So the terror group ETA of the Basque region in Spain bombed Madrid Barajas Airport, and then tells Spain that the cease-fire is still in effect. Two people were killed.
"Oh, you're not upset at that little bomb, are you?" ETA has, in effect, said to the Spanish government. The ETA has expressed its frustration with the government "ceaselessly putting obstacles in the way of the democratic process.'' See Bloomberg.com for full article.
How about the obstacle of having your negotiating partner blowing up airports? Killing people? What was that? A punctuation mark on a particularly emphatic statement?
What's interesting about ETA's position regarding this bombing is the insight it gives into the thought process of a terror group. The ETA doesn't even consider the bombing a violation of the cease-fire. (Note to ETA: bomb = fire.) It views the bombing as a method of communication. In creating an inherently dangerous situation, it does not accept the blame for the consequences. In their minds, the bomb was an acceptable and managed risk because they warned the airport ahead of time. Perhaps the ETA risk analysis is more akin to our risk analysis before crossing a busy street.
The ETA phrasing implies that the bomb was a statement. That, in turn, implies they haven't yet learned to use actual statements to express themselves. So they turn to bombs.
As a friend used to say, if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
In the fallout to ETA's bombing, they will find out there is something more powerful than a bomb: credibility.