ETA bombs Madrid airport

[Red October]

MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Spain has blamed a powerful bomb explosion Saturday at the country's busiest airport on Basque separatist group ETA, declaring it a violation of a nine-month cease-fire.

The bomb at Barajas International Airport is "absolutely incompatible with the permanent cease-fire that ETA declared nine months ago," Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said during a nationally televised news conference.

He ordered the government to halt any peace efforts, but he declined to say that the attack "breaks the cease-fire," which was the way Interior Minister Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba described it to reporters a few hours earlier.

A police source had initially said that the blast, which occurred in a stolen van and damaged a parking lot and nearby Terminal 4, caused no serious injuries. (Watch smoke billowing from airport Video)

But Rubalcaba said that may not be the case: Police were looking for two people reported missing after the blast -- one of them a 19-year-old Ecuadorian national who had stayed in his car as a companion went into the airport to pick up someone. The other person was not described.

If it turns out that either person is dead, the death would be the first attributed to ETA in three years.

Beginning about an hour before the 9 a.m. (3 a.m. ET) explosion, three calls to authorities warned of the event, the third acknowledging it as an ETA blast, Rubalcaba said.

After several hours, regular air traffic at Terminal 4 resumed Saturday. Terminal 4 opened this year and primarily serves Iberia Airlines, a private company.

Flights at the airport's other three terminals were not interrupted.

Before Rubalcaba's remarks, opposition leader Mariano Rajoy of the Conservative Popular Party told reporters, "This confirms what we knew: that ETA is a criminal organization that does not want any peace."

Zapatero was out of Madrid at the time of the blast, but he hurriedly returned to address the nation at 6 p.m. (noon ET).

Samantha Graham, an employee of CNN's parent company Turner Broadcasting, was in the terminal and heard the blast. Graham described a huge column of black smoke billowing into the sky.

She said hundreds of people evacuated the terminal through jetways and gathered outside on the airport tarmacs.

The Madrid airport is Spain's busiest, handling more than 40 million passengers a year, according to the airport's official Web site.

ETA announced a "permanent" cease-fire last March, raising hopes for an end to nearly 40 years of separatist violence blamed for more than 800 deaths and thousands of other casualties.

Last fall, low-level street violence resumed in the northern Basque region -- which ETA is seeking to make an independent nation -- as pro-ETA youths burned buses and automatic bank teller machines and carried out other attacks.

In late October, authorities blamed ETA for the theft in Nimes, southern France, of 350 handguns and 10,000 rounds of ammunition from an arms factory.

Arnaldo Otegi, a leader of the outlawed Batasuna party, which authorities link to ETA, on Saturday blamed the government for the roadblocks in the peace process. But he told reporters there's still a chance for peace, even after the bomb.

discuss.

[Guerrilla22]

ETA obviously felt they had no other recourse since they were'nt making any head way with the negociations with the government, it will be interesting to see how this progresses.

[Red October]

it seems like a dumb move. how is bombing an airport going to accomplish anything. they should've at least hit a police station or some government target if they felt that they had to bomb something.

[Janus]

ETA obviously felt they had no other recourse since they were'nt making any head way with the negociations with the government, it will be interesting to see how this progresses.

Their response certainly is strange and a bit optimistic.


Originally posted by AP
The head of ETA's political wing, Arnaldo Otegi, said Saturday after the attack that he did not consider the peace process dead.

"Not only is it not broken, but it more necessary than ever," he said.

"What happened in Madrid, if it's confirmed ETA is behind it, doesn't take us back to the scenario that existed before March 24," he added, referring to the day ETA declared its cease-fire.

Otegi blamed the government for the recent breakdown in peace talks, saying it has not made any gestures to the separatist group.
Spain suspends plan for talks (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061231/ap_on_re_eu/spain_explosion)

[The Grey Blur]

The Spanish government in it's treatment of ETA and pro-independence Basques has been cruel and tyrannical. I think we're seeing the frustrations at these continued degradations here.

If ETA are even behind it...

[Ander]

Stupid.

Why the fuck are they doing this? ETA just sink lower and lower, it appears. I hope it wasn't actually their doing.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 30, 2006 11:14 pm
it seems like a dumb move
Welcome to the world of urban guerrillism

[Hanguk_Leftist]

They killed two foreigners.

If you're going to set off a car bomb, set it off somewhere where there there aren't just civilians.

