ETA does it again in Madrid

[elmimmo]

the Basque police literally dress as stormtroopers, the only force in the world who I believe deliberately dress to intimidate the people they protect.

Well, I confess I never thought of it that way. And I never heard of anyone interpreting their looks as that. You have also to consider that Euskadi (Basque Country in their native language) is a relatively small territory (around 2 million people), so in certain places people live in a very conflictive neighbourhood, having people from the same family and neighbours positioned around opposing environments. Pais Vasco is mostly formed of small villages and hence, you can pretty much say that everyone knows everyone at a local scale.

So the most common interpretation I have heard, and what is my own, of why policemen wear helmets, bulletproof wear and head coverings to hide their faces is basically because they deal, sadly, in familiar environments with very violent events (violence there is not just limited the punctual ETA acts, "kale borroka" is an expression in euskera -basque native language-, meaning "street violence", that pretty much everyone in Spain knows, and that is the only euskera most of non-basques know because of its used in Spanish language media). If they went head-naked they would be comprimising their own integrity, and that of their relatives and close friends.

The Basque County is an extremely beatiful place, and most of the people I have known there are beatiful people, but usually conversations around politics is a taboo between friends and family. I do not want to give, though, a darker picture of it than what it is. Most of the time you can do tourism there (avoiding selected radical obvious places) and you will be perfectly OK. Still, you are obviously risking more going there than going, say, to Norway.

i just wish these terrorists were a little more considerate of innocent lives and target their enemies a little more precise

To give you an idea, the trains were regional ones going to Madrid's center. Those trains are usually used by people living in Madrid's suburbs to go to their jobs, schools and universities in the capital.

The trains should have been just arriving at Atocha, Madrid's main train station linking with the subway, and hence a nuclear point of civilian traffic. Casually, they were some min. late in its destination... One exploded when passing by a residential area, a bit far from houses because of the high number of railways, and it literally blew away the windows of my godparents, living about 1km away from the explosion. The terrorist were, consciously or by accident, also "generous" in lowering the possible number of victims because yesterday two universities in Madrid, hundreds of students of which use those very trains now ripped down to pieces, were in walkout (I do not know if that is the proper English word: students were not going there to rise their protests in different matters). A colleague from my job just told me that a schoolgirl, friend of his, accidentally stayed asleep and missed her train to school, which was one of the two that exploded.

I hope that gives you an idea of who they were targeting and how precise they knew they were going to be.

 

[Juventuz]

There's a lot of talk now that it might not necessarily be AQ. A lot of agencies are doubting the claim that was sent in by the Al-Quds al-Arabi Bridgade. Many agencies are doubting if the brigade even exists outside of one person. The same group claimed responsibilty for the blackouts here last year when we all know it wasn't because of them.

One train was running two minutes late, had it arrived when it was scheduled to the damage would have been far greater.

 

[nspeds]

Well, I confess I never thought of it that way. And I never heard of anyone interpreting their looks as that. You have also to consider that Euskadi (Basque Country in their native language) is a relatively small territory (around 2 million people), so in certain places people live in a very conflictive neighbourhood, having people from the same family and neighbours positioned around opposing environments. Pais Vasco is mostly formed of small villages and hence, you can pretty much say that everyone knows everyone at a local scale.

So the most common interpretation I have heard, and what is my own, of why policemen wear helmets, bulletproof wear and head coverings to hide their faces is basically because they deal, sadly, in familiar environments with very violent events (violence there is not just limited the punctual ETA acts, "kale borroka" is an expression in euskera -basque native language-, meaning "street violence", that pretty much everyone in Spain knows, and that is the only euskera most of non-basques know because of its used in Spanish language media). If they went head-naked they would be comprimising their own integrity, and that of their relatives and close friends.

