World Stands With London After Attacks

PARIS - World leaders condemned the deadly attacks in London Thursday and quickly ordered security stepped up in their own countries, vowing to cooperate to track down the attackers in a globe-spanning pledge of solidarity.

Spain, bitterly familiar with terror after train bombings in Madrid killed 191 people last year, put its security forces on maximum alert, posting army and police units to watch over airports, train stations and shopping centers.

The government of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero offered its "unconditional help to chase the criminals who perpetrated such a repugnant attack."

A similar response came from France, the object of attacks in the 1990s. Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin ordered the alert level raised and promised Britain the "immediate, full and complete collaboration" of French intelligence.

"It is a drama for Great Britain. It is a drama for all of Europe," Villepin said.

In Washington, the Homeland Security Department asked authorities in major cities for heightened vigilance of major transport systems. In the U.S. capital, bomb-sniffing dogs and armed police patrolled subways and buses.

In Denmark, former Foreign Minister Mogens Lykketoft said what others were remembering with likely dread: "This is the continuation of Sept. 11 and the attacks in Madrid ... No one can feel safe."

Russian President Vladimir Putin said terror attacks demand universal condemnation and unity, according to a Kremlin spokesman. Moscow officials ordered stepped-up security measures for the Russian capital's underground transportation system, a subway official said.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder stressed the need for fighting terrorism "with all the means at our disposal."

As in many other European countries, Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt called an emergency response meeting to assess security measures in Brussels, which houses the European Union and NATO.

In Strasbourg, France, seat of the European Parliament, European Parliament President Josep Borrell, of Spain, expressed condolences "to all suffering consequences of these barbaric attacks."

"As a citizen of a country that only last year experienced the horrors of such terrible attacks, I want to send a message of solidarity with British people .... We will never let atrocities or terrorism defeat the values of peace and democracy."

At Vatican City, Pope Benedict XVI called the attacks "barbaric acts against humanity," and said in a telegram to Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, archbishop of Westminster, that he was praying for families of the victims.

"This is all wanton violence," Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said after an audience with the pope.

Security in Copenhagen's new driverless underground system was stepped up, and, in Norway, the Foreign Ministry summoned its crisis team. In the Swedish capital, Stockholm, top police chiefs met.

Candles appeared in front of the British Embassy in Warsaw, Poland, shortly after news of the attacks flashed around the world.

Australia's national counterterrorism group met late Thursday, and Canberra set up a hot line for relatives of the hundreds of thousands Australians who live in Britain.

In Turkey, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul urged greater international cooperation against terrorism, saying it is a mistake "if we make a distinction between 'my terrorist and his terrorist.'"

I personally think the motivation was to disrupt the G8.

I know the outrage causes people to try and place blame on political opponents, but the only people to blame are the terrorists. Leftists can say those in Iraq are to blame and those on the right can say those not in Iraq are to blame. Let's get it straight. The terrorists and ONLY the terrorists are to blame. They thrive on the aftermath of terrorism and DEPEND on military reaction to create new martyrs. It puts us in a bad situation because we are fighting an enemy we cannot see and this cries out for violent reaction. They force the reaction, then cry "martyr" when innocent people are killed. For every terrorist we kill, they recruit. I hope this will not tun into a neverending cycle. Liberals are absolutely right when they say economic circumstances breed terrorism, and the right is correct that Islamic fundamentalism breeds it too. We need to attack this using a variety of tactics, not just military. Recruitment of terrorists is made mostly possible in economically depressed areas, though we saw after 911 that there are exceptions. It will take a while to implement a solution, but it must be done with intelligence and forethought, not just anger and frustration.

I am convinced the IRA (or a spinoff) played a part. They have been linked with other "freedom fighters" for quite some time, and the Brits know it. I don't think bombing or Patriot Act can *prevent* a determined terrorist from striking. The IRA said they only have to be lucky once, and that is so true. Israel is a police state and they still can't prevent TAs.

My sadness has not given way to anger, yet. My most heartfelt prayers go out to the British people, and to the British and European Freepers here. God Bless you guys.

