London terrorist attacks

[MooseIBe]

This is looking extremely alarming though they don't yet seem entirely sure what has happened

[mountain_hare]

Yeah! I'm shocked... Britain hasn't had trouble with terrorists for quite a while (ever since the IRA lost their influence).

[Leesifer]

Fuckers!

http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...ead.php?t=3518

[MooseIBe]

ah I didn't realise there was already a thread .. i will move to tht one.

[Morroskye]

If the terrorists hit repeatedely it might force the people to insist on an Iraq pullout, like Spain. The London terrorism is hideous and unthinkable but consequences arise from the forced subjugation/occupation of another country from another culture. The West is not accustomed to paying their bills. My heartfelt sorrow and sympathy to all of Britain.

[MooseIBe]

The difference with Spain is that it took place just before an election, which resulted in the pull out. We've just had one here though

[Godless Dave]

The other difference in Spain was the government initially blamed on ETA, despite evidence to the contrary.

[livius drusus]

Do you think it would have had a similar impact on the election results in Britain if it had gone down just before?

[Farren]

The victims have my sympathy, but I can't helping thinking "This is going on every day in Iraq". We are shocked by the bombings in London because they happened in a place where people are normally safe, far from the daily threats of a low intensity war.

But it strikes me as wrong to feel and express greater sympathy for Londoners than people across the length and breadth of Iraq - even moreso because that strong sympathetic reaction is a result of Londoners relative safety.

So the outpouring of outrage and sympathy that's come from all quarters makes me a little queasy, without similar sentiment being expressed on a daily basis over Iraq.

Fairminded people reading this might think "But there has been a great amount of horror and sympathy expressed over the invasion of Iraq and its consequences". Fair enough, but Iraqs had the equivalent amount of violence as the London bombings almost every day and the level of public emotion hasn't reflected that.

I know that emotional fatigue sets in. Even the most horrific ongoing events become mundane and lose their commentworthiness when they drag on so long that a pall of futility settles over them, whereas the London bombings seem like a fresh outrage.

But somehow for me they are not a fresh outrage but a continuation of the ongoing outrage in Iraq. And because that emotional fatigue has set in, my feelings are more of intellectual than emotional outrage.

I'm appalled at the bombings for the same reason I'm appalled about Iraq. And I'm appalled at the same people, not just the Islamic fundamentalists who see violence as the only means of communicating their extreme ideology, but the dangerously misguided and cynical Western leaders that are driving new recruits into the arms of those extremists with every tick of the clock, informed as they are by another kind of extremism that has risen in Western politcial culture.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Farren

Somehow for me they are not a fresh outrage but a continuation of the ongoing outrage in Iraq. And because that emotional fatigue has set in, my feelings are more of intellectual than emotional outrage. I'm appalled at the bombings for the same reason I'm appalled about Iraq. And I'm appalled at the same people, not just the Islamic fundamentalists who see violence as the only means of communicating their extreme ideology, but the dangerously misguided and cynical Western leaders that are driving new recruits into the arms of those extremists with every tick of the clock.

I feel exactly the same way, Farren. Particularly having just seen Noam Chomsky's lecture yesterday (discussed here). As Chomsky said, violence begets violence. Trying to win a war on terror does nothing but exacerbate terror. But sadly the emotional outrage over these heinous attacks gives the warmongers a toehold to demand that the war must go on. It just sucks all around.

[Godless Dave]

What makes it worse is that most of the fighting the UK and US are doing is not targeted at Al Qaeda, the group that may well be responsible for this attack and is definitely responsilbe for earlier attacks against the US.

Tony Blair was just saying last week that the occupation of Iraq was necessary to keep the UK safe from terrorism. I wonder if someone will finally call him on this astounding claim, now that it's been demonstrated that the UK is no safer now than it was three years ago.

[Farren]

But sadly the emotional outrage over these heinous attacks gives the warmongers a toehold to demand that the war must go on. It just sucks all around.

I hope not, Tom. I've seen the "violence begets violence" meme more and more in the mass media here - not just from the pens of the wise but from the letters of ordinary people from all walks of life. I feel that in many countries political culture has reached a level of maturity where it's not a given that the mass of people will see violence as the immediate and obvious answer to violence. In fact, that's why the apparent bloodthirstiness of many Americans disappointed me so much after 9/11.

I think the Spanish publc's ousting of their former government is instructive. Its been pointed out that it wasn't so much the bombings as the former government lying about them that enraged the public (they blamed it on Basque seperatists). But its instructive that outrage at a cynical government was more of a political motivation in the elections than outrage at the perpetrators.

[Farren]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

What makes it worse is that most of the fighting the UK and US are doing is not targeted at Al Qaeda, the group that may well be responsible for this attack and is definitely responsilbe for earlier attacks against the US.

Tony Blair was just saying last week that the occupation of Iraq was necessary to keep the UK safe from terrorism. I wonder if someone will finally call him on this astounding claim, now that it's been demonstrated that the UK is no safer now than it was three years ago.

In fact, its almost beyond dispute that it is less safe. One of the UK TV stations showed just how ridiculous such a claim was by flying a helicopter low enough over the parlaimentary building to drop people on the roof, while parlaiment was sitting, then took photos.

My brother (who lives in London) sent me a long article on it. Blair has done sweet fuck all to secure London from terrorism. London is an easier target now than it was when the IRA were still actively bombing civilians.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Farren

In fact, that's why the apparent bloodthirstiness of many Americans disappointed me so much after 9/11.

