Explosion in madrid

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Spain arrests five over bombings

Quote[/b] ]

Spanish authorities have arrested five suspects in connection with the Madrid blasts which killed 200 people.

Interior Minister Angel Acebes told a news conference that the arrested men were three Moroccans and two Indians

Longinius-

Quote[/b] ]I'd also like to add that the potential recruitment base in European countries have to be better integrated with the domestic culture, so those people do not want to be involved in terrorism. That will make it even harder for the terrorists to find support, and it would hopefully also mean that "their own" would work against them.

Yes, this is a very important battle in the fight against terrorism in europe. Quite how to win people over without going down the US cultural 'melting pot' route is another matter.

I have been really very surprised not to see any attacks on the UK mainland so far, there are quite a number of young immigrants or especially descendants of immigrants here (not least muslims) who dont seem to feel they fit in too well (being not very well integrated), some of whom are seduced by extremists (usually themselves recent immigrants). There is the latest example of the suicide bombing by two Brits perpetrated in Israel to prove how far those who feel disenfranchised are willing to go. It seems almost miraculous that nothing major has happened here so far. I wonder how long it will be.

Denoir-I wont go into your misunderstanding of my statement about 'weakness' in certain european quarters in regards to combatting terrorism too far but suffice to say that what i reffered to was reporting in the media (including the UK) and certain topics of discussion among the chattering classes after the WTC attacks along the lines that leaving terrorists alone was the best strategy (and the US deserved it etc etc cant be bothered to go into it all again now). I will say that i should have been clearer but i certainly wasnt casting aspersions on European soldiers in Afghanistan (i find it hard to think you took it that way).

Quote[/b] ]You don't kill them with bombs and brag about it on TV. You take them out up close and personal. You don't take credit for it. Squeeze their suppliers of weapons. But whatever you do, don't do moronic things like the Iraq invasion. Removing the recruiting base is at least as important as wiping out the currently active people.

I agree. It must have occured to you though that if the security forces are doing this successfully just as you suggest then theres not much reason to expect we should hear of it. In other words how do you know they are not doing or attempting to do the above (bar the obvious invasion)? Its a widely known fact that the US let their Humint slip before sept. 11, we can presume they (and other western countries) are now playing catch up with islamic terror cells. There have been a number of arrests all over europe in fact and there seems to be a quite well coordinated constabulatory response (if i can call it that). But some people will always slip through in a relatively free society.

Iraq as it stands is a debacle if seen as part of the war on terror. But if seen as (or turned into) an attempt to democratise and invigorate the movement for greater freedom in the middle east ( as TBA would like it to be seen) it can at least be percieved as a chance, an opportunity for change, even if brought about by brutal means. I seem to recall that you yourself have acknowleged that such a change would be one desirable possible consequence of the Iraq war.

Afghanistan was surely a squandered opportunity. The assasination of Ahmed Shah Masood by two arabs suggests the anticipated response that A.Q. and the taliban feared perhaps most after sept 11 (perhaps based on the American reputation for combat casualty fears). After Masoods death the US should have given maximum support to men like Abdul Haq in fighting the Taliban (where instead they pretty atrociously left him to die). The plain fact is that Osama himself could have been caught/killed (Tora Bora springs to mind) but slipped through for a few reasons ,not least glaring cock ups and over reliance on the Pakistanis. The Afghan war could have had a much greater immediate effect on Al Quaida that it did. Still there were some limited successes.

And please someone tell me how to combat terrorist training camps (for those who dont deny they exist(ed) ) in a chaotic and loosely governed foreign country that is at best extremely uncooperative and at worst a positive supporter of international terrorism without military intervention. Infiltration of course takes time and right after sept.11 the US government i expect saw the threat as rather immediate.

I still say that the standard military solution (in the form of artillery, air support andrapidly deployable ground troops) may have a (limited) part to play in fighting terrorism and Afghanistan is a good example of where it could have been used effectively (and much more intelligently than it was).

I sincerely hope there has been no political slant in the releasing of information on this attack but it now looks to me as though it has indeed been perpetrated by islamists.

[edc 0]

Quote[/b] ]MADRID, Spain — Spain's interior minister said Sunday a videotape has been discovered claiming Al Qaeda (search) carried out the Madrid terrorist attacks and threatening more, but that he could not verify the veracity of the claim.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114138,00.html

[Taran -5SM- 0]

(sorry, I am using a translator)

[John C Flett 0]

Well it looks like this has cost PP the election. The votes in show about 79% support for the opposition with distrust of Aznar's handling of the investigation being a major deciding factor for most voters. Many simply feel he lied about what happened and tried to blame ETA for his own gain.

