NationStates Jolt Archive

I seriously despise José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's government. I really do. His failures are costing us so much heartache/headache/money...

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2068

José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Spain’s accidental prime minister who was thrust into office by the Islamic terrorists who set off a series of train bombs in Madrid only three days before the 2004 general elections, has just marked his third year in power.

Since taking office, Zapatero, who is dogmatically attached to the ideas of the European left, has presided over controversial domestic and foreign policies that range from legalizing gay marriage to supporting the separatist aspirations of regional Basque and Catalan nationalists to selling weapons to the authoritarian regime of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela.

Zapatero has also managed to re-open many of the wounds that most Spaniards thought had been put to rest with the end of the Franco dictatorship (1975) and the advent of democracy (1978). The result is that Spain is more divided today than at any time in its modern history.

Nowhere have Zapatero’s policies been more controversial than in his approach to countering terrorism. In fact, Zapatero, a self-proclaimed feminist, lately has committed a number of blunders so outrageous that Spaniards of all political leanings now fear that he has made Spain more, not less, vulnerable to terrorism.

Zapatero’s ‘Truce’ With Islamic Extremists

A few days after taking office in April 2004, Zapatero withdrew the 1,300 Spanish troops that were deployed to Iraq by the previous government of José Maria Aznar. Opponents of the withdrawal accused Zapatero of naively thinking that the threat posed by Al-Qaeda terrorists exists only because of the war in Iraq. And although it is true that a most Spaniards opposed the intervention in Iraq, many also believed that Zapatero’s precipitous action smacked of appeasement that not only weakened Spanish national security, but also destroyed the international credibility and stature that Spain had built up during the Aznar government.

Although the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq did not make much of a strategic difference in terms of the war effort, the move sent a symbolic message that represented a major victory for Al-Qaeda. Because what Zapatero did not seem to understand was that Islamic radicals still consider four-fifths of Spain to be Muslim land that must be liberated from the Spanish infidels who drove out the Moors in what is known as the Reconquista (1492). Thus by appearing to give in to the demands of medieval-minded Islamic extremists, Zapatero reinforced the perception that it is the terrorists, not the government, that sets the agenda in Spain.

Confirming the growing suspicion that Zapatero’s post-modern approach to fighting terrorism lacks a basis in reality, he told TIME Magazine in September 2004 that ‘sexual equality is a lot more effective against terrorism than military strength’. At the same time, he announced an ill-defined initiative he calls the ‘Alliance of Civilizations’, which borrows heavily from the ‘Dialogue of Civilizations’ concept promoted by Islamic radicals in Iran during the 1990s; in its essence, the initiative calls on the West to negotiate a truce with Islamic terrorists, and on terms set by the latter.

Indeed, Zapatero seems to believe that multilateral group therapy is the best way to work out his differences with the Islamic extremists who want to take over his country. But the prime minister’s initiative has been widely criticized in Spain and elsewhere because of its failure to comprehend that Al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists are at war not just with Spain or other individual states, but with the very ideals of Western society…and especially with post-modernist hyper-secularists like Zapatero himself.

But now that Zapatero has had three years in office to test his feminist approach to fighting terrorism, has it brought any tangible benefits for Spain? A Google-search on Zapatero will show that he is almost universally held up as the epitome of a post-modern appeaser. Even those on the political left in a Europe that is awash with like-minded equivocators have expressed serious doubts about the wisdom and efficacy of Zapatero’s anti-terrorist policies.

But what do the terrorists think? Well, they seem to understand Zapatero better than Zapatero understands himself. Indeed, in March 2007, Al-Qaeda launched new threats against Spain, this time over its military deployment in Afghanistan. In a video, a hooded man said the presence of Spanish troops in Afghanistan “exposes Spain again to threats” unless they withdraw their troops from the country. “The Spanish people have been tricked by a socialist government which withdrew troops from Iraq and sent 600 to Afghanistan,” the man proclaimed.

Then on April 11, the Islamic terrorists who claimed responsibility for an attack which killed some 25 people in Algeria, called for the reconquest of Spain. “We will not be in peace until we set our foot again in our beloved al-Andalus,” Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb warned. That prompted Spanish anti-terrorism judge Baltasar Garzon to caution that Spain was at a “very high risk” of suffering an Islamist attack. So much for Zapatero’s truce with Islam.

Zapatero’s ‘Truce’ With Basque Extremists

Notwithstanding the embarrassing setbacks for Spain vis-à-vis Islamic extremists, however, Spaniards have reserved their fiercest criticism of Zapatero over his domestic anti-terrorism policies.

And critics across the political spectrum say that nowhere has the prime minister erred as much as when, in June 2006, he agreed to begin a dialogue with ETA, the Basque separatist group, without first requiring that the group disarm. ETA, which is listed as a terrorist organization by both the European Union and the United States, has killed almost 1,000 people over the past four decades in its quest for an independent Basque state in seven parts of northern Spain and southwest France.

To initiate his dialogue with ETA, however, Zapatero pulled out of an agreement that he himself had proposed in 2000 with the PP not to talk with ETA unless it agreed to disarm. “Any normal person understands you can’t negotiate with someone whose negotiating weapon is as powerful and hard to argue with as a pistol,” PP leader Mariano Rajoy said at the time. The PP also opposed any talks with Batasuna, the outlawed political front of ETA.

This split between Spain’s two main political parties had the effect of limiting public support for a negotiated settlement; it also left the PP positioned to gain politically should the peace process break down. Zapatero, on the other hand, made the peace process the centerpiece of his political agenda in the hopes that a resolution to the Basque conflict would help him secure an easy re-election victory in early 2008. This highly risky proposition, however, also made him acutely vulnerable to intimidation from ETA.

Indeed, during the final months of 2006, ETA began complaining that the peace process had stalled because Madrid was refusing to make preliminary concessions. For example, ETA has long demanded that more than 400 of its prisoners, who are being held in locations across Spain, be moved closer to the Basque region. ETA has also insisted that the government stop arresting ETA suspects and that it legalize Batasuna.

Undeterred, Zapatero said at a year-end news conference on December 29 that his peace initiative was making progress. “Are we better off now with a permanent cease-fire, or when we had bombs, car bombs and explosions?” he asked. “This time next year, we will be better off than we are today.”

The very next morning, ETA set off a powerful car bomb at Madrid’s International Airport, killing two people and bringing to a dramatic end nine months of a so-called ‘permanent cease-fire’. The bombing caught Zapatero completely by surprise and shattered his attempt to solve the 40-year Basque conflict through dialogue. It also sent hundreds of thousands of Spaniards onto the streets in rallies to protest the attack and left a reeling Zapatero fighting for his political future.

The attack has produced a profound split within Spain: on the one hand, there are those on the left who remain open to the idea of re-establishing some sort of dialogue with ETA in the future; on the other hand, there are those on the right who believe that ETA must be forced into an unconditional surrender.

But by far the most controversial decision Zapatero has made since taking office was to convert the prison sentence of Iñaki de Juana Chaos, a high-profile member of ETA, to house arrest. De Juana began a hunger strike in November 2006 to protest a second jail sentence, which he received for ‘inciting terrorism’ (he had already completed an 18-year term for the murder of 25 people). In March 2007, when de Juana was reportedly near death after more than 100 days without eating, Zapatero agreed to allow de Juana to finish his sentence at his home in the Basque Country.

The outrage felt by Spaniards across the political spectrum was immediate; spontaneous anti-government demonstrations have been held across Spain. In response to the criticism, however, the Zapatero government justified its decision with an incredible statement that perfectly encapsulates the moral confusion of the post-modern mindset: “One of the differences between terrorists and us is that for us, life is important, no matter whether the person is a terrorist or not, and this is where our moral legitimacy derives,” said Interior Minister Alfredo Rubalcaba.

