Explosion in madrid

[WhoCares 0]

I don't like the idea to remove the spanish civilists from the target list, and by this (at least!) double the threat for british, italian, danish, polish and american civilists. That's the wrong signal.

By joining the coalition Spain has also taken responsibility for those people; a change of the government does not release them from this, as it was done in the name of Spain and not just in the name of a particular party.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]as it was done in the name of Spain

Yes but not according to the will of spanish people.

They didn´t want to join the coaltion but Aznar wanted.

They are not to blame for something they couldn´t prevent.

They now voted clearly against the way Aznar ran the country. That has to be respected. Aznar by the way was no good leader. He "sold" spain to foreign interests and made spain slave of the USA. You remember his "competent" behaviour after the tanker catastrophe ? He played it down so much that you had to think a fisherboat sunk. In fact it destroyed large coastal areas, polluted them for more than 20 years and killed all the fish. Not so minor imo.

He got his ticket now. And he well deserved it.

Quote[/b] ]I don't like the idea to remove the spanish civilists from the target list, and by this (at least!) double the threat for british, italian, danish, polish and american civilists. That's the wrong signal.

The wrong signal is to start wars on a selfish base. Unilateral wars with no international backing. That´s the wrong signal. It´s not the wrong signal to revert decisions in order to represent your public opinion and wishes.

It´s unlikely that spain is safe now, as it is for any other european nation.

A lot of credits for this blooming terrorism goes to the US. Thank you very much.

[WhoCares 0]

Yes but not according to the will of spanish people.

They didn´t want to join the coaltion but Aznar wanted.

They are not to blame for something they couldn´t prevent.

They now voted clearly against the way Aznar ran the country.

Aznar was actually ahead in the polls before the terrorist attack. And if it had been ETA, he still would have won. What lost him the election was this ETA - Al'Qaida hassle which made the people finally distrust him and his gang.

Aznar was elected and thus had all rights to join the coalition in the name of Spain. As a politician it is sometimes your job to make unpopular decisions against the public will if you feel (for whatever reason) that it is neccessary. It was in the responsibility of the voters a few years ago ahead of the elections back than, to ask Aznar about his stance with respect to international terrorism. They didn't do - now they know.

Quote[/b] ]The wrong signal is to start wars on a selfish base. Unilateral wars with no international backing. That´s the wrong signal. It´s not the wrong signal to revert decisions in order to represent your public opinion and wishes.

It´s unlikely that spain is safe now, as it is for any other european nation.

I totally agree, that the war was wrong. And I firmly believe, that it made the international terrorism a bigger threat all over the world for quiet another while.

However, the war has happened, and Aznar in the name of Spain joined the coalition. This was a serious commitment! They are now committed to all the other coalition partners and even more to the iraqi people! I guess, that's a fact we have completly missed so far - Spain actively supported the war - now they must not simply pull out and leave the iraqis alone (with the rest of the coalition).

It's like in chess, where from one move to another the situation can change completly. You can't just take back your last move.

[Balschoiw 0]

Well he already said that he will rethink the pullout if the UN backs efforts and takes over. I think that´s a good way to handle it.

[raedor 8]

A lot of credits for this blooming terrorism goes to the US. Thank you very much.

yep. bombing for peace is like f*cking for virginity...

[shinRaiden 0]

Spanish? Who needs them anyway? We are the UN borg...

Seriously, he says that what they are doing right now without the U is 'bad' but if the UN said it was 'good' then it must be good. Thumb wars "good good bad bad good bad bad bad good good" is just as logical. So 'slaughtering the innocents' under Bush's banner is bad, but doing it under the UN's is good...

"I can see clearly now the rainbow... "

(phhhhhhhtttt... *long drag*)

[denoir 0]

Flaw in your logic - you're assuming that the UN would be doing things in the same way as the US + co does.

Furthermore it's a question of legality. If the UN OK:s it, then it means that you have the right to be there and what you are doing is ok with the international community.

But that's more of an Iraq discussion.

