But still, no Christianists were implicated. An update on this story. "Suspects 'planned Spanish suicide attacks'," by Al Goodman for CNN:
MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- The Spanish judge overseeing the arraignment of 10 terrorism suspects said Wednesday that they had "planned to carry out a series of suicide attacks" last weekend on public transportation in Barcelona.
In a sequence of six-page rulings, one for each of the 10 suspects he ordered to be held in jail after their arraignments.
"Judge Ismael Moreno wrote that the suspects "had achieved human operational capacity and were very close to achieving full technical capacity with explosives, with the aim of using the those explosives for a jihadi terrorist attack, and it can be deduced that the members of the terrorist cell now broken up planned to carry out a series of suicide attacks last weekend, January 18 to 20, against public transport in the city of Barcelona."
CNN has viewed a copy of one of the court orders.
The ruling said three suspected suicide bombers had traveled from Pakistan to Barcelona since October, with the most recent one arriving as late as mid-January.
The three had followed another Pakistani man -- the alleged explosives expert -- who had just arrived after a five-month stay in Pakistan.
"This pattern is common in Islamic extremist groups, which to carry out an attack usually send in the suicide bombers shortly before it will occur," the judge wrote.
"The arrivals of these three occurred about two months after the presumed bomb maker had returned (to Barcelona)."
Further, Moreno wrote that an informant had told authorities about the suspected suicide bombers and the suspected explosives expert.
He added that police found nitrocellulose and mechanical and electrical elements that could be used to make one or more bombs.
Twelve men were arraigned Wednesday, but Moreno allowed two to go free. Those two -- Pakistani nationals who had been arrested with the others -- were released for lack of evidence, according to their court-appointed lawyer and a court source.
The 10 who were kept in custody include eight Pakistani nationals and two Indian nationals who are Muslim.
At least two of the 10 were prepared to be suicide bombers, prosecutor Vicente Gonzalez alleged during the arraignment, according to a government spokeswoman. The other eight were charged with fabrication and possession of explosives, she added.
The arraignments took place before Moreno at the National Court in Madrid, which handles terrorism cases.
The suspects were arrested last weekend in Barcelona and taken to Civil Guard headquarters in Madrid, where they were questioned. Authorities announced the arrests on Saturday.
Spanish and other European intelligence agencies told Spanish police that the suspects were acquiring bomb-making materials. These included four timers to activate bombs, Interior Minister Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba said Saturday.
Must be that al-Andalus thing.
Spain, you're either going to have to get serious, or cede your country back into the clutches of medieval Islam.
Choose.
Or you lose.
They're all innocent, of course:
“They practiced Islam with friends and acquaintances. They have no connection with any sort of terrorism,” Afzal Ahmed, the president of the Federation of Pakistanis of Barcelona, told reporters in a press conference yesterday.
Joined by representatives of the Islamic Council of Catalonia, Ahmed criticised the way the police had handled the raid on the unauthorised prayer hall in Barcelona’s Raval district on Friday night where the 12 Pakistani and two Indian nationals were taken into custody. He noted that officers had thrown a copy of the Koran on the floor, showing a “lack of respect” for the suspects’ religion.
Here's the link:
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/01/23/the-jihad-never-sleeps/
Sheik,
Straight from Bin Laden's playbook. I guess the Saudi Ministry of "Don't Let The Infidels Enter With Their Holy Books" didn't get the memo.
I may be deluded here, but why does it seem that more often than not, such "terror" suspects are Pakistanis?
Many Arab countries will not let people to enter if their passports have an Israeli visa/stamp. Perhaps a new travel & entry ban might be appropriate of Pakistanis, or anyone else with a Pakistan visa/entry stamp?
About the two Indian nationals; has the Indian PM made some noises about how he feels their pain yet?
I landed in Barcelona on Dec 8 and the airport was teeming with Muslims - thousands of them, in full Mohammedan regalia. Seems they were headed to the Hajj. I must say it was quite discouraging to see that many of them in an otherwise beautiful and (for the moment) civilized place....