Many Spaniards say it was weakness, not morals, that guided Zapatero’s decision. Indeed, critics of the government say that although the Madrid bombing should have brought an end to the fledgling peace process, it did not, in fact, diminish Zapatero’s willingness to negotiate with terrorists. Others argue that Zapatero allowed himself to be blackmailed by ETA, and that he caved in to that blackmail. Some suspect he still hopes that a resolution to the Basque conflict will earn him another term as prime minister.

Whatever the rationale behind Zapatero’s decision to free de Juana, it has divided Spain in a way not seen since the 1936-1939 Spanish Civil War. And that, say critics, is precisely the problem. Because when Spain is divided, terrorists are strengthened.

Indeed, in Zapatero’s Spain, the terrorists seem to have more influence than the government. And many Spaniards now fear it’s only a matter of time until they strike again.

This makes me wonder if this man is fit, at all, to rule the destiny of my country. It seems he isn't. The only action of his that I commend is withdrewing our troops from Iraq in '04. Leave the Middle East's shyte to the Middle East, I always say. Even so, 11M happened. I lost a dear friend on that terrorist attack...

But his negotiations with ETA, his radical policies (except when feminism is involved) and his failure to see just how much pain his causing to those Spanish Civil War wounds is outrageous! And lets not start with his permission to sell weapons to Hugo Chávez's government. That sickens me.

Bah! Juan Carlos de Borbón should just seize the power and save us the problem!!!

Any comments?

Any comments?
Juan Carlos I is awesome.

Dialogue=/="Appeasement".

how much longer does zapatero have to serve? cant you just wait it out and campaign for the opposition when elections come up again?

how much longer does zapatero have to serve? cant you just wait it out and campaign for the opposition when elections come up again?

Unfortunately, Zapatero was re-elected a few months ago and he has perhaps 3 more years in power. So, if we try to sit this out, Spain will end up breaking apart, more so than it already is.

Unfortunately, Zapatero was re-elected a few months ago and he has perhaps 3 more years in power. So, if we try to sit this out, Spain will end up breaking apart, more so than it already is.

He was re-elected? The article made it sound like nobody would have ever voted for him again...

Id vote Zapataro over Aznar any day of the weel. But I cant vote...anywere... :(

Unfortunately, Zapatero was re-elected a few months ago and he has perhaps 3 more years in power. So, if we try to sit this out, Spain will end up breaking apart, more so than it already is.

then doesnt that mean that everyone (or at least a majority) LIKE him in some way?

i can sympathize with you, after all, WE re-elected george bush. (what a freaking nightmare) but if its the will of the public then that is what democracy is all about.

all you can do is hope to elect someone better next time and hope s/he can fix what zapatero has broken.

He was re-elected? The article made it sound like nobody would have ever voted for him again...

He was, to the chagrin of many. But the other option was Rajoy and dude, it's like "cambiar naranjas por botellas" to elect Rajoy. There's not much fabric to cut from there.:(

I'd vote Zapatero over Aznar any day of the weel. But I can't vote...anywhere... :(

Zapatero and Aznar are birds of a feather. They are both mediocre. And now, even after Aznar's scandal and accusations, he's criticizing Zapatero. Pffft. They're both horrible heads of state.

then doesnt that mean that everyone (or at least a majority) LIKE him in some way?

No, it only means there wasn't anyone else worth putting in Zapatero's place. Mariano Rajoy was the other candidate, and he's more radical and more stingy than Zapatero is.

i can sympathize with you, after all, WE re-elected george bush. (what a freaking nightmare) but if its the will of the public then that is what democracy is all about.

Yes, we're on the same page there.

all you can do is hope to elect someone better next time and hope s/he can fix what zapatero has broken.

We can only hope that, as you say. I just hope too my country can outlast Zapatero's debacle. That's my main concern.

how much longer does zapatero have to serve? cant you just wait it out and campaign for the opposition when elections come up again?
Zapatero's rule has been pretty good to Spain, really. And the conservatives are morons, so they'll get the next elections in 3 years (because Spain's economy is en muchos trouble due to the building crash), but lose the ones after that.

hey guys! europe has bitter wacky right wingers just like USia! i mean, just check out the boogeyman buzz words filling that article. feminism! appeaser! post-modern! hyper-secular!

hey guys! europe has bitter wacky right wingers just like USia!
LIES! LIES, I SAY!

We're all communists, and loving it, the guy who wrote this was probably an American expat and hence doesn't count. Honest.

They re-elected the "accidental prime minister"? The Spanish people are starting to look careless now.

They re-elected the "accidental prime minister"? The Spanish people are starting to look careless now.
"Eh, vote for the proper candidates, eh?"
"Mañana, mañana"
*sighs*

Zapatero's rule has been pretty good to Spain, really. And the conservatives are morons, so they'll get the next elections in 3 years (because Spain's economy is en muchos trouble due to the building crash), but lose the ones after that.

Zapatero's presidency has had it's good points too. But the bad outshines the good. Especially where ETA is concerned and Spain's involvement in the Iraqi conflict.

Besides that, our economy, even with the help of the Euro, is indeed crashing, and that is also Zapatero's fault if only for making the wrong decisions. Yes, we are all entitled to commit mistakes, but this often? That's mainly what has divided Spain.

He was re-elected? The article made it sound like nobody would have ever voted for him again...

Well, that's what most of the world thought when they saw what chaos Bush had caused...

Go figure *shrugs*

Well, that's what most of the world thought when they saw what chaos Bush had caused...

Go figure *shrugs*

Zapatero= reinsidente de debacle.:p

hey guys! europe has bitter wacky right wingers just like USia! i mean, just check out the boogeyman buzz words filling that article. feminism! appeaser! post-modern! hyper-secular!

Yep, I had to actually laugh when the article called his politics on terrorism "feminist"... Hilarious stuff, that.

They re-elected the "accidental prime minister"? The Spanish people are starting to look careless now.

It was either Zapatero or Mariano Rajoy. As fucked up as it is, Zapatero was way better, at the time. But we indeed committed a huge mistake in re-electing JLRZ.

He was re-elected? The article made it sound like nobody would have ever voted for him again...

that's because the article was something of a poorly written hatchet job. psoe actually gained seats this time around (though, to be fair, these mainly came from a number of the smaller parties rather than directly from the pp)

that's because the article was something of a poorly written hatchet job. psoe actually gained seats this time around (though, to be fair, these mainly came from a number of the smaller parties rather than directly from the pp)

IU, Izquierda Unida, has gained a lot of footing in Parliament. That's a breath of fresh air, but it's not enough to sway the monopoly both PSOE and PP have over the government.

Zapatero's presidency has had it's good points too. But the bad outshines the good. Especially where ETA is concerned and Spain's involvement in the Iraqi conflict.
Dunno about that.

Look at the lack of deadly attacks by ETA in the last couple of years. And Spain's involvement in the Iraqi conflict was rightly ended by Zapatero... why are these things bad?
Besides that, our economy, even with the help of the Euro, is indeed crashing, and that is also Zapatero's fault if only for making the wrong decisions.
No it isn't, it's mainly based on Santander's losses to the credit crunch very quickly after the new acquisitions of banks in an already-poor state such as Abbey National of the UK and ABN Amro, and its reluctance to lend to the house-building sector, which was already in a bad state with the oversupply of the market.

That and the truckers and fishermen, who are complaining about oil prices, something which Spain has literally no control over.
Yes, we are all entitled to commit mistakes, but this often? That's mainly what has divided Spain.
I thought what divided Spain more about Zapatero was his bringing in of gay marriage, and the fact that he was up for talking with ETA, which is not a bad idea.

I thought what divided Spain more about Zapatero was his bringing in of gay marriage, and the fact that he was up for talking with ETA, which is not a bad idea.

The talks with ETA are not a bad iniciative. The problem is that the Spanish think Zapatero should've enforced the negotiation of disarming ETA before entering any talks with the Etarras. He didn't do that, he trusted an organization that is constantly spreading fear throughout Spain and Southern France, and what happened? After almost 9 months of peace, or relative peace, ETA attacked again. That has thrown the nation into disarray.