The Basque County is an extremely beatiful place, and most of the people I have known there are beatiful people, but usually conversations around politics is a taboo between friends and family. I do not want to give, though, a darker picture of it than what it is. Most of the time you can do tourism there (avoiding selected radical obvious places) and you will be perfectly OK. Still, you are obviously risking more going there than going, say, to Norway.To give you an idea, the trains were regional ones going to Madrid's center. Those trains are usually used by people living in Madrid's suburbs to go to their jobs, schools and universities in the capital.

The trains should have been just arriving at Atocha, Madrid's main train station linking with the subway, and hence a nuclear point of civilian traffic. Casually, they were some min. late in its destination... One exploded when passing by a residential area, a bit far from houses because of the high number of railways, and it literally blew away the windows of my godparents, living about 1km away from the explosion. The terrorist were, consciously or by accident, also "generous" in lowering the possible number of victims because yesterday two universities in Madrid, hundreds of students of which use those very trains now ripped down to pieces, were in walkout (I do not know if that is the proper English word: students were not going there to rise their protests in different matters). A colleague from my job just told me that a schoolgirl, friend of his, accidentally stayed asleep and missed her train to school, which was one of the two that exploded.

I hope that gives you an idea of who they were targeting and how precise they knew they were going to be.

Coordinated attacks of such magnitude are never imprecise.

 

[billyboy]

Well, I confess I never thought of it that way. And I never heard of anyone interpreting their looks as that

So the most common interpretation I have heard, and what is my own, of why policemen wear helmets, bulletproof wear and head coverings to hide their faces is basically because they deal, sadly, in familiar environments with very violent events (violence there is not just limited the punctual ETA acts, "kale borroka" is an expression in euskera -basque native language-, meaning "street violence", that pretty much everyone in Spain knows, and that is the only euskera most of non-basques know because of its used in Spanish language media). If they went head-naked they would be comprimising their own integrity, and that of their relatives and close friends.

A Madrileño told me of the "intimidation theory" that lay behind the aggressive attire of the Basque police. From what I have seen the police who specifically protect their identity from their subjects seem to be anti-terrorist squad who wield guns, and wear civilian clothes and balaclavas, sometimes begging the question that the only difference between goodies and baddies is that one has the blessing of the government and the other doesnt - the root cause of the conflict in the first place

The Basque County is an extremely beatiful place, and most of the people I have known there are beatiful people, but usually conversations around politics is a taboo between friends and family. I do not want to give, though, a darker picture of it than what it is. Most of the time you can do tourism there (avoiding selected radical obvious places) and you will be perfectly OK. Still, you are obviously risking more going there than going, say, to Norway.

You are right there. It is a fabulous place, the cuisine is rather good too and yes, dont even think about talking politics if you are with younger Basques. My observation that paying into a fund to help out the families of Basques "wrongfully" imprisoned was just the same as buying bullets went down like a lead balloon. I have to say I felt a bit uncomfortable speaking Castillano and when we were in Bilbao and a friend was advised not to wear a jumper because coincidentally it was predominantly the colours of the Spanish national flag I had to wonder.

 

[elmimmo]

First, I should mention I do NOT live in Euskadi nor visit it often (I live about 700km away from it). So my knowlegdge of it is mostly thorugh the press media, admitedly sometimes biased, but there are quite a lot of press media you can chooe from. I do not know the everyday dealing of the basque community, and a civilian relation with the police that is supposed to protect them. Still, I think that either I misunderstood your comments, or you are wrong IMHO.

the police who specifically protect their identity from their subjects seem to be anti-terrorist squad who wield guns, and wear civilian clothes and balaclavas, sometimes begging the question that the only difference between goodies and baddies is that one has the blessing of the government and the other doesnt

Well, excuse me but what is the police and army in a country if not an armed group to serve the population in guaranteeing their protection. What are you implying? That the basque police should not be carrying arms when wearing civilian clothes while on duty, that they should not be carrying arms whatever the uniform or that there should be no police at all?

