Terrorists claim victory in Spain

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH

"Its not a question of opposing viewpoints wrt support vs no support of the war. If the spanish voters who switched did so because of distrust of the government (the straw that broke the camels back etc). That I can understand. "

You still don't get it? Sheesh. My arguement is that while you say it has nothing to do with the war in Iraq, it does.

Yes I saw your pronouncement. Do you have a point?

For the most part, those that supported the war call this appeasement, those who did not say it sisn;t. The lines are not absolute, but it is a very good prognasticator of what one wiull say on this. I see that as proff of my contention-specially since the claim that this is appeasement deal directly with Iraq.

Again you circle back to the UN argument. It aint gonna happen (and for good cause).

Do you see the future? Any proof the admin. won't go to the UN again-and by again I mean like a 3rd or 4th time, depending on how you count them.... I am not the one making pronouncements of what will and won;t be. I know I don;t see the future.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


The SC gave recognition to the interim government- tepid recognition to the authority of the transitional authority. But in June the US has stated it will hand over sovereignty to the Iraqis-which will end the transtional authority and thus change the staus of the occupational forces. What mandate will they be under when that change happens? The new government says they will pull out by June-ie, they are making a statement about what role the UN will have once soverignty in theory returns to an Iraqi government.

So, please stop saying that there is NO UN mandate.

I think the status of the forces in Iraq is up to the Iraqi government. I think the Iraqi government will ask for a UN force to be lead by the US for a period of time. I assume that this will be acceptable to both you and Spain.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap




Do you think you are the only one who can use "anyone reasonable" to try to define the oppostion as "unreasonable".



Again SpenciePoo- never do I claim to be unbiased- clearly my post about "reasonableness" was biased-I even admit to be biased. What then is the problem in comprehension?

Ah, you have a problem with the word 'reasonable'! Is it a fetish of some sort? Perhaps you believe it impossible to make 'reasonable' assumptions about human behaviour?


(Damn I said it again)

[The Emperor Fabulous]

God damn...no one reads CNN.com anymore

Bombs 'to split Spain from allies'

MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- A document published months before national elections reveals al Qaeda planned to separate Spain from its allies by carrying out terror attacks.

A December posting on an Internet message board used by al Qaeda and its sympathizers and obtained by CNN, spells out a plan to topple the pro-U.S. government.

"We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it," the al Qaeda document says.

"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."

That prediction came to fruition in elections Sunday, with the Socialists unseating the Popular Party three days after near-simultaneous bombings of four trains killed 200 and shocked the nation.

Ninety percent of Spaniards had opposed Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's staunch support for the U.S.-led war against Iraq, and some have blamed his government's policies for the train bombings.

Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said Monday he wanted the 1,300 Spanish troops in Iraq to return home by June 30 if the United Nations "doesn't take control of Iraq."

"I think Spain's participation in the war has been a total error," he said. (Full story)

Meanwhile, one of the five men arrested in connection with the bombings has links to the plotters of an al Qaeda-linked bombing in Casablanca last year, CNN has learned.

The May 2003 suicide attacks in Casablanca killed nearly three dozen people.

Spanish authorities have arrested three Moroccans and two Indians in connection with the Madrid bombings.

One of the men, Jamal Zougam, 30, has ties to two brothers who have been charged in connection with the Casablanca bomb plot, according to a Moroccan government official.

Zougam is also believed to be a follower of Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas, the alleged ringleader of al Qaeda in Spain, according to a Spanish court document.

All five are being held incommunicado under Spain's anti-terrorism law, which requires they be charged within five days of their detention.

Authorities said investigators tracked the men through a cellular telephone and a pre-paid telephone card discovered in a backpack containing explosives found shortly after Thursday's attacks.

Helping the investigation is a videotape in which a man claiming to be a military spokesman for al Qaeda in Europe says the terrorist network was behind the bombings.

In the United States, Asa Hutchinson, the undersecretary for the Department of Homeland Security, said they thought the Madrid bombings had the fingerprints of al Qaeda.