Bernadotte:

Quote[/b] ]What do you mean, no? You say "no" but then you more or less reiterate what I said. The only difference is that I'm not convinced that Iraq + an ETA attack would have been sufficient. That's why I emphasised that Iraq + terrorists' reaction to Iraq = sufficient condition.

No, your original post hinted that you considered Iraq being both necessary and sufficient for Anzars lost election. I'm saying no. It was not only because the Iraq war. Without the terrorist attack Anzar would have won. Regardless where you put the originating cause, you can't deny that the terrorist attack influenced the results of the election (or decided, better to say). No terrorist attack - Anzar. Terrorist attack - no Anzar. Simple black-box model. I don't look at other parameters of the equation, just one and I can say that the terrorist attack parameter was decisive (all other parameters kept unchanged).

[shinRaiden 0]

Yeah, you're right on influencing elections, Florida could have been decided on those two hundred people.

[raedor 8]

No terrorist attack - Anzar. Terrorist attack - no Anzar. Simple black-box model. I don't look at other parameters of the equation, just one and I can say that the terrorist attack parameter was decisive (all other parameters kept unchanged).

no terrorist attack - rajoy (not aznar...)

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Aznar was actually ahead in the polls before the terrorist attack. And if it had been ETA, he still would have won. What lost him the election was this ETA - Al'Qaida hassle which made the people finally distrust him and his gang.

I think that most people were voting on emotions. Couldn't the Spanish goverment call it off for a couple off months like they can in the UK?

Quote[/b] ]They now voted clearly against the way Aznar ran the country. That has to be respected. Aznar by the way was no good leader. He "sold" spain to foreign interests and made spain slave of the USA. You remember his "competent" behaviour after the tanker catastrophe ?

Rather USA then the EU.

I dont like the sight of socialasts eaving "RED" flags around. What happened last time socialist in charge? Civil Guard (or sumet like that) get into parliment and starts shooting and throwing things about, and Spain was on the brink of Civil war.

[@cero 0]

I dont like the sight of socialasts eaving "RED" flags around. What happened last time socialist in charge? Civil Guard (or sumet like that) get into parliment and starts shooting and throwing things about, and Spain was on the brink of Civil war.

Is just exactly the same people that was there before Aznar, them times it used to be Felipe Gonzalez, now is Zapatero, but on the same party.

Nothing to do with red flags, lol.

About Aznar loosing his presidency. It was coming and you could see that from miles away. Even if 11-3 never happaned, he still would lost the elections.

The Spanish voters didn't like the attitude he toke liking Bush a##, and the fact that he sold Spain to the best bider is something that the voters know aswell.

The same is going to happan here in the UK when Blare's time comes, he will go if they don't kickim out before that.

Just the same.

About Spain being in Irak.

What the hell is my country doing there? We are not a super power, the Spanish economy can aford to pay for all of that, no chance.

Spain echonomy is raising up and Aznar f###ed it up by sending the troops to Irak, going against the Spanish population wishes.

Irak should have been handle in a different way, send a SAS assassination team and get read of the f#####g b#####s, and when they are all out of this dimensional life send the troops and tell them that Sadam had runned away with all the gold.

I bet you things would be very different than what they are now

@CERO.

EDIT key word

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ]Sunday would go down in history as ''the day when Islamic fundamentalism was seen as dictating the outcome of a European election,'' said Wilfried Martens, head of the European People's Party, an umbrella group for European conservative parties.

Great.....just what we need, terrorism actually achieving it's aim.

[shinRaiden 0]

Some may indeed be seeking to spread the caliphate back to Alhambra, but many of their line soldiers seem to be interested only in the wholesale slaughter of infidels. And the white flag of surrender waved by the infidels is sadly so very needed... as burial shrouds.

[bn880 5]

Quote[/b] ]Sunday would go down in history as ''the day when Islamic fundamentalism was seen as dictating the outcome of a European election,'' said Wilfried Martens, head of the European People's Party, an umbrella group for European conservative parties.

Great.....just what we need, terrorism actually achieving it's aim.

