Madrid Massacre
Amid the usual clamour of commentators for the moral high ground, the truly virtuous position on the latest tragedy (which I now heatily join), a few insights have emerged from the din of false notes. Both Sir Tim Garden and Joan Smith have noted the dramatic success of the Spanish reaction to the massacre in Madrid. Mass demonstrations in defiance of such attacks demonstrate an unwillingness to be broken, or terrified. The automatic socialisation of grief and anger, even confusion, is a hugely healthy response. Another response which is, in my view, of enormous merit has been the canniness of Spaniards, the way in which government attempts to exploit the tragedy for their own political ends have been seen for what they are:

"MADRID, March 13 (Reuters) - The Spanish government told its ambassadors to spread the word that armed Basque separatist group ETA was to blame for the Madrid bombings within hours of the attacks, a leading newspaper reported on
Saturday.
"You should use any opportunity to confirm ETA's responsibility for these brutal attacks, thus helping to dissipate any type of doubt that certain interested parties may want to promote," El Pais quoted Foreign Minister Ana Palacio as writing in a memo.
Officials could not be immediately reached for comment on the report in a paper linked to the opposition Socialists...
If ETA is to blame, that could benefit the ruling party because of its tough stance against the Basque separatists. But if there was al Qaeda or other radical Islamic involvement, it may be viewed as the price of Aznar's support for war in Iraq."

And :

Outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and his wife were booed and jostled as they arrived to cast their votes.

"I wanted to feel a little bit better, because at home I can't do anything"

Madrid protester

As he tried to address supporters, he was drowned out by cries of "manipulators", "liars" and "peace".

Mariano Rajoy - who is to succeed Mr Aznar if their Popular Party (PP) is returned to office - was also forced to find cover after youths hurled abuse as he voted.

It now looks as if the Popular Party will pay the political price for such opportunism - and I am very glad about that, if very surprised. Still, amid the false notes are Joan Smith's contrast between the dignified reaction of the Spanish PM and the inept catchphrases churned out by Bush jr. after the World Trade Centre was destroyed. Not because such observations shouldn't be made for the sake of some spurious "decency", (as if disaster removed the obligation to speak the truth), but rather because we now know that the Aznar government was busily working to exploit this tragedy for its own purposes. Other such dissonances include the apparent tendency to denounce the war on Iraq for having increased the terrorist threat - again, it may well have done that, but the reason to oppose the war was because of the risk it put Iraqis at just for the sake of US imperial prerogatives. That, surely, was the most fundamental concern. Then there were the awful, awful speeches by Blair and Prescott. I am not known for being receptive to the lachrymose bullshit of these two poetasters of hypocrisy, but this weekend's disgraceful performances take the biscuit:

"We will match their determination with our own; we will be as resolute as they are fanatical; as strong in defence of good as they are hellbent on doing evil." Tony Blair .

Good versus evil, eh, Tone? How utterly profound. (Click that link and read the rest - it's fantastic when Blair starts speaking for us.)

Prescott's obsequies were slightly worse in a way. No city is safe, he declared. Why? Because terrorists don't respect international borders. That's the nature of fanaticism. They couldn't give two windy fucks about your border controls.

Well :

"Barbaric terrorism recognises no national boundary. Extremism, by its nature, knows no limit".

Well, no. It is in the nature of a universalist religion to evince a lack of regard for borders and nationalities. Isn't that what he means? Islamic terrorists can make an incursion into any territory they feel like it because they see their "struggle" as global. It obviously isn't true of ETA, Farc, or the PFLP for example. The problem with Prescott's lack of logic is that it precludes any attempt at explanation. If no city is safe, and no target is privileged, what could explain these evil actions? Evil? Envy? Hatred of our democracy, our ways, our freedom? Any of the puerile explanations offered by our political class for Islamic terrorism? Prescott is, suffice to say, completely wrong on this. I'll put a substantial sum of money on Sao Paulo being pretty safe. And I wouldn't expect any attacks on Capetown this year. Alberta would also make a pretty good holiday destination. No, I think perhaps these people are a little more selective about which group of innocent civilians they kill than Prescott would seem to imply. Ahmed Rashid, in Taliban (2001), describes Al Qaeda as a loose affiliation of different groups with specific grievances, some of them valid, some of them not. (He doesn't, of course, say that their means are valid, but some of the grievances are). He has also not been alone in noting that Al Qaeda draws support by high-lighting the atrocities committed against Muslims in places like Iraq, Bosnia, Chechnya etc.

So, what do you think, can we discuss cause and effect at all? Is there perhaps a way to do what any serious attempt to prevent terrorist attacks must do and deal with the underlying causes while hunting down the guilty? Perhaps deal with the malaise as well as the symptom? Maybe we can call for our own leaders to stop contributing to terrorism? No. Of course not. David Aaronovitch says so. There aren't any causes (or at least none that he cares to talk about). He correctly points out that this particular kind of terrorism has nothing directly to do with global poverty, but then he fails to make the obvious and necessary corrolary judgment - that Al Qaeda have benefitted from Western support for corrupt regimes in Africa, the Middle East and South East Asia. That they have been able to recruit because there has been a hotbed of anger in all of these areas for so long. But we can't be seen to be giving on, capitulating, giving comfort to the enemy, appeasing anyone. So, let us instead select another country to "liberate", (Syria? Iran?), turn it into our own little fiefdom - sorry, budding democracy - and build up the apparatus of secret trials, distant torture centres , arbitrary arrests and ever "tougher" asylum laws. Then we'll all be safe.

No, Joan Smith is right. The Spanish have indeed shown us the way by kicking out their disgraceful administration and demanding a serious response to terrorism. Basta Bastardos! La Paz!

 http://leninology.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_leninology_archive.html#107930232595509803