How would Europe handle terrorism?

[Citadel535]

So the entire world hates (possibly dislikes) America. Therefore my question (to European readers) is how would you handle terrorism as opposed to how the US has.

Include the following:
1. You're goal is to eliminate terrorism in the US. There is not an allowance for acceptable amounts of terrorism.
2. Consider that the terrorist countries also have the largest supply of what America needs to run: oil.
3. You're following the standard policies of the free world that you will not negotiate with terrorists.

 

[AFB]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army ?

Terrorism didn't come about just last week.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Terrorism didn't come about just last week.

For real. Europe has experienced terrorism long before the US. One option some research on their experience in order to answer your question. You don't need to look at hypothetical responses to terrorism, there is past history to look at.

 

[Gatos]

They deal with it by telling them to attack france first

 

[theblackbox]

the germanand english have traditionaly stood up and taken it to the terrorists. Do some research on the SAS and their handling or attempts at handling the IRA. Or read about the GSG-9, which is the german police that handle counter terrorism, and how they have been very succesful without the use of violence. i think they have in 140+ operations only shot their weapons once or twice. The french have tried, but their success is marginal, but read about the IRA and baader-meinhof.

 

[GrGr]

Citadel: 2. Consider that the terrorist countries also have the largest supply of what America needs to run: oil.

GrGr: The US has worked very hard for a long time to destabilize the ME, if by "terrorist countries" you mean those countries (which nations exactly are those btw.?) for the simple reason to better control oil supply. Over time this policy has of course caused deep resentment in parts of the population in the countries where the US has meddled the most (one cause of terrorism).

Now does the US have a natural right to the oil in the "terrorist countries"? Does the US have the right to simply grab what it needs? Look at the setup in SA, probably the single nation that had the most to do with 9/11. The US supports, and has supported, the thoroughly corrupt House of Saud for a long time. In return the Saudis functions as a "tap on demand" oil reserve for the US (which only has to print dollars every time it needs to buy oil, if that) and a US controlled voice in the OPEC.

 

[cwjerome]

Europe would probably do what they've normally done: Dick around and let it fester until things are going apesh!t. As things go to hell, they'd call 9-1-1 (That's USA on your European phone) and ask to be rescued

 

[MrMajestyk]

Originally posted by: theblackbox
the germanand english have traditionaly stood up and taken it to the terrorists. Do some research on the SAS and their handling or attempts at handling the IRA. Or read about the GSG-9, which is the german police that handle counter terrorism, and how they have been very succesful without the use of violence. i think they have in 140+ operations only shot their weapons once or twice. The french have tried, but their success is marginal, but read about the IRA and baader-meinhof.

The British were 'seen' to stand up to the IRA, but were forever secretly talking to them and the present ceasefire was agreed much in the IRA's favour. i.e. many hundreds of convicted murderers on both the Catholic and Protestant side have been released from jail. Even the man who planted the Brighton bomb and nearly killed Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet is a free man. It could be said that the IRA/Sinn Fein bombed their way to where they are now.

Iraq is very similar to when British Troops were sent to Northern Ireland at the end of the 1960's. Military presence there gave Nationalists loads of targets just as the US is in Iraq now. As long as there is a US presence in Iraq there will be casualties from car bombs etc. It's gonna be a long haul.

 

[Strk]

Some are so quick to forget about things like Madrid and who knows how many IRA attacks, just to name just a couple.

 

[eclavatar]

Europe's appeasement throughout history has been the bane of the free world.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Strk
Some are so quick to forget about things like Madrid and who knows how many IRA attacks, just to name just a couple.

Bader Meinhof, the Red Brigade...

 

[ElFenix]

like this

 

[RabidMongoose]

Well they can't really do as much as the US since each individual country isn't nearly as powerful as the US is at the present time.

I would guess that if a European country actually had as much power as the US and some reason to use the power, then they would do something that many people would call 'crazy'.

 

[theblackbox]

there is one thing to remember:

the ira, baader meinhof, brigate rosse, red army(japan) and other terrorist organizations valued life(theirs) and rarely endangered themselves. Most actions were by bombs placed in a location, shootings, and the such. Even the Sendiro Luminoso, tupac Amaru, and other modern day terrorists outside of the middle east valued their membership and life when commiting acts of terrorism.

It has become a different world when you have to combat people that are more then willing to die and have the media to carry their acts world wide.
One of the downfalls of the IRA was the limited media attention outside of Europe. Don't you think the rest of the world, including america, would have frowned on the english occupation of northern ireland, and the murder of innocent farmers by the english military?

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: Citadel535
So the entire world hates (possibly dislikes) America. Therefore my question (to European readers) is how would you handle terrorism as opposed to how the US has.

Include the following:
1. You're goal is to eliminate terrorism in the US. There is not an allowance for acceptable amounts of terrorism.
2. Consider that the terrorist countries also have the largest supply of what America needs to run: oil.
3. You're following the standard policies of the free world that you will not negotiate with terrorists.

1) According to Osama Bin Laden, simply do not take sides in the Isreal conflict. Big problem though (Florida and it's jewish population and the elections that happen every 4 years) And also pull out of hte Middle east (we can still spend $200 BILLION on intelegence though....spying)

2) Terrorist countries? No offense, but money talks and BS walks. What country stopped supplying oil when we enetered Afganistan? Same queation on Iraq.

3) standard policies of the free world? Could you please supply a link to that.