Actually, terrorism is also what the coalition did in Iraq. So I would keep my mouth shut in that respect... They were going to vote for the socialist party anyway as soon as they were anti war. I mean it makes sense not to go to stupid wars doesn't it.

[Holy Smoke 0]

Denoir, terrorist attacks plus the way the governmet was informing the people (as walker pointed before), made people go out and vote. I dont' think the attacks changed people's minds in signifficative numbers. The attacks influenced but not decided the electioral outcome.

And I won't be taking into that high account the polls saying Rajoy was going to be elected. I cant' recall a pre-elecctoral poll showing accurate results, and you can check that once the electoral process is over. Polls in 2000 were giving a fair victory to PP, but nobody could think they were going to achive 183 seats in the Congress (that's a lot). Aznar not only was leading very impopular measueres concerning foreing affairs, but internal affairs were lead the same way: impopular. I agree with Acero you could see that miles away, though I admit nobody though it was going to be that hard for the PP.

żWhat did Al-Qaeda here? It was a matter of timing and they simply choosed the "proper" momment to appear. Had the attacks happened today and nobody will be saying "the

terrorists achieved a victory", whatever the result of the elections and whether Spain is backing off Iraq or not. Elections are hot dates when you're expecting terrorist attacks and we're aware of that in Spain: ETA always shows up, though sometimes we are fortunate enough their actions are aborted before commited. Al-Qaeda showed last week and caught everybody off guard. The only thing they achieved was popularity by acting within 3 days of an election of a country supporting the coalition leaded by the US and in a signifficative date -> 911 days after 911 and so on...

Regards

[denoir 0]

Denoir, terrorist attacks plus the way the governmet was informing the people (as walker pointed before), made people go out and vote. I dont' think the attacks changed people's minds in signifficative numbers. The attacks influenced but not decided the electioral outcome.

And I won't be taking into that high account the polls saying Rajoy was going to be elected. I cant' recall a pre-elecctoral poll showing accurate results, and you can check that once the electoral process is over. Polls in 2000 were giving a fair victory to PP, but nobody could think they were going to achive 183 seats in the Congress (that's a lot). Aznar not only was leading very impopular measueres concerning foreing affairs, but internal affairs were lead the same way: impopular. I agree with Acero you could see that miles away, though I admit nobody though it was going to be that hard for the PP.

Pre-election polls are quite accurate if you have satistically reliable data and large enough margins. The pre-election polls showed very clearly that Anzar would win. Saying now that he would have lost anyway is a bit of revisionist history.

Regardless, the only way that you can say if it decided the outcome or not is to compare the acutal results with the poll results. It's the most accurate method. If you don't trust it, then you can say that we don't know if it decided or not. But you certainly can't claim that it didn't decide the outcome.

Quote[/b] ]The only thing they achieved was popularity by acting within 3 days of an election of a country supporting the coalition leaded by the US

Unless you count the realistic possibility of their attack affecting the outcome of your elections which led to the Socialists coming to power which in turn leads to the removal of Spanish troops from Iraq. Which is what the terrorist want.

Quote[/b] ]and in a signifficative date -> 911 days after 911 and so on...  

The 911 thing is really silly. It's a coincidence. First of all the 911 is an American fetish not an AQ fetish. Second, why the hell would an anti-american organization use american date format? I'm European and to me 9/11 means ninth november. And I don't have a political agenda, which AQ does.

And finally people who say that it is 911 days need to take some basic math classes. It's a leap year this year, meaning that february has 29 days, something that the genious making the first 911 calculation obviously did not take into consideration.

Here, take a look for your self: date difference calculator

Enter 09/11/2001 and 03/11/2004 and you'll get the correct one, namely 912 days.

Anyway, had it been under any other circumstances, I would be very happy with Zapatero, as he is pro-European rather than pro-American. He and his party opposed the Iraq war etc However if him coming to power was because of the terrorist attacks, then I'm not happy about it.

[bn880 5]

Denoir it depends on when the poll was takn. Did the vast population already know the soclialist party would not support this Iraq war much longer? If they found out recently then that could be another explanation. Or the polls could be very inaccurate.