An Ertzaina (Basque policeman) can be usually seen with one of three uniforms. The casual and ceremony onces, which are nothing close to extravangant or intimidatory (unless you consider the txapela -typical basque beret- as either thing), but rather elegant IMHO. Google assisted me in showing you this:

The other one is the protective uniform used by anti-riot squads, which participate in events not always related to terrorism, such as violent walkouts or conflictive cultural acts, for instance, in the parade of the mixed company Jaizkibel, partly composed by women, in the Alarde de Hondarribia (a commemoration of a historical fact supposedly carried out only by men). They always use helmets, balaclavas and bullet-proof wear. These are the ones I thought you refered to "stormtroopers", the ones non-basques are more used to see, (because usually they are only in the news if something violent happened), and they do wear uniform and do always hide their identity, instead of what I understood from your comment (that most ertzainas hiding their identity are ones wearing civilian clothes).

And then, obviously, are the anti-terrorism/drug/crime people wearing civilian clothes, which I do not really understand what is the problem you find in.

 

[billyboy]

First, I should mention I do NOT live in Euskadi nor visit it often (I live about 700km away from it). So my knowlegdge of it is mostly thorugh the press media, admitedly sometimes biased, but there are quite a lot of press media you can chooe from. I do not know the everyday dealing of the basque community, and a civilian relation with the police that is supposed to protect them. Still, I think that either I misunderstood your comments, or you are wrong IMHO.

Well, excuse me but what is the police and army in a country if not an armed group to serve the population in guaranteeing their protection. What are you implying? That the basque police should not be carrying arms when wearing civilian clothes while on duty, that they should not be carrying arms whatever the uniform or that there should be no police at all?

An Ertzaina (Basque policeman) can be usually seen with one of three uniforms. The casual and ceremony onces, which are nothing close to extravangant or intimidatory (unless you consider the txapela -typical basque beret- as either thing), but rather elegant IMHO. Google assisted me in showing you this:

The other one is the protective uniform used by anti-riot squads, which participate in events not always related to terrorism, such as violent walkouts or conflictive cultural acts, for instance, in the parade of the mixed company Jaizkibel, partly composed by women, in the Alarde de Hondarribia (a commemoration of a historical fact supposedly carried out only by men). They always use helmets, balaclavas and bullet-proof wear. These are the ones I thought you refered to "stormtroopers", the ones non-basques are more used to see, (because usually they are only in the news if something violent happened), and they do wear uniform and do always hide their identity, instead of what I understood from your comment (that most ertzainas hiding their identity are ones wearing civilian clothes).

And then, obviously, are the anti-terrorism/drug/crime people wearing civilian clothes, which I do not really understand what is the problem you find in.

From your further info, it was the anti riot police I was referring to as the storm troopers. They are scary mothers, which is the way their uniform is designed to work and my impression was that their anonymity was more as part of the aggressive image than as a means of not being spotted by friends and family in a city centre riot. I have never seen the type of "regular" policeman in your other links.

The disguise of the anti terrorist guys was I thought a means of protecting their identity. I also tried clumsily to make an observation that some members of the undercover anti terrorist police I have seen on the news bulletins in Pais Vasco dress and appear in public disguised in balaclavas, armed and looking and behaving in the same aggressive way as the bad guys they are charged with policing. I dont question that their approach and anonymity is effective and totally valid under the circumstances, they are the authorities protecting the majority after all. However looking on as a third party, I could sort of see that on the surface both the terrorists and these specialist police could be viewed as different sides of the same coin. Both have chosen a position to defend at all costs, but the police have might and right on their side and "suspected terrorists" dont. That doesnt break down barriers, more reinforces the differences of opinion.

The same aggressive tactic is probably employed everywhere in Europe or the world probably in this day and age but it was the lack of physical differentiation with the Basque guys that is not something I recall seeing with say the British forces. Maybe I just havent paid close enough attention though.

 

[elmimmo]

They are scary mothers, which is the way their uniform is designed to work and my impression was that their anonymity was more as part of the aggressive image than as a means of not being spotted by friends and family in a city centre riot.

