Various other blogs (for one good example see Bird Dog’s essay on Tacitus) are debating whether Spain’s Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has already given the world a good indication that he’ll be soft on terrorists because he said:
My immediate priority will be to fight all forms of terrorism.
The exact phrase causing the alarm (supposedly because it can be interpreted to mean many things that are not directly focussed on the fight against Islamic terrorists…and keep in mind that Spain actually has other terrorism problems besides Islamic terrorists) is “all forms of terrorism.”
So I went a-Googleing to see what other world leaders we can also assume are soft on terror using this logic. Within seconds I found…
Rejoicing in the release of hostage Terry Anderson, President Bush December 4 declared it’s time to “eradicate all forms of terrorism.”
“We must protect America and our friends against all forms of terrorism including the terrorism that could arrive on a missile,” Mr. Bush said.
We have also ensured, insofar as is possible, that every reasonable measure of internal security is being undertaken. We have in place a series of contingency plans, governing all forms of terrorism.
Now, granted, you can find quotes from several Middle Eastern leaders, Chinese leaders, and even Castro denouncing “all forms of terrorism,” but if Bush and Blair can use the phrase, it does behoove the world to not read too much into Zapatero’s use of it. Not just yet, anyway.
Can I make a quick plea to those feeling Spain voted the socialists in because of Aznar’s Iraq policy and not because of Aznar’s ETA political tool thingy doodat – please, please don’t start creating nicknames of pithy phrases for the Spanish or the election there, like ‘The Spanish Flee’ (Bird Dog, I know you read this, I hope you’re reading this post).
Reason being, al-Qaida can do whatever they like, but we’re constrained by the values we hold dear. If we want others to respect our values, we’ve got to respect them ourselves, and that doesn’t include name-calling and the like. If you think the Spanish made a big mistake, don’t for goodness sake turn it into a Web slogan.
Whatever this thing is, be it a war or whatever you call it, we’ve got to win. I think we will win, but the unknown is how long it’s going to take. Let’s not make things even more divided by calling people names if they do something we don’t like. It’s so, so difficult to keep quiet; but even if others are being vocal idiots, we’ve got to. We’ve got to keep the high ground; we musn’t be the ones who are divisive.
Others, of course, will see the phrase differently. I guess my fundamental point in the post was: “So are these words truly reassuring to those fighting against Islamo and ETA terrorists? Not to me.” Of course, opinions may vary. While there’s no doubt others on the pro-war side have used the phrase (yes, I did Google it), I trust the Bush-Blair interpretations over a socialist who made it a campaign promise to withdraw troops from Iraq.
Also, I do believe the War on Terror is in Iraq, so fighting “all forms of terror” would mean staying and fighting, not leaving. Case in point, today’s bombing by al Qaeda of the Mount Lebanon Hotel.
BD:
Your defense of your post is pathetic. I guess you now admit that the basis for your argument is “No matter what they say, I don’t trust anyone who disagrees with my ideology.”
Therefore, it does not matter what Zapatera says or does, except perhaps to change his party affiliation to PP and admit his past ideological error. Then when he says that he will “fight all forms of terrorism,” it will have the same meaning as Bush/Blair. But until then ,it doesn’t.
In other words, actual words are pointless since you chose to re-interpret them to whatever you prefer based solely on the ideological slant of the speaker.
This is BD’s “Spanish Sleaze” argument.
Excuse me, but what part of “the ‘be reasonably civil’ section of the Posting Rules was unclear, dmbeaster?
So are these words truly reassuring to those fighting against Islamo and ETA terrorists? Not to me.”
Well, no: because you falsely associate invading Iraq with attacking terrorism. (Forgive me, Bird Dog, but I’m fairly sure that you have and had nothing whatsoever to do with fighting against ETA terrorists – whatever you may have had to do with “fighting Islamo terrorists”. If I’m wrong, and in the past you’ve lived or worked in Spain in an area which meant you were at risk from ETA terrorists, I take it back.)
So when Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero says “My immediate priority will be to fight all forms of terrorism” and you interpret this to mean that he will be soft on terrorism, it’s hard not to assume that you think this because Zapatero ran on a platform that included withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq unless a UN mandate for occupation could be achieved. The war on Iraq, after all, is widely seen (outside the US) as having nothing to do with the war on terrorism: your false associations notwithstanding.
Bringing ETA into the discussion is fairly unconvincing – unless you can demostrate that you had any interest in ETA and Spanish troubles with ETA prior to 3/11, I will continue to believe that you’re adding on ETA with the same political opportunism as Osama bin Laden when he claimed to be a supporter of Palestinian “freedom fighters”.