Spain’s Terrorism Double Standard: From Carrero Blanco to HIMARS

From Carrero Blanco to HIMARS: Who Decides Who Is a Terrorist

Carrero Blanco was killed in 1973 with C4. The controversy begins with a technical detail claimed by a participant: according to this version, the C4 used that year was only stored in Spain at four locations — Torrejón, Zaragoza, Morón, and Rota. From this, a conclusion emerges that haunts the entire discussion: terrorism never lacked sponsors, and who they were depended on the side.

The uncomfortable thesis underlying the issue is this: if terrorism is measured by the dead, the accounts balance themselves; if it is measured by geopolitical alignment, hardly anyone escapes. The list of suspects, according to this reading, far exceeds the initials of ETA.

What relationship is attributed to the CIA and NATO with ETA?

A name repeats: the Gladio network, the rear structures that, according to supporters in the thread, NATO maintained in Europe during the Cold War. That they existed is, for these participants, no fantasy: European parliamentary commissions, the Italian among them, would have documented them. The leap to the Spanish case is what is debated. One part of the analysis claims that this web of contacts and funding touched ETA and the terrorism of the transition; another reduces it to a simple coincidence of interests, without proven direct link.

The quote used to close the circle is one attributed by a participant to Adolfo Suárez: “I don’t know if ETA is paid in rubles or dollars”. With it, according to this reading, the former president questioned the source of the money without taking sides. In the thread it is also stated, without further support, that ETA was paid in dollars; the channels and figures, however, have never had a single narrative.

Why does the Ukraine war reopen this discussion?

The same scheme is transferred to the Ukrainian front. Those who defend the double standard thesis point out that NATO blesses arms and operations today that it yesterday classified as terrorism when carried out by the adversary. The HIMARS, the F-16 fighters, and political support for Kyiv enter this accounting. Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech in Congress, applauded by the deputies, is interpreted as proof that the parliamentary arc buys the Atlanticist narrative with little nuance.

In response, some participants recall that the aggression comes from Russia and that its leadership has historically used its population as cannon fodder.

The pattern that repeats in each scenario

What is striking is the symmetry. In the case of ETA, it is debated who placed the explosive; in Ukraine, who commands the weapons. In both, according to participants, the decisive argument is not the victim but the flag of the supplier. Some claim that this measuring stick is applied equally to terrorism attributed to the opposing side, and others reject the comparison.

The discussion ended, in its final stretch, in cross-disqualifications and accusations of being on the payroll of one side or the other. The quality of the exchange plummeted. The underlying issue, however, remained intact.

---

The starting point is what is unsettling: an explosive that, according to this version, in 1973 Spain was only in four locations. Half a century later, the debate has not changed in form, only in scenario. Who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter continues to be decided, according to the thread, far from the courts.