Well, I meant more as way to protect their family and friends in case of revenge, but I guess that is another reason to have less problems.

some members of the undercover anti terrorist police I have seen on the news bulletins in Pais Vasco dress and appear in public disguised in balaclavas, armed and looking and behaving in the same aggressive way as the bad guys they are charged with policing.

I am not denying that some of their actions might be considered less than appropiate. I repeat, I do not have a single experience with them, so will not judge other's witnessings. Still, all of us have heard how, elsewhere all around the world, certain pacific manifestations have been spoiled by violent minorities, triggering an unjustified and definitely unappropiate blunt action by the police, not distinguishing between manifestants and adopt a bullying attitude towards whatever the passerby is. I have not been in Euskadi in a similar moment, but I guess as somewhat inevitable that they have had similar experiences more than once. I do not justify that, at all, but that does not mean that I do not understand how difficult it might be for the police to answer with a controlled response under certain circumstances. The men and women under those helmets and balaclavas are human after all, fearing for their lives in many of the difficult situations they see themselves into, because even if they chose that job, those situation are putting their sense of control and appropiateness at stake. That does not mean they are not to blame for their actions, but we often forget that police men are not robots.

Besides that, maybe it might be not o accidental, and be a planned attitude following a certain strategy, such as the one your friend pointed out. Or not at all. Whenever I have an encounter in such an incident, I'll let you know ;-)

 

[MongoTheGeek]

Spainish Character

I have a question about the character of the people there in Spain.

If it does turn out to be Al Queda, will the people be more likely to:

1) Increase backing of US efforts against Al Queda
2) Stop backing US efforts
3) Stay the course

 

[maka]

last year there was a general inquary between spanish population and the vast mayority said they didn't aprove of Spain getting involved in the war on Irak. Also there were huge demonstrations in all the citys of spain with more than a million people here in madrid agains the war in irak. People in Spain don't necesarly have anything against the US, but lots of them are against Bush... (as many there in the US, i believe...)

By the way, ETA made a statement saying they didn't do the attacks yesterday in madrid. The police said the detonators were not the ones used normally by ETA and nor is the modus operandi...

ETA are killers, I have no doubt, but I don't like just putting the blame on someone without being sure...

 

[elmimmo]

will the people be more likely to:

1) Increase backing of US efforts against Al Queda
2) Stop backing US efforts
3) Stay the course

That is a very difficult question... You see, the party in the government, which backed the US in the war, has had absolute majority (more than 50% of the parliament) for 4 years. This Sunday we have elections and the same party is most probably going to stay in the government, although their absolute majority is questioned by some polls. That party is usually blamed for manipulating media towards their interests, and although I do agree to a certain extent (public TV lost in court blamed for misinformating of the number of people that did a general walkout in 2002), I also think there is a lot of manipulation from other media against them, and I think that those second media have succeeded in creating an environment where, casually, those people supporting the government can be intimidated by making it public in an environment where everybody seems to be against a party, that otherwise got absolute majority (I guess somebody voted them to get where they are). Maybe I see it that way because that party does have indeed a slim support were live (Barcelona).

During the war thousands of people manifested repeatedly against the government backing the US and UK in the war, and I am sure many people that voted that government participied in the protests, even if they felt favorable to this government in other aspects of politics. The media's POV were basically giving the idea that pretty much everyone was against the government on that issue, and I cannot believe that, nor the opposite.

But because of what I described in the first paragraph, I cannot be confident in believing that I do know wether what I see (predisposition to be against the US in quite a prejudiced way) is reality or the "reality" that opposing parties and media have sistematically sewn piece of news after piece of news thorugh counter-manipulation (if people are so apathetic to the central government, how can they be near absolute majority again?).

So I can basically not answer your question solidly, because I ignore what is the current level of support towards backing US efforts. But in any case, whatever reality is like, it most probably would cause less people of be favorable to US backing. Some people are already blaming the government of hiding information about possible AlQaeda implication, implying that it would affect people's vote denying their vote to actual government. The actions of the future government, I believe, will depend on Sunday's elections: quite unmovable if they get absolute majority again, and less supportive if they do not. But that is just guessing...

