Why did the Spanish realize what Americans fail to realize?

[_Jumper_]

After 3/11, they looked at the facts and realized that their policies played a role in causing that attack and adjusted them accordingly. This was a sharp contrast to the US reaction to 9/11, which failed to even fathom the thought that US policies may have played a role in causing 9/11. Why have Americans accepted nonsense such as "they hate us for our freedoms" while the Spanish responded in a logical, rational manner?

[gWbush is Mabus]

1. b/c the media told them so

[qb]

2. In Europe, the media gives people the "big picture"

instead of 24/7 Bush propaganda.

[Arkana]

5. no Faux News

No Faux News in Spain or France--but that's okay, they're "Old Europe." :puke: :wtf:

[KuroKensaki]

3. Easier for the Spanish.

They had one decision and one alone that they could point to and say, "This is where we went wrong."

In America, we didn't really have that. We have SO MANY bad decisions where we went wrong, that they're all kind of blurred and we can't see any of them.

[Cocoa]

4. it was more about the Iraq war than the terror attack

there was nothing in the U.S. that was analagous to the Iraq war, something that 90% of the Spanish opposed.

[gonefishing]

7. And they got caught lying.

[TXlib]

6. One comment

I think it's a bad idea to reward terrorism by giving in to their demands.

On the other hand, I think the root causes of terrorism must be addressed to have long-term peace.

One difference between terrorism and a traditional war is that in a traditional war, once the nations declare peace, hostilities stop.

Many, if not most, terrorists are so twisted with hatred that there is nothing we can do to make them stop, and capitulating to their demands will only make them bolder.

So, how do we reconcile these concerns?

[LeahMira]

13. Stop it before it gets so bad...

Many, if not most, terrorists are so twisted with hatred that there is nothing we can do to make them stop, and capitulating to their demands will only make them bolder.

That has been the "traditional" response to terrorism. Still, I think that terrorists draw on the frustration and sense of powerlessness of people who are oppressed. These people feel that they have no other way of being heard.

If, for instance, those millions of Spanish people were prevented forcefully from demonstrating last week, don't you think that some of them would have gone underground to make their point?

While I tend to think that the leaders of terrorist groups are over the edge, those who sign on as the foot soldiers are not. Not always.

I still think that the best policy is to deprive the leaders of their followers, and one way we can do that is to listen to these people and try to assist them before it gets so bad that they feel they have no other options.

[bemildred]

14. OK

I think it's a bad idea to reward terrorism by giving in to their demands.

If you decide based on the terrorists' demands, either by "giving
in" or by "standing tall", you are still being manipulated. Correct
strategy is based on consideration of one's goals and the means to
achieve them, not the words of the enemy, which should simply be
ignored, or the actions of the enemy, which should be parried as
the tactical occasion requires.

On the other hand, I think the root causes of terrorism must be addressed to have long-term peace.

Agreed. Terrorism is more like an infection, and must be addressed
similarly, by working to eliminate the social medium in which it
grows. Since military force creates and strengthens the medium in
which terrorism and violence grows, it is the wrong tool for the job.
A certain amount of police work to find and deal with the individual
terrorists is of course proper.

One difference between terrorism and a traditional war is that in a traditional war, once the nations declare peace, hostilities stop.

Agreed. As is said elsewhere, you cannot destroy an idea, and
neither can you negotiate with it, you must contest it in the realm
of ideas. Killing and capturing OBL will not affect al Qaeda at all
at this point. Discrediting OBL in the eyes of his supporters might
be of some use.

Many, if not most, terrorists are so twisted with hatred that there is nothing we can do to make them stop, and capitulating to their demands will only make them bolder.

This seems to me to be unfounded assertion contrary to historical
fact. Successful negotiations with "terrorists" happen all the time.
There is an element of truth in the idea that if one pays a ransom
one provides an incentive for more kidnappings, but once again one
must decide these issues on ones own strategic and tactical situation,
not according to short-sighted and simple minded rules.

Regards.

[Red State Rebel]

18. I disagree...

Al Quaida is not a terrorist organization with a political or environmental agenda. They have a religious agenda. They hate any and all infedels - i.e. anyone who is not Muslim. There is no such thing as negotiating that. There is no appeasing that. Al Quaida will continue to terrorize until they are wiped out - period.

As long as countries like Spain back down and cower, they will believe they are winning. Does this mean they will leave Spain alone? Not at all, any and every infidel in Spain is still on their kill list. They may change their focus back to the U.S., but in the end, if they get their way, Spain will hear from them again.

This has nothing to do with oppression, it has everything to do with their religious hatred and vow to kill everything not Muslim.

[bemildred]

20. Is this a "faith-based" opinion of al Qaeda,

or do you have some facts to back it up?

FWIW, what you say is complete horseshit from what I
have read.

