Europe's 9/11

[Zhukov]

Europe's 9/11
Mass terror has now arrived in EU

LONDON - The terrorist strikes in Madrid mean the era of large-scale terrorism has arrived in Europe, newspapers said as they called the attacks Spain and the region's Sept 11.

'Our 9/11', read the headline of one of numerous Spanish newspapers that published extra editions on Thursday.

All television stations showed a logo of a black ribbon, and flags were at half-mast after a wave of bombs targeting trains in the Spanish capital on Thursday killed nearly 200 people.

'In Madrid, Europe's Sept 11,' was the headline of Rome's Il Messaggero daily.

Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine said: 'After America's Sept 11, Spain's March 11 will be inscribed into the annals of terrorist outrages.'

The attacks were Europe's worst on land, surpassed in death toll only by the 1988 Lockerbie airline bombing over Scotland which left 270 dead.

London's Times newspaper said that the seeming intention of the bombers to cause large- scale civilian casualties marked a change in the terrorism tactics witnessed inside Europe.

'Indeed, their very brutality seems to many characteristic of the attacks carried out by Al-Qaeda and its sympathisers,' the paper said in an editorial.

It added that Europe was now facing 'something wider: International understanding among extremists, who copy each others' methods, supply each other with arms and coordinate attacks on their common enemies'.

The German daily Die Welt said: 'Never before has terrorism in Europe been so devastating.'

Like most newspapers, it was unsure whether the attacks were the work of extremists linked to Al-Qaeda or the Basque separatist movement ETA.

But it said: 'What happened in Spain was the Al-Qaedisation of terrorism in Europe, the implementation of a tactic invented by Islamists, which does not pursue a political goal such as the overthrow of government, but finds its value in causing the most pain possible in the worst chaos.'

The Tageszeitung in Berlin echoed this, saying the bombings were 'a new dimension of terror: Violence for its own sake'.

Several papers said the bombings had shattered any complacency that Europe could be immune to mass attacks on civilians, and the continent should gird itself for more.

'The mass terror of Madrid was aimed at the heart of Spain, but we are all in the crosshairs of terrorism,' wrote Germany's Bild tabloid. 'Who is still safe today? Terror is like a hydra with a thousand heads.'

Fear of mass attacks was no longer the preserve of the Americans, Italian daily La Repubblica said in an editorial.

'Whoever thought the American 'devils' were the only ones in the sights of Islamic terrorism was wrong. We are all in the same boat,' it said.

Writing in the Corriere della Sera, editorialist Sergio Romano said the Madrid attacks could mark an alliance between Basque and Islamic terrorism for 'a common objective'.

'If this hypothesis is borne out in fact, yesterday's date will prove, in many respects, more important than Sept 11.

'The war will have moved to Europe...a European war that the Union must fight with a much improved unity and solidarity than it has demonstrated in the last few months.' -- AFP, Reuters

http://www.straitstimes.asia1.com/world/story/0,4386,239954,00.html

Perhaps, despite the terrorist victory in Spain, in the long term it will help to bolster the European community against terrorism.

 

[CnsrvtveChrstn]

Maybe now France can wonder if they'll be next and assemble their army of... wait, never mind.

 

[supermarine]

hahaha, wow, i havent laughed so hard since a was a little girl. The only big scale army they have over there is a million mimes. hahaha. The only thing that will get them to make an army is if half of paris was bombed by a biological bomb. I have yet to see them impress me. THe last time they actually didnt get their asses whooped was in world war 1 after that they went downhill

 

[spillmind]

Perhaps, despite the terrorist victory in Spain,

i wouldn't call it a victory.

gee, maybe if we didn't ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE in CREATING and PERPETUATING terrorism, we wouldn't have to fear it so much, no?

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by spillmind
i wouldn't call it a victory.

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

gee, maybe if we didn't ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE in CREATING and PERPETUATING terrorism,

How do we do that? It was my understanding that we were actively killing them and removing leaders of states that supported them.

we wouldn't have to fear it so much, no?

I'm not afraid.

 

[jon_forward]

they let spilly out again!!! please tell me, Iknow you are dieing to anyway, how we are an active participant in terrorism and supporting it.? created? hahahahha...thats funny! and please sspare me the BS, just facts that you back up with valid links. is that possible?

 

[supermarine]

Yes, countries that supported the war on iraq will probably be targeted first. That isnt a reason why we need to stop this war. If america and its allies that are against al qauda or howerver you spell that stupid name, are defeated somehow. The rest of the countries of the world would be targets until they surrender. You know what i say, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. For every ten civilians they kill, we kill thirty of the al qada prisorners that still worship usama.

 

[winston churchi]

Originally posted by spillmind
i wouldn't call it a victory.

gee, maybe if we didn't ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE in CREATING and PERPETUATING terrorism, we wouldn't have to fear it so much, no?

