Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-13-Speech-3-286"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20050413.20.3-286"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
"Mr President, the report by Mr Brok contains many fresh, visionary and encouraging ideas. I want to add some remarks on the problems of the new, non-state terrorism. First, what more could we recommend than what Mr Brok does? The fight against so-called terrorism calls for a clear description of political terrorism. Its aim is to achieve concrete political goals, and what are those goals? A distinction needs to be drawn between the new, political, non-state terrorism, which allegedly has no exact state address, and the traditional state terrorism, which is found mainly where democracy fails. That sort of political terrorism tends to provoke revengeful responses by certain groups and organisations, as is now happening with Russia’s terrorist – or terrorising – war in Chechnya. The democratic community cannot successfully confront any abstract concept of terrorism as it would be rooted only in ideology or fanaticism. No, the real enemies to be fought are terrorist organisations and states that use such methods and support such organisations. Two fresh efforts have been made to find addresses in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are now the only places where terrorist organisations appear to be on the defensive. In the field of defence, this would more than fulfil Europe’s desire to compete with the United States. Finally, there is a sort of diabolical profit to be made from this phenomenon of non-state terror, as democracies may now perhaps realise more clearly what their endangered values are. When creating the concepts and structures of the European security and defence policy, we should concentrate more and more on the question: for the sake of what, for what Europe are we working? Surely not for a consumerist and suicidal Europe that is losing its identity and sense of values, despite talking so much about it? That is defending the indefensible."@en1
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph