Decius wrote:
] ] Analysts say the intelligence chatter about an attack on
] ] the United States has shown up in open Internet
] forums
] ] and is similar to message traffic that preceded the
] ] Madrid bombings. "It's not just the official [terrorist]
] ] websites but also the chat rooms and Web forums," says
] ] Gabriel Weimann, a scholar in residence at the U.S.
] ] Institute for Peace. "The picture is not looking very
] ] good." Messages posted before the attacks in Madrid,
] ] Weimann says, described the Spanish government as "the
] ] first domino."
]
] The correct incantation into google will present the discourse
] of the people who are trying to kill you.

Interesting, and alarming. It would be more alarming if I trusted the authors. They write:

"The Madrid bombings... toppled the Spanish government"

It didn't.

"and triggered the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq."

It didn't.

But then the article is dated 5/31/4 and the cover story is not the above but rather:

"Cover Story

Average Americans are opting for cosmetic surgery in record numbers. But do they know the risks?

When is perfect too perfect?

The price of beauty"

Oh right ... heavy.

oaknet wrote:
] "Cover Story
]
] Average Americans are opting for cosmetic surgery in record
] numbers. But do they know the risks?

I'll be the first to admin the U.S. News and World Report is hardly among my top choices for credible journalism. You're totally right about their current cover story. Ridiculous. However, unless they've changed significantly in recent years their cover stories are typically harder news then that.

Having said this, they are directly quoting Gabriel Weimann. I'll bet that the "direct quote" isn't direct at all, as U.S. media is basically notorious for completely rewriting direct quotes. However, given who Gabriel Weimann is and the kind of research he does I don't think that its unlikely to hear such a statement from him. Whether or not HE is credible is a different story. I don't know the answer to that question, but I think its a better place to focus inquiry then on U.S. News.

http://www.usip.org/specialists/bios/current/weimann.html
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-4-2004_pg3_5

] "The Madrid bombings... toppled the Spanish government"
]
] It didn't.
]
] "and triggered the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq."
]
] It didn't.

They wording here is an oversimplification, but I understand what they mean. I'm not aware of anyone who has argued that the intent of the Madrid bombing was anything other then to intimidate Spain and other European countries into withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, and that they got exactly what they wanted. Furthermore, the incumbant government was polling ahead in the days before the bombing, so the bombing, or the events surrounding the bombing, certainly impacted the outcome of the election.

The only room I see for question here is the fact that the government of Spain intentionally mislead the world as to who was responsible for the attacks in the days following the attacks. If I was Spanish that would be enough for me to vote left.

The question is, and I don't know the answer here either, but was the typical Spanish voter, at the polls, thinking "I'm voting against the incumbant because they lied about the bombing," or "I'm voting against the incumbant because our involvement in the Middle East is the reason that we were attacked."

If the later, then yes, Al'Q toppled the Spanish government by intimidating the voters into the false conclusion that they'll be safe from Islamic terrorism if they don't fight against Al'Q.

Do you disagree?

Decius wrote:

] ] "The Madrid bombings... toppled the Spanish government"
] ]
] ] It didn't.
] ]
] ] "and triggered the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq."
]
] ]
] ] It didn't.
]
] They wording here is an oversimplification,

And that's the problem. There is no room for this kind of oversimplification when many will take it to be a clear record of events. After all, it still doesn't seem to have reached the US collective intellect that Saddam Hussain was not involved in 9/11.

] but I understand
] what they mean. I'm not aware of anyone who has argued that
] the intent of the Madrid bombing was anything other then to
] intimidate Spain and other European countries into withdrawing
] from Iraq and Afghanistan, and that they got exactly what they
] wanted.

