...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

March 15, 2004

Spain 3, A Rhetorical Question

Spanish troops did not fight alongside the US in the recent war. They only helped us afterwards. Their contribution of 1300 soldiers to the post war occupation is much less than the contributions of Italy (3000), Poland (2500), and Great Britain (8220). Roughly equal to Spain's were the contributions of The Netherlands (1300) and the Ukraine (1650) to the occupation forces.

So why Spain? Why were they chosen for the first big hit? (After Bali, of course, who sent no troops.)

You might say it's because the attack was timed to coincide with the election. i don't believe it. Not with the numerological significance of 911 days after 9/11, on 3/11. i think people are giving the bastards too much credit by assuming they planned to affect the political process.

These terrorist assholes are superstitious, backward and politically unsophisticated. But numbers and dates of historical significance are very important to these pigs. They think they're students of history. They think they understand history. We all know they have long memories. 9/11 apparently has some centuries old significance to them.

This is why i think Spain was chosen for this first big time European attack. It really had little to do with Iraq, despite what the pigs said in their video, and despite what the majority of Spanish voters seemed to think. Spain was at the top of the bastards' list because of the Crusades, and Andalusia, and Ferdinand and Isabella. Long before we went into Iraq, Osama was making repeated references to the loss of Spain by the Moors. They're obsessed with Andalusia, because it was the height of their once great civilization, and a symbol of how far they've fallen.

If the 3/11 attack was solely a retaliation for cooperation in Iraq, why not hit London first? Why not hit Italy or Poland first. It wouldn't have been that hard to hit the Dutch or the Ukranians before Spain. Why go after the country that's number six on the coalition list when there's other easy targets with more "culpability" in the war?

Because the terrorists are pissed off at Spain for a lot more than just having been our friends. They hate Spain for the Reconquista. They will always hate Spain, until it's theirs again.

So if the Spanish socialists and those who voted for them think they can escape future attacks by pulling out of Iraq . . . i'm not so sure. The only way they (or any of us, really) can be safe is to convert now and become an islamic dictatorship under sharia law. That's not my opinion, it's what the terrorists themselves have been saying they want.

Posted by annika, Mar. 15, 2004 |
Rubric: annikapunditry


God DAMN it, f-in' HaloScan ate my comment! My fault; I clicked on another comment link without first posting this one. I'll keep it short:

1) It's 912 days, not 911, unless you leave out 3/11/04. Nobody I know counts like that. Got this from an OxBlogger, and I double-checked him. He was right.

2) PR. AQ gains big-time PR points if the "Arab street" thinks AQ actually mattered in a European election. What other force in the Middle East can plausibly claim that? Doesn't matter if it's BS; perception is everything. I suspect AQ is hurting for men, money and influence right now, and saw Spain as a relatively soft target with good PR value.

Posted by: Matt Rustler on Mar. 15, 2004

Could be a coincidence - and it depends on whether you count 9/11 as a day and/or 3/11 as a day; in either case, it was eerie, even if a coincidence.

As I was driving home on 9/11/01, however, it did occur to me that September 11th was the date on which in 1683 the Moslem armies were defeated before the gates of Vienna - this was the last time the Moslem world faced off against the West on fairly equal terms...after that, it was all downhill; defeat followed by defeat until in 1918, the fully indepdent territories of the Moslem world were Turkey and Saudi Arabia - and this only by gift of a West which couldn't decide who should be the colonial overlord of the territories in question.

I believe to this day that the choice of 9/11 as attack date was tied into the earlier date - a means of telling the Moslem world that they were once again fighting on equal terms with the West.

Posted by: Mark Noonan on Mar. 16, 2004

Annika, you touched on some interesting points as to why the terrorists hit Spain. I completely agree that the Islamists are still pissed about losing Spain centuries ago. I'd like to add bluntly though that another reason they hit Spain is because Spain is filled with pussies and the terrorists knew it. Spain can't do much of anything as far as military action is concerned. Their main purpose in life now is making olive oil and tapas. And don't dare interrupt their siestas.

Posted by: Jason H. on Mar. 16, 2004

Regardless, in the weeks leading up to the election I'm carrying everywhere (I have a Magnum). Any towelhead I see acting the slight bit strange (more than their usual filthy, angry, stupid way) I'll fill with lead. Shoot first, and don't bother with questions.

What possible judge or jury will blame me in the slightest (so far we've kept the ragheads off the bench). I think everyone should follow my lead: Eventually most will be so scared they'll go back to the festering shitholes that create such so-called human abominations.

There is no downside, except for a temporary shortage of cab drivers. We'll get new ones that smell better.

Posted by: Radical Redneck on Mar. 16, 2004

First off, the loon on the AQ video claimed the bombing was for Iraq and Afghanistan which Europe (for the most part) supported. Next time they'll be bombing France for banning headscarves on Muslim school girls. It doesn't really matter what reason is cited. The fact is, Madrid was an effective hit like 9/11 so give credit where credit is due. We lost one battle in the war. The answer is not to stick our head in the sand and pray like Hugo might suggest.

Second, I guess Matt missed my response to him on the question on annikas "vacation" post. 911 had elapsed since 9/11/01 and 3/11/04 could mark the beginning of the next 911 days or something.

Third, RR's comment is too stupid to even comment on.

