April 06, 2004
NOOSE IS TIGHTENING
Did I write that the keywords were "Four weeks. Iraq and Afghanistan"?
Well, if it wasn't so tragic, it would almost start being fun to follow:
As the hunt for more suspects continued, Spanish police increased security at Madrid's train and bus stations after an Islamist group claiming responsibility for the March 11 rail attacks threatened to turn Spain into "an inferno".
The Spanish daily newspaper ABC said that, just hours before the terrorists killed themselves in Leganes on Saturday, it had received a fax signed by "Abu Dujana al-Afgani, Ansar Group, al-Qaida in Europe", warning of more strikes unless Spain withdrew its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan within 24 hours.
"If these demands are not met, we will declare war on you and ... convert your country into an inferno, and your blood will flow like rivers," the letter - which, according to ABC's report, was hand-written in Arabic - said.
So now it's 24 hours, which actually have ended on Monday a zero hours. And what about the bomb found on the railway track last Saturday?
It also asserted that the partly assembled bomb found on Friday on a high-speed train line was a warning intended to demonstrate the group's strength.
"We placed bombs on the high-speed line near Toledo and we could have made the trains that passed there Thursday or Friday blow up," said the letter, translated and printed in ABC today, "but we didn't because our objective is only to warn you and show that we have the force and capability — with permission of Allah the Highest — to attack whenever we want and however we want."
How to respond to this? Well, incoming PM Zapatero -- never the first one to go public with quick and clear decisions -- still seems to be in a 'deer caught in the headlights' moment. He's still in internal committees and strategy meetings preparing his takeover in mid April. However, some of his constituents seem to be getting the message: as I'm writing this (no online report yet) I'm watching on TV a demonstration in Leganés, the suburb where the five terrorists blew themselves up and killed a SWAT officer when they saw themselves cornered. What do you think is the main slogan of an event backed by the local council of a town where Islamo-fascists had just stricken?
"No to terrorism. No to war-based policies. Yes to an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq".
Appeasers? Naaaaaaah.
UPDATE. Haven't found much coverage of the demonstration in the English-speaking press; according to the Washington Post (you have to scroll down all the way to the bottom):
Meanwhile, thousands of people marched through a Leganes neighborhood Monday night in an antiwar demonstration. The marchers carried several large banners that read: "Damn the war, and the scoundrels that support it." Many chanted, "Get the troops out of Iraq now!" and "No blood for oil!"
Other lovely chants, Libertad Digital reports (link in Spanish), were "Aznar, you're guilty, you're responsible", "This happens because we have a fascist government" (yes, they do rhyme in Spanish), and my personal favorite for its unique moral obtuseness: "The working class is paying the price of the capitalist's war".
But don't be mistaken; that wasn't an alternative-lifestyle, anti-globalization rally organized by some fringe group; among the atendees (25,000, according to most news reports) were the bishop of the Getafe diocese (a nearby suburb); the chief strategist of Zapatero's party (kinda like Terry McAuliffe of Spain's Socialist Party); the mayor of Leganés, and Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega, the incoming deputy prime minister in Zapatero's government; that is, the next cabinet's number two.
Sheesh.
In related news, Madrid daily ABC reports today that Rummy may have had the chance to use some of his techniques with Jose Bono, future defense minister of Spain in an unofficial meeting at the Pentagon over the weekend.
I'd bet for Spider Hand.
[Posted by Franco Alemán from HispaLibertas]
Posted by Tim Blair at April 6, 2004 06:50 AMI thought the terrorists had increased their demands to Spain's withdrawal from Afghanistan. Zapatero's plan to withdraw from Iraq, and increase troop deployments in Afghanistan is obviously not enough for them...
Posted by: Anthony at April 6, 2004 at 07:15 AM"No to terrorism." Specifically, 'No, we won't stand in your way. You want our -- ahem, your -- cities in Morroco, too? Sure thing. You want us out of Andalusia? Sure, no problem. Where's that, anyway? Ohhh...'