"We do know that there is a connection to al Qaeda. We have verified that," he told CNN.

"At this point, there clearly is some link and we're going to continue to see the depth of that."

However, another administration official would only say Islamic fundamentalists remain high on the list of suspects.

"Things are slightly leaning towards Islamic fundamentalist responsibility, as opposed to pure ETA or al Qaeda," one senior administration official said.

ETA is a Basque separatist group that has been fighting for more than three decades for an independent state. The group is designated a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union.

The U.S. intelligence community is considering the possibility the bombings may have been carried out by a number of people with various ties to terrorist groups, the senior administration official said, adding theories include the following possibilities:


- Islamic fundamentalists with support from ETA;

- Islamic fundamentalists with close ties to al Qaeda, although not necessarily "card-carrying members of al Qaeda"; or,

- Members of ETA or al Qaeda.

In the wake of the bombings, Spanish Interior Minister Angel Acebes announced Monday that a European Union anti-terrorist conference will be held Friday in Madrid. (Full story)

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said he was confident Spain would continue to play a significant role in the war on terrorism.

"Terrorism has to be defeated," he said.

"I don't think the Spanish people are any more inclined to give any encouragement to terrorists or to give terrorists the slightest impression that they are not going to be engaged fully by the Spanish government -- no matter who is prime minister."

Powell added that he was not sure if the Madrid bombings affected the outcome of Sunday's elections: "But the one thing I'm quite sure of is that Spanish people remain committed in the war against terrorists."

Seems like they DID get what they wanted...

[Sava]

You know what I realized?

The Socialist Party in Spain, before the bombings, said it was going to remove troops from Iraq... but... after the bombings... if they KEEP troops... they will have changed their position in accordance with the bombings.

Osama bin Laden has made it known that he WANTS a war between Islam and the West. HE WANTS MORE AMERICAN TROOPS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

So by keeping troops in Iraq, going against their platform, the Socialist Party WOULD let the terrorists win.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
God damn...no one reads CNN.com anymore



Seems like they DID get what they wanted...

But then, so did 80-90% of the Spanish population.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If this is going to to be sidetracked into a semantic discussion, can we just agree to disagree because those annoy me to no end? However if we will eventually get back to the more interesting aspects of the discussion, would you mind telling me what would speed that process up?

Well, see, that is the problem DD. My definition of appeasement has little to do with word defintions. It deals with action-reaction. Your definiton is based inherently on defintions-after all, you need to know who is the aggressor to then categorize an action as appeasement or not.

I will be honest and say I don;t understand using a value-laden, defintion laden arguement and then refusing to discuss the validity of those words or definitons, since by doing so you are invalidating valid counterarguements against your own point.

So at this point, lets agree to disagree.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Ah, you have a problem with the word 'reasonable'! Is it a fetish of some sort? Perhaps you believe it impossible to make 'reasonable' assumptions about human behaviour?

The problem Spence is that you claim an assumption to be "reasonable" without then giving any REASONS or LOGIC that would point to it actually being reasonable. You pronounce something thus and then think it should be taken as self-evident.

I might as well say "any reasonable person assumes Barney is the devil". WHY! why is that reasonable?

You don't even give examples of your assertions.

[Sava]

It's become blatantly clear that Aznar lost because they tried to blame ETA for the bombings before evidence was there.

The right is using this pathetic "terrorists have won" excuse for the reason Aznar lost. But the SPanish public kicked out Anzar's party because they were inept and LIARS!

Furious protesters chant: ‘Our dead, your war’
By Neil Mackay, Marion McKeone in Washington and James Cusick in Madrid



THREE Moroccans and two Indians have been arrested in Spain for the Madrid train bombings on Thursday. All five are thought to be linked to two militant Islamic groups which were named as the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group and Salafia Jihadi.
The arrests came as 5000 angry demonstrators picketed the offices of the ruling Popular Party shouting “liesâ€� and other slogans claiming that Prime Minister José MarÃa Aznar had covered up the truth about the atrocity by blaming the Basque separatist group ETA ahead of today’s general election.

