Replies

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?

"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