OT: Terrorist Group/New Spanish Gov't agree to truce!

[Dutch]

CAIRO, Egypt - The Islamic militant group that claimed responsibility for last week's Madrid train bombings has called a truce with Spain to give the new government time to withdraw troops from Iraq (news - web sites), a London-based Arabic-language newspaper said Wednesday.

AP Photo

The Al Hayat daily newspaper said it received a statement from the Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri, which earlier said it orchestrated the bombings to punish Spain for supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The blasts killed 201 people.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040317/ap_on_re_eu/egypt_spain_al_qaida_3

(Misleading headlines suck. ;) )

[Franklinnoble]

What a crock of shit.

[finkenst]

fucking elitists.

[Havok]

i wonder if Spain's entire population will agree to convert to islam next....

[Ksyrup]

That's an even more blatant capitulation to a terrorist group's demands than I thought I would ever see. Disgraceful.

And btw, if this doesn't finally draw a link between IRaq and terrorism, I don't know what does.

[ice4277]

CAIRO, Egypt - The Islamic militant group that claimed responsibility for last week's Madrid train bombings has called a truce with Spain
How fucking kind of them :rolleyes:

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, I guess I read that wrong. I assumed a truce meant both sides were involved.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

pretty much is a 2-sided truce. will espana kick the shit outta the terrorists? prolly not.

[yabanci]

CAIRO, Egypt - The Islamic militant group that claimed responsibility for last week's Madrid train bombings has called a truce with Spain to give the new government time to withdraw troops from Iraq (news - web sites), a London-based Arabic-language newspaper said Wednesday.

AP Photo

The Al Hayat daily newspaper said it received a statement from the Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri, which earlier said it orchestrated the bombings to punish Spain for supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The blasts killed 201 people.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040317/ap_on_re_eu/egypt_spain_al_qaida_3

(Misleading headlines suck. ;) )

If misleading headlines suck, why did you write a subject with a completely misleading statement?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Incidentally, do I get to be the first to predict that there will eventually be ties found between whatever group was responsible for the bombings & members of the incoming government?

[finkenst]

i wonder if Spain's entire population will agree to convert to islam next....
Islam is not for this killing of innocents... that is just stupid people doing the killing.:mad:


allow me to refer you to probably my all time favorite TheOnion page: http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/god_clarifies_dont_kill.html

[Leonidas]

So can I now declare that it was really my group that committed this bombing, then unilaterally declare a truce long enough to allow Spain to withdraw from the Olympics in Greece (or some other really ridiculous claim no one can really refute except for myself on whose word you must rely upon to begin with)?

[Dutch]

If misleading headlines suck, why did you write a subject with a completely misleading statement?

Yabanci,

I was not being fair. I was just slanting the news in my favor. I wonder if journalist for the AP, Reuter's, NBC, ABC, CNN, or Fox do that?

And to point out that it's up to us to read the entire article or multiple articles from as many sources as neccessary to find the real truth.

[yabanci]

Yabanci,

I was not being fair. I was just slanting the news in my favor. I wonder if journalist for the AP, Reuter's, NBC, ABC, CNN, or Fox do that?

And to point out that it's up to us to read the entire article or multiple articles from as many sources as neccessary to find the real truth.

I wouldn't call making an outright false statement intended to prejudice readers against Spain and their democratically elected government a "slant."

[Dutch]

Would a journalist be as unfair as me? That's all I'm trying to point out.

[Maple Leafs]

Would a journalist be as unfair as me? That's all I'm trying to point out.You do realize that journalists don't write the headlines, right?

[yabanci]

Would a journalist be as unfair as me? That's all I'm trying to point out.

No. While journalists have all kinds of biases and headlines are often questionable, journalism is a profession and safeguards are in place in the organizations you named that would prevent them from making a blatantly false and inflamatory statement in the headline that is completely without foundation and directly contradicted by the underlying story.

[JonInMiddleGA]

No. While journalists have all kinds of biases and headlines are often questionable, journalism is a profession and safeguards are in place in the organizations you named that would prevent them from making a blatantly false and inflamatory statement in the headline that is completely without foundation and directly contradicted by the underlying story.
As a former full-time (and still occasional) journalist, I will say without reservation that I find your statement incredibly naive.