[gonefishing]

29. I agree with Saidfred..

If what he says is complete horeshit then tell us what are Al Qaeda's goals and how should we go about dealing with them?

[bemildred]

31. It's so nice when people agree, don't you think?

If you answer my question, I will consider yours.
I asked first, and if you won't play fair, you can play alone.

[gonefishing]

36. That sounds like

a horeshit answer if I ever heard one.

[bemildred]

38. No facts, Huh? nt

[gonefishing]

40. What facts!

There are no facts on this subject. You are the only one claiming to have facts. Which you keep dodging to produce. It is all opinion (not faith based). My opinion comes from reading books, newspapers, and research papers.

[bemildred]

41. Excellent, now we are getting somewhere.

We have a statement above:

Al Quaida is not a terrorist organization with a political or environmental agenda. They have a religious agenda. They hate any and all infedels - i.e. anyone who is not Muslim. There
is no such thing as negotiating that. There is no appeasing that. Al Quaida will continue to terrorize until they are wiped out - period.

As long as countries like Spain back down and cower, they will believe they are winning. Does this mean they will leave Spain alone? Not at all, any and every infidel in Spain is still
on their kill list. They may change their focus back to the U.S., but in the end, if they get their way, Spain will hear from them again.

This has nothing to do with oppression, it has everything to do with their religious hatred and vow to kill everything not Muslim.

This appears to me to be horseshit, as I said. I am asking for
some support for these ideas that is better than loud ranting
repetition of it. I have never seen anything of the like from
any source that even claims to be al Qaeda.

BTW, if you are interested in what al Qaeda says they want, you
can get a good deal of fact and opinion on the subject in this
thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1234656&mesg_id=1234656

[gonefishing]

43. Great now I agree with John BigBootay - Thanks, nt

[bemildred]

44. Glad I could help. nt

[nodictators]

25. Zapatero has his act together

As long as countries like Spain back down and cower...

Spain didn't back down or cower. The Spanish people strongly opposed Bu$h's invasion. Hundreds of thousands marched in the streets against the invasion.

Zapatero noted that Bu$h's occupation of Iraq is provoking more violence. He has promised to fulfill Spain's promise to keep their troops in Iraq until June 30. If Bu$h hasn't turned control of Iraq to the UN by then, Spain will recall their troops (about 1100).

Zapatero speaks like a thoughtful, strong leader even before he assumes office.

[Red State Rebel]

46. Whether we went to Iraq or not we there was going to be terror

Al Quaida's goal is to convert everyone to fundamentalist Islam or kill us for not converting.

Iraq or not, that quest is going to continue.

[thebigidea]

48. huh? since when?

"Al Quaida's goal is to convert everyone to fundamentalist Islam or kill us for not converting."

do you have a single shred of proof for that? If it was such a big goal, you'd think it would be mentioned in every single public statement and OBL interview, yes?

[bemildred]

27. The "embolden" thing.

This idea of not "emboldening" the terrorists by making
concessions or getting rid of Aznar or Bush and so on keeps
coming up. Suppose you are fighting a war, and the General
OIC get you defeated by virtue of his inferior planning and
strategic decision making. At that point does it make any
sense to argue that he must be kept in command because otherwise
the enemy will know he kicked your ass and be "emboldened"?
Of do you retreat, salvage your remaining force, and get someone
competent in charge forthwith?

[Solomon]

47. Are you thinking that only muslims are terrorists?

Wasn't George Washington a "terrorist"? Oh, that's right, we won the War for Independence so that makes him a "patriot". Wonder what history would have said if he'd lost that war?

[bif]

8. Because they have brains?

Unlike the great unwashed in this country.

[gonefishing]

9. Maybe they are just cowards!

I don't like our current leader and wish we had an alternative leader before/after 9/11. I also agree the war in Iraq is wrong. However, I don't want to live in a country where an attack like 9/11 or 3/11 happens and we just hide under a Rock and blame ourselves.

You are correct their war is not about hating our freedoms its about economics (they hate our money) and that's not all our fault.

10. we (U.S.) have been influenced by attacks before

There is a good chance that the mayoral election in NYC, which had the primary on September 11, 2001 cancelled, would have turned out differently if the attack had not happened.
Bloomberg got a lot of support because of Giuliani backing him.
Before the attack, Giuliani's support would not have helped Bloomberg at all.

[gonefishing]

19. What are you talking about.

Giuliani was a god in NY before 9/11. He was credited with most of the cleanup of NY crime, and tourism (wrongfully or rightfully).

37. A lot of people thought Giuliani was a god before 9-11

but a lot of people didn't. There were a lot of people who didn't who changed their mind for awhile after 9-11 & this is when the election for mayor was happening. So at that particular moment in time, I think it did have an impact.
There's more to it than just Giuliani of course.

