Spanish upset sparks fears of more terror
-
Extracted from Asia One.
Spanish upset sparks fears of more terror
Terrorists may try to dislodge other governments which supported US in Iraq in upcoming elections, say analysts
By Roger Mitton
WASHINGTON - The bombings in Spain and the surprise electoral dumping of its government have sparked new fears that emboldened terrorists may try the same violent tactics ahead of elections in Asia and the United States presidential poll in November.
Analysts say Al-Qaeda - widely suspected to have planted the bombs which killed 200 in the Spanish capital last week - and Asian regional terror network Jemaah Islamiah may now be tempted to try to dislodge other governments that have supported the US in the Iraq war and in its fight against terror.
Advertisement
'That's an amazing impact of a terrorist event, to change the party in power,' Professor Jerrold Post, a former CIA profiler who directs the political psychology programme at George Washington University, told Associated Press (AP).
Political psychologist Stanley Renshon of City University of New York agreed. 'The implications of this are fairly staggering. This is the first time that a terrorist act has influenced a democratic election,' he said.
'This is a gigantic, loud wake-up call. There's no one they'd like to have out of office more than George W. Bush,' he told AP.
Spain's centre-right government had been expected to return to power in Sunday's elections but the bomb blasts - seen by voters and others as possible Al-Qaeda punishment for Madrid's backing of the US-led invasion of Iraq - turned the vote in favour of the opposition Socialist Party.
Spanish Prime Minister-designate Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has already declared he will pull the country's 1,300 troops from Iraq unless the United Nations takes over Iraq's reconstruction.
Mr Zapatero called the war in Iraq a 'disaster' and said 'there were no reasons for it'.
US newspapers and television reports have been dominated by discussion over the implications for Washington.
Mr Zapatero pointedly spoke of wanting to have 'cordial' relations with the US, but 'magnificent' ties with France and Germany. A year ago, France and Germany led opposition to the Iraq war.
A key concern for Washington is not only that a terrorist attack appears to have succeeded in influencing the result of a democratic election, but that the result has led to a new government less inclined to back the US.
Mr Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, told Fox News: 'Now that the terrorists have seen this tactic work, will they be emboldened to try it elsewhere? That's the key question.'
Elections will be held in Malaysia and Taiwan at the weekend and polls will follow in the Philippines, Indonesia, Japan and Thailand. The fear is that the scenario in Spain could be replicated in countries like the Philippines, which have firmly and publicly supported the war in Iraq.
There is also concern that elections in July for Japan's Upper House could be affected by the government's controversial decision to send forces to support the reconstruction of Iraq.
----------------
If something like the above happen to Singapore, how will we react?
I like to think that Singapore will be even more hardened and will not bow to pressure from Terrorist group. But what do you guys think. -
In the 1st place, there is no opposition in Singapore,,so who can u support..
2nd...our elections is no time soon...so no worries..
3rd...Singaporeans might be apartitc but when something hits...then u will see them unite...
-
The Spaniard did not vote for the Socialist in the hope of escaping Islamist terrorism. They decided to punish Aznar for its treachery.
This article is rubbish. -
First off, my thoughts are with all those who lost loved ones or received injuries from this horrific attack.Originally posted by Viking1:The Spaniard did not vote for the Socialist in the hope of escaping Islamist terrorism. They decided to punish Aznar for its treachery.
This article is rubbish.
But the lies from Bush and his warmonger lackeys continue. This is the clearest sign that the invasion of Iraq was not part of the war on terrorism, and that the American troops in Iraq brought Al-Qaeda there, not the other way round.
And now, those who have helped him in his military adventures have started to reap the fruits of their flagrant disregard for international law.
The lackey Aznar and his government had it coming. He disregarded the overwhelming opinion of his people and followed the Texan village idiot into Iraq, then when the Madrid attacks happened, he refused to look at the obvious signs and attempted to put the blame on ETA, knowing that admitting its Al-Qaeda who were behind the Madrid bombs will show up his lies about invading Iraq to stop terrorism, and show that instead it is his participation in that invasion that brought terrorism back to his homeland.
It is only sad that the Spanish people must pay for his stupidity. We will do well to learn from this. Supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq only gives the murdering terrorists of Al-Qaeda justification for attacking a country, in supposed retaliation. -
Bombs shake up war on terror
By Paul Reynolds
BBC News Online world affairs correspondent
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3512894.stm
The Madrid bombs have done more than shake up Spanish politics.
They have shaken the coalition in the war on terror declared by President Bush.
And they have done so because Spanish voters moved into line with the French and German view that the war on terror has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
Indeed the new mood in Spain is that the war in Iraq is a distraction and is making things worse.
Call for self-criticism
The Spanish socialist leader, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, has already attacked the Americans and British.