Add to that the economical crash and the overal feeling of doubt, and an ever increasing nationalism (which I don't find bad, I'm Asturian and then Spanish), and you have a ticking bomb. I truly think Euskal Herriá, Catalunya and Galicia should be granted the independence they seek.

The talks with ETA are not a bad iniciative. The problem is that the Spanish think Zapatero should've enforced the negotiation of disarming ETA before entering any talks with the Etarras.
Because they'd have told him to piss off, and what could he do to disarm them after that? Nothing.

Talk to them, win their trust, and then get them to disarm. That, or orchestrate a planned government 'terrorist attack' on ETA strongholds by 'Muslim extremists' or some other bogeyman, so they realise that it isn't even remotely cool any more.

Which is what killed the IRA. The Americans who paid money to them so they could pretend they were Irish despite being nothing of the sort for over 100 years stopped after 9/11. No reason that the people supporting ETA wouldn't stop after much of the same.
He didn't do that, he trusted an organization that is constantly spreading fear throughout Spain and Southern France, and what happened? After almost 9 months of peace, or relative peace, ETA attacked again.
And since then, there have been numerous arrests of ETA members.
That has thrown the nation into disarray.
Has it really? Or is it more "oh well"?
Add to that the economical crash
Which isn't his fault, and is happening all over Europe.
and the overal feeling of doubt
See above.
and an ever increasing nationalism (which I don't find bad, I'm Asturian and then Spanish), and you have a ticking bomb.
Meh.
I truly think Euskal Herriá, Catalunya and Galicia should be granted the independence they seek.
No thanks. That doesn't help anyone, at all.

The talks with ETA are not a bad iniciative. The problem is that the Spanish think Zapatero should've enforced the negotiation of disarming ETA before entering any talks with the Etarras. He didn't do that, he trusted an organization that is constantly spreading fear throughout Spain and Southern France, and what happened? After almost 9 months of peace, or relative peace, ETA attacked again. That has thrown the nation into disarray.


These things happen in peace talks. No-one, or group, is going to lay down arms/dump arms, or surrender arms, without some gestures on the other side.

And again, dialogue=/="appeasement".

IU, Izquierda Unida, has gained a lot of footing in Parliament. That's a breath of fresh air, but it's not enough to sway the monopoly both PSOE and PP have over the government.

didn't they lose a couple seats this time around?

Because they'd have told him to piss off, and what could he do to disarm them after that? Nothing.

Talk to them, win their trust, and then get them to disarm. That, or orchestrate a planned government 'terrorist attack' on ETA strongholds by 'Muslim extremists' or some other bogeyman, so they realise that it isn't even remotely cool any more.

Your idea is far-fetched and ridiculous. Hopefully, you're being sarcastic. Besides, ETA won't budge an inch until Euskal Herriá is an independent country. And that is not going to happen anytime soon.

Which is what killed the IRA. The Americans who paid money to them so they could pretend they were Irish despite being nothing of the sort for over 100 years stopped after 9/11. No reason that the people supporting ETA wouldn't stop after much of the same.

Check something about the nature and character of the Euskadi then get back to me. This, of course, of for future reference.

And since then, there have been numerous arrests of ETA members.

And there will be many more until a resolution is met. And I highly doubt it'll happen while Zapatero's in power, or as I already said, any time soon.

Has it really? Or is it more "oh well"?

It has. But I'm not expecting you to understand because it's quite obvious you know absolutely nothing of the Spanish sentiment on this subject.

Which isn't his fault, and is happening all over Europe.

See above.

It is partly Zapatero's fault, inherited from Aznar's horrible terms and the hasty decisions that've been taken by his government. And although the same thing may be happening all around Europe, Spain is my main concern. Get my meaning?

Meh.

No thanks. That doesn't help anyone, at all.

It may not help the interests of the EU, but it surely will aleviate the strife going on in Spain. If I have to put things into perspective, if I have to weight it all, we Spaniards do not care about the interests of the EU or Zapatero's agenda if these will end up fucking up our country. And Parliament has done that enough.

didn't they lose a couple seats this time around?

Summary of the 9 March 2008 Congress of Deputies election results Parties and alliances Votes % Change Seats Change:

Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (Partido Socialista Obrero Español) 11,288,698 43.87 +1.28 169 +5

People's Party (Partido Popular) 10,277,809 39.94 +2.22 154 +6

United Left (Izquierda Unida) 969,871 3.77 -1.19 2 -3

Convergence and Union (Convergència i Unió)

Democratic Convergence of Catalonia (Convergència Democràtica de Catalunya)

Democratic Union of Catalonia (Unió Democràtica de Catalunya)
779,425 3.03 –0.20 10 ±0

Basque Nationalist Party (Partido Nacionalista Vasco/Euzko Alderdi Jeltzalea) 306,128 1.19 –0.44 6 –1

Union, Progress and Democracy (Unión, Progreso y Democracia) 306,078 1.19 — 1 +1

Republican Left of Catalonia (Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya) 298,139 1.16 –1.36 3 –5

Galician Nationalist Bloc (Bloque Nacionalista Galego)

Union of the Galician People (Unión do Povo Galego)

Nationalist Left (Esquerda Nacionalista)

Galician Unity (Unidade Galega)

Socialist Collective (Colectivo Socialista)

Inzar

Galician Nationalist Party–Galeguista Party (Partido Nacionalista Galego–Partido Galeguista)
212,543 0.83 +0.02 2 ±0

Canarian Coalition (Coalición Canaria) 174,629 0.68 –0.23 2 –1

Navarre Yes (Nafarroa Bai)

Basque Solidarity (Eusko Alkartasuna)

Aralar

Batzarre

Basque Nationalist Party (Partido Nacionalista Vasco/Euzko Alderdi Jeltzalea)
62,398 0.24 ±0.0 1 ±0

Basque Solidarity (Eusko Alkartasuna) 50,371 0.20 –0.12 0 –1

Aragonese Union (Chunta Aragonesista) 38,202 0.15 –0.22 0 –1
Total (turnout %) 350 0[52]

Source: Spanish Interior Ministry election results database (http://elecciones.mir.es/)

Color scheme of seating arrangement in Parliament according to parties:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/Spanish_Congress_of_Deputies_before_2008_election.png

-Composition of the Congress of Deputies before the election. The PSOE (red, 164) has ruled in a minority government with support from IU (dark green, 5) and ERC (yellow, 8) for a total majority of 4 over the opposition.

IU chose the pre-campaign slogan "LlamazarES + Más Izquierda" (LlamazarES (is) More Left), calling attention to their position as the third national party.

All of this can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_general_election

Well that was a delightfully impartial article.


Check something about the nature and character of the Euskadi then get back to me. This, of course, of for future reference.



The psychological, cultural, historical differences between the Euskaldunak (that's the term for the Basques themselves isn't it? ) and the Northern Irish Nationalists/Republicans are what exactly....? The parallels between the two are quite deep if you examine both.

So. Spain has been divided by Zapatero, even though he was reelected with a larger majority and the Basque/Catalan nationalist parties lost seats in Parliament.

I see.

Well that was a delightfully impartial article.



The psychological, cultural, historical differences between the Euskaldunak (that's the term for the Basques themselves isn't it? ) and the Northern Irish Nationalists/Republicans are what exactly....? The parallels between the two are quite deep if you examine both.

"Euskotarrak" is far more acurate to the Basques.

I wasn't making any distinctions between the Euskadi and the Northern Irish. When I told Yootopia to check on the nature and character of the Basque I was stating that those who support ETA are the Basque themselves and, being the way they are, the support won't stop anytime soon.

Euskal Herriá has always been in conflict with Spain, since the very inception of the provinces. Because of their fierce nature, even the Moors, who were able to get all of Spain under their power were unable to subject the Euskadi to their rule. They're known to be self-suficient, proud and extremely independent. These qualities are the main factor as to why they desire independence from Spain and France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_people

The OP's article must have been delivered aboard the ship of fail for all the fail it contained.

