I agree with you. You can also add the below to the list of reasons for continuing to suspect the real attackers were Islamofascists:
-Simultaneous attacks in multiple locations,
-Intent to create maximum death, injury, and panic by attacking the public transportation system during weekday rush hours, and
-The indiscriminate nature of the attack.
These, along with the points you made, point to al Qaeda, not an ETA, as the attackers.
However, for the sake of argument, let us give the article prima fascia credibility. If two different types of explosives were present, what is really being alleged?
That an unidentified group used ETA explosives to attack the trains but left behind backpacks filled with GOMA-2 ECO explosives (along with jihadi CDs and other literature).
For what purpose?
Well, the obvious one is to have the unexploded backpacks provide "evidence" to cast the blame on Islamofascist terrorists, groups known to use the GOMA-2 ECO explosive.
But isn't that a particularly clumsy operational approach for the conspirators? (Conspirators which, J Aguilar in a subsequent posting to this thread, appear to be the PSOE, PP Spanish political parties and ETA Basque terrorist group) After all, the amount of explosives involved in the attacks was not particularly large. If you can obtain enough GOMA-2 ECO explosive to fill two back packs, you can obtain enough to fill them all.
Why introduce the second explosive, one associated with ETA? Was ETA compelled to use the other due to a shortage? Is the ETA so logistically incompetent that it would commit to executing this conspiracy and then not be able to obtain enough GOMA-2 ECO explosive to fill all the backpacks? Is it being alleged that Spanish police forensics is so incompetent that it wouldn't look at explosives residue on trains until 3 years after the fact?
Perhaps.
But it is also just as likely that the "smoking gun" pointing at ETA (in this case, the uncontaminated fire extinguisher) is the fake piece of evidence. Consider its provenance. It languishes ignored and untested until the eve of the trial and then suddenly it is "discovered" to have traces of the ETA explosives on it. It could have easily been removed, contaminated, replaced, then "discovered" and tested.
Who benefits from this new "evidence?"
ESOE? No.
PP? No.
ETA? No.
The Guardia Nacional? No.
Only poor, mistreated, and now, if we accept the evidence, the apparently falsely accused Islamic terror suspects now benefit.
No, that dog doesn't hunt. There are simply too many elements of the 3/11 attack that fit the classic al Qaeda attack pattern and don't fit ETA's current operational profile - including the use of explosives.
To allege that ESOE and PP would deliberately sponsor the killing of nearly 200 persons and the maiming of hundreds more to win the 2004 general election is breathtaking. And it is hard to imagine someone having knowledge of such a conspiracy not coming forward out of a sense of conscious during the following three years.
Now a possible variation on this conspiracy theory might be that ESOE and PP only wanted ETA to do property damage and that actual operatives exceeded their orders. But that theory doesn't work either because of the multiple, simultaneous, and maximum casualty nature of the attacks. These attacks were carefully planned and prepared from the beginning by a group that knew exactly what the effects were going to be. It is unlikely that operatives of an organization committed (at least at present) to NOT producing casualties would suddenly become confused over what was intended.
Or are the conspiracy's paths now considered to be ESOE/PP to ETA to al Qaeda; with the sponsors knowing that the executing party would go for maximum blood? If so, that's a conspiracy of utter evil.
An easier argument to make - if you still want to consider the explosives evidence as valid - is that the local Islamofacist terrorist operatives established connections somehow with the ETA and obtained explosives from them to fill a gap in their supplies. Use of ETA explosives as an attempt to throw suspicion off of themselves is unlikely since al Qaeda wanted to (and subsequently did) take credit for the attack as punishment to Spain for supporting the GWOT and as a warning to Europe to elect governments more sympathetic to Islamic causes. Something Spain subsequently did.
Captain Rhino,
Simultaneous attacks in multiple locations,
No suicides -> use of timers
Intent to create maximum death, injury, and panic by attacking the public transportation system during weekday rush hours, and
simply not true -> in Madrid just four consecutive trains in the same commuter line were attacked. Many Madrileans took metropolitan trains and did not notice about the attack (that happened at 7:35 AM) until they reached their work posts at 9 AM.
