Skip to comments.Spain’s “Terrorgate”? ("El Mundo" newspaper voices some 'explosive' theories)
Posted on 05/18/2005 7:43:21 PM PDT by jocon307
It has long been understood that the Spanish socialists shamelessly exploited the March 11, 2004, terrorist attacks in Madrids train station for political advantage. They did so with palpable disregard for a frightening fact: The far-reaching geostrategic repercussions of that incident...gave those seeking similar results elsewhere every incentive to engage in violence against other democracies electoral processes.
But what if the perpetrators were neither Islamofacists, as the winning socialists immediately asserted, nor the Basque terrorist organization known as ETA, as the government of José Maria Aznar initially (and fatally) assumed?
On May 16, the Madrid daily El Mundo published a remarkable editorial that draws upon the papers ongoing investigation and contains information potentially as explosive as the 3/11 attacks themselves: El Mundo suggests that, almost immediately after the 12 bombs went off in one of the citys busiest train stations, some in the Spanish police force fabricated evidence, then swiftly hyped it to the domestic and international press. The object seems to have been to support the oppositions claims that Islamists angry over the governments support for the war in Iraq were responsible for the attacks.
At worst, the information uncovered by El Mundo could mean that the deadly bombing was actually perpetrated with the complicity of the same Spanish police bomb squad, Tedax, that was subsequently charged with investigating the crime.
Either way, if the leads published in recent days pan out, it would appear that Spains 2004 elections were stolen by terrorists, alright. But the terrorist operation that brought the socialists to power may have been an inside job in effect, a coup perpetrated by some of the same authorities who are responsible for preventing terror. Explosive stuff, if true. But all preliminary and speculative right now.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
But I know that El Mundo is about equal to the NY Times of Spain, and this was on the National Review website, so I thought it worthy for inclusion here on the threads.
Second, the phone was supposed to be activated by its alarm and then vibrate, causing the plastic explosive to detonate. Since the bombers apparently made a novices mistake by failing to connect the wires from the phone to the explosive with electrical tape, even the slightest movement of the backpack would likely prevent the cellphones signal from setting off the bomb.
Even more curious is the fact that the phone in the Backpack #13 was a Mitsubishi Trium, one of very few on the market that require a SIM card to operate the alarm. Since, as Alemán notes, it was the analysis of the SIM card which, less than 48 hours after the blasts, allowed the police to arrest the alleged perpetrators, the question occurs: Why would terrorists who owned a cellphone shop and are deemed to be very technically proficient deliberately choose to use a device that would lead the police to their door?
Sounds like its straight out of The Bourne Supremacy.
No apologies needed. The bombing was so well coordinated with the pending election, it's not altogether tinfoil to speculate about it. Islamists have historically been opportunists, not precision planners, and this attack was very precise.
Media Schadenfreude and Media Shenanigans PING
Socialists worldwide generally require some sort of assistance to win elections. Spain is no different. Knowing now that the national police force is so heavily infiltrated by them should give Spaniards some pause. Unlike here, where the socialists are in the minority of the government (so far), the Spanish have the problem of their "enemy within" being the police. Damn....Bad place to have your enemy.
The 911 attacks were precise too. Many dry runs.
Also posted here.
ARRRRGGGGHHHH! I checked too, I always do.
The search feature is a little loopy here, I'm afraid.
On the other hand, it certainly is nice to see a socialist European government fall victim to the kind of conspiracy mongering that has attended discussion of the 9/11 events in some wilder quarters of the extreme left wing.
Frank J. Gaffney is not someone given to tinfoil hat stories.
If the terrorists wanted maximum effect, they would have hit us soon after the 2000 election, while we were still reeling from bitter divisiveness. And after all, Bush I was responsibile for the stationing of troops in SA and the "persecution" of Iraq (two of BL's major grievances in his notorius pre-9/11 fatwah that the world ignored).
They didn't, because the attack was not geared to any date or deadline, or specific political effect -- as opposed to the Spanish attack.
Maybe it was a coincidence, but the result -- ouster of a government allied to the U.S. in the WOT, and the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq -- were certainly specific and immediate.
You know, Gaffney plays strange games - and he doth protest too much methinks. He seems so confident pointing out foreign government terror complicity knowing that investigations into 911 inside-job & coverup questions here at home are still supressed by all mainstream media. Or is that a hint of nervousness I detect in his bold progaganda?? And mind you, such successful conspiracies are not stupid enough to be partisan.
I have looked into a lot of the theories and theorists behind 911 complicity and many are right wing, or conservative. Many libertarians we well. Some Leftists, true, but you couldn't say it is a left-wing thing. In fact, many of the far-left liberals from the Nation to the Progressive to Democracy Now refuse to look at 911 as an inside-job conspiracy, and actively debunk such theories. They prefer to attack Bush/Cheney/Rummy on the opportunities presented in the aftermath of 911. However, I think David Ray Griffin's appearance on CSPAN a few weekends ago has raised a lot more interest in the subject - and he is a fairly moderate theologian, non-partisan, looking for bi-partisan unity. Most of the 911 investigations I have come across put Clinton and Bush together in the same game, behind the scenes. And we aren't naive enough to think there is no 'behind the scenes' now are we?
A corollary to Metcalfe's Law is that the difficulty of keeping a conspiracy secret increases in proportion to the square of the number of conspirators.
Anybody who believes in a massive worldwide conspiracy along the lines of the Elders of Zion is a fool. Unfortunately, that includes a lot of otherwise sensible and respectable people on the Right.
CCM - I agree that the elders of Zion stuff is bunk - but nobody is discussing worldwide conspiracies here. I doubt, however, that Metcalf's neat lines and network charts can successfully translate human functions such as fear, power, greed, ambition, patriotism, fanatacism etc. I recall a small city was built to design and build the atom bomb in total secrecy involving thousands of people in the Manhattan Project. Anyway, not even Gaffney is talking about worldwide conspiracies - well, except for arab terrorism. Wouldn't it also be foolish to ignore anamolies and compelling circumstantial evidence that challenge the "official" story just for fear of the simplistic 'tin foil hat' label?