Reasons you will hate me

I think we all need to remember that the killing of people, whether by an individual, a business not providing a unsafe workplace, political/religious groups for a cause, or governments in the name of "freedom", is always murder.

If you are the victim's family, there is no distinction between the political, religious or business reasons for the actions and the suffering it causes.

I'm surprised people are so quick on the jokes... I haven't heard anything myself, but I don't think I'd be laughing.

911 was absolutely shocking, but this is far more foreboding. It really does give the feeling that things aren't ever going to be resolved.

I don't believe "we're next", but even if we were, we can't let that fear choke us.

Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq - 22787

What's happened in London is awful but....

And there are 300000 child soldiers slaughtering each other across the world as well. And I don't see anybody trying to get me to sign a petition to save them - or marching down the street in protest.

Maybe you should start a petition, then.

Hate causes this shit, it's a destructive force that is pulling us apart at the seams. Think of all the people you love and care deeply for, then call 'em and tell 'em.

Amen Anon...

Aleks, obviously I agree with the sentiment of your comment, but it is strictly not always murder in such cases. It may be manslaughter.

CAN EVERYONE CHILL THE FUCK OUT!!

Sorry for shouting but chances of us being next are... Unlikely! The UK and Europe are designed to harbour criminals and terrorists with their porous borders. From a European perspective, Australia has played a tiny part in the Coalition. It is only in local news that Howard puffs his chest out. Overseas, everyone wonders who's grandpa with the glasses.

I know this may sound glib but it's just terrorism. It is meant to strike terror into you even though the probability of you being affected is miniscule.

Guy, the distniction between murder and manslaughter is an artificial one. Often it used to deem one type of killing as less "dangerous" or "premeditated" than another.

Apathy and indifference seem our best weapons against terrorism. Don't give a fuck! that's just what the terrorists want!

Or so I am led to surmise after T.Blair's rousing speech.

I used this metaphor earlier today. I don’t know all the resolution to this however I do know that by beating the hornets nest, we will not be protecting ourselves from being stung.

I refuse to have a hating heart.

Without doubt the chances of dying whilst driving your car to the shops or by contracting some completely random disease are far greater than the miniscule chance of death by terrorism.

I thought it was interesting that most networks returned to routine programming very quickly last night. Perhaps (conventional weapons) terrorism will lose its grip and possibly, ironically, start to become less practiced and powerful when it becomes like the road toll; tragic, but sadly routine.

Of course, a serious bio or nuclear terrorist attack would remain another thing entirely...

That's a very good point. We probably would not have noticed or been as shocked if the exact same explosions had happened in Israel.

Are all jokes about the incident in poor taste? I would have hoped that humour is the best defence in such times.

I could have eaten the bombs. I could have stopped it all.

Toadiie from neighbours.

Yeah, like that...I guess.

i am disgusted that people are joking about a terrorist attack. i live in england, and i'm telling you, it's not fucking funny

The only thing to do is just fight them back. It's a game of might. There is no point trying to appease these people, or negotiate with them.

oh my god anonymous, you are a genius.

...and number of minutes channel 9 gave the live feeds from CNN before reverting to the scheduled viewing of the Footy Show? Got to love this country, Eddie McGuire and the live cricket (on 7) are still more compelling viewing for most plebs than terrorist reality tv.

How many more countries Anon? I mean the U.S. has virtually invaded every place they can hide....

on a more boring note;
Everyone should watch LMS now (did anyone mention the "Mad Cans!" reference already? Amusement!) as when The Lady does her speech at the screening, shes bound to freak out and insult her (nominal) superiors and get it cancelled with her wittastic speechisms...

"The only thing to do is just fight them back. It's a game of might. There is no point trying to appease these people, or negotiate with them."

I'm starting to believe that's true. I've been preaching the blame foreign policy, let's understand the terrorists line for a while now, but you know what? ...these people put bombs on london trains and busses - that's what. And I can't understand that and don't really care to. They don't want compromise... they don't want to get along... they want us dead. It's a desire that is ideologically entrenched and it's not going away anytime soon.

