Roberto Vaquero clashes with Colonel Baños over France riots

Roberto Vaquero and Colonel Baños clashed live on Horizonte over the riots in France. Baños denied there is any evidence they are coordinated by Sarracinists; Vaquero pushed back and Iker Jiménez had to step in to calm things down.

## A debate over who is behind the riots

The argument took place on **Horizonte**, the show hosted by **Iker Jiménez**. The subject: the violent riots that broke out in **France** and the question of whether there is Sarracinist coordination behind them. Colonel **Baños** argued there is no proof of such coordination. **Roberto Vaquero** pushed back. Tension rose to the point that Jiménez had to intervene so the show could continue.

What matters is not just the disagreement, but what it reveals: two opposing ways of looking at the same phenomenon. One demands proof before attributing an ideological authorship. The other believes the absence of formal proof is not the same as the absence of clues. It is an old argument, but live on air it becomes a spectacle.

## What is claimed and what is proven

Baños denied there is evidence of Sarracinist coordination in the riots. That is a specific position: he does not say it does not exist, he says it is not proven. Vaquero pushed back, which implies holding that there are enough elements to point in that direction. The TV format does not allow for nuance, and that is part of the problem: claims of that magnitude are exchanged in seconds and without presenting any documentation.

Two levels should be separated. The fact that a violent phenomenon has participants of a certain origin does not by itself prove coordinated direction. And the absence of a public judicial or police proof does not prove the opposite either. Televised arguments rarely distinguish between suspicion, indication and proof.

## Why this argument matters

The issue matters because it touches on how collective violence is explained. Attributing riots to Sarracinist coordination is a hypothesis with enormous political consequences: it affects the perception of entire communities and security policies. Asserting it without proof is as reckless as dismissing it without analysing the available clues.

Jiménez stepped in to calm tempers. It is proof that the exchange had gone off the rails. On a topic like this, caution is not cowardice: it is the bare minimum before pointing at a group. Neither position is proven in the exchange.