Perhaps Aznar's gut reaction to blame ETA was optimistic.
Posted by: Bob71 at April 6, 2004 at 07:34 AMDear Spain,
When bullies see that you're weak, they just keep picking on you. It's when you stand up to them that they stop. I learned this on a playground in Minnesota when I was nine. It works, check it out.
Now they mention Afghanistan. But the UN supports the Afghanistan operation.
What's next? Crying about East Timor? Requiring Spain to withdraw from their North African enclaves?
Posted by: bsc at April 6, 2004 at 07:44 AM"Here, take whatever you want and we'll be good. Just don't hurt us any more!" Murdering Muslims and extortionists strike in terror, and some Spaniards are just terror-stricken and in a capitulating mood.
"How dare you for making us suffer so! We defy you from this day forward!" Islamist psychopaths terrorize innocents, and some Spaniards resolutely shake their fists in anger right back... and they're shaking them at the US.
They have seen the face of the enemy and that enemy is us.
Posted by: c at April 6, 2004 at 07:54 AMSpot on Ken J. Running away from bullies only encourages them. Better to hit back hard. Works out better in the long run.
Posted by: Mark Richardson at April 6, 2004 at 08:57 AMBongoman, I would file what I said under common sense, not logic.
This is logic: Just yesterday, completely out of the blue, I started calling my cat, who is named Duane, Bongo. I called him Bongo and asked him if he was from coconut island (he's actually from Albuquerque). Therefore, in my reasoning, you are from coconut island. Just like anyone else named bongo. In fact you should change your little moniker to Bongo von Coconut.
Posted by: Ken J at April 6, 2004 at 09:06 AMbongoman says, "The terrorists aren't the bullies, the U.S. is!" Everyone stands in awe, and verily, they are convinced.
Posted by: Matt Moore at April 6, 2004 at 09:14 AMKen J - "When bullies see that you're weak, they just keep picking on you. It's when you stand up to them that they stop. I learned this on a playground".
You think terrorist attacks against the US will stop? (Just because it 'thinks' it's doing something about it?)
GET REAL.
America WILL lose this war. Not militarily of course. I mean hearts and minds world-wide. And unless the US realises that fact, they will continue to fight an enemy they can't see clearly and an enemy they can't predict very well.
Posted by: rhactive at April 6, 2004 at 09:52 AMYeah, rhactive. The US *will* lose this war.
Because... er... because it's just *gotta*.
No, wait. Why, again? (What do worldwide hearts and minds have to do with *Islamism*, again? How does French or Russian apathy or antipathy breed anti-American terrorism, exactly? Please explain, O wise one.)
Posted by: Sigivald at April 6, 2004 at 09:55 AMbsc- "Requiring Spain to withdraw from their North African enclaves?"
And American independence wasn't based on Britain withdrawing from the States? I guess you'd be happy if Britain retained a few states on your eastern seaboard?
GET REAL!
rhactive:
Yes, the US will win this war; more to the point, Islam will lose it. The only question is how many Muslims will die in the process.
Posted by: Dean Douthat at April 6, 2004 at 09:59 AM"America WILL lose this war. Not militarily of course. I mean hearts and minds world-wide. And unless the US realises that fact, they will continue to fight an enemy they can't see clearly and an enemy they can't predict very well.
Posted by: rhactive at April 6, 2004 at 09:52 AM"
So dictators, slavers (you do know that Sudanese are being enslaved, right this very moment, by Arab traders), and countries like France and Russia won't like us?
Fuck that club of vicious exploitative fiends. I mean, unless you think the rulers of the North Koreans, Chinese, and Cubans are worthy of the US's friendship.
You probably think they're better than the US. You sorry, immoral soul. I do pity you.
I'm sorry, I must have missed Zapatero's announcement that Spanish troops are going to be withdrawn from Afghanistan.
When did that occur?
Posted by: Mork at April 6, 2004 at 10:25 AMwell, if Zappie took the madrid attack seriously, then he has to take this one seriously too.
The important point is that the terrorists think they won that one and they will expect spain to acquiese.
