Madrid

[mandragora]

Was it ETA, or was it Al Qaeda?

I note that the political wing of ETA denies responsibility. The scale and organisation of the attack suggests Al Qaeda. Spain was one of the few countries to support the US and UK's actions in Iraq.

Whoever is responsible as of writing 173 people are known to have died in Madrid today.

Comments

Ditto

[fides.livejournal.com]

I may be in the minority but I would much rather die free than live in a police state or someother type of country where human rights are sacrifised to give the majority a feeling of safety (which is likely to be false).

I know it sounds bad but maybe they feel they have to do something on that sort of scale now. Terrorism doesn't seem to count now unless it is something big. They have been blowing up the country for decades but terrorism only became an issue a few years ago. I guess if you are going to be a terrorist you need to be a terrorist that people pay attention to or what is the point? By conventional definition a terrorist uses force or the threat of force to try and intimidate to push their ideology or agenda. A piddling little bomb or attack that only killed a few people probably just wouldn't do that any more now the situation has esculated.

:-(

Fides

Re: Ditto

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

may be in the minority but I would much rather die free than live in a police state or someother type of country where human rights are sacrifised to give the majority a feeling of safety (which is likely to be false).

I don't know whether I'd rather die, but I'd give up my creature comforts by leaving for a free country.

As for the bombing, I note that ETA have denied responsibility, making it more likely that it was Al Quaeda. If so, then there is no 'reason' for this, except to show that they can.

And if it is Al Quaeda it does, of course, make it more likely that London will be next. Probably something even 'bigger' given Britain's greater involvement in Iraq.