# Separatist group?



## Cecilio

I have observed that in many English-speaking media the Basque terrorist group ETA is described as a "separatist group", which surprises me greatly. In Spain they're commonly termed "grupo/banda terrorista" or "banda criminal". In my opinion, ETA members are going through their own tunnel of darkness very far away from reality, they act as mafia members, practicing extortion, theft and other criminal activities, and have an incredible record of 900 deaths, that is, they have killed 900 people since the late 1950's.

Should they still be called a "separatist group" rather than a "terrorist group"?


----------



## invisibleu

Hi Cecilio,

I've just done a search on the BBC website with the phrases "Basque separatist group" and "Basque terrorist group", and it seems you're right (at least with regard to that particular English-speaking media organization) that "separatist group" is used much more frequently to describe ETA.
I totally agree with you that they should be called a terrorist group.

How are the IRA (who have killed even more than ETA and also "act as mafia members, practicing extortion, theft and other criminal activities") referred to in the Spanish media?


----------



## cuchuflete

Have a look at more on the same topic of sanitized names for murderers:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=36880


----------



## Cecilio

cuchuflete said:


> Have a look at more on the same topic of sanitized names for murderers:
> 
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=36880



Thank you for the link, cuchu, it is worth reading. I didn't know about it, among other things because I was not even a WR member at that time.

Post nº 14 in that thread is very relevant here, I think.


----------



## invictaspirit

You're right.  And it's not just the English speaking media either.  ETA are 'separatists' in many others.

I have sympathy with your irritation.  It made many Brits sick to see the IRA were 'irregulars' or even more disgustingly, 'freedom fighters' in some countries.  

The (broadcast) media in Britain will frequently *refer to what terrorists do* as 'terrorism' but often they pull up short as *calling the perpetrators* 'terrorists'.  Hence, Hamas and ETA commit 'acts of terrorism' but are seldom 'terrorists', but 'Palestinian groups', 'Basque seperatists' etc.

I think 'banda terrorista' is a term that will never be copied in other countries.  Outside Spain it will always be seen as too emotional and biased.  But ETA most certainly ARE terrorists, and are thought of as terrorists in Britain, if not always called so in the media.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom figher.


----------



## invisibleu

But someone who murders innocent people in the name of their cause will always be a callous murderer.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

invisibleu said:


> But someone who murders innocent people in the name of their cause will always be a callous murderer.



I completely agree. But let's have that standard across the board. When big armies bomb villages and rape civilians let them be known as "terrorists" as often as the guy whose family was murdered blows himself up at a checkpoint.


----------



## invisibleu

I agree with that too.


----------



## Cecilio

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I completely agree. But let's have that standard across the board. When big armies bomb villages and rape civilians let them be known as "terrorists" as often as the guy whose family was murdered blows himself up at a checkpoint.



Whenever the word "terrorism" is mentioned in a discussion, there's usually someone who starts talking about armies and governments as being 'terrorists'. We can all understand these metaphors but honestly I don't think they add any valuable idea to the discussion. If we generalize a word so that it means 'everything', then this word becomes useless. The question raised in this thread is basically about English-speaking media and their usage of the terms "terrorist" and "separatist" in connection with ETA and other such organizations.


----------



## invictaspirit

Pedro y La Torre said:


> One man's terrorist is another man's freedom figher.


 
It gets pretty fascinating and complex when we try to define our terms.

Mine are:

*A terrorist* is someone who promotes the aims of a minority group by armed force, specifically, the attacking of civilians who the terrorist perceives 'deserve' attacking, or who may be frightened into doing what the terrorist wants.

A *freedom fighter* is someone who acts with a recognised popular mandate against clearly cruel domestic rule or entirely foreign and entirely unwelcome invasion, and concentrates on attacking the military and political arm of the cruel or foreign power they have pitted themselves against.

Therefore, the IRA and ETA are/were terrorists. 

The IRA because they were fighting the legitimacy of the Britishness of Northern Ireland in the full knowledge that said Britishness was desired by the majority of Northern Ireland's people. Also because they frequently targeted completely innocent people, such as English shoppers, police officers in England, offices and office workers in London and hurt or killed countless local civilians in Northern Ireland. ETA, because their vision of an independent Basque state is a minority one in the Basque Country and because like the IRA, they have planted bombs in other areas of Spain with complete disregard to whether or not their detonation might kill innocent people, which they frequently have. They also assasinated democratically elected politicians and judges.

In the Palestinian case, it becomes really complex in my view. One group may be seen as terrorists when they blow up a bus or a cafe full of Israeli citizens in Tel Aviv. But quite differently when firing on occupying Israeli soldiers within Palestine or Lebanon.

I'd see the anti-Nazi resistance movements in WW2 Europe as freedom fighters.


----------



## xarruc

I remember reading a novel about 15 years ago about an ETA terrorist. It was an American or British novel and he was made out to be a hero fighting Franco. I was a bit young to understand about ETA and so on and didn't give it much thought. I know that many Brits went to fight against Franco and my father for one wouldn't visit Spain till he died. I am wondering perhaps Britain held some sympathy for ETA going back to its origins and so had been let off lightly with "separatist group" and that the name's stuck. Pure speculation of course.


----------



## Rodrigo_de_Burgos

I would add this, the difference between a freedom fighter, a sepratist and a terrorist all depends on which side of the issue you are.
I would say I can find thousands of Irish that see the I.R.A. as patriots and thousands of English that see them as terrorists. So again, depends on the slant that you look at them. That realy sucks but one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist, just look  at what the English said about the Americans during the American Revolution.


----------



## Athaulf

invictaspirit said:


> *A terrorist* is someone who promotes the aims of a minority group by armed force, specifically, the attacking of civilians who the terrorist perceives 'deserve' attacking, or who may be frightened into doing what the terrorist wants.
> 
> A *freedom fighter* is someone who acts with a recognised popular mandate against clearly cruel domestic rule or entirely foreign and entirely unwelcome invasion, and concentrates on attacking the military and political arm of the cruel or foreign power they have pitted themselves against.



I would say that the whole confusion stems the entirely misguided contraposition of these two words, which carry different characterizations of an armed force. "Terrorism" is the name of a particular well-defined military tactic, whereas "fight for freedom" is a moral judgment about someone's strategic goals. Whether a certain act of violence constitutes terrorism is a question entirely separate from whether it constitutes fight for "freedom," regardless of how one defines "freedom" in the political sense. 

Terrorism is a name for a particular military tactic, namely the use of violence to induce terror -- in the sense of overwhelming fear -- in broad segments of the enemy population for the purpose of achieving a strategic aim, whatever it might be. Thus, it should always be a clear and objective question whether a certain side in an armed struggle practices terrorism as a tactic, and whether they should thus be branded as terrorists. On the other hand, the question of whether a certain side fights for "freedom" is of course as subjective, vague, and controversial as the very definition of political "freedom" in that particular context. Thus, in many (if not most) cases, it is pointless to discuss whether someone is a "freedom fighter" or not.

Of course, political rhetoric normally thrives on muddling and confusing the meanings of words, and one of its principal techniques is obliterating the difference between words that carry positive (i.e. objective) characterizations of things and those that carry moral judgments about them. Thus, despite its very clear dictionary definition, "terrorist" has come to mean little more than "an armed evil enemy of whatever we cherish" nowadays.

Hence, most people will be reluctant to characterize a side they favor as terrorists, even if this side employs unambiguously terrorist tactics, and will enthusiastically brand those they disfavor as "terrorists" regardless of their actual preferred tactics. They will also use "freedom fighter" and other approving moral characterizations as if they were antonyms for "terrorist," even though a side in a conflict might well be using terrorist tactics to achieve strategic goals identical to whatever one identifies with political freedom. 

Please note that in this post, I'm speaking entirely in generalities and making no allusions whatsoever to any particular side in any ongoing conflict.


----------



## _forumuser_

Cecilio said:


> I have observed that in many English-speaking media the Basque terrorist group ETA is described as a "separatist group", which surprises me greatly. In Spain they're commonly termed "grupo/banda terrorista" or "banda criminal". In my opinion, ETA members are going through their own tunnel of darkness very far away from reality, they act as mafia members, practicing extortion, theft and other criminal activities, and have an incredible record of 900 deaths, that is, they have killed 900 people since the late 1950's.
> 
> Should they still be called a "separatist group" rather than a "terrorist group"?