[Icy]

Please to the ones blaming Spain at this thread, read the article before writing and tell me where do you see that Spain have agreed with the terrorists. You're totally wrong and don't know what are you talking about, but yeah, to blame without knowledge is free. This proves the power of missleading information.

[KeyserSoze]

I cant understand some things.

The reason of the PSOE victory are not by fear, but inside reasons, like 8 years of governments, cheating before the elections. Things like that.

We have choosen a goverment in our own. We believe in fighting terrorism (we are in this war far before the US), but maybe we dont believe in the Bush doctrine. Is that mean that we are wrong and you are right? I dont know who is right or no but I dont say that if you dont think like me you are a moron.....

Spain has said that he will send back his troops by 30 th june. The day that is supposed to be in charge the new Irak goverment, or that will leave the troops if it is a UN mission not a US mission.

JoninMiddleGA. Maybe you think your post is funny, but think for a moment what would you think if I link Bush and Bin Laden. Did not 9/11 increase Bush popularity??? Of course is a bullshit but it is as offensive as your post.

Also I think is in a very low moral level that most of the people that post criticizing spanish elections, hadn´t post saying that you are sorry about the 200 deads or praying for them (as most of the spanish did in 9/11).
I just remind a quote of the Animal farm "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

Well, all is my opinion

[yabanci]

As a former full-time (and still occasional) journalist, I will say without reservation that I find your statement incredibly naive.

This is the headline we are discussing: "Terrorist Group/New Spanish Gov't agree to truce!"

Now read the article and tell me that AP, Reuter's, NBC, ABC, CNN, or Fox would run that headline over that story.

Please understand that these are very serious issues. It is false, inflamatory, and offensive to claim that the new Spanish government and the terrorists responsible for the Madrid attacks have agreed to some kind of a truce, and it doesn't even come close to matching what is stated in the artcle.

[JonInMiddleGA]

JoninMiddleGA. Maybe you think your post is funny, but think for a moment what would you think if I link Bush and Bin Laden. Did not 9/11 increase Bush popularity??? Of course is a bullshit but it is as offensive as your post.
It wasn't meant to be funny in the least.

What it _did_ have was at least two meanings, one of which I readily admit in hindsight may have been too obscure to be readily seen by many people.

The first meaning, which appears to be the one that you object to, is that I would not be surprised in the least to learn that such a connection existed.

Crimes occur when motive meets opportunity -- and IMO there was obviously opportunity and, judging by the outcome, a pretty significant amount of motive.

I don't believe there would be too much disagreement that the incoming government benefitted from the timing of the bombings regardless of whether they had any involvement or not. I believe that it's legitimately arguable that they were the biggest beneficiaries of it (since I don't necessarily believe that the attacks will particularly further the goals of the terrorists over the long term).

A connection may exist, no connection may exist, but I sincerely wouldn't be surprised in the least to learn that one did. I'm guilty of a lot of things, but underestimating the capacity for humans to be self-serving isn't usually one of them. There isn't much that people do that can truly surprise me anymore, I suppose that's why I could accurately be called a cynic. If you find that offensive, well, I'm sorry but that's how I see it. There really isn't much I can do about whether you agree.

But here's the other point (and to be completely honest, the one that sparked my comment in the first place), perhaps you'll find it more acceptable.

What may not have been clear to many, or at least some, readers is that the comment included an observation about the nature of politics, the media and "how things work" in general.

I'm pretty sure you can recall seeing various reports about connections between France-Iraq and Russia-Iraq and so forth, offered as explanations for their unwillingness to support U.S.-led military action in Iraq. Believe them, don't believe them, anywhere in between -- the important part is that the reports existed. In other words, whether they're true or false, whether the connections influenced those governments 0% or 100% in their actions, the information was reported

My comment said "there will eventually be ties found between whatever group was responsible for the bombings & members of the incoming government". I believe that's virtually inevitable, it's too potentially compelling a story not to be investigated. And if you look for something long enough & hard enough ...

There's a popular saying in America thatI have to admit that I have no idea whether it has translated directly to Spain or anywhere else in the world, but I imagine there's at least a similar phrase that means roughly the same thing.

There's sometimes talk about "Six Degrees of Separation" between people -- that pretty much means that if you look closely enough, you can connect any two people by using six other people. In other words ... Person 1 knows Person 2, who dated Person 3, who worked with Person 4, who was related to Person 5, who served on a volunteer committee with Person 6, who was the first wife of Person 7 -- creating a "connection" between Person 1 & Person 7. And that's what my "prediction" is based upon -- the possibility (and I believe likelihood) that, if nothing else, this sort of connection could be made.