Actually you may well be right and I hope you are. Honestly I was suprised by the lack of bloodthirstiness and presence of rationality directly after 9/11. Not that there wasn't plenty of the former and not enough of the latter to go around, but having grown up here I expected it to be a lot worse. It could be that people are starting to realize that our imperialistic inclinations have a cost.

[Dingfod]

The initial gut response of many Americans was very bloodthirsty, even my very extremely liberal mother said she wanted to "nuke the bastards over there" right after 9/11. It didn't take long for her to realize that wasn't really a good response.

[viscousmemories]

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong. My initial reaction was that we oughta nuke the bastards over there (assuming we new where to find the bastards) too. Albeit not literally. But I think there was a considerable amount of serious rational contemplation of what we might have done wrong and/or could do differently in the days and weeks that followed. At least more than I expected... I was kind of expecting immediate reinstatement of the draft, martial law, etc.

[Dingfod]

Oh yeah, in that regard I think the response was quite measure. But, Americans in general grossly overestimated the military's ability to do a damn thing to stop terrorism (a tactic of desperation).

[Chatter]

Originally Posted by Farren

The victims have my sympathy, but I can't helping thinking "This is going on every day in Iraq". We are shocked by the bombings in London because they happened in a place where people are normally safe, far from the daily threats of a low intensity war.

But it strikes me as wrong to feel and express greater sympathy for Londoners than people across the length and breadth of Iraq - even moreso because that strong sympathetic reaction is a result of Londoners relative safety.

So the outpouring of outrage and sympathy that's come from all quarters makes me a little queasy, without similar sentiment being expressed on a daily basis over Iraq.

Fairminded people reading this might think "But there has been a great amount of horror and sympathy expressed over the invasion of Iraq and its consequences". Fair enough, but Iraqs had the equivalent amount of violence as the London bombings almost every day and the level of public emotion hasn't reflected that.

I haven't seen much emotion and sympathy expressed for the Iraqi people myself. They usually get a brief mention after the British and American soldiers who have died in the war.

I've been browsing threads on this topic for most of the day and your's is the most refreshing post I have read yet.

[Morroskye]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

What makes it worse is that most of the fighting the UK and US are doing is not targeted at Al Qaeda, the group that may well be responsible for this attack and is definitely responsilbe for earlier attacks against the US.

Tony Blair was just saying last week that the occupation of Iraq was necessary to keep the UK safe from terrorism. I wonder if someone will finally call him on this astounding claim, now that it's been demonstrated that the UK is no safer now than it was three years ago.

Excellent & Interesting point. Bush says the same exact thing.

[JoeP]

I've replied in Leesifer's "glad I'm working from home" thread, but on the subject of sympathy for Iraqis, don't any of you stinking pinko liberals have any sympathy for the tens or hundreds of thousands* of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein's regime? All this "this is our deserved punishment for invading" talk suggests nothing should have been done about that.

* I don't trust the figures I've found on the web. I thought 30,000, from memory; I found claims varying from 290,000 to 400,000 in mass graves alone. Definitive numbers anyone?

[BigBlue2]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Do you think it would have had a similar impact on the election results in Britain if it had gone down just before?

Unlikely, Tony Blair had a such a large majority in Parliament that it would have been almost impossible to vote him out.

[koan]

Farren's post lightened my day as well.

It is horrible when anyone dies. It is worse when it is the death of civilians and not those that choose to go to battle. Nevertheless there are many countries who say "Welcome to our world". Terrorism has too narrow a definition by western standards IMO, and, not forgetting that funding terrorism is equivalent, there are too many needless deaths for the sake of imperialism.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/ between 22,000 and 25,000 civilians are documented as killed in the current war. The count continues.

When you grieve, grieve for all.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by JoeP

I've replied in Leesifer's "glad I'm working from home" thread, but on the subject of sympathy for Iraqis, don't any of you stinking pinko liberals have any sympathy for the tens or hundreds of thousands* of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein's regime? All this "this is our deserved punishment for invading" talk suggests nothing should have been done about that.

* I don't trust the figures I've found on the web. I thought 30,000, from memory; I found claims varying from 290,000 to 400,000 in mass graves alone. Definitive numbers anyone?

Stinking pinko liberal here, and I have plenty of sympathy for those who were killed by the Baath regime. I have sympathy for kids who died as a direct result of the sanctions too. And I don't think that nothing should have been done about either of these, but I think the wrong things have been done about them by US/UK.

What's more, the invasion was never about helping out Iraqis. Whatever you think the motivations behind the invasion were (and let's not start that debate right now, other than to say it was for self-interested reasons, such as safety, defeating terrorism, securing oil), at best helping Iraqis would be a nice side-effect of achieving the actual goal. Do I need to remind you that nothing WAS done about victims under Saddam for 20 years?

What do you want me to do? If I post expressing sympathy to victims of A, do I need to append a long list expressing sympathy for B, C, etc, etc as well?

[MooseIBe]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Do you think it would have had a similar impact on the election results in Britain if it had gone down just before?

Hmmmmmm.. not enough to have had Blair voted out, given the situation at the time. It would have had an impact and possibly a severe one on his majority though.

[MooseIBe]

Fragment! Fancy seeing you here! :d