 
We cannot isolate this particular case from the much broader question of pluralism in the media. I find it not only natural but highly desirable that foreign media see and talk about a country's internal issues from a different angle, whatever the reason behind it. For one thing, this forces the citizens of that country who take the trouble to look beyond their own backyard to question their domestic truths and that is always a good thing, though in some particular cases it might seem otherwise.


----------



## cuchuflete

Athaulf makes very good sense.  Taking into account the possible motives of those who set off explosives in subways, restaurants, places of worship, and commit violent acts against civilian targets of any and all kinds, they should be called murderers of ________(fill in all the nouns and adjectives one likes to "explain" motivation and affiliation).  Thus, for example, those who set the bombs in Madrid could be called murderers thought to be affiliated with  _______(whatever group a journalist believes them to be working with).


----------



## _forumuser_

cuchuflete said:


> Athaulf makes very good sense. Taking into account the possible motives of those who set off explosives in subways, restaurants, places of worship, and commit violent acts against civilian targets of any and all kinds, they should be called murderers of ________(fill in all the nouns and adjectives one likes to "explain" motivation and affiliation). Thus, for example, those who set the bombs in Madrid could be called murderers thought to be affiliated with _______(whatever group a journalist believes them to be working with).


 
How does this follow from Athaulf's post? It seems to me you are saying two quite different things.


----------



## cuchuflete

You may have a group which a journalist perceives as 'fighters for freedom".  If said group, in an effort to achieve goals to which the journalist is sympathetic, blows up a car bomb in front of a shopping center, killing civilians, they will have committed murder.  Accurate journalism should report that as murder of civilians, or terrorism.  If they wish to put it in a way that also shows appreciation of the motives or motivation of the killers they may do so:  'Freedom fighter murder civilians at shopping center' or 'Many civilians killed in bomb attack by fighters against tyrannical xxxxxxxxxx".  

Reports that charaterize killers only by their supposed motivation or affiliation do not tell what happens in honest words.  This is true whether the characterizations are positive or negative.  It is certainly possible for the "fighters for freedom" one supports or approves of to commit terrorist acts.


----------



## _forumuser_

cuchuflete said:


> You may have a group which a journalist perceives as 'fighters for freedom". If said group, in an effort to achieve goals to which the journalist is sympathetic, blows up a car bomb in front of a shopping center, killing civilians, they will have committed murder. Accurate journalism should report that as murder of civilians, or terrorism. If they wish to put it in a way that also shows appreciation of the motives or motivation of the killers they may do so: 'Freedom fighter murder civilians at shopping center' or 'Many civilians killed in bomb attack by fighters against tyrannical xxxxxxxxxx".
> 
> Reports that charaterize killers only by their supposed motivation or affiliation do not tell what happens in honest words. This is true whether the characterizations are positive or negative. It is certainly possible for the "fighters for freedom" one supports or approves of to commit terrorist acts.


 
Thanks for the clarification. But I do think you two are saying different things. If I understand both of you correctly, Athaulf is saying that people will use the label that best suits their reading of an event while you are saying that no matter what that reading is, accurate journalism should still call things by their name. 

If I may add one little consideration, I don't think the choice depends so much on the personal views of individual journalists as on entrenched habits of the entire media and political establishments. The habit of calling Basque terrorism (or whatever you call it) "acts of guerrilla by a separatist group", for example, dates from long before the more recent infamous episodes in Madrid which have made things look more black and white than they were some years back. The names themselves have a history which makes sudden changes difficult.


----------



## cuchuflete

I agree that there are entrenched habits.  That's why I began the earlier thread on a very similar topic.  The habits may reflect an editorial posture of a single publisher, or a general national or regional view.   I am suggesting, very simply, that the characterizations of groups be independent from honest reporting about their acts.  

An editorial "slant" may be applied to an individual or a group.  That shouldn't justify calling civilian bloodshed by any name other than what it really is.  Imagine, for a painful example, "Justifiable homicide in car-bombing by ________, noble warriors for freedom and independence."


----------



## Athaulf

_forumuser_ said:


> If I may add one little consideration, I don't think the choice depends so much on the personal views of individual journalists as on entrenched habits of the entire media and political establishments. The habit of calling Basque terrorism (or whatever you call it) "acts of guerrilla by a separatist group", for example, dates from long before the more recent infamous episodes in Madrid which have made things look more black and white than they were some years back. The names themselves have a history which makes sudden changes difficult.



However, the problem over which I am complaining is that the political rhetoric in such cases corrupts perfectly good and precise technical terms and turns them into mere childish insults and scare words without any coherent meaning. In this example, a comparison of undisputed facts about ETA's activities with the dictionary definitions of relevant terms shows that it is indeed a guerrilla group, a separatist group, and also a terrorist group. The latter follows from the fact that as its principal tactics, it uses violence to inspire terror in the part of the population that is opposed to its goals. I don't think that even its most ardent supporters would deny this fact, either nowadays or however many years back.

If the words are used in such an objective and precise manner, there should be no disagreement here. But when the word "terrorist" starts being used as an emotional insult with no concrete meaning beyond "someone so over-the-top-evil," it becomes impossible to speak in an objective, neutral, and dispassionate manner. One is forced to adopt a rhetoric laden with emotions and moral judgment whether one wants it or not, because even avoiding the hopelessly corrupted terms such as "terrorist" altogether is interpreted as an attempt to give a positive moral judgment, rather than to avoid any at all. Of course, this is exactly the desired effect of political rhetoric, since politics is certainly not about rational discourse. 

I am of course just taking ETA as a concrete example here; the same goes for any other usage of terms such as "terrorist." I am angry because in such situations, I find it impossible to discuss things in a neutral and disinterested manner, because all the available relevant words have rhetorical baggage.


----------



## invictaspirit

Rodrigo_de_Burgos said:


> I would add this, the difference between a freedom fighter, a sepratist and a terrorist all depends on which side of the issue you are.
> I would say I can find thousands of Irish that see the I.R.A. as patriots and thousands of English that see them as terrorists. So again, depends on the slant that you look at them. That realy sucks but one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist, just look at what the English said about the Americans during the American Revolution.


 
You miss the point about the IRA. Yes, you could find me thousands of Irish who see the IRA as patriots. But I could find you millions of Irish who see the IRA as terrorist scum.

That's my point. The IRA always represented a small minority in Ireland. Most Irish people were heartily disgusted by what was being done in their name. While a large majority of Irish people in the Republic sought an eventual reunion with the north, they were decent and civilised people and certainly did not support bombing campaigns against English shopping malls as a way of furthering this aim.

If you are Irish, you tend to have no illusions about the IRA. They are politically Stalinists and economically, drug-dealers, extortionists and criminals. Many tens of thousands of Irish citizens have been beaten-up, 'knee-capped', threatened and frightened by the IRA.

So sides often have nothing to do with it. It's the clear reality of the situation. If you see thugs blowing little English kids' arms off in Warrington in the name of a cause you vaguely believe in, you *still* call them terrorists. A large majority of Irish people are proof of this.


----------



## Etcetera

invictaspirit said:


> You're right.  And it's not just the English speaking media either.  ETA are 'separatists' in many others.


Including Russia. 
I've heard ETA being called "a terrorist organisation", but only once or twice.


----------



## Cecilio

If I hear or read the term "separatist group" in British or Russian media, I may imagine that this group is a peaceful organization of people who share a political view about the independence of a given territory. I could think that a "separatist group" is a political party with such aims. But ETA or IRA were far from this. They had their respective political branches or social organizations, but ETA and IRA are or were exclusively terrorist organizations, whose only aim is or was to cause terror by means of all kinds of criminal acts. So what point is there in calling them "separatist groups"? What is the aim of a "separatist group"? A lot of people have died in ETA's terorist attacks, including pregnant women, children and parents killed in front of their children. Do you call this the activities of a "separatist group"?


