, the violent and the arrogant to come forward and be proud of their ignorance.

So we kill twenty thousand people, half of whom are not connected to errorism or Al Queda and lose probably 600 of our troops--and wow, we did not appease terrorists--they just went and put bombs wherever they pleased anyhow.

Some anonymous headline writer has saved us a lot of needless debate. It isn't even necessary to read the article itself and see that the "analysis" actually consists of two (or more) opposing viewpoints with a lot of nuance in between. So glad we have headline writers to make definitive statements such as this. Some journalists are so wishy-washy trying to present multiple sides of a discussion. :eyes:

and now work for the Spanish Govt. Americans do not seem to grasp what happened very well. On March 11, after bombings the govt of Aznar assured the Spanish people that ETA caused the attack. When the truth started coming out, people knew they were lied to and that Aznar was trying to manipulate the elections. Aznar's lies could have started another Civil War in Spain. Spaniards do not like to be manipulated nor lied to. This more than any other factor influenced the elections.

it's the point many here were trying to make -- that aznar and crew have only themselves to blame for being voted out.
also we are aware there was a considerable anti-war sentiment in the general population in spain -- not unlike here.
the lies that aznars people told met up with the growing concern over spain's foreign policy re: iraq and you have democracy in action.
if i were european i'd be pissed that bush is trying to turn the results of this election on it's head by saying europe has been less than serious about fighting terrorism -- if anything europe has much more success at foiling terrorist plots and rounding up suspects. but the bush admin is running this scenario through the mirror once again.

Man that is playing to music to my ears, I so glad you checked in here.

You state Spaniards do not like to be manipulated nor lied to

Here in the US we are fed a relentless unending 24/7 diet of LIES from just about every government or corporate source, and many don't even seem to notice.

I read another poster who claimed to be from Spain also state that there was also some of that Large corporate propaganda working in Spain. My guess is they might demure their Rhetoric some.

My suggestion is not to let them rest. If you got them on the run, keep the heat on. :-)

ON Edit: sorry didn't see the past tense with "I Lived"

the US but I still work for the Spanish Govt. I get more news about what is going on in the US in the Spanish media than I do here. I tell my husband things and he says you are crazy. A few months later the news breaks out here. Now he believes the stories I tell him.

That is really is hard to explain also. So you get the news from both countries and the news coverage of US is better over there than it is here. This even with your close access to the domestic version because you physically living here.

I don't know if it's hard to comprehend because it sounds illogical or just because there are so many that come to this board to poke holes in the fake curtain they see in front of them. It seems strange to pick it up from the other end.

And thanks again for the clarification

That I didnt make myself clear. I should have explained myself better. Not a good writer. Just an example. On sept 12, 2001 the day after the terror attacks, I read in the Spanish Newspaper about Bush and his administration being warned of the pending attacks. The US media did not reveal that till months later.

The September 11, 2001 is a other whole big enchilada all together, there are reams of information, speculation, cross-links, things for future study and just about anything linked to and at DUer land

Try a couple of these if you need your eyes to pop from amazement

Flight 93 Families Dispute FBI's Theory
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=57653

At last 9/11 Truth Gets a Day in Court
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=69827

Who put all those bombs in the WTC?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=1312

WT7 Collapse Caught on Video ---------------------------MPEG PART 2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=1797

WT7 Collapse Caught on Video ----------------------------- MPEG
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=211010

Probably also a lot down at
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=125

that's why Aznar's successor got the boot.

Those people were marching in unity against the political manipulation.

If there is a terrorist attack in October, then vote for Bush or the terrorists have hijacked the election.
If there is not a terrorist attack in October, then vote for Bush because he kept you safe from terrorism.

That is why the media is pushing this idea so hard.

* can suspend the election to prevent the terrorists from hijacking it. No problem getting the Supreme Whores behind that idea.

The university is firmly set in its catholic roots with the chuch and states that the university will always work within the Churchs Social Dctrine and along with the mission statement of the “Asociación Católica de propagandistas”



”

a monolithic organization. The name itself belies that characterization: The "base", or equivalently, the "agenda" presuposes
what it really is - a very loose association of people with more or less common goals; "the enemy of my enemy..." ad nauseum.

The world has gotten too interconnected, too populous and too fractioned all at the same time. A 'trifecta' of sorts. Somewhat a 'perfect storm' that is imperious but being one of our own making is still, for the nonce, subject to correction.

I'm not very optimistic we can quell it.

Blaming it on ETA, was not a glitch, but a coordinated attempt to influence the public. This is becoming more and more prooved.

Aznar/PP

- put pressure on newsmen, urging them to blame ETA.
- gave false information to the U.N. security council who will DRAW BACK a resolution condemning ETA.
- withheld crucial information to German security, giving out false clues leading to ETA, when already all facts speaking against this.

Good enough that the Spanish finally smelled the rat and kicked out the PP.

This is probably the biggest concern for the U.S. ruling junta: That people see how their fear is used, how they are manipulated, and that their anger finally boils over and is directed towards THEM, not the routine scapegoats.

Not because it contained any inappropriate content or personal flames but I just think that I should stay out of this debate at the present time.

Er....let's see if I get this right...

The Republicans are uptight about the results of a democratic and open election.

I'll take this argument anyday of the week.