"Euskotarrak" is far more acurate to the Basques.
Ah.

I wasn't making any distinctions between the Euskadi and the Northern Irish. When I told Yootopia to check on the nature and character of the Basque I was stating that those who support ETA are the Basque themselves and, being the way they are, the support won't stop anytime soon.
The exact same was said about the Northern Irish Republicans and the IRA. Things change.

Euskal Herriá has always been in conflict with Spain, since the very inception of the provinces. Because of their fierce nature, even the Moors, who were able to get all of Spain under their power were unable to subject the Euskadi to their rule. They're known to be self-suficient, proud and extremely independent. These qualities are the main factor as to why they desire independence from Spain and France.
I'm very aware of the variety of provincial nationalism in Spain.;)
And still, I'm not seeing a difference between the above and the experiences of Northern Ireland.

Ah.


The exact same was said about the Northern Irish Republicans and the IRA. Things change.

We can only hope they do. In the meantime, everything continues to be all screwed up.

I'm very aware of the variety of provincial nationalism in Spain.;)
And still, I'm not seeing a difference between the above and the experiences of Northern Ireland.

Nationalism, in my opinion, is a double knife. I'm very proud of being from Asturias, and I would fight to the death if someone from my country were to say something nasty about Asturias. The same happens with Galegos, Catalá and Euskadi.

But this same patriotic/nationalistic sentiment is creating fissures on the surface of our society. Some of the wounds Franco opened during the Spanish Civil War haven't closed up and healed as they should've.

Yet, I still don't think the Northern Irish experience is similar to the Spanish one. Perhaps because I'm not as familiar with it as an Irish person, but I'm familiar with my own experience.

Awesome threat, Nanatsu no Tsuki. Also his close relations with the Cuban dictatorship for life of Fidel and Raul.

Who have helped the Basques Separatists for thier own ends.

As Nonodina would say, "Dialogue=/="Appeasement".

Spain’s Policy of Appeasing Terrorists Backfires.



I seriously despise José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's government. I really do. His failures are costing us so much heartache/headache/money...

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2068


Quote:
José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Spain’s accidental prime minister who was thrust into office by the Islamic terrorists who set off a series of train bombs in Madrid only three days before the 2004 general elections, has just marked his third year in power.

Since taking office, Zapatero, who is dogmatically attached to the ideas of the European left, has presided over controversial domestic and foreign policies that range from legalizing gay marriage to supporting the separatist aspirations of regional Basque and Catalan nationalists to selling weapons to the authoritarian regime of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela.

Zapatero has also managed to re-open many of the wounds that most Spaniards thought had been put to rest with the end of the Franco dictatorship (1975) and the advent of democracy (1978). The result is that Spain is more divided today than at any time in its modern history.

Nowhere have Zapatero’s policies been more controversial than in his approach to countering terrorism. In fact, Zapatero, a self-proclaimed feminist, lately has committed a number of blunders so outrageous that Spaniards of all political leanings now fear that he has made Spain more, not less, vulnerable to terrorism.

Zapatero’s ‘Truce’ With Islamic Extremists

A few days after taking office in April 2004, Zapatero withdrew the 1,300 Spanish troops that were deployed to Iraq by the previous government of José Maria Aznar. Opponents of the withdrawal accused Zapatero of naively thinking that the threat posed by Al-Qaeda terrorists exists only because of the war in Iraq. And although it is true that a most Spaniards opposed the intervention in Iraq, many also believed that Zapatero’s precipitous action smacked of appeasement that not only weakened Spanish national security, but also destroyed the international credibility and stature that Spain had built up during the Aznar government.

Although the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq did not make much of a strategic difference in terms of the war effort, the move sent a symbolic message that represented a major victory for Al-Qaeda. Because what Zapatero did not seem to understand was that Islamic radicals still consider four-fifths of Spain to be Muslim land that must be liberated from the Spanish infidels who drove out the Moors in what is known as the Reconquista (1492). Thus by appearing to give in to the demands of medieval-minded Islamic extremists, Zapatero reinforced the perception that it is the terrorists, not the government, that sets the agenda in Spain.

Confirming the growing suspicion that Zapatero’s post-modern approach to fighting terrorism lacks a basis in reality, he told TIME Magazine in September 2004 that ‘sexual equality is a lot more effective against terrorism than military strength’. At the same time, he announced an ill-defined initiative he calls the ‘Alliance of Civilizations’, which borrows heavily from the ‘Dialogue of Civilizations’ concept promoted by Islamic radicals in Iran during the 1990s; in its essence, the initiative calls on the West to negotiate a truce with Islamic terrorists, and on terms set by the latter.

Indeed, Zapatero seems to believe that multilateral group therapy is the best way to work out his differences with the Islamic extremists who want to take over his country. But the prime minister’s initiative has been widely criticized in Spain and elsewhere because of its failure to comprehend that Al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists are at war not just with Spain or other individual states, but with the very ideals of Western society…and especially with post-modernist hyper-secularists like Zapatero himself.

But now that Zapatero has had three years in office to test his feminist approach to fighting terrorism, has it brought any tangible benefits for Spain? A Google-search on Zapatero will show that he is almost universally held up as the epitome of a post-modern appeaser. Even those on the political left in a Europe that is awash with like-minded equivocators have expressed serious doubts about the wisdom and efficacy of Zapatero’s anti-terrorist policies.

But what do the terrorists think? Well, they seem to understand Zapatero better than Zapatero understands himself. Indeed, in March 2007, Al-Qaeda launched new threats against Spain, this time over its military deployment in Afghanistan. In a video, a hooded man said the presence of Spanish troops in Afghanistan “exposes Spain again to threats” unless they withdraw their troops from the country. “The Spanish people have been tricked by a socialist government which withdrew troops from Iraq and sent 600 to Afghanistan,” the man proclaimed.

Then on April 11, the Islamic terrorists who claimed responsibility for an attack which killed some 25 people in Algeria, called for the reconquest of Spain. “We will not be in peace until we set our foot again in our beloved al-Andalus,” Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb warned. That prompted Spanish anti-terrorism judge Baltasar Garzon to caution that Spain was at a “very high risk” of suffering an Islamist attack. So much for Zapatero’s truce with Islam.

Zapatero’s ‘Truce’ With Basque Extremists

Notwithstanding the embarrassing setbacks for Spain vis-à-vis Islamic extremists, however, Spaniards have reserved their fiercest criticism of Zapatero over his domestic anti-terrorism policies.

And critics across the political spectrum say that nowhere has the prime minister erred as much as when, in June 2006, he agreed to begin a dialogue with ETA, the Basque separatist group, without first requiring that the group disarm. ETA, which is listed as a terrorist organization by both the European Union and the United States, has killed almost 1,000 people over the past four decades in its quest for an independent Basque state in seven parts of northern Spain and southwest France.

To initiate his dialogue with ETA, however, Zapatero pulled out of an agreement that he himself had proposed in 2000 with the PP not to talk with ETA unless it agreed to disarm. “Any normal person understands you can’t negotiate with someone whose negotiating weapon is as powerful and hard to argue with as a pistol,” PP leader Mariano Rajoy said at the time. The PP also opposed any talks with Batasuna, the outlawed political front of ETA.

This split between Spain’s two main political parties had the effect of limiting public support for a negotiated settlement; it also left the PP positioned to gain politically should the peace process break down. Zapatero, on the other hand, made the peace process the centerpiece of his political agenda in the hopes that a resolution to the Basque conflict would help him secure an easy re-election victory in early 2008. This highly risky proposition, however, also made him acutely vulnerable to intimidation from ETA.

Indeed, during the final months of 2006, ETA began complaining that the peace process had stalled because Madrid was refusing to make preliminary concessions. For example, ETA has long demanded that more than 400 of its prisoners, who are being held in locations across Spain, be moved closer to the Basque region. ETA has also insisted that the government stop arresting ETA suspects and that it legalize Batasuna.

