| Subject: Re: Madrid: Euskadi |
Author:
Luis Blanch
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 14:36:43 03/15/04 Mon
In reply to:
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey - Pravda.Ru - 03/12/2004 21:40
's message, "Madrid: Terrorism or Collateral Damage?" on 22:05:43 03/13/04 Sat
>O snr Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey no que concerne à pretensa análise sobre a ETA e o País Basco,a Euskal Herria, manifesta ter uma errada cultura teórica desta nação e das alterações exógenas que a política de Madrid tem induzido.
O Euskadi tem cerca de 2.8 milhões de habitantes sendo que uma já percentagem significativa dos seus habitantes são imigrantes vindos, sobretudo ,da Galiza ,Castela e Andaluzia.Isto significa para os bascos "puros e duros" um problema real e considerável , quando se sugere um processo eleitoral no sentido de abrir caminho para a independência e a autodeterminação da sua terra.
DE facto , muitos destes imigrantes já estão enraizados mas continuam ,acima de tudo,a considerar-se espanhóis. A problemática Basca é muito controvertida, polémica e com aspectos xenófobos levando os mais "radicais" a manifestarem e a exibirem atitudes susceptíveis de conduzirem , não a uma limpeza étnica ,como já se sugere , mas a um "apartheid" relativamente aos "outros cidadãos espanhóis" que vivem e trabalham no Euskadi .Claro que as minorias ,onde quer que existam ,tendem a isolar-se dos restantes membros da sociedade e a olhá-los de soslaio ; é normal como auto-defesa, como preservação identitária... ; não podemos é deixar de levar em linha de conta estes factos se queremos perceber os desenvolvimentos sociais sobre os quais opinamos.
O Povo Basco tem claramente uma etnia e cultura identificáveis ; uma história exemplar de resistência que remonta aos pré romanos alicerçada nesses traços francamente identitários ; uma base económica por eles erigida e que projecta Região para o lugar cimeiro das restantes regiões e Estados autónomos de Espanha.
- Pravda.Ru - 03/12/2004 21:40
>
>
>Madrid: Terrorism or Collateral Damage?
>
>How the choice of vocabulary can manipulate public
>opinion.
>
>Freedom fighter, resistance hero, murderer, terrorist,
>criminal or separatist? Soldier or operational,
>platoon or cell? Was the outrage committed in Madrid
>yesterday which has darkened the hearts and lives of
>thousands of Spanish families an act of terrorism or
>collateral damage?
>
>The international press has already decided that it
>was the former, whether perpetrated by ETA or Al
>Qaeda. The Spanish government was quick to place the
>blame, claiming that there was a 90% chance that
>Euskadi Ta Azkatasuna (Basque Homeland and Freedom).
>In either case, this act plays into the hands of the
>rightist forces in Spain and in the USA.
>
>If ETA or an ETA splinter group was responsible, two
>days before the general election, it would influence
>the floating voters to back the Partido Popular of
>Aznar, which has taken a hard stance against this
>organization, bringing a bonus to Aznar's party, even
>without him as Prime Minister.
>
>On the other hand, if it was the responsibility of
>Islamist fundamentalists, it would be a bonus for
>George Bush's campaign against international terrorism
>and a confirmation that Al Qaeda in fact exists as an
>organised internationalist organization. Some hours
>after the attack, a mysterious van was found with
>seven detonators and a tape with verses from the
>Qu'ran. (Why should a cell place ten bombs and carry
>seventeen detonators and anyway, were the bombs not
>placed at different stations?) An e-mail was also
>received by an Arabic newspaper in London (since when
>was an e-mail valid evidence?)
>
>Whatever the case and whoever the culprit is behind
>this outrage, what is the correct term to define it?
>
>Under Franco's government, the fathers and
>grandfathers of today's leaders of ETA were tortured,
>killed. Their culture was suppressed, their people
>imprisoned for their beliefs. From this organization's
>point of view, human casualties are bargaining chips
>for successful negotiations. The more the casualties,
>the better the marketing.
>
>However, what legitimacy does ETA have to perform such
>acts of mass murder against people going about their
>daily lives, who have nothing to do with the decision
>making process?
>
>Not all the two million people who live in the Basque
>country are Basques and anyway there is disagreement
>as to what is Euskadi (does it include Navarre or
>not?). Of the Basques, only around 25% support the
>Partido Nacional Vasco and even less, Herri Batasuna
>(the outlawed political mouthpiece of ETA). Therefore
>with less than a quarter of the population of their
>own homeland behind them, in whose voice do these
>elements speak?
>
>The argument that ETA normally attacks military
>targets or makes a warning telephone call before an
>attack is false. In July 2003, bombs were placed
>indiscriminately in Alicante and Benidorm and later,
>in a car park at Santander airport. 13 people were
>injured. Luckily, nobody was killed.
>
>Recently, ETA has made declarations that a large-scale
>incident was being planned and last week, a huge cache
>of explosives was intercepted on its way to the
>capital city.
>
>If it was ETA, and the evidence is more than
>circumstantial although the motive is weak at this
>particular time, it should be remembered that this
>organization has scant support and exists to fuel the
>needs and bank accounts of the criminals that control
>it. Nothing more.
>
>Regarding Al Qaeda, the argument is complicated by
>Washington's primary reaction to September 11th, a
>black-and-white response to a world coloured in
>carious shades of grey, a knee-jerk, eye-for-an-eye
>reflex action which was bound to produce more
>reactions.
>
>The attack against the Taleban regime in Afghanistan
>was understandable, yet illegal, but had the backing
>of world public opinion. The attack against Iraq was
>neither understandable, nor legal and did not have the
>support of public opinion outside the USA.
>
>It was an act of butchery, based on lies, forgery and
>deceit. It went against every tissue of international
>law, it disregarded the international community, it
>disrespected the United Nations.
>
>Washington's cajoling and bullying forged a reluctant
>clique of sycophants, one of which was Spain, not the
>Spanish people.
>
>However horrific the outrage was and however wrong it
>is to kill civilians, what is the difference between
>the victims in Madrid and the ten thousand Iraqi
>civilians butchered by US military forces?
>
>What is the difference between a civilian dying in a
>blast in a train and a busload of civilians
>slaughtered by a trigger-happy US pilot in Yugoslavia?
>What is the difference between an explosion on public
>transportation at rush hour and an attack with
>precision weaponry against a wedding party in
>Afghanistan?
>
>They are all outrages, they are all acts of horror,
>terror. Tears taste of salt, whether they are shed by
>Iraqis, Spaniards, Afghans, Americans, Palestinians or
>Israelis. One type of attack is not more right or less
>wrong than another. The stupidity and blind arrogance
>of the Bush regime has thus placed the USA in the same
>bag as every terrorist organization that walked the
>earth.
>
>As for Al Qaeda, or whatever perpetrated the act in
>Madrid, why be so cowardly as to attack innocent
>people going to work and why not have the courage to
>at least attack those who made the decision to join
>the USA's circus of mass murder as it spreads its
>tentacles around the globe in a stranglehold?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 