----------



## ireney

Hmmm
What about the Chechen though? To my mind they are terrorists plain and simple (not all Chechen obviously! I am talking about the "freedom fighters").  However, from what I read at least, I get the feel that I am a minority. I get the feeling that it's a case of "yes but it's Russia's fault". Now I don't want to get into a comparison of how each state treats its people (it's not as if I know nor -I think- it is within the scope of this discussion) but isn't it how some people "see" things? Big bad state Y oppresses poor X and therefore what else could X do? (I repeat, I am not saying that this is the case with Spain or Russia or any other country you may think of).


Mind you,  I am one of the people who believe that it doesn't matter if it's an "official" army or an "unofficial" one who aims non-combatants; whoever attacks non-combatants (or claims that it really doesn't matter how many of them are killed as "collateral damage") deserve to be called terrorists. 
If you declare a war, officially or unofficially (because you have no "legal" status in the international community), you ought to attack the "army" of the other side. In this case, whether one agrees with your cause or not you are a freedom fighter I'd say.


----------



## cuchuflete

We have all been earnestly discussing this from the viewpoints of the media and the folks doing the killing.   How about the
people who end up mained, bleeding, defunct, terrorized, murdered, killed, and otherwise injured or deprived of life?

Let's just agree on simple terminology.  If they are despatched (slaughtered?) by 'freedom fighters', then logically they must be "sacrificed for freedom" or "martyrs" or at very least "contributors to the cause of freedom".



_Smalltownville, 13 Oct. (Roiturs)  _Chechen freedom fighters today contributed the lives and limbs of dozens of schoolchildren....
In other news, pro-independence members of ETA, the Basque liberty-seeking group, eliminated the corporal existence of a number of shoppers in Madrid, while using explosive devices to promote their cause.


----------



## Etcetera

Cecilio said:


> If I hear or read the term "separatist group" in British or Russian media, I may imagine that this group is a peaceful organization of people who share a political view about the independence of a given territory. I could think that a "separatist group" is a political party with such aims.


I agree with you. 
There's a small group of people who want St. Petersburg and Leningrad region to separate from Russia. They're absolutely peaceful, and they can be called a "separatist group". 
Well, any group that wants this or that territory to be independent can be called that. But as soon as a member of such group murders someone in the name of freedom of this or that territory (and the group approves of this crime), the group becomes a terrorist organisation.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

> A *freedom fighter* is someone who acts with a recognised popular mandate against clearly cruel domestic rule or entirely foreign and entirely unwelcome invasion, and concentrates on attacking the military and political arm of the cruel or foreign power they have pitted themselves against.



The IRA did have a popular mandate, albeit from only one side of the community. The way the British/Protestant classes supported by the government in London treated the Catholic community bred both contempt and hatred from large areas of the Catholic population and so spawned the IRA. Remember it was the RUC who attacked the Bogside and tried to stomp out civil rights demonstrations before there was any IRA to speak of. The IRA, at least in its early incarnations, concentrated on attacking the British army and the RUC both powers of oppression from their point of view. While one may not have agreed with their objectives or means (as I don't), if we are to call their acts which killed civilians terrorism then we must also declare the massacres and imprisonment by the RUC/British army of Catholic civilians acts of terrorism too. Just because an act is state supported does not desist from its true nature.

IMO it's all to easy to demonize the other side without recognizing our own failings/crimes. That's the reason why I really dislike this word terrorist because at the end of the day what is a terrorist? Any definition you come up with can easily be changed around to fit the other side.



> I'd see the anti-Nazi resistance movements in WW2 Europe as freedom fighters.



I agree but if the Nazi's had won WWII would we believe this? It's interesting to examine how even our own governments distort our views of the other side without us even knowing it.


----------



## maxiogee

Pedro y La Torre said:


> The IRA did have a popular mandate,


Tosh!
Most "nationalists", while opposing the Stormont regime and all it's apparatus, rejected the IRA's activities and only slowly took to voting in numbers for Sinn Féin, and that after all the other options were frustrated by various parties.






> I agree but if the Nazi's had won WWII would we believe this?


What we would believe would surely not be subject to who was in power. British people wouldn't have automatically become Nazi-supporters and voters (I imagine that, even if Germany had won WWII, there'd have been elections by now!) and ready to accept a belief-system which ran counter to their history. 
This type of "What if the Germans had won?" argument always seems to suppose that the conquered would have lain down and placidly accepted domination by the enemy! It's ludicrous.






> It's interesting to examine how even our own governments distort our views of the other side without us even knowing it.


I'll ask you one question as proof that this is total tosh…
Do you take your views of "the other side" from your own government?


----------



## invictaspirit

Pedro y La Torre said:


> The IRA did have a popular mandate, albeit from only one side of the community. The way the British/Protestant classes supported by the government in London treated the Catholic community bred both contempt and hatred from large areas of the Catholic population and so spawned the IRA. Remember it was the RUC who attacked the Bogside and tried to stomp out civil rights demonstrations before there was any IRA to speak of. The IRA, at least in its early incarnations, concentrated on attacking the British army and the RUC both powers of oppression from their point of view. While one may not have agreed with their objectives or means (as I don't), if we are to call their acts which killed civilians terrorism then we must also declare the massacres and imprisonment by the RUC/British army of Catholic civilians acts of terrorism too. Just because an act is state supported does not desist from its true nature.
> 
> IMO it's all to easy to demonize the other side without recognizing our own failings/crimes. That's the reason why I really dislike this word terrorist because at the end of the day what is a terrorist? Any definition you come up with can easily be changed around to fit the other side.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree but if the Nazi's had won WWII would we believe this? It's interesting to examine how even our own governments distort our views of the other side without us even knowing it.


 
Please do not make the mistake of assuming that because I am calling the IRA terrorists (which they were) I am not aware of the crimes of the RUC or loyalist terrorists either.

Having spent ten years more or less embedded in the London Irish communities of North London, and counting dozens of citizens of the Republic and the North (both republican and a few unionists) as friends, I am more than happy with my analysis of a. the terrorism of the IRA and more improtantly b. what different communities of Irish people thought about it.

While you are right that many in the nationalist communities of NI either loudly or quietly supported the IRA, a great many did not and loathed and continue to loathe them. And in 23 years of adulthood I have only met 3 people who grew up in the Republic and did not disdain the IRA as a bunch of thugs, drug-dealers, extortionists and gangsters.

PIRA was a deplorable and disgusting organisation. And I say that as someone who had and still has a great deal of sympathy with Irish nationalist in the North. It's the sheer, willful ignoring of the wish of the majority and the bloody-minded insistence that the majority will be bombed and shot (in their homes, in the pub, out shopping) into submission that makes the IRA terrorists. That, and the disgraceful way they treated their own people. A kid smoking and dealing a little dope, or shagging the wrong girl, gets a warning, then gets a pasting, then gets knee-capped. WTF is *that*? Army discipline? Nope...it's just nasty, thuggish terrorism...this time meted out on their own. Do you actually *know* any people from the North? I know a pub landlord in Belfast who was put in hospital for three weeks because not enough of his punters were playing IRA fruit machines! No lie. Freedom fighters?

The IRA did not have a popular mandate outside certain very localised and well-defined Catholic areas of urban and occasionally rural Northern Ireland. South Armagh and Crossmaglen springs to mind as an example. I went out with a nationalist/catholic young woman from Fermanagh for a while in the 1980s. All her family voted SDLP and hated the IRA and were embarrassed by them. The precentage of people who called themselves Irishmen in the island of Ireland who supported the IRA was tiny. That is not a popular mandate. When I say *popular* mandate, I mean *really widespread approval*. And you will note that only a minority of the NI community regard Britain as a foreign country. A majority regard it as home. My idea of a freedom fighter is along the lines of the French resistance, supported by almost everyone either tacitly or openly, against a clearly totally foreign, totally invasive power. Very far indeed, then, from the IRA.

As an English Catholic, I deplore some of the excesses and bile of Loyalism/Ulster Protestantism, whether they be religious or political. It doesn't prevent me from thinking that any intelligent and kindly person, irrespective of origin, can quite easily and unequivocably call the IRA terrorists. They blew the arm clean off an English toddler while she was shopping with her mum! That's dirty, bone-headed terrorism! It's terrorism whether you come from the Falls Road or Surrey.


