I noted below that the BBC uses this term, which it obviously considers to be "neutral", "Basque Separatists". I would infer that their policy stems from an instinctive dislike for a term such as 'terrorist'. The BBC presumably believe that using such an "emotive" term would make their reports "editorial" as opposed to "journalistic". Yet they make the exact mistake they apparently wish to avoid which is to impose a political view on a news report. Terrorism is an accurate description of ETA's activities. "Basque Separatist" is simply an insufficient description of ETA which has no place in a purportedly accurate and concise news report.
ETA may well be "Basque Separatist", so might be - for all I know - Gaizka Mendieta, the Middlesbrough midfielder, but he hasn't just bombed Madrid. "Basque Separatist" doesn't tell us the whole story, which is presumably the aim of a proper news organisation.
To give another example of the distinction between "Basque Separatist" and "Basque terrorists": If I was to say "Basque Separatists are detestable vermin", that would be an outrageous slur on ordinary Basque people who wanted independence from Spain. However if I was to say "Basque terrorists are detestable vermin" I'd wager there'd be more than a few "Basque Separatists" who would agree with me.
"When Eta attacks, the Basque heart breaks into a thousand pieces," : Juan Jose Ibarretxe, the Basque regional president, stressing that Eta does not represent the Basque people.
That sums up this distinction for me. I also think that there will be not an inconsiderable number of armchair supporters and perhaps even members of ETA who will now turn their backs on the terrorists and overtly or covertly assist federal and regional security authorities in trying to ensure this does not happen again. Even some of those in Spain still wedded to the use of strategic paramilitary force to achieve their goals will surely see this as an "own goal" - a horrible analogy that has become part of the parlance of terror.
Posted by: Conor | March 11, 2004 at 03:30 PM
Quite, the old "heroic freedom fighter" canard will be much harder to maintain. There's nothing heroic about blowing up nurses, cleaners, shop assistants and office workers.
Posted by: Frank McGahon | March 11, 2004 at 04:13 PM
Frank, what are you talking about? 186 people die and the first thing you can think of is kicking the BBC. I could argue the fact that if you commit such an atrocity, it goes without saying you're a terrorist. However, I've been dipping in and out of BBC TV coverage all day. On numerous occasions they referred to them as 'terrorists'. They also called them 'separatists', 'extremists' and 'militants'. In fact, I'm watching the BBC right now and they just called them the 'Basque terrorist group' again!
Posted by: Dick O'Brien | March 11, 2004 at 05:18 PM
Good for them!
Kicking the BBC is not the first thing I thought of, but the persistent use of "Basque Separatists" really jarred
Posted by: Frank McGahon | March 11, 2004 at 08:32 PM
11 GMT and they still haven't used the "T" word.
When will they learn that human life has some value?
Posted by: Joe | March 11, 2004 at 08:54 PM
I wondered when Frank would come out with his typical pedantic semanitcs....same 'ol crap we hear in Ireland....
anyhow on another point i heard Kofi Annan earlier saying that the death of innocents is completely unjustifiable no matter the cause... i take it this didn't apply to the Afghan citizens who had body bags with their names on them months before hand...
the attacks on Spain today were completely horrific and indefensible to any right thinking person, however lets hear this same
humanitarian rhetoric when it hapens somewhere outside the 'west'...
Posted by: Ciarán | March 11, 2004 at 11:54 PM
Ciaran, it is you who is availing of dodgy semantics. There is a huge difference between intentional murder and accidental death. If this had been a gas explosion it would have been a tragedy but would not be viewed the same way as a terrorist attack. Who are the afghan citizens you refer to?
Posted by: Frank McGahon | March 12, 2004 at 10:23 AM
I've been bracing myself for someone to make the dubious case for the moral equivalency of unintentional collateral damage during war and the full intent to murder civilians on purpose.
God help those who can't see the difference.
Posted by: Emily | March 12, 2004 at 05:52 PM
Emily, I've been bracing myself for someone gullible enough to believe the 'unintentional collateral damage' shit....
well done..
Posted by: Ciarán | March 12, 2004 at 11:51 PM
Emily, I've been bracing myself for someone gullible enough to believe the 'unintentional collateral damage' shit....
well done..
Posted by: Ciarán | March 12, 2004 at 11:53 PM
Of course. The bloodthirsty coalition forces couldn't wait to get over there and start blowing up the innocent people of Afghanistan. After all, why bomb some place strategic so you can, you know, win the war, when you can bomb a playground filled with schoolchildren just to be evil.
Stunning. Really.
Posted by: Emilyi | March 13, 2004 at 12:04 AM
Ciaran, you can brace yourself all you like but the distinction between unintentional homicide and intentional murder is an integral part of law and morality. If you refuse to recognise it you must logically treat a serial killer and, say, a negligent busdriver exactly the same.
Posted by: Frank McGahon | March 13, 2004 at 05:49 PM