Undeterred, Zapatero said at a year-end news conference on December 29 that his peace initiative was making progress. “Are we better off now with a permanent cease-fire, or when we had bombs, car bombs and explosions?” he asked. “This time next year, we will be better off than we are today.”

The very next morning, ETA set off a powerful car bomb at Madrid’s International Airport, killing two people and bringing to a dramatic end nine months of a so-called ‘permanent cease-fire’. The bombing caught Zapatero completely by surprise and shattered his attempt to solve the 40-year Basque conflict through dialogue. It also sent hundreds of thousands of Spaniards onto the streets in rallies to protest the attack and left a reeling Zapatero fighting for his political future.

The attack has produced a profound split within Spain: on the one hand, there are those on the left who remain open to the idea of re-establishing some sort of dialogue with ETA in the future; on the other hand, there are those on the right who believe that ETA must be forced into an unconditional surrender.

But by far the most controversial decision Zapatero has made since taking office was to convert the prison sentence of Iñaki de Juana Chaos, a high-profile member of ETA, to house arrest. De Juana began a hunger strike in November 2006 to protest a second jail sentence, which he received for ‘inciting terrorism’ (he had already completed an 18-year term for the murder of 25 people). In March 2007, when de Juana was reportedly near death after more than 100 days without eating, Zapatero agreed to allow de Juana to finish his sentence at his home in the Basque Country.

The outrage felt by Spaniards across the political spectrum was immediate; spontaneous anti-government demonstrations have been held across Spain. In response to the criticism, however, the Zapatero government justified its decision with an incredible statement that perfectly encapsulates the moral confusion of the post-modern mindset: “One of the differences between terrorists and us is that for us, life is important, no matter whether the person is a terrorist or not, and this is where our moral legitimacy derives,” said Interior Minister Alfredo Rubalcaba.

Many Spaniards say it was weakness, not morals, that guided Zapatero’s decision. Indeed, critics of the government say that although the Madrid bombing should have brought an end to the fledgling peace process, it did not, in fact, diminish Zapatero’s willingness to negotiate with terrorists. Others argue that Zapatero allowed himself to be blackmailed by ETA, and that he caved in to that blackmail. Some suspect he still hopes that a resolution to the Basque conflict will earn him another term as prime minister.

Whatever the rationale behind Zapatero’s decision to free de Juana, it has divided Spain in a way not seen since the 1936-1939 Spanish Civil War. And that, say critics, is precisely the problem. Because when Spain is divided, terrorists are strengthened.

Indeed, in Zapatero’s Spain, the terrorists seem to have more influence than the government. And many Spaniards now fear it’s only a matter of time until they strike again.

This makes me wonder if this man is fit, at all, to rule the destiny of my country. It seems he isn't. The only action of his that I commend is withdrewing our troops from Iraq in '04. Leave the Middle East's shyte to the Middle East, I always say. Even so, 11M happened. I lost a dear friend on that terrorist attack...

But his negotiations with ETA, his radical policies (except when feminism is involved) and his failure to see just how much pain his causing to those Spanish Civil War wounds is outrageous! And lets not start with his permission to sell weapons to Hugo Chávez's government. That sickens me.

Bah! Juan Carlos de Borbón should just seize the power and save us the problem!!!

Any comments?




I seriously despise José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's government. I really do. His failures are costing us so much heartache/headache/money...

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2068



This makes me wonder if this man is fit, at all, to rule the destiny of my country. It seems he isn't. The only action of his that I commend is withdrewing our troops from Iraq in '04. Leave the Middle East's shyte to the Middle East, I always say. Even so, 11M happened. I lost a dear friend on that terrorist attack...

But his negotiations with ETA, his radical policies (except when feminism is involved) and his failure to see just how much pain his causing to those Spanish Civil War wounds is outrageous! And lets not start with his permission to sell weapons to Hugo Chávez's government. That sickens me.Bah! Juan Carlos de Borbón should just seize the power and save us the problem!!!

Any comments?

Yet, I still don't think the Northern Irish experience is similar to the Spanish one. Perhaps because I'm not as familiar with it as an Irish person, but I'm familiar with my own experience.

As a Northern Irish person I have to admit, from what you have said, it does sound very similar

Awesome threat, Nanatsu no Tsuki. Also his close relations with the Cuban dictatorship for life of Fidel and Raul.

Exactly. I really think my government should adopt the same policy the Japanese have. Not to get involved in any conflict or offer any help, unless the interests of our own nation are at risk.

Who have helped the Basques Separatists for thier own ends.

Indeed. Besides, Cubans (and I'm sorry if you're of Cuban decent and I offend) still have some beef with Spain for the outcome of the Spanish-American War. Why not help throw "la Madre Patria" into disarray by helping an organization like ETA? And helping Chávez, who has completely messed up our sister country of Venezuela, and has threatened Colombia's authority by deploying troops to the border? Spain, helping this assassin just makes me sick.

Once again, Spain should remain neutral in everything, unless our interests are at stake.

As a Northern Irish person I have to admit, from what you have said, it does sound very similar

Care to elaborate, Dundee?

Care to elaborate, Dundee?

Ok well from what you have said so far as examples of differences :

I'm very proud of being from Asturias, and I would fight to the death if someone from my country were to say something nasty about Asturias. The same happens with Galegos, Catalá and Euskadi.

The same kinds of attitudes are prevalent between Scots, English, Welsh, Northern Irish Protestants and Catholics. They're even prevalent between even smaller groups. Northern and Southern England being one small example


I wasn't making any distinctions between the Euskadi and the Northern Irish. When I told Yootopia to check on the nature and character of the Basque I was stating that those who support ETA are the Basque themselves and, being the way they are, the support won't stop anytime soon.

The exact same was said about the Northern Irish Republicans and the IRA. Things change.

Psychotic Mongooses has it right there

Euskal Herriá has always been in conflict with Spain, since the very inception of the provinces. Because of their fierce nature, even the Moors, who were able to get all of Spain under their power were unable to subject the Euskadi to their rule. They're known to be self-suficient, proud and extremely independent. These qualities are the main factor as to why they desire independence from Spain and France.

Romanticised versions of a people are seen in Northern Ireland. The Irish have either been fighting for over 800 or 318 years depending on which side you want to talk to.

You haven't really given many examples of differences at all so far but from what you have given I see very little difference

Exactly. I really think my government should adopt the same policy the Japanese have. Not to get involved in any conflict or offer any help, unless the interests of our own nation are at risk.



Indeed. Besides, Cubans (and I'm sorry if you're of Cuban decent and I offend) still have some beef with Spain for the outcome of the Spanish-American War. Why not help throw "la Madre Patria" into disarray by helping an organization like ETA? And helping Chávez, who has completely messed up our sister country of Venezuela, and has threatened Colombia's authority by deploying troops to the border? Spain, helping this assassin just makes me sick.

Once again, Spain should remain neutral in everything, unless our interests are at stake.

No offense. Cuban Americans are very loyal to the La Madre Patria as am I. A native born Cuban. The Cuban dictatorship for life has excellent relations with Spain and the Zapatero government. Despite the fact that they help the Basque separatists for thier own ends. Makes Zapatero's policy of appeasement of the Cuban dictatorship even more sick.

Maybe it's time for the ETA to launch another Spanish astronaut...

No offense. Cuban Americans are very loyal to the La Madre Patria as am I. A native born Cuban. The Cuban dictatorship for life has excellent relations with Spain and the Zapatero government. Despite the fact that they help the Basque separatists for thier own ends. Makes Zapatero's policy of appeasement of the Cuban dictatorship even more sick.

A Spanish saying explains Zapatero so well, perhaps you have your own variant in Cuba:

Lanza la piedra y esconde la mano.

That's how Zapatero is. He speaks about appeasement and what-not and offers help to Cuba's regime and to Chávez's reign of Venezuela.

