Replies

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?

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.