"Mr Blair and Mr Bush must do some reflection and self-criticism. You can't bomb a people, you can't organise a war with lies," he said.
Almost exactly a year after Jose Maria Aznar stood shoulder to shoulder with President Bush and Mr Blair in the Azores on the eve of the war against Iraq, his party has been removed from power partly because of the unpopularity of that war.
If al-Qaeda was behind the Madrid bombings, it could be said that this was a significant strike by the terror group. It has forced a change of government in one of Mr Bush's leading allies.
Not that Spanish voters support al-Qaeda, but nor do they support the policy in Iraq.
And, like the French and Germans, they want a rethink. In particular, they want a separation of the war on terror from the war in Iraq, which Mr Bush has said is the "front line" in the war on terror.
Balance of power in EU
The arrival of the Spanish socialists back on the European scene will also shift the balance of opinion on Iraq within the European Union. Mr Blair has lost a close ally and may have to turn further east to the new members joining on 1 May to reinforce his position.
Mr Bush and Mr Blair have themselves suffered what must be seen as a rebuke by the Spanish people.
Whether they suffer rebukes from their own voters in due course remains to be determined.
It is not at all a foregone conclusion that they will. It is worth noting that on the same day that Mr Aznar's party lost power in Spain, the single minded Vladimir Putin was returned to power without trouble in Russia.
His hallmark has been a ruthless approach to the issue of Chechnya, Russia's own war.
Mr Bush is arguing strongly in his re-election campaign that his leadership and determination are key assets and ones which his Democratic Party opponent John Kerry cannot match. Equally, Senator Kerry will argue that the doubts in Spain over Iraq match those of the American voters.
And the immediate reaction of the British Government has been to stand firm and to declare that there will be no change in policy. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw rejected the argument that countries which softened their approach would be safer:
"Nobody, nobody should believe that somehow we can opt out of the war against Islamic terrorism.
"The idea that somehow there is some exemption certificate for this war against terrorism is utter nonsense," he told the BBC.
New effort in Iraq
One result of the Spanish election will be to reinforce the British and American efforts to get Iraq back in the hands of Iraqis. In that way, they hope to reduce the impact of Iraq on the wider campaign against al-Qaeda.
They will press for a new UN Security Council resolution in May to give approval to the handover of power to an interim Iraqi government by the end of June.
However, large numbers of foreign troops will stay, and under an American general, so they could still present a target and a reason for attacks.
The new Spanish Government will want to bring its troops home. But the Socialist Party has in the past left the door open by saying that they might remain if there was an UN mandate for them. Whether that remains the position in view of the strong feelings in Spain is a matter of debate.
Either way, the doubt over their future in Iraq opens up yet another unwelcome issue for President Bush. -
Agreed, Viper. Had the war genuinely been seen as just by the people, the bombing would simply have served to strengthen the Spanish people's resolve to return the incumbent government to power. To think that a terrorist act could influence the people's thinking so much so that they do a 180-degree turn is nothing short of scaremongering - at most, it simply swayed something that was already in the balance.
-
The new government that comes to power is going to have to pick up the pieces mebbe they bring the troops home to soothe the "furrowed brow" but do you think if they turn their backs on the americans the terrorist problem will go away?Originally posted by Gedanken:Agreed, Viper. Had the war genuinely been seen as just by the people, the bombing would simply have served to strengthen the Spanish people's resolve to return the incumbent government to power. To think that a terrorist act could influence the people's thinking so much so that they do a 180-degree turn is nothing short of scaremongering - at most, it simply swayed something that was already in the balance.
Does any of you think changing the government will make these terrorists change their minds about further bombings? These terrorists only live for destruction it is like their sex and poison if you dun have a deterrent in place change 10 governments also no use. They are like wolves, once they smell blood they will only letup once their prey is totally down.
I can bet there will be further bombings(not that I would wish it) because other extremists groups in spain will also want to copycat such easy fame & notoriety for themselves.
Going to iraq was a gamble, a gamble to be able to play in the american sandbox, the gamble failed and there are repercussions, such is politics. -
paulho, nothing the new Spanish PM can do now can change the fact that Spain was, and is, a terrorist target. For that, Spain has its previous PM to thank for.Originally posted by paulho:The new government that comes to power is going to have to pick up the pieces mebbe they bring the troops home to soothe the "furrowed brow" but do you think if they turn their backs on the americans the terrorist problem will go away?
Does any of you think changing the government will make these terrorists change their minds about further bombings? These terrorists only live for destruction it is like their sex and poison if you dun have a deterrent in place change 10 governments also no use. They are like wolves, once they smell blood they will only letup once their prey is totally down.
I can bet there will be further bombings(not that I would wish it) because other extremists groups in spain will also want to copycat such easy fame & notoriety for themselves.