If spain does not, then boom time. The only issue is not if but when the boom happens and what Zappie' s decision will be.
It will be interesting after this next boom having him justify one withdrawal over the other.
>rhactive -- And American independence wasn't based on Britain withdrawing from the States? I guess you'd be happy if Britain retained a few states on your eastern seaboard?
>GET REAL!
Actually, you should get real. Ever hear of Canada?
In any event, the North African enclaves were NEVER part of Morocco. Rather, they were garrisons going back (IIRC) to Ferdinand and Isabella, and their sucessors, who built a string a castles and towers along the North African coast to prevent pirates from attacking the Spainish mainland. Hence they are different from Gibraltar (which was once Spainish).
Posted by: bsc at April 6, 2004 at 10:42 AMrhactive!
You're back, and impressing us with your impeccable logic!
As another distinguished member of this blog would say:
RAWK! rhactive is a rhetard! RAWK!
Posted by: JeffS at April 6, 2004 at 11:03 AMHard to believe that the once proud conquistadors who butchered ther way through South Ameriaca and garroted tousands during the Spanish Civil wars are behaving like cowards.
When i was nine i also learnt that bullies turned to Jelly when faced with resistance.
Franco, with a nod to our Australian host and most excellent Aussie commenter community, I would suggest that "kangaroo caught in the headlights" would be more multiculturally sensitive.
Ken J:
When "bongoman" said "that logic works both ways" I took it to mean that we need to sic the nine-year-olds on the terrorists.
Posted by: Carl in N.H. at April 6, 2004 at 11:43 AM
Actually I took it to mean that bongo thinks that when people who are being victimized stand up to bullies they have just become bullies themselves. In other words, the usual rhetoric of an ex-bully who misses the fun of pushing people around and wants to get back in the game. Fuck off, bongoman.
As for rhactive... I am devastated by the amazing comment fu of teenage slogans typed in all caps. Honey, it's real cute that you're concerned with World Peace and stuff, but isn't it way past your bedtime?
Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 6, 2004 at 11:52 AMMork: I'm sorry, I must have missed Zapatero's announcement that Spanish troops are going to be withdrawn from Afghanistan. When did that occur?
Hold the mock sanctimony, Mork. A Spanish withdrawal from Afghanistan would have been more logical and taken more cojones than what they have cynically done: increased their troops to a stratospheric 250 - under pressure after their 'tactical retreat' from the hard yards of Iraq.
That's OK. Spanish machismo will be reasserted in the bullrings, where fools stab drugged animals while the 'tough guys' stand around outside big strong fences cheering.
Bongoman, coconut island has a bigger population than I thought. I don't know what bongo meant, to be honest. I was just pointing out that I was using common sense as opposed to logic.
On Saturday my cat Duane (I don't call him bongo, I mean, a name like that is ridiculous and demeaning. It's even worse if you're a man) was in our back yard. The neighbor's dog came in and Duane kicked his ass. The dog's a Cairn Terrier, so to a cat, he's still pretty big. Anyway, the dog hasn't been back since. What's the lesson we learned? That my cat is smarter than leftys.
And please don't compare Duane to Al Qaeda and the dog to the US, becuase the dog started it.
Posted by: Ken j at April 6, 2004 at 12:23 PMilibcc: OT, but that reminds me of a story my parents told me, about the time they went to Mexico (back in the fifties) and almost started a riot at a bullfight because they started shouting "toro! toro!" See, they'd seen it in movies, but apparently you aren't really supposed to be on the bull's side...
Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 6, 2004 at 12:32 PMI apologise for interrupting mid-stream here, but thought I should, in the interests of balanced reporting, inform you that the CIA and the State Department have admitted that the war in Iraq has increased the danger to the US (and its allies, I presume).
Don’t worry about the lapse in reportage, Tim -- I guess these things are easy to miss. Especially when the news comes via the CIA rather than the easily lambasted leftymedia. So maybe its time to have a think about whether its better to continue asserting your moral correctness via ‘discipline of the baseball bat’ OR whether its time to start preserving people's lives. Discuss.
