“If they weren’t terrorists before, they are now.”

[dannno]

Army Ranger Describes 2004 Roundup

Peter Boraas Tells of Beatings in Afghanistan
Friday, December 11, 2009
By Nick Welsh (Contact)

Last week Peter Boraas, a former Army Ranger who served in Afghanistan with football star Pat Tillman, explained to about 60 people at the Isla Vista Theater, how he helped round-up all the older men in a nearby Afghan village in search of Tillman’s ambushers after Tillman was shot to death while on patrol in 2004. “We must have looked like cyborg soldiers with glaring eyes and lasers on our weapons,” Boraas recounted. One member of his patrol was particularly incensed about Tillman’s death, he explained, beating all the detainees as they boarded the truck taking them from the village. “If they weren’t terrorists before, they are now,” Boraas recalled thinking at the time.

Tillman, it turned out, was the victim of accidental friendly fire, not a terrorist sniper as had been initially reported.

Boraas participated in panel discussion along with UCSB professors Richard Falk and Mark Juergensmeyer. Falk described the troop-build up announced by Barack Obama as a “murderous waste,” predicting, “This will have the political effect of generating the security threat we’re supposed to be preventing.” Juergensmeyer, who was likewise critical of the escalation, suggested that Obama was hoping to leave Afghanistan in “more thoughtful fashion” than when the United States first attacked it in 2001. Of the war he helped fight, Boraas said, “I see it as a total waste. We’re just fighting ourselves.”

http://www.independent.com/news/2009/dec/11/army-ranger-describes-2004-roundup/

Unfortunately most of the comments at the bottom are from the few neocons defending our foreign policy, and from one person who said they refused to vote for a non-viable candidates (and that McCain would be bombing Iran by now so Obama is "better")

[dannno]

bump

[dannno]

bump

[Pauliana]

wow

[Reason]

YouTube - If You Want to Stop Terrorism, Stop Killing Muslims (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW0eiPiuUuk)

[andrewh817]

Did suicide bombings start to happen before or after we invaded Afghanistan?

[dannno]

Did suicide bombings start to happen before or after we invaded Afghanistan?

See, you have that whole neocon timeline thing going on that doesn't make any sense. There was a world before the Afghanistan war. A world that you clearly know very little about. A world where our military and intelligence overthrew democratically elected leaders in Muslim countries and supplied various paramilitaries with arms at our convenience, and for the benefit of western industry and oil interests. A world where we bombed innocent civilians in Iraq. Where we supplied Israel with billions of dollars in aid which they have used to commit slow-genocide against the Palestinians. If you think we are saying the only reason they hate us because we are in Afghanistan, then you have missed the interpretation and are not aware of the true history of our involvement in the region.

[akforme]

Did suicide bombings start to happen before or after we invaded Afghanistan?

Well we first invaded the area in 1953 so you'd have to go back to before that to see.

[Kotin]

See, you have that whole neocon timeline thing going on that doesn't make any sense. There was a world before the Afghanistan war. A world that you clearly know very little about. A world where our military and intelligence overthrew democratically elected leaders in Muslim countries and supplied various paramilitaries with arms at our convenience, and for the benefit of western industry and oil interests. A world where we bombed innocent civilians in Iraq. Where we supplied Israel with billions of dollars in aid which they have used to commit slow-genocide against the Palestinians. If you think we are saying the only reason they hate us because we are in Afghanistan, then you have missed the interpretation and are not aware of the true history of our involvement in the region.

damn straight..

we have created every single fucking enemy and conflict in the last century.. we funded Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Al Queda, The Taliban, we caused Iran to hate us by overthrowin their leader for oil..

WE WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEMS IF WE DID NOT CREATE THEM OURSELVES!

[Cowlesy]

damn straight..

we have created every single fucking enemy and conflict in the last century.. we funded Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Al Queda, The Taliban, we caused Iran to hate us by overthrowin their leader for oil..

WE WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEMS IF WE DID NOT CREATE THEM OURSELVES!

Amazing how we didn't have all these problems back when we were fairly non-interventionist, aka Pre-WWI, and how much of this has come about since we started wielding imperial power.

F'ing Neocons.