I think a reality check is in need for this person. First of all the United States unlike some countries that shall be nameless (but I am sure clever readers know who they are) does not support terrorism. Yes, there are countries that do support terrorism, financially and otherwise.

The reason we fear it is not because, according to your statement so sadly put, we participate in creating, but because these 'people' do not care who they kill or how. Its main purpose is mass destruction. Imagine being in New York during 9/11 and watching your whole life crumble before you - this disaster - not caused by nature but by humans - terrorist.

My suggestion to you is this:
Read a history book. Learn from what you read. This form of spreading fear throughout the world is nothing new and thus nothing created by the US. You can read any time period you wish and I am sure you will find some organized groups stirring mass destruction to further their cause - normally religion.

 

[spillmind]

You know what i say, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. For every ten civilians they kill, we kill thirty of the al qada prisorners that still worship usama.

how incredibly civilized and insightful. you should run for president

they let spilly out again!!! please tell me, Iknow you are dieing to anyway, how we are an active participant in terrorism and supporting it.? created? hahahahha...thats funny! and please sspare me the BS, just facts that you back up with valid links. is that possible?

you want links on nicaragua? how about chile? how about southeast asia? africa? how about venezuela? don't waste our time with your obvious denial.

i guess the real question is: what exactly *is* terrorism? and why can't we stand internationally united against it? is it the american-serving global capitalism that relies heavily on oil? and who exactly is to say what is 'right'? and who's to enforce it?

 

[jon_forward]

still cant back up your words with proof? links?

 

[wonderwench]

Spilly, you are too cute.

Tell me, are you a sophmore at Stanford by any chance? Your rhetoric sounds just like that of a pampered undergrad who has never had to deal with real life.

 

[eric]

For every ten civilians they kill, we kill thirty of the al qada prisorners that still worship usama.

I'm with you my friend ! Except, personally I don't think we should wait till any civilians are killed, they should be exterminated as we speak !

 

[spillmind]

Tell me, are you a sophmore at Stanford by any chance? Your rhetoric sounds just like that of a pampered undergrad who has never had to deal with real life.

quite the excellent guess, but i'm not quite the 'wet behind the ears' fundamentalist you vehemently wish i was.

fact is, our involvement in other countries around the world is more of a perpetuation of our global commerce domination ideal, and less of a moral, ehtical upstanding.

while many shun the UN these days, bush should learn from his father (who invaded under the UN flag) and even clinton who had international support for military action. and now we want a multinational force in there, so our troops can finally come home? is this really so difficult to fathom?

and while this many not stop terrorism, a desire to work together with other countries, and act with broad support is arguably more effective as opposed to unilateralism that isolates many other countries and displays a desire for segragation (even as we fund the fuzzy terror organizations with our petrol dollars)... not to mention... um cluster bombs... talk about going about it all wrong!

furthermore, at least this mode of action futher polarizes the aggressors by publicy showing that the US (or acting with the UN) is striving to do the right thing. but by asserting our will in other countries, (forcefully) changing from the government infrastructure to the civlian every day lives WITHOUT international support only shows that we have only one agenda in mind: OURS. with other countries on board (not counting those that depend on our trade or aid to survive, therefore have no choice but to comply), such attacks only show how heinous these 'terrorists' are, and will further weaken their establishment. instead, now we have a renewed hatred breeding globally. congratulations!

and people wonder why countries are pulling their troops? we're talking common sense here.

 

[spillmind]

still cant back up your words with proof? links?

it doesn't matter what i post, you'll deny the obvious: people want to attack us, because they feel they have been served injustice.

do you really think the US has always done the right thing, in the name of the selfless act of 'liberating'? nobody's buying that crap anymore. nice try.

 

[Zhukov]

fact is, our involvement in other countries around the world is more of a perpetuation of our global commerce domination ideal, and less of a moral, ehtical upstanding.

The fact is our involvement in other countries is the result of the policies of our democratically elected federal representatives.

Many people in this country support those policies for many different reasons.

and even clinton who had international support for military action

I don't believe Clinton had more international support for any of his numerous "acts of aggression" than we have for our activities in Iraq. It's possible there were more states in support of our actions in the former republics of Yugoslavia, but I doubt it.

one agenda in mind: OURS

Whose agenda, precisely, would you like us to address first?

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by spillmind
it doesn't matter what i post, you'll deny the obvious: people want to attack us, because they feel they have been served injustice.

do you really think the US has always done the right thing, in the name of the selfless act of 'liberating'? nobody's buying that crap anymore. nice try.

without proof all you have is OPINION, nothing more nothing less people attack us because we are the "HAVES" and the attackers are the have nots. they have no freedoms that we enjoy 24/7. the freedom to worship a God that you choose, even if that God is Satan. .....The MAJORITY OF IRAQI PEOPLE say they are better off now that saddam is out. This will improve as things get better and better in Iraq. Yes, we Liberated the Iraqi people the only one not buying it is people like you that can read the writing on the wall!!! get over it......