La caridad empieza por el hogar...

Which is what killed the IRA. The Americans who paid money to them so they could pretend they were Irish despite being nothing of the sort for over 100 years stopped after 9/11. No reason that the people supporting ETA wouldn't stop after much of the same.


Good Friday Agreement, 1998. 3 years before. All over bar the fine detail from there on in, really.

Good Friday Agreement, 1998. 3 years before. All over bar the fine detail from there on in, really.

An occasion where talking worked, after decades of mutual shitting on each other.

An occasion where talking worked, after decades of mutual shitting on each other.

If only that were to happen with ETA and Spain...

Since taking office, Zapatero, who is dogmatically attached to the ideas of the European left, has presided over controversial domestic and foreign policies that range from legalizing gay marriage to supporting the separatist aspirations of regional Basque and Catalan nationalists to selling weapons to the authoritarian regime of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela.
Yes, because gay people being married = terrorism. :rolleyes:

If only that were to happen with ETA and Spain...

I thought this whole thread started, in part, as a result of 'uproar' against the idea that Zapatero would open dialogue

Yes, because gay people being married = terrorism. :rolleyes:

Yeah it didn't say that anywhere even if it is a ridiculous article.

Since taking office, Zapatero, who is dogmatically attached to the ideas of the European left, has presided over controversial domestic and foreign policies that range from legalizing gay marriage to supporting the separatist aspirations of regional Basque and Catalan nationalists to selling weapons to the authoritarian regime of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela.

So what exactly is the point of this thread? Spaniards are up in arms about shit Zapatero has no control over? Zapatero is incompetent but not as incompetent as any viable opposition? Spain is going to dissolve? Will we all die? What?

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2068

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-cringe.gif

Good Friday Agreement, 1998. 3 years before. All over bar the fine detail from there on in, really.
Aye, that was really the end of hostilities, I'd agree, but September 11th made things shut down even more quickly.
Your idea is far-fetched and ridiculous. Hopefully, you're being sarcastic.
I'm entirely not being sarcastic. Being the victims of a third party's actions can make people wake up and realise that they were being arseholes about the whole thing.
Besides, ETA won't budge an inch until Euskal Herriá is an independent country. And that is not going to happen anytime soon.

And why should it be?
Check something about the nature and character of the Euskadi then get back to me. This, of course, of for future reference.
They seem much like the kind of people who would have supported the IRA (indeed ETA a are very similar group). Still angry at a perceived injustice which happened a long time ago, which they wouldn't care about if they were given something better to do. On the other hand, because of the terrorist attacks, foreigners don't want to invest there.
And there will be many more until a resolution is met. And I highly doubt it'll happen while Zapatero's in power, or as I already said, any time soon.
I think that once the people in the Basque region realise that having their own state is now a waste of time, seeing as EU law is as powerful, or indeed more powerful than any state's law, and they'd have to join the EU to stand a chance of surviving as a nation.
It has. But I'm not expecting you to understand because it's quite obvious you know absolutely nothing of the Spanish sentiment on this subject.
Of course, because there is one single 'Spanish' sentiment on the matter, when the nation is, as you have pointed out, quite divided...
It is partly Zapatero's fault, inherited from Aznar's horrible terms and the hasty decisions that've been taken by his government. And although the same thing may be happening all around Europe, Spain is my main concern. Get my meaning?
Yeah, I understand what you mean, but the problem cannot be solved simply by putting a new government in place - the factors causing problems in the Spanish economy are largely not the fault of the Spanish government, and, although they may not have helped, the main thing which is going to cause an upturn in the economy is waiting for a couple of years until the markets resolve themselves.
It may not help the interests of the EU, but it surely will aleviate the strife going on in Spain. If I have to put things into perspective, if I have to weight it all, we Spaniards do not care about the interests of the EU or Zapatero's agenda if these will end up fucking up our country. And Parliament has done that enough.
Spain has had its longest period of peace in a very long time. Why risk that just because the fishermen are complaining?

I thought this whole thread started, in part, as a result of 'uproar' against the idea that Zapatero would open dialogue

The uproar is because he opened dialogues without asking for a disarment of ETA.

The uproar is because he opened dialogues without asking for a disarment of ETA.

how do you suggest to deal with ETA?

The uproar is because he opened dialogues without asking for a disarment of ETA.

No point in asking, because they would have told him to stuff it. Quid Pro Quo. 'We'll do x in return for y' and the horse trading begins. But seeing as they only reason they talk to them is to avoid violence, ditching the weapons first off is just madness.

The uproar is because he opened dialogues without asking for a disarment of ETA.

But that's the smart thing to do.

You want to start dialogue but first demand the other side submit to your demand, then the obvious reaction to that demand, is a flat out 'No'. You start talking on a level playing field - not in a position of superiority/inferiority.

See exact same examples in Northern Ireland from the 1990's to the 2000's

how do you suggest to deal with ETA?

I would grant Euskal Herriá it's independence.

But that's the smart thing to do.

You want to start dialogue but first demand the other side submit to your demand, then the obvious reaction to that demand, is a flat out 'No'. You start talking on a level playing field - not in a position of superiority/inferiority.

See exact same examples in Northern Ireland from the 1990's to the 2000's

I agree with PM. Thats how they did it with the Irish. By opening dialog without demanding them to drop their weapons Zapatero stands in the higher moral ground. This will help to alianate ETA from any support they could have in the population. Then it would be much more easy to negotiate with the moderates and cut the isolated radicals.

Be carefull you may be jumping in the PP band wagon.

I would grant Euskal Herriá it's independence.

so would I... and then laugh in their faces when their economy goes bankrupt. :D

But Im an webil person.

I agree with PM. Thats how they did it with the Irish. By opening dialog without demanding them to drop their weapons Zapatero stands in the higher moral ground. This will help to alianate ETA from any support they could have in the population. Then it would be much more easy to negotiate with the moderates and cut the isolated radicals.

Be carefull you may be jumping in the PP band wagon.

I work too closely with both the PSOE and the PP to be jumping on their respective wagons, Santiago.

It's starting to look like the 2 most powerful parties in Spain have ditched the nation and have started scrambling to save themselves. Even Mariano Rajoy, the most vocal person against Zapatero's government has remained kind of silent since last week when Zapatero gave a -state of the nation- report.

I'm incredibly disillusioned with the policies my President has adopted as of late because they are sinking the nation into a recession, even if peace is seen as lasting to the outside world.

I'm incredibly disillusioned with the policies my President has adopted as of late because they are sinking the nation into a recession, even if peace is seen as lasting to the outside world.
Erm, most of the West is about to enter into a recession. Nothing your Prime Minister (no matter who s/he was) could have done about that.

I work too closely with both the PSOE and the PP to be jumping on their respective wagons, Santiago.

It's starting to look like the 2 most powerful parties in Spain have ditched the nation and have started scrambling to save themselves. Even Mariano Rajoy, the most vocal person against Zapatero's government has remained kind of silent since last week when Zapatero gave a -state of the nation- report.

I'm incredibly disillusioned with the policies my President has adopted as of late because they are sinking the nation into a recession, even if peace is seen as lasting to the outside world.

Welcome to bipartidism. Where you chose the less of two evils and regret it.

Erm, most of the West is about to enter into a recession. Nothing your Prime Minister (no matter who s/he was) could have done about that.

That is not of any consolation, though.

What's more, I am disatisfied, but there's nothing I can do. And being powerless while seeing this shyte happening around me, being so close to the source and being unable to fix anything, no matter how small it is, frustrates me.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/

Wow. A loony blog with nutjob posts. Will you look at that? Beats reading their nonsense, at least.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/

Wow. A loony blog with nutjob posts. Will you look at that? Beats reading their nonsense, at least.

Ah, hello there Swede. How was your wonderful 2-week ban?:rolleyes:

Ah, hello there Swede.