[BlackTerrel]

See, you have that whole neocon timeline thing going on that doesn't make any sense. There was a world before the Afghanistan war. A world that you clearly know very little about. A world where our military and intelligence overthrew democratically elected leaders in Muslim countries and supplied various paramilitaries with arms at our convenience, and for the benefit of western industry and oil interests. A world where we bombed innocent civilians in Iraq. Where we supplied Israel with billions of dollars in aid which they have used to commit slow-genocide against the Palestinians. If you think we are saying the only reason they hate us because we are in Afghanistan, then you have missed the interpretation and are not aware of the true history of our involvement in the region.

I agree with you to a point. Although I think it is more complex than just doing what they say and they stop. Take a look at Spain.

1. Spain was originally on our side in Afghanistan and Iraq

2. In 2004 there were terrorist attacks on Spanish trains. A bunch of people died. People blamed the government and their intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq and they elected a leftist government that pulled the troops out of Afganistan and Iraq in 2005.

3. 3 years later in 2008 Spain arrested 14 Islamic militants that were planning terrorist attacks in Barcelona. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324010,00.html

Why were they trying to blow up stuff in Barcelona in 2008? The Spanish already gave in to all their demands.

[awake]

I think they know the recipe to create terrorists... they need these types to justify the self invitations all over the globe.

[virgil47]

I agree with you to a point. Although I think it is more complex than just doing what they say and they stop. Take a look at Spain.

1. Spain was originally on our side in Afghanistan and Iraq

2. In 2004 there were terrorist attacks on Spanish trains. A bunch of people died. People blamed the government and their intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq and they elected a leftist government that pulled the troops out of Afganistan and Iraq in 2005.

3. 3 years later in 2008 Spain arrested 14 Islamic militants that were planning terrorist attacks in Barcelona. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324010,00.html

Why were they trying to blow up stuff in Barcelona in 2008? The Spanish already gave in to all their demands.

They were trying to blow up stuff in Barcelona because Islam is about world domination. The Spanish were/are considered easy targets because they gave in so readily to the jihadist demands. On the other hand we have not totally capitulated to their demands so the jihadists are afraid to attack us here.

[Mini-Me]

I agree with you to a point. Although I think it is more complex than just doing what they say and they stop. Take a look at Spain.

1. Spain was originally on our side in Afghanistan and Iraq

2. In 2004 there were terrorist attacks on Spanish trains. A bunch of people died. People blamed the government and their intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq and they elected a leftist government that pulled the troops out of Afganistan and Iraq in 2005.

3. 3 years later in 2008 Spain arrested 14 Islamic militants that were planning terrorist attacks in Barcelona. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324010,00.html

Why were they trying to blow up stuff in Barcelona in 2008? The Spanish already gave in to all their demands.

That's the thing: Once you've created a bunch of radical terrorists, "playing nice" isn't going to turn them friendly or even sane again. One way or another, we're going to have to deal with a decent number of terrorists who hate us for at least another generation or so, and plenty more in the Middle East who are sympathetic to that cause. The question is, "How are we going to deal with that?" If we "deal with it" by continuing or expanding imperial policies and international interventionism, we'll only succeed in creating more terrorists, and our problems will not only continue but grow in magnitude long past one more generation.

In other words, it's not a question of whether we "give in" to the demands of terrorists. That's how neocons want to frame the issue, because it makes it seem like the choice is between standing proud and being cowardly. However, "giving in" or not is irrelevant, because once someone has been driven towards radical and violent religious fundamentalism, there's very little that's likely to appease them anyway. They're most likely enemies for life. The real question is, are we going to learn from our past mistakes that created these problems in the first place, or are we going to continue creating more enemies in perpetuity?

[mczerone]

They were trying to blow up stuff in Barcelona because Islam is about world domination. The Spanish were/are considered easy targets because they gave in so readily to the jihadist demands. On the other hand we have not totally capitulated to their demands so the jihadists are afraid to attack us here.

Collectivize much? While some strains can be said to be about "world domination", the same can be said about some strains of christianity, judaism, paganism, etc.

The fact remains that the biggest motivator for terrorism is violence against people - You might want to see your religion spread far and wide, but you aren't going to strap a bomb on and blow up civilians w/o some impetus on the scale of familial vengeance.

The Spanish were the low-hanging fruit in terms of Western targets.

And are you suggesting that a posture of actual defense would be "capitulating to their demands", and thus should be avoided?

