Terror attacks in Europe (country, people, work, England)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Has increased saftey measures and public awarness in the US since 9-11 cause terroirsts to change targets to European targets to become easier than American ones.
For example there has been 1 attack in the US, the fort hood shooting
there was 4 in europe the 7-7 bombing in London, Madrid bombing in 2004, the embassy bombings in Athens this year, and the Oslo/ summer camp attacks in Norway on July 23rd this year
what do you think?
European terrorists have always had european targets.
Most of the Moscow attacks, the 7/7 bombing 1 of the athens bombings and the Madrid bombings were all international terrorists, however the recent attack in Norway brought the idea to my mind that Terrorists are ignoring American targets because European ones are easier.
Has increased saftey measures and public awarness in the US since 9-11 cause terroirsts to change targets to European targets to become easier than American ones.
For example there has been 1 attack in the US, the fort hood shooting
there was 4 in europe the 7-7 bombing in London, Madrid bombing in 2004, the embassy bombings in Athens this year, and the Oslo/ summer camp attacks in Norway on July 23rd this year
what do you think?
You missed the suicide bomber in Stockholm last Christmas. (Though he only managed to kill himself, thank God.)
(I'm not sure why Fort Hood was included in that list - given the inclusion of the London and Madrid bombings, the list should be 9/11, London, Madrid, Athens and Stockholm. And on a seperate list should be Fort Hood and Oslo/the AUF camp)
I think we also need to take into consideration the fact that terrorist attacks in one country does not automatically spread the fear into the next one. Meaning that a big, organised terror group (say Al-Qaida or similar in this case) must "spread" the attacks to happen in different countries to create a bigger sense of fear in (in this case - minus Norway since that was domestic) more Western countries. If it only happened in the US, it'd be an attack on the US. Not the rest of the Western world. When it happens in England/UK, it's an attack on the Britons. But, as the attacks spread into more countries, it creates fear in countries where it hasn't yet happened because then it seems more plausible that it might happen in their country too and not just in e.g. the US or the UK.
I don't think it'd be any harder to bring about another attack on US soil than it'd be in any European country. It'd just be done slightly differently. Maybe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
Most of the Moscow attacks, the 7/7 bombing 1 of the athens bombings and the Madrid bombings were all international terrorists, however the recent attack in Norway brought the idea to my mind that Terrorists are ignoring American targets because European ones are easier.
The attack in Norway was domestic, so we can't actually infere anything from it when it comes to international terrorism. Breivik was a Norweigan nationalist, hence he had to do it in Norway. Wouldn't have worked idealogically had he e.g. crossed the border into Sweden or Denmark etc.
You missed the suicide bomber in Stockholm last Christmas. (Though he only managed to kill himself, thank God.)
(I'm not sure why Fort Hood was included in that list - given the inclusion of the London and Madrid bombings, the list should be 9/11, London, Madrid, Athens and Stockholm. And on a seperate list should be Fort Hood and Oslo/the AUF camp)
I don't think it'd be any harder to bring about another attack on US soil than it'd be in any European country. It'd just be done slightly differently. Maybe.
The attack in Norway was domestic, so we can't actually infere anything from it when it comes to international terrorism. .
The Fort hood Shooting was a Radicalized "muslim" in the milarty base who killed the soldiers so that is "islamic" terror
I didnt say that the Norway Attack was international, however it got me thinking about the nature of attacks and how because 9-11 didnt strick fear and worry in Europe to the same degree as America, and there hasnt been an attack of that scale in Europe yet it seems that they arent as prepared
Also Now that numerous European countries have goverment sutdowns it could, coupled with public unawarness, could allow another catistropic attack in countries like Portugal or France.
The Fort hood Shooting was a Radicalized "muslim" in the milarty base who killed the soldiers so that is "islamic" terror
I didnt say that the Norway Attack was international, however it got me thinking about the nature of attacks and how because 9-11 didnt strick fear and worry in Europe to the same degree as America, and there hasnt been an attack of that scale in Europe yet it seems that they arent as prepared
Also Now that numerous European countries have goverment sutdowns it could, coupled with public unawarness, could allow another catistropic attack in countries like Portugal or France.
I'm very familiar with what happened at Fort Hood. And given the M.O. and motive I am of the belief that it is different from the other terrorist attacks mentioned. The main reason being that he attacked military, not civilians. The US and UN definition of a terrorist act is that it is commited against civilians, not military. He was a murderer, but not a terrorist by definition (even if it's looser in the US these days than it is in the rest of the West).
Not sure what you mean with "they aren't as prepared", "government shutdowns" and "public unawareness"?
The public unawareness I don't think really applies anymore - most people are aware, but don't live their lives assuming terror will happen (which is what I feel many people do in the US - however we're not better prepared in the US despite this. Fear doesn't create preparedness).
France is well aware of terrorism attack risk.
It is not because we haven't see ny big terrorist attack since 1996 that we think it couldn't happen anymore.
Paris in mid 1980's, terrorists targetted big busy hubs (big departement store, malls, busy avenues).
We had also several attack in mid 1990's.
Two bomb exploded in the Paris RER (express subway) in 1995, one other in 1996.
Since then for a sole suspect bag, a whole station can be closed.
It happen almost everyday in Paris.
You can't just call every shooting a "terrorist attack". To qualify as a terrorists attack, in any useful sense of the word, there needs to be an organization behind it which is using the attack as a part of an ongoing tactic to achieve an wider goal.
The concept of "terrorism" requires that it be distinguished from single angry person carrying out an operation, even if that operative believes he is furthering a wider general cause. If you don't make that distinction, then the "war on terror" merely become fascism in which every person is a suspect subject to pre-emptive lintervention.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