The indiscriminate nature of the attack.
simply not true -> the attack was carefully targeted against blue collar workers and students of the suburbs of Madrid. Madrid financial center was kept unharmed.
These, along with the points you made, point to al Qaeda, not an ETA, as the attackers.
Ho ho ho ho ho Al Qaeda! No suicide bombers, but it was Al Qaeda!
But isn't that a particularly clumsy operational approach for the conspirators? (Conspirators which, J Aguilar in a subsequent posting to this thread, appear to be the PSOE, PP Spanish political parties and ETA Basque terrorist group) After all, the amount of explosives involved in the attacks was not particularly large. If you can obtain enough GOMA-2 ECO explosive to fill two back packs, you can obtain enough to fill them all.
Captain Rhino, check that the people that left the decoys might not have been the same that put the bombs that actually exploded in the trains. We are already sure that there were at least two uncoordinated operations: the attack itself and another one to cover it up. Moreover, Spanish police has no direct access to Titadyne, but it had to Goma-2 ECO, as I published
last November here, at FreeRepublic.
But it is also just as likely that the "smoking gun" pointing at ETA (in this case, the uncontaminated fire extinguisher) is the fake piece of evidence. Consider its provenance. It languishes ignored and untested until the eve of the trial and then suddenly it is "discovered" to have traces of the ETA explosives on it. It could have easily been removed, contaminated, replaced, then "discovered" and tested.
Well, Captain Rhino, welcome to your own private conspiracy theory, as we have been told: prove it (and WE HAVE PROVEN IT!!!). The fire extinguisher powder was picked up by policemen on the trains and was kept under surveillance. It was not analyzed despite the protests of the defence attorneys during three years. If something was made wrong, told us. I don't mind to ask to jail police officers.
Who benefits from this new "evidence?"
ESOE? No. [It is PSOE]
PP? No.
ETA? No.
The Guardia Nacional? No. [It is the Guardia Civil and the Policia Nacional]
You know who benefits from it, Captain Rhino?
WE THE PEOPLE
simply the average Spanish citizen, as the ones that died on 3/11.
Only poor, mistreated, and now, if we accept the evidence, the apparently falsely accused Islamic terror suspects now benefit.
I thought most of them blew up in Leganes!
No, that dog doesn't hunt. There are simply too many elements of the 3/11 attack that fit the classic al Qaeda attack pattern and don't fit ETA's current operational profile - including the use of explosives.
About Al Qaeda read
Luis del Pino article.
To allege that ESOE and PP would deliberately sponsor the killing of nearly 200 persons and the maiming of hundreds more to win the 2004 general election is breathtaking.
As breathtaking as how the international MSM covers up the issue.
And it is hard to imagine someone having knowledge of such a conspiracy not coming forward out of a sense of conscious during the following three years.
Well, some did, and the leadership of the
Spanish Scientific Police are indicted, as I published last November. The rest, well, do you know the amount of money they are earning now that their corrupted friends are in office?
An easier argument to make - if you still want to consider the explosives evidence as valid - is that the local Islamofacist terrorist operatives established connections somehow with the ETA and obtained explosives from them to fill a gap in their supplies.
Stop here! A question: why did not they syntesize them like in London or mix it like in the WTC in 1993? Islamists in Anglosaxon countries do better in chemistry?
Let's continue:
Use of ETA explosives as an attempt to throw suspicion off of themselves is unlikely since al Qaeda wanted to (and subsequently did) take credit for the attack as punishment to Spain for supporting the GWOT and as a warning to Europe to elect governments more sympathetic to Islamic causes. Something Spain subsequently did.
The point that AlQaeda cannot lie is simply like the point that ETA has to give always a warning before an attack. It is to attribute characteristics to people and organizations they don't have.
Captain Rhino, 3/11 was not an Islamic attack, and the people that obtained profit from the massacring of 192 Spaniards, are not people living in remote deserts, but quite pale guys with offices in the Western world. Their profit has been well disguished under the Islamic claiming, and now might turn into an increasing cost.
I am afraid, not a so good business after all.