The fighting in Af-pak has nothing to do with people looking to attack us here, and is only creating more reason and opportunity for sympathizers to attempt such a thing while our military is being depleted in the historical black hole that is the foothills region.

[virgil47]

Collectivize much? While some strains can be said to be about "world domination", the same can be said about some strains of christianity, judaism, paganism, etc.

The fact remains that the biggest motivator for terrorism is violence against people - You might want to see your religion spread far and wide, but you aren't going to strap a bomb on and blow up civilians w/o some impetus on the scale of familial vengeance.

The Spanish were the low-hanging fruit in terms of Western targets.

And are you suggesting that a posture of actual defense would be "capitulating to their demands", and thus should be avoided?

The fighting in Af-pak has nothing to do with people looking to attack us here, and is only creating more reason and opportunity for sympathizers to attempt such a thing while our military is being depleted in the historical black hole that is the foothills region.


Please reread my post. My point was and still is the Spanish capitulated and therefore became the low hanging fruit of conquest. They held out a hand in friendship and got it bitten by the ones they attempted to placate. Placation never works. There are only winners and losers in world politics.

[Matthew Zak]

Our wars in the middle east are dumber than the conflict we make fun of them for having.

[virgil47]

If anything Islam promotes anarchy, not world government.

That statement is simply not true. Islam is a form of government and religion all rolled into one. If the religion of Islam becomes preeminent in the world Islam will also be the preeminent form of government.

[torchbearer]

That statement is simply not true. Islam is a form of government and religion all rolled into one. If the religion of Islam becomes preeminent in the world Islam will also be the preeminent form of government.

the same as any religion really-
there is only "one true god" "one king" to rule over his flock.
the only kingdom we belong to is that of the "one true god" (whoever that is in your region)

[virgil47]

the same as any religion really-
there is only "one true god" "one king" to rule over his flock.
the only kingdom we belong to is that of the "one true god" (whoever that is in your region)

True as far as you go. However you will find that most religions recognize that governments exist outside of the religion. I can honestly only think of one religion that is both religion and government at the same time.

[torchbearer]

True as far as you go. However you will find that most religions recognize that governments exist outside of the religion. I can honestly only think of one religion that is both religion and government at the same time.

well, Judaism and Christianity are both waiting for the return of their heavenly king. The messiah.
Jews are waiting for the first coming- Christians are waiting for the second coming- both are waiting for Gods' KINGdom here on earth.

[virgil47]

well, Judaism and Christianity are both waiting for the return of their heavenly king. The messiah.
Jews are waiting for the first coming- Christians are waiting for the second coming- both are waiting for Gods' KINGdom here on earth.

Yes and both believe in giving Caesar his due. They are waiting for divine intervention they do not have any desire to form a worldwide government on their own. Unfortunately the same can not be said of Islam.

[virgil47]

That is not true, Islam has no head of religion, unlike Catholicism, Islam is very individual orientated, and has no earthly leader.

Any Imam would disagree with you. Who do you think is the actual leader of Iran? Certainly it is not the president.

[BlackTerrel]

They were trying to blow up stuff in Barcelona because Islam is about world domination. The Spanish were/are considered easy targets because they gave in so readily to the jihadist demands. On the other hand we have not totally capitulated to their demands so the jihadists are afraid to attack us here.

I think you're overstating things. And I seriously doubt they are afraid to attack us here.

[BlackTerrel]

That's the thing: Once you've created a bunch of radical terrorists, "playing nice" isn't going to turn them friendly or even sane again. One way or another, we're going to have to deal with a decent number of terrorists who hate us for at least another generation or so, and plenty more in the Middle East who are sympathetic to that cause. The question is, "How are we going to deal with that?" If we "deal with it" by continuing or expanding imperial policies and international interventionism, we'll only succeed in creating more terrorists, and our problems will not only continue but grow in magnitude long past one more generation.

In other words, it's not a question of whether we "give in" to the demands of terrorists. That's how neocons want to frame the issue, because it makes it seem like the choice is between standing proud and being cowardly. However, "giving in" or not is irrelevant, because once someone has been driven towards radical and violent religious fundamentalism, there's very little that's likely to appease them anyway. They're most likely enemies for life. The real question is, are we going to learn from our past mistakes that created these problems in the first place, or are we going to continue creating more enemies in perpetuity?

