hat the terrorist attack in Madrid, Spain happened on the 11.03?
It creeped me out. :(

I´m having a hard time believing this was ETA.

Sioban

"nachtigal" <nachtigal@mail2hell.com> wrote in message news:<c2s6jv$1qa$04$1@news.t-online.com>... hat the terrorist attack in Madrid, Spain happened on the 11.03? It creeped me out. :( I´m having a hard time believing this was ETA. Sioban

One more reason, if not one of the biggest reasons for us to enjoy
each day, foster love amongst our friends and families AND the rest of
the world and not take anything for granted.

I thought it was believed to be Alqaida-based, with possibly some support from
ETA?

nachtigal wrote: hat the terrorist attack in Madrid, Spain happened on the 11.03? It creeped me out. :( I´m having a hard time believing this was ETA. Sioban

"nachtigal" <nachtigal@mail2hell.com> writes:
hat the terrorist attack in Madrid, Spain happened on the 11.03? It creeped me out. :( I´m having a hard time believing this was ETA.

Somehow the numerology doesn't convince me that Al Qaeda was
involved.

Why would it not be the ETA?

It seems like if Al Qaeda is rational (maybe that is a stretch, but we
are always hearing about how well-organized and executed their plans
are) they would concentrate on the U.S. or on projects in which the
U.S. is a principal player.

By doing this, they stand a better chance of provoking the US (again)
to unilateral action and deepening the wedge between the US and
Europe.

In article <jcekryez2l.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson wrote: "nachtigal" <nachtigal@mail2hell.com> writes: hat the terrorist attack in Madrid, Spain happened on the 11.03? It creeped me out. :( I´m having a hard time believing this was ETA. Somehow the numerology doesn't convince me that Al Qaeda was involved. Why would it not be the ETA? It seems like if Al Qaeda is rational (maybe that is a stretch, but we are always hearing about how well-organized and executed their plans are) they would concentrate on the U.S. or on projects in which the U.S. is a principal player. By doing this, they stand a better chance of provoking the US (again) to unilateral action and deepening the wedge between the US and Europe.

If I was forced to bet who it was, at gunpoint, I would also bet on Al
Quaeda.

Note how quick was spanish leadership when they pointed to ETA, with
no evidence. Fairly obvious why, they have elections coming, they
joined the US in some anti-muslim actions, so if this terrorist act is
in fact due to Spain joining the US on those actions, they these
terrorist acts can be perceived by the electorate as the fault of the
Spanish leadership. So, this fingerpointing has a reason.

Second, ETA has never done anything approaching this particular
atrocity. Muclim terrorists, however, have done this numerous times.

That's what I said to my wife this morning.

This noon, it came out that ETA denied their responsibility, and
that Al Quaeda assumed responsibility.

It is not irrational for Al Quaeda to do this.

If, instead of Iraq, the US used these 250,000 troops to look for
Osama, they would have probably found him by now, although it is not a
certain claim.

i

"Ignoramus28275" <ignoramus28275@NOSPAM.28275.invalid>
wrote in message news:c2sv34$lt7$0@pita.alt.net... In article <jcekryez2l.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson wrote: "nachtigal" <nachtigal@mail2hell.com> writes: hat the terrorist attack in Madrid, Spain happened on the 11.03? It creeped me out. :( I´m having a hard time believing this was ETA. Somehow the numerology doesn't convince me that Al Qaeda was involved. Why would it not be the ETA? It seems like if Al Qaeda is rational (maybe that is a stretch, but we are always hearing about how well-organized and executed their plans are) they would concentrate on the U.S. or on projects in which the U.S. is a principal player. By doing this, they stand a better chance of provoking the US (again) to unilateral action and deepening the wedge between the US and Europe. If I was forced to bet who it was, at gunpoint, I would also bet on Al Quaeda. Note how quick was spanish leadership when they pointed to ETA, with no evidence. Fairly obvious why, they have elections coming, they joined the US in some anti-muslim actions, so if this terrorist act is in fact due to Spain joining the US on those actions, they these terrorist acts can be perceived by the electorate as the fault of the Spanish leadership. So, this fingerpointing has a reason. Second, ETA has never done anything approaching this particular atrocity. Muclim terrorists, however, have done this numerous times. That's what I said to my wife this morning. This noon, it came out that ETA denied their responsibility, and that Al Quaeda assumed responsibility. It is not irrational for Al Quaeda to do this. If, instead of Iraq, the US used these 250,000 troops to look for Osama, they would have probably found him by now, although it is not a certain claim.