[PRC-UTE]

Looks like an act of desperation, especially considering the target. When the Provisional IRA bombed England it was usually becauase they couldn't operate in Ireland.

I don't see the Eta pursuing a new strategy; this is just an attempt to remind the Spanish of why they should cut a deal. The Eta's campaign always logically led to the conclusion of getting the Spanish gov't to the bargaining table rather than driving them out.

[stevec]

All it takes is a few people who are impatient and unwilling to compromise to take a violent action. Even if the leadership was involved, the separatists are not one monolithic block of opinion anymore than any other group. People eventually realize that killing people is a futile strategy (sometimes they are killed as a result, which prevents them from eventually realizing how dumb it was) but always there is somebody who thinks violence is the solution. (Washington, Osama, etc.)

Rebels all fall into the same intellectual trap. They become that which they hate and fear. When they win, they become what the hated. When they lose, they fill what they hated with their paranoia and hate. In either case, the most ruthless always win, and society slowly creeps backwards.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+December 31, 2006 02:28 am--> (Permanent Revolution @ December 31, 2006 02:28 am)
Red October [email protected] 30, 2006 11:14 pm
it seems like a dumb move
Welcome to the world of urban guerrillism [/b]
what the hell? Urban Guerrillism is not the same as terrorism

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 03:36 am
All it takes is a few people who are impatient and unwilling to compromise to take a violent action. Even if the leadership was involved, the separatists are not one monolithic block of opinion anymore than any other group. People eventually realize that killing people is a futile strategy (sometimes they are killed as a result, which prevents them from eventually realizing how dumb it was) but always there is somebody who thinks violence is the solution. (Washington, Osama, etc.)

Rebels all fall into the same intellectual trap. They become that which they hate and fear. When they win, they become what the hated. When they lose, they fill what they hated with their paranoia and hate. In either case, the most ruthless always win, and society slowly creeps backwards.
It's much more complex than that; people take up arms for a variety of reasons, and more often than not ideology or a cause is just a mask for other interests.

I don't see how they become what they hate and fear, maybe you can elaborate with some case exmaples...

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+December 31, 2006 03:49 am--> (LeftyHenry @ December 31, 2006 03:49 am)
Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 31, 2006 02:28 am

Red October [email protected] 30, 2006 11:14 pm
it seems like a dumb move
Welcome to the world of urban guerrillism
what the hell? Urban Guerrillism is not the same as terrorism [/b]
Who says this is an act of terrorism?

[razboz]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+December 31, 2006 06:15 am--> (Guerrilla22 @ December 31, 2006 06:15 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 03:49 am

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 31, 2006 02:28 am

Red October [email protected] 30, 2006 11:14 pm
it seems like a dumb move
Welcome to the world of urban guerrillism
what the hell? Urban Guerrillism is not the same as terrorism
Who says this is an act of terrorism? [/b]
Terrorism is the deliberate act of causing terror.

Guerrilla warfare is a war conducted by one vastly inferior military force against another more powerful one. Terrorism can be tool employed by the guerrilla. SO this event could be both guerrilla warfare and terrorism

[dannie]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+December 31, 2006 05:49 am--> (LeftyHenry @ December 31, 2006 05:49 am)
Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 31, 2006 02:28 am

Red October [email protected] 30, 2006 11:14 pm
it seems like a dumb move
Welcome to the world of urban guerrillism
what the hell? Urban Guerrillism is not the same as terrorism [/b]
I second,

this was an attack on an almost completely civillian area, with inclusion of some cops and immigration officers there were no political targets to hit. I do understand the need for the basque seperatists to show themselves once again as a powerfull group and that way telling the spanish government that they should be treated as such when negotiating.
Moreover this act completly missed its purpose, as Zapatero has suspended any talks with batsuna/eta. It was a foolish descision.

