Spain

Everybody has said that the terrorist attacks in Spain were to have people get rid of their leader who supported Iraq war. And now they succeeded. Your thoughts. Right, wrong, good, bad?

about the war and the attack...

That's why the fuckhead lost.

The PP successor to Aznar did, however.

didn't like the way he handled the bombing and its investigation.

It sounds as if there is some merit to the theory that al qaeda did use the timing of the bomb to possibly influence or shake up the election though.

Al-queda has been active in Spain for awhile now, the attacks of 9/11 were planned there and in Germany. The leader of Al-queda in Spain has been held in custody since 9/11. The AQ bombings, carried out by the same Spanish faction of AQ, in Casablanca last year were more about typical AQ terrorism than Iraq, I think.

if AQ had no connections with Hussein why would they care about Iraq now?

I think what we are seeing is merely a continuation of 9/11 type terrorism more than the situation in Iraq

edit clarity

We can't say it's right or wrong if we don't even agree with the premise that "everybody" says that the attacks were meant to sway the election.

"Everybody" so far appears to mean right wingers who are unhappy that Zapatero is calling them on their argument that the Iraq war is doing some good in the war on terror.

The same everybody does not know what the motives of the attacks' perpetrators are.

Spaniards oppose terrorism, and have been doing so, with some success (as far as ETA is concerned), a lot longer than we have. They have also opposed the Iraq war, overwhelmingly. As the Spanish press has been reporting, the Aznar government actively pushed the ETA theory of the attacks even when their intelligence service strongly believed that an Islamic militant group authored the attacks. When that came out, the people were upset.

The attacks themselves may have influenced the election, but what I have seen and heard is that the manipulation of information by the government did not sit at all well with the people, and this may have decided the election. However, I have also seen on Spanish television that two polls showed the two main parties about even before the election, and Aznar's party lost some support in the previous election, so it's not clear that they were certainly going to win.

I've been getting my information from Spanish television (TVE), Spanish papers (El Pais and El Mundo), and Spanish friends with whom I've spoken and emailed.

We shouldn't be accepting the right wing's premises. They would like nothing better than to convince people that the Spaniards are soft on terror (which is laughable). That leads them to the equally absurd claim that Spain is "for" al Qaeda. Leading to the claim that opposing the Iraq war or wanting to get out is against the U.S. Leading to "a vote against Bush is a vote for the terrorists." We've been down this road before. Let's nip it in the bud.

We can't say it's right or wrong if we don't even agree with the premise that "everybody" says that the attacks were meant to sway the election.

"Everybody" so far appears to mean right wingers who are unhappy that Zapatero is calling them on their argument that the Iraq war is doing some good in the war on terror.

The same everybody does not know what the motives of the attacks' perpetrators are.

Spaniards oppose terrorism, and have been doing so, with some success (as far as ETA is concerned), a lot longer than we have. They have also opposed the Iraq war, overwhelmingly. As the Spanish press has been reporting, the Aznar government actively pushed the ETA theory of the attacks even when their intelligence service strongly believed that an Islamic militant group authored the attacks. When that came out, the people were upset.

The attacks themselves may have influenced the election, but what I have seen and heard is that the manipulation of information by the government did not sit at all well with the people, and this may have decided the election. However, I have also seen on Spanish television that two polls showed the two main parties about even before the election, and Aznar's party lost some support in the previous election, so it's not clear that they were certainly going to win.

I've been getting my information from Spanish television (TVE), Spanish papers (El Pais and El Mundo), and Spanish friends with whom I've spoken and emailed.

We shouldn't be accepting the right wing's premises. They would like nothing better than to convince people that the Spaniards are soft on terror (which is laughable). That leads them to the equally absurd claim that Spain is "for" al Qaeda. Leading to the claim that opposing the Iraq war or wanting to get out is against the U.S. Leading to "a vote against Bush is a vote for the terrorists." We've been down this road before. Let's nip it in the bud.

We can't say it's right or wrong if we don't even agree with the premise that "everybody" says that the attacks were meant to sway the election.

"Everybody" so far appears to mean right wingers who are unhappy that Zapatero is calling them on their argument that the Iraq war is doing some good in the war on terror.

The same everybody does not know what the motives of the attacks' perpetrators are.

Spaniards oppose terrorism, and have been doing so, with some success (as far as ETA is concerned), a lot longer than we have. They have also opposed the Iraq war, overwhelmingly. As the Spanish press has been reporting, the Aznar government actively pushed the ETA theory of the attacks even when their intelligence service strongly believed that an Islamic militant group authored the attacks. When that came out, the people were upset.

The attacks themselves may have influenced the election, but what I have seen and heard is that the manipulation of information by the government did not sit at all well with the people, and this may have decided the election. However, I have also seen on Spanish television that two polls showed the two main parties about even before the election, and Aznar's party lost some support in the previous election, so it's not clear that they were certainly going to win.

I've been getting my information from Spanish television (TVE), Spanish papers (El Pais and El Mundo), and Spanish friends with whom I've spoken and emailed.

We shouldn't be accepting the right wing's premises. They would like nothing better than to convince people that the Spaniards are soft on terror (which is laughable). That leads them to the equally absurd claim that Spain is "for" al Qaeda. Leading to the claim that opposing the Iraq war or wanting to get out is against the U.S. Leading to "a vote against Bush is a vote for the terrorists." We've been down this road before. Let's nip it in the bud.

no response message whenever I tried to post, so I hit it three different times, and, apparently, it went through each time. My apologies.

it seems that the attack didn't change anyone's votes it just prodded more people to vote all of whom voted for the socialists. Anyway I would like to know why it is that in Spain when they have a devastating attack they blame the ruling party but in America they act like the party in charge is the only one who can save them from more attacks.

Aznar tried to spin the Madrid bombings as an ETA attack, despite it not being their style, before all the facts were in. His party couldn't be trusted to fight terrorism.

and Aznar's party will pay the price for not listening to the people.

Hope Blair and Bush are next.