What amazed me about this story was that, if I remember correctly after the Madrid train bombings there was a statement from the "Religion of Peaceniks" that said if you pull out of Iraq, we will not attack you again. So the Spanish Presidency changed hands and the next thing you saw were the Spanish troops leaving Iraq. I remember at the time saying to my girlfriend that I didn't believe them and to watch for the next attack. She thought I was crazy.......I'm not, am I?
"Kuffirs of the world, Unite!"
"Islam, abusing women and children since 622AD"
ala-sux
as I understand it, the terms 'innocent' and 'guilty', when used by certain Muslim spin-doctors, need to be run through the Enigma machine for decoding muslimspeak.
They don't mean what they mean to us Unbelievers.
Guilty = Kafir, Unbeliever. All we Unbelievers are Guilty by definition.
Innocent = Muslim. All Muslims are presumed innocent, and presumed to be the ones telling the truth, in any case where the word of a Muslim comes up against the word of a Kafir.
So even if the Infidel cops find a bunch of Muslims up to their necks in explosives, fitting a guy into his suicide bomb suit, the word of the cops counts for nothing, in Muslim eyes, against the word of the Muslims - 'we've been FRAMED...the dirty kafir are LYING...we weren't doing anything wrong [of course not - we were just getting ready to give all those dirty kafir exactly what they deserve]. We're pure pious Muslims!'.
I don't have the specific sources for this 'translation' at my fingertips right now - perhaps someone else here can oblige?
Dumbledoresarmy
Your translation is correct and is the exact translation spoken by Anjem Choudry on BBC News 24 Hardtalk programme.
He was referring to all of the victims of the 7/7 bombing. Such a loving, caring, sympathectic human being.
Or "Reptile" as I prefer to call him.
I'm sure you'll find this programme on google or you tube should you wish to.
Work has brought me to Barcelona and not one person has mentioned this even in passing. Talk about sleepwalking.
"...three suspected suicide bombers had traveled from Pakistan..."
....ding....ding....ding....anyone home?....
Anjem Choudry on that BBC program was indeed an eye-opener. An absolute classic.
You can keep telling people that only Muslims are 'innocent' and all kuffars 'guilty' because they disbelieve, but people just won't believe it because its all so vile and bizarre. But you show them this video they are speechless...
"What amazed me about this story was that, if I remember correctly after the Madrid train bombings there was a statement from the "Religion of Peaceniks" that said if you pull out of Iraq, we will not attack you again.
Posted by: OregonJake "
....yep....it is called appeasement:
"Let’s look up appeasement in the dictionary so we’re all on the same page.
ap·pease·ment
n. The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.
Appeasement is not the same thing as treason or surrender. An appeaser recognizes that he has an enemy, or at least a potential enemy. In this case, Spain properly recognizes Al Qaeda as the enemy. The concession granted is the troop pullout from Iraq. The voters of Spain think this will take them off Al Qaeda’s enemies list and that Spain will then be at peace.
Some have called this a surrender. It is not. For Spain to actually surrender to Al Qaeda they would have to evacuate Andalucia and give it back to the House of Islam.
The problem with appeasement is that, from the point of view of the enemy, it’s not good enough. Al Qaeda won’t leave Spain alone unless Spain does surrender. Throwing the enemy a bone won’t cut it. Spain might get bumped down a notch on the target priority list, but that will not solve the problem.
Winston Churchill described the futility of appeasement best.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
The implication, of course, is that the appeaser still gets eaten.
For those who think pulling out of Iraq immediatly after a huge terror attack isn’t appeasement, I’ll have to ask them what they think would qualify as appeasement (as opposed to surrender). If this doesn’t qualify as a textbook case, what does?"
....appeasement to muslims never works....it only leads to surrender....
Ban Muslim Immigration...
If and when they get hit again......what will be the excuse then? They're not helping Americans, and they're not in Iraq. They are in Lebanon though, doing little to nothing there to prevent Hezbullah arms build up. They're in Afghanistan, and along with the Germans, Italians, French, I don't exactly know what role they actually play there, but being there would be enough to enrage the Mohammadans......and finally, they are afterall, occupying the Islamic pearl Al Andalusa, soon to be formerly known as Spain.
