Cui bono? Who will gain by 3/11?

[gandalf]

Now we have our own, admittedly somewhat smaller, European 9/11, let’s call it 3/11.

Cui bono? Even though this question is regarded as leading to "conspiracy theories" by established media outlets, it seems to be important and has been posed here on DU several times, e.g. here.

The ETA bombings that happened in the last years appealed to "the ordinary people" while in most cases (there were exceptions) attacking selected representatives of the Spanish ruling system like employees of the Guardia Civil. Seemingly ETA expected something for their cause by attacking "the system", hoping for sympathy in the population.

Of course, an attack of this kind would once and for all ruin any potential support ETA might have had in the Spanish population if ETA really is held responsible.

I will not endorse any theories here about the originators of the attacks, but I think the discussion should not be confined to ETA vs. Islamists/Al Qaeda. There exists such a thing like state-sponsored terrorism, as the following quote shows:

• 
  Many members of Operation Gladio were also in a shadowy organization known as P-2; it too was financed by the CIA. P-2 had connections with the Vatican and the Mafia, and eventually with an international fascist umbrella organization called the World Anti-Communist League.
  One of P-2's specialties was the art of provocation. Leftist organizations like the Red Brigades were infiltrated, financed and / or created, and the resulting acts of terrorism, like the assassination of Italy's premier in 1978 and the bombing of the railway station in Bologna in 1980, were blamed on the left. The goal of this "strategy of tension" was to convince Italian voters that the left was violent and dangerous-by helping make it so. Source .

So, who will gain by these attacks?

One group is clear now: The coalition of those who think that much tighter security means are necessary. The US starts with higher security for trains. In Germany discussions are starting to change the constitution so that the military could support the police within the country in case of a national emergency.

I am quite certain that these events will be exploited in the next months. Perhaps the picture who is to profit becomes clearer.

What will come next? Will we face an European Patriot Act in the coming months? Will Europe loose as much civil rights as the US? Are the old democracies steering towards systems led by "benevolent dictators" in order to keep our world secure? Welcome 1984?

What are your thoughts?

[gandalf]

1. More on Operation Gladio:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1213525&mesg_id=1221581&page=

[UTUSN]

2. Exactly, Who Will Benefit, NOT Tinfoiling

Given, AZNAR went against 90+% of his population, his figurehead king who, unprecedentedly, spoke out, and his population's spiritual leader (the Pope)----all to join Shrub in the illegal Iraq attack.

He has been already on record as not running for reelection. Fine. Not saying here that he will now run with "sympathy" support.

AM saying that there might be a 9-11 effect---that the 90+% might be galvanized in their grief to support AZNAR.

It has already been noted here that "there really IS an al Qaeda", sort of accusing us of being blindly---what?--- Well, it doesn't act in a vacuum.

[jmcgowanjm]

3. "there really IS an al Qaeda"

March 3, the Coalition Forces deputy commander,
General Mark Kimmitt, said there was "solid evidence"
on Zarqawi, though refusing to present it. But providing
a remarkable explanation for such evidence deficits, a
March 4 Pentagon press conference proved extraordinary
in both its revelations and flip-flops.
Brigadier-General David Rodriguez of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff revealed that the Pentagon didn't even have "direct
evidence of whether he is alive or dead",
providing scathing commentary on the nature of so-
called evidence linking Zarqawi to attacks and bombings.
But that same day it emerged that an Iraqi resistance
group claimed that Zarqawi had been killed months
ago in the US bombing of northern Iraq, and that a
letter he had allegedly written to al-Qaeda seeking
aid in promoting an Iraqi civil war was "fabricated".


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FC13Ak02.html

[gandalf]

6. One might ask: Where exactly is THERE?

After all, they have bombed the hell out of Afghanistan. Given that a bigger terrorist operation has to be planned long beforehand, that time, money, people, infrastructure is needed -- from where does Al Qaeda act? From a still undetected hole in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border area? From there they certainly cannot mount a big terror operation.

[jmcgowanjm]

9. And if they can the US ispending way too much on logistics

[aquart]

7. Aznar gets the blame if 3/11 is al qaeda.

He would be the one who brought their attention to Spain because of his Iraq War support.

Not what he'd want before an election.

[jmcgowanjm]

4. "AZF" TOTAL/FINA LINK STILL IGNORED

The threat specified that the number of bombs involved
would be 10, the precise number exploded in Madrid
eight days later.

The timing was militarily precise. The planning impeccible.
The $ needed. Alot. Security needed. Alot.

Someone sent a message. Someone recieved it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=417148

[gandalf]

8. Yes, this was also mysterious

if it led somewhere dangerous, that direction would certainly not explored by the investigators...

Do you have a theory about the connection between the French event and this one?

[jmcgowanjm]

10. No, unless French Intel/Spanish Intel have been compromised

But it's like, if you contact the police, we will make an example.
But it doesn't make sense: if you can do it in Spain, then why
not extort Spanish Authorities.

Are the French that much better w/ Security?

And think of the Power necessary and the Hubris.
I for one would not want either France or Spain on my
ass, much less both.

And if some entity is wondering/wandering around, Gandalf, dangerous
is the word. Whoever did this can do this anywhere.

[Crachet2004]

5. "So, who will gain by these attacks? "

Just so. This is the pertinent question. As time goes by and elements of the right and repression continue to benefit politically from these attacks, we enter a sort of statistical 'Twilight Zone', similar to the one we already probabalistically inhabit with regards to Democrats and small aircraft.

Such convenience for any one group simply does not exist in the real world of hard numbers.

We can never be 100% sure of what we suspect we know, therefore it is a 'conspiracy theory', and easily dismissed by the Right. But again, as time goes by, and we continue to read these accounts by the light of the Reichstag Fire, we cannot help but wonder.

[westerby]

11. Probably it is a kind of 9/11 scenario

with a group of profiteers similar to that one in the US...

[jmcgowanjm]

12. Yes, Short IBEX insurance/airlines would give immediate $

Who shorted IBEX in the previous days/weeks.

Couldn't CIA's PROMIS tell of higher than normal
puts activity. I think Spain and France should have
PROMIS by now as well.

But no one has been hurt from shorting 911,
so why not do it again.

When someone profits from a mistake
you can expect that mistake to happen again.

[westerby]

13. Isn't that publicly available information?

I think financial newspapers or databases contain information on derivates trading activity, as long as it is done at the exchange and not OTC. Some journalists with access to Bloomberg should have a look.

[westerby]

14. kick

a Sunday-morning :kick: for some more thoughts...

[Kellanved]

15. Well

I don't think that the attacks will have much impact on European legislation. For starters most major European nations already had cases of terrorism and thus anti-terror laws ready to be used. While almost all of these laws were ineffective against terrorism, they do offer limits to freedom not totally unlike the Patriot act.

The German discussion to use the army domestically is as old as the Social-Democratic government: when the conservatives realized that the Social Democrats were doing a better job at national security (as practically on anything else, the media is spinning most of the issues pro-conservative) than any "black sheriff" in the past few years, they started the "interior army" meme. Practically it is without meaning: the German army is not trained to act as a domestic police force, they would do more damage with less results. In the cases where the Army might be useful, i.e. use of recon equipment, protection of the borders, or for civil protection in the face of (natural) catastrophes, it's deployment is already allowed by the constitution in the current form. That the media is not going "ROFLMAO" on this absurd opposition proposal is a nice indicator on how "left" the German media is.