I'm Sorry, But I Smell Bullshit! (long)

Okay, everyone’s pissed off and screaming at one another over exactly who’s to blame over the bombing in Madrid and if the Spanish election is a sign of capitulation, but folks, I think you’re missing something here. Something very fucking important.

Let’s look at a couple of things here, shall we? The terrorists would have had, at best, two years to plan this operation. That’s assuming that they knew the US/British invasion of Iraq was a forgone conclusion. Which would mean that they not only had some kind of high level contacts with the Iraqi’s but also with the Bush Administration! Now, it’s pretty much been proven that Saddam wasn’t interested in hooking up with Al Qaeda, so we know that they weren’t talking to one another with Saddam telling Al Qaeda, “It doesn’t matter what the US does, I ain’t leaving.” Anyone want to claim that a US politician would be so foolish as to have any contact with a terrorist organization after 9/11?

And we know that the bombings were in retaliation for Spain’s support of the Iraq invasion, because people who were willing to mass murder told us so. Well, shit, call me crazy, but IMHO, people willing to kill innocent human beings are also going to be willing to lie. I might be wrong, I could be totally mistaken, but somehow I don’t think so.

But let’s forget all of that for a moment, let’s say that two years ago, Al Qaeda decided that they were going to “get Spain” for backing the US in a war that had yet to happen. To do this, they’re going to need operatives. If they don’t have any operatives “in country” they’re going to have to get them into Spain. And while I’m sure that Spain’s equivalent of the INS hasn’t succumbed to the level of paranoia US INS has, they’re no doubt working closely with US authorities in the wake of 9/11 and would be eyeing any potential immigrant with at least a slightly higher level of interest than they had in the past. This would make it harder to get operatives into the country, and you’re not going to want them to be carrying anything with them (like say, explosives or a copy of How to Make Your Own Bombs by I. M. Anutjob). In fact, you’re probably going to want them to arrive in the country, not knowing very much at all about the operation, since something could go wrong while they’re trying to enter the country, and the craven bastard might decide to rat you out in order to save his own skin.

Now once you’ve got your operatives “in country,” they’re going to have to do their best to blend in. Can’t have them wandering around looking at places and asking people, “Do you think that this is a good place to stick a bomb if you wanted to kill large numbers of people?” This means that they’ll have to get jobs, find places to live, and then select not only their targets, but also the method that they’ll use.

Once you’ve selected your targets, and your method of attack, you’ve got to procure the means to do so. I’ve never been to Spain, but I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that you can’t walk into the nearest hardware store, buy a couple hundred pounds of dynamite with no questions asked. Of course, you could always make or steal your explosives, and it’s possible that the authorities in Spain don’t keep the same level of tabs on the various components needed to make a bomb as they do here in the US, but do you really want to take that chance? After all, once you’ve done the deed, you can be assured that the authorities will be checking every possible source for your materials and all it takes one shopkeep with a halfway decent memory to point the authorities in your general direction.

The method of attack is pretty interesting. I believe that it’s the first time that Al Qaeda’s ever used cell phones to trigger bombs. Now, I used to have a job assembling cell phones, and I could probably figure out how to do it given enough time and materials, and it’s certainly possible that Al Qaeda could have found a manual from some other terrorist organization with instructions on how to do that, but no matter how they figured out how to do it, you’re gonna want to test it out. It’s no good attempting such a thing if the phone can’t get a signal in the target area. How you conduct the test, and how long it takes you is somewhat dependant upon how you’ve rigged the phone up. Also, you’re most likely going to want a very strong signal to the phone, if you’re going to be triggering the bomb by calling the cell phone from a safe distance away.

One has to wonder why they weren’t using suicide bombers. The Palestinian terrorists seem to have an endless supply of idiots willing to die for a chance at post-mortem pussy, so why couldn’t Al Qaeda find ones to do it? They had at least 19 of them in the US prior to 9/11, why not have some in Spain as well? I realize that you can’t get them out of vending machines, but surely they must have some guys willing to die for the cause, right?

