Bush says London attacks targeted civilized world
Doesn't this highlight the problem? Calling, by implication, the part of the world that the terrorists are 'from' (they may, of course, be British) "uncivilized" is exactly the kind of colonial attitude which created the terrorists in the first place. Unless you think terrorists are just jealous...
7 Comments:
'Colonial attitudes' don't create terrorists. Most 'colonial' people aren't terrorists.
I'm a Londoner, and whatever the media says about stiff upper lips, we're in mourning. Being 'civilised' doesn't prevent you being blown to smithereens. Easy to comment when it's not your city that's been affected.
Well, I beg to differ about 'colonial attitudes' creating terrorists, although my point was far too simplistically expressed. Here's a quote from a friend of one of the London suicide bombers:
"He was sick of it all, all the injustice and the way the world is going about it. Why, for example, don't they ever take a moment of silence for all the Iraqi kids who die?"
The attitude I'm talking about is that it's only worth mourning those who die in your city or country. More people were killed in Iraq by suicide bombers yesterday than on 7/7 in London. Will there be a minute's silence at a football match for them?
As for it being easy to comment when it's not my city...
1) I'm British, lived in London for 3 years, and have many close friends there.
2) The place I live now (Canada) is apparently next on the terrorists' list of targets, My home is in Montreal, which is the second-largest city, with a large underground train system.
I appreciate your sentiments and comments.
I agree about Iraqis dying. We marched, we shouted, but no-one listened. They are still deaf to our cries.
Only 3 people bothered to phone me on 07/07, and the very first, by a long way, was a dear friend in Baghdad. He was an Iraqi reaching out to another human being, with the misfortune to hold the second most hated passport on earth, not a 'colonial'. I was moved beyond words. He does not hold me or other ordinary Britons responsible for 'colonial' injustices. He knows we are all humans, all struggling, all essentially impotent. I will not respond to my impotence, however, by murdering my fellow human beings. I would rather kill myself to make a point, far away from any others who could be harmed.
Maybe that is in fact the answer.
Thank you for bothering to respond, I truly appreciate it.
Best wishes from a Londoner reaching the end of his hope.
Peace. May God, whoever s/he is, keep you safe.
In death there is life. In death suffering ends.
Communication is a big part of the answer to these problems. Most potential suicide bombers probably don't understand the feelings of people like yourself. That's why even supposedly humorous blogs can have a minuscule part to play in making the world a better place. That's why Geldof organized Live 8 - because emotions, contrasting fortunes and statistics need to be communicated. Most people are good people, probably even most suicide bombers. Those are the people who have to be reached before it's too late. And that's why calling them 'evil' or 'uncivilized' does more harm than good.
Peace to you too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1531300,00.html
Unfortunately, it's a bit hard for me to tell whether all the 'Anonymouses' are the same person or not. Even a nickname would make communication easier, and that's what it's all about (this blog thing).
The link posted by Anonymous is to a Guardian article about terrorist apologists. Maybe a point is being made regarding my comments. Here's a section of the article:
"Two of the most striking aspects of the group were the educated, middle-class, and in some cases extremely wealthy, background of many of its activists and the indulgent attitude of so many young West Germans to its activities. "There is no capitalist who does not have a terrorist in his own intimate circle of friends and relations," reflected the interior minister when one of his friends had been murdered after allowing his god-daughter's sister into the house.
The terrorists also enjoyed very high levels of quiet support. One in four West Germans under the age of 30 said in a 1971 survey that they felt "a certain sympathy" for the Baader-Meinhof group. In northern Germany, one in 10 said they would be ready to offer their homes to terrorists on the run. A similar proportion said they could imagine taking part in acts of political violence.
These were remarkable figures. Yet they give a picture of a society that is in some ways not unlike our own, reeling as it is from the impact of the London bomb murders. Like West Germany in the early 1970s, ours is a society confronted with a disruptive challenge at a time of prosperity and against a backcloth of an unpopular American war.
We too face a revolt whose activists are often relatively prosperous young people with a romantic attachment to violence, apologised for by a surprisingly large number of the comfortably disaffected - the people Lenin once called useful idiots. As in 1970s Germany, most working-class people are impatient both with the violence and the disaffection. The result is to encourage extremely sweeping repressive laws - such as West Germany's employment bans then and Britain's identity-card plans today."
I think that part of the problem with dealing with terrorists may be the label itself. It’s unhelpfully all-encompassing, a bit like saying, 'governments are evil'. People who carry out terrorist attacks (including organizers) may be from all kinds of different backgrounds and have various reasons for turning to violence to make their point.
For sure, disaffected middle-class kids have often been a source of recruits for terrorist organizers, be they in 1970's Germany or 21st-century Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden himself may be an extreme example (though upper-class) of this phenomenon. But the initial investigation into the London bombings seems to indicate that the bombers were working-class youths.
All this to say that getting to the root of the problem of terrorism may be made more difficult by applying a sweeping, generalized label to those who carry out such attacks.
And explaining that disingenuous government policies might cause that government's own citizens to become targets for attack is in no way an apology for murderous acts.
There's a difference between liberty and the freedom to behave stupidly. I may have the right to go to any bar in town, but if I'm stupid enough to hang out at the one I know is run by Hell's Angels, I might eventually get caught up in violence. It doesn't mean the violence isn't criminal, but it does mean I was responsible for putting myself in danger. That's what the British and American governments have done by invading Iraq. Soldiers and civilians are dying because of it, and domestic populations are now in danger because some people who once felt frustrated about the world geopolitical situation have now crossed a tipping point where they're willing to kill innocent victims because of a perceived injustice.
However, there is nothing particularly evil about being prepared to kill or die for one's cause. That's what soldiers have done throughout history. And it's mostly only a grey area regarding who's right and who's wrong. Former US Defense Secretary Robert Macnamara pointed out in the documentary The Fog of War, that he and his commander knew while Japanese civilians was being firebombed that they would be prosecuted as war criminals if the US lost the Second World War.
What is important is that the initial disgust and emotion which followed the bombings be allowed to dissipate so that clear-headed thinking can be applied to the situation. Should Britain pull out of Iraq? Would that help anybody now? Should civil liberties be repressed or suspended to protect the citizenry? Is it wishful thinking to suppose that another attack could be prevented by legal changes (as opposed to efficient investigation and policing)? Have other terrorist groups in the past been stopped by government action, or have they simply ‘evaporated’, as the Guardian article describes the demise of the Baader-Meinhof group? Is the best form of defence to simply not be terrorized?
I wish I knew the answers…
Post a Comment
<< Home