This was a lose/lose situation for him but he might have been more honest about it. Either way I'm not sorry to see him go.

Doesn't bring us any closer to solution to the problems though.

Wonder if this is going to set a pattern for future elections for countries that took part in the war. Elections could be the danger dates for AQ attacks now if they feel that they contributed to bringing down Spains government.

[denoir 0]

I have a bit of mixed feelings about the results of the Spanish election. Obviously the attacks influenced the results.

From a positive side you can look at it as a vote of no-confidence for Aznar and his Iraq adventures that only made things worse on the terror front.

The negative side is of course letting an act of terrorism influence the democratic process. And it's very worrying as it shows that terrorism works.

It's quite interesting how different the reaction of the Spanish people is, compared to the reaction of the American people on 11/9. The Americans joined up behind Bush in a show of unity while the Spanish gave Anzar the boot for not doing a better job in preventing such attacks from happening in the first place. I suppose that Spain's participation in the Iraq war against the will of the majority had something to do with it. At the time of the WTC attacks people had no real reason to mistrust Bush. Anzar does not get the same benefit of the doubt because of his most willing participation in the Iraq invasion.

While I'm glad to see Anzar go, I wish it would have been under normal circumstances and not this. Those that comitted this mass murder are probably quite pleased with the results...

[ralphwiggum 6]

in other words, Spain had chance to decide whether they want to join the war on Iraq, and they are paying the price for it. for US, most of people didn't give a squat about AQ before 9-11, so it was easier to rally around the gov't, but Aznar didn't have that choice.

he knowlingly chose the path and that was not welcomed by Spanish voters to begin with.

funny thing is that if this was work of AQ, they are basically making an idiot of themselves. Iraq was the least religious society, and US invasion destroyed that society. but since it is US and its allies that is in there, they think US and the allies are now the new target.

[Wilco 944]

God be with them.

Denoir: Hope you don't mind me using your sig for my avatar, if so I'll take it down.

[Taran -5SM- 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's quite interesting how different the reaction of the Spanish people is, compared to the reaction of the American people on 11/9.

If Iraq has weapons of massive destruction.... who sold them to him? who gave him the technology? where those weapons are?  

Why nobody asks it to him?..... perhaps these questions are the cause from the different reaction to the two terrible massacres.

(sorry, I am using a translator)

[Holy Smoke 0]

I have a bit of mixed feelings about the results of the Spanish election. Obviously the attacks influenced the results.

From a positive side you can look at it as a vote of no-confidence for Aznar and his Iraq adventures that only made things worse on the terror front.

The negative side is of course letting an act of terrorism influence the democratic process. And it's very worrying as it shows that terrorism works.

You've got a point here, denoir. Actually it is impossible to pretend such an event will not affect the outcome, but I'd dare to say this only was the last straw. Let me explain.

Aznar's government has lead several actions that a lot of people disliked, some concerning foreign affairs, many concerning internal affairs. The last are difficult to explain to non spaniards in a few words, but believe me when I say that some of them were driving people mad when realizing the gov was overeacting and trying to gain electoral profit because of some situations, when they were approving laws through the Senate avoiding thus discussion in the Congress... Besides, Aznar refused to appear before the Congress in too many ocassions sheltered by the vast majority of seats the PP was occupying. This not to mention the ilogical anti-Euro policy he was addopting.

Today participation was over 77% while four years ago it was almost 69%. People went out and voted today, and I want to believe they voted bearing in mind the last 4 years. Yes, 11-M has influenced us, but it wouldn't be fair thinking this was the only fact we had in mind when we voted.

Regards, and excuse my english.

[Bernadotte 0]

I have a bit of mixed feelings about the results of the Spanish election. Obviously the attacks influenced the results.

From a positive side you can look at it as a vote of no-confidence for Aznar and his Iraq adventures that only made things worse on the terror front.

The negative side is of course letting an act of terrorism influence the democratic process.

I disagree with the way you present the terrorism as an action and the election results as a reaction.  The original action was Aznar joining hands with Washington in Iraq and a war on Al Qaida that, until then, had not affected Spain and was not likely to.  In other words, Aznar threw the first punch and entirely against the will of the Spanish electorate.  The train bombings were the inevitable reaction.  The election result was merely the people saying "we told you so, now take a hike."