----------



## Cecilio

Some foreros participating in this thread have expressed the following idea (summarized in my own words):

_- If we call ETA or IRA "terrorist groups" we should equally call other organizations (governemnets, armies, etc.) "terrorists"._

In my opinion this is an overgeneralization, and I don't agree with it. Besides,  I would ask the following question:

*If we don't call ETA or IRA "terrorist groups", what do we call them?
*


----------



## ireney

Errrr... Cecilio could you be more specific? I don't know who you might referring to because I haven't seen such a post


----------



## Cecilio

Example 1:



Pedro y La Torre said:


> When big armies bomb villages and rape civilians let them be known as "terrorists" as often as the guy whose family was murdered blows himself up at a checkpoint.



Example 2:



ireney said:


> Mind you,  I am one of the people who believe that it doesn't matter if it's an "official" army or an "unofficial" one who aims non-combatants; whoever attacks non-combatants (or claims that it really doesn't matter how many of them are killed as "collateral damage") deserve to be called terrorists.






ireney said:


> Errrr... Cecilio could you be more specific? I don't know who you might referring to because I haven't seen such a post



I might be wrong, but here you can see two quotes from previous posts in this thread which might answer your query. By the way, it's the first time I've ever used "multi-quote" and I hope it works.


----------



## ireney

Excellent use of the multi-quote! (I had to edit like crazy the first time I used it  )

I am sure Pedro y La Torre can speak for himself ; are you sure you read what I said correctly? " If we call ETA or IRA "terrorist groups" we should equally call other organizations (governemnets, armies, etc.) "terrorists"." does not describe what I believe nor what I wrote (and I forgot an "s" there at deserve*s*).


----------



## Cecilio

You mentioned in your post that some organizations deserved to be called terrorists, regardless of their being "official" or "unofficial" armies. I honestly think that this is more or less what I described using my own words. I can't see any important misconceptions between one thing and the other, unless you want to use some sort of 'miscroscope' in search of detail.

I'll repeat the question I asked a few posts ago:

*If we don't call ETA or IRA "terrorist groups", what do we call them?
*
And remember: this question arises because in British media they systematically use "separatist group" to refer to ETA, which I find very inappropriate. That's why I started this thread.

You mention the word "army". Is that the term you would propose? (I'm only guessing here).


----------



## Fernando

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I agree but if the Nazi's had won WWII would we believe this? It's interesting to examine how even our own governments distort our views of the other side without us even knowing it.



Laus Deo, they had not and we can call it just the word they are.


----------



## ireney

Cecilio read my post a bit more carefully eh?  I think ETA is a terrorist whatever. I will call a terrorist whatever any organised set that attacks non-combatants. I am not interested in their official status. They attack non-combatants etc (see my post), they are involved in terrorism. Is that more clear?


----------



## Cecilio

Cecilio said:


> Some foreros participating in this thread have expressed the following idea (summarized in my own words):
> 
> _- If we call ETA or IRA "terrorist groups" we should equally call other organizations (governemnets, armies, etc.) "terrorists"._
> 
> In my opinion this is an overgeneralization, and I don't agree with it. Besides,  I would ask the following question:
> 
> *If we don't call ETA or IRA "terrorist groups", what do we call them?
> *



Ireney, I think you should read my posts more carefully too. Here you can see my post nº 31. The sentence in italics applies to something that you  said previously. You call ETA a "terrorist group". Yes, I'm not saying otherwise. When did I say the opposite? Then you mentioned other supposed "terrorists". That's what you did, and that's why I talk about it. What's the problem?


----------



## ernest_

Terrorism is an empty word that doesn't relly mean anything, it is merely used a derogatory term because of the negative emotional connotations attached to it. The propper term is 'asymmetric warfare' and that's the one that should be used.


----------



## Cecilio

ernest_ said:


> Terrorism is an empty word that doesn't relly mean anything, it is merely used a derogatory term because of the negative emotional connotations attached to it. The propper term is 'asymmetric warfare' and that's the one that should be used.



"Terrorism" comes from "terror", and the aim of the terrosits' actions is basically to cause terror. There may be all kinds of connotations but the meaning of the term is quite clear. We can of course create as many euphemisms as we see fit, like "separatist group" or the one that you mention, "asymmetric warfare". I'd never seen this one before. Let's see: "Ten people killed in Madrid by asymmetric warfare". Right now it sounds profoundly ridiculous, and macabre, but who knows, maybe in some years' time the term will be perceived as normal. On the other hand, according to you, how shall we call ETA or IRA? Asymmetric armies?


----------



## Fernando

ernest_ said:


> Terrorism is an empty word that doesn't relly mean anything, it is merely used a derogatory term because of the negative emotional connotations attached to it. The propper term is 'asymmetric warfare' and that's the one that should be used.



Quite on the contrary, "Asymmetric warfare" is an eupehemism, politically correct term for outright terrorism. It is what terrorists all over the war like to be called.

What is the idea of "asymmetric warfare"? "As Spanish government is very strong and his army and his citizens and my (?) citizens doi not support me, I can not make a stance and fight and I will rather set a bomb in a mall?????"


----------



## invictaspirit

ernest_ said:


> Terrorism is an empty word that doesn't relly mean anything, it is merely used a derogatory term because of the negative emotional connotations attached to it. The propper term is 'asymmetric warfare' and that's the one that should be used.


 
No. Terrorism is a word quite definitely understood and well-anchored in its meaning by anyone with a little compassion and intelligence. It is not at all empty and is well understood.

Terrorism is a term that is willfully obscured and deliberately complicated by apologists of its perpetrators. This has to be so, so that those of us who wish to excuse terrorism, but haven't quite got the courage to do so, can make political points. The deliberate complication of language and the insistence that a particular term is 'empty' or 'depends' on various factors, where no real complication actually exists, is nearly always political.

There's nothing complicated or hard to understand about the terms terrorism or terrorist. To insist otherwise always results in the partial or total excusing of such acts.


----------



## Etcetera

invictaspirit said:


> No. Terrorism is a word quite definitely understood and well-anchored in its meaning by anyone with a little compassion and intelligence. It is not at all empty and is well understood.
> 
> Terrorism is a term that is willfully obscured and deliberately complicated by apologists of its perpetrators. This has to be so, so that those of us who wish to excuse terrorism, but haven't quite got the courage to do so, can make political points. The deliberate complication of language and the insistance that a particular term is 'empty' or 'depends' on various factors, where no real complication actually exists, is nearly always political.
> 
> There's nothing complicated or hard to understand about the terms terrorism or terrorist. To insist otherwise always results in the partial or total excusing of such acts.


Couldn't have said it better myself. 
Thank you for expressing it all so clearly, Invicta.


----------



## ireney

Cecilio I do not equate terrorists and armies, governments and whatnot. I equate the terrorist acts committed by terrorist groups with the same acts  committed by "official" armies. 

If for example the Greek army kills non-combatants (especially if this is done on purpose) then the Greek army commits an act of terrorism. If this action is sanctioned by the Greek government then the Greek government is also responsible for this act of terrorism. 

Do you disagree with that? If so why?


----------



## Cecilio

I call organizations such as ETA or IRA, whose main aim is to cause terror, simply "terrorist groups". This thread is about this type of groups and not about 'official' armies. The main aim of an army is to defend a territory. However, it's far too obvious that they may be used for other more sinister purposes (the history of the world is full of examples). We can use words such as 'ethnic cleansing', 'extermination', 'assassination', etc., so that there's no real need to use the word "terrorist" for these actions, unless a special para-military force is trained in specific terrorist activities. That would be a different matter.

Let's go back to the initial question in this thread. Do you think the British press are right in calling ETA a "separatist group"? Do you agree with this?


----------



## maxiogee

ernest_ said:


> Terrorism is an empty word that doesn't relly mean anything, it is merely used a derogatory term because of the negative emotional connotations attached to it. The propper term is 'asymmetric warfare' and that's the one that should be used.



Pardon my sneer, but what dictionary have you been abusing?

Terrorism is a word which is overflowing with meanings, every victim has a different understanding of the word - and yet, if you had ever seen the results of a terrorist 'incident' you would know all to well exactly how all-too-small the word is for conveying your emotions about the event.