[razboz]

Originally posted by dannie+December 31, 2006 10:14 am--> (dannie @ December 31, 2006 10:14 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 05:49 am

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 31, 2006 02:28 am

Red October [email protected] 30, 2006 11:14 pm
it seems like a dumb move
Welcome to the world of urban guerrillism
what the hell? Urban Guerrillism is not the same as terrorism
I second,

this was an attack on an almost completely civillian area, with inclusion of some cops and immigration officers there were no political targets to hit. I do understand the need for the basque seperatists to show themselves once again as a powerfull group and that way telling the spanish government that they should be treated as such when negotiating.
Moreover this act completly missed its purpose, as Zapatero has suspended any talks with batsuna/eta. It was a foolish descision. [/b]
I agree with this analysis. This is nto justifiable for ETA because there is no advancement of their cause.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+December 31, 2006 03:49 am--> (LeftyHenry @ December 31, 2006 03:49 am)
Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 31, 2006 02:28 am

Red October [email protected] 30, 2006 11:14 pm
it seems like a dumb move
Welcome to the world of urban guerrillism
what the hell? Urban Guerrillism is not the same as terrorism [/b]
Actually it is, terrorism is a necessary tactic of urban guerrilla warfare. The point of terrorism is actually not military, it's political. A terrorist attack such as a bombing is a political statement designed to influence public opinion. Terrorist attacks can be used in one of two way's, indiscriminately (as Eta has done) or selectively. In the end only a campaign of selective terrorism (where only targets symbolizing the state, law enforcement, and military, are hit) has any chance of succeeding.

[razboz]

Originally posted by ComradeR+December 31, 2006 12:28 pm--> (ComradeR @ December 31, 2006 12:28 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 03:49 am

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 31, 2006 02:28 am

Red October [email protected] 30, 2006 11:14 pm
it seems like a dumb move
Welcome to the world of urban guerrillism
what the hell? Urban Guerrillism is not the same as terrorism
Actually it is, terrorism is a necessary tactic of urban guerrilla warfare. The point of terrorism is actually not military, it's political. A terrorist attack such as a bombing is a political statement designed to influence public opinion. Terrorist attacks can be used in one of two way's, indiscriminately (as Eta has done) or selectively. In the end only a campaign of selective terrorism (where only targets symbolizing the state, law enforcement, and military, are hit) has any chance of succeeding. [/b]
Actually, according to terroist theory if you destroy the peoples confidence in the government and make them realise how powerfull the terrorsts are, they will eventually be able to influence government policy. They do this by removing all confidence in the police and armed forces to protect them. Thus the only way the government has to defend itself and its power is to give in to the terrorists. This isnt going to get the terrorists and people points but it might acheive their goals.

[stevec]

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+December 31, 2006 04:25 am--> (PRC-UTE @ December 31, 2006 04:25 am)
[email protected] 31, 2006 03:36 am
All it takes is a few people who are impatient and unwilling to compromise to take a violent action. Even if the leadership was involved, the separatists are not one monolithic block of opinion anymore than any other group. People eventually realize that killing people is a futile strategy (sometimes they are killed as a result, which prevents them from eventually realizing how dumb it was) but always there is somebody who thinks violence is the solution. (Washington, Osama, etc.)

Rebels all fall into the same intellectual trap. They become that which they hate and fear. When they win, they become what the hated. When they lose, they fill what they hated with their paranoia and hate. In either case, the most ruthless always win, and society slowly creeps backwards.
It's much more complex than that; people take up arms for a variety of reasons, and more often than not ideology or a cause is just a mask for other interests.

I don't see how they become what they hate and fear, maybe you can elaborate with some case exmaples... [/b]
Well, those that hate the rich blame them for hoarding all the material wealth in society, right? So what do they do? What motivates them? They seek to possess what the rich man possesses. Thus they are as greedy and as driven by the desire to "own" as the person they hate. They are both fighting their mirror, because the rich sees any "threat" to their position of wealth as something they must stop.

The mirror is a complex thing. Take Iraq and Osama for example. Bush seeks to create a democracy, the jihadists seek to establish sharia law. Both are motivated to create a different political society, but one chooses the secular laws of George Washington and the other chooses the non-secular laws of Islam. Bush is such a dolt that he killed the person that created a secular society in Iraq, and the victor will be al Sadr, who will create a Muslim state, more akin to Saudi Arabia than America. Fear and hate makes people stupid.

All political alliances are based on people who fear the same thing. In a democracy the winner tends to be the person who has the most fears, since he has something in common with the largest amount of people. Rather than the wisest person chosen to lead, it tends to be the dumbest.