That’s an awful lot to do in two years, don’t you think? Especially since not only has Spain been attacked by “homegrown” terrorists, but Spanish authorities have arrested a number of folks in the wake of 9/11 who had contact with the 9/11 hijackers, so it’s not like they didn’t know that they had members of Al Qaeda on Spanish soil. Now, let’s add in the fact that Spanish authorities had been arresting folks fairly recently who were in possession of bombmaking materials, so there’s going to be a lot of “heat” out there looking for people trying to do what you’re planning. Enough to make you want to crawl back under the covers and hide, isn’t it? Yet you go ahead and do it anyway.

Hmmm. Methinks the folks who claim that the terrorists were doing this as a “payback” for the whole Iraq war business are wrong. We know that the 9/11 attacks took close to a decade to plan and carry out. Assuming that Bin Laden and his cronies have some brains, they would have had to figure that the various member nations of NATO would fall in lock-step with the US after 9/11. They might not remain that way forever, but certainly for at least a year or more, they’d be on the US’s side. So, it seems logical to me that part of the pre-planning for 9/11 would include having agents scattered into as many NATO nations as possible. The idea being that once you hit the US, you follow it up with attacks on the other nations to show them that siding with the US will cost them.

However, this plan hits a couple of snags. The first being that a large portion, if not all of the US side of the operation gets taken down within days of 9/11 happening. Any agents that are left in the US have to keep a very low profile. Next Afghanistan folds like a house of cards once NATO begins pounding the shit out of it. Your agent in Britain, gets the crap beat out of him when he can’t get his shoes to explode on the plane, this causes the British wing of the operation to either be shut down, or to go as far underground as any remaining US operatives. In fact, all over Europe, your operatives are having problems, including Spain where a number of them are getting arrested.

So, you divert your attention to “softer” targets. You hit people in countries where one wouldn’t expect Al Qaeda to attack. This makes everyone jumpy, keeps your names in the headlines, and allows you to thump your chest while proclaiming, “We’re still around, and you can’t kill us.” Yet, this also causes the authorities in NATO countries to redouble their efforts to find your agents in their country.

Now, suppose you still had one NATO country with a large network of operatives in it. You’d taken some losses there, it’s true, but that country still had a large number of operatives able to act without attracting suspicision. Then, holy shit! They’re getting busted! What’s happening here? Okay, we’ll slack off a bit, nope, can’t do that, our organization’s being pruned pretty heavily. Okay, okay, got to make a slight change in plans. Screw the suicide bombers, we can’t afford to lose what few people we have operating in the country, so we’ll change tactics, so that they’ll be able to blow shit up, get away, and do it again. Damn! We’re still taking losses and no one’s been able to blow anything up! Okay, okay, we’ve got to do something because they’re really breathing down our necks. Well, there’s these elections coming up, so people will already be cranky and pissed off, we’ll hit just before then and hope that our boys can get away to do something later on. We can claim that it was because Spain backed the US in Iraq, nice topical tie-in, and they’ll never know that we had been planning to do something like this all along.

IOW, Al Qaeda had been planning to blow shit up in Spain all along, but they decided to act now, because Spain was getting close to shutting down their operation and then they’d not have a base of operations to work out of. The terrorists wouldn’t have given a shit if Spain was opposed to the war in Iraq or not, that was just their excuse to blow things up! If Spain had been opposed to the war, they’d have justified their attack by some other means, like the fact that Spain has a number of their agents in prison, or they just didn’t like the way the Spanish wear their hair! They’re terrorists, their job is to spread terror, to blow things up.