 

[billyboy]

last year there was a general inquary between spanish population and the vast mayority said they didn't aprove of Spain getting involved in the war on Irak. Also there were huge demonstrations in all the citys of spain with more than a million people here in madrid agains the war in irak. People in Spain don't necesarly have anything against the US, but lots of them are against Bush... (as many there in the US, i believe...)

By the way, ETA made a statement saying they didn't do the attacks yesterday in madrid. The police said the detonators were not the ones used normally by ETA and nor is the modus operandi...

ETA are killers, I have no doubt, but I don't like just putting the blame on someone without being sure...

Do you think the exposure of those responsible for the bombing would radically affect the outcome of the election? Generally people vote with their wallet and Spain is doing OK at the moment so presumably the status quo will continue. If ETA were confirmed responsible, would that over ride the economic success of the Government and cast them in the light of a Govt that has failed in protecting them from ETA and consequently lose them their power?

 

[MongoTheGeek]

That is a very difficult question... You see, the party in the government, which backed the US in the war, has had absolute majority (more than 50% of the parliament) for 4 years.

I am kinda glad that we have a 2 party system here in the US. True we don't have quite the same diversity of view but there is also not nearly the sense of party discipline and we don't have the seismic shifts in power from coalition parliaments. Also the deals with the devil tend to be fiscal rather than ideological.

But because of what I described in the first paragraph, I cannot be confident in believing that I do know wether what I see (predisposition to be against the US in quite a prejudiced way) is reality or the "reality" that opposing parties and media have sistematically sewn piece of news after piece of news thorughcounter-manipulation (if people are so apathetic to the central government, how can they be near absolute majority again?).

All news organizations lie and distort. The Washington Post is as biased as the Washington times. The Village Voice is as biased as the Limbaugh Letter. I am not sure its possible to get a clear view anywhere.

So I can basically not answer your question solidly, because I ignore what is the current level of support towards backing US efforts.

More what I was getting at is what the visceral personal reactions would be. Where I live in America the first thoughts after the dust settled from 9/11 and the only things they were pulling out of the rubble was corpses, the primary thought was that of revenge and exacting justice. I know people who went to join up in the military. When I look at the war in Afghanistan and Iraq I realize the cooler heads prevailed.

 

[maka]

Do you think the exposure of those responsible for the bombing would radically affect the outcome of the election? Generally people vote with their wallet and Spain is doing OK at the moment so presumably the status quo will continue. If ETA were confirmed responsible, would that over ride the economic success of the Government and cast them in the light of a Govt that has failed in protecting them from ETA and consequently lose them their power?

Well... if this attack turns out to be a revenge on Spain because of the support the current goverment gave Bush, then maybe they could lose the elections... if it's ETA, I don't thing the results would change that much... some say this would be better for the current party in power, but I think it may be a bit too much...

About the past elections, it's true that they got a mayority of votes, but it's interesting to note that participation on those elections was one of the lowest in history... so in these elections, it's going to be very important what the undecided people vote, and also how much people actually vote...

on a recent poll, the mayority of people said they wanted a change of goverment, yet the PP was most voted in the same poll. This seeming contradiction is very significant, because people that want to vote "left" don't really have a trusted party to vote. PSOE (the other main party) was in power for a long time (12 years) and there were some BIG scandals that finally resulted in PP getting the power. So it's quite complicated...

 

[elmimmo]

If ETA were confirmed responsible, would that over ride the economic success of the Government and cast them in the light of a Govt that has failed in protecting them from ETA and consequently lose them their power?

Quite the oppsosite. We have had ETA since pretty much everyone remembers. If AlQaeda would be confirmed, that would be quite a strike for a government that backed the war with the apparent opisition of the majority of the population (credible only to a certain extent), while the last 4 years the government has been veey towards ETA and its political party (now illegal, thanks to a law supported by Spain's two main parties), and the legitimate basque government chosen by their electors in all the years of the democracy, because of its "complacence" (those are not my words) towards radical environments. Unfortunately, because of the big oposition between central and regional governments, this late 4 years have also been the ones of more dramatic confrontation between both parties, making it extensible to the population

The police said the detonators were not the ones used normally by ETA

Still, the minister of interior claimed that those are of the same kind that were take over from ETA last week in a van with two ETA activists and 500kg of explosives. But yet, there are so many contradictory signs being said, that I agree on you that we know pretty much nothing.