And in an age of mass media, that seems to be more than enough to create a scandal, either small or large, for a government.

The point in explaining all this, I guess, is that you seem to have read my remark as saying "I believe the incoming government is reponsible for the bombings" ... what I said was "there will eventually be ties found ..." between the groups. And I believe there's a pretty significant difference between the two.

Jon

[ice4277]

FWIW, Jon, I thought of the same thing yesterday. While I don't think that a direct connection can/will be found (this would be like saying FDR knew about Pearl Harbor, or Bush knew about 9/11), there is definitely the possibility of complicity at some level.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This is the headline we are discussing: "Terrorist Group/New Spanish Gov't agree to truce!"
Actually, I was responding to your blanket statement "safeguards are in place in the organizations you named that would prevent them from making a blatantly false and inflamatory statement in the headline that is completely without foundation and directly contradicted by the underlying story."

You didn't say that organizations would never "that headline over that story". If you had, I probably wouldn't have disagreed with you.

My observation was about your claim that "blatantly false & inflamatory" headlines don't occur because of "safeguards in place".

Hell, just read the Atlanta Journal-Constitution over a month or so & you'll become quite familiar with the technique.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... there is definitely the possibility of complicity at some level.
And part of my point was that I don't believe "complicity" is even a requirement for this to become an issue. All that will be required is a "connection" of any sort, even if it's a dubious connection.

[KeyserSoze]

Ok, but the same connection that exist between AlQaida and PSOE can be found between AlQaida-Bush, because the 9/11 increases the popularity of Bush between americans and the Bin Laden between the muslims....

[JonInMiddleGA]

Ok, but the same connection that exist between AlQaida and PSOE can be found between AlQaida-Bush, because the 9/11 increases the popularity of Bush between americans and the Bin Laden between the muslims....
And I assume that you know that such a link has been commented upon in the past, numerous times in some circles?

That's a reason I was surprised that the same point I was making with regard to the incoming government in Spain hadn't already been raised more frequently, both here at FOFC & in the world at large.

[yabanci]

Actually, I was responding to your blanket statement "safeguards are in place in the organizations you named that would prevent them from making a blatantly false and inflamatory statement in the headline that is completely without foundation and directly contradicted by the underlying story."

You didn't say that organizations would never "that headline over that story". If you had, I probably wouldn't have disagreed with you.

My observation was about your claim that "blatantly false & inflamatory" headlines don't occur because of "safeguards in place".

Hell, just read the Atlanta Journal-Constitution over a month or so & you'll become quite familiar with the technique.

No, if you read in context you will see that we were specifically discussing that headline.

[Icy]

KeyserSoze, i think that our minds are tied, or at least you read mine but you post faster than me :)

JonInMiddleGA, i agree with you on that you can discuss what you want or post your thoughts about possible ties betwen new goberment and terrorists, everybody is free to think what they want. Some people as KeyserSoze said, also thinks that Bush and/or the CIA had something to do on the 9-11 as that gave the USA goberment the reasons to start their crussade against some countries and also to take a more pronounced turn to the right wing on their politics, both international and national.

That could be another discussion totally legit, but what KeyserSoze and me are arguing is that your thread title sounds like Spanish have agreed with the terrorists, and that is very offending for us Spanish and also missleads other forum members as you could see just reading some answers to your post from members that haven't even read the article but think they have enought knowledge to judgue us based on unproven facts.

[JAG]

Jon, such a link may have been commented on, but I think people would generally see that as ridiculous as the claim that the incoming Spanish government is somehow tied to the terrorists that murdered over 200 Spanish citizens.

According to the polls prior to the terrorist attacks, they already stood to gain some ground politically. I doubt they would take the risk that they could be tied in with a foreign terrorist group which would kill a number of Spanish citizents to hope that the attack would go off without a hitch and the sitting govenment would make a botch of immediately claiming ETA was responsible. The end result may have worked in their favor, but they would've been madmen to align themselves with the terrorists in the hopes of meeting this goal.

[CamEdwards]

did anybody see a CNN story about a document posted on a message board used by al Queda? Here's one of the quotes:

"We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it. If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed- and the withdrawl of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto."