I heard a report that the type of explosive used
matches recent ETA bombs,
but that could simply be what is easy to steal nearby.

Some reports claim that,
as Al Quaeda has been attacked after 9/11
it has become more willing
to share its technical expertise with other groups.
This may not be an either-or question.
--
Tsam

In article <Jtn4c.17265$%06.11376@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink .net>, Tsam Nami wrote: "Ignoramus28275" <ignoramus28275@NOSPAM.28275.invalid> wrote in message news:c2sv34$lt7$0@pita.alt.net... In article <jcekryez2l.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson wrote: "nachtigal" <nachtigal@mail2hell.com> writes:> hat the terrorist attack in Madrid, Spain happened on the 11.03?> It creeped me out. :(>> I´m having a hard time believing this was ETA. Somehow the numerology doesn't convince me that Al Qaeda was involved. Why would it not be the ETA? It seems like if Al Qaeda is rational (maybe that is a stretch, but we are always hearing about how well-organized and executed their plans are) they would concentrate on the U.S. or on projects in which the U.S. is a principal player. By doing this, they stand a better chance of provoking the US (again) to unilateral action and deepening the wedge between the US and Europe. If I was forced to bet who it was, at gunpoint, I would also bet on Al Quaeda. Note how quick was spanish leadership when they pointed to ETA, with no evidence. Fairly obvious why, they have elections coming, they joined the US in some anti-muslim actions, so if this terrorist act is in fact due to Spain joining the US on those actions, they these terrorist acts can be perceived by the electorate as the fault of the Spanish leadership. So, this fingerpointing has a reason. Second, ETA has never done anything approaching this particular atrocity. Muclim terrorists, however, have done this numerous times. That's what I said to my wife this morning. This noon, it came out that ETA denied their responsibility, and that Al Quaeda assumed responsibility. It is not irrational for Al Quaeda to do this. If, instead of Iraq, the US used these 250,000 troops to look for Osama, they would have probably found him by now, although it is not a certain claim. I heard a report that the type of explosive used matches recent ETA bombs, but that could simply be what is easy to steal nearby. Some reports claim that, as Al Quaeda has been attacked after 9/11 it has become more willing to share its technical expertise with other groups. This may not be an either-or question.

Sure. We'll have to see.

i

"Ignoramus28275" <ignoramus28275@NOSPAM.28275.invalid> wrote in message
news:c2sv34$lt7$0@pita.alt.net... If I was forced to bet who it was, at gunpoint, I would also bet on Al Quaeda.

Spain is such a non-player when it comes to the global balance of power. Why
would Al Qaeda attack it?

In article <c2t3cn$215fh5$1@ID-132000.news.uni-berlin.de>, DrLith wrote: "Ignoramus28275" <ignoramus28275@NOSPAM.28275.invalid> wrote in message news:c2sv34$lt7$0@pita.alt.net... If I was forced to bet who it was, at gunpoint, I would also bet on Al Quaeda. Spain is such a non-player when it comes to the global balance of power. Why would Al Qaeda attack it?

Some reasons that I can think of.

1. To deprive the US of current and future allies
2. It may be easier to attack some laid back country like Spain, so
they did it because they could
3. Someone in Al Quaeda gets paid by body count and not by political
impact (wrong incentives)
4. If it was Al Quaeda, chances are that it will topple the current
spanish government in elections.

Again, I am not completely convinced that it was Al Quaeda. But
I personally _estimate_ that it was more likely Al Quaeda than not.

I was much more certain that the Bush administration was lying about
Iraqi WMD, prior to war, than I am of Al Quaeda involvement in the
latest blasts. Anyway, knowing what I know, I would give 70-80% chance
that it was Al Quaeda.

i

"Ignoramus28275" <ignoramus28275@NOSPAM.28275.invalid> wrote in message
news:c2t498$2tb$0@pita.alt.net...
Spain is such a non-player when it comes to the global balance of power.
Why would Al Qaeda attack it? Some reasons that I can think of. 1. To deprive the US of current and future allies

Yup. I agree with you totaly on this one. Countries will be very unwilling
to help the US out the next time, if people will think of this as a
retalliation
for the help on the Iraqi war. (Of course it might end up having the
opposite effect, if people get too angry.)

But I noticed that politicians and the media have tried to tone down any
suspicion of Al Quaeda involvement.

2. Terrorist attacks are a great way to make money on the stock market.

The stock markets plunged everywhere, the german DAX dropped more than 250
points. All of its blue stocks stocks went totaly south.
They are starting to recover quite neatly. In a couple of days they´ll be at
their old level and some people will have made a great deal of money.