After all, why hit Spain? They’re a bit player in the whole deal, it’s the US and Britain who’ve got the hard-on for Iraq. Why not hit those guys since they’re the ones with all the muscle and fire power? If your organization is as strong as you claim, then why not a big, flashy explosion in the US or Britain? Why blow up a bunch of people in Spain, and announce that your operation in the US is 90% complete? Why tip off the Americans, who seem likely to bomb the fuck out of anything that looks cross-eyed in their direction, that you’ve got an operation running in their country? You know that’s going to increase the chances of any agents operating in the US getting caught, so why do it?

The only reason I can think of, is that you’re making a desperate gamble, stabbing at the enemy where he seems weakest, and crying “Wolf” in hopes that he’ll runaway scared. Because it doesn’t matter who the hell wins elections in Spain or the US, they’re still going to come after your agents. They may not use the same methods as the current administrations, but they’re not going to allow you to operate if they can do anything about it. They can’t. You’ve killed too many of their people already for that to happen. The best you can hope for is a slight breathing space allowing you to regroup your forces and maybe try again years later.

So this arguing back and forth over who’s responsible and what the outcome of this or that election will be is fucking pointless! It doesn’t matter, goddamn it! It really fucking doesn’t! Because Europe, the US, and large parts of Asia have their economies so intertwined, that it doesn’t matter how much one of them gets pissed off at the other, they can’t afford to alienate any member for very long!

For fuck’s sake! Why the hell do you think that the US politicians pulled all that “Freedom Fries” bullshit? Because that was all they really could afford to do to show they were pissed off at the French! They damn well couldn’t seize all French owned corporations in the US or embargo French goods! Nor could the French do that to the US, so both the US politicians and the French politicians came up with little bullshit ways of showing that they were pissed at the other guys.

All that really matters is that the terrorists get shut down, and it doesn’t matter who gets voted into what fucking office, they’re going to everything they can to see that that happens.

Well, yeah, what you said, man.

That and my one point: is it just possible that the Spanish decided living under a conservative government wasn’t making them safer and that there was no point keeping it any longer?

And, hey, maybe it’s possible that the Spanish had other reasons for dumping the conservative government and the bombings were just the final nail in the coffin? You know, maybe they were wandering around and saying to themselves, “Gee, I don’t really like the conservatives, but they haven’t done enough to make me hate them so much that I vote for the other guys.” Then the bombings happen and they say, “Well fuck, I didn’t really like those assholes to begin with, but this is just too much for me to stand.”

Tuckerfan, your hypothesis is interesting and certainly sounds plausible, but much of your hypothesis depends on the fact that the bombings in Spain would have required at best two years to plan. How is it you come to this conclusion?

Add to that the suspicions that the Aznar Gov’t was pushing the ETA card just a little too hard while most of the evidence seems to point to islamists…

That’s not unreasonable either, until you realize that there was an 11% swing from the polls a few weeks prior to the election and the only event between that poll and the election that could have altered the numbers that dramatically was the bombings.

It stands to reason that the result of the election was a direct result of the bombings. 11% of voters don’t just change their minds on a whim, not with a national government at stake, without a very compelling reason.

Why the hell is Tuckerfan fixated on ‘two years’? The attacks could have been planned and carried out within a few months, you know.

  1. A (presumably) non-engineer will take a long time to learn enough about passenger trains to figure out how best to blow one up.
  2. More than likely, each of the nine(?) bombs used would have to be planted by a separate individual, in case a bomber was caught in the act. Finding at least nine people willing to take part in this kind of operation is hardly a weekend job.
  3. Bombs take a lot of time to build. Especially bombs with one-of-a-kind detonators based around jerry-rigged mobile phone circuitry, which appears to have been the case here.
  4. Pipelining the kind of funds required for this sort of attack is itself extremely time-consuming. Private bank accounts of suspected terrorists are being watched constantly all over Europe (and in the United States), and any number have already been frozen.
  5. 9/11 was a surprise attack on a country with what amounted to rubber-stamp security procedures. Spanish authorities deal with bombs on a monthly basis, and with bomb threats on an almost daily basis. They know what to look for much better than we did.