For those who think pulling out of Iraq immediatly after a huge terror attack isn’t appeasement, I’ll have to ask them what they think would qualify as appeasement (as opposed to surrender).
exsgtbrown,
What Spain did after the Madrid bombings was more than appeasement. It was a total capitulation.
But what about now? What if the US withdrew from Iraq after a huge terror attack? At what point do we decide the Iraqis aren't worth our time and trouble? If they were, they would have done more than they have in the last four years. There would have been great strides made in fighting al Qaeda and also in controlling the militias and fostering national reconciliation. Iraq has the resources (human and natural) to be a regional power. When will they be required to assume responsibility? Not just the government but also the people. They can't be allowed to claim they're too afraid of terrorists to act.
Must we remain in the Middle East just to prove we can't be intimidated by al Qaeda? Must we destroy ourselves to help people who don't want to be helped? Why should we be embarrassed to say that the people we are trying to help simply don't care enough and so aren't worthy of our efforts? Why can't we leave on our own terms without being accused of appeasement or of surrendering to al Qaeda?
Obviously the work of atheists and agnostics..........
"What if the US withdrew from Iraq after a huge terror attack? '
...huge attack ...where..on US Soil?...
...you would see an enormous increase in violent terrorists attacks globally...possibly on US soil too....The Terrorism would glamoritize this as a total victory over the US and they would be emboldened to strike deeper into the hearts of NonMuslim countries....
...IN the US you would see rampant Anti-Muslim backlash...and the seeds of internal chaos would be sowed...violence on every street corner...hometown USA would become Gaza west...
exsgtbrown,
Whether it's on US soil or anywhere else.
The question isn't whether we should defend ourselves from al qaeda. It's if staying in Iraq is the only way we can prove it. What do you think we are gaining by staying in Iraq? How are we containing terrorism?
OregonJake wrote:
What amazed me about this story was that, if I remember correctly after the Madrid train bombings there was a statement from the "Religion of Peaceniks" that said if you pull out of Iraq, we will not attack you again. So the Spanish Presidency changed hands and the next thing you saw were the Spanish troops leaving Iraq. I remember at the time saying to my girlfriend that I didn't believe them and to watch for the next attack.
..........................................
Exactly what I was going to mention. Why do so many in the West have such short attention spans? All this capitulation did was embolden the jihadists.
Neville Chamberlain's accomadation did nothing to stop Hitler. It just gave him the confidence to attack Poland. Of course, by then Britain had a leader made of sterner stuff, who understood that rolling over when faced with aggression will not bring you safety.
"The question isn't whether we should defend ourselves from al qaeda. It's if staying in Iraq is the only way we can prove it. What do you think we are gaining by staying in Iraq? How are we containing terrorism?
Posted by: PMK "
"The question isn't whether we should defend ourselves from al qaeda. It's if staying in Iraq is the only way we can prove it. .......
....how do you define AL-Qaeda?...and who is involved when AL-Qaeda attacks anyone...Why do a large number of terrorist attackers worldwide praise Al-Qaeda and its leaders?....Is Al-Qaeda just a corporate headquarters with many subsidiaries? (Muslims come up with new group names almost daily)...Is Al-Qaeda strictly Sunni?...or it just the name of a figurehead entity?....Who Supports AL-Qaeda?...Saudi Arabia..yes, Iran?....probably...Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Syria?....yep yep yep yep.......
IS the real enemy Islam, no matter what name is being used?......probably....
...to take no action is to take no action....a sure way to hasten your ultimate demise....it is a fact...believe it or not.....at least we can say we tried....can anyone else say that?....not to the extent that we can....
dhimmicrats can sit on their thumbs if they want to...I prefer to fight....judging by the radical Islamics attacks worldwide...fighting is the only alternative that is right...
sheik yer'mami, Lionheart
Do either of you recall whether Anjem Choudry cited specific texts (Quran, Hadith, theologians) to support his views, in the program you mentioned?
I'm not being tendentious - just looking for more information in case I can't find the program, or in case there isn't a transcript.