And it's very worrying as it shows that terrorism works.

Would you deny that, to varying degrees, terrorism works?  Or is your main worry that the rest of society might find out what most terrorists already know?

And would you have preferred that these bombings occurred just after a PP victory?  Would that not have left potential PP supporters entering the polling stations thinking that military aggression "works" without risk of consequences?

It's quite interesting how different the reaction of the Spanish people is, compared to the reaction of the American people on 11/9. The Americans joined up behind Bush in a show of unity while the Spanish gave Anzar the boot for not doing a better job in preventing such attacks from happening in the first place. I suppose that Spain's participation in the Iraq war against the will of the majority had something to do with it. At the time of the WTC attacks people had no real reason to mistrust Bush. Anzar does not get the same benefit of the doubt because of his most willing participation in the Iraq invasion.

At the time of the second WTC attack, you mean.  Don't forget that Spain has not been dealing with decades of terrorist incidents beyond its own borders.  Also, this is a second new source of terrorist aggression for a nation already weary from the first.

[Gollum1 0]

Proof that terrorism works.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]While Mr Zapatero said his first priority was to tackle terrorism "in all its forms", he is thought likely to do it in a very different way than the outgoing government.

He strongly opposed Spain's support for the US-led war in Iraq and our correspondent says he may now seek to withdraw Spanish troops who are serving in Iraq.

This is a good signal to USA. I suppose an argument like that makes bushywushy consider if it's about time to grant UN greater influence over the mess in Iraq.

Go Spain!

Spain's new PM on spanish forces in Iraq

[WhoCares 0]

Proof that terrorism works.

Question is, whether it always works the same way. While I can imagine that it could work in other european countries actively supporting Iraq war (Poland, Italy, Danmark, likely also UK and maybe Turkey), I am quiet sure in the USA you would see the opposite reaction.

Now I just hope, that the US does not get a second Oklahoma, just to support the reelection of GWB.

[WhoCares 0]

Quote[/b] ]While Mr Zapatero said his first priority was to tackle terrorism "in all its forms", he is thought likely to do it in a very different way than the outgoing government.

He strongly opposed Spain's support for the US-led war in Iraq and our correspondent says he may now seek to withdraw Spanish troops who are serving in Iraq.

This is a good signal to USA. I suppose an argument like that makes bushywushy consider if it's about time to grant UN greater influence over the mess in Iraq.

Go Spain!

Spain's new PM on spanish forces in Iraq

But its probably the worst possible signal with respect to future terrorism. There is a fair chance, that in this case terrorist groups might get stronger support, financially as well as in manpower.

Any action taken now must be seriously considered with respect to the potential propagandistic exploitation, and a withdrawal is a really bad signal...

[Balschoiw 0]

Aznar wouldn´t have been up for another 4 years anyway. It was clear that he wouldn´t do the job prior the elections.

The big mistake the Aznar administration made was NOT to tell the spanish people the truth after the terrorist assault. Even the german politicians are very upset with spain as they didn´t tell the truth to our intelligence services and politicians about the attack. They gave us false intel, false info and false suspects. This is a very bad act as it mislead our security forces and delayed a proper reaction to AQ threat in europe. We don´t need some US slave lying the same way the TBA did and does. We need reliable partners within europe when it comes to AQ, not some freaks who are more concerned about their election results.

Aznars policy was crap. Think of the tanker catastrophe, the participation in Iraq, the outsider role Aznar chose for a country within europe.

It´s the people´s choice and they chose the way they feeel better with. A government that is not trustworthy will not be elected, no matter what the reasons are.

The attack on spain has been the initial tip but it was not AQ who messed it but Aznar and his lying.

Bye , bye I hope spain now will remember it´s  true allies and the european community and will focus on the "together" again. US friendship only brought death to spain and I can´t remember G.W Bush going to spain after the attacks to show his sorrow like A LOT of european nation´s leaders did after 9/11. Forget him.

[brgnorway 0]

But its probably the worst possible signal with respect to future terrorism. There is a fair chance, that in this case terrorist groups might get stronger support, financially as well as in manpower.

Any action taken now must be seriously considered with respect to the potential propagandistic exploitation, and a withdrawal is a really bad signal...

Fine, but I don't think the people of Spain want's to go back to the Franco-era when they were told what was best for them!