The levels of fear in a society constantly fluctuate. The more people seek to rebel, the more fear they create. As the government responds to the "threat" it makes the overhead of the government higher, which makes the people poorer, thus feeding into a cycle of paranoia and wasteful government. Osama was trying to call Americans to Allah and to be a more respectful people, but by attacking us all he did was spread fear, which would make us less rational, not more. And his attack shows that he is not rational, which is why al-Zawari has been releasing so many tapes condemning moderate Arabs.

Those who seek war don't understand the mechanics of peace. It is just as Orwell described, they think War is Peace. It doesn't matter what political position that one takes, it still has doublethink embedded in it because people do not think of themselves and others as individuals, but rather as groups and stereotypes; villians and heroes.

When groupthink and doublethink intersect, war breaks out.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+December 31, 2006 03:49 am--> (LeftyHenry @ December 31, 2006 03:49 am)
Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 31, 2006 02:28 am

Red October [email protected] 30, 2006 11:14 pm
it seems like a dumb move
Welcome to the world of urban guerrillism
what the hell? Urban Guerrillism is not the same as terrorism [/b]
Semantics. Both are equally useless without a major support base.


Rebels all fall into the same intellectual trap. They become that which they hate and fear. When they win, they become what the hated. When they lose, they fill what they hated with their paranoia and hate. In either case, the most ruthless always win, and society slowly creeps backwards.
What abstract nonsense.

[bolshevik butcher]

I don't really care if it's called urban guerillaism or terrorism, either way there is no way that ETA could in any serious way take on the full force of the Spanish bourgoirse states, such acts as this are absolutley useless.

Urban guerillaism will never be able to match the power of organise labour, only the organised working class could really topple the Spanish bourgoirse. As socailists surley it is our duty to while acknowledging the basque peoples right to self determination pressing for working class unity in Spain.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So we take bourgeois government's at their word now? Has the ETA claimed this bombing? If not.. what are we going on? I'm not saying they didn't do it.. but we can't be sure if they did either.

[razboz]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 31, 2006 03:12 pm
So we take bourgeois government's at their word now? Has the ETA claimed this bombing? If not.. what are we going on? I'm not saying they didn't do it.. but we can't be sure if they did either.
Apparently an anonimous phone call fessed up to it.

I dont see why everyone thinks ETA is the best thing since sliced bread. They are not socialists. They are just petty little nationalists. Zapatero needs them to remain elected.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yeah.. I've read that there were three warning calls.. but the source was..... the Spanish government. I'm not aware of the ETA formally claiming responsibility, though like I said, I'm not saying they're not.

The ETA has always at least professed socialism. In the 60's they declared themselves "Marxist-Leninists."

[stevec]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 31, 2006 03:03 pm
I don't really care if it's called urban guerillaism or terrorism, either way there is no way that ETA could in any serious way take on the full force of the Spanish bourgoirse states, such acts as this are absolutley useless.

Urban guerillaism will never be able to match the power of organise labour, only the organised working class could really topple the Spanish bourgoirse. As socailists surley it is our duty to while acknowledging the basque peoples right to self determination pressing for working class unity in Spain.
Isn't it the goal of the working class to be bourgoise?

Organized labor is the middle class. They have secured their privileges, and do not want to let them go. Organized labor is not an instrument for change once they have achieved their first success, which is a place at the table.

I don't know how you define socialism, but being a slave of the state, the church, the corporation or the union still leaves one a slave.

[bolshevik butcher]

Stevec please tell me this is somekind of hilarous satire of anarchism.

Organised labour is orgnaised workers Of course the working class has ahcieved certain concessions through it's struggle, these have to be defended. An oragnised working class is the only way to estbalish socialism. The union is a workers organisation, while some are undoubtably corrupt and bueraucratised they are still instruments of the working class.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 07:56 am
Actually, according to terroist theory if you destroy the peoples confidence in the government and make them realise how powerfull the terrorsts are, they will eventually be able to influence government policy. They do this by removing all confidence in the police and armed forces to protect them. Thus the only way the government has to defend itself and its power is to give in to the terrorists. This isnt going to get the terrorists and people points but it might acheive their goals.
The so-called "strategy of tension" was soundly shown to be a farce in the 1960's in South America, although that hasn't stopped every dipshit with an axe to grind and their brother from giving it the old college try again and again, with pitifully similar results. The urban guerilla was a load of crap before it ever saw action and today it is little more than a historical anachronism at best.


The ETA has always at least professed socialism. In the 60's they declared themselves "Marxist-Leninists."

