Quote:
Originally posted by sugar and spice
I'm not arguing with that. I'm just wondering why this would persuade ANYONE to change their stance on terrorism when changing your stance on terrorism would probably vastly increase the chance that your country would suffer an attack. That line of reasoning makes zero sense to me.
|
I'm not so sure that changing a European nation's stance on terrorism would really increase (or decrease) the chances of being attacked. I say this because if you read what Al Qaeda, and sympatico groups, say, they are holding grudges from the Crusades. They are swayed by current actions, but their agenda is clearly not limited by contemporary events.
France, as Arya pointed out, is fighting terrorism. I may despise Chirac, but lets give credit where credit is due. France has the best intelligence gathering capability, with regard to penetrating Jihadists, of any European nation. It is because of France's help that New York is now considered to be
almost immune to attack by Al Qaeda. I think that Al Qaeda would like another shot at New York, but they can't because of France.
All nations who are potential targets of Al Qaeda are best served by pooling resources together. I believe that this attack will only intensify the desire to cooperate on the intelligence sharing level. After all, on September 11, 2001, almost 3,000 people were murdered, and almost $10 billion in property was destroyed. Today's tragedy in London is the best that Al Qaeda can do, and it is of a scope that is far less than what happened almost four years ago. If they will continue to attack, a continued coordinated campaign against them will probably guarantee that any future strikes are muted compared to what Al Qaeda would like to do.
Threaded Mode