[denoir 0]

I disagree with the way you present the terrorism as an action and the election results as a reaction.  The original action was Aznar joining hands with Washington in Iraq and a war on Al Qaida that, until then, had not affected Spain and was not likely to.  In other words, Aznar threw the first punch and entirely against the will of the Spanish electorate.  The train bombings were the inevitable reaction.  The election result was merely the people saying "we told you so, now take a hike."

No the Iraq war was a necessary condition to the removal of Anzar, but not sufficient. Terrorist attacks + Iraq = sufficient condition. Before the attacks, Anzar's popular party was ahead in the polls, with a significant buffer. And after the attacks, look what happened.

I think it sends a terrible message of encouragement to terrorists.

Quote[/b] ]

And it's very worrying as it shows that terrorism works.

Would you deny that, to varying degrees, terrorism works?

Usually it works to a much lesser degree. We're talking about a change of government in a democratic system. It does not get any worse than this.

Well, actually it does. The withdrawal from Iraq makes it worse.

On a side note, today here in Stockholm there were three silent minutes at noon for the victims. Everything public stopped (transportation, schools, businesses etc)

Edit: Actually I see now that it was all across Europe

[WhoCares 0]

A UN- (or UN-approved NATO-) mission for Iraq could be a better signal. However, it is barely in spanish hands to push such a solution...

[bn880 5]

Well I have not read the entire thread today, but AFAIK most of the Spanish population disagreed with going to Iraq in the first place, and this was the icing on the cake... in my opinion it is more logical to see what is going wrong, even if it takes a terrorist attack, than to ignore terrorist attacks and wrong doing, just to plow ahead with injustice etc.

At some point you have to think, why did we just lose 200 people, no?

[walker 0]

Hi all

My reading of the situation is as follows.

The Popular party lost the election by saying it was ETA. They did so in a cynical way to boost their own election chances as they came to power on a no truck with ETA platform. When the proof amassed pointed to Al Qaida they suffered a political backlash.

Basic rule dont go shooting your mouth off till you know what the situation is. Asumptions they will get you every time.

Kind Regards Walker

[Bernadotte 0]

I disagree with the way you present the terrorism as an action and the election results as a reaction.  The original action was Aznar joining hands with Washington in Iraq and a war on Al Qaida that, until then, had not affected Spain and was not likely to.  In other words, Aznar threw the first punch and entirely against the will of the Spanish electorate.  The train bombings were the inevitable reaction.  The election result was merely the people saying "we told you so, now take a hike."

No the Iraq war was a necessary condition to the removal of Anzar, but not sufficient. Terrorist attacks + Iraq = sufficient condition.

What do you mean, no?  You say "no" but then you more or less reiterate what I said.  The only difference is that I'm not convinced that Iraq + an ETA attack would have been sufficient.  That's why I emphasised that Iraq + terrorists' reaction to Iraq = sufficient condition.

I think it sends a terrible message of encouragement to terrorists.

No, I think it sends a terrible message of encouragement to those who are not yet terrorists and who otherwise might not have considered such means.

Quote[/b] ]

And it's very worrying as it shows that terrorism works.

Would you deny that, to varying degrees, terrorism works?

Usually it works to a much lesser degree. We're talking about a change of government in a democratic system. It does not get any worse than this.

No, we are not talking about a change of government resulting from a terrorist attack, unless you are convinced that this terrorist attack without Iraq = sufficient condition.

[bn880 5]

I will bet anything that even if these attacks had not occured the election would have remained in favor of the same party. Like I said, Spanish people were really against going to Iraq, their government hijacked them, just like in Pakistan, the government hijacked the country to cooperate with the states.

To spell it out: Spanish population would have voted against move in Iraq if they had the chance, and they did on Sunday.

[shinRaiden 0]

It does seem that the election was a forgone conclusion, but maybe now Europe will really have "peace in our time".

For all the grumbles about no connection between Iraq and Al'Qaeda, where were the Spanish in Afganistan? And where were the Baathist 'insurgents' in Madrid?

Yes, there was a bunch of bickering, first it was ETA, then Al'Qaeda, then back to ETA, then back to Al'Qaeda, then sombody else like AZF, then back to Al'Qaeda, now the Moroccans and possibly Al'Qaeda, and how did the guys from India get involved?

Terrorists ~200, Spanish 0. I wonder if you can dance the flamenco in a burhka. Probably can't in public anyway.

[Balschoiw 0]

New head of state said that he will remove spanish troops from Iraq and sign the european constitution.

A step the coaltion warmongers will have to think about.

1300 soldiers less are a problem for the "coalition-peacekeepers". Bush and Blair, the next to fall.

