ETA strikes again

[DemoCoder]

If they did, you'll never learn of it, since the blackmail negotiations were supposed to be kept secret (hence the personals ad connection) and leak. The French government doesn't want to be seen negotiating with terrorists, so even if they did, you'll never know.

On the other hand, I read another article somewhere that a French military helicopter was spotted with a bag hanging from it in the countryside. Was it a cash drop, or a sting operation on the AZF?

 

[epicstruggle]

cnn is saying 192 dead now. Hope it doesnt rise any higher. Also they mention that a van was found with tapes with koranic teachings and a few detonators. ETA might not be responsible. Instead it might be Islamic terrorists.

later,
epic

 

[bleon]

I was at Waterloo East Rail station once and an IRA bomb exploded just minutes after I boarded the train. One person died because it was placed inside an isolated male lavatory. At the time, I thought the placement of the bomb was intended to limit the no. of people killed but cause a lot of disruption. The IRA could have easily killed a lot more by putting it somwhere on a train.

From the news reports, it sounds like AQ was involved with the syncronised bombing designed to kill as many innocents as possible. I've never heard of ETA doing anything on this scale

 

[epicstruggle]

I was at Waterloo East Rail station once and an IRA bomb exploded just minutes after I boarded the train. One person died because it was placed inside an isolated male lavatory. At the time, I thought the placement of the bomb was intended to limit the no. of people killed but cause a lot of disruption. The IRA could have easily killed a lot more by putting it somwhere on a train.

From the news reports, it sounds like AQ was involved with the syncronised bombing designed to kill as many innocents as possible. I've never heard of ETA doing anything on this scale

Lets see what happens. When a group such as ETA kills innocents and a target, it seems like a small step to just whole sale killing. BUT AQ does seem like a more logical suspect.

later,
epic

 

[epicstruggle]

Does anyone know if ETA has accused an off shoot of their group as being responsible.

later,
epic

 

[pax]

Even if they kept it secret from the public the terror groups are strongly suspected of being networked. The precedent would be awful.

Not to mention the likelyhood of leaks...

 

[pax]

Creepy message from those claming responsibility for the madrid attacks. A similar attack on the us is '90%' ready...

I wonder how many of those attacks it would take to derail this years us elections... or worse, how many attacks of this scale this year would accomplish al quaeda's insane goal of derailing democracy in the west in general to the point of causing a christian-muslim world conflict.

Probably a lot for the latter but I wonder about the former.

As an addendum it looks like spanish elections are on hold. At the very least the campaign has been suspended according to cbc news...

 

[epicstruggle]

pax, Those are interesting question. Ill tackle the one that is more likely to happen:"what effect will terrorist attacks have on US elections"

I think one of the strengths of bush's presidency post 9/11 is the prevention of new terrorists acts. Thats one of Ashcrofts strength too. The patriot act will also take a hit if a terrorist act occurs. So if bombs are detonated such as the one in Spain, Bush will have a temporary bump in popularity, but will then nose dive as people will no longer associate safety with bush. Kerry will pounce on any civilian deaths like theres no tomorrow, and make that an issue.

later,
epic

 

[nutball]

I wonder how many of those attacks it would take to derail this years us elections... or worse, how many attacks of this scale this year would accomplish al quaeda's insane goal of derailing democracy in the west in general to the point of causing a christian-muslim world conflict.

If we get to the latter situation, then the terrorists have won, which is why it must not be allowed to happen.

Fundamentally so long as a democracy is strong-willed and doesn't succomb to the temptation to fight terrorists back on their own terms, then the terrorists cannot win.

It is difficult, personally I think it's impossible, for democracies to defeat terrorism using miltary means. This is the big mistake we made in this country fighting the IRA during the 70's IMO -- the introduction on internment and shoot-to-kill policies are counter-productive. They just breed resentment and make the problem worse.

If you look at examples of where long-running campaigns by terrorist organisations have run their course (the ANC in South Africa, the IRA in the UK *touch wood*), it's because both sides fought themselves to a stalemate. They realised that the solution was political, not military. From what I've read of ETA yesterday it sounds like they also were reaching this point.

I thought and hoped a few years ago that the Israel-Palestine situation had reached that point, but it appears that both sides decided to give it "one more heave".

But they key point is that the democracy involved has to remain strong and not decend to the level of the terrorists. I strongly believe this is the only way we (the West) will defeat AQ. It's going to be a long haul, but in the end it's the only way.

 

[epicstruggle]

But they key point is that the democracy involved has to remain strong and not decend to the level of the terrorists. I strongly believe this is the only way we (the West) will defeat AQ. It's going to be a long haul, but in the end it's the only way.

Although I agree with you in spirit, its not practical for politicians to go with this stand. Look if you see 192 of you fellow citizens die, what politician is going to take the high road? Its more sound to go after the terrorist, or what will happen is your political enemies will come after you for going soft. I think AQ has been scrambling from what bush has done. Going after AQ has stoped much of their fund raising/distribution, their travel has been effected.

The problem is we dont know if we are killing them faster then they can recruit.

later,
epic

 

[nutball]

Although I agree with you in spirit, its not practical for politicians to go with this stand. Look if you see 192 of you fellow citizens die, what politician is going to take the high road? Its more sound to go after the terrorist, or what will happen is your political enemies will come after you for going soft. I think AQ has been scrambling from what bush has done. Going after AQ has stoped much of their fund raising/distribution, their travel has been effected.

