Three Questions

Just a few things to chew on while I go to work....

Does the new government in Spain plan to pull out of the “Coaltion of the Willing” in Iraq on June 30 in order to keep its citizens from being further terrorized by Al Qaeda?

If there was no connection between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda, why would Al Qaeda care about the presence of the Coalition in Iraq in the first place?

If there was a connection between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda, doesn’t that partially validate the Coalition’s decision to go into Iraq?

Comments

[BloodSpite]

Points on all counts girl.

Further isn't the whole reason we are there and Afgahnistan to supress terrorism because of the "terror" they invoke?

Seems like leaving would be detrimental to their own welfare

[Myria]

I'm not quite sure your points quite follow. You basically assume Al Qaeda is sane and follows logical tactics, both assumptions that have turned out to be wrong in the past.

OBL has been having a cow for decades now about an infidel army being in Saudi Arabia despite the fact that we were there at the Saudi's request and protecting that country from potential aggressors. In the eyes of Al Qaeda, any infidel, especially an infidel military, is unwelcome and an evil and unacceptable presence. Even if Al Qaeda had no connections and got nothing from Iraq, a notion that frankly seems laughable, they would object to our being there and would see us as a target of opportunity.

Assuming Al Qaeda was involved in the Madrid atrocity, I don't think it necessarily follows that they did it because they were pissed that another of their sponsors is now history. If you were talking a group that acted logically, yeah, but Al Qaeda has not generally acted logically and they would want any western military out of that region regardless of where or why they were there.

Myria

[baldilocks]

I did not assume they were sane, however I don't assume that they aren't. Sane people do evil things and often follow logical routes to perpetrate these evil things. The logic just isn't apparent to those who aren't evil, i.e. those who wouldn't dream of blowing someone up for any reason.

Those that perpetrate terrorist acts follow a very basic logic: fear of death and/or dismemberment will get people to do or not do what the terrorist want, whatever that may be: abandon territory, pull out of military actions, convert to a religion, die for being infidels, whatever. It may be wrong and you may want to tell them "over my dead body" (as do I), but there is nothing illogical about the means to which the terrorist are using to achieve their ends: instilling fear.

[Myria]

It's not the logic of their ends or means I'm speaking of, but instead the 'logic' involved in their choice of target. You say -

"If there was no connection between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda, why would Al Qaeda care about the presence of the Coalition in Iraq in the first place?"

They would care, regardless of whether there was any real pre-existing connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. That there are infidel military in the Middle East, anywhere in the Middle East, is sufficient reason, to them, to try and attack any country involved and force them to pull out. Presuming Al Qaeda was involved in the Madrid atrocity, that is not proof that they did so because of Saddam Hussein. Spanish military forces being in the Middle East at all, for whatever reason, is sufficient reason for them to attack. Even if they despised Saddam Hussein, are glad he's gone, and never had any positive contact with him whatsoever, they would be angry that there were western forces in Iraq and would do whatever they could to see those forces removed.

What I'm saying is I do not think it follows that because Al Qaeda attacked a country with forces in the coalition it necessarily follows that they did so in retaliation for one of their benefactors being history.

Myria

[Ella]

As John Howard said yesterday, "the idea that our country or any other country should adjust its foreign policy in the face of intimidation by terrorists" is to virtually surrender.

Maybe Spain has not done that, but that's the way it looks

[baldilocks]

So, assuming that they didn't do it because Spain is part of the Coalition in Iraq, why do you think they did it? What sort of logic might they be following? (Keep in mind that evil often does have a logic and an order to it; recall two of the greatest of the past century.)

[aaron]

I think it fully validates it. As well do many other reasons.

[Xrlq]

I tend to think they did it because of Spain's role in the coalition, but then again, maybe they just took an opportunity because it was there. I don't put anything past them, including irrational behavior. After all, 9-11 probably wasn't in their long-term rational interest, either.

[baldilocks]

Here's what I think (the questions were to find out what *you* think):

Whether Al Qaeda are strategic geniuses isn't the point. As a matter of fact, I don’t think that strategy is even part of the calculus in their doings, at least not military or political strategy as we know it.

Al Qaeda hears another call: what they claim God wants them to do. Any tactics or strategy is subordinate to that.

The timing of a given attack may support some short-term agenda (changing an election or something ridiculous like causing a group of states to secede from a federation), but none of that is the point. Claiming the world for Allah *is* the point. And, to that end, Al Qaeda follows a certain logic: the convert-or-die version.

[Eye Opener]

Al Q sees itself in the catbird seat, equidistant above humankind between God and the k'fir masses.

That alone gives them license to do ANYTHING to ANYONE, because Al Q and ONLY Al Q knows what God REALLY wants...

That is an internal logic, and it permits and explains the Madrid bombing... especially in lieu of Spanish appeasement and craven surrender! God forfend, the Al Q'distas are going to do THIS little trick again, mark my words, because the EUnux in Spain have poisoned the soup by rewarding the terrorists! Shameful, sad and searing...

[Dave]

If they had a logical reason other than Iraq or 'punish any kufr country that dares put troops in glorious Greater Arabia', it would be Andalusia. They still think it 'belongs' to them.

[walter]

Hey Juliette,

I got some answers for you.
Three Answers

[aaron]

al Quaeda exists for its own sake. Its intent is grow and gain power. Its message actually contains several messages with different audiences. The primary goal now is to reduce the threat on it. That is the subtle statement regarding Spain's participation in the coalition. The secondary goal is to improve recruiting. This is done by asserting its potency and tying itself to fundamentalist ideals.

[Peter]

How about we save the arguments about what they want for the historians and worry about something useful? I don't give a rat's ass what Al Queda wants. The only thing about them that interests me is their precise location.
Step one in understanding AlQ is to find them.
Step two in understanding AlQ is to kill them.
We need no other steps.