|
|
Getting back to the topic abstract, I think ultimately it depends on where you're talking about. Also, don't forget that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter (As in Palestine, N.Ireland, S.Africa, Colombia, etc.)
Maybe Spain was poised all along for a tip towards electing a socialist PM, and the attack simply catalyzed a future eventuality?
The problem with the "War on (Some) Terror" is that it has caused us (ie. the US) to view the world with blinders on. There are more power blocs out there than pro- and anti-US, after all. Its a simplistic division (like pro- and anti-communist) that hides more complex problems emerging in different parts of the world. Our inability to aprehend that complexity has only served to back us into an ideological corner (ie. the neocon/PNAC weltanschaung), one that is becoming increasingly difficult to extract ourselves from. (We're going to be militarily involved for years in Iraq and Afghanistan, after all, and there are signs on the event horizon that Syria and other nations may not be far behind.) Its also an ideological black hole that serves as both self-fullfilling prophecy and as an inadvertent means to isolate ourselves further from the world community...how much support does the US really have now for what it is doing, not only in Iraq but elsewhere?
Perhaps that is what the bombings in Spain helped illustrate more than anything else. Whereas various governments may pledge support for the US campaign against Al-Qada, the populace under those govts. may hold views completely in opposition to such involvement. (One need only look at Turkey, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia to see how dangerous this is becoming). |
|
|