Rather than the bulldog spirit, or the memory of a blitzkrieg no Londoner under seventy can possibly remember, there are some legitimate and constructive reasons not to be terrorised by the London bombings, at least for the great mass of us lucky enough to have not been directly involved.
The first is only possible for those who opposed the war, and stayed in touch with it’s consequences the whole time. If you’ve been paying attention to what’s been going on since 911, and you weren’t directly effected by the London bombs, then there is a definite limit to how shocked this event could make you. Incidents of this kind will have been plugging away at your conscience every day, and this looks much like any other day. In fact you could say that the degree of grief one can feel as a non-victim is inversely proportional to the amount of attention you’ve paid to the years of savagery that led us here.
It’s difficult for this not come out as indignation, particularly when confronted by other people not directly effected, but who are, nevertheless, genuinely shocked to the core. It’s difficult to hold back. You might end up with a smack in the mouth. What were you doing while Falluja was being razed? Did you grieve this much for the Iraqi wedding party, or were you busy watching Big Brother? No wonder some uninjured Britons are traumatised. For them this really is a bolt from the blue.
It’s one advantage of keeping yourself inoculated with the horrors of the world, I suppose. The next time someone asks you why you read things and watch things that clearly upset you so much, well this is one sound answer. It doesn’t hurt so much or shock so much when the pain and suffering draws closer. You can remain calm and try to discuss how it happened, and how it might be prevented in the future. You have better immunity to government propaganda, you're better prepared to pick your way through their lies. It’s the person who ignores the suffering in faraway places that is mortified by its arrival on these shores. In the long run, it’s them that really get upset.
All said, it is still difficult for even the most sincerely anti-racist, universally compassionate Briton not to feel more shocked by these killing than those abroad. But not for any noble reason. It’s just that we’re not used to concentrated coverage of the consequences of the ‘War on Terror’. The violence our side dishes out isn’t fit for discussion. Iraq’s own ceaseless suicide bombings have become just a detail, low down the running order on the evening news. Just like Vietnam and Ireland before, they’re just a faint repetitious noise in the background. A body count, a concerned expression, and on to the Beckhams.
A good measure of the media’s sincerity is it’s reporting of other atrocities subsequent to July the seventh. Clearly their newly discovered compassion ran out quickly, or was swallowed in one go by the London attack. Every day since has seen comparable horrors in Iraq itself. Will The Independent post a billboard of photographs of the victims faces on its front page? Will each photo be accompanied by eulogies about these peoples lives, their hopes and expectations? Will this mother have the chance to speak of her son’s plans to go to college, or marry in the spring?
The second good reason not to be terrorised is purely statistical, and available to every rational citizen. Unless this is the beginning of a sky-high escalation of attacks (and remember, it wasn’t after 911) you still have far more to fear crossing the road or driving, and the level of potential grief is comparable.
I’ll have to tread very carefully through this minefield. To be clear, I am NOT suggesting that there is moral equivalence between the criminal negligence of reckless drivers, awful as it is, and the psychopathic behaviour of suicide bombers. What I am saying is that from the victim’s perspective there isn’t much difference. To have a loved one torn to pieces in either way creates similar trauma. If you don’t believe me try telling a father who has lost a child in a road accident that his grief is less than if it had been in a terrorist attack. I only ask this rhetorically. I really wouldn’t recommend it.
So if the level of pain and misery induced by each kind of loss is comparable, you can then factor-in likelihood. And of course incidents of road death and injury blow terrorism out of the water, in this country at least. In the UK there are around 3,500 road deaths a year, attended by around 300,000 injuries. Nine deaths a day. Around one London bombing every six days. But of course that’s each and every six day period of the year.
Day in, day out, the infernal combustion engine swats innocent humans like flies. If we should feel frightened by bombs in the UK we should be in perpetual hysterics about road injury. If we feel worried sitting on the tube we should be soiling ourselves going down the motorway. But we don’t. Rightly or wrongly we are all but indifferent to this vastly greater danger, until it actually picks one of us off.
I stress again, I’m not talking morality here, just about likelihood of injury and legitimate states of fear. For this is all about using fear to control people. The power of nightmares. Make no bones about it, there are two groups of terrorists vying to capitalise on this vile deed. The people who organised the bombing, for sure. But equally the state terrorists who lied to us to take us to war, even after being advised in advance that this would be the likely consequence. Tony Blair, Jack Straw and George Bush are well aware what is at stake at this time. The finger of treachery points directly to them.