At first I thought it was just Al Quaeda, but now I think Al Quaeda and ETA
were tag team on this one.

The fact that this attact happened on 3/11 is NOT a coincidence. I don´t
believe in coincidences, when it comes to psychopaths.

Sioban

"Charlotte Schneider" <kelust@hotmail.com> writes:
The fact that this attact happened on 3/11 is NOT a coincidence. I don´t believe in coincidences, when it comes to psychopaths.

None of us believe in coincidences. And yet they continue to happen;
confounding human beings everywhere!

What I mean is that one of the things our brains are good at is
looking for patterns. Because finding patterns allows us to
generalize, looking for patterns is a good survival skill. But it is
a double-edged sword as it also encourages us to find patterns where
there may be none.

Did anyone notice that no one in Spain was reported whining "Why us" and "Why do they hate
us" ??

Fine example of maturity - if only more countries would do the same...

In article <31oer1epi3.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:
None of us believe in coincidences. And yet they continue to happen; confounding human beings everywhere!

Oh I don't know about that. I agree there are people who say "there
are no such things as coincidences" -- but I don't think that's because
we are good at seeing patterns where none exist -- but because there's
a deep desire to believe something is in control of everything, that we
are not at the whim of chance. So, in the end, do we believe in
coincidences or do we believe chance plays no role? Reluctantly, I
think most do accept that chance plays a role, wishfully thinking
otherwise.

But, then, some coincidences aren't coincidences. Those are the ones
to pay attention to.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <31oer1epi3.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: None of us believe in coincidences. And yet they continue to happen; confounding human beings everywhere! Oh I don't know about that. I agree there are people who say "there are no such things as coincidences"

Well, when I sid none of us believe in coincidences, I didn't mean to
be taken literally. Hence the succeeding paragraph which didn't make
it into your response where I begin with "What I mean is..."

That is, our brains are hardwired to look for patterns. So whether
we "believe in coincidences" or not, we will continue to look for
patterns. Sometimes we'll find them and the patterns will be real.
Sometimes we'll find them and the patterns won't be real. We'll
almost always find them though!

"Doug Anderson" wrote:
The fact that this attact happened on 3/11 is NOT a coincidence. I don´t believe in coincidences, when it comes to psychopaths. None of us believe in coincidences. And yet they continue to happen; confounding human beings everywhere! What I mean is that one of the things our brains are good at is looking for patterns. Because finding patterns allows us to generalize, looking for patterns is a good survival skill. But it is a double-edged sword as it also encourages us to find patterns where there may be none.

I´m usually not into conspiracy theories or cutting-edge politics.
I also understand, that sometimes coincidences are just that and other times
they are not.
And I´m usually not so stubborn about this.

But it´s hard to imagine, that someone planned this without considering how
the date might be interpreted.

If my limited knowledge about terrorists is correct, dates are extremely
important to them. Some organizations
are actually named after certain dates.

Anyway, only time will tell if it was some retaliation for the Iraqi war
help, or simply ETA being it´s usual nasty self...

Sioban

"nachtigal" <nachtigal@mail2hell.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" wrote: The fact that this attact happened on 3/11 is NOT a coincidence. I don´t believe in coincidences, when it comes to psychopaths. None of us believe in coincidences. And yet they continue to happen; confounding human beings everywhere! What I mean is that one of the things our brains are good at is looking for patterns. Because finding patterns allows us to generalize, looking for patterns is a good survival skill. But it is a double-edged sword as it also encourages us to find patterns where there may be none. I´m usually not into conspiracy theories or cutting-edge politics. I also understand, that sometimes coincidences are just that and other times they are not. And I´m usually not so stubborn about this. But it´s hard to imagine, that someone planned this without considering how the date might be interpreted. If my limited knowledge about terrorists is correct, dates are extremely important to them. Some organizations are actually named after certain dates. Anyway, only time will tell if it was some retaliation for the Iraqi war help, or simply ETA being it´s usual nasty self...

Yes, that's true.

"DrLith" <drlith@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2t3cn$215fh5$1@ID-132000.news.uni-berlin.de... "Ignoramus28275" <ignoramus28275@NOSPAM.28275.invalid> wrote in message news:c2sv34$lt7$0@pita.alt.net... If I was forced to bet who it was, at gunpoint, I would also bet on Al Quaeda. Spain is such a non-player when it comes to the global balance of power.
Why would Al Qaeda attack it?


Spain was the third largest country (besides the U.S. & Great Britain) to
support the Iraq war.

M9