[Skunk]

Originally posted by Skippy1: So I take it from this that you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Bush knew the 9/11 attacks were going to happen before they happened? I think your underestimating Al'Qaida's abilities to disguise it's operations and overestimating the "intelligence services" abilities.

Oh far from it!
I think that the security services let that one slip simply because, having had everything wrapped up tightly for so long and with so little happening as a result, they simply mis-read the signs.

Life had simply gotten too easy to maintain the neccessary vigilence and the intelligence services let their guard down. But then, who could have expected something on that scale anyway?

Originally posted by Skippy1: I'm afraid I totally disagree with this. It was clear in the weeks leading up to the attack that Aznars party was leading in the polls. That's not to say that they would have definately won, only that there was a clearly defined lead. To say that the attack on the trains didn't influence the vote, especially after the opposition party announced they would bring the troops home from Iraq, is to say the least, presumptuous. My own opinion is that the election should have been delayed. This would have avoided the obvious emotional vote counting towards the final result, that has come about due to the election being held the very next weekend after the attack. Can anyone really feel that it had no effect on the result?

Interestingly enough, I just came across this snippet from Time Magazine, posted on the day of the attack:

"The governing centre-right Popular Party was heading for victory in the election. The only thing that was in doubt was their majority, which they might have lost. The attack will now guarantee their majority.

"People will be so outraged that they will be bound to react in that way and look towards politicians who crack down on terrorism."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...034076,00.html

But I do disagree with halting elections as a result of a criminal act - that in itself would upset democracy and give the terrorists a win, and Aznar was right to state that he would not conceive of the idea. Even the US government backed that position.

Oh and by the way, the opposition party only stated that they would withdraw troops from Iraq AFTER the election was OVER. They, as all other parties did, stopped making any electoral statements as soon as the attacks occured and kept quiet until after the result was known.


[ 03-17-2004, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]