[denoir 0]

Denoir it depends on when the poll was takn.  Did the vast population already know the soclialist party would not support this Iraq war much longer?  If they found out recently then that could be another explanation.  Or the polls could be very inaccurate.

They opposed it from the beginning and their campaign promise was to remove the Spanish troops.

As for the accuracy of the polls, apart from the statistical vailidity, there is litte you can say. You certainly can't say that they were wrong as you have no way of knowing. The polls are the most accurate measure we have.

[bn880 5]

I know that Spaniards (spelling) were always bitching pretty strongly about the Iraq war, so I don't know how the polls could have shown that. Ask anyone from Spain about how they planned to vote 2 months ago, and everyone else/most they knew.

Seriously I don't understand this poll... where is it? I gotta check this out.

[Bernadotte 0]

Bernadotte:

Quote[/b] ]What do you mean, no?  You say "no" but then you more or less reiterate what I said.  The only difference is that I'm not convinced that Iraq + an ETA attack would have been sufficient.  That's why I emphasised that Iraq + terrorists' reaction to Iraq = sufficient condition.

No, your original post hinted that you considered Iraq being both necessary and sufficient for Anzars lost election. I'm saying no. It was not only because the Iraq war. Without the terrorist attack Anzar would have won.

No Denoir, I didn't say or hint that at all.  If you really think I did then please show me where.

In fact, I can show you where I said the opposite - that without a bombing some potential PP supporters would have entered the polling stations thinking that Spains military aggression "works" without risk of consequences.  Maybe you should re-read my post.

Regardless where you put the originating cause, you can't deny that the terrorist attack influenced the results of the election (or decided, better to say).

I haven't denied the influence of the terrorist attack at all, but I refuse to look at the bombing as the single decisive parameter as you are doing.

No terrorist attack - Anzar. Terrorist attack - no Anzar. Simple black-box model. I don't look at other parameters of the equation, just one and I can say that the terrorist attack parameter was decisive (all other parameters kept unchanged).

Such oversimplifications are quite dangerous.

In reality, it meant a great deal to the Spanish electorate that it was an Al Qaida attack rather than an ETA attack, which your simple black-box model has ignored.  And as soon as you take the Al Qaida connection into consideration then your single parameter is suddenly attached to the Iraq parameter.  Therefore, your single parameter approach is only useful for those who supported Aznar's Iraq policy or the weak-minded who can only see the world in black and white.

[brgnorway 0]

One can cannot avoid to see the spanish election being influenced by the bombing. However, there are several interpretations available. Some fall for the "doing exactly what Al Qaida wanted to" and others points to "the people never wanted to be engaged in Iraq" thus the goverments decision to join the axis of the willing could be understood as unrepresentative of the people's majority. All are equally good explanations but I favour another one which is that the spanish people now know that joining up in Iraq has not protected Spain from terrorism but rather served the opposite effect - to bring terrorism to spanish soil. Thus the war has been a failure. It's highly unlikely that this terror attack would have taken place if not. I bet the next bombing will take place in Italy and then Australia or possibly England. Polen is not very likely as it won't change anything.

No, the terrorist didn't win the spanish election. The people did - and they showed that their will cannot be highjacked. If this leads to a pressure on USA to hand the responsability in Iraq over to UN Al Qaida might possibly have worked against it's own good. I doubt the new spanish government - or the spanish people for that matter - won't engage in the fight against terrorism.

[denoir 0]

Bernadotte:

Quote[/b] ]What do you mean, no?  You say "no" but then you more or less reiterate what I said.  The only difference is that I'm not convinced that Iraq + an ETA attack would have been sufficient.  That's why I emphasised that Iraq + terrorists' reaction to Iraq = sufficient condition.

No, your original post hinted that you considered Iraq being both necessary and sufficient for Anzars lost election. I'm saying no. It was not only because the Iraq war. Without the terrorist attack Anzar would have won.