Hello, there... what are you again? A guiri?

How was your wonderful 2-week ban?:rolleyes:

Careful there sweety, ban gloating is a rule infraction. You wouldn't want the mods to catch you in it, since you seem to care about being banned from this place and all.

Hello, there... what are you again? A guiri?

What is a guiri, if you would be so kind as to explain.

Careful there sweety, ban gloating is a rule infraction. You wouldn't want the mods to catch you in it, since you seem to care about being banned from this place and all.

Gloating? Oh no, I wasn't doing any of that. I was truly asking you how everything went. I don't need to mock you for that at all, is not in my character. I actually thought it was unfair that you got banned 2 weeks but whatever.;)

What is a guiri, if you would be so kind as to explain.

Not up with Spanish slang? I gather it's a term for foreigner living in Spain.

Gloating? Oh no, I wasn't doing any of that. I was truly asking you how everything went. I don't need to mock you for that at all, is not in my character. I actually thought it was unfair that you got banned 2 weeks but whatever.;)

Well, I started my job the day after the ban (coincidence? I won't tell), and everything went smoothly.

Well, I started my job the day after the ban (coincidence? I won't tell)
Pfft! We all know that's what you had planned all along. The only fun way to break away from an addiction is being forced to go cold ostrich.


Or whatever kind of fowl is closest to your heart. :)

Erm, all of everywhere is about to enter into a recession.
Fixed.

Dialogue=/="Appeasement".

It does according to one of our candidates.:headbang:


Dunno about that.

Look at the lack of deadly attacks by ETA in the last couple of years. And Spain's involvement in the Iraqi conflict was rightly ended by Zapatero... why are these things bad?

Spain's (and Britain's) involvement in Iraq was our fault.

Spain's (and Britain's) involvement in Iraq was our fault.
Dunno about that. Both the Spanish and British heads of government were looking for a quick poll boost, and wanted better ties with the US, looked at the support the public gave for the mission in Afghanistan and reckoned they could win the next general election off the back of it.

In the case of Spain, their chief lost power because of it. In the case of the UK, it caused large-scale apathy which has now turned to support for the Conservatives.

Terrorists should not be negotiated with. Wherever they are located - Iraq, Afghanistan, Dagestan, Chechnya, Ireland - they're a threat to the civilized society.

I can sometimes sympathize with their goals (in cases of Iraqi and Basques), but they don't justify the means.

If we don't fight them, they think of us as weak, not as merciful.

sort of off topic. Ive had this argument with many Spaniards about the train attacks. they seem to feel the attacks happened because of Spain's assistance in Iraq. However, if thats the case why is it Bin laden was talking about Islamic goverment must be re extended to Spain for their to be peace just 6 months after Spain withdrew troops from Iraq. I don't know seems like Spain is still a target until the Caliphate of Córdoba returns.

Terrorists should not be negotiated with.
Don't see why not. The longer they go without killing people, the less it looks like they're succeeding, and the less support they get.

Keeping people at the table for months is pretty handy, especially since it also doesn't create martyrs all over the place.

Dunno about that. Both the Spanish and British heads of government were looking for a quick poll boost, and wanted better ties with the US, looked at the support the public gave for the mission in Afghanistan and reckoned they could win the next general election off the back of it.

In the case of Spain, their chief lost power because of it. In the case of the UK, it caused large-scale apathy which has now turned to support for the Conservatives.

Aznar tried to crawl up Bush's ass, but couldn't fit because Blair was already in there.

sort of off topic. Ive had this argument with many Spaniards about the train attacks. they seem to feel the attacks happened because of Spain's assistance in Iraq. However, if thats the case why is it Bin laden was talking about Islamic goverment must be re extended to Spain for their to be peace just 6 months after Spain withdrew troops from Iraq.
Because it gives him a break from saying "America" and "Britain" all the time?

Lets him say "Very Tiny Satan" to go with the Great Satan and the Little Satan?

Don't see why not. The longer they go without killing people, the less it looks like they're succeeding, and the less support they get.
Because it's what they want. If you show that terror works, you create an incentive to use it more.

In part, I agree, sometimes negotiations might be justified. On a small scale, in specific cases. But not in the big picture.

Aznar tried to crawl up Bush's ass, but couldn't fit because Blair was already in there.
It wasn't about that, it was about the then-looming elections in both countries.

Because it's what they want. If you show that terror works, you create an incentive to use it more.
I'll bet that Hamas would be much happier getting people shot to death by the Israelis than taking part in extremely drawn-out negotiations, to be honest.

It's much better propaganda to the public to say "Poor Yusuf, look what the Israelis did to him :(" than "we may be in with a chance of slightly more autonomy over the running of the Gaza Strip in the medium term, provided we fill certain conditions by set deadlines", let's be honest.
In part, I agree, sometimes negotiations might be justified. On a small scale, in specific cases. But not in the big picture.
Suits me more to have the enemy's leadership talking than directing their troops.

Because it gives him a break from saying "America" and "Britain" all the time?

Lets him say "Very Tiny Satan" to go with the Great Satan and the Little Satan?

i jsut think he is a mad man that wants to use Islam to rule the world.

It's much better propaganda to the public to say "Poor Yusuf, look what the Israelis did to him :(" than "we may be in with a chance of slightly more autonomy over the running of the Gaza Strip in the medium term, provided we fill certain conditions by set deadlines", let's be honest.
There will be the Poor Yusuf anyway.


Suits me more to have the enemy's leadership talking than directing their troops.
Why doesn't having the enemy's leadership pushing up daisies suit you even more?

I agree that Zapatero was an idiot for pulling out of Iraq when he did. The proper response would be to increase troop numbers in a "Screw YOU!" message. One of Al-Qaeda's more immediate goals is the reconquest of all lands once held by Muslims - including Spain. Nothing short of the institution of sharia in Spain would satisfy bin Laden.

i jsut think he is a mad man that wants to use Islam to rule the world.

What was your first clue?

What was your first clue?

the long beard.

the long beard.

For me, it was that whole "lives in a cave" thing.

There will be the Poor Yusuf anyway.
Don't really see why.
Why doesn't having the enemy's leadership pushing up daisies suit you even more?
Because if you think that killing the leadership of groups who rely almost entirely on pity and anger for their support is a good plan, there's something wrong with you.

Making martyrs of people always causes problems, unless you can take literally the entire top level out at once, at which point the movement will break down.

Seeing as this will very rarely happen with groups that have any influence over anything in the slightest, bringing them to the table and turning factions against each other is a better idea.
I agree that Zapatero was an idiot for pulling out of Iraq when he did. The proper response would be to increase troop numbers in a "Screw YOU!" message.
Not really, seeing as his government was wasting money in Iraq for absolutely no gain, seeing as it was Halliburton and other American firms snapping up drilling rights, rather than Spanish ones, and he'd already won the election because of the unpopularity of the war.
One of Al-Qaeda's more immediate goals is the reconquest of all lands once held by Muslims - including Spain. Nothing short of the institution of sharia in Spain would satisfy bin Laden.
I'm sure the Spanish are super worried about this...

I would grant Euskal Herriá it's independence.
Wait, what?

You say you despise Zapatero because he dares to enter into talks with terrorists without making them put down their weapons first - and your solution would be to, er, skip the talking and just give them whatever they want?

Are you sure you have thought this through?

For me, it was that whole "lives in a cave" thing.

no no no lots of hippies do that too.

If you show that terror works

It does work. That's the point of doing it. It's worked to bring people to the negotiating table when all other ways have failed.

Stop trying to compare nationalistic terrorist groups with anarchistic terrorists groups. They're not one and the same.

One of Al-Qaeda's more immediate goals is the reconquest of all lands once held by Muslims - including Spain. Nothing short of the institution of sharia in Spain would satisfy bin Laden.

yes, but this immediate goal occupies the same conceptual space as bush's desire to be remembered as usia's greatest president ever.

