No idea what that cell was thinking, of course, but I suspect they didn't think they'd be saddled with a socialist government so fast. Now they had all these extra bombs lying around, and, let's face it, these guys are/were intoxicated with martyrology. it probably didn't take long to think up new reasons to blow people up.

And it is probably a big mistake, from a tactical perspective, for them. It gives Zapatero free reign to be righteous in his reprisals, which is a good thing for us.

So, Aznar's support prompted the "punishment" but his ouster didn't mean a reprieve. Proves that appeasement doesn't work. Would 3/11 have happened if Iraq had never been invaded? I don't know, probably the allied invasion of Iraq was enough to push them over the edge and "punish" the Europeans.

That last sentence should read: I don't know, probably the allied invasion of Afghanistan was enough to push them over the edge and "punish" the Europeans.

"Proves that appeasement doesn't work." Well, you can't really acuse Zapatero for championing appeasement--he was for pulling out from Iraq before 3/11 and merely reiterated his message afterwards. If nothing else, you could guess that,. post 3/11, Spanish voters felt their troops were being wasted in Iraq when they might be better used at home or in Afghanistan. There were plenty of arguments against sending them to Iraq in the first place, and while 3/11 didn't necessarily revalidate those arguments, neither did it counter them--it probably just got people to think again.

No! Jame, stop repeating neo-con nostrums. What he said above. Also, you seem to think the typical spanish voter was thinking "lets give in to terror, vote the peaceniks in so we cut and run from iraq and won't be bombed any more, lord help us cowards" where it was probably much more a "there's no way i'm voting for those lying fucking bastards who got us in this mess, and worse are trying to spin this bombing to their own advantage, lying to us again" reaction. I don't think pulling out of iraq was uppermost in their minds.

Perhaps when you vote Democrat in November, a party arguably more likely to pull out of iraq, you'll be beating your breast as an appeaser too.

Also, admirable though your attempts to get into the mind of the terrorists may be, please explain why France and Germany, but also Italy and the UK all haven't been hit, despite different stances on Iraq. perhaps you'll conclude that islamic terrorist cells do as islamic terrorist cells do, and where they can.

Eurof,
yes, terrorist cells do what they do, where and when they can.
Every poll indicated Aznar was cruising toward reelection. Saheli, everyone therefore was well aware that a vote for Zapatero meant a vote for retreat, since you've noted his long-held opposition to Spanish troops in Iraq.
Even if Aznar was booted out for a craven response to 3/11, it still meant a vote for a known opponent to the Spanish presence. It is clear that the Spanish result was seen as a victory for terrorism. Even if Spain's presence in Iraq was merely symbolic, hastily declaring an exit is a great symbol too - one that heartens the kind of people who think mass slaughter of innocent civilians will send them to paradise. Nor was Zapatero willing to appeal for calm before making his dramatic pronouncement, or consider that there is some good in at least trying to stabilize Iraq, regardless of your opinion about the merits of war.
In the event, it's been shown that even after winning the ostensible goal, terrorists continued to plot against Spain. I do have to wonder to what extent Zapatero has needlessly damaged Spain's credibility.
I don't think Kerry is remotely calling for a pullout of Iraq, by the way.

there are so many things wrong with the way you look at this, it's hard to start:
1) no credibility loss has/will ensue(d). the only place it could be lost is with the US, something to be proud of, really. reneging on a clear manifesto promise would have led to bigger credibility losses at home
2) if you accept the pledge to withdraw if elected was made a long time ago, why do you think any exit was "hasty" or "dramatic"?
3) a vote for Zappie (or more accurately, a vote against aznar) was yes, i guess a vote for retreat from iraq, but that's like saying a vote for bush is a vote for less aggressive mercury pollution guidelines. it's true, but like an autist, you're missing the point completely

listen, new governments = new policy. it's a democracy. get over it. the rest of the world can equally get upset at you lot for allowing a bunch of dangerous lunatics in power. that's a lot more irresponsible.

i find it amusing that your new goal is the stabilisation of iraq. i believe it was pretty stable (if unpleasantly) 13 months ago. now tell me jame: what happened in the intervening time to make it unstable? any guesses?

Eurof, you are unbelievable. Do you equate stabilizing Iraq today with remaking it as it was under Saddam? A return to a menacing regime that presented a massive affront to the United Nations and regional stability?

For all the anguish and chaos in Iraq, how many people there wish for a return to rule by Saddam? Very few. They may not be happy chappies but Iraqis today have choices and opportunities (and yes, dangers) that they didn't dare dream about a year ago.

As for Spain, I don't dispute its political system. But you cannot ignore the likelihood that an act of terrorism swayed the electorate to make a choice it wasn't otherwise going to make, and that choice has made terrorism look like a very powerful tool against Europeans.

This is not going to stop me from eating tapas, watching Alamodovar movies or fondly remembering meandering Barcelona streets. But I don't think much of Zapatero, who could have at least been patient in his review of foreign policy. And people accuse the Americans of lacking subtlety.

Last, and most important, Bush is not a lunatic. He may be in the palm of plutocrats but he's not a lunatic. He may not be literate but he's not a moron. He may wear blinders similar to al-Qaeda types, but those values remain firmly entrenched in the liberal and moral legacies of the Western world. You, on the other hand, seem unable to rise above demonization.

keep yer hair on. . .
no, no, you can't bring saddam back. but it sounds like it's not necessary; as luck would have it "a menacing regime that presented a massive affront to the united nations and regional stability" is what we have in iraq now! hooray!

you don't understand what i'm saying. do you lack subtlety? you can't conclude that the act of bombing was the factor that made the Spanish dump Aznar. the government's reaction to to the bombing was also a very important factor. if aznar's lot had said straight away, "oh dear this looks like al quaida" maybe they might not have lost. but when you say "Zapatero. . . could have at least been patient in his review of foreign policy" is what you really want to write "Zapatero should have strongly considered reneging on his election promises"?

and why exactly do you think Bush is not a lunatic or moron (the latter charge i never made but since you brought it up. . )? what you mean is, it's unpleasant to conceive that he is a lunatic or a moron. it's possible, looking at the track record in Iraq they could just have been really unlucky. don't get me wrong, i'm not saying he's definitely a moron, just that we must consider the possibility. and think of it more as bumpkinisation rather than demonisation.

Bush may not be wise but he is smart. If you insist on believing he's a lunatic, I can do nothing for you. And if you wish to equate the United States with a Baathist regime, well, good luck to you.

Pure entertainment. It amazes me that you guys have as much time to write these long but highly amusing diatribes as I find to read them.
I am looking forward to your reply Eurof - what are you going to say, I wonder.
The score as far as I can work out is that you are both fools, but that Jame is slightly more of a fool. Sorry Jame, but it's there in black'n'white.

Well, Jez, you see, we are not all spending twenty hours a day working in our basement on a half-scale matchstick model of the London Eye, so we have some time left over to write blog entries.

Jez, i don't need to reply; I'm clearly the winner here. with the crushing grip of my logic i have reduced my opponent to tooth gnashing impotence, and the only way he can respond is via appeals to commonly held yet unprovable pieties, and to attack arguments i haven't actually made. Eurof is KING.

I thought it was a toothpick Bridge over the River Kwai that you were working on.