Slaughter in Madrid

[CamEdwards]

let me echo those who've offered condolences and sympathy for what your country is now going through. You're in my thoughts and prayers as well.

[Craptacular]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Well, this appears to be the first of a number of attempts to weaken the resolve of US partners against terrorism.

Hopefully, it will only strengthen the unity and resolve of the rest of the world to get rid of these assholes.

[STK]

I found this interesting...

"The attack occurred exactly 2 1/2 years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States - and there 911 days in between the terror attacks in Madrid and those in New York and Washington."

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by STK

I found this interesting...

"The attack occurred exactly 2 1/2 years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States - and there 911 days in between the terror attacks in Madrid and those in New York and Washington."

and Booth shot Lincoln in a theater and ran to a warehouse while Oswald shot Kennedy from a warehouse and ran to a theater. And so on.

I heard the 911 days thing on the radio today. I also admit it is kinda spooky.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Except that for almost all the world, september 11th would be written 11/9, not the other way around...

[Wolfpack]

It looks like the terrorist goals for influencing the election seemed to have paid off as Aznar goes down to defeat and the new socialist PM is already announcing Spain will be pulling out of Iraq by the end of June.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by STK

I found this interesting...

"The attack occurred exactly 2 1/2 years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States - and there 911 days in between the terror attacks in Madrid and those in New York and Washington."

Weird, I figured this would be an urban-legend-in-the-making, but when I counted them out, it was right.

[Leonidas]

Sadly I think the consequences are now we can look forward to strategically timed attacks in Italy, England, Poland, and anywhere else that is allied with us in the war on terror. For the first time in history terrorists have been conceded a political victory based on their actions and they will only be emboldened by it. Neville Chamberlain must be proud.

[fantastic flying froggies]

One year after...
Let us remember all the victims, may they rest in peace...

[Icy]

Rest in pace.
Sad day for us in Spain.

[JeeberD]

+

[Franklinnoble]

Didn't Spain pull out of Iraq in response to this?

[CamEdwards]

BTW, Spanish Muslims issued a fatwa against Osama bin Laden on the one year anniversary of the train bombings. The story is here: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Muslim clerics in Spain issued what they called the world's first fatwa, or Islamic edict, against Osama bin Laden on Thursday, the first anniversary of the Madrid train bombings, calling him an apostate and urging others of their faith to denounce the al-Qaida leader.

The ruling was issued by the Islamic Commission of Spain, the main body representing the country's 1 million-member Muslim community. The commission represents 200 or so mostly Sunni mosques, or about 70 percent of all mosques in Spain.

The March 11, 2004, train bombings killed 191 people and were claimed in videotapes by militants who said they had acted on al-Qaida's behalf in revenge for Spain's troop deployment in Iraq.

The commission's secretary general, Mansur Escudero, said the group had consulted with Muslim leaders in other countries, such as Morocco - home to most of the jailed suspects in the bombings - Algeria and Libya, and had their support.

Advertisement





"They agree," Escudero said, referring to the Muslim leaders in the three North African countries. "What I want is that they say so publicly."

The fatwa said that according to the Quran "the terrorist acts of Osama bin Laden and his organization al-Qaida ... are totally banned and must be roundly condemned as part of Islam."

It added: "Inasmuch as Osama bin Laden and his organization defend terrorism as legal and try to base it on the Quran ... they are committing the crime of 'istihlal' and thus become apostates that should not be considered Muslims or treated as such." The Arabic term 'istihlal' refers to the act of making up one's own laws.

Escudero said a fatwa can be issued by any Muslim leader who leads prayer sessions and as he serves such a role, he himself lawfully issued the edict.

He called it an unprecedented condemnation of bin Laden. "We felt now we had the responsibility and obligation to make this declaration," he said in an interview.

"I hope there is a positive reaction from Muslims," he added.

Asked if the edict meant Muslims had to help police try to arrest the world's most wanted man - who is believed to be hiding along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan - Escudero said: "We don't get involved in police affairs but we do feel that all Muslims are obliged to ... keep anyone from doing unjustified damage to other people."

Good for them.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Didn't Spain pull out of Iraq in response to this?

Not really, the people of Spain blamed it on their pro-Bush/Democratic government (instead of or equally with terrorists) and ousted them by voting anti-US/Socialist.

And the ensuing anti-American government abandoned the coalition as promised if elected.

(EDIT: Oh, and when I first saw this thread I though, "Oh no....not again.")

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Not really, the people of Spain blamed it on their pro-Bush/Democratic government (instead of or equally with terrorists) and ousted them by voting anti-US/Socialist.

And the ensuing anti-American government abandoned the coalition as promised if elected.

Bull.You're showing an absolute disregard for the facts- damnit, people who disagree with the US are not by definition terrorist sympathisers or appeasers.

The people in Spain were angry that the Spanish government initially tried to pin it on ETA, and its banned political wing Bastuana - when all evidence pointed to an Al-Queda (or alternative grouP) being behind it - Aznar was trying to get political capital out of it to further crush the Basque fringe, and he got punished for it. If anything, he would have won if they had identified the correct terrorists in the first place.

