It goes on to explain why terrorists do what they do and implies that there is no real way to stop them by negotiating with them. From MSNBC and Newsweek: Cruelty Is All They Have Left For many terrorist groups, violence has now become an end in and of itself "March 22 issue - Does it matter whether the carnage in Madrid last week was the act of the Basque terrorist organization ETA or of Al Qaeda? Of course there are important differences between the two. ETA is a local organization, Al Qaeda a global one. The former is secular, the latter religious. But they have something in common that is revealing about the nature of terrorism. Both groups had a political agenda, but as their political cause has lost steam, they are increasingly defined almost exclusively by a macabre culture of violence." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4523577/
Very misleading by Newsweek and CNBC. ETA isn't a saintly organization by any means, but they've never done anything remotely like the tragedy that just happened... which is why I didn't think it was them when I first heard of it.
Though the Madrid bombing is currently out of character for ETA, the author makes the point that ETA has apparently become increasingly violent as time has gone on, doing things they would not have done during a time when they lived under a much more oppressive government, in his opinion. That extreme elements have taken control (according to the former separtist quoted in the piece). And the point is still the same, if, after being given a tremendous amount of autonomy, they still engage in terrorist tactics, then you have to ask what the real purpose of their existence is.
That's true, mrpaige. The inmates are running the asylum. You have to think that much of this is coming from a culture of revenge more than attaining the political ends that had given so many of these movements their popular support. The current radical elements of the IRA would be another example.
I am not sure if taking twenty years to kill eight hundred innocent people (or whatever the number is for ETA) or one day to kill two hundred innocent people is all that different. Just because one is attacking the first group because they work for the government does not make it any better than attacking the second group because they happened to be going to work.
There is a very real difference between trying to bump off members of the military and government officials... not that civilians weren't killed sometimes as well, and doing what happened in Madrid. In my opinion, both are wrong, but there is a hell of a difference.
I, too, think there is a difference, though much of that, to me, is merely a matter of degree. I don't think we'd be any more sympathetic to Timothy McVeigh if he had actually killed only FBI and ATF agents (which were apparently his targets) in the OKC bombing.
Don't use the word "sympathetic". I don't have any sympathy for ETA at all. But I think there is a distinct difference in what was their usual modus operandi and what we've been seeing from AQ. One was, by and large, using targeted killings for a political end against what they saw as a occupying power. The other is using mass killings of innocents around the world for a reason only understood by the insane bastards who can find some justification for it. (excuse my French)
So the equivalent in the US would be that there's would be a difference between only targeting the President and members of Congress versus 533 random other innocent people and that targeting the 533 in government would not be as bad as targeting 533 random innocent people? Just trying to understand the logic here. (ETA targeted a lot of political leaders who opposed them.) Let's pretend there are only five people in government to change this from a massacre to a more "manageable" number. One could argue the targeted killing of those in power is an attempt to intimidate everyone, and usurp the power and ability of everyone in that country to make change peacefully. I fail to see that as any more benign than killing random innocent people in any way. Or are you saying that if and only if the government is unjust in the opinion of the assassins that assassination is OK? Or that announcing beforehand what one's targets are and attempting to limit oneself to those targets is better than not announcing the targets beforehand?
You posted it while I was composing my response. But I still don't see a very big difference at all and you see one, that is all.
I really don't want to get in a big "back and forth". It's not my thing, usually. But what do you think the British thought of the folks that won our independence? There wasn't a difference? (I'm sure I'll catch some sort of crap for that from somebody)