I don't disagree. I think it's a complex issue. But it's not as simple as "we stay out of their countries and they leave us alone". As I showed - that strategy didn't work for Spain.

The Bush strategy of "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" has been proven to be a total failure as well.

[virgil47]

I think you're overstating things. And I seriously doubt they are afraid to attack us here.

Perhaps you are correct. However they have not done so at this time. As to overstating the facts I wish I were doing so but I'm afraid that that is not the case.

[Liberty Star]

well, Judaism and Christianity are both waiting for the return of their heavenly king. The messiah.
Jews are waiting for the first coming- Christians are waiting for the second coming- both are waiting for Gods' KINGdom here on earth.

That's not necessarily true in every case, for a lot of moderate evangelical folks it is Country first, God second, War third. Excluding some extremists, majority is not the war makers to expedite return of the messiah in mideast despite some rumors that were going around during Iraqi freedom days.

[torchbearer]

That's not necessarily true in every case, for a lot of moderate evangelical folks it is Country first, God second, War third. Excluding some extremists, majority is not the war makers to expedite return of the messiah in mideast despite some rumors that were going around during Iraqi freedom days.

I was stating biblical reasons for each denomination.
Book of daniel- Jewish messiah tale.
revelations- christian messiah tale.

i don't see how you can say you don't believe that stuff and still call yourself a christian.

[virgil47]

Lol the leader of Iran Ayatollah isn't the leader of Islam, not even the leader of Shia Muslims! And he doesn't claim to be anything but the leader of Iran.

Yes he is "only" the leader of Iran but he is also the leader of the church in Iran and that makes my point. There are other Imams in Iran but he is superior to them in the scheme of things. When many countries are led by Imams one will become the supreme leader amongst them and Shariah law will prevail.

[jmdrake]

I don't disagree. I think it's a complex issue. But it's not as simple as "we stay out of their countries and they leave us alone". As I showed - that strategy didn't work for Spain.

The Bush strategy of "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" has been proven to be a total failure as well.

What the Madrid bombings truly show is the power that a mass truth movement can have. The Spanish government initially tried to blame the bombings on Basque separatists. The general public called "B.S.". So the government shifted blame to "Islamists". (Interesting to note that no connection to "Al Qaeda" was ever found). Had the demand for truth in the U.S. ever been as strong as it was in Spain we might not be in the mess that were in now. Further if the Spanish people had been as skeptical after the government shifted blame they might have shifted blame again.

Also you've shown the weakness of relying on "blowback" as a strategy in the war on the war on terror. Even RP supporters have a problem with it. It's better to at least show 9/11 was preventable (clearly it was) if not actually created within the MIC (military industrial complex) itself.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

Yes he is "only" the leader of Iran but he is also the leader of the church in Iran and that makes my point. There are other Imams in Iran but he is superior to them in the scheme of things. When many countries are led by Imams one will become the supreme leader amongst them and Shariah law will prevail.

Uh....you know the "supreme leader" can be voted out of office in general elections right? (It's a little more complicated. The "assembly of experts" get elected directly and that assembly can do a recall on the supreme leader.) You also know that Sunnis and Shias hate each other more than they hate Christians or Jews? It's like Catholics versus Protestants in Northern Ireland or during the heyday of the reformation.

[virgil47]

Uh....you know the "supreme leader" can be voted out of office in general elections right? (It's a little more complicated. The "assembly of experts" get elected directly and that assembly can do a recall on the supreme leader.) You also know that Sunnis and Shias hate each other more than they hate Christians or Jews? It's like Catholics versus Protestants in Northern Ireland or during the heyday of the reformation.

Yes I am fully aware of this. The fact that a religious leader can be voted out of office actually enhances the point I was making that he is not only the top religious individual in the country but that he is also the head of the government.

[Mini-Me]

I don't disagree. I think it's a complex issue. But it's not as simple as "we stay out of their countries and they leave us alone". As I showed - that strategy didn't work for Spain.

The Bush strategy of "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" has been proven to be a total failure as well.

Granted, the strategy didn't work for Spain in the short term, since they're still dealing with terrorists already created. The long-term effects - beyond the current generation of terrorists who already hate Spain (or the west in general) - are still yet to be seen.