Lastly, withdrawing the troops out of a war than 80% of the Spanish public opposed seems like a good thing to do - what happened to democracy there ?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Bull.You're showing an absolute disregard for the facts- damnit, people who disagree with the US are not by definition terrorist sympathisers or appeasers.

The facts are that Aznar was in popular enough to win before the terrorist strike, not popular enough to win afterwards. I'm sure the terrorists aren't getting into the nitty gritty of what happened either.

The people in Spain were angry that the Spanish government initially tried to pin it on ETA, and its banned political wing Bastuana - when all evidence pointed to an Al-Queda (or alternative grouP) being behind it - Aznar was trying to get political capital out of it to further crush the Basque fringe, and he got punished for it. If anything, he would have won if they had identified the correct terrorists in the first place.

The terrorists got what they wanted.

Lastly, withdrawing the troops out of a war than 80% of the Spanish public opposed seems like a good thing to do - what happened to democracy there ?

Most everybody opposes the war. I oppose this war. But I oppose the terrorists methods (and those who harbor/support terrorists) and their agenda more.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The facts are that Aznar was in popular enough to win before the terrorist strike, not popular enough to win afterwards. I'm sure the terrorists aren't getting into the nitty gritty of what happened either.

The terrorists got what they wanted.

Do you really think that the terrorist strike in and of itself brought Aznar down? The Spanish public saw right through the "let's bring ETA down now, and deal with the facts later" politicizing of the incident, and Aznar paid the price. People don't like it when political calculation is so naked...

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Do you really think that the terrorist strike in and of itself brought Aznar down? The Spanish public saw right through the "let's bring ETA down now, and deal with the facts later" politicizing of the incident, and Aznar paid the price. People don't like it when political calculation is so naked...

Yep, our Spanish friends on the board confirmed this. They were saying that even before the attack, that the race was going to be close. The people (rightly) suspected that they were being lied to about the reasons for going into Iraq, and they were upset about that. When they were lied to about this, and even when the evidence was pointing directly to Al-Qaeda, Aznar and his crew kept pounding home the fact that it was the Basques.

The reason they voted in Zapatero was not because they acquiesed to terrorists, or wanted to be against the US, they wanted accountability in their government, and to be able to trust what they were being told by their elected leaders.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The terrorists got what they wanted.

Bottom line.

Make all the excuses you want about accountability in the Spanish government, etc. But at the end of the day, the fuckers at Al Quaeda are slapping themselves on the back and strutting around thinking they really put one over on Spain.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Bottom line.

Make all the excuses you want about accountability in the Spanish government, etc. But at the end of the day, the fuckers at Al Quaeda are slapping themselves on the back and strutting around thinking they really put one over on Spain.

No. If Aznar just let the investigation lead where it was supposed to, there still would be Spanish troops in Iraq, with the strong support of the Spanish people. Look at all the virulent anti-ETA feelings in the early posts in this thread: the Spanish government managed to galvanize Spain and the world against ETA. That galvanization could have been against al-Qaeda if Aznar played his cards right...

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Good for them.

Agreed. Hopefully we'll see more of this throughout the Islamic world.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Agreed. Hopefully we'll see more of this throughout the Islamic world.

I concur. It is about time that Muslim leaders step forward and condem acts that are commited in the name of their religion. If I have a brother who is going around killing people supposedly for me, and I have absolutly nothing to say I look guilty by association and seem to condone the actions.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

No. If Aznar just let the investigation lead where it was supposed to, there still would be Spanish troops in Iraq, with the strong support of the Spanish people. Look at all the virulent anti-ETA feelings in the early posts in this thread: the Spanish government managed to galvanize Spain and the world against ETA. That galvanization could have been against al-Qaeda if Aznar played his cards right...

The Al Qaeda blew up a mosque full of people this week. How many people were so outraged by this as to want to support the fight against terrorism?

On a related note, the same US/UK/Polish Army guys that were there last week are still there. No new faces arrived. Thankfully nobody left!

Again, is Aznar or his government perfect? No. If the terrorists never bombed Madrid, Aznar would still be there. That who should be rightly blamed.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

That assumption isn't valid. As our Spanish posters on this board have said, the momentum before the bombings was moving away from Aznar. It was not a lock that he was going to be re-elected.

Tell that the the Al Qaeda.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Again, is Aznar or his government perfect? No. If the terrorists never bombed Madrid, Aznar would still be there. That who should be rightly blamed.

That assumption isn't valid. As our Spanish posters on this board have said, the momentum before the bombings was moving away from Aznar. It was not a lock that he was going to be re-elected.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Tell that the the Al Qaeda.

huh?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

huh?

Explain to the Al Qaeda that their bombing of a Madrid Subway to force a different outcome in the Spanish Election really had nothing to do with them bombing a Madrid Subway.

They are claiming victory. Tell them they don't deserve to claim victory in Spain.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Explain to the Al Qaeda that their bombing of a Madrid Subway to force a different outcome in the Spanish Election really had nothing to do with them bombing a Madrid Subway.

They are claiming victory. Tell them they don't deserve to claim victory in Spain.

