The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The last 7 days have been what might be euphemistically referred to as "Interesting Times". What with bombings in London, riots in Belfast, and the re-emergence of the Mullet as a fashion statement, it's almost like being in the 1980's again. All we need is for the country's 27 remaining miners to go on strike and get beaten to a bloody puddle by some overly zealous policemen, and the illusion will be complete.
Upon hearing of the bombings, I confess that my first reaction was "My word; the French Olympic Bid team really ARE bad losers aren't they?". Self-congratulatory sarcasm soon gave way to a somewhat despairing sense of helplessness; I go on at great length about the War on Terror, and it's destablising effect on the security of ordinary people like you and me. Yet here was something that was happening as a direct result of the WoT, and I couldn't do jack s**t except talk about it. Did this prove that Dubya and Tony's little crusade does have a basis in reality? Or was it a case of proving my point for me; that the only reason a War on Terror is "necessary" is because that self same War has increased the likelihood of terrorism across the western world?
Before any of that though, I think it's worth making the following couple of points; firstly, in the aftermath of the bombs in London, the way that both the emergency services and ordinary Londoners dealt with it left me awestruck with admiration. The sense of calm, of stoicism, of a determination not to panic...I'm not going to try to claim these traits as part of any notion of national character. But I am going to say that, to a very large extent, they defeated the purpose of any such terrorism. I'm sure that the sense of anger and outrage will grow in the coming weeks, but as a knee-jerk reaction to a dreadful event, one cannot fault it.
Secondly, both Blair and Ken Livingstone (the mayor of London) struck exactly the right note in their responses. The former displayed his usual stage-managed affront and outrage, but his language was both temperate and soothing to the nation at large in my opinion. He displayed that nebulous quality called "statesmanship", and for all the gallons of vitriol I have in reserve for Blair, that was what was needed from a Prime Minister. Livingstone on the other hand cut through the b******t and called the bombings exactly what they were; a cowardly and indiscriminate attack on ordinary people. The bombings would not make life more difficult for the people who make the decisions that generate the outrage that provides extremists with their recruits (if one is of an extremely paranoid mindset, one could make a case for it making their lives easier...). All it did was create a little pocket of misery, nothing more.
So then; what does last weeks bombing say about the War on Terror? Unsurprisingly, my conclusion is that the bombing indicates that the Iraqi land grab has made the world a far more dangerous place. I've found that a lot of the more Pro-war people whom I talk to with any regularity are claiming that the bombing proves that the Anti-Terror legislation brought in by the government was not just a tactic to keep people uncertain and afraid, but something that was desperately necessary. My response is always the same; how did that "duck and cover" style pamphlet of last year help prepare us for the bomb? And how could putting tanks in public places (as was done in the terror drill of not so long ago) made even the slightest of differences to the events of last Thursday? How would ID cards have prevented the bombs exploding?
The only planning that made any difference was the quiet preparations of the emergency services for terror attacks, and those plans pre-date the ludicrous and unwinnable WoT. Not one of the high profile "WOOOO....darkie terrorists will murder your budgie!! Vote for us and we'll keep you safe!" announcements made by the government made a blind bit of difference to the bombs going off.
I also think that the government's reaction to anyone who attempted to draw a link between the WoT and the bombing backs up what I'm trying to say. George Galloway expressed outrage at the bombs and the devastation to ordinary Londoners, but made it clear that it was an inevitable price of the WoT. And the government...launched the kind of ferocious and highly personal attack on him that they usual try to condemn when made by the likes of Galloway. Note, however, that they did not try to give any hard factual reasons why he was wrong. The LibDem leader Charles Kennedy made much the same point yesterday, and faced a similarly smear-heavy/fact-lite attack. Dear Lord, the speaker of the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) stated the obvious in his condemnation of the bombing; his words were presented by many news organisations in a "Look what the evil foreign man is saying" kind of fashion, but they couldn't present anything in the way of facts as to why he was wrong.
And the response of the pro war faction of politics? "Oh, it didn't take long for the 'I told you so' brigade to start crowing about this, did it?" Well...no, it didn't. Does that made them wrong, or do you simply hate to admit they have a point? Leaving aside this sour grapes on the part of those in favour of war, that did get me thinking about something else...