No Denoir, I didn't say or hint that at all.  If you really think I did then please show me where.

In fact, I can show you where I said the opposite - that without a bombing some potential PP supporters would have entered the polling stations thinking that Spains military aggression "works" without risk of consequences.  Maybe you should re-read my post.

Quote[/b] ]

I disagree with the way you present the terrorism as an action and the election results as a reaction.  The original action was Aznar joining hands with Washington in Iraq and a war on Al Qaida that, until then, had not affected Spain and was not likely to.  In other words, Aznar threw the first punch and entirely against the will of the Spanish electorate.  The train bombings were the inevitable reaction.  The election result was merely the people saying "we told you so, now take a hike."

Chain of actions:

The universe is created---->....-->Iraq war---->Madrid bombing--->Election results

Your saying that the election results is not a reaction to the bombing is equally pointless as saying that the bombing was not the reaction to the Iraq war but that it was the reaction of the universe being created. The Iraq war was a necessary but not sufficient event.

Quote[/b] ]I haven't denied the influence of the terrorist attack at all, but I refuse to look at the bombing as the single decisive parameter as you are doing.

I never said that it was the single decisive parameter. I said that it was one of many necessary (i.e decisive parameters). How many there are is quite irrelevant (not to mention impossible to answer). What we are looking at here is the question if the terrorist attack changed the outcome of the election. The outcome could have been changed if any of the other necessary parameters were removed but that is hardly interesting.

Quote[/b] ]Such oversimplifications are quite dangerous.

In reality, it meant a great deal to the Spanish electorate that it was an Al Qaida attack rather than an ETA attack, which your simple black-box model has ignored.  And as soon as you take the Al Qaida connection into consideration then your single parameter is suddenly attached to the Iraq parameter.  Therefore, your single parameter approach is only useful for those who supported Aznar's Iraq policy or the weak-minded who can only see the world in black and white.

It's not a simplification it's an encapsulation. It's a very common technique used in electrical engineering to analyze signals and systems. Inside your black box you can have any parameters and any correlation. Either it will happen inside the model aposteriori or it will be a part of the input signal apriori. Any system can be modelled like this, regardless of how complex the relationships are and even if it is non-determinisitic or if it has recurrent connections and memory.

[Bernadotte 0]

Good post, brgnorway.

I bet the next bombing will take place in Italy and then Australia or possibly England. Polen is not very likely as it won't change anything.

Given that the vast majority of Bali bombing victims were Australian, I consider that to have been a strike against them as much as against Indonesia.

We can be sure that the USA, UK and Israel will continue to be highest on AQ's hit list. However, they are also the toughest to attack. That's why I think the focus will remain on the foreign diplomatic and commercial interests of these countries. In fact, a 3/4 tonne bomb was defused just yesterday outside the US consulate in Karachi Pakistan.

We're probably facing a long decade of escalation with many more similar tragedies including stinger attacks on airlines, etc. Btw, US and UK airline stocks took a bit of a nose dive yesterday when evidence of AQ involvement in Spain finally reached investors.

[brgnorway 0]

Inside your black box you can have any parameters and any correlation. Either it will happen inside the model aposteriori or it will be a part of the input signal apriori. Any system can be modelled like this, regardless of how complex the relationships are and even if it is non-determinisitic or if it has recurrent connections and memory.

Just in case you didn't know Denoir - there is a "black box" theory used in the political science. The problem is that it's used because one never actually knows what takes place "within" it. It's a theory used because one cannot predict the political process propperly. So it's hardly a good way of explaining input and result.

[denoir 0]

Just in case you didn't know Denoir - there is a "black box" theory used in the political science. The problem is that it's used because one never actually knows what takes place "within" it. It's a theory used because one cannot predict the political process propperly. So it's hardly a good way of explaining input and result.

Right on, but I'm not trying to explain the system or even to predict future values. What I'm doing is keeping all inputs but one constant. Then I change that single input and see how it affects the system. It does not give me a qualitative idea of how the system works, but it gives me a quanititative idea of how much the selected input affects the system output.