It does work.

yeah - when exactly did people start believing the line about never negotiating with terrorists?

the long beard.

:eek:

Terrorists have been infiltrating American culture for years!

http://www.cd1059.com/Portals/50/images/ZZ%20top.jpg

sort of off topic. Ive had this argument with many Spaniards about the train attacks. they seem to feel the attacks happened because of Spain's assistance in Iraq. However, if thats the case why is it Bin laden was talking about Islamic goverment must be re extended to Spain for their to be peace just 6 months after Spain withdrew troops from Iraq. I don't know seems like Spain is still a target until the Caliphate of Córdoba returns.

Because the whole beef the Middle East has with the West extends far back into the past, as far back as the First Crusade. They do not forgive the West for ¨taking ¨ the Holy Land from them.

And with Spain, come on, it gotta hurt. We belonged to them for almost 900 years and then in the 1400s, bam!, we stirke out and send them packing back to Baghdad with their tails between their legs. I don´t think they forgive Castille and León for uniting against their rule.

He was, to the chagrin of many. But the other option was Rajoy and dude, it's like "cambiar naranjas por botellas" to elect Rajoy. There's not much fabric to cut from there.:(


"Changing oranges for boots?" Did I translate that wrong, or is just an idiomatic expression?

Wait, what?

You say you despise Zapatero because he dares to enter into talks with terrorists without making them put down their weapons first - and your solution would be to, er, skip the talking and just give them whatever they want?

Are you sure you have thought this through?

The sentiment with ETA is one thing, recognizing the right Euskal Herriá has to it´s independence, after centuries of struggle, is another thing.

I don´t condone violence, and I don´t condone Zapatero´s idea of entering into negotiations with ETA without asking for a disarmament. I find ETA´s methods deplorable. The Euskadi have the right to govern themselves, if that´s what they truly wish.

"Changing oranges for boots?" Did I translate that wrong, or is just an idiomatic expression?

Idiomatic expression, but you translated it ok.

I don´t condone violence, and I don´t condone Zapatero´s idea of entering into negotiations with ETA without asking for a disarmament. I find ETA´s methods deplorable. The Euskadi have the right to govern themselves, if that´s what they truly wish.

Except no one actually started paying attention/taking the claims seriously until people started dying.

See how the methods (although deplorable) worked?

Because the whole beef the Middle East has with the West extends far back into the past, as far back as the First Crusade. They do not forgive the West for ¨taking ¨ the Holy Land from them.

And with Spain, come on, it gotta hurt. We belonged to them for almost 900 years and then in the 1400s, bam!, we stirke out and send them packing back to Baghdad with their tails between their legs. I don´t think they forgive Castille and León for uniting against their rule.

but both the holy land and Spain were taken from someone else by them.
thats it I am going to blow up trains and fly planes into buildings until Christiandom is reestablished in all former roman providences.

Except no one actually started paying attention/taking the claims seriously until people started dying.

See how the methods (although deplorable) worked?

But it shouldn´t have to come to that. Just like the WTC. It was so unnecessary. And it´s frustrating!

i jsut think he is a mad man that wants to use Islam to rule the world.

Thats a relief. I though he followed the Arsenal.


But it shouldn´t have to come to that..

....but it often does. And the ones that 'deplore terrorism and violence' are usually the ones causing it. Nelson Mandela and the ANC were considered "terrorist" by the yanks, for fucks sake.....

....but it often does. And the ones that 'deplore terrorism and violence' are usually the ones causing it. Nelson Mandela and the ANC were considered "terrorist" by the yanks, for fucks sake.....

The Yanks consider a lot of people terrorists, unfortunately... But this is not about the Yanks considereing this or that group a terrorist organization. Whatever they may think, they're across the Atlantic dealing with their own shyte. Lets leave them at that.

This is about my people being tired of all the peace talks between ETA and the government, talks that don't seem to materialize into much. What's a few months of peace when we here know the bombing attempts will eventually continue for one reason or another? Cease fire seems not to be anywhere in the future of Spain.

Yes, Zapatero started the peace talks. But, have they been successful, at all? Not really and that, once again, is what's so frustrating and saddening.

This is about my people being tired of all the peace talks between ETA and the government, talks that don't seem to materialize into much. What's a few months of peace when we here know the bombing attempts will eventually continue for one reason or another? Cease fire seems not to be anywhere in the future of Spain.
.

Acyually this was mostly about a fairly crap article in the OP...However it is in the nature of peace talks to be long drawn out,frustrating and seemingly insane. Unless one side has won, in which case only one bunch get to do the talking...

Just like the WTC. It was so unnecessary
Please don't compare the actions of a nationalistic terrorist group with the actions of an anarchistic terrorist group. It doesn't work.

This is about my people being tired of all the peace talks between ETA and the government, talks that don't seem to materialize into much. What's a few months of peace when we here know the bombing attempts will eventually continue for one reason or another? Cease fire seems not to be anywhere in the future of Spain.

Yes, Zapatero started the peace talks. But, have they been successful, at all? Not really and that, once again, is what's so frustrating and saddening.

*points to Northern Ireland*

Maybe people could learn something. *shrugs*

Please don't compare the actions of a nationalistic terrorist group with the actions of an anarchistic terrorist group. It doesn't work.

Spare me, but terrorism,be it from an anarchist group or a nationalistic group, eeps being terrorism. Meaning, it's just as bad, whtever the agenda behind it all may be.

*points to Northern Ireland*

Maybe people could learn something. *shrugs*

Once again, whereas the peace talks did fucntion in Northern Ireland, it's not having the same effect in Spain. I wish there was an advancement, but so far, to cite Nodinia, " is in the nature of peace talks to be long drawn out,frustrating and seemingly insane. Unless one side has won, in which case only one bunch get to do the talking..." For us, these talks are taking too long, are a drag and are making no progress because neither side will reach a compromise.

Spare me, but terrorism,be it from an anarchist group or a nationalistic group, eeps being terrorism. Meaning, it's just as bad, whtever the agenda behind it all may be.

Spare you what? If you can't tell the difference between some group like Al Qaeda and another group like the ANC it's no wonder you've problems trying to come to terms with ETA!


For us, these talks are taking too long, are a drag and are making no progress because neither side will reach a compromise.

Talks took 40 years in Northern Ireland. Patience.

Spare you what? If you can't tell the difference between some group like Al Qaeda and another group like the ANC it's no wonder you've problems trying to come to terms with ETA!

You're assuming I can't tell the difference. I know what Al Qaeda is, just like I understand what the IRA was and what ETA is. When I was making a reference to the 9/11 attack to the WTC, I was merely pointing out that terrorism is unnecessary. What happened to the Twin Towers in NYC didn't need to happen. 11M didn't need to happen. Terrorism has no purpose. None what-so-ever!


Talks took 40 years in Northern Ireland. Patience.

The patience of the Spanish is running thin by the minute.

Terrorism has no purpose. None what-so-ever!
Then why would ETA do it?
The patience of the Spanish is running thin by the minute.
Yeah, and the patience of the British and Irish ran thinner by the minute for about forty years.

Then why would ETA do it?

Because I'm sure they think that by using mindless violence and targeting people they can achieve independence from Spain and Southern Spain. Is not working.

Because I'm sure they think that by using mindless violence and targeting people they can achieve independence from Spain and Southern Spain. Is not working.
Certainly gets them in the papers, which is the main thing.

Certainly gets them in the papers, which is the main thing.

Which sucks.

Terrorism has no purpose. None what-so-ever!


Because I'm sure they think that by using mindless violence and targeting people they can achieve independence from Spain and Southern Spain.

Emmmm...?

Emmmm...?

Has violence achieved them independence? Does terrorism achieve anything?

I don't think so.

Has violence achieved them independence?
.

Its not pointless, however.

Its also a 'work in progress' at this moment in time.


Does terrorism achieve anything?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_ireland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Agreement

...Interestingly one of Osamas aims was the withdrawal of US troops from Saudi.