Our subservient media is doing a fine job helping with the smokescreen. It seems astonishing that we are yet to hear from any victim who opposed the war, and is furious at Tony Blair. I can’t bear to listen to the radio at the moment, but when I catch it the permissible agenda seems to be:
1. This is nothing to do with Iraq.
2. This is a good reason to increase state power, ID cards etc.
3. What’s wrong with Islam?
4. We must work to heal our communities.
Stray from this vacuous agenda and you support the bombers. Any closer analysis is necessarily a justification for what they did. Gavin Esler can muster great offence when George Galloway speaks the truth ‘too soon’ after the event (is it ever to soon to speak the truth?) but Tony Blair, who brought about this tragedy, is given a platform to spin more lies on the very day of the bombing: This is nothing to do with Iraq. Evil ideology. They hate our freedoms.
Quite pathetic. No human would do this for religion alone. Whatever other crankiness the bombers believed an essential part of their ‘brainwashing’ was the truth. Learning what the West was doing to other Muslims, things you won’t see on the BBC. This was an act of intense sickening violence, prompted by intense sickening violence. We should think long and hard about the motives of anyone who tries to tell us different.
George Bush’s success has always been terror, death his lease of life. After a rough couple of months he is now walking proud again, chest puffed out. Terrorism is his oxygen, his soul, his mandate, his gift to the world. We went along with it and now it’s come to back to visit us, and he and Tony Blair hope to make good of it. These people really do hate our freedoms. They hate us questioning their actions. They'd rather we were suspicious of each other. They want us frightened in our beds.
This can’t go on forever. The ‘War on Terror’ must be derailed, sooner rather than later. We must refuse to be terrorised and get thinking. Making innocent British Muslims feel like they’ve done something wrong won’t help. The best way to ‘heal our communities’ is to get out of Iraq and impeach Tony Blair. Perhaps the victims’ families are our best hope. How many of them were on the February 2003 march? How many Rose Gentle’s and Reg Keys’ are stirring from their grief and preparing to confront Mr Blair? We must give them all the support we can.
Monday 18 July 2005
Friday 8 July 2005
The End of Tony Blair
He lied to take us to war. He was advised that terror at home would be the likely consequence but he just pushed his lies harder. Clearly it wasn't us he was worried about. It was politics, oil and power.
Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been slaughtered and now dozens of British corpses have been thrown on the pile. True, Blair did not plant these bombs, but it's equally certain that without his lies and meglomania this would not have happened.
When the dust and blood settles he must be brought to book. As always, he will try to turn his self-made disaster into a personal asset. Already people are talking defensively, about this making ID cards easier to push through.
There will be many voices in the media trying to distract us and drown out the obvious conclusion. This must be countered. The message is simple. British involvement in the "War on Terror" stops here.
Blair out! Troops out!
Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been slaughtered and now dozens of British corpses have been thrown on the pile. True, Blair did not plant these bombs, but it's equally certain that without his lies and meglomania this would not have happened.
When the dust and blood settles he must be brought to book. As always, he will try to turn his self-made disaster into a personal asset. Already people are talking defensively, about this making ID cards easier to push through.
There will be many voices in the media trying to distract us and drown out the obvious conclusion. This must be countered. The message is simple. British involvement in the "War on Terror" stops here.
Blair out! Troops out!
Thursday 7 July 2005
A good seven years to bury bad news
Two posts back I suggested that people often like to pretend they like something for one reason, when it fact it’s for another. London’s successful Olympic bid seems set to break records for this kind of evasion. I’ve already heard the defining one, the shield that will be raised time and again: The Olympics is a glorious exciting sporting event, adored by those who participate and those who watch.
There, said it. And as it happens I quite agree. It is all those things, and a great many Britons will be chuffed for no more cynical reason than that. But aside from that there are a mass of other issues of good and bad thrown up by this selection, quite unrelated to the subject of sport.
For Tony Blair and David Beckham it’s good in terms of personal PR. Both narcissus and war criminal are attracted by the good it does their public image to be associated with this victory (though of course they’ll tell us it’s all about the glory of sport.)
Indeed for Blair this is a godsend in a many ways. A great patriotic distraction from a the quagmire of Iraq, and the recent, unequivocal proof of his deceit. Certainly, he’ll love the footage of healthy multi-ethnic Britain competing as one big happy family. He’ll appreciate the way it wrong-foots his critics, and distorts the critical abilities of the public at large: How bad can Britain’s role be in the world when we all get on so well here? Fingers crossed, British people will feel that bit better about themselves, at a time when his actions might have left them feeling angry, ashamed and politicised.
McDonalds will be happy, McAlpine will be happy, Coca-Cola will be cock-a-hoop. A mass of multinationals will be delighted. But it won’t be about the high jump or the women’s 400 metres.
The controllers of BBC news will certainly be chuffed. Makes their lives a lot easier. It’s must have been hard to keep a lid on Falluja and the Downing Street memos these past few months. Without poor Geldof kissing hands with the war criminals in question, and comforting myths about future G8 benevolence, there might have been space for some news. But now the opportunities are endless. Seven years of meaningless success and failure to draw upon. The only excuse needed? It’s all just about the glory of sport.
