Great article Mugz!

Do you think flag-burners ever wonder why they don't see people in these nations burning THEIR flags? Here's to you, flag-burners. Now even more once-apathetic foreigners care less about your plight and dislike you even more. Mission accomplised.

The idea that the Spanish left because they were bowing to terrorism is completely incorrect. The current Spanish government went to the election saying they would withdraw their troops immediately if elected. They were elected and they kept their promise...I believe that is called democracy.
The Philippines government withdrew it's troop a whole 3 weeks early. Technically I guess this is 'bowing to terrorism' but 3 weeks later they would have had the same scenario, no troops in Iraq and a very ugly and unpopular beheading.
Our current government has shown little regard for it's own citizens. I believe the Australian government is the only government not to request the return of it's citizens from Guantanomo Bay. It is also the only government (including the US itself) who are happy for their citizens to be tried by military tribunal.
Downer is a pompous fool who embarasses himself and this country every time he opens his mouth. (I have never gotten over the fact that he had the Australian ambassador to Chile sacked because one time a car was not waiting at the airport for Downer when he arrived in Santiago.)

The idea that the Spanish left because they were bowing to terrorism is completely incorrect. The current Spanish government went to the election saying they would withdraw their troops immediately if elected. They were elected and they kept their promise...I believe that is called democracy.

The vote was influenced by the terrorists... sure, democracy... subjective democracy though...

BAM!!!

Pulling troops out before the invasion would be a moral act. Pulling them out afterward, when the Iraqi people needed all the security and help they could get isn't moral at all. At best it is spiteful and at worst it is cowardly.

Spain made a commitment in Iraq, and then backed out when they were needed most. The fact that the government changed hands doesn't change anything. The fact remains that they as a nation offered something to the Iraqi people, and then yanked it away when they had no reason to... other than to cower or make a back-handed political statement to please EU peers.

Spain ended its military involvement. To the best of my knowledge its pledge to give $300 million in aid still stands. Does Iraq really need 1,500 troops who would spend most of their time confined to barracks to avoid attack, or is it better to get the financial and construction support?

Spain ended its military involvement. To the best of my knowledge its pledge to give $300 million in aid still stands. Does Iraq really need 1,500 troops who would spend most of their time confined to barracks to avoid attack, or is it better to get the financial and construction support?

No, Iraq doesn't need those troops - but they need the International show of support that troops on the ground bring.

The world needs to know, no governments will held to ransom be by terrorist groups...

BAM!!!

Very well thought out article Muggaz,
Keep the faith with our brothers and sisters over there and in Afghanistan.

Tell that to the Philipines...

he vote was influenced by the terrorists... sure, democracy... subjective democracy though...

Really? You think so. I am pretty sure that the majority of people in Spain were against the war from the start and that Anzar did not have a shot of winning that election well before al Qaeda struck Madrid. Couple that with the fact that he lied about the suspects, blaming Eta, immediately following 3/11 and I would say the Spanish people got rid of a career politician who didn't have their best interests at heart, rather than saying that they were influenced by terrorists.

That aside, interesting article.

, in the first few hours they said they SUSPECTED the ETA, and after decades of terrorism, who could blame them? What would you have considerd to be the odds of an Al Qaeda attack in Spain had you been asked the week before 3-11? I would have said "No way, but the ETA blows up stuff there all the time..."

The "lies" garbage was all political, and seemed to play well in Spain, sadly. I feel strongly that it is in no way "their best interest" to make terrorists believe that killing people is a good way to sway popular opinion. Maybe they would have voted that way, anyway, but it was taken as positive reinforcement by terrorists around the world.

Bakerstreet: Even in the first few hours it was clear that the attack on 3/11 didn't have any of the Eta hallmarks. The attack didn't match the pattern of previous Eta attacks, particularly in scale and deathtolls. Again, we can interpret the facts differently--we will not change each others minds.

I feel strongly that it is in no way "their best interest" to make terrorists believe that killing people is a good way to sway popular opinion

My point is that the terrorist didn't sway opinion. The anti-Aznar movement started long before that attack. The Spanish people did not support the war from the start.

Bakerstreet: While I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, I find it rude that you start your posts with . Disagree all you like, but nothing I said was anymore laughable than what you said.

I'll start them how I like.

Terrorists can change their tactics, and as I said there was no reason to expect an Al Qaeda attack in Spain and every reason to expect an ETA attack.

It's silly for someone sitting so far away to accuse the Spanish government of "lying" when they hadn't had more than a day to piece the situation together. I find it funny that you can tell them that they shouldn't have started with the most-likely suspect, sitting where you are, knowing only what you know.

When I see something silly, I laugh, don't you?

Anyway, the issue isn't whether the terrorists swayed public opinion, it is whether the terrorists believe they swayed public opinion. The Filipino troops were leaving Iraq soon, anway, but do you think that matters to the people who think they bullied a nation into obeying them? As misguided as they may be, people do believe that Spain caved to terrorism, and that is all that it takes to make terrorism seem profitable.

It's silly for someone sitting so far away to accuse the Spanish government of "lying" when they hadn't had more than a day to piece the situation together. I find it funny that you can tell them that they shouldn't have started with the most-likely suspect, sitting where you are, knowing only what you know.

For starters--don't make assumptions about my knowledge on the topic--you like to get your point across by belittling those who disagree instead of discussing the topic. Second, the most likely suspect in this instance was not Eta. For anyone who knew about Eta and how it worked, it was clear immediately that the attacks were not perpetrated by Eta--for one, Eta claims attacks and they staunchly denied any involvement. Eta's worst attack killed 21 people and wounded 40 others. The attack on this scale was definately out of Eta's league. Moreover, Eta always phones in their attacks, and there was no warning on March 11th. I'm not saying that the Spanish Government should have completely ruled them out, but there was no grounds to announcing that they were the perpetrators when the government did. If it wasn't flat out lying to save Aznar's butt (as I believe it was) it was hasty and bad decision making on the part of Aznar's advisors. The Spanish government was far to quick in assigning blame to Eta when they should have said (as they later did) that there wasn't enough information to assign blame at that point in time. The fact that even after al Qaeda claimed the attack Interior Minister Angel Acebes stated that Eta was still the primary suspect was shocking to say the least.

I also disagree with your assumption that there was no reason to expect an attack in the run up to the election.

However, if you find me silly, then I suggest you refrain from responding. I'm no less intelligent that you are, and contrary to your opinion, I do know what I am talking about.

"However, if you find me silly, then I suggest you refrain from responding. I'm no less intelligent that you are, and contrary to your opinion, I do know what I am talking about."

You do seem to have a real grip on everything that was regurgitated over and over by propagandists about the situation months after the fact. On-the-spot knowhow, though? I kind of think you have no right to second guess the Spanish government.

"I also disagree with your assumption that there was no reason to expect an attack in the run up to the election."

I never said that. I said that there was no reason to expect an Al Qaeda attack in Spain.

Listen, you will always be able to sound well-informed when you are sitting months later, copy/pasting what others have found after having investigated, but you have no right to judge the Spanish government and call them liars based on their first few hours of response to an unprecedented attack.