Analysts now doubt group's claim for Madrid bombing

World Tribune ^ | 3-19-04

[wayoverontheright]

I have to agree here with wayoverontheright ....

You can call me Way....

[cake_crumb]

Agreed. The only reason al Qaeda would say such a thing is to embarrass and weaken Bush. International A.N.S.W.E.R. is backing Kerry now, meaning al Qaeda backs al Kerry...and therefore must at least approve of Zapatero.

ETA normally targets politicians, so this doesn't sound like them either, unless, as I was wondering last week, someone in ETA has allied with an Islamist terrorist cell in the same way that IRA members - ostensibly Catholic - eventially allied with such Islamist cells as Hamas, PLFP and Hezballah.

It could be some group auditioning to become a part of the al Qaeda organization, which I believe was the case with the Turkey attacks. It's pretty common for gangs to require potential members to go murder people as proof of their loyalty.

[cake_crumb]

"I think we should await the verdict of forensic evidence, if the FBI can produce something."

The socialists won't let the FBI INTO Spain. Probably hiding something.

[forrestroche]

"I just can't bring myself to give al-Qaida credit for understanding this complex election dynamic, then seeing enough benefit to act on it."

I read here, and honestly I would be hard pressed to dig it out, but I could if you really need the cite (I have seen it several times), that there was a posting on an islamic al-Qaeda friendly site, late last year or early this year (my brain is a little overloaded trying to keep clear who said what when), that they should attempt exactly this sort of thing. When I come across it I will post it, it's worth considering.

As to loyalty to the PP, no, not all the investigators are loyal I am sure, many of the people running the investigation are just civil servants. BUT now you are suggesting that a large number of people within the government are conducting a fake investigation with human props (arrested morrocans) without the knowledge of the leadership. And that the good people mixed in there (there would have to be SOME, right?) are really dumb and don't see what's going on. Possible? Yeah... I guess...

forrest

[cake_crumb]

Well...can you really put it past a Morroccan to have been involved in attacks on Spain?

[forrestroche]

"You can call me Way...."


Way,

Great discussion. Will be back later, gotta meet some friends for dinner (it's eight o'clock here).

I made the beginner's mistake of posting on several threads related to the attacks in Madrid, and keeping up is tough.

forrest

[FreeAtlanta]

[Robert_Paulson2]

Zapatero's party apparatus was my number one suspect on these murders.
Around here a few years back, the Clintons were widely believed to be involved in a series of "arkancides," over their careers, just to stay in power. (see alamo girl's downside legacy files and archives)

Socialists, of the liberal variety, support abortion and infanticide, largely to court the women's vote. If they pander to murder to stay in power, why is it such a stretch to suspect they would commit mass murders to stay in power...

or to gain power?

Hitler's NAZI socialist party did this with the Reichstagg fire, used to build hatred for jews and seize political power... why is Zapatero's socialist party, seemingly beneath such an action in the thinking of so many?

I BELIEVE there may indeed be a direct connection to Zapatero's party and the Madrid bombings. And it's not a conspiracy theory... it's consistent with a historical pattern of socialists we know something about... the clintongs rise to power and a similar path hitler's NAZI party.

This angle should be pursued.
The king should be kept in a position wherein he can safely dismiss parliament and call for new elections. Spaniards should be encouraged to press for investigation of the matter. And we need to keep in mind that conservatives in Spain, who moved towards the US war on terrorism, still make up about 40 percent of the population...

I would like to see new elections called for, if this angle gains any more credibility... you?

[Robert_Paulson2]

ETA with AQ

AND the socialist thugmasters....

It is reasonable to suspect that they COULD be working together.

[Ditto]

Secondly, al-Qaida still hasn't acknowledged involvement in 9-11, why this one and why so rapidly?

Don't you recall the video tapes we found in Afghanistan showing Bin Laden braging about the planning and execution of 9-11?

[wayoverontheright]

This angle should be pursued.

Yes. You make some great points.

This just didn't smell right from the beginning. Another poster said that it was widely believed that a terror event in Spain would cause the electorate to want more protection, and vote to retain the conservatives. I don't know about that, but if true, it proves my point that al-Qaida simply could not have grasped the complexity of which way the electorate would be swayed, and Zapatero most certainly could have. When I heard the bombings were via remote detonation, I knew at the very least it wasn't directed by al-Qaida, however possibly sanctioned by them. Then there was the uncharacteristic, immediate claim of credit on behalf of al-Qaida (To ditto: al-Qaida for some time refused to claim responsibility for 9-11, we all had to know this was a departure from the al-Qaida signature) Now we hear the claim is suspect. Surprise.

This wasn't al-Qaida. Somebody is very interested in pinning it on them, and in light of the circumstances, they are not likely to deny it. I don't trust socialists so close to being totally out of power. They had far more to gain than al-Qaida, Iraq is still a quagmire for them, minus 1300 of the 170000 troops there, and the clock is ticking toward the day Iraqis will be taking care of their own security, at which time Osama will need to move to plan C.