Going to iraq was a gamble, a gamble to be able to play in the american sandbox, the gamble failed and there are repercussions, such is politics.
It is precisely because the terrorists are like the wolves you described, that the Americans should have put all effort to hunt down the remnants of Al-Qaeda and their Taliban backers when they were on the ropes in 2002, instead of going off half-cocked into Iraq, stretching their own resources and turning their attention away from the real job at hand; which was putting Osama out of circulation
If you look at the pattern in Al-Qaeda's statements since the invasion of Iraq began, you'll realise that the Texan village idiot and his lackeys turning their attention onto Iraq was a godsend that Osama could only have dreamt about without the stupidity of Bush. The invasion of Iraq only served to galvanise Muslim public opinion against America and served to throw a spanner in the works of the attempts to convince moderate Muslims that America's war on terror was against the terrorists in Afghanistan and not all Muslims. Using flimsy evidence of terrorist links and WMDs in Iraq didn't help that claims by the extremists that the Americans are looking to start a new crusade against Muslims. It played right into the extremists hands.
As Gedanken said, had America and its Allies stayed only in Afghanistan to hunt for Osama and Al-Qaeda struck in Spain, it would have served as a reminder to the Spanish people and the world why it is necessary to stay the course Afghanistan to fight terrorism, and in the election it would have strengthened the incumbent government's hand.
Instead, this attack has served to show the world how stupid Bush and his lackeys were to blunder into Iraq and allow themselves to be sidetracked from the real war against terror and Al-Qaeda, instead giving the terrorists a new excuse and new battlegrounds to strike against their enemies, while giving them breathing space to carry out their devilish deeds. Would Al-Qaeda been able to plan, coordinate and carry out this attack if just 50% the troops currently in Iraq were in Afghanistan hunting for Al-Qaeda? I seriously don't think so.
Going into Iraq to suck up to the Americans is stupid, period. Its a case of the blind and stupid, leading the eqully blind and dumber. -
viper, if you think abt it nobody really had a chance to stay neutral.
Indonesia initially wanted to stay neutral look what happened?
What abt us? They wanted to get us too.
all I'm saying is that if troop deployment for the wrong reasons is a mistake pulling out now at the first sign of trouble is showing fear will be an even bigger mistake.
Since already knee deep they might as well go all the way to the eyeballs and find a way out from there. It's hard for you, it is also hard for them but if you backout now midway you fight on your own.
Bullruns don't run forever and these terrorists cannot always win all the time. -
Paul, it's not so much a question of staying neutral as not getting into a war when you don't have the most solid of reasons.
Like Viper said, the Afghanistan war was a direct response to 9/11, and had Bush left it at that, it would have been fine. the war on Iraq, on the other hand, was started on the most tenuous of excuses, and when governments do that sort of thing, there will always be political hell tp pay. -
i think the problem now is how can america hits back at the terrorist... for making such a mess in madrid.
america needs to prove to its allies that they are able to handle the terrorist.. effectively and quickly...
perhaps if america could arrest some top terrorist directly involved in the madrid incident... america could at least face the spanish people.
otherwise... if this kind of terrorist strikes continues unabated and america seems unable to take out the islamic terrorist once and for all... people is gonna be getting very the unhappy.
in short... american allies will stick by america... but the america that is leading us... must show us results.... not failures...
i consider the attack in madrid as a failure of the US anti-terrorist effort as well as a failure in US intelligience services.
no doubt that hunting terrorist is no easy task and sure as hell would take some times.... but the US needs to give its allies results... nonetheless. -
Maybe a little OT, but what do you guys thing was the real reason behind the invasion of Iraq? Many people talk about controlling the oil in the Middle East. Some talk about world domination, other believe its the WMD and terrorist. For me, i believe Bush is a smart man..invading Iraq was no genuine mistake, surely he holds some intentions.
-
The question now is, is America equipped to deal with the terrorists? I suspect they may not be, because their military might has always been geared towards fighting a concretely-organised opponent, not one that is as diffuse as a terrorist organisation. As the author of Unrestricted Warfare said, "it has been wielding a large hammer but has been unable to find the flea".
The US now finds itself in the unenviable position of having to prove its effectiveness to its allies, in a situation where eliminating its targets quietly and without fanfare is required for success. -
Jazzswing, why do you say he's smart? I'd say devious would be a more appropriate word.