Mark Green put his foot in his mouth after 9-11 regarding Giuliani's response in ways that also hurt him. If 9-11 hadn't happened, he wouldn't have had the occasion to do so.

Were you in New York at the time? I'm not trying to cast aspersions here, just wondering. It's perfectly possible you were and could have a different opinion than I do about this from my perspective being here at the time.

[gonefishing]

39. I was not in NY at the time of 9/11 or the election

However, I lived two thirds of my life (25 years) in NY and all my family and friends still live in NY. I also spend a lot of time doing business in NY and I feel I have some perspective. Even though now I live somewhere in the po-dunks I do get to read the paper(s) and every once and a while they mention somethings abut NY.

It is my opinion that Giuliani was credited as a very successfully mayor before 9/11 because of the perceived changes he made against crime.

42. I agree with you about crime & Giuliani

I should have said that before.

My impression at the time & it's only my impression was that he had lost a lot of goodwill on that subject because of the Louima and Diallo cases and since the primary involved Ferrer from the Bronx, Green and Bloomberg the election might have gone differently if Giuliani hadn't regained the goodwill from his response to 9-11.

Who knows really though?

It really is all speculation, just as I think trying to decipher precisely why the Spanish voted the way they did involves speculation.

[Bridget Burke]

11. Is it preferable to reward security failures?

Kissing Bush's ring because he allowed 3000 people to die on 9/11? Letting the great security failure become the jewel in the crown of his election campaign?

The Spanish did not blame "themselves". They punished the politicians who led them into a war very few wanted. Bush & his regime need to be made responsible for their failings.

[gonefishing]

22. No.

I think the BFEE is the worst possible regime we could have had after 9/11. I despise how they have and continue to use 9/11 for political gain. However, I am not going to blame myself for 9/11 or not argue with anyone who implies I should.

[NV1962]

12. Wrong: Spaniards castigated deception over investigation of attacks

I laid that case out here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x424728#424791

[rinsd]

16. I would tend to agree...

The haste in which the PP wanted to portray ETA as the culprit contributed mightily to their downfall.

[LeahMira]

17. Not the point...

Wrong: Spaniards castigated deception over investigation of attacks

Not to minimize the reasons that the Spaniards protested and eventually voted for a change, but I'm sure that in crowds as large as those that demonstrated after the attacks there were some who were there for one reason and some who were there for another.

The lesson for the U.S. is that when the government fails in its responsibilities to the people, it is up to the people to toss the government out on its ear and elect a new government.

Now... has the Bush administration failed the American people? You bet! Not only has it failed to defend us against attacks and led us into a senseless and unnecessary war, but it has failed to" promote the general welfare."

Even if... G-d forbid... America should be attacked before the election, such an attack would not influence the election outcome nearly so much as the continued record this administration now holds for failing the American people in a thousand other ways.

Maybe we need to let Bush know that a terrorist attack on this country will not help his chances for reSelection even a little bit.

[NV1962]

28. I think the lesson is summarized in two words: “vigorous debate”

Not much of that is possible when mainstream media fail to grasp what I laid out as the principal reasons for the overnight (really instantaneous!) swing of voter intent in Spain.

That is why I hammer on mainstream media following the O'Reilly/Limbaugh rationale, that Spaniards voted "out of anger towards the US" and "caved in to terrorists" and "let the terrorists decide the elections"

Unless you get the fair and accurate picture from your media, you won't be adequately informed to have a vigorous debate over your government.

Unless you demand better from your journalists, you are doomed to another 4 years of Bush if -- indeed, God forbid! -- a major terrorist attack were to occur before the elections, because the general response will be very much along the same flag-waving, unquestioningly accepting and "loyally patriotic" manner that followed 9/11, which (let's not forget that) was hailed as an "opportunity to capitalize on"

That is why I insist on getting the facts right - only then will you be able to look at it and derive sensible and practical conclusions from them.

[rucky]

24. Agree. But the jist of the question still stands...

Why do the Spaniards react differently from us when our leaders try to use an outside terrorist attack for political gain?

Because it was so close to the election? Because we set an example of how not to react? Or because of Spain's history of facism that they've learned to question their leaders & be more critical in general?

Any other reasons?

[Vladimir]

33. I think in Spain

there was a large segment of the population who were against the governement but for one reason or another weren't going to vote before the attacks. The 'reaction' consisted of them coming to the polls, nothing more. Now in the US in 2001 (or the 2002 elections if you like), two things were different. Firstly, GWB had only just been 'elected' and I bet a lot of the voters were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Secondly, it wasn't as obvious then as it is now that the 'War on Terror' was making things worse whether at home or abroad. So the benchmark for me would be 2004... when with any luck the USA will follow Spain's lead and kick the scum out.