[Indie]

Does this mean Spain will get to re-vote?

No it just means the "experts" agree that "The threat of terrorism has been overstated." ~hits self in side of head with palm~

[Mygirlsmom]

Great minds think alike - I've been doing this for years!

[El Gato]

Secondly, al-Qaida still hasn't acknowledged involvement in 9-11, why this one and why so rapidly?

Other than the tape of Osama bragging about 9-11, and saying how they really didn't expect to take the towers completely down. But then again, that was a tape captured in Afghanistan, not something designed for public release.

I could however see a possible collusion, even if not quite in the nature of a conspiracy, between Zapatero and Moorocan groups. Pretty much like the French (and Zapatero) supporting Kerry. A Zapatero government is way more likely to give up the remaining Spanish North African colonies than the current government would have been.

[forrestroche]

"This wasn't al-Qaida. Somebody is very interested in pinning it on them."


Way,

Only have a minute, but although this is possible, it HIGHLY unlikely. I have this sense, in spite of my own personal reaction to some of your posts, that you ARE interested in the truth. And to believe that this is all a hoax, means that a LOT good honest people are really dumb. As I said before, the conservatives are running the investigation, and sure, some investigators may sympathize with the socialists, but even assuming that this means they are capable of mounting a hoax of such criminal dimensions, what about the conservatives working on the investigation? Are they morons, blind, drunk, AWOL, what? Sorry, but this sounds like conspiracy theory stuff from someone who just wants to believe the worst about the socialists. I don't. I have a lot of friends in madrid who are socialists (I am a painter, so in my business they are hard to avoid). I argue with them, we all get really pissed off sometimes, I think they are REALLY wrong about a LOT of things, but they are my friends. However mistaken they are, that doesn't make them evil. And neither do they believe I am some imperialist that wants to nuke the middle-east to steal its oil, despite the fact that that SOME people here, out of ignorance, believe that about Americans. You, Way, in your profile, say you were a leftie once. Were you a bad person then, or just misguided? Would you have killed US citizens to get democrats into office? Would your friends at the time have? Come on. I just want an honest answer. And if I sound like I am being judgemental I am not.

forrest (gotta run or would say more)

[supercat]

The Nazis didn't burn the Reichstag, although they quickly took advantage of it politically. Apparently they just didn't think of it.

From what I read, the communist who was arrested and charged with burning the Reichstag had in fact started a few fires in wastebaskets, but since the building was ignited with accellerants he was not the 'only' person trying to torch it.

[wayoverontheright]

Sorry for the delay in responding, I was away for the weekend, and haven't been near a computer so my hunch may have been debunked by now, but, I'll attempt to answer some of your questions.

I was a lefty, and I was neither a bad person nor misled, I freely adopted the extremely alluring tenets of the Left, I did so out of a desire to belong to something which I only later came to view as destructive. I know them, and quite possibly because of this I am overly mistrusting.

I still feel it was not al-Qaida, for reasons previously stated, though I am no longer as fervent in my belief that Rodriguez Zapatero is personally complicent, though it remains for me a possibility. Figureheads being vaulted to power by more sinister elements who also have much to gain should not be ruled out. Isn't it oh-so convenient that the Moroccan would have cell phones traced back to HIS place of business by "malfunctioning" backpacks? This would be so difficult to plan ahead of time so that the public's cry for swift justice would be satiated? Isn't there a liklihood that conservatives, under pressure also to perform, could be duped into grasping onto every lead sent their way?

My frustration is that, even on this side of the Atlantic, there is sentiment to blame al-Qaida. No doubt within Spain, no citizen, conservative or socialist, wishes this to turn out to be an inside job. This is shaping up to be the swiftest, cleanest, neatest roundup of terror bombers in terror's egregious history, and I don't fault the investigation for disinviting the FBI, as they have NEVER performed in such exemplary fashion, and I say that with as much sarcasm as wonder.

On a side note, I have been referring to Rodriguez-Zapatero as "Zapatero" , that is incorrect, no?

[wayoverontheright]

OK, so my theory is looking a little bleak. This from Andrew Sullivan.

Last December, CNN recovered various documents on Internet message boards detailing al Qaeda's intermediate goals in the war against the West. "We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most," the document said, "before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it. If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed - and the withdrawal of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto." How modest in retrospect their ambitions were! They didn't need more than one blow; and they didn't just get the troop withdrawal in the Socialist manifesto; they got the Socialists elected. Last week, days after the triumph in Spain, another al Qaeda-related group rejoiced in the success of its strategy: "Because of this [electoral] decision, the leadership has decided to stop all operations within the Spanish territories... until we know the intentions of the new government that has promised to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. And we repeat this to all the brigades present in European lands: stop all operations."

[forrestroche]

"I am no longer as fervent in my belief that Rodriguez Zapatero is personally complicent, though it remains for me a possibility."