"asymmetric warfare" is for the memoirs of gutless godfathers who send youngsters out to kill and die for a cause!


----------



## ernest_

You can call them whatever you want. But the BBC, unlike you, has to be objective. And to be objective means to apply the same criteria in all situations, something you fail to do.

These are the BBC guidelines for the use of the word terrorism, which I think are fair enough:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/terrorismlanguage/ourapproach.shtml


----------



## invictaspirit

ireney said:


> Cecilio I do not equate terrorists and armies, governments and whatnot. I equate the terrorist acts committed by terrorist groups with the same acts committed by "official" armies.
> 
> If for example the Greek army kills non-combatants (especially if this is done on purpose) then the Greek army commits an act of terrorism. If this action is sanctioned by the Greek government then the Greek government is also responsible for this act of terrorism.
> 
> Do you disagree with that? If so why?


 
I would disagree.

The Greek Army is part of the armed forces of a democratic and civilised member of NATO and the EU. If it should find itself sent into battle by the Greek presidency and parliament, in the name of the Greek people, it would mostly conduct itself within the spheres of Greek and international law.

If it accidentally killed non-combatants (which of course it would do as not doing so in a war is virtually impossible) it would *not* be a terrorist organisation. It would still be the armed forces of a civilised country. If, however, the Greek Army began a practice of *deliberately* targeting non-combatants and *purposely* bombing civilian areas with the express intention of spreading fear and panic, we would have to look very carefully indeed at whether or not it was acting like a terrorist group. Even then I could argue that it might not be. If, for example, some other power (inevitably I will, with some reservation, use the example of Turkey) was laying waste to residential areas of Athens and Thessaloniki to soften it up for invasion or collapse, it *might* be justified to be doing the same to Istanbul. In a war whose outcome was *the survival of Greece*, I would not at all charge the Greek military with being terrorists for taking extremely punitive measures indeed against its enemy, especially if Greece judged this was the only way of protecting many thousands of Greek lives or the sustainablity of Greek democracy.

I think a crucial factor is how quickly, casually and joyfully a force (be it military or paramilitary) seeks to spread terror by targeting civilians. I can't imagine a situation where the Greek military would try to do that. It might finally and inevitably *have* to do that, in a terrible war of national survival. But they would still be the Greek Army, defending Greece, with a popular mandate backed by international law and sober legislative process. That is not terrorism.


----------



## Fernando

As far as I am not BBC, which can hairsplit and say that it is correct to use "slaughter" and "carnage" (rather derogative terms, to me) and it is incorrect "terrorist", I will use "terrorist" for the well of understanding each other.

ETA is a separatist Marxist-Leninist Basque TERRORIST group. Since I do not have nothing against Basques, little against M-L and just a strong disagreement with separatists, I think that dropping "terrorist" is an essential lack of information.

If you have any doubt about what a sniper shooting an US soldier in Iraq from a civilian building is, you can call it "insurgent" if that is your desire. Blowing out a Baghdad market, killing 50 is terrorism, here, in Baghdad and in China.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

maxiogee said:


> Tosh!
> Most "nationalists", while opposing the Stormont regime and all it's apparatus, rejected the IRA's activities and only slowly took to voting in numbers for Sinn Féin, and that after all the other options were frustrated by various parties.



True many nationalists did not support the IRA, but I don't think I ever said _all _nationalists supported them I said they had a _popular mandate_ from the Catholic community, a different thing entirely. Now the IRA was at it's essence a community based group and could not have survived without substantial support from the Catholic community, it's was local Catholics who joined it, funded it, gave them shelter etc. Up until at least the late 1980's they had a great deal (not complete by any means) of support from the Catholic community. When everyone, including IRA leadership, recognized their armed campaign was never going to achieve its ends the moves toward peace started.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> What we would believe would surely not be subject to who was in power. British people wouldn't have automatically become Nazi-supporters and voters (I imagine that, even if Germany had won WWII, there'd have been elections by now!) and ready to accept a belief-system which ran counter to their history. This type of "What if the Germans had won?" argument always seems to suppose that the conquered would have lain down and placidly accepted domination by the enemy! It's ludicrous.



It's often said history is written by the victors, how true a statement! Now of course not everyone would subscribe to a negative view of the anti-Nazi movements had the Germans won WWII, if I gave that impression I apologize. My point is however, you only have to look throughout history to see how victors have distorted reality and turned questionable actions into heroic ones. For instance, the Irish state (as confirmed by this years rather ridiculous parades) views 1916 as an act of the highest heroism by Pearce et al. The British authorities at the time certainly viewed them as terrorists in every sense of the modern day use of the word, yet because they laid their lives down so to speak they are regarded as martyrs for the Irish cause despite the fact their actions caused widespread destruction and the killing of innocent civilians. If Ireland had remained under British rule would Pearse, Mac Diarmada and the rest still be regarded as some of the main heroes of Irish history? I severely doubt it.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> I'll ask you one question as proof that this is total tosh…
> Do you take your views of "the other side" from your own government?



No but I don't think I ever said I did (if my post suggested that I did not mean for it to). I was suggesting that governments have and continue to distort public perception for their own ends. Do you believe I'm wrong? Look at Iraq, Bush is still harping on that Iraq was a worthwhile war and it is better off today than under Saddam despite the fact the US helped turn Iraq into the murderous hellhole it now is. Now the American public may be starting to question if the war is worth it but how many aided by outfits like Fox News still take the government at its word? How many are convinced the U.S. is involved in Iraq in order to "free" the Iraqis!? Quite many I would assume!


----------



## Dr. Quizá

ernest_ said:


> You can call them whatever you want. But the BBC, unlike you, has to be objective. And to be objective means to apply the same criteria in all situations, something you fail to do.



Oh, really? So then ERC and Aralar are objectively the same as ETA/Batasuna, aren't they?




Calling ETA "separatist group" is as precise, irrelevant and repugnantely trivializating as calling them "association of white people". Because that's true but that's not the reason of seeing them in the news. You see them there because they are a killer group (and this is objective and indisputable) that uses terror as a tool, not because they're separatists (or white). There are a lot of separatist (and white) groups that are pacific. Maybe you don't know them just because they're not terrorists.


----------



## Cecilio

ernest_ said:


> You can call them whatever you want. But the BBC, unlike you, has to be objective. And to be objective means to apply the same criteria in all situations, something you fail to do.



Thank you for the link, it is very interesting, and it shows an obvious thing: any sort of media must be careful when using such words as "terrorism", etc. I couldn' agree more with that. Let's keep the word "terrorist group" to some clearly defined cases. Obviously, it depends on the target audience of these media: a Spanish audience, a world audience, a British audience. Words exist in context, that's obvious. If we analyse the Spanish context, it looks like ETA is something like the perfect example of a terrorist group in all its characteristics. It's difficult to imagine a better candidate for the label "terrorist group", in the sense that the only mission of that group is to cause terror in society by a variety of means, many of them inspired by mafia.

The article in your link suggests that when writing about terrorist attacks the writer should try to avoid words which may arise sentimerntal responses, etc., but the example he gives is clearly out of context and apparently contradicts the main point in his theory. The moment you write about an event like the one in Omagh it is impossible not use words that may convey some sort of attitude. Can you imagine a neutral article about it? I don't really want to imagine it. Who would write it, a robot?

On the other hand, in that link most of the examples refer to the Middle East, where the sociopolitical situation is extremely complex and difficult to examine. It is altofgether difficult to judge some of the parties involved or to try to guess from here what's going on there. But the situation in Western Europe is quite different. ETA and IRA are the classical examples of, say, 'European' terrorist groups. It looks like the word "terrorist group" was invented for them. In previous times terrorist attacks were carried out by individuals or by people organised in small groups. With ETA and IRA we have impressive organizations, impressive promoters of terror, because that is or was their one and only aim: terror. That's why I'm still amazed to see that in the British media they tend to say that ETA is a "separatist group". I simply can't believe it.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

Check out these searches:

http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&q...+-kelompok+site:bbc.co.uk&btnG=Búsqueda&meta=

http://www.google.es/search?q=IRA+"...lompok+site:bbc.co.uk&hl=es&lr=&start=30&sa=N

I can get some conclusions from that.