 

[supermarine]

Originally posted by spillmind
how incredibly civilized and insightful. you should run for president

you want links on nicaragua? how about chile? how about southeast asia? africa? how about venezuela? don't waste our time with your obvious denial.

i guess the real question is: what exactly *is* terrorism? and why can't we stand internationally united against it? is it the american-serving global capitalism that relies heavily on oil? and who exactly is to say what is 'right'? and who's to enforce it?

hahaha very funny. I guess ur right, we shouldnt kill al queda prisernors, we should try better means of diplomacy. The only thing is, um, lemmi think here, WE HAVE TRIED!!!! and i think that the people who get to say its right is the THOUSANDS OF VICTIMS OF 9/11, and the THOUSANDS OF ISRALIES, and the THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE UNDER THE AGGRESSSION OF MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRIES WORLD WIDE. Besides, remember one of our reporters that was caught by those filthy bastards. He was stabbed numerous times. They kill anyone who supports america, all that i was proposing is killing al queda members that try and decapatate our own people.And dont give me that bullshit about how we are "always the agressor". and that "america is ruining steps to world peace" World peace is just a crazy idea in our heads.

 

[spillmind]

The fact is our involvement in other countries is the result of the policies of our democratically elected federal representatives. Many people in this country support those policies for many different reasons.

...and (there is more to that) sometimes those 'reasons' are sometimes for our sole benefit, even it means lives and death. so then- no one has a right to hold us accountable?

Whose agenda, precisely, would you like us to address first?

it's not about who's up first here! we invaded iraqa to 'keep the world safe from saddam' ...bush said in not exact words that it was in the the best interest GLOBALLY to get rid of saddam. the US is not an island, nor can we function alone. therefore, a little maintenance and a system of checks and balances wouldn't hurt in keeping us honest. i know you are not so daft to assume that nobody else matters.

without proof all you have is OPINION,

what do you want me to prove? that we had involvment in other countries affairs for multi-faceted reasons? some of them 'gasp' not always morally right??! nobody on this board will disagree with me about that EXCEPT YOU. why is that?

people attack us because we are the "HAVES" and the attackers are the have nots. they have no freedoms that we enjoy 24/7. the freedom to worship a God that you choose, even if that God is Satan. .....The MAJORITY OF IRAQI PEOPLE say they are better off now that saddam is out. This will improve as things get better and better in Iraq. Yes, we Liberated the Iraqi people the only one not buying it is people like you that can read the writing on the wall!!! get over it......

did you cut and paste this from a yahoo! message board? this: 'they hate us cos we are free', is the biggest load of nonsense that i've heard repeated over and over again. first off, you can't prove that. people find solace in many different things, not just your SUV ride to jack in the box. they don't hate us b/c we are 'free'

we'll see how this 'liberation' unfolds. we'll see if your 'fearless, courageous leader' pulls out before the election for his own personal political gain... as i've said time and time again, the threat of terrorism has quite possibly ONLY GROWN because of the iraq war, and people like you keep saying it will get better. WHEN???

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
as i've said time and time again, the threat of terrorism has quite possibly ONLY GROWN because of the iraq war, and people like you keep saying it will get better. WHEN???

It already has. What terrorist actions have you seen on US soil lately? Which of our ships have had holes blown into the side of them?

Now, how many terrorist plots have been foiled? At last count it was going into the hundreds.

 

[spillmind]

World peace is just a crazy idea in our heads.

this is about the only thing i agree with that you posted. however, killing for peace is like.... well, we all know the rest. it only perpetuates itself. if this is what you really want- constant war and death- and continuously pushing for it... well, it's definitely much much easier.

and i think that the people who get to say its right is the THOUSANDS OF VICTIMS OF 9/11, and the THOUSANDS OF ISRALIES, and the THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE UNDER THE AGGRESSSION OF MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRIES WORLD WIDE.

oh really? grief gives them right to ultimately judge? i don't follow. the only thing i see here is an extremely heavy bias. *shrugs*

They kill anyone who supports america, all that i was proposing is killing al queda members that try and decapatate our own people.And dont give me that bullshit about how we are "always the agressor".

now, i may be going out on a limb here, but i believe you are trying to lump all muslims together with fundamental extremists. i would disagree. america is not ALWAYS the agressor. but sometimes we are. and when we are wrong, we should take responsibility, and vow to learn and never repeat such heinous acts. i personally believe that this is the most upstanding, distinguished nation on the planet, but i believe our reputation has gone far south in the last couple years.