-
What amount of captures will give a 'mission success' to the madrid bombings? Over the course of 2 years the world has arrested terrorist but it just keeps coming..bali, jakarta and now madrid. Force on force is not the key here in my opinion..Islamic states like Saudi Arabia, Indonesia has got to buck up and sort of redefine Islam, to takle the roots. Launch campaigns and prevent the weak minded frm harboring terrorist thoughts. Now it's as if Islam's only existance is to attack the US and those who help them.Originally posted by tripwire:i think the problem now is how can america hits back at the terrorist... for making such a mess in madrid.
america needs to prove to its allies that they are able to handle the terrorist.. effectively and quickly...
perhaps if america could arrest some top terrorist directly involved in the madrid incident... america could at least face the spanish people.
otherwise... if this kind of terrorist strikes continues unabated and america seems unable to take out the islamic terrorist once and for all... people is gonna be getting very the unhappy.
in short... american allies will stick by america... but the america that is leading us... must show us results.... not failures...
i consider the attack in madrid as a failure of the US anti-terrorist effort as well as a failure in US intelligience services.
no doubt that hunting terrorist is no easy task and sure as hell would take some times.... but the US needs to give its allies results... nonetheless. -
He might have something up his sleeve but surely he has what it takes to be a leader..Originally posted by Gedanken:Jazzswing, why do you say he's smart? I'd say devious would be a more appropriate word.
Can see quite a lot of anti-american sentiments here, but since you guys were against Anzar for sending Spanish troops to help in the war effort i presume you are against Singapore's sending of aid too? -
Everybody has an angle.
To deal with terrorists you must be like them, they kill your civilians you go after their families, shame them, torture them, flogg them, ridicule them in public whatever just create the deterrence.
Not convincing?
Look at indonesia, during suharto time, the terrorists are there all the time but don't dare do shit. And why?
Now post suharto there's so much problems people like bashir suddenly appear & can arm themselves with lawyer and hide behind the law.
How to fight terror using democratic law? -
Exactly, paul. The US prides itself on its adherence to democratic law. Were they to change their stance on that now, it would be a political victory for the terrorists anyway.
-
I'm not for pulling out whatever we already deployed in iraq. We already made political gains by being part of the coalition, no sense making enemies on both sides so lets continue with the deployment all the way. Anyway our deployment is only logistical and humanitarian in nature.Originally posted by Jazzswing:Can see quite a lot of anti-american sentiments here, but since you guys were against Anzar for sending Spanish troops to help in the war effort i presume you are against Singapore's sending of aid too?
But shud we also beware that if there is a new president he will definately want to distance himself from this whole thing and cash in popularity gains by 'bringing home the boys' as part of his promise. If that happens the coalition is condemn. We as part of the coalition will also go down with it along with british, aussies etc .. we would also be wise cash in part of those gains along the way.
Mebbe it's time to get some hi-tech stuff at firesale prices. -
Paul, no one is saying that a pullout of Iraq now is the way to go. What I've been saying all along is that they shouldn't have been there in the first place, not without settling the Osama problem first, not without the auspices of the UN, and certainly not with all the lies that have been uttered so far.Originally posted by paulho:viper, if you think abt it nobody really had a chance to stay neutral.
Indonesia initially wanted to stay neutral look what happened?
What abt us? They wanted to get us too.
all I'm saying is that if troop deployment for the wrong reasons is a mistake pulling out now at the first sign of trouble is showing fear will be an even bigger mistake.
Since already knee deep they might as well go all the way to the eyeballs and find a way out from there. It's hard for you, it is also hard for them but if you backout now midway you fight on your own.
Bullruns don't run forever and these terrorists cannot always win all the time. -
Paul, with the lies and the laws that already have been trampled on to get where they are now, as far as I'm concerned, it ALREADY is a "Coalition of the Damned".Originally posted by paulho:I'm not for pulling out whatever we already deployed in iraq. We already made political gains by being part of the coalition, no sense making enemies on both sides so lets continue with the deployment all the way. Anyway our deployment is only logistical and humanitarian in nature.
But shud we also beware that if there is a new president he will definately want to distance himself from this whole thing and cash in popularity gains by 'bringing the boys' home as part of his promise. If that happens the coalition is condemn. We as part of the coalition will also go down with it along with british, aussies etc .. we would also be wise cash in part of those gains along the way.
Mebbe it's time to get some hi-tech stuff at firesale prices.
As for the "political gains" you've mentioned, its still up in the air at the moment and I'll believe it when I see it. Because like I've mentioned in an earlier thread, Chile opposed the war while we supported it, yet both countries ratified their US FTA on the same day. The only difference was the grandeur of the signing ceremony. BIG DEAL -
Not condemn yet it is not. We can still find salvation for ourselves. Every leader that comes to power always has it's own project to outdo his predesessor, such are leaders.Originally posted by Viper52:Paul, with the lies and the laws that already have been trampled on to get where they are now, as far as I'm concerned, it ALREADY is a "Coalition of the Damned"
In this war as I mentioned we played the role as the driver in the getaway car not one of the main conspirators.
Since we already there as the 'bus' driver or ship driver and if there is a new president his first agenda may be to bring home the boys and will he not need help to carry back all the stores and equipment.
We can position ourselves for such a role by being neighbourly in his new project.