So I say fuck them and their phony cause. Anon is right, no matter how much you may scoff. That doesn't mean that we should bomb Iraq or anything cos, duh... but he's still right. The only thing that will stop these people is the forcing of their hand.

ben, would you want to compromise if you felt you were being threatened? i'm not necessarily being an apologist here [or maybe i am, i don't know] but i think we do have to try to understand how these things work, the whys of it, otherwise when you say fuck it, let's blow them away, it's just a knee-jerk reaction. and it's not a simple matter of they don't like us, they are the baddies and we are the goodies, let's go on a bombing raid. it's far more complex than that. it's about belief and ideology, but what is the belief? flip it around and ask whether they are feeling threatened and under siege? otherwise it's illogical to think that it is just a matter of evil.

ps read this article in the age
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/this-is-no-way-to-wage-the-war-on-terror/2005/07/10/1120934123814.html

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I wrote what I did mostly as a response for anons comment earlier being trashed. I said nothing of bombing raids or evil, nor did I at any point say that we should 'blow them away'. What I'm saying is that I've come to believe that claims that foreign policy are responsible for terrorism are painfully naive at best and are cynical political opportunism at worst.

I believe that the current political powers in the world have made some pretty big mistakes in the way they have adressed terrorism - and the way they have exploited it, and that in fact they may have encouraged more terrorists out of the woodwork through their antics. However, understanding that terrorism can ultimately only be stopped by force is not one of these mistakes.

These people don't just hate Bush... they hate the very people who come out to protest against him. They hate western culture. They think it's 'evil'. They think 'they are the baddies and we are the goodies'. These people won't just get what they want and go away. There will be no round table peace negotiation. If we want them gone, the truth, simplistic as it may be, is that we need to make them gone. To do so in a way that befits a peaceful society and that doesn't promote more terrorism is a difficult task at which we have failed... but that doesn't change the facts.

I have blogged on the subject, Ms Fits, and I don't just mean in someone's comment box... Don't know if this was one of the two blog entries you saw on the subject; check it out ;-))

Ben, violence begets violence. Using violence to rid the world of "terrorists" (whether they are terrorists or freedom fighters is dependant on one's political outlook, and not by the activties of those involved, but that is another debate) will only create another generation of "terrorists" bent on avenging those that came before them.

I do agree that there will be no round table negotiations on them matter, maybe because the "terrorists" don't want it but just as likely because military hardware manufacturers donate millions of dollars to Bush. Neither side is right, both are responsible for reprehensible acts. Both the Blair and the people who bombed London. Both Bush and Al-Queda. Remember that.

I do remember that... and I do agree for the most part. I've said nothing about the use of violence being the best option, and I was openly critical of Blair and Bush in my posts. I feel like that's twice now that people have not been willing to actually listen to what I'm saying and have just assumed that I'm condoning a war. ...Total bollocks.

Oh... and the suggestion that these people are anything closely resembling freedom fighters is, simarly, total bollocks. Only more offensive.

ben, ok i can see you are not condoning or calling for violence though you did say you were starting to think that was the only way [ie to fight back].

there seems to be no solution, but when you say that blaming foreign policy is naive, i don't agree. and when you say that the fact is that they hate us [westerners] and what we represent [lifestyle, democracy, etc], well i can agree to a point but that is not the reason they are making terrorist attacks. perhaps that makes it easier for them to not care that innocents are killed [ie we are infidels, so we don't count] but i don't think it's the REASON they attack.

the underlying reason is policy. american policy which ultimately led to iraq, and the humiliation and loss of face and HUGE obscene offence to muslims everywhere about what has gone on at Abu Graib and Guantanamo. Culturally these people cannot let that go unavenged. Also with a different history of war to us, they can also not let the US and allies get away with invading middle-eastern countries, setting up there and controlling things like oil etc. and making heaps of money through recontstruction contracts [halliburton] etc.