The arrests were confirmed by the interior minister, Angel Acebes, who said the five were arrested in connection with pay-as-you-go mobile phone cards found in a “backpack bomb� that the police recovered from one of the bombed trains. Acebes, who had blamed ETA within hours of the atrocity, said last night: “Sixty hours after the brutal attack, we now have five detentions.�

American intelligence agencies believed all along that al-Qaeda was behind the Madrid bombings but deferred to the Spanish government’s claims that ETA was responsible, pending the general election. Both FBI and CIA agents are in Madrid assisting the authorities.

Spain’s National Intelligence Centre (CNI) is also said to be “99% certain� that Muslim extremists and not ETA were responsible for the attacks, according to a left-wing Spanish radio station. Aznar’s party faces an angry backlash today with many voters now convinced he lied about al-Qaeda’s involvement fearing that the Spanish public would blame him for the loss of life. Nearly 90% of all Spaniards had been against Aznar supporting the war in Iraq and many now see the Madrid bombings as pay-back.

Aznar is seen in the Arab world as the third most significant player in the so-called “coalition of the willing�. Spain has sent 1300 troops to Iraq.

If ETA had been responsible for the attacks, many voters would have flocked to the Popular Party because of Aznar’s eight-year security crackdown on the Basque terror group.

ETA has denied any involvement in the attacks, and an Islamic extremist organisation earlier claimed the atrocity in the name of al-Qaeda. A van linked to the attacks was found to contain Koranic verses and detonators.

Last night some 3000 people staged a spontaneous demonstration outside the Popular Party’s offices in Madrid chanting “We want the truth before voting�, “Who did it?�, “Our dead, your war� “No more cover-ups� and “Aznar, because of you, we all pay�. Some demonstrators were beaten by police in riot gear.

The Popular Party’s Mariano Rajoy – who will be the new prime minister if Aznar’s party wins the election after he decided to step down – denied the government withheld information, saying: “I give my word of honour that I do not know more than the rest of the Spanish people.�

Opposition Socialist Party leaders have accused the government of hiding al-Qaeda’s role. “Whoever toys with the truth at a time of so much pain is doing something very grave,� said senior Socialist Party official José Blanco.

Al-Qaeda has long been known to have a number of sleeper cells in Spain. The country has jailed some two dozen al-Qaeda suspects, including eight men thought to have helped plan the September 11, 2001, attacks. Suspects in last May’s Casablanca bombings and a 2002 synagogue bombing in Tunisia were also arrested in Spain.

The El Pais newspaper, which has strongly criticised Aznar’s government, said that Spain’s foreign minister, Ana Palacio, had written to ambassadors within hours of the explosions, saying in a memo: “You





should use any opportunity to confirm ETA’s responsibility for these brutal attacks, thus helping to dissipate any type of doubt that certain interested parties may want to promote.�

As a result of the memo, there was a clash at the United Nations between a senior Spanish diplomat and the Russian ambassador. The Russian was reluctant to approve a resolution condemning Eta, arguing that it was impossible to prove responsibility for a terrorist act on the day it was committed.

Spanish anti-terrorism officials have questioned the government’s insistence on blaming Eta despite evidence suggesting that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks.

Norway’s Defence Research Establishment also uncovered documents linking al-Qaeda to the attacks. The documents said: “We must make use of the proximity to the elections in Spain in March next year. Spain can stand a maximum of two or three attacks before they will withdraw from Iraq.�

The document identifies Spain as the weakest link in the Coalition of the Willing and says that if Spain withdrew then the other partners would follow like “pieces of domino�. Bin Laden has previously threatened vengeance against Spain.

British intelligence was aware that al-Qaeda was planning to use ‘train bombs’ at least three months ago. Intelligence sources say continental targets were most at risk, particularly the high-speed Paris-Lyon TGV.

