PhotoDude.com

The Daily Whim

The Daily Whim

All The News That Fits My Whim

Sat. Mar 13, 2004

Spain Reels, and Reels in Suspects

Spain Reels, and Reels in Suspects – From the Guardian: ”Millions of Spaniards poured into the streets Friday, chanting ’Cowards!’ and ’Assassins!’ in a protest of the bombings that killed 199 people. The Basque separatist group ETA denied government allegations that it staged the attacks.”

”Of the more than 1,400 wounded, 367 people remained hospitalized, about 50 in serious condition. Of the dead, 84 bodies remained unidentified. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, only the Bali nightclub bombings that killed 202 people in 2002 have been more deadly.”

The toll of the dead and wounded would be staggering anywhere, but keep in mind Spain is a nation that has about 15% of our population. Weigh the horrid heft of this blow. An equivalent event in the US would leave 1,400 dead and 9,800 wounded, 2500 of them still hospitalized, followed by 70 million people taking to the streets in memory of those lost. And how achingly familiar does this sound? ”Spain’s El Mundo estimated that more than 11 million of Spain’s 42.7 million people participated in marches across the country. They included the young, old and disabled. Some were on crutches, others carried candles or banged drums.

”’We Were All On That Train’ read one banner in Madrid [...] ’There is a feeling of confusion, one does not know who to direct one’s anger at!’ said Q Kim, 15, who said a friend had lost a leg in the attack.”

It’s easy to make a comparison to 9/11, especially since these attacks happened on 3/11. But that ignores the fact the people of Spain have been more exposed to terror attacks than we were here in the US prior to 9/11. ETA has killed more than 800 people over the decades, but even so, their previous acts pale in comparison to this cold blooded attempt to kill as many random citizens as possible. The people of Spain are clearly and rightfully stunned at the senseless violence, and the scale of it.

I hoped no one would ever have to feel that gut-punched emotion again, not en masse like this. But I think we all knew it would happen again, sometime, somewhere.

And if we didn’t before, we should now. Because it will happen again.

Even as I write this, the investigation leaps forward. I was writing about how all of the evidence so far painted a very inconclusive picture, sometimes pointing to ETA, sometimes to Islamic jihadists. I wrote that we could only hope the forensic trail would soon give us more clarity.

And it would appear it has: ”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 [...] ’All of them [have been arrested] for suspected involvement in the sale and falsification of the mobile [phone] and [pay] card which were found in the bag [containing a bomb] which failed to explode.’”

Still not conclusive, but it certainly undermines the base assumption that the ETA was behind this. Some have said, ”Thursday’s attacks broke every one of the rules that ETA has operated by in the past,” and that is largely true. The ETA have generally been very ”Western” terrorists. They tend to call before they blow something up, as a warning. They tend to limit their attacks to government targets and personnel. The one time they killed about 20 random civilians at a supermarket in Barcelona in the late 80’s, they later said the attack had been a mistake. None of their tendencies logically lead to an attack like the one on Thursday. The sole exception is the fact they often attack just before elections, like the one Spain is having Sunday. And, frankly, any terrorist group might have at least a faction who looks at what Al Qaeda has done, and thinks mass casualty attacks are the way to get the most ”attention.” They miss the part about how they will soon find most of that new ”attention” unwelcome, as the culprits are fiercely tracked down by an angered nation.

We’ll certainly learn more in the hours and days to come, and determine if it was a composite group (ETA and jihadists?), an ”allied” Islamic group, or Al Qaeda itself. But there is plenty of evidence of Al Qaeda’s interest in Spain, ranging from the 1400’s, to right after Sept. 11, 2001, to some documents that were apparently just translated today.

We know that ”suspected hijacker Mohamed Atta flew to Madrid in January and again in July [2001] and logged 1,190 miles on a rental car.” Spain has made lots of Al Qaeda related arrests, and Spain’s ”leading investigating judge issued the first known indictment against Osama bin Laden in the Sept. 11 attacks on Wednesday,” [Sept. 17, 2003] ”accusing al-Qaeda of using the country as a base to plot the devastating strikes on New York and Washington.”