2 years is, if anything, on the short side.

That makes two of us smelling bullshit!

Hardly. How much time does it take to realize that A) The train is chock-a-block full of people and that B) Putting a bomb on/near the portions filled with people will most likely C) Fuck up a lot of people.

Eh. No shortage of Islamist radicals out there.

Well well well, tell us, Carlos the Jackal, why the fuck would a bomb with a cell detonator (one of a kind? Are you auditioning for hollywood or something) take an especially long amount of time to build? Such detonators have been the norm in Dagestan and Chechnya for years now, and the Islamists love to share trade secrets.

Sure, but not into Morocco, conveniently next door. A sack of cash and ferry ride later, money is in.

Has no bearing on the ‘two year’ figure being bandied about.

I told you! I knew I smelled bullshit around here! 2 years may be a convient figure for your argument, but that doesn’t make it any more accurate. Regardless, if the attacks were planned from a decade ago, it doesn’t excuse the fear-vote that took place.

Thank you for your response, RNATB. However, it appears to me that it contains quite a number of suppositions. Alternative explanations could be as follows:

1)AQ has engineers or educated scouts who could figure this out in relatively short order.

2)True. Not a weekend job, but for AQ, with thousands of hopeful operatives, not that hard to come by.

3)I don’t know how long such bombs take to build, but I would think not that long if they were constructed by someone who knew how. And perhaps they weren’t constructed in Spain, but elsewhere and then shipped or smuggled in to AQ’s operatives.

4)Funds wouldn’t necessarily be that big a problem if the operatives weren’t in Spain that long, and were using cash which had been sent in from outside or through sympathisers living in Spain.

5)Regardless of their experience, the bombs were successfully planted, probably as a result of exploiting certain areas of vulnerability. Once again, this wouldn’t necessarily take all that long, requiring instead someone with a knack for spotting these areas of vulnerability.

I would think that such an attack could have been carried out in a matter of months. But the OP is pretty clear about the 2 year time frame, and your hypothesis suggests that even more time would likely be needed. I’m wondering why or where he came up with the 2 year time frame.

It occurs to me that if they’re using a cell phone to set off the bombs, maybe we can pre-emtively blow up terrorists en route to their targets by just having four or five auto-dialers in the Pentagon basement somewhere just ringing every number in existence :slight_smile:

How big was GWB’s bounce in opinion polls after 9/11?

The thing is that I sure some of the people of Spain chose to change their vote because of the blaming of ETA while others changed because they felt that the conservatives support of the US was to blame. Maybe others changed their vote as a plea to the terroists to stop killing them but I’m positive there is not just one reason why the vote went the way it did.

Am I the only person bothered by the media saying that the Spanish goernment was ‘overthrown’ by the election.* They just elected a different party. They still have the same government.

*Heard several places but on CNN this morning.

In parlimentary systems, the term “government” is used for what in the US we would call an “administration”. Thus, when one party loses the election, it is spoken of as a change in government.

I think the main objectionable thing is the verb “overthrown.” Nobody overthrew anything. They voted in a free and fair national election.

Stay where you are. Do not use the phone or your computer terminal. We know your position. Remain calm and you will not be harmed.

could it be possible that the bombing encouraged more people to go out and vote?

or is it just convenient for the Usual Suspects to use this tragedy to bash Europeans?

The plot thickens.

Again, as in the other thread on this issue, we have people wading in and declaring that, based on pre-election polling, the only possible conclusion is that the bombing won the election for the PSOE. This position contains both some ignorant assumptions and, in some cases, offensive implications.

What those holding this position conveniently ignore is that:

a) a dramatic event like the bombing, even if it doesn’t change people’s minds about who to vote for, can bring more people to the polls. A BBC article from Sunday morning predicted a high voter turnout, and in countries where voting is not compulsory (like Spain) a higher turnout can significantly affect the outcome of an election. The result does not necessarily mean that people voted differently; it could simply indicate that more people voted, and that the new voters were more likely to support the PSOE.