You are giving Al-Qaeda too much credit. They were going to do the bombing no matter what. They don't care who is the leader of Spain, or any other non-Arab country for that matter. Anyone not adhering to their beliefs is an infidel, so they would claim victory no matter who ended up winning the election. The election was just a ruse to get more attention paid to their attack.

But since it was a US-friendly government that lost in the election, it was just automatically assumed that this was a victory for the terrorists, which is like saying that slavery was the only cause of the US Civil War. There were a lot more dynamics going on than the little bit we heard about.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Explain to the Al Qaeda that their bombing of a Madrid Subway to force a different outcome in the Spanish Election really had nothing to do with them bombing a Madrid Subway.

They are claiming victory. Tell them they don't deserve to claim victory in Spain.

If that is why Al Qaeda bombed a Madrid train station then they are dumb. Public opinion almost always swings in favor of the government in power when there is a attack on the homeland, terrorist or not. Look at Bush's approval ratings after the September 11 attacks.

Who knows, maybe Al Qaeda really did do it in order to influence the election. In that case, they got lucky and got a major assist from Aznar's bungling of the whole affair...

[Dutch]

Al Qeada is a lot smarter than we give them credit. They do, in fact, know exactly what they are doing. That's what makes them more formidable than anyone expected. Everything they do is done after months or years of planning. And there is no way for conventional governments to really fight them other than to accept the fact that they are parasites that feed off of weak governments. The only real chance for quick success is to remove those weak governments from the equation. (i.e. regime change)

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Al Qeada is a lot smarter than we give them credit.

I know they're pretty smart. That is why I am saying that the attack probably had little to do with influencing the Spanish election--they probably had to know that their attack would probably keep Aznar in power. So whatever reason they did it, I doubt it was to get him thrown out of office...

[Dutch]

I guess I can see how you might see it that way. But I would disagree with the logic. I would suggest that it was designed to prove to the Spanish populace (and the world)that fighting Al Qaeda has done nothing and continued resistance is futile.

That's how they sell it and I tend to agree that they got more than they could ask for. It was a huge embarrassment to the USA when Spain pulled out of Iraq, afterall.

But if the plan was to attack to keep anti-terror parties in power, then it would seem logical for the terrorists to stop the bombing against US forces in Iraq during the US elections. But that simply wasn't the case. They continued in an effort to prove to the US population that they weren't backing down and that we should be electing Kerry. And they stepped up the bombing leading to the Iraqi elections.

While we have under-estimated their resolve, perhaps they have under-estimated our resolve as well (with exception to Spain)?

Bombings have been used so far in hopes of breaking the will of the west, not to keep anti-terrorism governments in power. In my honest opinion.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Dutch

While we have under-estimated their resolve, perhaps they have under-estimated our resolve as well

That's a very good point--it happens in every conflict...

Originally Posted by Dutch

Bombings have been used so far in hopes of breaking the will of the west, not to keep anti-terrorism governments in power. In my honest opinion.

Yes, that's true. But the whole "keep anti-terrorism governments in power" is not what I was arguing. I said that "they probably had to know that their attack would probably keep Aznar in power". It does not necessarily follow logically that al-Qaeda wanted to keep Aznar in power.

What I am arguing is that in the Spanish case, logically al-Qaeda's objective could not have been to influence the election, since public opinion never swings the terrorist's way when attacking the homeland. I agree with you in that the more long-term "breaking the will of the west" is a more likely objective for an attack like that. That they achieved a tactical victory in the short run (the Aznar electoral defeat), was icing on the cake which had more to do with Aznar than al-Qaeda...

[Dutch]

Fair enough, I can accept that reasoning.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I know they're pretty smart. That is why I am saying that the attack probably had little to do with influencing the Spanish election--they probably had to know that their attack would probably keep Aznar in power. So whatever reason they did it, I doubt it was to get him thrown out of office...

I heard a Spanish Journalist on NPR this morning. He said that believing that The train bombing was related to Spanish Presense in Iraq is a very common misconception. The group was apparently protesting the arrest of the Spanish head of Al Qaeda the year before.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

I concur. It is about time that Muslim leaders step forward and condem acts that are commited in the name of their religion. If I have a brother who is going around killing people supposedly for me, and I have absolutly nothing to say I look guilty by association and seem to condone the actions.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure there were Muslim leaders denouncing the 9/11 attacks after they happened, but I believe this is the first time something as serious as a fatwah has been issued as a response.

The moderates in the Muslim world need to reclaim their religion from the extremists that have been giving them all a bad name.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

To be fair, I'm pretty sure there were Muslim leaders denouncing the 9/11 attacks after they happened, but I believe this is the first time something as serious as a fatwah has been issued as a response.

The moderates in the Muslim world need to reclaim their religion from the extremists that have been giving them all a bad name.

If the western newspapers are calling these suicide bombers "insurgents", I can assure you that a vast majority of the people in the middle east haven't a clue that what the terrorists are doing in Iraq is bad for their religion. Mass Media is a powerful tool is wielded by one side over the other.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Ok is this current news or one from last year?

[DaddyTorgo]

last year chemical

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

last year chemical

It's the anniversary.