And if we go to the horse’s mouth, he’s been yapping about Spain since his first video message after the 9/11 attacks: ”Bin Laden opened his videotaped statement with this sentence: ’Let the whole world know that we shall never accept that the tragedy of Andalusia would be repeated in Palestine. We cannot accept that Palestine will become Jewish.’ The ’tragedy of Andalusia’ refers to the conquering in 1492 of the Muslim Kingdom of Granada by the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella. It was a central moment in the Islamic empire’s quest for political and military power: Muslim expansion was not just checked; it was reversed. If Bin Laden truly wants to restore the original geographic dimensions of the caliphate, he may eventually look toward Spain.”

Then in October of last year, one of his alleged missives targeted Spain again: ”Let the transgressors know that we reserve our right in responding when and where we see appropriate against all the countries that participate in this unjust war [in Iraq]—especially Britain, Spain, Australia, Poland, Japan and Italy.”

And today, defense researchers in Norway have dug up more evidence: ”The researchers, who specialise in digging up original Al-Qaeda releases and interviews, told the NRK television channel they discovered a document on an Arabic website last year outlining Al-Qaeda strategies on how to force the US and its allies to leave Iraq, and pointing to Spain as the ’weakest link’.

”’It wasn’t until yesterday when we were going through old material to find links to Spain that we understood what we were holding in our hands,’ project leader Brynjar Lia told NRK.

”’We mainly had the impression that the documents referred to the situation in Iraq, but on closer examination we saw that they specifically refer to Spanish domestic politics and the elections due today,’ he added. According to the TV report, page 42 of the Arabic document reads: ’We have to make use of the election to the maximum. The governement at the most can cope with three attacks.’

”The document also reportedly predicts that the other partners in the US-led coalition would follow like ’pieces of domino’ if Spain were to withdraw from Iraq.”

So if you’re looking for motive, Al Qaeda is convinced they have more than plenty, ranging from grudges held over battles lost there in the 1400’s (and the fact the Islamic Empire shrank from then on), to the fact Spain is helping the US today in Iraq.

And finally, leave it to The Guardian to ask the Big and Obvious: Is this Europe’s 9/11? ”For nearly a thousand days, Europeans and Americans have lived in different calendars. Europe did not change after the attacks of September 11 2001 the way America did. We cried ’We are all Americans’, but we weren’t. We didn’t truly feel that we were at war, the way Americans did. Will we now? Will today’s ’We are all Spaniards’ last any longer? Or will the date of March 11 2004 eventually resound only in Spanish history?”

It’s the kind of question I hoped we’d never have to ask … but knew we would. And in this case, it’s a question only those in Europe can answer.

Posted 10:40AM, Sat, Mar 13 2004 in · · 5 Comments below


Peanut Gallery

1  Federico wrote:

As for the “Is this Europe’s 9/11?” issue, Mr. Ash misses the point by a long shot. The power of 9/11 relies on being (at least in appareance) an unprovoked attack. If Islamic fundamentalists are behind the bombs in Madrid, as it appears to be, it is obvious that these bombs were retaliatory. Furthermore, they would be a retribution for an action perpetrated by the Spanish government against the opinion of the absolute majority of the Spanish citizens. In other words, this wouldn’t be an attack so much against Europe as an attack against the so-called “Coallition of the Willing”. While G.W. Bush may cash on 9/11, the Partido Popular would have to face responsibility for taking Spain into a conflict that wasn’t its own. The reaction would probably not be so much based on increased security, but rather on reconsidering the price paid for an ungrateful loyalty to the current US regime. And if this is so, the so-called “Coallition of the Willing” will either be seriously debilitated (as if the people in Washington cared at this point), or the US government will have to show more generosity for their loyalty.