V

[NV1962]

35. That's a complex issue

Yes, the recency of our democracy is certainly a factor. Let's not forget that within three years after adopting a democratic Constitution, extreme rightwingers staged a military coup (on Feb 23, 1981) What is significant is the reaction: King Juan Carlos jumped in personally to protect the democracy he had carefully introduced, ordering (as the CinC of amred forces) the participants in the coup to stand down and surrender. At the same time, people also responded massively, while media unanimously called everyone in dramatic frontpages to rally around the Constitution: the next day, millions took to the street to defend and claim their democracy.

And in the next elections, their vote swung to PSOE: when the right can't be trusted, it's time for a change in Gov't. The reverse happened in 1996, when a Gov't surrounded by controversy and scandals couldn't sustain the trust it had received for three consecutive terms; that's when people took their votes and gave it to Aznar's PP, taking his word for it that he'd proceed with caution and moderation. And had he been honest, not manipulated with a PR-campaign to blame ETA in spite of evidence clearly pointing towards Al Q'aida it's very, very likely that Mariano Rajoy would be PM. He got what he deserved: a vote of no confidence.

So Spaniards respond collectively, when the foundations of their democratic society are attacked - whether in a coup, or by terrorist strikes, or by malicious deception of their government in the wake of a shocking event.

We're willing to give government latitude; we're willing to trust, even against our instinctive opinion - as was the case with Aznar when he sent troops to Iraq. But we need to be asked to give that trust, and not be fooled. When that happens, and we get a whiff of that deceptive intent, we respond - immediately and massively.

That's when proverbial Spanish fury hits the streets - that's when governments fall, overnight.

What happened Sunday, in the elections, is simply this: Aznar's government tried to steal our votes, and we threw the lying thieves out.

What lesson there may be for the US is nothing but a wishful thought: next time you get a whiff of deception, don't wait a few years, don't wait until corrupt mainstream media lulled you into a numb state of political unconsciousness - hit the streets all together, immediately, and claim your government back. That's what "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is about after all.

In my humble opinion, there is a bitter satisfaction in the response of my people compared to the outrageous complacency displayed by the average American citizens.

But again, I'll concede that in Spain at least, with its warts and imperfections, we have media that dare to call the emperor's nudity.

That's a big difference, which (again in my humble opinion) warrants a widespread revolt.

You might want to think about that, next time a Janet Jackson swings a tit in your face and the usual suspects scream bloody murder as if the world is going to end.

Demand a mature, fair and accurate press - or you'll die drowning in the secretions of O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Bush.

[Vladimir]

32. You are so right

and the media is so wrong. As I too have argued, its about the turnout, not appeasement.

V

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

15. I wouldn't want us to accede to a few murderous fundie dipshits

They attack us, we kill them.

They hate us because we are not Muslim.

[LeahMira]

21. That's the general idea, but...

They hate us because we are not Muslim.

... because we are not Muslim, we are disrespectful of their religious and cultural traditions and beliefs.

They don't want McDonald's on every corner and a WalMart every three miles. Their women don't want the "right" to wear skirts up to their thighs, and their men don't want the "right" to watch the Super Bowl and drink beer. They don't want Western culture replacing their own.

It seems that wherever Westerners travel, they seem to insist that their way of doing things is the best... even before they have a clue about what other cultures do and why they do it. Our technology may indeed be superior, but in many other areas we are far behind... so far that we could reasonably be considered "primitive" in those areas.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

30. Exactly, their culture is very restrictive.

Muslims can come over here and not wear short skirts, not drink beer, not eat pork, etc. It is their choice.

The problem with the fundies is that they want to deny choice. These people would make it a crime to fly kites, wear bikinis, etc... See the Taliban.

[_Jumper_]

45. Many of them do

If they want to Americanize, what is wrong with that? One reason Muslim fundies are riled up right now is because they realize that their people are gradually Americanizing, not going back to the 14th century like they want them to do.

[Red_Storm]

23. Because......

they're not as gullible and politically ignorant as many Americans are.......

[LeahMira]

26. Timing.

Why have Americans accepted nonsense such as "they hate us for our freedoms" while the Spanish responded in a logical, rational manner?

I wonder if it wasn't the timing. We don't have an election coming up until November. The Spanish took advantage of the opportunity they had at this particular time to change their government. There were demonstrations against the war in Spain, as in just about every other European nation, but they didn't make the effort to change their government until the appointed time. I think most Americans prefer to wait until the time comes when they can change their own government peacefully and legally. I also think that the tide is turning in this country, and that by November we too will see some changes made. I don't think it will be another narrow margin either. I think Democrats will win in a landslide.

[Malva Zebrina]

34. I heard him say that agian today in a speech on Medicare

before who I know not--bunch of people running small businesses.


They hate us for our freedoms. Over and over--it maes no sense to anyone with a thinking brain. All it does is set up an "us vs them" mentality. That is what it is geared to do and why the fascist prick says it over and over and over.