Posted by: d-rod on Mar. 16, 2004

Agreed with most of the points made here but watch out for the underestimation of AQ/Islamic Fascists. Most of their senior hierarchy are educated. Jason H. is correct in that the Spanish were the weakest coalition ally and a moderate shock would change the government. Perhaps the urge to appease stems from Franco/fascist guilt. (like Germany)

The bottom line we have to move on, and accept that it is our duty to willingly defend even the naive and misguided European States that try to subvert us.

I have been struck for a few weeks by a conclusion of Krauthammer's recent AEI speech, i.e., that it's our duty in the first & second quarter of this century to destroy Islamic fascism. Then the problem of a preeminent China will take center stage in 2050.

Posted by: Jason O. on Mar. 16, 2004

this date calculator yields 910 days. Still it depends on how you count it, time zones and stuff, so i'm still convinced it's not a coincidence. Like many religious fundamentalists, symbolism is very important to the Al Qaeda types. Also 3/11 is exactly 2 and a half years from 9/11.

Posted by: annika! on Mar. 16, 2004

If it weren't for Leap Day is would be 911 days. Maybe the terrorists forgot about Leap Day (different culture different calendars). I mean people in America forget about it all the time, so why not in those backwards Arab countries? I only remember it because it's my birthday!

Posted by: javaslinger on Mar. 16, 2004

Er, javaslinger, you're kidding, right? It'd be the same number of days regardless of what calendar you use.

Tangent, I admit, but since you were born on February 29th, do you know the whole formula for the Gregorian calendar reform?

Posted by: Dave J on Mar. 16, 2004

I was being a bit facetious, but you would be mistaken to assume that everyone goes by the Gregorian calendar.

Yes, I do know the formula pertaining to Leap Day. Back in the day the Romans realized that the calendar was way off, so they extended one year by almost 100 days too get back on track, then came up with the formula to deal with the extra six hours in a 365 day year. Every four years the six hours approximately makes one day, so they tag it onto the shortest month of the year, February. I have read that February was picked because it used to be that last month of the year. Not sure on that fact.

Anyway, it is not all perfect, so at every turn of the century (unless the year is evenly divisible by 400 (i.e. - 2000)) there is no Leap Year.

In 1996 I read in my local paper that a woman was 100 years old, but had only had 24 birthdays. This was due to the fact that 1900 did not have a Leap Year (not evenly divisible by 400).

Tangent done.

Posted by: javaslinger on Mar. 17, 2004


What kind of "a Magnum"? .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire? .357 S&W Magnum? .41 Remington Magnum? .44 Remington Magnum? .45 Winchester Magnum? .222 Remington Magnum? .240 Weatherby Magnum? 7mm Remington Magnum? 7mm Weatherby Magnum? .300 Winchester Magnum? .300 Remington Ultra Mag? .458 Winchester Magnum? .460 Weatherby Magnum? Etc., etc., ad nauseum . . .

I'm sorry, but the term "a Magnum" is a small pet peeve of mine; it always gives me the impression the speaker is a teenager who doesn't know much about guns, but thinks they're really cool.


Not saying the number of days elapsed might not mean something. It just bugs me that everyone seems to be parroting the "911 days" line when, in fact, you've got to do some kinda funky counting to arrive at that number. The fact that the bombings in Spain were exactly 30 months after 9/11/01 is far more likely to mean something, in my book. I'm sure that alone would've been plenty symbolism for the Islamists, if it was them, even if it'd only worked out to 908 days.

Posted by: Matt on Mar. 17, 2004

Are there not 911 days between 9/11 and 3/11?

Posted by: d-rod on Mar. 17, 2004

It's 911 days if you start counting at "one" on 9/12/01 (the end of the first 24-hour period following the 9/11 attacks) and stop on at "nine hundred eleven" on 3/10/04. Does that answer the question?

Posted by: Matt on Mar. 17, 2004

It depends on what "between" means. Wow, were Clintonian territory here.

Posted by: d-rod on Mar. 17, 2004

Yep. It depends on what "between" means. That's why I was kinda trying to define "between." Unfortunately, language isn't as precise as we'd like sometimes. But I think we all know what "is" means.

Posted by: Matt on Mar. 17, 2004

OK , I've summoned Thomas Aquinas to settle this argument among the calendar monks...

Meanwhile, they blew up the trains three days before the election with the goal of getting The Popular Front out. That's like three dots, maximum, to connect.

Posted by: Jason O. on Mar. 17, 2004


Well, you let us know what the Doctor says. Whatever his conclusion, I'll abide by it.

Posted by: Matt Rustler on Mar. 17, 2004

In the law, one starts counting in the next day, thus 911 is a correct calculation.

Of course, I doubt that these particular individuals are concerned with legal niceties, so I figure it was close enough for government work.

Either way, my own predication is that if they try that crap here, the population of America is likely to react much differently than voting for a Socialist government. Just look at how we reacted to the World Trade Cener and The Pentagon outrages.

Posted by: Shelly S. on Mar. 18, 2004

It's 912 days if you count the way the law counts.

Posted by: Matt on Mar. 18, 2004

(A.D. 980-1016)

Rudyard Kipling


IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:—
“We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:—
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to says:—

“We never pay any one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost,
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”


Posted by: shelly s. on Mar. 19, 2004

DVD to Pocket PC

Posted by: fjdh on Aug. 24, 2009