Comment by Federico · 03/13/04 08:08 PM
2  Reid wrote:

"If Islamic fundamentalists are behind the bombs in Madrid, as it appears to be, it is obvious that these bombs were retaliatory." I was unaware Spain had launched an attack on Muslim trains that killed 200 civilians and wounded hundreds more, and thus, deserved this retaliation. "When you punish, punish them in the way they have punished you." (Qur'an 16:126) "Whoever attacks you, attack him in the same way that he attacked you, and trust Allah and know that Allah is with those who put their trust [in Him]." (Qur'an 2:194). "In other words, this wouldn't be an attack so much against Europe as an attack against the so-called 'Coallition of the Willing'." Really? Won't that be hard to explain to the many everyday Spaniards who were killed in the blasts? How about the many Muslims who were also killed? Don't they have a right to ask Al Qaeda, if you want to attack the governments of the Coalition of the Willing, why don't you attack them, instead of the random innocents on the street? Didn't a quarter of the population of Spain come out into the rain on Friday to say "Cowards!" and "Assassins," in effect, to say your so-called "retaliation" against random innocents was WRONG? I also wasn't aware that the Spanish government was allowing its foreign policy to be dictated by terrorists: "don't do this, or we'll blow up your trains." And if the people of Spain truly feel they should knuckle under to such murderous pressure, they'll have a chance to show it today at the ballot box. I'm personally shocked you seem so non-chalant about these murders, as if you think these people deserved it, and they might as well have been done in by Bush's own hands. You seem to approve of Al Qaeda's retaliation, or at the very least, think it's a perfectly justifiable act. Do you really see the explosive murder of 200 random innocents as ... justice?

Comment by Reid · 03/14/04 04:31 AM
3  Federico wrote:

"You seem to approve of Al Qaeda’s retaliation, or at the very least, think it’s a perfectly justifiable act." No, and as I read my post again, I can't find what suggests you that I am, in any way, justifying this kind of actions. Your tone, however, suggests that this is one of those "either with us or against us" kind of issue. I can't comment on that. I didn't think I had to clarify this, but I guess I should: I find the killing of innocent civilians (be it through remote-control bombs, or tomahawk cruise missiles) indescribably upsetting (unlike some hawkish folks who clean their consciousness with "collateral damages"). When these actions are committed by a band of criminals for whatever motivation (including retaliation), I don't see the point in directing my anger towards them. (Penal) justice should be served, swiftly and fairly. And that does not substitute for the political responsibility of the governments that motivate these actions. "Won’t that [the fact that it was an attack against the "Coallition of the Willing"] be hard to explain to the many everyday Spaniards who were killed in the blasts?" I suppose you mean to those who are still alive. I actually spoke to some of them, and they seem to understand it pretty well, no need for an explanation. It seems reasonable to me that they don't expect to be heard by Al Qaeda or whoever was behind these atrocities, since it is a criminal organization. But the Spaniards seem to hold their government and political parties to a higher standard, since some protests were actually directed against the Partido Popular. In fact, it shouldn't surprise anyone if today's "unprecedented electoral reversion" (El Pais' headline) was a way of punishing the Partido Popular for its role in the "Coallition". You may prefer to think of it as the Spaniards yielding to the pressure of terrorism. But my impression is that a simpler rule of thumb may describe it better: a good way to deter terrorism is to deter your government from promoting it.

Comment by Federico · 03/14/04 09:30 PM
4  Reid wrote:

As has happened before, you and I have a base level problem here. Your statements indicate that you see this as a tit-for-tat. The Spanish government supports the US in Iraq, and in return, Al Qaeda attacks Spanish government facilties, police stations and army posts. Oh, wait, they didn't do that. They killed 200 random people. I'm personally very angry at an organization here in town, and if I were to reveal the details, there would be no doubt in most anyone's mind how wronged I have been, and that I deserve "satisfaction." Therefore, I'm going to go kill some random people. What, there's a logic flaw there? If so, it's the same one that infests Al Qaeda. This is not "tit-for-tat." When you engage in terrorism against innocents, there can be no tit-for-tat. And you certainly can't simply shrug it off as an expected response. Even China gets it: "No political pretext can justify this premeditated murder of the innocent en masse and at random, no matter who actually planned them. We convey our deepest sympathies and condolences to the victims and the people of Spain, and express our strongest condemnation and opposition to this inhuman act." Eric Olsen puts in another way: "The point of all this is that those who would resort to the mass murder of random civilian men, women and children forfeit any claims to a moral platform by the encompassing evil - yes, I said EVIL - of their actions. 'Why' doesn't matter, only 'what' and 'who.' The 'why' could be literally anything, and to give it any creedence or attention whatsoever is to mitigate the abject evil of the terrorist act, an act that can never be mitigated, excused or explained away." Yet you "don't see the point in directing my anger towards them." You prefer to go after "the political responsibility of the governments that motivate these actions," rather than the actions and actors that murdered 200 themselves. Are the governments involved innocent angels? Of course not. But I find it disturbing when someone finds them far more shameful and deserving of anger contempt than someone who leaves 22 pounds of compact dynamite on the train next to women and children. I guess it's just me. I don't care if a terrorist's ideology is to make all photographers millionaires, once you kill random innocents in an attempt to spread your ideology, whatever you believe has lost all honor and all worth in my eyes. Backpack bombs have no moral rights. Eric Rudolph had no moral right to set off a backpack bomb among innocents in Centennial Park because he disagreed with his government's actions on abortion. Same with Al Qaeda, or anyone else. If you are wronged, attack the source of that wrong, and you can at least argue self defense. Attack random innocents because you think you've been wronged, and you reveal yourself as nothing but a coward with no legitimate cause. Quite worthy of your anger and contempt. "You may prefer to think of it as the Spaniards yielding to the pressure of terrorism." No, I've already addressed that.

Comment by Reid · 03/15/04 05:08 AM
5  Federico wrote:

I highly value dissent, but based on dialogue, not on misreading. I stated it as clearly as possible that I am not justifying these criminal actions in any possible way. No, I don’t see it as tit-for-tat, since that implies that “tat” is comparable to “tit”, and I don’t claim that that is the case between Spain and whoever bombed those trains. I’m not justifying any logic or motivation behind these actions, either. I thought I was absolutely transparent about that. But, does that mean we cannot link what happened in Madrid with the participation of Spain in the invasion of Iraq (specifically in the form of a retaliation)? I can’t find one single source of news that doesn’t suggest that there may be such connection! What is your alternative hypothesis? My point was simple and straight forward: You can frame this attack in many ways (against Europe, against Spain, against civilization, against the West, against democracy…). I think a more precise way to frame it is as an attack against the Coalition, because it will have consequences to the Coalition, as Mr. Rodriguez Zapatero just confirmed. That surely sounds shocking! Was this expected? Of course it was expected! Would it be a shocking surprise if there is an attack in the US? If saying that gives justification or comfort to the Islamic extremists, then someone should arrest the police chief of London. What I find disturbing is that you pretend that the responsibility of a democratic government is comparable to that of a criminal organization. I share the responsibility for the actions of my government, and not for those of the extremists. My government is acting in my name, something that the extremists at least don’t pretend. So, excuse me if I get a bit more disgusted by the crimes commited in my name, than by those commited by a bunch of lunatics. If we believe Rodriguez Zapatero’s words, the Spanish government seems to be mending its ways: pulling out of Iraq unless the UN takes a more important role, establishing better relations with (i.e., not bombing) Morocco, and the rest of Europe (particularly the French government, that has done a good job debilitating ETA). That’s a plan against terrorism. And if the people of Al Qaeda think they’ve got a victory (I doubt it), I could care less. To the fundamentalists, both Christian and Muslim, there is always a reason to attack civilians. The job of a good government is not to provide those reasons.

Comment by Federico · 03/16/04 12:59 PM
Comments are closed for this article
Contact me to find out more