You a journalist then, Notyor? Who for? Just curious cos that's my profession.

Well, much to Eta's disappointment, the game went ahead - and hurrah for Real Madrid! Once again had big discussions in office over how many goals Barca needed (too many, was the final exasperated cry when I asked for the 100th time ).

I was really surprised when I was in Pais Vasco just how big the Eta thing was. We tend to think of it as low key (odd bombing here or there, nothing major - if you know what I mean) but there was an assassination in Donostia when we were there which quite shook me up. Then there were the signs on the town halls appealing for peace. And there was a bombing in Madrid last time we were there. Made me wonder how much was kept quiet to maintain tourist industry.

Fernando, and I mean this in the nicest, most civil way: please don't start that again...te lo ruego...I really appreciate your posts, but we all need to think through the intent of the poster, not just place a knee-jerk response back (like I'm guilty of doing all the time!! )

We all know what we individually think of ETA, and notyor was just copying an article. Call CNN and El País with your concern...we hummed and hawed for months back and forth on semantics in other threads...

For the record, though, they are Basques and they want to be separate, which, for the international media means they are "Basque separatists"...

This is just horrible...any more news on it? I'm glad to see that the game went on as scheduled (ALA MADRID!!), but did they mention if people stayed away or if security was tightened?

Lizziee, do you know why we are so quiet?

Because people like CaliBasco thinks that we should better live in a rainbow world instead of calling things as they are, and telling the truth. You know what? Expressing an opinion against ETA is not easy, and certainly is not what I would want to do.

I've grown seeing how each car bomb amputated arms, how a street is painted with the blood of someone shot on the head in the name of barbarism.

Let's continue to be quiet, to call ETA a Basque separatist group or a philantropic group of freedom seekers, that way CaliBasco will be calmer... and me too. I can't stand hiprocesy.

Notyor: In no way I was suggesting you were responsible for that article. I was just commenting the article itself.

CaliBasco: Really really, no matter how educated you may say it, that really made me sick. I'm sorry but I don't know how to lie.

If you were really aware of how the situation is...

Fernando

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

I have a friend from Northern Ireland who moved to Scotland because he didn't want his daughter growing up there. He loves his country and is one of the most patriotic people I know, but he didn't want his daughter's childhood to be disrupted as his was - bombing the local cinema every Saturday was an accepted event, and never made press coverage because it happened too frequently to qualify as "news". I assume Eta events to be the same. No, we shouldn't keep these things quiet, but arguing over whether they are "terrorists" "separatists" or "freedom fighters" isn't the way to do it.

Fernando, I totally suport your words.
We can't stay quiet each time someone say that ETA is a separatist grup. We should never forget what they are: a terrorist group, and we shoud remind that as many times as necessary

Pardon me, Lizzie, but combatants who dress and act as non-combatants in order to infiltrate into civilian areas with the express purpose of only killing and maiming as many completely defenseless non-combatants, people who do not even realize they are under attack until its all over, are NOT, under any stretch of the imagination OR international law, "freedom fighters." They are murderers and terrorists, pure and simple. Their "cause" (i.e. "freedom") is totally irrelevant.

Sorry, Kurt, didn't mean to offend. All I meant was we shouldn't get bogged down in semantics about what to call these people which is the way the thread was moving. What I was trying to say was that everyone has a different point of view - to many white South Africans, Nelson Mandela was a "terrorist", but would we say that? I totally condemn violence (as my post showed) and have no time for anyone who thinks this is a means to an end (and that includes other groups such as hunt saboteurs etc).

Surely debate and understanding is the way to be?

No offense taken, Liz, but I do think semantics are important. Terrorist murdereres are routinely glorified as "freedom fighters" or "martyrs" by cynical politicians and bloodthirsty tyrants to justify their crimes to large segments of the world. The concept that 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' must be banished from peoples minds.

Was Mandela a terrorist? If he perpetrated or advocated the types of acts described in my previos post, then YES, he is. Once again, his cause, even if politically justifiable, is not an excuse for murder.

The Palestinian bomber in Netanya, acting as a civilian non-combatant but armed and intent on attacking, was a terrorist murderer. The Palestinian fighter with a gun in his hand, fighting against Israeli soldiers in Jenin, a guerilla fighter, not a terrorist.