Clearly we go after the terrorists -- I'm not suggesting we just sit back and take it. The issue is whether we use means that we'd find acceptable when dealing with any other type of criminal activity, or we resort to using the sort of tactics that the terrorists use (eg. assassinations, abductions, etc.).

The Israelis go through phases of persuing this latter policy quite vigorously, and in the end it hasn't done them much good. Sure, they kill the leader of Hamas, or whatever every once in a while. The leader is replaced, and the recruitment for that organisation goes through the roof. The support for the terrorists within their community is enhanced by such actions.

In the end it's not the terrorists themselves who need to be defeated (though chewing through them is part of the process). The way to defeat terrorism is to make the people who fund and support the organisations realise that the terrorist activity is getting them nowhere.

As for AQ, it may be the case that the ease with which it can move money and people around has been reduced, but it's not clear to me that the actual sources of money are drying up. More importantly I don't see many signs of support for AQ within the radical Islamic world dropping off, I don't see many former supporters and sympathisers starting to distance themselves from AQ. So long as such support exists, AQ as an organisation will continue to adapt and to pull off some of their attacks. With improved security and intelligence we can thwart a large fraction of them, but we'll never be 100% effective because of the nature of terrorism.

Patience, guile and a strong jaw are what's needed. The over-liberal use of the fists won't get us anywhere, just like it won't get the terrorists anywhere.

 

[epicstruggle]

You say that you dont see " I don't see many signs of support for AQ within the radical Islamic world dropping off, I don't see many former supporters and sympathisers starting to distance themselves from AQ" but how would you know if it has/hasnt happened? Unless you work for the intelligence community, what most people from the CIA (et al) have said contradicts what you see. Im not trying to bust your balls (no pun intended), but when you capture/kill some of the top members of AQ, thats real progress.

later,
epic

 

[nutball]

You say that you dont see " I don't see many signs of support for AQ within the radical Islamic world dropping off, I don't see many former supporters and sympathisers starting to distance themselves from AQ" but how would you know if it has/hasnt happened? Unless you work for the intelligence community, what most people from the CIA (et al) have said contradicts what you see.

True. On the other hand the intelligence organisations have a vested interest in getting a bit of positive press. Especially after the debacles of 11/9 and the Iraq war. I wouldn't put a little bit of positive spinning beyond them.

Im not trying to bust your balls (no pun intended), but when you capture/kill some of the top members of AQ, thats real progress.

It's a set-back for them, I'm not suggesting it isn't. Whether is represents the beginning of the end for them is an entirely different question.

 

[epicstruggle]

It's a set-back for them, I'm not suggesting it isn't. Whether is represents the beginning of the end for them is an entirely different question.

Which is why I said "The problem is we dont know if we are killing them faster then they can recruit." Thats the real question. If we can kill/capture faster than they can recruit "top leadership" than we are winning.

later,
epic

 

[epicstruggle]

11 different countries had citizens die in that train bomb blast. So not just spanish civilians among dead.

later,
epic

 

[London Geezer]

Well i guess it's AQ that's behind this... Or at least that's what's believed after the letter sent to an Arabic Newspaper in London.
Could have been anyone in my opinion... And ETA never seemed to me so "extreme" to be willing kill hundreds of people of different backgrounds at once. But what do i know...

 

[Humus]

I wonder if there's any significance to that this attack occured March 11, exactly 2.5 years after September 11.

 

[epicstruggle]

I wonder if there's any significance to that this attack occured March 11, exactly 2.5 years after September 11.

Didnt see that connection. Maybe an ETA-AQ pact to work together. If theres oil in spain, im sure we'll go in.

later,
epic

 

[Druga Runda]

I wonder how many of those attacks it would take to derail this years us elections... or worse, how many attacks of this scale this year would accomplish al quaeda's insane goal of derailing democracy in the west in general to the point of causing a christian-muslim world conflict.

If we get to the latter situation, then the terrorists have won, which is why it must not be allowed to happen.

Fundamentally so long as a democracy is strong-willed and doesn't succomb to the temptation to fight terrorists back on their own terms, then the terrorists cannot win.

It is difficult, personally I think it's impossible, for democracies to defeat terrorism using miltary means. This is the big mistake we made in this country fighting the IRA during the 70's IMO -- the introduction on internment and shoot-to-kill policies are counter-productive. They just breed resentment and make the problem worse.

If you look at examples of where long-running campaigns by terrorist organisations have run their course (the ANC in South Africa, the IRA in the UK *touch wood*), it's because both sides fought themselves to a stalemate. They realised that the solution was political, not military. From what I've read of ETA yesterday it sounds like they also were reaching this point.

I thought and hoped a few years ago that the Israel-Palestine situation had reached that point, but it appears that both sides decided to give it "one more heave".

But they key point is that the democracy involved has to remain strong and not decend to the level of the terrorists. I strongly believe this is the only way we (the West) will defeat AQ. It's going to be a long haul, but in the end it's the only way.

I totally agree.

 

[Evildeus]

Well, concerning the AZF, they didn't pay any €, and it seems that it was just a gang looking for a way to get money quickly .

Poor spanish people