There, said it. And as it happens I quite agree. It is all those things, and a great many Britons will be chuffed for no more cynical reason than that. But aside from that there are a mass of other issues of good and bad thrown up by this selection, quite unrelated to the subject of sport.
For Tony Blair and David Beckham it’s good in terms of personal PR. Both narcissus and war criminal are attracted by the good it does their public image to be associated with this victory (though of course they’ll tell us it’s all about the glory of sport.)
Indeed for Blair this is a godsend in a many ways. A great patriotic distraction from a the quagmire of Iraq, and the recent, unequivocal proof of his deceit. Certainly, he’ll love the footage of healthy multi-ethnic Britain competing as one big happy family. He’ll appreciate the way it wrong-foots his critics, and distorts the critical abilities of the public at large: How bad can Britain’s role be in the world when we all get on so well here? Fingers crossed, British people will feel that bit better about themselves, at a time when his actions might have left them feeling angry, ashamed and politicised.
McDonalds will be happy, McAlpine will be happy, Coca-Cola will be cock-a-hoop. A mass of multinationals will be delighted. But it won’t be about the high jump or the women’s 400 metres.
The controllers of BBC news will certainly be chuffed. Makes their lives a lot easier. It’s must have been hard to keep a lid on Falluja and the Downing Street memos these past few months. Without poor Geldof kissing hands with the war criminals in question, and comforting myths about future G8 benevolence, there might have been space for some news. But now the opportunities are endless. Seven years of meaningless success and failure to draw upon. The only excuse needed? It’s all just about the glory of sport.
Monday 4 July 2005
Mind trumps muscle
It’s commonly understood that might is right. No matter how clever you are someone physically stronger will call the shots. The final say goes to muscles and weapons, not minds.
Although there is some truth in this, it’s actually a very distorted picture of how things generally work. It really only applies in isolation. It’s perfectly true that if a big person wants to overpower a smaller person they can. A suitably sized playground bully or robber or bouncer or soldier or policeman will prevail. At that exact instant might is right. But if you pan out a bit it doesn’t hold. In the case of the last three potential assailants they are, to coin a phrase, only acting on orders. Those orders usually come from people who never get their hands dirty, let alone bloody. The source of their violence is a command or a law, the product of a mind.
Of course such servants may actually stray from their orders and start acting violently above and beyond the call of duty. But in that case they themselves would be subject to discipline, much like the thief and the playground bully. Laws, more products of thought, would be invoked to subdue them. And if they continued to disobey, other public servants would be employed to physically coerce them. In this sense at least, the pen is mightier than the sword. It commands the sword.
Much of the attraction of democratic society is its ability to level this particular playing field. A healthy meritocratic society has to be one where minds can discuss things and compete with each other fairly, economically and intellectually, without the threat of superior physical strength. Even the most hardened conservative would agree. The state exists primarily so we can all do business and blossom, to the best of our abilities. It’s there to stop bullies and thieves stealing our honest gains. (Back in the real world of course…)
In fact, even at the level of the individual a mind never takes a lead from its own fists. Even here it’s the mind doing the violence, even if it is using its body to carry it out. You can’t blame muscles for the signals they’re sent. They can’t control the mind, the mind has complete control over them. Contrary to common belief, the real bottom line is, mind trumps muscle.
Although there is some truth in this, it’s actually a very distorted picture of how things generally work. It really only applies in isolation. It’s perfectly true that if a big person wants to overpower a smaller person they can. A suitably sized playground bully or robber or bouncer or soldier or policeman will prevail. At that exact instant might is right. But if you pan out a bit it doesn’t hold. In the case of the last three potential assailants they are, to coin a phrase, only acting on orders. Those orders usually come from people who never get their hands dirty, let alone bloody. The source of their violence is a command or a law, the product of a mind.
Of course such servants may actually stray from their orders and start acting violently above and beyond the call of duty. But in that case they themselves would be subject to discipline, much like the thief and the playground bully. Laws, more products of thought, would be invoked to subdue them. And if they continued to disobey, other public servants would be employed to physically coerce them. In this sense at least, the pen is mightier than the sword. It commands the sword.
Much of the attraction of democratic society is its ability to level this particular playing field. A healthy meritocratic society has to be one where minds can discuss things and compete with each other fairly, economically and intellectually, without the threat of superior physical strength. Even the most hardened conservative would agree. The state exists primarily so we can all do business and blossom, to the best of our abilities. It’s there to stop bullies and thieves stealing our honest gains. (Back in the real world of course…)
In fact, even at the level of the individual a mind never takes a lead from its own fists. Even here it’s the mind doing the violence, even if it is using its body to carry it out. You can’t blame muscles for the signals they’re sent. They can’t control the mind, the mind has complete control over them. Contrary to common belief, the real bottom line is, mind trumps muscle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)