PS. And don't act like you don't enjoy having the occasional sacrificial lefty for a good ol' vitriol frenzy you angry, angry people.
No anger Shaun.
Just cool analysis.
Either you agree with it or you don't. Short term danger increased. Long term danger?
Posted by: ilibcc at April 6, 2004 at 01:53 PMShaun;
Sure, but it beats going to bull fights.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at April 6, 2004 at 01:55 PMOf course, if we can get them all fighting under the same umbrella, it will eventually be easier to track and kill them/imprison them.
I mean, if they're all killing hot about testing themselves against the US military in Iraq, we might as well give them our best shot, yes? All for the sake of self-improvement.
Posted by: Steve in Houston at April 6, 2004 at 01:55 PMShaun:
Y'know, the House posts transcripts on the Web. The one referenced in your link can be found at:
http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/108/bla040104.htm
My read is that "The Age" quoted out of context. Mr. Black did say those things. He also points out the good things that happened, and....
In conclusion, I should stress that while we have made substantial progress toward eradicating the threat posed by al-Qaida, we are on a long, tough road, and we cannot afford to falter.
The al-Qaida organization has been gravely wounded, and forced to evolve in new ways to survive. However, al-Qaida is a patient, resourceful and flexible organization and is able to draw from a global support base of jihadists and international mujahedin movement. It must be denied safe haven and kept on the run, while we starve it of its resources, dismantle its cells, and apprehend its foot soldiers at our borders. We must more than match its flexibility and resolve, and commit to combat al-Qaida over the long haul, for there can be no accommodation with this evil.
There's more along this line, and almost none of it in that article. Go and read it, and see what Mr. Black really said.
Then ask about a "lapse in reporting".
Posted by: JeffS at April 6, 2004 at 01:55 PMJ. Cofer Black, as mentioned above, said the following (from the Washington Post):
"[T]he United States and its allies have systematically captured and killed almost 70 percent of the al Qaeda leadership, bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, are on the run and unable to provide operational leadership. Bin Laden's effectiveness as a plotter of terrorist acts has been "greatly reduced," Black said."
But also that:
"The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has accelerated the spread of Osama bin Laden's anti-Americanism among once local Islamic militant movements, increasing danger to the United States as the al Qaeda network is becoming less able to mount attacks, according to senior intelligence officials at the CIA and State Department."
So, we have a decreased threat from al-Qaeda and "organized" movements and an increase in anti-Americanism among local militant movements. I doubt that they were big supporters of the US before the Iraq liberation.
Umm, like we didn't know this would happen in the short-term? Whether we went into Iraq or not, these radical elements would have emerged as the next threat. Only now, they cannot use the state resources of an Iraq, or a Libya, or an Iran, or a Syria in order to wage large scale attacks against the U.S.
Big problems first; smaller problems later.
SMG
--I apologise for interrupting mid-stream here, but thought I should, in the interests of balanced reporting, inform you that the CIA and the State Department have admitted that the war in Iraq has increased the danger to the US (and its allies, I presume).--
Well, there's a f**n' duh! statement. The CIA's only saying this now?
Where have they and you been for the past 2-1/2 years???
Of course it's going to get worse before it gets better, it's war.
Posted by: Sandy P. at April 6, 2004 at 02:39 PMMassive thanks to Franco for continuing to update us here. Well done.
Posted by: tim at April 6, 2004 at 02:40 PMnote to Carl in NH, Kangaroos when caught in headlights do not stand & look bewildered. A kangaroo caught in the headlights is about to smash into your car & end your journey
Posted by: Steve at April 6, 2004 at 02:42 PMI'm sure that in early 1942 shaun would have pointed out tha the US and its Allies were everywhere on the defensive and therefore we should just surrender to Nazi Germany and Japan. Hey. If it's not perfect, let's not do it is the second best leftie motto. (The first would appear to be if it's hard let's not do it.)
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at April 6, 2004 at 04:53 PMThat school-yard "common-sense" doesn't have a flip-side at all.......