Quote[/b] ]Spain's Socialist Party prime minister-elect says he will pull troops out of Iraq - unless the UN takes charge.

Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said: "The war in Iraq was a disaster, the occupation of Iraq is a disaster."

He called for a grand international alliance against terror and an end to "unilateral wars".

Quote[/b] ]However Mr Zapatero said President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair needed to "engage in some self-criticism" over their decision to invade Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]"Wars such as those which have occurred in Iraq only allow hatred, violence and terror to proliferate," Mr Zapatero said earlier on Monday.

Let´s see how things develope. At last he seems to have some brains, despite the UK and USA chief´s.

[Apollo 0]

I can not really blame Aznar (although i'm not his biggest fan) for the fact that now Spain endure's terrorists attacks of Al-Quaida.I blame Al Quiada on one side and George W. Bush on the other side.When Aznar joined GW's Bush on Iraq he had a number of reasons to do this many of them probably benneficial to his country.Most of the European country's that joined the coalition were either country's that wanted to prove them as staunch allies of the U.S.A (wich in my oppinion could be justified as the international position of a country is very important and important Allies by norm shouldn't be upset to much) ,or wanted to gain in economical term's.

I blame G.W. Bush severely for choosing the wrong priority's against the war on terrorism with the Iraq war though.See when the Afhanistan war kicked of the coalition easily included dozen's of country's among them many European ones.

Al-Quaida could have easily blamed all those participating country's to and set them on the hit list ,and when for ex. an attack would happen in Germany then everyone would be solely mad on Al-quaida and not on the German goverment who logicly chose under the circumstances leading to the Afhanistan war to join that coalition.

If the European country's like Spain had felt that the Iraq war was justified under the war against terrorism then i'm sure most of them wuld have participated to a certain extent ,and when attacks would be held on European soil out of vengence then atleast the Europeans would know wich enemy they fight and wich commitment it takes to root that evil out.

Bush propposed the Iraq war to fit into the war on terrorism ,making claim's of manny WMD's present in Iraq capable of striking the western world ,and claims that Saddam's goverment had connection's with Al-quaida.

That war has devided the western partner's between those that chosed to believe the allegiations and those not believing them or seeing Iraq as not an priority on the war against terror.It's buildup and aftermath has completly demminished the actuall "campaign against terrorism" ,due to the continuing quagmire in Iraq with guerrilla attacks and the failure to find actuall WMD's.In addition a massive amount of money was lost in Iraq ,wich definatly affect's the capabilety to wage further wars.

You see ,i don't think nobody here doubt's that Al-Quaida is the new EVIL arch enemy of the western world ,and that we Westeners must try to elliminate or contain this threat as much as possible.The recent attacks in Madrid and other country's only show's how alive and dangerous Al-Quaida still is.But due to the whole Iraq war the western world stands devided against this mounting threat ,and thats solely's G.W Bush his fault.The president of the U.S.A is the most powerfull man in the western world ,it's best for the Western world that this person is a capable leader able to unite his partners against a comman threat.

IMO the best way to fight the war on terrorism is by convicing the majority of the muslim world that muslim extremism is morraly wrong and rediculous form religious points of view ,as the real danger is that more and more muslim's would be convinced that muslim extremism IS the way to go thus flocking the ranks of such groups alligned to Al-Quaida.Since most of the muslim extremism is more or less an movement against "Western imperialism" people tend to justify their existence according how they perceive western interrests in the region.If the western world would target the real terrorists only (Al-Quida and it's allies) and in the meantime use the maasive amount's of cash they did waste on Iraq rather on nation building in Afhanistan for ex. ,then many Muslim's might perceive the war on terrorism only target's those odd extremists but otherwise strives for a more stable Middle east.

Thus Casius belli ,efficiant opperation's and a good aftermath are important to make sure that youre action's don't create more terrorists than actually decreasing them.

Most of the muslim worlds sees the the Iraq war as an occupation withought solid casius belli.It enrages muslim's and due to this it makes the cause of Al-Quaida form their eyes only more justified.

That Iraq made more terrorists than it prevented can be easily proven.Before the Iraq war their were hardly terrorists present

even if you should have believed the claims of Bush of terrorists in Iraq.Now with U.S control of Iraq "terrorists attacks" on coalition forces are increasing every week ,but they are guerilla attacks done by sunni Iraqi's ,and those sunni's were rather tame under Saddam ,just to point out that unjustified wars create's "terrorists".