The difference between Brits and Spaniards

[Cowperson]

Interesting look at the different reactions of the Brits and Spaniards to the terror incidents in their respective countries. . . . with Spainards a little put out that the Brits are carrying on without any hair-pulling and hand-wringing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...526490,00.html

Cowperson

[Ozy_Flame]

Perhaps I'm stereotyping here, but isn't Spain one of the Romantic countries? Places like France, Italy, and Spain tend to be a bit emotional about things that happen in life, and that doesn't speak well for the British stiff upper lip.

[CaptainCrunch]

England also went through the blitz and the IRA bombings, they've developed a pretty stiff lip about these things, and they are right, if you give these terrorist scumbags any kind of foothold they'll be emboldened by it and continue to threaten it.

One thing is for sure though, the British reaction to this won't be heard about, unlike the American's they won't brag about any of the responsible parties that they bag, all you'll hear is a small press release that a body is found, and the cause of death was a sudden brain hemmorage.
.

[tjinaz]

Yea the Brits are some hearty folks. Terrs are better off hitting mainland europe, they will get the reaction they want there. The Brits will simply smile shed a tear or two and get to work hunting them down.

Would be interesting if Canada was attacked it the French or the English Heritige would take over.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Jul 12 2005, 04:10 PM
One thing is for sure though, the British reaction to this won't be heard about, unlike the American's they won't brag about any of the responsible parties that they bag, all you'll hear is a small press release that a body is found, and the cause of death was a sudden brain hemmorage.

They're actually rounding up people and blowing in doors in Leeds right now as a matter of fact. . . . . very publicly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8507035/

Spooky that we used Kings Cross subway and Kings Cross railway stations to get to Leeds and back (visiting friends) in late May.

Cowperson

[KevanGuy]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Jul 12 2005, 10:29 AM
Would be interesting if Canada was attacked it the French or the English Heritige would take over.

I guess that would depend on where they attacked now wouldn't it?

[MarchHare]

I'm not convinced that Spain "gave in to the terrorists" or whatever.

Even before the train bombings the opposition party was leading in the polls (thanks in part to their promise to remove Spanish troops from Iraq), and then the government really shot themselves in the immediate aftermath of the attacks by prematurely blaming the Basque terror group ETA.

It's not exactly fair to call Spaniards weak-willed or anything or saying that terrorism was effective there when it's likely the government would have been defeated and Spanish troops returned home from Iraq even if the bombings had never occurred.

[Agamemnon]

I'd be surprised if the Brit's are simply 'made of heartier stuff' than the Spaniards. Spain has had issues w/ the Basques for decades, and are familiar with terrorism.

Maybe the actual issue of the War in Iraq had some play w/ the Spaniards, as opposed to their innate cowardness? Maybe the two countries actions can be chalked up to political differences, as opposed to historical and racial ones. Just a thought.

[tjinaz]

If the issue was the war in Iraq and they were going to pull out anyway why were they bombed? The previous government was leading in the polls, the bombing occured and then the opposition party won. Granted that they said it was the ETA hurt them, the overall perception is that the bombing swung the election the other way.

If they had the same attitude as the Brits the opposite would be true. If they got bombed they would redouble their efforts and not be intimidated rather than throwing up their hands. Whether or not it would have happened anyway the terrorists will score this as a victory.

[MarchHare]

If the issue was the war in Iraq and they were going to pull out anyway why were they bombed?

Who knows? I don't really understand the logic of terrorists anyway...perhaps it was a revenge attack of some sort for merely being in Iraq?

The previous government was leading in the polls, the bombing occured and then the opposition party won.

Do you have a source for that? I'm pretty sure the opposition was leading in the polls prior to the bombing.

EDIT: I found a source that showed the existing government had a slight lead in polls before the attacks, but they would have been reduced from a majority government to a minority if the polling had been accurate. Even before the bombing their support had plummetted from the previous election.