----------



## ernest_

Cecilio said:


> But the situation in Western Europe is quite different. ETA and IRA are the classical examples of, say, 'European' terrorist groups. It looks like the word "terrorist group" was invented for them. In previous times terrorist attacks were carried out by individuals or by people organised in small groups. With ETA and IRA we have impressive organizations, impressive promoters of terror, because that is or was their one and only aim: terror.



Only a fool could believe that they do what they do -including puting their lives and their relative freedom at stake- just for the sake of terrifying people. Should that be true, they would target everybody indiscriminately instead of carefully choose their victims as they are known to do. They wouldn't warn the police well in advance before any of their devices blows up as they do - at least ETA do. They wouldn't claim their actions. They wouldn't even proclaim their existence. What for? Why would they want to give such an invaluable information to their enemies, thus helping them to stop their reign of terror? No, it's utter and total nonsense. Terror is only a mean to an end, of course. It is a military tactic. A pretty clever one, though not always works. And do not believe for a split second that the so-called terrorists are the only ones using these tactics. Regular armies know all these and employ them everyday, usually in a far more sadistic fashion. The only difference is that they are not called terrorists but freedom fighters, or peace keepers, or some equally moronic denomination. I'm sorry mate, but it's got to be said.


----------



## Fernando

Yeah, ETA carefully choose their victims.

- They carefully chose every people in the mall in Barcelona.
- They carefully chose the one-year child whose brain was blowed in Madrid.
- They carefully chose the child whose legs were amputed and her mother. 
- They carefully chose the children of Guardias civiles they killed.
- They carefully chose PP & PSOE members of City Council.
- They carefully chose the member of PP who had an opportunity to become San Sebastián major.
- They carefully chose the generals to provoke a military coup d'etat.
- They carefully chose militars and policemen without protection, setting a bomb in their vehicles.

Of course, they are men of high purposes. Do you mean Nazis, or Pol Pot did not have high purpose? Do you mean they did what they did because they were evil guys? They use just military tactits, do not they, man? They had a high-purpose: To enlarge their country and to arrive to the New Man. Murdering 6 million Jews and enerting into a 60-million death toll war was just a military tactics.

Man, what a lot of scrap.


----------



## Cecilio

ernest_ said:


> Only a fool could believe that they do what they do -including puting their lives and their relative freedom at stake- just for the sake of terrifying people. Should that be true, they would target everybody indiscriminately instead of carefully choose their victims as they are known to do. They wouldn't warn the police well in advance before any of their devices blows up as they do - at least ETA do. They wouldn't claim their actions. They wouldn't even proclaim their existence. What for? Why would they want to give such an invaluable information to their enemies, thus helping them to stop their reign of terror? No, it's utter and total nonsense. Terror is only a mean to an end, of course. It is a military tactic. A pretty clever one, though not always works. And do not believe for a split second that the so-called terrorists are the only ones using these tactics. Regular armies know all these and employ them everyday, usually in a far more sadistic fashion. The only difference is that they are not called terrorists but freedom fighters, or peace keepers, or some equally moronic denomination. I'm sorry mate, but it's got to be said.



I repeat it once more: ETA's only aim is to cause terror by all means. Why do they cause this terror? Obviuosly because they say they're fighting for a superior goal. But in ETA's activities there's nothing but sheer terror. They have had a political branch (Herri Batasuna) and some other satellite organizations, but ETA simply deals with training terrorists, preparing terror campaigns, extorting people, and in general contributing to create an atmopshere of terror in society. So ETA is basically a terrorist group.

A few weeks ago there was a demostration of young people who belong to one of these ETA satellite organizations. That's typical in the Basque country. Brainwashed teenagers get out on the streets to behave like drunken monkeys. In a demonstration a few weeks ago a group of these teenagers tried to burn alive two local policemen. This is what I call terror. Not to mention the hundreds of Basques who need bodyguards for protection or who have to live in a continuous state of threat. A state of terror created by a terrorist group. Or, as they say in the British media, a "separatist group".


----------



## invictaspirit

Of *course* the IRA and ETA have ideals. Who on earth was saying they did not? The ideals (a Basque state and a unified Ireland) are perfectly moral, even. Many disagree with them, of course, but the ideals are not evil in themselves.

That doesn't stop the *methods* from being those of psychopathic bastards.

Most people in the Republic of Ireland would prefer to be unified with the North. Very few think that this should be achieved by bombing English people and Ulster protestants. That's where the IRA differ from the Irish nation they claim to serve. Irish people are civilised Europeans. The IRA are a bizarre band of dodgy businessmen, gangsters, psychopath farmers and general low-life hooligans whose upper echelons have vague notions of hard-line socialist nationalism and have been prepared to murder innocent people to achieve it.


----------



## ernest_

invictaspirit said:


> Of *course* the IRA and ETA have ideals. Who on earth was saying they did not?


Loads of people. Take Cecilio for instance, to him these people are just a bunch of madmen, or to put it in his words brainwashed drunken monkeys, that is to say people incapable of rational thinking. Not even humans but monkeys. Do monkeys have ideals? Of course not. They deny these people have ideals because of the very fact that they are terrifyied by these ideals much more than they are by the guns. They'd rather prefer to be killed rather than let the Basques freely decide their future. That may shock you, you being English and all, but this is very common in Spain, in fact that of Cecilio is the mainstream line of thought, shared by both conservatives and liberals.


----------



## Cecilio

ernest_ said:


> Loads of people. Take Cecilio for instance, to him these people are just a bunch of madmen, or to put it in his words brainwashed drunken monkeys, that is to say people incapable of rational thinking. Not even humans but monkeys. Do monkeys have ideals? Of course not. They deny these people have ideals because of the very fact that they are terrifyied by these ideals much more than they are by the guns. They'd rather prefer to be killed rather than let the Basques freely decide their future. That may shock you, you being English and all, but this is very common in Spain, in fact that of Cecilio is the mainstream line of thought, shared by both conservatives and liberals.



I didn't qualify ETA members as "drunken monkeys". I was talking about teenagers demonstrating in the streets. Please don't make strange generalizations about what I say.

How old are you? Do you believe in ideals? Terrorists are generally young people. Many of them, when they reach a certain age, repent of what they did. Some others, however, stick to their hatred, like De Juana Chaos and other ETA members. But yes, being revolutionary, having ideals, becoming a terrorist, etc., this is all connected with youth.

The more I read arguments like yours, the more I'm convinced that ETA and IRA should be called "terrorist groups". I still don't know if you agrree with that. In a previous post you suggested the expression "asymmetric warfare". What a nice euphemism! How shall we call ETA or IRA members? Asymmetric warriors?


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Time to get off the side roads and back onto the main highway, please.

Thank you for your cooperation.


----------



## torh

I think that "Separatist group" is a good term for refering to ETA.

ETA, Euskadi Ta Askatasuna means Basque Country And Freedom. They cause terror, do military actions... but their objective (they say it in their documents) is to get separated from Spain and France. All the actions they do, they do with that goal. I do not see anything wrong on calling them separatist group.


----------



## invictaspirit

torh said:


> I think that "Separatist group" is a good term for refering to ETA.
> 
> ETA, Euskadi Ta Askatasuna means Basque Country And Freedom. They cause terror, do military actions... but their objective (they say it in their documents) is to get separated from Spain and France. All the actions they do, they do with that goal. I do not see anything wrong on calling them separatist group.


 
*Can someone in Spain answer me this?*

Spain's Basque territory gets almost full autonomy, its own police, a powerful parliament, massive recognition of the language, pubic TV and radio and is, to foreign eyes, one of the most autonomous places on earth.

France's Basque territory is well under the heel of Paris and doesn't have any of the above.

How come its the Spanish the get bombed?

Why doesn't ETA attack the French state?

Once more, to a foreigner, the Spanish Basque territory feels Basque and not Spanish. The first few meters over the frontier into France and I feel I am completely in France. It feels entirely French.  I don't understand why ETA don't target the French, where they seem more culturally and politically supressed.