In addition, it's important to remember that the reasons people become terrorists are different from the religious dogma they use to fill the empty void of hatred caused by something else:
Very few people are going to strap a bomb to their chests and bomb Barcelona just because they decided they hate western culture for its decadence. For most, it's lost loved ones, lost neighbors, friends, or even the undignified idea of a foreign power occupying their country's land and dictating things to their people, that drive them to become violent religious fanatics bent on destruction. However, once a Muslim has been radicalized by another country's imperialism - even if it was done by the US and has nothing to do with Spain - that person will thereafter think in terms of radical Islamic fundamentalism. After that point, the person driven to radical Islam for other reasons will actually begin to think in religious peculiarities and hate the non-Islamic world in general (i.e. "hate us for our 'freedom'" ;)). In other words, aside from Spain's own involvement in the "war on terror," I think US imperialism is essentially making all western countries more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

At this point, all we can do is weather the current storm the best we can, and I don't think it will be without incident...but hopefully we can avoid creating more storms or feed the one we're already dealing with. I think the most effective strategy would be fivefold:
Obviously, close down our bases, end our imperialist foreign policy, and use our military solely to defend America. This will ensure we don't create new enemies.
Use this as an opportunity to develop genuinely cordial trading relationships with other countries. Part of the problem right now is that very few in the Middle East would even care to foil terrorist plots against the US. When average people in other countries eventually don't mind or even like us, they'll be less likely to harbor and aid (or turn a blind eye to) violent terrorists. This applies to governments as well, who are less likely to support terrorists who target countries they have mutually beneficial trading relationships with. Sure, countries are afraid of us now, but that's only enough to make them want to look like they're on our side.
Treat terrorists like criminals rather than warring powers. Use Letters of Marque and Reprisal, partnerships with the legal systems in other countries, etc. to catch individual plotters and ringleaders, instead of going in like a bull in a China shop with military airstrikes, occupations, invasions, etc.
Tighten up borders, so we know who exactly is getting in. (As a libertarian, I'm not huge on closed borders in principle, but having a legacy of a warfare and welfare state - not to mention a continuing one - means that they'd be a net positive for national security, at least for a couple generations.)
Get government out of the way and let people defend themselves the way they see fit. For instance, nobody's going to successfully hijack a plane when the pilot and copilot are packing, and since they already have the power to kill EVERYONE on the plane anyway, there's no sense making it illegal for them to have one.

Nothing's going to be perfect, but I think something like this is our best bet at actually deradicalizing the Muslim world and defending ourselves against the holdouts from the current generation (and maybe the next one). Of course, the real problem is, the neocons aren't actually about solving the problem of terrorism: They're all about reasserting their wounded national pride, come hell or highwater...and that's why we have so many issues.

NOTE: Before I get reamed by jmdrake, I want to say that I'm purposely ignoring 9/11 truth issues (etc.) and assuming the terrorist threat is a real one. After all, regardless of whether the current terrorist threat is real or fabricated, it's still important to know how a country should deal with such a situation without making it worse. Besides, the people who need to be convinced on this are neocons, and the whole 9/11 truth thing is pretty much the very last thing they'll ever consider.

[jmdrake]

Yes I am fully aware of this. The fact that a religious leader can be voted out of office actually enhances the point I was making that he is not only the top religious individual in the country but that he is also the head of the government.

Well the pope is the head of the Catholic religion and the Vatican government so what's your point? Oh, and he can be voted in, but he can't be voted out.

[torchbearer]

Well the pope is the head of the Catholic religion and the Vatican government so what's your point? Oh, and he can be voted in, but he can't be voted out.

there have been two popes competing for legitimacy at different times in the past. each backed by different monarchs.

[Liberty Star]

I was stating biblical reasons for each denomination.
Book of daniel- Jewish messiah tale.
revelations- christian messiah tale.

i don't see how you can say you don't believe that stuff and still call yourself a christian.

That's hard to answer.

Perhaps selectively abandoning some of the hardcore commands from Him is the way to go moderate in modern times.

[andrewh817]

See, you have that whole neocon timeline thing going on that doesn't make any sense. There was a world before the Afghanistan war. A world that you clearly know very little about. A world where our military and intelligence overthrew democratically elected leaders in Muslim countries and supplied various paramilitaries with arms at our convenience, and for the benefit of western industry and oil interests. A world where we bombed innocent civilians in Iraq. Where we supplied Israel with billions of dollars in aid which they have used to commit slow-genocide against the Palestinians. If you think we are saying the only reason they hate us because we are in Afghanistan, then you have missed the interpretation and are not aware of the true history of our involvement in the region.