This was posted back in December. I've now found the story, kind of hidden on the website. here's the link: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/16/spain.invest0700/index.html

[yabanci]

did anybody see a CNN story about a document posted on a message board used by al Queda? Here's one of the quotes:

"We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it. If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed- and the withdrawl of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto."

This was posted back in December. However, I haven't seen the CNN story, nor can I find any mention of it on their website. I see the appropriate headline, but the link doesn't match.

I don't know about CNN, but what you are referring to is a document reported by Norway's Defense Research Establishment.

[SFL Cat]

FWIW, Jon, I thought of the same thing yesterday. While I don't think that a direct connection can/will be found (this would be like saying FDR knew about Pearl Harbor, or Bush knew about 9/11), there is definitely the possibility of complicity at some level.

Actually, there are people (my grandfather was one) who sincerely believed that FDR knew the Japanese were planning a sneak attack (perhaps not specifically Pearl Harbor, but he knew they were planning some kind of attack) and didn't increase military readiness or security because he knew such an unprovoked aggression would mobilize our country in favor of entering WWII (at the time American sentiment was predominately isolationist).

And I've lost count of the number of Democrats I know who sincerely believe (or at least will say) that they think Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and that he did nothing because he didn't want to piss off his Arab oil-buddies.

The conspiracy theory is very attractive mindset for some individuals.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... is that your thread title sounds like Spanish have agreed with the terrorists,
Just FTR, it's not my headline, nor did I start the thread.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... they would've been madmen to align themselves with the terrorists in the hopes of meeting this goal.
And there have never been madmen in politics?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Actually, there are people (my grandfather was one) who sincerely believed that FDR knew the Japanese were planning a sneak attack (perhaps not specifically Pearl Harbor, but he knew they were planning some kind of attack) ...
I normally take a pretty skeptical view of a lot of popular conspiracy theories and yet even I believe there's elements of truth in at least that part of this one.

[CamEdwards]

And there have never been madmen in politics?

Always have to bring up Millard Fillmore, don't you? You're such an anti-Fillmorite bastard. :)

[ice4277]

I've always known this board was full of Fillmore elitists; at least now I have the proof.

[KeyserSoze]

Always my personal thoughts

I dont know if PSOE is linked to the attack as I dont know if Bush is linked to AlQaida, but I dont believe it in any of the two cases.

You cannot prove easily innocence. We have systems were you are innocent unless you prove otherside. Spreading rumors is a bad way to know the truth.

(The same kind of post I´ve posted in other site, where they linked PP to a try of "golpe de estado" ??coup of state??? I dont know the word :confused: )

Yeah Icy, probably we work near :D

[JAG]

And there have never been madmen in politics?

I didn't say that, nor was that the point. The point was the possibility that the incoming government was tied to the terrorists is as likely as it is that Bush was tied to terrorists in 9/11. If you do believe that, so be it, but I personally think it's a very far-fetched possibility.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

From the same terrorist letter by the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade, I shit you not, you can google this yourself:

"We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections.."

"We know that a heavyweight operation would destroy your government, and this is what we don't want. We are not going to find a bigger idiot than you."


Ha! I see a new campaign slogan. George W. Bush: Endorsed by Terrorists :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

I've always known this board was full of Fillmore elitists;
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Fillmore is simply one of the best cartoons on TV.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Desnudo]

Actually, there are people (my grandfather was one) who sincerely believed that FDR knew the Japanese were planning a sneak attack (perhaps not specifically Pearl Harbor, but he knew they were planning some kind of attack) and didn't increase military readiness or security because he knew such an unprovoked aggression would mobilize our country in favor of entering WWII (at the time American sentiment was predominately isolationist).

And I've lost count of the number of Democrats I know who sincerely believe (or at least will say) that they think Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and that he did nothing because he didn't want to piss off his Arab oil-buddies.

The conspiracy theory is very attractive mindset for some individuals.

It's very attractive to some people to believe that there is an all knowing, all seeing power out there. These same people are the reason why X-Files and original Star Trek reruns are still on. Any sane person who has seen how government is truely run on a day to day basis would understand that this is, in reality, simply not possible.

[Easy Mac]

did anybody see a CNN story about a document posted on a message board used by al Queda? Here's one of the quotes:

"We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it. If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed- and the withdrawl of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto."