Spanish newspaper El Mundo put voter turnout at 77.2%, which is 8.5 percentage points higher than the previous federal election, according tothis source.

b) Contrary to Airman Doors’s unsubstantiated assertion that the bombing was the “only event between that poll and the election that could have altered the numbers that dramatically,” it is completely plausible that, without the bombing, other factors might have caused people to change their minds. In all democratic countries, even in the absence of a dramatic event, poll numbers can often swing dramatically in the final days before an election.

In the absence of counterfactual evidence (i.e., how the elections would have gone without the bombing), any speculation about how significantly the bombing affected the final result is just that–speculation.

c) There also seems to be, among some Dopers, an almost religious belief in poll numbers. Anyone with more than, say, three minutes’ experience watching American politics should know that polls can often be wildly inaccurate. First of all, they generally have considerable margin for error. The BBC article cited above says that the Conservatives’ lead just before the bombing was 4.5%, but most or even all of that could be accounted for by the margin of error.

Just as importantly–and i know this is going to shock some of you–there are people who will tell a pollster one thing, and then do something different on voting day. Sometimes this is simply because they haven’t yet made up their mind when the poll is taken, or it could be one of a bunch of other reasons. Whatever the reason, polls are not always accurate predictors of election results. If they were, we could just hold the polls iinstead of the elections.
I’m not saying that the bombing had no effect on the election. I’m sure it did have an effect. But to make some sort of definitive statement about who would and would not have won in the absence of the bombing is to completely misunderstand the nature of pre-election polls.

And if the bombing did have an effect on the election, so what? The offensive aspect that sometimes enters this debate–and Airman Doors is not guilty of this–is the accusation that the Spaniards were cowards or “negotiating with terrorists” when they voted the conservatives out. (see Muad’Dib’s thread for some particularly egregious examples).

As i said in that thread:

“Are Spanish voters not allowed to take their own security into account when casting their ballot? Are they not allowed to decide that the benefit gained from assisting in Iraq (whatever benefit that may be) is outweighed by the cost of 200 dead and 1400 injured Madrileños? Americans often talk about the importance of national security; is this only deemed to be important if it’s American national security that we’re talking about?”

Equally offensive is the notion, put forward by some, that the world would somehow be more difficult for terrorists if the PP had won the Spanish election, and that the world is now somehow safer for terrorists with the PSOE in power. I’m just waiting for this same argument to start getting trotted out here in the US in the run-up to the November election.

Maybe it was because of the bombings, but just not in the way everyone here keeps proposing?

Could it have gone something like this…?

Conservative Spanish Government spews the same line of bullshit that the Bush administration does. Their platform is absolute shit, but they keep playing the “We’re keeping you safe from terrorists and the other party can’t possibly protect you as well as we can” card. People there, like people here, swallow that big old load of crap.

That’s where you get your pre-bombing numbers.

Then BOOM.

People look around, see 200 dead and 2000 injured and say, “Bullshit! We put up with their total bullshit, anti-citizen policies…and we still get attacked. They couldn’t even stop what turned out to be the biggest terrorist attack in Europe in 20 years! Fuck 'em, they’re out.”

And that’s where you get your post-bombing numbers.

-Joe

Actually, there was a second reason: Aznar’s playing politics with the bombings, insisting it was the Basques well after they’d arrested the al-Qaeda operatives.

How about as an indirect result of the bombings, but as a direct result of the previous government’s lying about them?

When your government lies about, and plays politics with, something of this magnitude, it can get people to change their minds.

Wonder if this is one of those foreign films that will have a U.S. remake. :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=Brutus]
Why the hell is Tuckerfan fixated on ‘two years’?

[quote]
Because that’s how long it takes to read the interminable OP. :wink:

Heck, give me a week and four dedicated guys, and I could bring the city where I live to a complete standstill for the better part of a year.