One can make a pretty good argument that a military response is not the best course of action in dealing with these people. I personally believe that such a position is weak, but an argument can be made.

Nevertheless, that's not the point of my post, or my initial response to you. My post is basically to say that I don't believe the Europeans when they offer support and express outrage in these circumstances. True, they have suffered far worse than we have at the hands of terroroists during the last century, but their response has been one of appeasement and self-criticism. Self-criticism is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is when it becomes self-hatred and ultimately self-destruction. My point is that they express outrage and support today, but if recent history is our guide, their words will soon be attacks on the victims.

I disagree that ONLY the terrorists are to blame. Of course, they have pulled the trigger and are ultimately responsible. But the political left, both here and in Europe have been enablers of the highest order.

They criticize American and British policy while simultaneously lauding monsters on the order of Saddam, Castro, and even Osama. Don't believe me? Look it up! Michael Moore and Sean Penn have both praised pre-war Iraq under Saddam as some sort of Paradise. Washington Senator Patty Murray said that Osama was popular because he built roads and day care centers, whereas all that we have done is to bomb and kill people.

The leaders of Old Europe (as well as solid majorities among the public of Old European countries) believe that the United States is the greatest threat to the world. They cry crocodile tears when we (or our allies) is attacked, then do nothing but criticise us when we respond.

The terrorists are certainly evil, and are to blame, but those who aid them and abet them, even in the form of psychological comfort also have a small share of responsibility. If Europe had truly stood shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. after 9/11 the war would be nearly over today.

I also disagree that for every one of them we kill we produce another martyr. Iraq is actually an excellent proof of this. The "insurgency" in Iraq is NOT a homegrown phenomenon. Nearly all of the terrorists there are "foreign fighters". Men who have streamed into Iraq to fight the "infidel" invaders. Meanwhile, the people of Iraq have not risen up against us and my friends who served and are now returning home all tell me that the Iraqi people KNOW that they are better off today than they were before the war. It was the Iraqis who were killed and maimed by us in the first months of the war, yet they did not produce huge numbers of martyrs. Instead, it was foreign Arabs, mostly schooled in the radical Wahabbi form of Saudi Islam who are trying to kill our servicemen there. The same is true for Afghanistan.

Is economic depression a leading cause of this sort of terrorism? Of course! But again, the leaders of Europe and the Left are enablers and part of the problem. They continue to embrace failed regimes and throw money down holes to solve the problems of poverty. Meanwhile, the despots who receive the money that is supposed to be used to help their people steal it for themselves. Or don't you remember Oil For Food?

I am NOT saying that military action is the only option. In fact, it SHOULD be the final option. You're absolutely correct that we need to work on the economic problems of the Middle East. My only point is that the free nations of the West must stand united against this sort of brutality. The verbal support of other nations may be comforting in times of crisis, but all of the kind words in the world are meaningless when the Annans, Schroeders, and Chiracs of the world are obstructing our response and helping terrorist regimes through back room deals.

I too am a Christ follower. I have been criticised by some who feel that Jesus would not strike out against those who have harmed the innocent. But I believe that our governments have a duty to protect us from the worst elements. I don't think that I am being inconsistent in my Christian beliefs. It is an issue of responsibility. How can I protect my children from madmen bent on killing simply because of their skin color or religion or country of origin? I cannot, but thank God that the U.S. military and our allies can! When another, supposedly allied nation attempts to inhibit our ability to fulfill that responsibility, I begin to question whether they are truly a friend.

That is my point.

I understand your point of view. All we can do is look to other nations who have successfully dealt with the terrorism problem. The problem is that we can't because none have eliminated terrorism. Britian tried many tactics with the IRA. The conservatives tried violence and it didn't work, it created irish catholic martyrs. The liberals gave them a seat of power in government, only to face splinter groups of the same people under a different name and a "former" terrorist named Gerry Adams who feins support for non-violence. Terrorist recruitment in Ireland was successful only because there was high unemployment and a depressed economy.
I don't believe the 911 terrorists were motivated by jihad. I believe it was all about control of Saudi Arabia's oil resources, given that the attackers came from wealthy families, and didn't exhibit Koranic moral behavior-what with lap dances and drinking and so forth.
These terrorists, I firmly believe are splinter IRA, and motivated by the G8.