But you may say that iraq is just a consequence of september 11. well think then about what september 11 was a result of. it didn't come out of the blue. some say it was the israel/palestinian problem. some say other less disclosed US foreign policies that affected and disaffected many in the muslim world.

flip it around - do you really think they want us to become like them and women wear hijab and men become suicide bombers? no. but are they concerned that our way of life is corrupting and threatens them? maybe. do they feel they have no political power and that america is running the world? yes. and there are plenty of non-terrorist/non-muslims who agree - me for one.

there has to be a way. fighting will never finish it. invading won't fix it either. everything has gotten worse since the coalition invaded iraq. it really has.

apologies for being so wordy here

The underlying reason is not policy. Is it a contributing factor? ...Sure, okay. But it's not a reason in and of itself. You and I and many others may agree that western culture has a corrupting influence or that America is 'controlling the world', though that's a pretty asinine way of putting it. However, the extremist position, as in the one that leads to bombs on busses and trains, is a little stronger than that and has more to do with racial hatred than you seem to realise.

You talk about what went on at Abu Graib as though it were an American policy decision. That's as simplistic as blaming all of Islam for 9/11. Both are appalling acts. Both were perpetrated by individuals. Neither was perpetrated by a nation. Finally, both should be responded to decisively.

The real problem with Abu Graib is not, frankly, that it occurred (though that's a problem too) but that it was spread all over the news by a media more concerned with where its next headline is coming from than in exercising any cultural sensitivity or discretion. The popular media thrives on fear too and they have a lot to answer for.

There is one point we agree on. Iraq shouldn't have been invaded. It was a stupid thing to do. For the most part it is stupid because it was marketed as an aspect of the war on terror when it clearly wasn't. It is also dangerous because the idea of preemptive warfare does not befit a civilised nation and is a flimsy justification for an invasion. If however America wants to make war on terrorists as they find them I'm all for it. Because it's a war that was brought to them. And the reality is that it’s a war that has to be fought to be won.

ben, when you say racial do you mean racial or do you mean religious?

and i agree about the media and abu ghraib - if no one knew about it it wouldn't have been a problem

and do you think the "war" will or can be won? ignoring the fact that it's probably gone too far now to turn back towards any sort of conciliation, and if before there was more ideology than hatred, whereas now it is tipped the other way, that is there's more hatred [from them to us], do you think perhaps if america had not set their sights on several other potential empires around the world, and really tried to help israel solve the palestinian issue, and let other countries get on with things, then this would not have happened? i know people will say hussein was a baddie, and he was. but there are heaps of other baddies around the world, and america doesn't get involved. why this time?

the answer is not simple and it's no one thing. it's a combination of things, some subtle, some overt. i don't have the answers but i really really don't think it's simply a matter of hate, or that war has been declared on the west because we are infidels and should be converted or annihilated, nor that we are a corrupting influence to the muslim faithful. it's not just one of these things.

i think you and i agree more than you realise, ben, and i have enjoyed talking with you.

Cool.

Do I think the war can be won? Sure... by increment. It can be won by preventing individual catastrophes. And you know, a part of that has to do with not giving terrorists more of a reason to hate you... and that's a policy thing. That's a preemptive tactic that I'd encourage. But another necessary aspect of this fight is the use of decisive force against terrorists who already pose a threat. It would be possible of course for these two directives to co-exist, but it's a difficult balancing act that the current global powers have failed to realise.

I think that America/the west gets a lot of stuff wrong, but they’re hated just as much for all that they get right. Even though I’m uncomfortable with the way the word ‘freedom’ is bandied about, this really is in many ways a war against the freedoms that America represents and that these people oppose.

In closing and to express again my view on what this shit’s all about, I’d like to point out that there's an important irony in the fact that this attack coincided with the G8. A step in the right direction, thoroughly given the finger. Britain handled it well though. They responded with more dignity than the US could ever have hoped to muster at 9/11. They morally invalidated the terrorists through their composure and eloquence while Bush seemed to be going out of his way to vindicate them. That’s maybe a kind of warfare that we need also… moral warfare. Bush tries his hand at it but just comes off smug and belligerent. The Brits seem to have it down to an art.

Cheers,

Ben.

PS. Q.`'Racial or religious?'
A. Both/either/one and the same.

Amount of time before political pot-shots were fired between Right and Left - 2 hours

Come on! I'm sure that they could have done better then that.