Was it the war?
Over at BiasedBBC, and some comments in Harry's Place, in the wake of Thursday's atrocity in Spain there is rising anger at -- yes you've guessed it -- the BBC and other journalists for asking some questions about whether Spain's involvement in the invasion of Iraq made it more vulnerable to terrorism. For example, Patrick Crozier,"the cancer of bent and twisted journalism. Bastards. I want these people to feel pain. I mean real pain. The sort of thing only a professional torturer can dole out. It’s the only thing I think that will ever wake them up to reality and the responsibilities of their offices."
Now even if you think Spain's involvement in the Iraq war increased the risk of terrorism (I do, but not because Spain is more a likely target, but because I agree with MI5's prediction that the whole war would increase the risk of terrorism) there is clearly a case of -- so what? The increase, it could be argued, is tiny compared to overall risk, and the long-term effects of invading Iraq will be to lower the risk much more. Furthermore you could argue it was a moral thing, and the Spanish can't be held responsible, or even do much about, Al Qaeda's actions.
Neverthless, it's worth remembering why journalists are asking those questions of the Spanish government. It's because, unlike in Britain or America, where public opinion was split, around 80-90% of Spaniards disagreed with Spain's involvement in Iraq (falling to a low of 70% just after Baghdad's fall, but now back at 85%) and in an opinion poll taken just two weeks' ago, 85% of Spaniards said that the war had increased their risk of being attacked by terrorists.
So it seems this was an issue for the Spanish people, even if the reality of the bombing may increase support for the government. It's therefore not bent, or twisted journalist to ask such questions.
Update: Well know socialist Con Coughlin asks the same questions in the ST.
posted by Matthew @ 3/14/2004 09:51:00 AM
Comments: 0
