Europe way behind the Us in fighting terrorist

SuperMegatron · Post by **SuperMegatron** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 1:54 pm

Europe 'lags behind' US on terror
De Hoop Scheffer: Europe should catch up in the fight against terrorism
Europe has not caught up with the US in its response to global terrorism, Nato's secretary general has warned.
Europeans had to go as far as Americans in merging external and internal security, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said in New York.
A "perception gap" had opened up since the 11 September 2001 attacks, he said.
This difference between the US and its European allies was one reason for the strained relations within Nato, the alliance chief added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4005345.stm

az_bont · Post by **az_bont** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 2:16 pm

That is surely a good thing.

farrell2k · Post by **farrell2k** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 2:58 pm

Yes it is surly a good thing. Now lets only hope that the terrorists are smart enough to attack the weaker, less prepared of the two.

Storminator16 · Post by **Storminator16** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 3:06 pm

farrell2k wrote:Yes it is surly a good thing. Now lets only hope that the terrorists are smart enough to attack the weaker, less prepared of the two.

I wouldn't wish for such a thing, but I just want to see how all of this plays out. We've already seen what happened in Spain, sadly

farrell2k · Post by **farrell2k** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 3:18 pm

The dutch are now leaving Iraq, too.

Stormwatch · Post by **Stormwatch** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 3:53 pm

This is a war of good vs evil... and Europe refuses to acknowledge the very concept of evil.

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 4:45 pm

We've already seen what happened in Spain, sadly

This gets referenced a lot, but are there poll numbers somewhere that suggest that the attack actually had an effect on the election's outcome? Just because people elected the anti-war candidate after the attack doesn't mean that they weren't going to do it already.

farrell2k · Post by **farrell2k** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 4:55 pm

Ex-Cyber wrote:
We've already seen what happened in Spain, sadly
This gets referenced a lot, but are there poll numbers somewhere that suggest that the attack actually had an effect on the election's outcome? Just because people elected the anti-war candidate after the attack doesn't mean that they weren't going to do it already.

It doesn't matter. The terrorists are now fully convinced that their bombing campaigns effected Spain's decision to withdrawl from Iraq.

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 4:57 pm

If they were resolved to vote the other way just to spite the terrorists, doesn't that just open up the door to front groups and reverse psychology tactics?

Post by **|darc|** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 5:26 pm

Which terrorist, SuperMegatron?

MystiK · Post by **MystiK** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:32 pm

...*sigh*...Like i said before...there is no such thing as ''global terrorism'', otherwise Iceland and Wales should be just as concerned about terrorism as the U.S is. Give me a break, the election is over, you won, spare us the fucking propaganda for sh1t's sake.

fatheadpi · Post by **fatheadpi** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 8:01 pm

Yes it is surly a good thing. Now lets only hope that the terrorists are smart enough to attack the weaker, less prepared of the two.

Don't say stuff like that.

Terrorism is one of the few things I wouldn't wish on anyone.

I don't want to see this play out.

SuperMegatron · Post by **SuperMegatron** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 8:12 pm

MystiK wrote:...*sigh*...Like i said before...there is no such thing as ''global terrorism'', otherwise Iceland and Wales should be just as concerned about terrorism as the U.S is. Give me a break, the election is over, you won, spare us the fudging propaganda for sh1t's sake.

The bbc is propaganda now....read the link no mention of any republican or democrat policy it just talks about Europe being behind the United States in the war on terror.

MystiK · Post by **MystiK** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 8:30 pm

The bbc is propaganda now....read the link no mention of any republican or democrat policy it just talks about Europe being behind the United States in the war on terror.

the bbc is probably the only news org i trust. what is propaganda is overstating the seriousness of this like if bush is right when he talks about the ''global terrorist threat''. I'm just assuming you are because you are indeed a bush supporter. If not then nevermind.

I think that half of europe has nothing to fear in terms of terrorism. Liechtenstein...Hungary...Greenland....do u think they give a fuck about Al-Qaeda and vice-versa??

SuperMegatron · Post by **SuperMegatron** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 8:42 pm

MystiK wrote:I think that half of europe has nothing to fear in terms of terrorism. Liechtenstein...Hungary...Greenland....do u think they give a fudge about Al-Qaeda and vice-versa??

They may not face a direct attack but a attack on America or europes major powers in this time of globalization will hurt them as well and vice versa.

Hawq · Post by **Hawq** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 5:34 am

MystiK wrote:the bbc is probably the only news org i trust.

You trust a news orginisation that calls terrorists 'militants'? a term which by the way puts them in the same catagory as striking tube workers, described many times as militants in the past

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 10:01 am

You trust a news orginisation that calls terrorists 'militants'?

The term "terrorist" is highly subjective and emotionally loaded. Fine for editorializing, but I can see why an honest news organization would decline to use it in reporting.

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:16 pm

Ex-Cyber wrote:
You trust a news orginisation that calls terrorists 'militants'?
The term "terrorist" is highly subjective and emotionally loaded. Fine for editorializing, but I can see why an honest news organization would decline to use it in reporting.

I agree. Remember when we called the mujahadeen "freedom fighters"?

Stormwatch · Post by **Stormwatch** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:36 pm

Hawq wrote:You trust a news orginisation that calls terrorists 'militants'?

You know, the sick thing is... everybody does it!

MystiK · Post by **MystiK** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:38 pm

You trust a news orginisation that calls terrorists 'militants'? a term which by the way puts them in the same catagory as striking tube workers, described many times as militants in the past

The term "terrorist" is highly subjective and emotionally loaded. Fine for editorializing, but I can see why an honest news organization would decline to use it in reporting.

exactly. note :

militant -
Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause

terrorist -
a radical who employs terror as a political weapon

interchanging the two is like calling anyone who is ''slim'', ''sexy'' and vice-versa. You're ADDING to the facts.

The BBC classfying insurgents as insurgents or militants rather than terrorists/killers/brutes/thugs/any noun that fox news uses is probably the MAIN reason why i trust them. Let ME call them terrorists based on ur reporting, don't try to inject sh1t into my head.