Amidst all the inevitable "He said, she said" bickering resulting from this bombing and the reasons that it happened, I've seen very little from either side talking about compassion for the poor sods who lost lives, limbs, and loves as a result of the bomb. The initial messages of "Christ, is everyone okay?" have given way to the apportioning of blame. In fact, the only mention of compassion I've read since the first 24 hours after this squalid little murder was on the website where the Extremist organisation claimed responsibility for the bombing. Apparently it was proof of Allah's mercy and compassion; clearly their definition of those words differ somewhat from mine.
But then again, should I be surprised? A lot of the talk about the Iraqi people suffering the equivalent of a daily London bombing (at least) is, although clearly well intentioned, usually the precursor to a political statement about how this PROVES that Dubya and Blair are pure, moronic evil. I'm just as guilty of doing that (in defence of that school of thought, I would say that at least we acknowledge the human cost of the land grab. The coalition refuses to even keep a count of how many Iraqi civilians are killed in the name of securing their freedom...), so I find myself rather shamefaced even as I make the criticism.
It seems that, in amongst all the partisan discussions that use loss of life or the threat of it that are used to fuel the pro and anti war ideologies, we very easily forget the important thing; the loss of life itself. I've seen people say that the bombing shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things because, hey, look at all the poor Iraqi's being murdered by the coalition bombing. By the same token, I also heard someone advance the charming opinion that Iraqi loss of life shouldn't be given as much weight as the loss of Western ones because their history means they don't place the same value on life as we do. Both of these arguments have their intellectual merits, but as statements of humanity and empathy they are about as worthwhile as a charity drive for Windsor family. What the hell happened to the very basic idea that killing people, for whatever reason, is a fundamentally bad thing to do?
But no; the deaths of 50+ people in London has, together with the deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bali, New York, Madrid, Sudan, Israel, Uzbekistan, Russia, Chechnya, (I could go on but you get the idea...), those deaths have become one more aspect of a cause for people who, if they're honest, care more about being proved right than about the death and misery. Be they the lunatic fringe of the left (one of whom claimed, within hours of the bombs going off, that it was clearly CIA who had planted them; had he been referring to the fact that Al-Quaida only exists because of the CIA, he would have had a point...), or the lunatic fringe of the right (Ann Coulter's claim that the whole War on Terror can be ended by "killing their leaders and converting the rest to Christianity" never fails to raise a chuckle and a cold sweat), or all points in between, we all seem to lose sight of the fact that people are dying for no reason than someone, somewhere, wants to be proved right.
Maybe I'm just mellowing in my old age and coupledom, but I don't think a human life is a fair price to pay for a group of people to say "HA! I KNEW I was right!". If ideas aren’t worth dying for (and I don't believe they are), then they're not worth killing for either. By all means, debate the rights and wrongs of the WoT (damn sure I'm still going to do so...), just try to keep in mind that some things are more important than our opinions, however justified we feel them to be.
Upon hearing of the bombings, I confess that my first reaction was "My word; the French Olympic Bid team really ARE bad losers aren't they?". Self-congratulatory sarcasm soon gave way to a somewhat despairing sense of helplessness; I go on at great length about the War on Terror, and it's destablising effect on the security of ordinary people like you and me. Yet here was something that was happening as a direct result of the WoT, and I couldn't do jack s**t except talk about it. Did this prove that Dubya and Tony's little crusade does have a basis in reality? Or was it a case of proving my point for me; that the only reason a War on Terror is "necessary" is because that self same War has increased the likelihood of terrorism across the western world?
Before any of that though, I think it's worth making the following couple of points; firstly, in the aftermath of the bombs in London, the way that both the emergency services and ordinary Londoners dealt with it left me awestruck with admiration. The sense of calm, of stoicism, of a determination not to panic...I'm not going to try to claim these traits as part of any notion of national character. But I am going to say that, to a very large extent, they defeated the purpose of any such terrorism. I'm sure that the sense of anger and outrage will grow in the coming weeks, but as a knee-jerk reaction to a dreadful event, one cannot fault it.