"The fighting erupted when five trucks of US soldiers and the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps (ICDC) tried to enter the district and were attacked by Sadr supporters, Amid said.
Coming under fire, the ICDC, a paramilitary force trained by the Americans, turned on the US soldiers and started to shoot at them, according to Amid.
The soldiers fled their vehicles and headed for cover and then began to battle both the Mehdi Army and the ICDC members, he said. Their vehicles were set ablaze."
What has standing up to a bully got anything to do with being stabbed in the back by Irqi police?
Posted by: rainier at April 6, 2004 at 06:04 PMJorgXMcKie, of course one could have avoided 1942 by simply finding out what Mr. Hitler wanted in 1938 and giving it to him....opps, the Brits and the French tried that and still got 1942.
What the Left has not quite realized is that the West is at war.
America WILL lose this war. Not militarily of course. I mean hearts and minds world-wide. And unless the US realises that fact, they will continue to fight an enemy they can't see clearly and an enemy they can't predict very well.Not America, the West, will win this war simply because, at some point it will either succeed in wiping out the terrorist threat retail or, if the threat simply keeps on increasing, it will take the gloves off.
As I write a small, portly Shi'ite hoping to install a theocracy in Iraq is holed up in a mosque. He is protected by a motely militia who appear to have nothing heavier than RPGs. The Americans are going to take casualties getting him out by way of fire fight. Religious sensibilities and all. In three or four years this sort of nonsense will end with a 2000 lb bomb laser guided to four feet to the left of the minart, religious sensibilities be damned.
The Arab street will seethe. And no one will give a kangaroo's left buttock.
Posted by: Jay Currie at April 6, 2004 at 07:49 PM' Coming under fire, the ICDC, a paramilitary force trained by the Americans, turned on the US soldiers and started to shoot at them, according to Amid. '
Oh it comes from good old reliable Abbas Amid so of course it must be true. Actualy I don't have a clue who this guy is or why I should trust his version of events. Call me crazy but I don't automaticaly believe everything I read.
Posted by: Robin Wade at April 6, 2004 at 09:17 PMIn the end terrorists are like mosquitos trying to bite you. You know you can kill them (and you wouldn't feel all that sad about it) but until they bite you a few times you just try to wave them away because you can't be bothered going and getting the fly spray.
Posted by: scottie at April 6, 2004 at 10:28 PMInfidel dog! We give you four weeks to start supporting Latham!
Posted by: Richard al-McEnroe at April 7, 2004 at 01:34 AMPS. And don't act like you don't enjoy having the occasional sacrificial lefty for a good ol' vitriol frenzy you angry, angry people.
Looks more like you enjoy playing the poor persecuted lefty martyr thrown to the icky evil "angry people" role a bit too much, Shaun.
Posted by: Patrick Chester at April 7, 2004 at 01:43 AMJorgXMcKie, of course one could have avoided 1942 by simply finding out what Mr. Hitler wanted in 1938 and giving it to him....opps, the Brits and the French tried that and still got 1942.
Ah, but you fail to understand the intricacies of lefty logic. Britain and France got war not because they gave in to Hitler, but because they obviously didn't give him enough. I mean, there just had to be a way to placate the guy, right? Just like there just has to be a way to placate Islamist fanatics - and the Left will figure out what it takes. Who cares that it'll kill the rest of us in the meantime?
Posted by: PW at April 7, 2004 at 02:03 AM"Ah, but you fail to understand the intricacies of lefty logic. Britain and France got war not because they gave in to Hitler, but because they obviously didn't give him enough."
This is historically true. As a matter of fact many people at that time blamed Poland for starting the war: why didn't the stupid Poles give this nice Mr. Hitler what he wanted? After all, he only wanted a land corridor to Danzig (Gdansk) through Polish territory!!!!
And the French citizens declared that they would not die for Poland. They still think that they were right, hence their contempt for warmongering America.
Posted by: Katherine at April 7, 2004 at 03:18 AM