Post by Taxigirl on Nov 21, 2003 10:24:23 GMT
The UK newspapers are united in condemnation of Thursday's blasts in Turkey which killed 27, including four Britons, and injured at least 450.
The Sun carried an interview with a shocked and injured Briton who described losing his Turkish fiancee in the blast.
Graham Carter, 34 and from Lincoln, told the paper from his hospital bed how Hulya Donmez had been killed just after the couple got through security at the consulate.
They had been visiting to get Ms Donmez a visa so she could go to the UK to marry him, he said.
"I passed out. She was just gone right in front of me. I can't believe it. She was there with me, then was gone," he said.
In an editorial, the newspaper is disgusted that the protesters shouting "Stop Bush" in London on Thursday were not shouting "Stop Bin Laden".
'War within Islam'
The Independent said there was little doubt the bombings, outside the British consulate and the London-based HSBC bank, were directed at Britain.
It said Roger Short, the British consul-general who was killed, was much liked.
And it described how his wife Victoria had escaped the blast because she had slipped out to buy some milk.
But in an editorial it thinks prime minister Tony Blair for once failed to hit the right note when he condemned the attacks afterwards.
It said al-Qaeda was not, as Mr Blair "simplistically" assumed, fighting a war just against the West.
"The immediate target of the bombers in Istanbul is not the West, it is sensible to assume, but the state of Turkey... the war in which al-Qaeda is engaged is as much a war within Islam as one against the West."
The Daily Telegraph said the attacks were the first al-Qaeda attacks primarily aimed at British targets.
'Wake up call'
"There was widespread speculation that the attacks were timed to coincide with Mr Bush's visit to Britain in an attempt to dampen No 10's staunch support for Washington in its war on terrorism," it said.
In an editorial, it said most Europeans had been "astonishingly slow" to understand the impact of 11 September, and what al-Qaeda really hoped for the world.
"They represent a radically new and ever-present danger. And the sooner we wake up to it, the better," it said.
The Daily Express said the attacks were the worst terrorist atrocity since 11 September, and argued that the war on terror must be pursued.
"While anti-war protesters were demonstrating in London as if nothing had happened, Britons in the Turkish capital were battling for their lives," it said.
"Surely these latest deaths must bring home to even the most rabid anti-war campaigner that we cannot contemplate pulling out of the battle now?"
The Daily Mail wonders on its front page: "Will Britain be hit next?"
Inside, it believes that UK interests abroad, such as embassies and business, are definitely in the firing line.
It finds itself asking whether the "mistaken" policies of Mr Bush and Mr Blair have fanned the flames of violence.
Iraq 'recruitment drive'
It points out bleakly that, before the Iraq war, Iraq was one of the few countries in the Middle East where al-Qaeda was not operating with impunity.
"Many believe that the war in Iraq has fuelled the greatest recruitment drive to the terrorists' cause since the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979," BBC journalist Jane Corbin wrote in a column.
The Daily Mirror, which was against the war in Iraq, said the war on terrorism must not be abandoned.
"Even though there is disagreement on the best way to deal with it, there must be no divide anywhere in the determination to fight terrorism to the bitter end," it said.
"The terrorists are at war. We must match them with the same determination, cunning and ruthlessness."
But terror analyst Simon Reeve, writing in a column, said the war on terror was clearly not making the world a safer place.
He urged politicians to tackle long-term causes of terror, rather than wars such as the Iraq conflict which could be fought and won within their terms of office.
List of targets
The Times said the bombers had mocked the massive security precautions in London by hitting soft targets hundreds of miles away.
It said al-Qaeda appeared to be deliberately working through a list of targets previously picked out as allies of the US in its war on terror, including Britain, Spain, Holland, Australia, Japan and Italy.
And it said it was impossible to engage politically with al-Qaeda and its sympathisers because "it is a rage against the modern world and not a body with a logical agenda to advance".
The Guardian said security arrangements at British embassies and businesses abroad were being urgently reviewed.
It believed the attack on British interests mirrored a pattern within Iraq, where troops from countries that supported the invasion had increasingly been targeted.
In an editorial, it argued Mr Bush and Mr Blair were "reaping the whirlwind" of their policies since 11 September.
"This does not look like an enemy in post-9/11 retreat. This does not look like a war that is being won. It looks like a conflict that is in serious danger of escalating out of control," it said.
"Are their policies in the Middle East and beyond steadily making matters worse, not better?"