Secondly, both Blair and Ken Livingstone (the mayor of London) struck exactly the right note in their responses. The former displayed his usual stage-managed affront and outrage, but his language was both temperate and soothing to the nation at large in my opinion. He displayed that nebulous quality called "statesmanship", and for all the gallons of vitriol I have in reserve for Blair, that was what was needed from a Prime Minister. Livingstone on the other hand cut through the b******t and called the bombings exactly what they were; a cowardly and indiscriminate attack on ordinary people. The bombings would not make life more difficult for the people who make the decisions that generate the outrage that provides extremists with their recruits (if one is of an extremely paranoid mindset, one could make a case for it making their lives easier...). All it did was create a little pocket of misery, nothing more.
So then; what does last weeks bombing say about the War on Terror? Unsurprisingly, my conclusion is that the bombing indicates that the Iraqi land grab has made the world a far more dangerous place. I've found that a lot of the more Pro-war people whom I talk to with any regularity are claiming that the bombing proves that the Anti-Terror legislation brought in by the government was not just a tactic to keep people uncertain and afraid, but something that was desperately necessary. My response is always the same; how did that "duck and cover" style pamphlet of last year help prepare us for the bomb? And how could putting tanks in public places (as was done in the terror drill of not so long ago) made even the slightest of differences to the events of last Thursday? How would ID cards have prevented the bombs exploding?
The only planning that made any difference was the quiet preparations of the emergency services for terror attacks, and those plans pre-date the ludicrous and unwinnable WoT. Not one of the high profile "WOOOO....darkie terrorists will murder your budgie!! Vote for us and we'll keep you safe!" announcements made by the government made a blind bit of difference to the bombs going off.
I also think that the government's reaction to anyone who attempted to draw a link between the WoT and the bombing backs up what I'm trying to say. George Galloway expressed outrage at the bombs and the devastation to ordinary Londoners, but made it clear that it was an inevitable price of the WoT. And the government...launched the kind of ferocious and highly personal attack on him that they usual try to condemn when made by the likes of Galloway. Note, however, that they did not try to give any hard factual reasons why he was wrong. The LibDem leader Charles Kennedy made much the same point yesterday, and faced a similarly smear-heavy/fact-lite attack. Dear Lord, the speaker of the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) stated the obvious in his condemnation of the bombing; his words were presented by many news organisations in a "Look what the evil foreign man is saying" kind of fashion, but they couldn't present anything in the way of facts as to why he was wrong.
And the response of the pro war faction of politics? "Oh, it didn't take long for the 'I told you so' brigade to start crowing about this, did it?" Well...no, it didn't. Does that made them wrong, or do you simply hate to admit they have a point? Leaving aside this sour grapes on the part of those in favour of war, that did get me thinking about something else...
Amidst all the inevitable "He said, she said" bickering resulting from this bombing and the reasons that it happened, I've seen very little from either side talking about compassion for the poor sods who lost lives, limbs, and loves as a result of the bomb. The initial messages of "Christ, is everyone okay?" have given way to the apportioning of blame. In fact, the only mention of compassion I've read since the first 24 hours after this squalid little murder was on the website where the Extremist organisation claimed responsibility for the bombing. Apparently it was proof of Allah's mercy and compassion; clearly their definition of those words differ somewhat from mine.
But then again, should I be surprised? A lot of the talk about the Iraqi people suffering the equivalent of a daily London bombing (at least) is, although clearly well intentioned, usually the precursor to a political statement about how this PROVES that Dubya and Blair are pure, moronic evil. I'm just as guilty of doing that (in defence of that school of thought, I would say that at least we acknowledge the human cost of the land grab. The coalition refuses to even keep a count of how many Iraqi civilians are killed in the name of securing their freedom...), so I find myself rather shamefaced even as I make the criticism.
It seems that, in amongst all the partisan discussions that use loss of life or the threat of it that are used to fuel the pro and anti war ideologies, we very easily forget the important thing; the loss of life itself. I've seen people say that the bombing shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things because, hey, look at all the poor Iraqi's being murdered by the coalition bombing. By the same token, I also heard someone advance the charming opinion that Iraqi loss of life shouldn't be given as much weight as the loss of Western ones because their history means they don't place the same value on life as we do. Both of these arguments have their intellectual merits, but as statements of humanity and empathy they are about as worthwhile as a charity drive for Windsor family. What the hell happened to the very basic idea that killing people, for whatever reason, is a fundamentally bad thing to do?