Both US and UK intelligence agencies suspected from the end of last year that al-Qaeda wanted to blow up a train as it went through a station. The bombs on the four trains that were attacked in Madrid were all meant to detonate as they converged on one station, bringing down the roof and killing thousands.

European and Middle Eastern intelligence agencies say that al-Qaeda has recruited thousands of men in countries like Germany, France and the UK. They are said to have received high-grade military training in firearms and explosives.

14 March 2004

link: http://www.sundayherald.com/40579

The Western Media isn't reporting the MASS PROTESTS and DEMONSTRATIONS in Spain against the LYING, INEPT Aznar party. But that's the TRUTH FOLKS.

And you pathetic righties need to admit it, or wallow in your own dillusions.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

You still don't get it? Sheesh. My arguement is that while you say it has nothing to do with the war in Iraq, it does.

How can I argue with that? Your psychic powers are clearly flowing today.

For the most part, those that supported the war call this appeasement, those who did not say it sisn;t. The lines are not absolute, but it is a very good prognasticator of what one wiull say on this. I see that as proff of my contention-specially since the claim that this is appeasement deal directly with Iraq.

Gee, this isnt like one of my 'reasonable assumptions' is it?

I agree that the spanish vote, as a whole, had nothing to do with appeasement. But, you've already admitted that voters changed their vote based on the bombing and that it was to hopefully prevent further attacks on spanish soil.

Do you see the future? Any proof the admin. won't go to the UN again-and by again I mean like a 3rd or 4th time, depending on how you count them.... I am not the one making pronouncements of what will and won;t be. I know I don;t see the future.

So you can read my mind but cant see the future?

Whats the matter, are you incapable of analysing data and predicting a result rather than simply commenting after the fact? Isnt this what so many detractors (I'm not sure if this includes you) wanted from the intelligence services?

I'll give you mine, it wont come as a shock. The administration may go back to the UN, but so long as GWB is President we will not give up any fundamental control until we are sure that the government in Iraq wont go belly-up.

[dannubis]

and i keep finding this more and more interesting

when last year the US invaded iraq we were told to mind our own business. Those who opposed this were simply bullied aside, accused of being weasels ...

now the spanish people decides to change their stance and suddenly it becomes the end of the world, a dangerous precedent etc...

well, isn't it so that the only dangerous precedent that has been set the past year is the complete and utter destruction of the legitimacy of the UN security council by the one sided invasion of iraq by the US? This administration practically paralised the only international body that could actually solve the terrorist problem in the long run ...

[oedo]

Re: Terrorists claim victory in Spain

Terrorists claim victory in Spain....

1. That's the same moronic lie as saying, invading Iraq was necessary in order to fight terrorism.
2. so after a terrorist attack only one (right-wing) Party should be allowed to win the elections? nothing else is acceptable? that's what you call democracy?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap


The problem Spence is that you claim an assumption to be "reasonable" without then giving any REASONS or LOGIC that would point to it actually being reasonable. You pronounce something thus and then think it should be taken as self-evident.

I might as well say "any reasonable person assumes Barney is the devil". WHY! why is that reasonable?

You don't even give examples of your assertions.

Again, my quote

'Zapatero made a campaign pledge to pull the troops out of Iraq unless the US turned over the government to the UN. Any reasonable reader of the (understandable) US antipathy to the UN would understand that is not going to happen. Therefore a reasonable assumption is that a vote for the socialists is a vote to remove the troops from Iraq.'

'Any reasonable reader ....'

i.e. anyone who appreciates that GWB believes what he is doing in Iraq is 'right' and that given his belief, he wont back down from a contraversial stand on the issue.

'a reasonable assumption....'

Does this really need defining?

[Sava]

so after a terrorist attack only one (right-wing) Party should be allowed to win the elections? nothing else is acceptable? that's what you call democracy?

it's what the right really wants...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, see, that is the problem DD.

I never said otherwise and if it will get the discussion back on more interesting ground (i.e. does appeasement work or not), I'm perfectly willing to stipulate to the UN definition of the term.