 

[maka]

Still, the minister of interior claimed that those are of the same kind that were take over from ETA last week in a van with two ETA activists and 500kg of explosives. But yet, there are so many contradictory signs being said, that I agree on you that we know pretty much nothing.

hmm... I just heard in the BBC (or was it CNN...) that the spanish goverment hasn't been able to really match the explosives to ones used by ETA in the past... I don't know if they took into account the ones from ast week...

 

[elmimmo]

it's interesting to note that participation on those elections was one of the lowest in history...

All elections since the second ones in our democracy have been the lowest in history. Participation has decreased linearly election after election, quite before than the current party enetered the government 8 years ago. And yet, low participation reflects the population's apathy towards ALL parties.

the majority of people said they wanted a change of goverment, yet the PP was most voted in the same poll.

That poll was focused, in my opinion, in a clearly biased towards the main oppossing party (the only opposing one probable of winning the elections, and hence, represent a change in government): it is evident that if they do not get absolute majority, there are more people wanting them out than in(since they are not going to get >50% of votes). What is new about that? But choosing what of both things to say is definitely referential to the POV you want to transmit.

It is biased because it is focusing the elections in a "current government vs the rest" way, and you cannot put such an heterogenous sample in the same bag. It think it is a very irresponsible act by that media and that it promotes people's vote on what they DON'T want to have instead of what specific parties they feel identified with.

I just heard in the BBC (or was it CNN...) that the spanish goverment hasn't been able to really match the explosives to ones used by ETA in the past

Just as your other post, the minister was supposedly referring to the detonators, not the explosives. I am not sure, though.

 

[elmimmo]

I am kinda glad that we have a 2 party system here in the US. True we don't have quite the same diversity of view but there is also not nearly the sense of party discipline and we don't have the seismic shifts in power from coalition parliaments.

Precisely because of that I pretty much prefer our system. I find it quite more logical that people under the same overall opinions gather under the same flag, instead of the flag representing little more than a gathering of heterogeneuos (maybe conflicting) ideas. It is far easier and better for the citizen IMHO to vote for a general project, than getting to know each and every candidate. I confess I know very little of the US election system, though.

I also think than a government having a confortable but non-absolute majority is the best for the country. That means that the government will have to make efforts to take into account groups representing other minorities (and since the purpose of the parliament i to be a represntation of the population, the fact that those groups have a certain weight is good IMHO), but be strong enough to be able to govern comfortably if it gets to stablish stable pacts with those other small groups.

Also the deals with the devil tend to be fiscal rather than ideological.

And you consider that preferable? I'd prefer that ideology moved money one way or the other than the other way around...

 

[maka]

All elections since the second ones in our democracy have been the lowest in history. Participation has decreased linearly election after election, quite before than the current party enetered the government 8 years ago. And yet, low participation reflects the population's apathy towards ALL parties.That poll was focused, in my opinion, in a clearly biased towards the main oppossing party (the only opposing one probable of winning the elections, and hence, represent a change in government): it is evident that if they do not get absolute majority, there are more people wanting them out than in(since they are not going to get >50% of votes). What is new about that? But choosing what of both things to say is definitely referential to the POV you want to transmit.

It is biased because it is focusing the elections in a "current government vs the rest" way, and you cannot put such an heterogenous sample in the same bag. It think it is a very irresponsible act by that media and that it promotes people's vote on what they DON'T want to have instead of what specific parties they feel identified with.Just as your other post, the minister was supposedly referring to the detonators, not the explosives. I am not sure, though.