But no; the deaths of 50+ people in London has, together with the deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bali, New York, Madrid, Sudan, Israel, Uzbekistan, Russia, Chechnya, (I could go on but you get the idea...), those deaths have become one more aspect of a cause for people who, if they're honest, care more about being proved right than about the death and misery. Be they the lunatic fringe of the left (one of whom claimed, within hours of the bombs going off, that it was clearly CIA who had planted them; had he been referring to the fact that Al-Quaida only exists because of the CIA, he would have had a point...), or the lunatic fringe of the right (Ann Coulter's claim that the whole War on Terror can be ended by "killing their leaders and converting the rest to Christianity" never fails to raise a chuckle and a cold sweat), or all points in between, we all seem to lose sight of the fact that people are dying for no reason than someone, somewhere, wants to be proved right.
Maybe I'm just mellowing in my old age and coupledom, but I don't think a human life is a fair price to pay for a group of people to say "HA! I KNEW I was right!". If ideas aren’t worth dying for (and I don't believe they are), then they're not worth killing for either. By all means, debate the rights and wrongs of the WoT (damn sure I'm still going to do so...), just try to keep in mind that some things are more important than our opinions, however justified we feel them to be.
Dringo wrote:
> There was no War On Terror at 9/11. Was the danger any less present?
Well...yes. Yes, it was MUCH less present; Iraq wasn't a breeding ground for Fundamentalist Islamic Militants, and the only beef that Al-Quaida could use to justify any actions against the US was their stance on Israel.
Now they have more recruits, more causes, more support...put it this way; how many Islamic militants had committed acts of terrorism in Europe prior to the WoT?
> There was no War On Terror at 9/11. Was the danger any less present?
Well...yes. Yes, it was MUCH less present; Iraq wasn't a breeding ground for Fundamentalist Islamic Militants, and the only beef that Al-Quaida could use to justify any actions against the US was their stance on Israel.
Now they have more recruits, more causes, more support...put it this way; how many Islamic militants had committed acts of terrorism in Europe prior to the WoT?
As usual, a well-written and thought provoking post, Light.
There was no War On Terror at 9/11. Was the danger any less present?
It's turned into a sadly-deadly version of "Yeah? Yeah! Oh yeah? Yeah!" between fundamentalists of Middle Eastern denomination and fundamentalists of white christian denomination.
"You invade our country and kills a couple thousand of our civilians? We bomb you. Except it wasn't us, it was 4 of you. Possibly working for us. But in Pakistan, not Iraq."
"Well that's evil and turrist. So we'll attack and kill insurgents"
"In that case, we'll bomb some more of you"
"You'll never defeat us"
"Will"
"Shan't"
"Shall"
And in the middle are civilians from BOTH here and various countries we bomb that aren't mixed up in politics and are just trying to get through day by day as best they can.
"You invade our country and kills a couple thousand of our civilians? We bomb you. Except it wasn't us, it was 4 of you. Possibly working for us. But in Pakistan, not Iraq."
"Well that's evil and turrist. So we'll attack and kill insurgents"
"In that case, we'll bomb some more of you"
"You'll never defeat us"
"Will"
"Shan't"
"Shall"
And in the middle are civilians from BOTH here and various countries we bomb that aren't mixed up in politics and are just trying to get through day by day as best they can.
Oswaldo! wrote:
> Whether it be the same mean behind last Thursday's attacks or
> not, it is inevitible that they will strike again.
>
> They haven't made their message clear to us yet.
I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure I agree with the logic; if it was a question of one side trying to make a message clear, we could have stopped bombing/machine gunning huge tracts of Iraq LONG ago.
I honestly don't think it's about sending a message on either side, unless that message is "We can hurt you, so do as we say".
> Whether it be the same mean behind last Thursday's attacks or
> not, it is inevitible that they will strike again.