Sure it's a possibility. But other than the fact that the investigation has been rather successful so far (assuming it WAS islamic terrorists) and that the socialists benefitted from the backlash, I see no real evidence that it was a hoax. Anything is possible, but the hoax theory requires me to make some HUGE assumptions with very little evidence. On the day of the attacks, when the government was screaming ETA, I was extremely sceptical. Yes, they had threatened the rail system (and placed a bomb on a train in december), yes they had been a little more active lately, but there were things at the time that lead me to believe, when NOONE ELSE WAS SAYING IT, that it was al-Qaeda affiliated. ETA had never placed multiple bombs in a coordinated attack on multiple targets. That ONE fact put the ETA theory, in my mind, in immediate doubt.

Now, it has been suggested that because they're were no suicide bombers, that means that it couldn't have been al-Qaeda. Nonsense. First, al-Qaeda is not a discreet entity with uniform tactics. And I don't think they all have a burnig desire to die when it's not at all necesary. In the first trade center attacks they merely parked a van and walked away. But with many attacks that has not been possible. They couldn't step off the planes on 9/11 (who would fly them?), they couldn't park a Zodiac next to the Cole and swim away (the sailors hanging over the rail might get VERY suspicious and/or it might float away), etc. On a completely unguarded commuter train, where there are always dozens of back packs and bags in overhead luggage racks, they could do this. In Spain, there is no such thing as a "suspicious" package in a luggage rack on a Cercanias (commuter) train. I have ridden on both of the lines that were attacked a million times (alright, maybe not that many, but a lot) and in retrospect it's clear that unless they just wanted to just hang out until the bombs went off, giving their little creations moral support, there was absolutely NO need for them to do so. As far as I can see, they stick around when it is necesary in order to get the package to the target (such as ramming a gate at a police compound in Bagdahd, that sort of thing). The lack of bombers' bodies in Madrid is totally unpersuasive to me.

"This is shaping up to be the swiftest, cleanest, neatest roundup of terror bombers..."

As far as I have seen al-Qaeda has always been a little inept when it comes to covering their tracks. They have this habit of keeping black books with their buddies numbers, addresses, etc. In addition, one of the guys linked to one of the cell phones recovered had been already arrested in connection with the Casa Blanca bombings but was released for lack of evidence. Does this mean the socialists couldn't have framed him, it would certainly lend credibility, no? Of course they could have, but as any investigation firms up, one who wishes to believe the conspiracy theory can ALWAYS say, "that just shows how SOPHISTICATED the conspiracy was..." So maybe, but I need something more concrete.

"Isn't it oh-so convenient that the Moroccan would have cell phones traced back to HIS place of business by "malfunctioning" backpacks?"

Anyone in Spain knows how unreliable cell service is here. Additionally, this guy was in the business of selling used (and stolen) cell phones. If they had used my prehistoric Motorola (collectors take note) they might have had better success, but my friends are forever complaining about their pretty, dainty, i-could-lose-it-in-a-pocketfull-of-change phones breaking. Even if the phone works, all the other components have to work (not many I admit), and the detonations were staggered, probably because someone was dialing the phones from one other phone and couldn't do them all so simultaneously. EVERY bomb that didn't go off was on a train where there had already been a blast (and none of the phones were my motorola, which could pass through the sun's corona without serious mishap). Anyway, I can imagine plenty of plausible (and likely) reasons that three out of thirteen bombs didn't go off. ETA certainly has had its share of failures. I can't count the number of news reports I have seen of bombs being found that failed to go off.

Today's paper (here) reported that a Spaniard has been arrested in the north (Asturias, a heavy mining region) for aiding four morrocans in the theft of the same explosives that were used in Madrid. The guy has confessed, but says he merely told them where they could steal the explosives. How much did the socialists have to pay him to implicate himself? Maybe they promised him a pardon as soon as they get in office? OK, that's sarcastic, but you see what I mean, it's getting harder and harder to make the story float.

It's not that I have some naive faith in the goodness of people. It's just that the theory requires making a lot of difficult assumptions. And I see nothing in all that is currently known about the attacks that makes me feel uncomfortable the way I did that Thursday when the government said without any doubt it was ETA. And I don't have any interest or desire for it to be al-qaeda. My first assumption, before hearing ANY of the details that day was ETA. They have been doing this for so long, that until details about number of dead, numbers of bombs, started coming out, noone here had any reason to think otherwise.

"On a side note, I have been referring to Rodriguez-Zapatero as "Zapatero" , that is incorrect, no?"

"Zapatero" is just fine, that's what he's referred to here. The Spanish have two last names. Normally, except for formal occasions or official documents only the first of the two is used (in this case Rodriguez). But Zappi's (his nickname in the popular media) first last name is really common where his last last name is not. So they use that one. Got it? This creates a little confusion at times, as many don't understand that Americans, for example, only have ONE last name, so sometimes they try to use my middle name as my last name, believing it to be my first last name and thinking that my last name is my last last name. How about that?

forrest

[forrestroche]

"OK, so my theory is looking a little bleak. This from Andrew Sullivan."



Wish I had seen this post before I pulled herniated myself with the last one. :)

forrest