Spain Grapples With Notion That Terrorism Trumped Democracy

The New York Time ^ | 3/17/04 | Lizette Alvares & Elaine Sciolino

[jocon307]

I thought this was a pretty good, dare I say nuanced, article. Once again proving, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up, or in this case denial, that kills you.

The sad but amazing thing about this all is how those on the left, at least the mainstream left, are very quailed at the results in Spain. They too KNOW that this has been a victory for the terrorists, and in their hearts, they know the terrorists are wrong. The gals writing for the NY Times don't want to wear the burkha anymore than us gals at FR do.

May the election victory in Spain be the last success ever for the Islamofacists hordes.

[Just mythoughts]

They can now ride the trains.

[Berliner Baer]

I find this "The terrorists won the election" quite dangerous. With this argument, we might as well cancel any elections directly after a bombing and automatically let the reigning party win.

El Qaida sadly will feel encouraged by this and it might trigger more alike efforts in the future, but any talk of watering down the democratic spirit to freely vote ("If you vote against ...., you must be with terrorists") actually plays into the hands of El Qaida.

The Spanish decided in a free election and that shall be respected, and I agree with the article that it was mostly due to the extremly lousy post-bombing-handling by Aznar. (And while I am Bush-critical, I must give Bush credit that he handled the time directly past 9/11 much better than Aznar with his desperate ETA-blaming)

[ambrose]

[DB]

Just wait when they find out that ETA and Al Qaeda worked together on this...

ETA wasn't bringing in tons of explosives into Spain for party poppers.

For the voters to expect to know definitively who did it 4 days after the event is just plain foolish. The only reason the voters knew about the Al Qaeda connection is information provided by the same people that were doing the "cover up". A bit of contradiction on the face of it...

[DB]

It isn't that complicated.

A group is ahead in the poles, the terrorist want that group out of power so they strike just prior to the election. There is information from before the attacks that this is the terrorist strategy. The voters change their mind after the strike and vote in those who are vowing to take actions that the terrorist want.

There isn't any mystery what happened here.

What the voters did is dangerous.

Actions have consequences.

To claim that the terrorist didn't win the election is just plain foolish and contrary to the facts.

[dokmad]

"who really won on Sunday, the Socialists or the terrorists? "

Only the weak and foolish will allow murderous thugs to influence policy. President Bush has taken them on. The rest of the world (including the democrats in America) are cowards.

[Berliner Baer]

An American in Spain wrote an interesting piece on the time between the bombings and the election in another thread - which I still believe was crucial:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1098757/posts?q=1&&page=51#81

And your assumption also hands the terrorist-topic total control over voters:

You believe that one shall never vote like the terrorists tell them to - so you believe that people are automatically morally forced to vote for the opposing party, if such a threat occurs. As I said, we might as well call off elections then whenever those criminal threaten us, as we are no more free to vote under such assumptions.

[Drammach]

ETA and Al Qaeda worked together

From what I've read on ETA, their biggest concern was declining support and money problems...
Al Queda's biggest problem is Islamic "profiling" and close scrutiny by EU law enforcement..

ETA had the connections. They could get the explosives and materials, and were "native" to the area.. could travel without undue suspicion..
AQ had the money.. They could pay for said materials, and could also come up with a plan and operatives that was completely unlike the usual ETA operation..

I too believe there was most likely a cooperative effort between the 2 terrorist organizations..

[JasonC]

"the Socialists or the terrorists?"

Historically speaking, what's the difference?

[jpl]

I thought this was a pretty good, dare I say nuanced, article. Once again proving, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up, or in this case denial, that kills you.

Well said, and I agree that this was a pretty amazingly balanced piece from the New York Times.

We're actually dealing with similar issues here in America, but from the press as opposed to the government. Our so-called mainstream media has been deceiving (I would call it outright lying to) the American people for quite some time now on several issues relating to the War on Terrorism, particularly in regards to Saddam's long-standing association with Muslim terrorists, and the fact that we were the reciepients of a biological anthrax attack from said Muslim terrorists in the wake of 9/11. And just like with the Spanish government, these lies and coverups are due to nothing more than just pure hardball politics.

[Tempest]

Well considering the fact that the terrorist got exactly what they were aiming for. I'd have to say that the terrorist won.

[Tempest]

"I find this "The terrorists won the election" quite dangerous. With this argument, we might as well cancel any elections directly after a bombing and automatically let the reigning party win."

That line of reasoning doesn't make sense either. It's not in the best interest of the terrorist to strike out at ruling parties that placate to their whims. I guess that's why the Taliban had such free reign. I also suppose that the fact that the terrorist got the exact results that the were looking for hasn't struck as a MORE DANGEROUS PRECEDENT!

Anyways I see that you're a self-proffesed "Bush critical" newb. I guess you're just here to troll. Have a pleasent stay.

[rrrod]

the gov of spain didnt handle the aftermath of the bombing well at all and may be a contributing factor as you said. but its still a surrender

[Berliner Baer]

Anyways I see that you're a self-proffesed "Bush critical" newb. I guess you're just here to troll.

Why would I troll, when I am honest? A troll is something else.

And I am here to better understand the Bush-supporters, as our media here presents mostly only the left US-voices, aside from the Bush-administration himself.

I see you CC'd to admin. Calling for them why? Well, if these and all my past postings and discussions on here with Freepers are not allowed (but loads of hostile remarks like "Euroscum" are welcome), then be it - it would also teach me a lesson about Bush-supporters and I go back to our media here. Though so far, you are the first to react so hostile.

[Atlantic Friend]

Yes, that's very much true. What matters now in my opinion is how, and with what degree of vigor, the newly-elected majority will fight terrorism. If they withdraw 1,300 troops from Iraq but mobilize instead their thousands of intelligence and law-enforcement officers, that's fine by me.

If the new government pursues a policy of total cooperation with the USA and other Western countries in order to win the WOT, I don't think Uncle Sam or Britannia or Marianne will have much to complain about.

[CatoRenasci]

Well, the conclusion (I don't see it as an argument) that the terrorists won the Spanish election is quite dangerous. Dangerous, in my view, less because it might help incumbents, than because it encourages terrorists.

However, the fact that the conclusion is dangerous, and decidedly unpleasant for the European appeasment-oriented mind to contemplate, does not make it any less true. [Rather like Nietzsche's alte Weibchen's "kleine Wahrheit" in Also Sprach Zarathustra or Goethe's euconium to double entry bookkeeping in Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahare]

The Barbarians are really at the gates of Europe again. The European policy of appeasement will be about as effective as waiting for the return of Friedrich Barbarosa.

[American_Centurion]

The people of Spain exercised their democratic freedom and elected a leader they thought could insulate or prevent another attack like the one in Madrid.

In doing so the people of Spain have, without a doubt, doomed thousands of innocent people in Europe and the US. Notice that the terrorists didn't attack the government of Spain, they attacked the people.

In as much as I respect the vote of the Spanish people, I curse them for thier selfishness and cowardliness.

If they wanted to stand defiant in the face of terror, they would have re-elected the PM, but they chose to capitulate to fear and intimidation. I hope the Spanish people can live with what they asked for, I for one will remind them every chance I get that the next attack preceeding an election would not have happened were it not for their cowardice.

[rrrod]

euroscum is a polite and courtesey term of endearment for the brave and couragous people of europe.......

[Kozak]

"the Socialists or the terrorists?" Historically speaking, what's the difference?

Terrorists kill retail, Socialists kill wholesale. Like comparing your corner store to Walmart.