>
> They haven't made their message clear to us yet.
I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure I agree with the logic; if it was a question of one side trying to make a message clear, we could have stopped bombing/machine gunning huge tracts of Iraq LONG ago.
I honestly don't think it's about sending a message on either side, unless that message is "We can hurt you, so do as we say".
You've got to admire the way in which people have quite simply "carried on" with their own lives so soon after the London Bombings. It must be that much harder for others to cope with the loss of familly members and loved ones, so we feel for them, but they're not giving up either.
It is something I believe this country can look back upon and build from.
However, I feel the truth is that the terrorists are aware of this. Their mission to unsettle the country and cause great disruption has failed. Whether it be the same mean behind last Thursday's attacks or not, it is inevitible that they will strike again.
They haven't made their message clear to us yet.
It is something I believe this country can look back upon and build from.
However, I feel the truth is that the terrorists are aware of this. Their mission to unsettle the country and cause great disruption has failed. Whether it be the same mean behind last Thursday's attacks or not, it is inevitible that they will strike again.
They haven't made their message clear to us yet.
The leaders of each side have now commited too much to back down now. This isn't going to end until a new leader (most likely from the West) takes charge and can back down and save face by saying "Hey this wasn't my fault, blame the last guy in charge".
Proportioning blame is largely pointless now, the situation is now irreversable and was the moment they attacked back.
I was thinking only this morning that there couldn't have been a worse time for this to all kick of, i can't ever remember looking at the leader of any nation and thinking they were as inept or trigger happy as Georgey B. Would things have been any different under Clinton, Gore, Kerry?
Credit has to go to the people of London, they've just got on with things, i've heard nothing of revenge attacks and i've got to say i was impressed that someone handed something suspect in at the local trainstation. There has been a relaxed attitude ever since the IRA stopped blowing us up and at least people have woken up. I can't say i've been too happy with the papers (what a suprise) their constant stirring has quite frankly gotten on my t**s and thankfully people have kept calm.
Proportioning blame is largely pointless now, the situation is now irreversable and was the moment they attacked back.
I was thinking only this morning that there couldn't have been a worse time for this to all kick of, i can't ever remember looking at the leader of any nation and thinking they were as inept or trigger happy as Georgey B. Would things have been any different under Clinton, Gore, Kerry?
Credit has to go to the people of London, they've just got on with things, i've heard nothing of revenge attacks and i've got to say i was impressed that someone handed something suspect in at the local trainstation. There has been a relaxed attitude ever since the IRA stopped blowing us up and at least people have woken up. I can't say i've been too happy with the papers (what a suprise) their constant stirring has quite frankly gotten on my t**s and thankfully people have kept calm.
The last 7 days have been what might be euphemistically referred to as "Interesting Times". What with bombings in London, riots in Belfast, and the re-emergence of the Mullet as a fashion statement, it's almost like being in the 1980's again. All we need is for the country's 27 remaining miners to go on strike and get beaten to a bloody puddle by some overly zealous policemen, and the illusion will be complete.
Upon hearing of the bombings, I confess that my first reaction was "My word; the French Olympic Bid team really ARE bad losers aren't they?". Self-congratulatory sarcasm soon gave way to a somewhat despairing sense of helplessness; I go on at great length about the War on Terror, and it's destablising effect on the security of ordinary people like you and me. Yet here was something that was happening as a direct result of the WoT, and I couldn't do jack s**t except talk about it. Did this prove that Dubya and Tony's little crusade does have a basis in reality? Or was it a case of proving my point for me; that the only reason a War on Terror is "necessary" is because that self same War has increased the likelihood of terrorism across the western world?
Before any of that though, I think it's worth making the following couple of points; firstly, in the aftermath of the bombs in London, the way that both the emergency services and ordinary Londoners dealt with it left me awestruck with admiration. The sense of calm, of stoicism, of a determination not to panic...I'm not going to try to claim these traits as part of any notion of national character. But I am going to say that, to a very large extent, they defeated the purpose of any such terrorism. I'm sure that the sense of anger and outrage will grow in the coming weeks, but as a knee-jerk reaction to a dreadful event, one cannot fault it.