My original question was rhetorical....... my point was that there wasn't suicide bombings in Afghanistan before we invaded.

[hugolp]

I agree with you to a point. Although I think it is more complex than just doing what they say and they stop. Take a look at Spain.

1. Spain was originally on our side in Afghanistan and Iraq

2. In 2004 there were terrorist attacks on Spanish trains. A bunch of people died. People blamed the government and their intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq and they elected a leftist government that pulled the troops out of Afganistan and Iraq in 2005.

3. 3 years later in 2008 Spain arrested 14 Islamic militants that were planning terrorist attacks in Barcelona. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324010,00.html

Why were they trying to blow up stuff in Barcelona in 2008? The Spanish already gave in to all their demands.

I live and have lived all my live in Barcelona.

The first two points are accurate. I just want to point that PSOE (lefties) wanted to retreat the troops from Afghanistan from day one of the campign, way before the terrorist attack on Madrid. What happened is that the ruling party (PP) tryed to blame the incident on ETA (the basque terrorist group) because they were afraid that people would blame the attacks on them for supporting Bush war on Afghanistan. Bush was very hated in Europe then. But it completely backfire, people got angry at the PP for tyring to lie in front of such a masacre and voted masively for PSOE, even when previous polls were given a tight victory for PP. If PSOE was going to win anyways or the goverment reaction gave them the victory is speculation, but its a very real posibility.

As for point 3 is completely false. Completely false. There was no terrorist here in Barcelona. It was all a complete scam coming from foreign intellingence agencies. It made a lot of noise at the beggining and then faded away because there was no substance.

[YumYum]

I live and have lived all my live in Barcelona.

The first two points are accurate. I just want to point that PSOE (lefties) wanted to retreat the troops from Afghanistan from day one of the campign, way before the terrorist attack on Madrid. What happened is that the ruling party (PP) tryed to blame the incident on ETA (the basque terrorist group) because they were afraid that people would blame the attacks on them for supporting Bush war on Afghanistan. Bush was very hated in Europe then. But it completely backfire, people got angry at the PP for tyring to lie in front of such a masacre and voted masively for PSOE, even when previous polls were given a tight victory for PP. If PSOE was going to win anyways or the goverment reaction gave them the victory is speculation, but its a very real posibility.

As for point 3 is completely false. Completely false. There was no terrorist here in Barcelona. It was all a complete scam coming from foreign intellingence agencies. It made a lot of noise at the beggining and then faded away because there was no substance.

Buenos días, Amigo! No quiero cambiar la discusion, pero tengo una pregunta. Como es tu oro? ¿Tienen mucho brillo?:D Oro es derrumbarando, y los dólares están subiendo. La futura están en las tapas.

[Captain Shays]

I wish we would all stop saying "we" did this or "we" did that. "We" as in you and me the average American citizen didn't do ANYTHING to ANY Muslin, European, Asian or African.

The founders of this great country strongly advised against the sorts of interventions that the globalist/one-worlder/militiarists/corporatist/progressives who have taken over our government during the early part of the 20th century engaged in. The Constitution doesn't allow it either. When you point out the horrible results of those interventions in a non partisan way and a non "America is evil" sort of way and keeping it within the proper historical context, most Americans usually disagree with the intervention.

Again, if the founders advised against it, and the Constitution doesn't allow it and the American people disagree with it, how can we say "we" or "our country did this or that"?

[BlackTerrel]

What the Madrid bombings truly show is the power that a mass truth movement can have. The Spanish government initially tried to blame the bombings on Basque separatists. The general public called "B.S.". So the government shifted blame to "Islamists". (Interesting to note that no connection to "Al Qaeda" was ever found). Had the demand for truth in the U.S. ever been as strong as it was in Spain we might not be in the mess that were in now. Further if the Spanish people had been as skeptical after the government shifted blame they might have shifted blame again.

I think it also shows how hard it is to cover up such an event. The government wasn't trying to cover it up for the long run, they knew they couldn't. They were trying to shift the attention to ETA until after the election. They knew it would take a few weeks for all the facts to come out. And it wasn's just the Spanish public that was suspicious, it was most of the world's media as well.