Comments on: ETA / Al Qaeda – who did it?

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:47:02 +0000

“In my post, I said this was wrong but smart. The election result shows it was wrong and foolish.“—Maria

Maybe. Maybe not. The PP could have lost even more seats had there been no doubt that al Qaeda was involved. As it was, there was substantial doubt. I really don’t see what in your post, Maria, has people upset. You made a valid observation, and, really, that the PP lost as badly as they did took pretty much everyone by surprise, it seems to me.

By: Maria

Maria — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:07:02 +0000

Who or what is BOP? Jchave – I did actually mention the protest on Saturday night, (in rather tortured English which really needed a pre-posting review); “Today, already, the government has condemned that a protest about the clampdown on information about the culprits is contrary to the suspension of the political campaign. ” Contrary to your claim, the legality or otherwise of the demonstration has not been established, nor likely will it at this stage. For the record, I didn’t and don’t condemn Aznar et al for making a wrong call in the first 24 – 48 hours after the bombings. After all, we still don’t know with absolute certainty who is responsible. What my post did say was that given the complete lack of certainty of those first couple of days, and the approaching election, it was wrong to blame it on one group and continue to broadcast it despite the growing evidence to the contrary. I also pointed out that blaming ETA would help the government win. In my post, I said this was wrong but smart. The election result shows it was wrong and foolish.

By: Junjan

Junjan — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:05:11 +0000

Excerpt from yesterday article in the Spanish newspaper “Diario Critico”: (sorry about the awful translation) Rebellion of Spanish judges and policemen because of Aznar’s behaviour on 11M massacre. Solvent sources have informed our newspaper that the very same day of the attack (Thursday), the Head of the Home Office Angel Acebes, knew Al-Qaida’s connection and that he still blamed ETA. Acebes was afterwards (Saturday 20:15) obliged to correct that, since a group of judges and public prosecutors leaded by Baltasar Garzón had met that afternoon to protest against that Home Office manipulation.

By: jchave

jchave — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:50:47 +0000

‘And there are plenty of reasons to hold onto the belief that ETA was responsible, from the self-serving political ones to a simple desire that the perpetrators be from a terrorist organisation without global reach.’ Yes, and the fact that was significant circumstantial evidence pointing to ETA. Maria accuses the PP of ‘cynical manipulation’ without any evidence at all. Repeat: there was good reason to believe ETA was involved. Making statements to that effect is not lying or deceiving. Many (e.g. Edward Hugh) who do not hold any brief for Aznar believed (and some continue to believe, that ETA was involved.) You also fail to mention the illegal demonstation against the PP on saturday night. I suspect the PSOE is not quite so ‘virtuous’ as you make out.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:08:12 +0000

All I know is that the right-wing American (in particular, but not just it) response to all this has made me sick to my stomach. In the same way in which the victims and families of 9/11—some of whom I know—were appropriated for many people’s self-interested, partisan political opportunism, just so are the victims and families of 3/11—and Spain’s grief itself— appropriated for many outsider’s self-interested, partisan political opportunism. And they’re exceptionally fucking obnoxious about it, too.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:06:27 +0000

I just posted the following over on the corresponding thread BOP in response to an emotionally overcharged comment there: The bottom line is that CT got it dead wrong, and then though that the best way to cover it up was to attack me for not being an expert on CT. No, I didn’t attack you. I simply pointed out – without prejudice to any of the substantive issues – that an assumption you were making about CT was false. Nor was I covering anything up. I don’t speak for Maria and she doesn’t speak for me: we don’t have a common party line at CT.

By: Maria

Maria — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:30:47 +0000

Well, all I can say is I’m very happy to have been wrong. Very happy indeed. Turnout seems to have been very high, almost certainly as a result of the bombings. The socialists don’t have an absolute majority (42% compared to 38% for PP), but the result seems to be the expression of a protest vote against Aznar’s involvment in the war against Iraq and his insistence that ETA were responsible for the bombings. And they say virtue is its own reward.

By: liberal japonicus

liberal japonicus — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:25:38 +0000

This prediction was wrong. You might consider why, instead of flaming us at BOP. ~~sigh~~There is more than enough ill-will to go around in the blogosphere. But you may wish to note the shout-out to CT that Sterling gave, which was Crooked Timber gives an example of the kind craven caution which seemed so endemic: of course the right wing government was going to get away with it. But that has more to do with the traumatization of the American left, than with the realities in Spain itself. When Chris points out that CT should not be taken as emblematic of the American left, (it would be a little difficult to present a full blown defense of Maria’s post, given that they are on different continents, but maybe that is the way things work at BOP) the reply is: I stand corrected, and in the light of the candor which you seem to display I will amplify my disdain for the poor standard of analysis which her writing displayed. “craven caution”? “my disdain for the poor standard of analysis”? Who’s flaming who? The results of this taste test have me choosing CT by a wide margin…

By: MattS

MattS — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:14:48 +0000

Although a reaction to the government’s unfounded certainty has gathering pace in the last 24 hours, it is probably too late to affect the election. The government has the upper hand and the opposition is powerless to resist. Suspending campaigning helps the government – ministers must still make public statements and in doing so effectively campaign for the government by blaiming ETA. This prediction was wrong. You might consider why, instead of flaming us at BOP. Y’all normally are great.

By: msg

msg — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:04:40 +0000

The violent deaths of innocent people as sports contest. How much of the time and mental energy of world citizenry will be spent on debating and contemplating which one, among the possible responsible organizations, did in fact cause this latest atrocity? And how much to a careful examination of their respective motives? Because it doesn’t matter about their motives, does it? Their motives are the same as everyone else’s – to win. Team colors, team banners, what more do we need? On to the play-offs!

By: Stirling Newberry

Stirling Newberry — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 20:49:39 +0000

This isn’t one of your better efforts. That the government calculated to blame ETA early – the news media was not willing to play along – and the personal communications revolution of cellphones and the internet have allowed a counter movement to grow almost immediately. The election was already breaking away from the PP - because of suspicions that they had engaged in politicking with a previous bombing investigation. The video tape, and its exposure, showing the government was saying “ETA” while seeing “Al Qaeda” was the last straw. Sometimes the “safe” prediction isn’t very safe.

By: Brendan McDaid

Brendan McDaid — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 20:45:23 +0000

jr, thanks for the link to the Spanish Interior Ministry. ‘No permitido’ was what I got on trying to link to it.

By: Maria

Maria — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 17:33:05 +0000

Yes, equal amounts of ugliness all round I think. And there are plenty of reasons to hold onto the belief that ETA was responsible, from the self-serving political ones to a simple desire that the perpetrators be from a terrorist organisation without global reach. I just think that in the absence of proof, assertions should be seen as just that.

By: Maria

Maria — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 17:19:33 +0000

Infer / imply? I meant ‘imply’, I think… My apologies for using the kind of clumsy language that drives me crazy when others do it! But now I see the cleverness of what Keith is inferring, I’m almost inclined to change my mind. ;-)

By: rd

rd — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 17:16:22 +0000

On the other hand, the government has been quick to release information that pointed the other way, including at 1 AM on election eve. Reasonable, non-political, observers first reacted by thinking ETA was to blame. So I don’t see the big nefarious conspiracy. And if people think atrocities like this could have been avoided if we’d just stayed out of Iraq, they’ve got a poor grasp of these groups’ priorities. Note that the video “message” give equal billing to Iraq and Afghanistan.