Secondly, both Blair and Ken Livingstone (the mayor of London) struck exactly the right note in their responses. The former displayed his usual stage-managed affront and outrage, but his language was both temperate and soothing to the nation at large in my opinion. He displayed that nebulous quality called "statesmanship", and for all the gallons of vitriol I have in reserve for Blair, that was what was needed from a Prime Minister. Livingstone on the other hand cut through the b******t and called the bombings exactly what they were; a cowardly and indiscriminate attack on ordinary people. The bombings would not make life more difficult for the people who make the decisions that generate the outrage that provides extremists with their recruits (if one is of an extremely paranoid mindset, one could make a case for it making their lives easier...). All it did was create a little pocket of misery, nothing more.
So then; what does last weeks bombing say about the War on Terror? Unsurprisingly, my conclusion is that the bombing indicates that the Iraqi land grab has made the world a far more dangerous place. I've found that a lot of the more Pro-war people whom I talk to with any regularity are claiming that the bombing proves that the Anti-Terror legislation brought in by the government was not just a tactic to keep people uncertain and afraid, but something that was desperately necessary. My response is always the same; how did that "duck and cover" style pamphlet of last year help prepare us for the bomb? And how could putting tanks in public places (as was done in the terror drill of not so long ago) made even the slightest of differences to the events of last Thursday? How would ID cards have prevented the bombs exploding?
The only planning that made any difference was the quiet preparations of the emergency services for terror attacks, and those plans pre-date the ludicrous and unwinnable WoT. Not one of the high profile "WOOOO....darkie terrorists will murder your budgie!! Vote for us and we'll keep you safe!" announcements made by the government made a blind bit of difference to the bombs going off.
I also think that the government's reaction to anyone who attempted to draw a link between the WoT and the bombing backs up what I'm trying to say. George Galloway expressed outrage at the bombs and the devastation to ordinary Londoners, but made it clear that it was an inevitable price of the WoT. And the government...launched the kind of ferocious and highly personal attack on him that they usual try to condemn when made by the likes of Galloway. Note, however, that they did not try to give any hard factual reasons why he was wrong. The LibDem leader Charles Kennedy made much the same point yesterday, and faced a similarly smear-heavy/fact-lite attack. Dear Lord, the speaker of the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) stated the obvious in his condemnation of the bombing; his words were presented by many news organisations in a "Look what the evil foreign man is saying" kind of fashion, but they couldn't present anything in the way of facts as to why he was wrong.
And the response of the pro war faction of politics? "Oh, it didn't take long for the 'I told you so' brigade to start crowing about this, did it?" Well...no, it didn't. Does that made them wrong, or do you simply hate to admit they have a point? Leaving aside this sour grapes on the part of those in favour of war, that did get me thinking about something else...
Amidst all the inevitable "He said, she said" bickering resulting from this bombing and the reasons that it happened, I've seen very little from either side talking about compassion for the poor sods who lost lives, limbs, and loves as a result of the bomb. The initial messages of "Christ, is everyone okay?" have given way to the apportioning of blame. In fact, the only mention of compassion I've read since the first 24 hours after this squalid little murder was on the website where the Extremist organisation claimed responsibility for the bombing. Apparently it was proof of Allah's mercy and compassion; clearly their definition of those words differ somewhat from mine.
But then again, should I be surprised? A lot of the talk about the Iraqi people suffering the equivalent of a daily London bombing (at least) is, although clearly well intentioned, usually the precursor to a political statement about how this PROVES that Dubya and Blair are pure, moronic evil. I'm just as guilty of doing that (in defence of that school of thought, I would say that at least we acknowledge the human cost of the land grab. The coalition refuses to even keep a count of how many Iraqi civilians are killed in the name of securing their freedom...), so I find myself rather shamefaced even as I make the criticism.
It seems that, in amongst all the partisan discussions that use loss of life or the threat of it that are used to fuel the pro and anti war ideologies, we very easily forget the important thing; the loss of life itself. I've seen people say that the bombing shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things because, hey, look at all the poor Iraqi's being murdered by the coalition bombing. By the same token, I also heard someone advance the charming opinion that Iraqi loss of life shouldn't be given as much weight as the loss of Western ones because their history means they don't place the same value on life as we do. Both of these arguments have their intellectual merits, but as statements of humanity and empathy they are about as worthwhile as a charity drive for Windsor family. What the hell happened to the very basic idea that killing people, for whatever reason, is a fundamentally bad thing to do?
