Madrid Bombing Group Announces Next Possible Targets

[MMMMMM]

(excerpt) "The Islamic militant group that claimed responsibility for last week’s Madrid train bombings has warned its next targets could be Japan, the U.S., Italy, Britain, or Australia, an Arabic newspaper reported today...

...In its statement, Abu Hafs al-Masri said it was calling a truce in Spain to give the socialist government that was elected Sunday—three days after the train attacks—time to carry out its pledge to withdraw troops from Iraq.

The group appeared to boast it had the power to change governments. The socialists—who have long opposed Spain’s military involvement in Iraq—were running second in Spanish opinion polls until last Thursday’s bombings.

“We change and destroy countries,” the statement said. “We even influence the international economy, and this is God’s blessing to us.

“We won’t accept to be an object in this world, but a player, a strong player—with God’s will,” it added. (end excerpt)

Full article:

http://www.fftimes.com/index.php/3/2004-03-18/17377

Now let's ask: is it any surprise that these nutcase fanatics now see the opportunity for blackmail by terror more clearly than ever before? For whatever reason Spain turned on a dime and elected Zapatero, the message the terrorists received was clear: this changing elections stuff stuff works great and will work again. Nice going Spain, with your monumental message of appeasement you have just ensured more attacks in other countries than would otherwise have occurred. So, who will be next I wonder?

[nicky g]

"Nice going Spain, with your monumental message of appeasement you have just ensured more attacks in other countries than would otherwise have occurred. So, who will be next I wonder?"

Right, becase prior to the Spain attacks, there was zero chance that al-Qaida might attack the US and other US allies. Get a grip. I'd still like to know if you think the Spanish should have voted for a party that insisted on blaming the wrong culprits for the attack for political gain.

[ComedyLimp]

Of course in a parallel universe where Spain elected a right wing government Abu Hafs al-Masri issued a statement saying "Due to Spain's continuing acts of imperial aggression we vow to continue our bloody fight with Japan, the U.S., Italy, Britain, or Australia, Spain or frankly anywhere else we can manage to blow up being likely targets".

From your analysis of the reported statement it seems to me you don't have much experience or understanding of terrorism or terrorists (use of the word "appeasment" is highly correlated in this regard in my experiece) but with regard to your main argument the important thing to remember when dealing with terrorists is to do what you think is right not what you think they wouldn't want you to do. If the PP had done what was right instead of lying to their electorate and trying to use the tragic events for political gain they would probably still be in government. Similarly if the Socialists had stood up after the bobmbings and promised to get out of Iraq and aquiese to all AQ's demands wherever possible in order to reduce the risk of further attacks against Spain they would almost certainly have lost.

Did the bombings effect the election? Well yes, obviosuly, how could they not? Elections respond to major events.

Do you think 9/11 or Iraq or Terror will affect the US Election? Of course. Do you think "Heros" will vote for bush and "Cowards" will vote for Kerry? Or do you think people will vote for whoever they think can solve this problem most effectively? If you believe Kerry will form a better government becuase Bush lied (or at least was wrong) about WMD in Iraq and so vote for him are you an "appeaser"?

If you were Spanish and your Government had taken you into a war you didn't want and then had behaved as it did after the bombings would you not consider voting for someone else? Or would you say "I don't like my government, I think it has made terrible foreign policy decisions and its use of tragedy for political gain makes it morally bankrupt but I would never give in to terrorists so I am must vote for them anyway"?

Just my 2c.

[nicky g]

Don't you know by now ComedyLimp that if the terrorists tell you not to jump off a cliff, absolutely the last thing you must ever do is not jump off a cliff. Anything else would be appeasement of the most craven kind. Unless it's withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia.

[superleeds]

[Gamblor]

Good and bad, right and wrong, are subjective and determined by your moral structure. There is little doubt that successful society's moral structure holds the preservation of life as the highest of all ethics.

One must take one's own morals as the highest, otherwise there would be no reason to defend them.

Thus, one must sacrifice morals in one area (most notably, I find, in ensuring quality of life for the terrorists' supporters) in order to preserve the right to life of a nation's inhabitants.

I don't know enough about why the troops are still in Iraq. But I do know that given a choice between lowering your quality of life and preserving my right to life, well, sorry buddy, no steaks for you for a while. Not even Halal steak.

[MMMMMM]

It should be obvious that Spanish capitulation to terror blackmail increases the chances that similar further terror blackmail will ensue. The group responsible for the attacks is now publicly proclaiming this as a sign that they have the power to change elections!

The fact that some terror attacks would occur likely anyway does not mean that this capitulation does not significantly increase the risk of future similar attacks on the eve of elections, as you so erroneously imply.

And yes the Spanish should have voted for the party that initially blamed the wrong terror org for the attacks. Placing that issue on a higher plane than capitulation to direct terrorist blackmail shows a lack of awareness of the importance of "future hands" (to use a poker analogy). Aznar's party was initiually mistaken and then reluctant to change its publicly stated view until it had to. So they probably shaded their opinion a bit until it was crystal clear who was behind the bombings: big friggin' deal, compared to the bombings and terrorist blackmail, anyway. I guess to some having a leader who is 100% honest rather than say 90% honest is more important than resisting terrorism. Well good luck to them because I doubt they will find Zapatero or any leader to be 100% honest. But they will surely eventually face more terror threats and attacks--and their recent cave-in to terrorist pressure will of course encourage more such attacks.

France was recently threatened with mass terror attacks because of a recent law which prohibits the wearing of the hijab in schools (and perhaps when having identification photos taken as well). Hey, maybe the law is off-base and too strict--but threats of mass terror attacks are surely out of line as a response--but the Islamists don't think so! They think that is a perfectly acceptable way to deal with such a law! If you do something they don't agree with they have a very simple method of negotiation: kill you! Bomb you!

Well it is time for France and Spain and every European country to respond even more aggressively to these deluded murderers. Doimng what they WANT because they blow up your people is pecisely the wrong approach to the problem; they should be punished not rewarded for such actions. Even if the primary reason the Spanish voted for Zapatero was as you surmise (which I doubt), the fact that the terrorists should not be rewarded for their horrific attacks overrides that consideration. An election being changed to comply with a terrorist demand and threat made clear by a horrific bombing is a terrible, terrible precedent to have set. A more appropriate response would be to have done the exact opposite of what the terrorists are trying to achieve and then redouble efforts to capture them and break up their group. The fact that this lesser known terror org associated with al-Qaeda drew attention to itself in such manner could have proved a disincentive to future similar attacks if it brought increased heat on those terrorists and if the attack did not achieve the objective it sought.

[MMMMMM]

I think not giving in to murderous blackmail trumps all those other considerations. Just my 2c.

[TimTimSalabim]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice going Spain, with your monumental message of appeasement you have just ensured more attacks in other countries than would otherwise have occurred

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, how dare they have a democratic election and elect who they want? Didn't they consult with Bush first?

[MMMMMM]

Nicky I fear you are not thinking clearly here on two accounts.

Firstly the analogy is off because you contrived an absurd example regarding jumping off a cliff. Terrorists should not be able to successfully demand that an underdog in an election be made into a winner, much less so if they kill hundreds of people to express their demand.

Secondly the US did not withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia in order to appease terrorist demands. The Saudi government is no longer requesting these troops remain, and the US has found a better base for these troops anyway.