----------



## Cecilio

invictaspirit said:


> *Can someone in Spain answer me this?*
> 
> Spain's Basque territory gets almost full autonomy, its own police, a powerful parliament, massive recognition of the language, pubic TV and radio and is, to foreign eyes, one of the most autonomous places on earth.
> 
> France's Basque territory is well under the heel of Paris and doesn't have any of the above.
> 
> How come its the Spanish the get bombed?
> 
> Why doesn't ETA attack the French state?



Well, the question is not who they should 'attack', the point is that they shouldn't attack anyone, obviously. And they shouldn't even exist.


----------



## invictaspirit

Cecilio said:


> Well, the question is not who they should 'attack', the point is that they shouldn't attack anyone, obviously. And they shouldn't even exist.


 
Agreed.  But what is the cause of their markedly less hate-filled relationship with France?


----------



## Cecilio

torh said:


> I do not see anything wrong on calling them separatist group.



You can call them whatever they want. The problem is when you call them SYSTEMATICALLY one thing or the other. In my humble opinion, the fact that the British press call ETA systematically a "separatist group"  is simply unfair, misleading and inaccurate. It shows ETA as some sort of political group, which they are not. Or as the 'victims' of some sort of oppressive state, which is far from true.


----------



## Cecilio

invictaspirit said:


> Agreed.  But what is the cause of their markedly less hate-filled relationship with France?



That's a complex question, clearly beyond the scope of this thread.

In any case, it would be interesting to know what kind of words the French press uses to refer to ETA.


----------



## mogu

invictaspirit said:


> Once more, to a foreigner, the Spanish Basque territory feels Basque and not Spanish.



Last basque elections:

No nationalist ---> aprox. 45%
Moderate nationalist ---> aprox. 45%
Separatist ---> aprox. 10%


----------



## itxaro.

mogu said:


> Last basque elections:
> 
> No nationalist ---> aprox. 45%
> Moderate nationalist ---> aprox. 45%
> Separatist ---> aprox. 10%


Yes, so this indicates that there is more people who want independence then those who do not.

However, I do not believe in violence of any kinds to achieve some political goal. I couldn not really tell you waht I think of ETA and others such as these (whether they put bombs in Spain, UK , or any place).


----------



## Totopi

Perdón Itxaro, pero que alguien vote nacionalista no quiere decir que quiera la independencia. Dudo y mucho que toda esos votos que cuentas quieran la independencia. Perdón, pero es mi opinión y mi experiencia. Tengo ya ganas de que hagan ese famoso referendum sobre la independencia/autodeterminación...
Saludos desde Bilbao


----------



## ernest_

invictaspirit said:


> How come its the Spanish the get bombed?
> 
> Why doesn't ETA attack the French state?



Basically, because they haven't enough firepower to attack these two powerful enemies at the same time. It'd be suicidal. They always have to get on well with one of the two, so as to have some sort of safe place where they don't need to worry too much about prosecution. So while they fight Spain, they use France as their base of operations. Once they've defeated the Spaniards and start attacking France, it will be the other way round, probably.


----------



## Cecilio

ernest_ said:


> Basically, because they haven't enough firepower to attack these two powerful enemies at the same time. It'd be suicidal. They always have to get on well with one of the two, so as to have some sort of safe place where they don't need to worry too much about prosecution. So while they fight Spain, they use France as their base of operations. Once they've defeated the Spaniards and start attacking France, it will be the other way round, probably.



This is so naive, so inaccurate, so unrealistic and so untrue that I can't really believe you're serious when you write this. Sayings these things in the year 2006 is simply ridiculous. I think you should update your data a little bit, it seems that some of your information is really dated.


----------



## Namakemono

I agree with Cecilio. It's not like ETA is fighting a war, they're terrorists, not soldiers. They don't walk down the streets shooting the Spanish armed forces. Besides, I don't think you need that much power to simply put a bomb in a car like those cowards do. I think they attack Spain because they have an insane grudge against it, and hatred and arrogance seem to be the most important part of nationalism today, at least in Spain.


----------



## cuchuflete

Time out!   This thread began as an intelligent discussion of what to call groups in the press, based on their motives and their actions.

It has degenerated into a squabble about who is evil, and why.  Either re-read the first post, or the first page or two, and get back on topic, or the assumption will be that the topic is exhausted, and all that's left is the insults.


----------



## cherine

*I can only agree with what Cuchuflete has said.*

*Any further off-topic, personal attacks, chat... will be deleted and the thread will be closed.*

*Thank you all.*


----------



## Namakemono

Going back to the original topic, I think calling ETA a separatist group is an understatement, considering their real goal is not only to form an independent country in the Basque territory, but also to take over other territories (like Navarra) and form a socialist dictatorship, and they don't hesitate extorting, kidnapping, and killing.


----------



## Cecilio

Namakemono said:


> Going back to the original topic, I think calling ETA a separatist group is an understatement, considering their real goal is not only to form an independent country in the Basque territory, but also to take over other territories (like Navarra) and form a socialist dictatorship, and they don't hesitate extorting, kidnapping, and killing.



Interesting points!


----------



## DickHavana

Tactically, it would be stupid for ETA attack both Spain and France. Then they lost their rearguard.
Regarding extra-territorial annexion of Navarra, a lot of ETA members are from Navarra and they feel "navarros" and basques. Navarra is a difficult territory and it's easy to make demagogy in one or another way. There are too any opinion polls that gives basque nationallist coalition the second position in Navarre in future elections. I repeat it isn't so simple.

Totopi, todos tenemos ganas de que se haga ese referendum. Y sí, por supuesto que nacionalista no implica necesariamente independentista, pero sí al menos persona dispuesta a ir un poquito más allá.

No se quién apuntó por aquí, creo que invictasancti: El País Vasco francés es claramente vasco en apariencia, y es innegable que si estás allí se nota que estás en el País Vasco. Por supuesto que se nota que has pasado a Francia, eso es innegable, se tiene que notar. Han sido muchos años de diferencias económicas y unas mentalidades bastante diferentes en muchas cosas. Tu argumentación es como si un francés dijera: "En Hendaye se nota que estoy en el País Vasco (las calles con ikurriñas, los coches con banderitas, las casitas tan típicamente vascas, los nombres de las calles en euskera, anuncios de lingue basque por todos los lados...) pero pasas medio kilómetro de la frontera, vas a Irún, y se nota que donde estás es en España, vaya cambio noto". Es cierto que la zona costera del País Vasco francés es desde hace más de un siglo un centro de peregrinaje turístico con buena parte de la población venida de fuera. Pero penetra en el interior.

Un saludo


----------



## Cecilio

Yesterday, the terrorist group ETA performed one more terrorist attack by blowing up a multi-storey car-park in Madrid's airport. Apart from the impressive material damage, it is reported that two people are still missing. Unfortunately, these two people could add to the already long list of people killed by ETA (around 900 in approximately four decades of terror). In these forums there are people who still think that ETA should not be called a "terrorist group", and prefer other expressions like "separatist group". The British media also use this term on a regular basis. Today, I have browsed some of these British media and hace come up with these results:
- BBC World: Systematic use of the expression "separatist group"; no mention of "terrorists".

- The Guardian: in the main article they say "separatist group".

- The Times: they mention both "separatist" and "terrorist", including this expression: "terrorist separatist group".

- Daily Telegraph: they use both "separatist organization" and "terrorist organization".

- Sky News: The use the expression "separatist group"; no mention of "terorists".​It looks like in the British media this idea of ETA as a group of separatists still persists. The Spanish media are very different from that. I would like to quote the first sentence of today's editorial in EL PAÍS:
"ETA reanudó ayer el único e intolerante discurso que ha exhibido en sus cuatro décadas de existencia: el terror".​(My translation into English: "ETA resumed yesterday the only and intolerant rhetoric they have exhibited in the four decades of their existence: terror").


----------



## DickHavana

ETA is a terrorist group and a separatist group.
IRA is a terrorist group and a separatist group.
Is it any difference between them?

Negar que ETA es un grupo separatista me parece ridículo.

Cuando grupos anarquistas cometían atentados a principios del siglo XX, practicaban terrorismo. Nadie dice hoy: "Los terroristas ponían bombas", sino "Los anarquistas ponían bombas". Es mucho más explicativo.