But no; the deaths of 50+ people in London has, together with the deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bali, New York, Madrid, Sudan, Israel, Uzbekistan, Russia, Chechnya, (I could go on but you get the idea...), those deaths have become one more aspect of a cause for people who, if they're honest, care more about being proved right than about the death and misery. Be they the lunatic fringe of the left (one of whom claimed, within hours of the bombs going off, that it was clearly CIA who had planted them; had he been referring to the fact that Al-Quaida only exists because of the CIA, he would have had a point...), or the lunatic fringe of the right (Ann Coulter's claim that the whole War on Terror can be ended by "killing their leaders and converting the rest to Christianity" never fails to raise a chuckle and a cold sweat), or all points in between, we all seem to lose sight of the fact that people are dying for no reason than someone, somewhere, wants to be proved right.
Maybe I'm just mellowing in my old age and coupledom, but I don't think a human life is a fair price to pay for a group of people to say "HA! I KNEW I was right!". If ideas aren’t worth dying for (and I don't believe they are), then they're not worth killing for either. By all means, debate the rights and wrongs of the WoT (damn sure I'm still going to do so...), just try to keep in mind that some things are more important than our opinions, however justified we feel them to be.
Upon hearing of the bombings, I confess that my first reaction was "My word; the French Olympic Bid team really ARE bad losers aren't they?". Self-congratulatory sarcasm soon gave way to a somewhat despairing sense of helplessness; I go on at great length about the War on Terror, and it's destablising effect on the security of ordinary people like you and me. Yet here was something that was happening as a direct result of the WoT, and I couldn't do jack s**t except talk about it. Did this prove that Dubya and Tony's little crusade does have a basis in reality? Or was it a case of proving my point for me; that the only reason a War on Terror is "necessary" is because that self same War has increased the likelihood of terrorism across the western world?
Before any of that though, I think it's worth making the following couple of points; firstly, in the aftermath of the bombs in London, the way that both the emergency services and ordinary Londoners dealt with it left me awestruck with admiration. The sense of calm, of stoicism, of a determination not to panic...I'm not going to try to claim these traits as part of any notion of national character. But I am going to say that, to a very large extent, they defeated the purpose of any such terrorism. I'm sure that the sense of anger and outrage will grow in the coming weeks, but as a knee-jerk reaction to a dreadful event, one cannot fault it.
Secondly, both Blair and Ken Livingstone (the mayor of London) struck exactly the right note in their responses. The former displayed his usual stage-managed affront and outrage, but his language was both temperate and soothing to the nation at large in my opinion. He displayed that nebulous quality called "statesmanship", and for all the gallons of vitriol I have in reserve for Blair, that was what was needed from a Prime Minister. Livingstone on the other hand cut through the b******t and called the bombings exactly what they were; a cowardly and indiscriminate attack on ordinary people. The bombings would not make life more difficult for the people who make the decisions that generate the outrage that provides extremists with their recruits (if one is of an extremely paranoid mindset, one could make a case for it making their lives easier...). All it did was create a little pocket of misery, nothing more.
So then; what does last weeks bombing say about the War on Terror? Unsurprisingly, my conclusion is that the bombing indicates that the Iraqi land grab has made the world a far more dangerous place. I've found that a lot of the more Pro-war people whom I talk to with any regularity are claiming that the bombing proves that the Anti-Terror legislation brought in by the government was not just a tactic to keep people uncertain and afraid, but something that was desperately necessary. My response is always the same; how did that "duck and cover" style pamphlet of last year help prepare us for the bomb? And how could putting tanks in public places (as was done in the terror drill of not so long ago) made even the slightest of differences to the events of last Thursday? How would ID cards have prevented the bombs exploding?
