Condemnation Of Terrorist Attacks
The following message has been sent to the headquarter of the EPP-DP in Europolis from the Christian Democratic Party of Aleutia in Unalaska:
_"On the wake of the brutal and inhumane attacks that swept through many nations around Europe, including those riots in the United Kingdom States that have killed 24 Aleutian citizens, I think it is necessary that the European People's Party-European Democrats to take a clear, firm stand against terrorism.
These are not only attacks on some nations and their citizens but attacks on freedom, democracy and humanity as a whole. I request the party to make an official condemnation of the terrorist attacks._
Chairman of the Christian Democratic Party of Aleutia, member of the EPP-DP.
Nazione Italiana last edited by
Here here. We would support such a statement. We must fight terrorism, and at not time negotiate with terrorists.
We are still waiting for other members of the party to express their stance on this issue. Should the party not shows its sympathy to the victims of the attacks and raise its voice against terrorism? Shouldn't this be the time for the members of the EPP-ED to shows their solidarity in such harsh time like this?
The Senate of Jerusalem has already condemed the terrorist attack and offered it's symphaties with the victims. All of the Holy Roman Empire supports any attempts to strike back on world terrorism. But there are different opinions of how this could best be done in the Senate. However, on behalf of my governemnt I'm ready to sign any collective condemnation of the terrorist attack within the EPP-ED.
I condemn the terrorist attacks that have occurred across the region. The people of Derbyshire mourn with those attacked. This is, if I may be so bold, the point where our real-to-life governments jumped off the deep end. The natural re-action is to attack anything that durst move. Let me be clear. This is not the correct response, and any such response shall not be supported on my part. Any retaliation must be carried out with clear and full knowledge of the extent of the problem, situation and with complete comprehension of the task and dangers at hand. My right honourable friend and colleague in the Commission brings up an important point. If, for instance, terrorists have hijacked a passenger aeroplane and are holding the passengers for ransom, what would you do, being leader of your nation? Would you stick by the 'do-not-negotiate-with-terrorists' line and condemn the hostages to death, or would you try to save your citizenry? I don't know about you, but I would sure hate to tell somebody's parents that their child is dead simply because you take the position that terrorists are not to be negotiated with. There are many (and sometimes good) examples of negotiation with terrorists. Where have talks with the IRA gone wrong? Was the PLO that horrid? I would submit to my honourable and right honourable friends present that a not too unreasonable solution to our present troubles would be negotiation with Hamas, Syria, Iran et al. The holier-than-thou road has not worked in the past, and I have seen nothing to suggest that it stands any better chance in present circumstances. Drastic times call for reasonable measures.
This matter concernd only condeming the actions carried out against innocent civilians and nothing more.
However I agree that attacks without solid ground are not the proper way of dealing with the situation.
Every government are free to develope their own way of handle terrorism. To close the door to negotiations would be foolish for any government who intends to handle the terrorist threat seriously. But then again, I wouldn't like to be the one who told a mother, a father, a son, daughter, friend or relative that they are dead because of the governments unwillingness to negotiate with terrorists. But it is never "simpel".
Since I would probably hate to tell a different mother, father, son, daughter, friend or relative that they had died with money/weapons/intelligence etc. that the government had given them.
What's reasonable? Save 200 passengers on an airplane to sentence 5000 other equally innocent, to die with money made from the terrorists from the hijack? You can never tell what to come.
The difference is, and this is the legal point, the 500 are already hijacked. The 2.000 have yet to be hijacked, ergo it may or may not come to pass. Governments cannot broker deals based on incoherent assumptions of the future; a terrorist may always be stopped. 21 July is a decent example.
Indeed we are only proposing a public condemnation of terrorism, we are not asking for any hasty and unjustified action in the name of anti-terrorism.
And a public condemnation is what I have given.
Agreed that condemnations are right in this case.
Agreed that things that may come to pass are not always certaint and can be prevented.
Yet, it is unlikely for a terrorist organisation to spend their ransoms on nothing else but further terrorism. That was my only and simple point.
How we deal with it is another, but it should be keept in mind, thus making such situations more complex to handle.
Guest last edited by
The Republic of Asonon has made a firm clear stance of the condemnation of terrorist attacks. We are disgusted by terrorists, and we fight to the last man to do all we can to stop the furtherment of terrorism.
President Sarah Cooper.