This was posted back in December. I've now found the story, kind of hidden on the website. here's the link: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/16/spain.invest0700/index.html
Do you think that it would be any different if 90% of Americans were against us having troops in a country? I think it would be the same outcome here as it is there.

[Desnudo]

i wonder if Spain's entire population will agree to convert to islam next....

It's happened in the past. :D

[Desnudo]

I wouldn't call making an outright false statement intended to prejudice readers against Spain and their democratically elected government a "slant."

But hey, now that the socialists are in power we don't have to worry about democracy anymore do we? :p

[fantastic flying froggies]

Well, they didn't really agree back in 1000something, but the Arabs had better swords back then...

[yabanci]

But hey, now that the socialists are in power we don't have to worry about democracy anymore do we? :p

This was directed to me, but I don't know what it means.

[Dutch]

No. While journalists have all kinds of biases and headlines are often questionable, journalism is a profession and safeguards are in place in the organizations you named that would prevent them from making a blatantly false and inflamatory statement in the headline that is completely without foundation and directly contradicted by the underlying story.

Really? Just by shear coincidence, check this out. :)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040319/ap_on_bi_ge/usa_today_reporter_4

USA Today Says Reporter Faked Stories
Fri Mar 19,10:31 AM ET Add Business - AP to My Yahoo!

McLEAN, Va. - USA Today said Friday that an examination of the work of journalist Jack Kelley found strong evidence that the newspaper's former star foreign correspondent had fabricated substantial portions of at least eight major stories.

[yabanci]

Really? Just by shear coincidence, check this out. :)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040319/ap_on_bi_ge/usa_today_reporter_4

Yes, that's happened several times recently. Jason Blair of the NYT is another high profile example. I believe it happens a lot more than we know. But those situations are entirely different than what we are talking about here. The issue here is the headline you proposed that says the incoming Spanish government has agreed to some kind of truce with the terrorists responsible for the Madrid attacks. As I said before, that false statement would never run as a headline to that story. First of all, the headline is so inflamatory that it alone would raise huge red flags. Second, a reading of the underlying story demonstrates that there are no facts to support the proposition stated in the headline. The story is actually about a group that is not believed to be responsible for the Madrid attacks making a unilateral statement about what it might do or not do in the future. The headline you proposed is so egregious false and inflamatory that there is no question that the news organizations you identified would not run that headline.

If you had just made whatever point you were trying make, I might very well not have diagreed with you, but I have to object to the deliberate spreading of misinformation in the attempt to make that point.

[Dutch]

If you had just made whatever point you were trying make, I might very well not have diagreed with you, but I have to object to the deliberate spreading of misinformation in the attempt to make that point.

I agree. So how do we "check" the media?

[yabanci]

If I understand your question correctly, I think the best way is to support and get involved with a reputable media watch group. There's no way one person can "check" the media alone, and you can't trust the media to do it for you either.

Here is a link with the main media watch groups: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediaresources.html

Most of them analyze what the media reports, point out inccuracies, and make it easy for you to take action on it. Many are nonpartisan, but some are right or left leaning. I think all are nonprofit organizations.

[Dutch]

Yabanci,

Your the best left fielder I know. Thanks for that link, this is something I have been looking for for a long time.

But we all know that everyday folks are not going to be looking at this website. I would be interested if it does anything with the information or if the journalist's themselves even know it exists.

One thing I would like to see done away with is "anonymous sources". Those should be banned from news clips and articles and placed in the editorial section.

[yabanci]

Yabanci,

Your the best left fielder I know. Thanks for that link, this is something I have been looking for for a long time.

But we all know that everyday folks are not going to be looking at this website. I would be interested if it does anything with the information or if the journalist's themselves even know it exists.

One thing I would like to see done away with is "anonymous sources". Those should be banned from news clips and articles and placed in the editorial section.

Yes, the journalists know they exist, but more importantly the copy editors and higher-ups do. I follow what Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting does and they have pretty good results.

I agree that anonymous sources are abused, but at the same time they sometimes are necessary (whistleblower type stories). It's a fine line and requires very responsible editors to control the problem. The problem is you rarely find such editors in the corporate media, because they have to generate viewers/readers, and anonymous sources tend to result in sexy "scoops" that make for splashy headlines and teasers. I think "news" on television is the worst, because they have to sensationalize everything to keep you from flipping over to old Seinfeld episodes.