Terrorism is designed to fight nations with mighty military power. The battle is PR and economics, while I understand those responsible must be dealt with swiftly and violently.
Terrorism thrives because it works. They instill fear and affect economies and create martyrs at the same time. The KLA sucessfully obtained Kosovo with this tactic. They assassinated, bombed and generally created havoc, claiming to be victims of oppression. When Milosevich retaliated, he became the bad guy. But if you carefully examine how he was defeated, you'd see the KLA took cover among civilians (even fired from populous areas) and they then became "collateral damage" when the Serbs fired back. If the WORLD could be fooled by this and rally against the Serbs, other terrorists can use the same strategy to gain recruits.
As for the Christian thing I know it is hard to be Christian about this. I don't feel one bit of sympathy for terrorists, but I can't find it in my heart to hate all Muslims. That's my point.
I fervently believe continental Europeans feel deep sympathy for Britain. They are cousins. They just have a different idea as to how to address the problem. The hard left way, which is as ineffective as the hard right way. It doesn't mean they don't care because they don't adopt U.S. strategy and jump on the bandwagon every time we decide to bomb some little country, which is quite often, actually. I disagree with U.S. strategy and our meddling, past and present, but I care enough to carefully examine all aspects
of the issue. Our policy is domination of middle east resources, and revenge. There are many layers to this, and I don't think the paternalistic, authoritarian approach is working.
Terrorism is like dealing with a bad kid. She's 16, on drugs, and sexually promiscuous. The authoritarian deals with it this way: he restricts her freedom and beats her. No love. I've seen this in many strict Christian families. It doesn't work, it makes her madder, and more determined. She seethes inside with anger, and learns to hate her parents. The liberal would buy her a car and give her condoms and birth control pills. A liberal would show love through capitulation to the little brat. I suggest a middle ground approach. Reasonable punishment and loss of freedom, and lots of love, but not the kind which convinces her that her tactics are effective. With terrorism, you can't just beat them up. It may work in old westerns, but this is real life. You've got to put in place a plan which addresses basic needs (not love) but economic security. We can no longer support oppressive regimes for American economic interests. Alternative energy is a must. Yes we need to root out terrorist cells, but not in a way that angers an entire region. That's the authoritarian approach, and it doesn't work. The authoritarian thinks there's a set number of terrorists and all we need to do is kill them all. They don't understand the nature of recruitment. You can't kill all the cockroaches in the world because there will always be more, and most importantly, they adapt and thrive even when full power is unleashed against them.
As for liberals praising Iraq (pre-sanctions)
as a wonderland under Sadaam, there are others who insist it was hell. I say it was somewhere in the middle. It was hell for Shiites and Kurds. But Sharia law was not possible under Hussein's secular Iraq. The laws regarding women were very liberal in comparison to other Arab nations. Resources were more evenly spread among the people in comparison with other Arab nations. It had the highest literacy rate and the economy was good. Now it is very possible that Sharia will be introduced. I am not saying Sadaam was a good guy, but that we must be careful of the devil we don't know. Shiites are the spiritual brothers of Islamic Jihadists, even if they are our friend in Iraq today. History has produced many examples of this. Time after time in third world countries (with no experience in democracy) we have intervened and tried to create a democratic civilization (or a base in a strategic area). Look at Haiti! In Kosovo we put terrorists in charge because we were under the mistaken impression Milosevich was a threat the world. There are other examples. We are looking at this through western eyes, but the problem is much, much more complicated than "they want to take our freedom." I don't think authoritarians, who can see only black and white, understand the muti-layer depth of the problem. And liberals, they are an open invitation to take over. We need free thinkers to deal with this.

Nice talking with yah but I've got to get to work soon so I can pay for the government to take more of my freedoms away
and so they can pay for our children to be taught oral sex as an alternative to intercourse and last but not least, so I can pay for more death row inmate appeals and new tvs and weight machines in prison.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.