I don't know if the poll was biased, but I think that what is happening is that many people don't really want to vote the current party in power, but don't have an alternative they like. That's why the poll is significant. It shows that the current party in power has lost a lot of support but it hasn't flowed from them to the biggest opposing party because there is a lack of confidence towards them. And I think that's also a reason why in the last few years there has been less and less participation. Many people that would vote to a party from the left end up not voting, but the core voters from the PP vote no matter what happens.

About the attacks: we won't know what really happend until after the elections. Most people are still disturbed after the attack on thursday, and sadly this is going to make and effect in the vote of some. That is very bad, and maybe elections should be delayed until we have a clearer head...

 

[elmimmo]

I don't know if the poll was biased

I was refering to its interpretation, not the actual figures. The most obvious interpretation would have been that PP was not going to get absolute majority again, plain and simple, IMO of course. That centers the focus in that, still, a vast majority want them in the government, which is after all the practical interpretation (what are we going to have on Monday?), instead of implying that we are getting an unfair and illegitimate scenario in favor of PP, because the vast majority of Spaniards do not want them in (this is NOT a referendum): I repeat, it is the same in every democratic elections that do not turn out in an absolute majority, and it is the thing to expect (that there is an heterogeny of ideas).

I think that what is happening is that many people don't really want to vote the current party in power, but don't have an alternative they like. That's why the poll is significant. It shows that the current party in power has lost a lot of support but it hasn't flowed from them to the biggest opposing party because there is a lack of confidence towards them.

I completely agree with you on that. My original intention was also to give a blank vote (although I am irritated that the media does not usually add a bar next to valid votes pertaining to each party, so that everyone has it clear the highlevel of discontent with all the political options -last election's valid blank votes were higher than those that the party in Basque government obtained, for instance, and I do agree that it is dramatic ). I have remade my intentions in the last three weeks, though. Still, I do not agree on this issue:

Many people that would vote to a party from the left end up not voting, but the core voters from the PP vote no matter what happens.

That is discrediting the people's opinion supporting PP in a reasoned way (voting them no matter what!?): there are "core voters" in all parties, you just cannot number them. Remember 15 years ago the opposing party had absolute majority. Stadistically, lots and lots of people supporting them do not support them anymore, still vote, and choose the now governing one. The first filter in tagging people "core voters" must be trying to find them only among the ones who always have voted the same party (which, again, I think it is unfair to say the other way around that people voting the same party are core voters, because you imply that a criteria does not guide their votes). I do not think "core voters" are enough to make PP win, since years ago, they were not. If the rest changed their idea once, they had their reasons and can chance their idea again.

Edit: although now that I think about it, I am leaving out the ammount of people that changed their vote to a blank vote, and you have a point in that. Still, since I do not have the figures comparing the number of valid votes to PP 15 years ago and 4 years ago, I cannot know.

 

[MongoTheGeek]

And you consider that preferable? I'd prefer that ideology moved money one way or the other than the other way around...

The ideology battles are usually fought fiscally. Congressmen sell their votes in omnibus bills in return for special projects in their districts. Senator X wants 100 Mill to build a monorail around his city. To get that he will vote for a gun control bill that his modestly disapproves of.

The law is like sausage. Sometimes its best not to know how its made. Personally I would like the government shrunk significantly.

 

[maka]

That is discrediting the people's opinion supporting PP in a reasoned way (voting them no matter what!?): there are "core voters" in all parties, you just cannot number them. Remember 15 years ago the opposing party had absolute majority. Stadistically, lots and lots of people supporting them do not support them anymore, still vote, and choose the now governing one. The first filter in tagging people "core voters" must be trying to find them only among the ones who always have voted the same party (which, again, I think it is unfair to say the other way around that people voting the same party are core voters, because you imply that a criteria does not guide their votes). I do not think "core voters" are enough to make PP win, since years ago, they were not. If the rest changed their idea once, they had their reasons and can chance their idea again.

Edit: although now that I think about it, I am leaving out the ammount of people that changed their vote to a blank vote, and you have a point in that. Still, since I do not have the figures comparing the number of valid votes to PP 15 years ago and 4 years ago, I cannot know.