The only planning that made any difference was the quiet preparations of the emergency services for terror attacks, and those plans pre-date the ludicrous and unwinnable WoT. Not one of the high profile "WOOOO....darkie terrorists will murder your budgie!! Vote for us and we'll keep you safe!" announcements made by the government made a blind bit of difference to the bombs going off.
I also think that the government's reaction to anyone who attempted to draw a link between the WoT and the bombing backs up what I'm trying to say. George Galloway expressed outrage at the bombs and the devastation to ordinary Londoners, but made it clear that it was an inevitable price of the WoT. And the government...launched the kind of ferocious and highly personal attack on him that they usual try to condemn when made by the likes of Galloway. Note, however, that they did not try to give any hard factual reasons why he was wrong. The LibDem leader Charles Kennedy made much the same point yesterday, and faced a similarly smear-heavy/fact-lite attack. Dear Lord, the speaker of the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) stated the obvious in his condemnation of the bombing; his words were presented by many news organisations in a "Look what the evil foreign man is saying" kind of fashion, but they couldn't present anything in the way of facts as to why he was wrong.
And the response of the pro war faction of politics? "Oh, it didn't take long for the 'I told you so' brigade to start crowing about this, did it?" Well...no, it didn't. Does that made them wrong, or do you simply hate to admit they have a point? Leaving aside this sour grapes on the part of those in favour of war, that did get me thinking about something else...
Amidst all the inevitable "He said, she said" bickering resulting from this bombing and the reasons that it happened, I've seen very little from either side talking about compassion for the poor sods who lost lives, limbs, and loves as a result of the bomb. The initial messages of "Christ, is everyone okay?" have given way to the apportioning of blame. In fact, the only mention of compassion I've read since the first 24 hours after this squalid little murder was on the website where the Extremist organisation claimed responsibility for the bombing. Apparently it was proof of Allah's mercy and compassion; clearly their definition of those words differ somewhat from mine.
But then again, should I be surprised? A lot of the talk about the Iraqi people suffering the equivalent of a daily London bombing (at least) is, although clearly well intentioned, usually the precursor to a political statement about how this PROVES that Dubya and Blair are pure, moronic evil. I'm just as guilty of doing that (in defence of that school of thought, I would say that at least we acknowledge the human cost of the land grab. The coalition refuses to even keep a count of how many Iraqi civilians are killed in the name of securing their freedom...), so I find myself rather shamefaced even as I make the criticism.
It seems that, in amongst all the partisan discussions that use loss of life or the threat of it that are used to fuel the pro and anti war ideologies, we very easily forget the important thing; the loss of life itself. I've seen people say that the bombing shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things because, hey, look at all the poor Iraqi's being murdered by the coalition bombing. By the same token, I also heard someone advance the charming opinion that Iraqi loss of life shouldn't be given as much weight as the loss of Western ones because their history means they don't place the same value on life as we do. Both of these arguments have their intellectual merits, but as statements of humanity and empathy they are about as worthwhile as a charity drive for Windsor family. What the hell happened to the very basic idea that killing people, for whatever reason, is a fundamentally bad thing to do?
But no; the deaths of 50+ people in London has, together with the deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bali, New York, Madrid, Sudan, Israel, Uzbekistan, Russia, Chechnya, (I could go on but you get the idea...), those deaths have become one more aspect of a cause for people who, if they're honest, care more about being proved right than about the death and misery. Be they the lunatic fringe of the left (one of whom claimed, within hours of the bombs going off, that it was clearly CIA who had planted them; had he been referring to the fact that Al-Quaida only exists because of the CIA, he would have had a point...), or the lunatic fringe of the right (Ann Coulter's claim that the whole War on Terror can be ended by "killing their leaders and converting the rest to Christianity" never fails to raise a chuckle and a cold sweat), or all points in between, we all seem to lose sight of the fact that people are dying for no reason than someone, somewhere, wants to be proved right.
Maybe I'm just mellowing in my old age and coupledom, but I don't think a human life is a fair price to pay for a group of people to say "HA! I KNEW I was right!". If ideas aren’t worth dying for (and I don't believe they are), then they're not worth killing for either. By all means, debate the rights and wrongs of the WoT (damn sure I'm still going to do so...), just try to keep in mind that some things are more important than our opinions, however justified we feel them to be.