You're not letting them off the hook that easily, I hope? :unsure:


The union is a workers organisation, while some are undoubtably corrupt and bueraucratised they are still instruments of the working class.

Historically, the union has been an instrument of the bosses used to make the workers receptive to industrialized labor and get on board with their ideology. That was certainly the goal of the earliest unions. The two have at times come to logger-heads, but the era when the bosses actually fear the unions is more or less past us- today they often spout the same rhetoric!

The under-classes can organize themselves without unions. They'll probably be better off.

[PRC-UTE]

Here's a few links to articles on the situation. It seems everyone's been surprised by what happened.

Basque seperatists surprised by ETA bomb (http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=345254)

Body found in rubble of Madrid car bombing (http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=206024214&p=zx6xz49zx)

Batasuna say nobody expected an attack such as the one seen in Madrid (http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_8233.shtml)

The illegal political wing of ETA has also noted that ETA has not released any statement saying the cease fire is over.

The peace process has ended with no hope for salvage (http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_8220.shtml)

[bolshevik butcher]

Black Banner Gun how do you suggest organising without a union? I seriosuly suggest that you and several other members of this forum leave their ivory towers, class conscious workers are generally speaking far more likely to be union members than non-conscious workers because they recognise that the union is a place where they can gain better pay and conditions. Admitadley this doesnt in itself generate revolutionary conscious, it is the duty of socialists to work inside unions to generate this consciousness and build a strong socialist contingent inside a union, not to sit on the sidelines and sneer at it.

[bcbm]

If you think I hang out in an ivory tower, you can go shove a pineapple up your ass.

I'll have a more respectable response later, but I'm heading out right now. Toodles.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 04, 2007 08:23 am
Black Banner Gun how do you suggest organising without a union?
It isn't that uncommon- workers and other oppressed peoples do it all the time, whether through the formation of councils or just autonomous organization as needed. One doesn't need a union, and all that entails in terms of bureaucracy, to be organized, though if you can organize a union without all the bullshit, great!


I seriosuly suggest that you and several other members of this forum leave their ivory towers, class conscious workers are generally speaking far more likely to be union members than non-conscious workers because they recognise that the union is a place where they can gain better pay and conditions.

Unions have certainly afforded workers that opportunity, although they have also been very good at controlling, suppressing and back-stabbing workers when they get too out of the union bureaucrats' control. Unions were also key in making early industrial workers actually accept their miserable lot.


Admitadley this doesnt in itself generate revolutionary conscious, it is the duty of socialists to work inside unions to generate this consciousness and build a strong socialist contingent inside a union, not to sit on the sidelines and sneer at it.

Or we could just work with our fellow under-class comrades to better our own lot, instead of setting ourselves up as an outside force that needs to come in and direct them.

[Louis Pio]

It isn't that uncommon- workers and other oppressed peoples do it all the time, whether through the formation of councils or just autonomous organization as needed. One doesn't need a union, and all that entails in terms of bureaucracy, to be organized, though if you can organize a union without all the bullshit, great!


Sorta like inventing the wheel all over again a thousand times. If these organisations reached a level were they were a force why wouldn't they be subjugated to the same degeneration? And if the unions can never be transformed how would we even hope to reach socialism since that fight is even more complex than turning a union more left.
I know unionisation is different from country to country, here in Denmark we have a high degree. Of course there's a rightwing leadership in many of them, but as class struggle intensifies this changes also, as we have seen in other countries.
Secondly doing socialist work I need to work from what the situation is, not would I would like it to be, that's just abstract. In my trade I would be seen as quite a parasite if I wasn't unionised, and rightly so. The people who want to reap the benefts of the collective bargaining without contributing are never held in high esteem.


Unions have certainly afforded workers that opportunity, although they have also been very good at controlling, suppressing and back-stabbing workers when they get too out of the union bureaucrats' control. Unions were also key in making early industrial workers actually accept their miserable lot.


Quite so, however I fail to see how the conclusion should be just to stand at the sidelines instead of at least fighting with the rank and file who often are some of the most class conscious workers. A correct policy by socialists in the union could win these people to socialism, the alternative is only to leave them in the hands of the bureaucrats.


Or we could just work with our fellow under-class comrades to better our own lot, instead of setting ourselves up as an outside force that needs to come in and direct them.

Indeed, but in my oppinion you actually propose we should be an outside force.