I'm sorry... you're right about the "core voters", it's just a feeling I get when I see so many people still give their support to the PP after everything we've been through because of them (prestige, war on irak, etc...) It just seems to me that they are more loyal than PSOE's voters... but it's just a feeling...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4517018/

Well.... now it's been confirmed. The attack was made by an islamic group, so it seems this may be the final coup to the PP... After two days of trying to convince everyone against all odds that it was ETA, they now look even worse....

They didn't inform on time when they found the van. They said the tape with arabic recordings could be bought in Spain, it's been confirmed it came from Eypt... It's a string of misinformation (I'm not sure this is the word I want to use...) for electoral interests... so sad...

 

[wdlove]

I feel very sad for your country elmimmo & maka. Although we went through 9/11 in our country, it is hard to really imagine what you are going through. I send my deepest sympathy and prayers. Hopefully our countries and continue to be strong allies in this war on terrorism. No matter the source of this massacre we are in a fight together for our very survival as a civilization.

 

[wdlove]

Al-Qaeda 'claims Madrid bombings'

The video says the attacks were because Spain backed the US

Al-Qaeda has allegedly said it carried out the Madrid train bombings, the country's interior minister has said.

Angel Acebes said police had recovered a videotape in which a man identifying himself as al-Qaeda's military spokesman in Europe makes the claim.

The minister says the authenticity of the video has not been verified.

His announcement comes hours after Spanish authorities arrested five suspects in connection with the blasts which killed 200 people.

The developments came as the first funerals for the victims of the bombings took place in the capital and across Spain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3509426.stm

I'm not sure what the source was, but I had heard on Thursday that Al Qaeda had taken responsibility for the bombing.

How do you think this will affect your election tomorrow? The stability of your government? Your continued cooperation with the US?

 

[elmimmo]

Still, the minister of interior claimed that those are of the same kind that were take over from ETA last week in a van with two ETA activists and 500kg of explosives. But yet, there are so many contradictory signs being said, that I agree on you that we know pretty much nothing.

This is old news already, but just in case Iwanted to clear up that I misunderstood the message. Those detonators are NOT the same as those found in the van 2 ETA activists drove 2 weeks ago, but the same as those found in a van right after the explosions, which also had a tape of Coran teachings.

 

[elmimmo]

Wow, all polls seemed to show a decrease in the support to the party governing during these last 8 years, but I think hardly anyone guessed not only that they would loose absolute majority (some polls 2 weeks ago said they could keep it), but that they would loose in such a vast way.

So, I just wanted to follow up on this to answer wdlove:

How do you think this will affect your election tomorrow?

The support towards the previous governing party was already quite eroded by Spain's support to Irak's war, and by several other important events throughout this last 4 years, but I do think this last events have been another key aspect to a change in government, because the final results are quite different to what polls seemed to show jut 1 or 2 weeks ago.

The stability of your government?

The new governing party has a vast majority, but not absolute, which I think is rather good (as I previously said). It will not be so stable as the previous one, since it must look for agreements, but I think that is actually a good thing, since that "stability" inmune to the other parties' points of view in the parliament is probably what got the previous government not reelected.

Your continued cooperation with the US?

The winning party has been extraordinarily critic with Acting President Aznar's inconditional support to President Bush. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, to be Spain's President, has among other things said before the elections that, if he won the elections, the Spanish Army would only stay in Iraq past June or July if the UN adopted complete control over the US there. So you have a first idea... He has repeatedly stated that he was not at all reluctant to have a good relation with the US, but specifically with Bush and his idea of the world. It is now time to see whether he was just taking profit as an opposing party or if he does indeed have a clear position in foreign policy towards the US and the European Union.

Just to bring it on topic again. I am very glad that before pronouncing any word on the results, and knowing that pretty much all the media was centering the attention in what he was going to say, he asked for a minute of silence in support and remembering for all the victims of the bombings in Madrid on Thursday.