Those in power in Spain today had said BEFORE the bombings that they would withdraw from Iraq. A great many people in Spain, and elsewhere, believe the occupation to be illegal and immoral. And in a democracy like Spain, they got their way. I see no evidence that the bombing changed was was already on the cards, though it certainly suits the more hawkish in the US to resort to oversimplification and claim that this was so.

oaknet wrote:
] Those in power in Spain today had said BEFORE the bombings
] that they would withdraw from Iraq. A great many people in
] Spain, and elsewhere, believe the occupation to be illegal and
] immoral. And in a democracy like Spain, they got their way. I
] see no evidence that the bombing changed was was already on
] the cards, though it certainly suits the more hawkish in the
] US to resort to oversimplification and claim that this was so.

If you see no evidence that the bombing changed what was "already in the cards" then you haven't been paying attention. The idea that Zapatero wasn't doing well in the polls prior to the bombing, and that the outcome of the election was primarily influenced by the bombing, isn't a specious claim made by "hawkish quarters" in the US. It is a widely reported and well established fact, internationally. It is otherwise spun only by those with an interest in spinning it.

References:

Washington Post:

While opinion polls taken before the attacks had given Aznar's Popular Party a comfortable lead, voters overwhelmingly endorsed candidates from the opposition Socialist Party...

...unexpected victory...

In recent months, controversy over the Iraq war, deeply unpopular here, had receded as a major issue, and more voters appeared focused on Spain's robust economy...

(After the bombings...) There was a sense of outrage that Aznar's pro-American policies had put Spain on the firing line of Islamic extremists seeking reprisals...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57707-2004Mar14.html

AP Wire:

The conservatives' defeat was unexpected. Pre-election polls had projected the Popular party, led by Mariano Rajoy, would win comfortably, and even some exit polls Sunday showed it might win.

http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040315.wspain0315/BNStory/International/

BBC:

A larger than expected 77% of the electorate turned out to vote in the wake of last Thursday's attacks.

But our correspondent says the late swing to the Socialists also raises one disturbing thought - if al-Qaeda was responsible for Thursday's attacks, it appears to have had significant influence in changing the government of a leading Western democracy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3511886.stm

The BBC's Chris Morris, in Madrid, says the train bombings did more than shock Spain to the core; they proved to be the decisive factor in the general election that ousted the government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/europe/3511886.stm

Here is a left wing view. Its somewhat reasonable but a few claims are very thin, such as the implication that people were lieing on pre-election polls out of fear of retribution from the government.

Still, it is acknowledged that the outcome... [ Read More (0.1k in body) ]

Decius wrote:

] Still, it is acknowledged that the outcome of the election was
] the result of the bombing.

At best, opinion polls show that the Spanish people were against the occupation of Iraq since its beginning, and the election reflected that view. The only point of debate is whether the government's obfuscation over the Madrid bombs caused their defeat or merely ensured it. If elections were called in the UK today, most poeple would relelect the coalition-supporting government. But if asked about the war in Iraq, most would oppose it. Again, oversimplications, such as you put forward, cannot be sustained. The occupation was unpopular and undemocratically promoted in the UK and Spain, it remains so today. For most people in mature democaracies, it appears both illegal and immoral.

This article mentioned the G8 summit so I just wanted to reply to that.

I just got back from a visit to the Golden Isles and the Secret Service and CIA were overrunning the place as I understand. I talked to several locals while I was there who were not to happy with it.

What I heard reported was that they had been wanting to scope out every building not only on sea island but also on Jekyll and St. Simons. One hotel owner has said they'd pretty much demanded to go up to the rooftop of the hotel to 'look around.'

I saw several military deployments as well, including a radar and communications unit from what looked like Army Signal on Jekyll. Lots of mobile radio as well.

Decius wrote:
] ] Analysts say the intelligence chatter about an attack on
] ] the United States has shown up in open Internet
] forums
] ] and is similar to message traffic that preceded the
] ] Madrid bombings. "It's not just the official [terrorist]
] ] websites but also the chat rooms and Web forums," says
] ] Gabriel Weimann, a scholar in residence at the U.S.
] ] Institute for Peace. "The picture is not looking very
] ] good." Messages posted before the attacks in Madrid,
] ] Weimann says, described the Spanish government as "the
] ] first domino."
]
] The correct incantation into google will present the discourse
] of the people who are trying to kill you.