Cuando Gavrilo Princip mató a los archiduques de Austria en Sarajevo en 1914, nadie dice "un terrorista mató...", sino por ejemplo "un serbio-bosnio partidario de la unión de los eslavos del sur mató...". Es bastante más explicativo.

When anarquist groups attempted at the beginning of s.XX, they did terrorism. Nobody tells today: "Terrorist group put a bomb", but "Anarchist group put a bomb". It's more  explanatory.

When Gavrilo Princip killed the[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Archduke Franz Ferdinand (Sarajevo, 1914), nobody says "A terrorist killed...", but "a Serbian independentist killed..." It's more explanatory.


[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## maxiogee

DickHavana said:


> When Gavrilo Princip killed the Archduke Franz Ferdinand (Sarajevo, 1914), nobody says "A terrorist killed...", but "a Serbian independentist killed..." It's more explanatory.



Indeed.
These groups are not established with the *aim* of terrorism - it is a method they use. Their aim is a separate state.
Nobody describes _Friends of the Earth_ as a protest organisation - but that is what they 'do', although they are an environment protection organisation.

This does not mean that terrorism should be left out of descriptions of their actions.


----------



## invictaspirit

Cecilio said:


> Yesterday, the terrorist group ETA performed one more terrorist attack by blowing up a multi-storey car-park in Madrid's airport. Apart from the impressive material damage, it is reported that two people are still missing. Unfortunately, these two people could add to the already long list of people killed by ETA (around 900 in approximately four decades of terror). In these forums there are people who still think that ETA should not be called a "terrorist group", and prefer other expressions like "separatist group". The British media also use this term on a regular basis. Today, I have browsed some of these British media and hace come up with these results:- BBC World: Systematic use of the expression "separatist group"; no mention of "terrorists".​- The Guardian: in the main article they say "separatist group".​- The Times: they mention both "separatist" and "terrorist", including this expression: "terrorist separatist group".​- Daily Telegraph: they use both "separatist organization" and "terrorist organization".​- Sky News: The use the expression "separatist group"; no mention of "terorists".​
> It looks like in the British media this idea of ETA as a group of separatists still persists. The Spanish media are very different from that. I would like to quote the first sentence of today's editorial in EL PAÍS:"ETA reanudó ayer el único e intolerante discurso que ha exhibido en sus cuatro décadas de existencia: el terror".​(My translation into English: "ETA resumed yesterday the only and intolerant rhetoric they have exhibited in the four decades of their existence: terror").


 
But the Spanish media approach ETA from a *national and emotional* point of view. Could we please get over our obsession with what the *British* media call ETA? On this thread you have heard that also Russian, German, Italian and French media outlets use the word 'separatist' to describe ETA. It would be more accurate to complain that *non-Spanish *media have this trend. It is nothing at all unique to Britain. The front page of France's Le Monde calls ETA _L'organisation independentiste._ The word 'terrorist' is not used once.

I would also suggest to the Spanish that the British media was the one with the most negative and emotional language to describe the IRA, and that non-British media used more neutral and less emotional terms to describe them.

I'm not saying any of this is right. I have argued that ETA are terrorists and should be termed so. But there is nothing uniquely British about this, and I am sure if we were able to look at El Pais articles from, say, 1985, they would be more neutral about the IRA than, say, The Times. I speak as a citizen of a country who has read articles from friendly countries that *praised and supported* the IRA. This was not common or typical, but it happened.


----------



## maxiogee

invictaspirit said:


> I speak as a citizen of a country who has read articles from friendly countries that *praised and supported* the IRA. This was not common or typical, but it happened.



I'll say it straight out for you, invictaspirit - far too many Americans (and not all in the media) thought that the IRA was 'a good thing'. There are still those who think so.
These are the type who term these murderous, fascist thugs "freedom fighters" and who contribute cash to arms buying expeditions under the guise of social funds such as "prisoners' families", or political funds such as "election expenses".


----------



## DickHavana

maxiogee said:


> Indeed.
> These groups are not established with the *aim* of terrorism - it is a method they use. Their aim is a separate state.



Yes, the aim of ETA is the independence and the method ¡s the terrorism.


----------



## invictaspirit

maxiogee said:


> I'll say it straight out for you, invictaspirit - far too many Americans (and not all in the media) thought that the IRA was 'a good thing'. There are still those who think so.
> These are the type who term these murderous, fascist thugs "freedom fighters" and who contribute cash to arms buying expeditions under the guise of social funds such as "prisoners' families", or political funds such as "election expenses".


 
I wasn't actually meaning American reactions. It is taken for granted (here) that there will be either an Irish-American or generally anti-British strand in some American thought that would have supported the IRA. I have been present in person, and on the internet, as furious young Bostonians have railed against real Irishmen such as yourself for their 'cowardice' and 'treason' in condemning the IRA. These are people who have never left New England, lecturing men and women from Ireland on treason and bravery. Totally nauseating, not to mention funny.

No...I was referring to the odd (very occasional) article in places such as _Stern, a_ couple of French or Italian things. They were few and far between. Mainly an 1980s phenomenon.


----------



## Outsider

invictaspirit said:


> But the Spanish media approach ETA from a *national and emotional* point of view. Could we please get over our obsession with what the *British* media call ETA? On this thread you have heard that also Russian, German, Italian and French media outlets use the word 'separatist' to describe ETA. It would be more accurate to complain that *non-Spanish *media have this trend. It is nothing at all unique to Britain. The front page of France's Le Monde calls ETA _L'organisation independentiste._ The word 'terrorist' is not used once.
> 
> I would also suggest to the Spanish that the British media was the one with the most negative and emotional language to describe the IRA, and that non-British media used more neutral and less emotional terms to describe them.


Quite right. The Portuguese media also usually describe ETA as "the Basque separatist organization".

And I like it that way. "Terrorist" is a loaded term. If you're going to call separatists "terrorists", you should be ready to do the same with "unionists", but no one ever is. During fascism, the Portuguese media labelled the independence movements in Africa as "terrorists", too. Nowadays (and probably at the time, outside Portugal), that would be laughable.


----------



## Cecilio

Outsider said:


> Quite right. The Portuguese media also usually describe ETA as "the Basque separatist organization".
> 
> And I like it that way. "Terrorist" is a loaded term. If you're going to call separatists "terrorists", you should be ready to do the same with "unionists", but no one ever is. During fascism, the Portuguese media labelled the independence movements in Africa as "terrorists", too. Nowadays (and probably at the time, outside Portugal), that would be laughable.



A comparison between African and Basque 'independent movements' is simply absurd. These phenomena are absolutely different, they have very little in common.


----------



## Cecilio

maxiogee said:


> I'll say it straight out for you, invictaspirit - far too many Americans (and not all in the media) thought that the IRA was 'a good thing'. There are still those who think so.
> These are the type who term these murderous, fascist thugs "freedom fighters" and who contribute cash to arms buying expeditions under the guise of social funds such as "prisoners' families", or political funds such as "election expenses".



Maxiogee raises a very interesting issue here. I would say that, similarly,  calling ETA a "separatist group" may encourage some sympathy towards this group of criminals.


----------



## Outsider

Cecilio said:


> A comparison between African and Basque 'independent movements' is simply absurd. These phenomena are absolutely different, they have very little in common.


That's what they all say.


----------



## DickHavana

Emotions never must guide notices. Then, never would be objetive information, then it would be "propaganda".

Las emociones nunca deben marcan la noticia. Entonces dejarían de ser información objetiva para convertirse en propaganda.

Moreover, it's possible a lot of people in all the world don't understand why Spanish Government refuse the possibility of a referendum when it's obvious that autonomist and independist options are majority in the Basque Country.


----------



## Cecilio

DickHavana said:


> Moreover, it's possible a lot of people in all the world don't understand why Spanish Government refuse the possibility of a referendum when it's obvious that autonomist and independist options are majority in the Basque Country.



I don't understand your reasoning very well. I don't see the connection between a referendum and ETA terrorism. You mention "autonomist options". Everybody in Spain lives in an "autonomy" (maybe "a lot of people in all the world" don't know that).

Terrorist, separatist. No name is perfect, and they all convey some type of connotation. In this case, I'm deeply convinced that calling ETA a "terrorist group" is definitely the best way to describe them.


----------