But the assumption that terrorists successfully brought about Aznar's defeat in Spain is questionable. Even if the Madrid terrorist attacks had not occurred, polls show that the election would have been very close. Opinion polls taken before the attack showed the Populist Party's lead over the rival Socialist Party to be between as few as three percentage points and as many as six percentage points -- figures at or near the statistical margin of error.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407150007

If they had the same attitude as the Brits the opposite would be true.

What's Blair's support at currently? Has any poll been published showing his party to have either gained or lost support since the London attacks?

If they got bombed they would redouble their efforts and not be intimidated rather than throwing up their hands.

IIRC, the Spanish authorities were quite quick at capturing those responsable for the train bombings. Since Iraq has nothing at all to do with Al Qaeda, it's incorrect to state that Spain threw in the towel with respect to counter-terrorism by pulling out of Iraq.

[tjinaz]

Here you go from the BBC

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."

"Congratulations

Mr Zapatero was - until Thursday's bombings - considered an outsider for Spain's top job. "

The opposition was losing badly until the bombing

Yes they did Change the vote.

Here is another tidbit from your source

"However, Sabato predicted that if Al Qaeda were "to participate in electioneering in that way" in the United States, "the American electorate" would not "react the same way as the Spanish electorate" and would not likely "turn tail on the incumbent government."

This is what I mean. If they did this in the US, like England, the opposite would be true. The intent of the bombing was to get rid of America's close ally Jose Maria Aznar in Spain and replace him with someone else. Someone less likely to follow the US lead on the terrorism. That goal was accomplished.

From another source even a left leaning source and their opinion on what happened in Spain

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,488...-103681,00.html

"If the Madrid atrocity was the work of al-Qaida, Spain will have become the first country "to have a prime minister owing his position to Bin Laden", said Jonathan Eyal, the director of studies at the Royal United Services Institute."

Spain simply folded.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Jul 12 2005, 05:51 PM
Here you go from the BBC

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."

"Congratulations

Mr Zapatero was - until Thursday's bombings - considered an outsider for Spain's top job. "

The opposition was losing badly until the bombing

Yes they did Change the vote.

Here is another tidbit from your source

"However, Sabato predicted that if Al Qaeda were "to participate in electioneering in that way" in the United States, "the American electorate" would not "react the same way as the Spanish electorate" and would not likely "turn tail on the incumbent government."

This is what I mean. If they did this in the US, like England, the opposite would be true. The intent of the bombing was to get rid of America's close ally Jose Maria Aznar in Spain and replace him with someone else. Someone less likely to follow the US lead on the terrorism. That goal was accomplished.

From another source even a left leaning source and their opinion on what happened in Spain

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,488...-103681,00.html

"If the Madrid atrocity was the work of al-Qaida, Spain will have become the first country "to have a prime minister owing his position to Bin Laden", said Jonathan Eyal, the director of studies at the Royal United Services Institute."

Spain simply folded.

An analysis of the shifting spectrum of reaction the further we distance ourselves from 9/11 . . . ie:, the British reaction might have more to do with a gathering body of global experience than ethnicity. Just throwing it in for discussion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525976/site/newsweek/

Cowperson

[MarchHare]

The opposition was losing badly until the bombing

That contradicts my link which indicated pre-bombing polling had the two parties so close as to be within the statistical margin of error.

This is what I mean. If they did this in the US, like England, the opposite would be true.

Do we know yet how the London attacks have affected Blair's popularity either positively or negatively?

Someone less likely to follow the US lead on the terrorism. That goal was accomplished.

Again, Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Even the bi-partisan US 9/11 Commission concluded that Hussein had no role in the attacks and no ties to Al Qaeda. Pulling out of Iraq (or never sending troops there to begin with) does not mean that a country isn't going to combat international terrorism.

Spain simply folded.

You're just repeating the pro-Iraq war talking point. As I said above, pulling out of Iraq didn't affect Spain's counter-terrorism policies one way or the other since Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.

[tjinaz]

For the Record, I was never inferring that their reaction had anyting to do with ethnicity, but rather the political will on the continent as opposed to the UK.

Did you read any of the Links?

Mr Gunaratna author of Inside al-Qaida said: "The al-Qaida strategy is to isolate the US because the US has, by building a coalition, weakened al-Qaida. One way to isolate the US is to target the countries helping the US.

Spain's La Razón newspaper reported yesterday that a document on Iraqi jihad, drawn up by the self-styled Institute of Information in Support of the Iraqi People and published on the internet in December, analysed the effects that attacks on Spanish troops posted in Iraq might have.

The Arabic language document suggested attacks in Iraq rather than in Spain, but predicted accurately what the outcome on the Spanish elections would be. "We believe that the Spanish government will not be able to resist more than two or three attacks, after which they would be obliged to withdraw as a result of popular pressure," it said.

"If their troops remain in Iraq after the attacks, a Socialist victory is practically guaranteed and withdrawal of the troops will feature in its election manifesto."

It added ominously: "The withdrawal of Spanish or Italian forces from Iraq would produce tremendous pressure on the British presence [in Iraq], a pressure that Tony Blair would not be able to withstand."

So you are still saying there was no Iraq link?

You're just repeating the pro-Iraq war talking point. As I said above, pulling out of Iraq didn't affect Spain's counter-terrorism policies one way or the other since Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.

Apparently Al Qaida thinks there is if they are willing to bomb to get people to pull out.

[MarchHare]

So you are still saying there was no Iraq link?

There was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the war. After the invasion, Spain may have become a target because they sent troops to Iraq, but invading Iraq was never a necessary step in defeating Al Qaeda (unliking invading Afghanistan) since bin Laden and Hussein had no ties.

[Looger]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Jul 12 2005, 07:15 PM
bin Laden and Hussein had no ties.

watch yourself on this board saying such things...

[MarchHare]

Originally posted by Looger+Jul 12 2005, 01:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Looger @ Jul 12 2005, 01:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@Jul 12 2005, 07:15 PM
bin Laden and Hussein had no ties.

watch yourself on this board saying such things... [/b][/quote]
Why would that be? It was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission, afterall.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Emphasis mine.

[tjinaz]

We are getting a little off topic here.

The topic was about the difference between the English reaction to being bombed and the Spainish reaction to being bombed.

My point was that the Spainish did exactly what the bombers wanted. The English, indications are, not so much.

Carry on.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

The Spaniards kicked out a government that lied to them about the source of the bombings. It wasn't that they capitulated to the terrorists, but they punished the guy in office for trying to pin the bombings on the ETA in order to curry favour with his policies and gain some more votes prior to the election.

When it was found out that he lied in order to promote a personal agenda (and that there was no way the ETA could have or would have attacked at that level), Spain let him know that manipulation for political favour wasn't going to be tolerated and he was voted out of office a few days later.

[Abstract]

As far as Blair and his popularity goes I think he will come out of this unscathed in so much as the anger is 100% directed at the terrorists and not at Blair who may have given them the reason for the attack. The war here was and is incredibly unpopular but so far i've not heard anyone in the media or public lay the blame at number 10 which i have to say i agree with. Blair made his decision about Iraq years ago now and just 2 months ago we voted for him to stay in power so to now turn round and claim the blood for this is on his hand wouldnt sit nicely with the British public as they would then have to examine their own hands pretty carefully. Im saying this as someone who did vote Labour. I'll also say though that if there was a credible alternative i would have voted for them. Just 2 cents from a British/Scottish point of view.

I dont really know enough about the Spain side of things to comment on it though they have had problems with seperatists for decades. ETA are well known for their violent methods but Cataluna has some equally strong desires to be idependent so i think to say they "folded" is a very harsh generalisation on a country for being shocked in to changing its government.