Next time, try reading the post and not just the title. I don’t know who you think you’re shouting at, but it ain’t me, Iggy babe.

You are not afraid; the rest of the world is fed up of being afraid of you. From the time of Jesuits till now. Why not put up a site asking Tony Blair why he is killing others and supporting supplying arms to others? oh I forgot, when u do mass killings OFFICIALLY with a government stamp it’s different, almost angelic isn’t it? Well maybe I am unfair for what do you know, you are from a generation that was brought up on the blood stained money of others, through the regime change of democratically elected leaders, installing pro-corporate west leaders (getting good money from deal henceforth), Nicaragua (yes you have made yourself a part of it),Iran 1953, (CIA overthrows democracy installs shah), you are part of this now, Guatemala 1954 (CIA directs exile invasion after new gov’t nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua, Panama 1964 (panamanians shot by troops for urging canal’s return) list goes on.

And do you still believe Blair when he says you were attacked for what “we hold dear”. No, It was for what others hold dear and to hold on to it with all they have got. Like the Robert frisk article said, which quoted one of the mujahideen. “Why are we not attacking Sweden?” Which also has western lifestyle, why only this small group of countries?

If you wanna label me a terrorist, carry on, I can’t stop lies. But although I feel the whole city needs to consoled, and feel for them, i don’t see what you are so defiant about. London needs love and consolation, so do children in Baghdad, Kabul, Cambodia, Vietnam, Nicaragua, YOUR “”IMF and World Bank hit countries who rally for free trade so everything can be de-nationalized and the capitalists can have a suitable environment for cheap child labor and you can have your parks and porn houses built””countries and so on.

Adious,
Iggy

Rose: why not call evil by its proper name? I accept that labelling as such is not enough, but our understanding should start from an acceptance of the basic fact – that these acts are evil, and their not being one-off aberrations, some of the people involved come as near to a judgement of evil as possible. That’s not to say that they are beyond redemption – but that redemption must start with an acceptance of their wrongs, by them.

As for: “the only adequate response to terrorism is to work for peace through peaceful means.” Yes, appeasement’s always a winner, isn’t it? You might’ve noticed that a lot of those taking leading roles in terrorist campaigns aren’t exactly the oppressed – Osama bin Laden, son of a billionaire, for a start; but there aren’t many cluster bombs going off in Leeds you know. (Think what it’d do to property prices.)

And: “We must all find other ways to resolve our old hatreds and fears. We belong to one world; whatever our colour, race or creed we must remember our common humanity.” Ok. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Jeffrey Dahmer, Dennis Nilson, Peter Sutcliffe… These too were all part of that one world and that common humanity. What’s your point, exactly? That because we’re all humans, we can make no other distinctions? Should we not be judged according to our deeds?

Please, tell me that comment was ironic. Or do you not realise that some people do evil things? And that sometimes it isn’t because they weren’t hugged enough as a child or any other excuse, but because they are sick in their souls and can see no reason why not. If we can’t cope with this basic fact of human life in all times and all places, then our civilisation really is for the dustbin of history.

We used cluster bombs in Iraq, men are routinely tortured in Guantanamo Bay, in Palestine people are torn from their land by those just as zealous as the terrorists who died last Thursday. This we know – but are there any corners of the globe where parents do not lose their children to violence and injustice? The only adequate response to terrorism is to work for peace through peaceful means. We must all find other ways to resolve our old hatreds and fears. We belong to one world; whatever our colour, race or creed we must remember our common humanity. This is the only hope for a safe future for our children.

Jarn – I’m not entirely sure I understand what you’re saying, but I think I may disagree very strongly. “That community being ‘Britain’ or ‘London’ or ‘Europe’, and the strand being a basic understanding of and agreement with liberal democratic values, on which membership is contingent.” What do you do if you get talking to someone down the pub and you judge that they don’t meet these criteria? Shop them as a suspected terrorist? I would really hope not.

Juan – I haven’t read Burke’s piece in detail, but it seems to me he’s confusing institutions with practices. I don’t personally give a damn whether an Islamist organisation called Al Qaeda exists (or, getting back to my reply to Jarndyce, what its members think about liberal democracy); what I care about is what it does. If you focus on practices which we would like to see cease to exist, ‘our’ side of the scale looks a lot less empty – I’d like to see a lot fewer deaths by motor vehicle, for example. (Which is a social question, as Ellis Sharp points out.)

Here is part of an answer from Violence and Agency by a very thoughtful English professor:

My aspiration would be that someday, al-Qaeda and all the men and women who support it or movements like it should simply cease to exist, that there would be no such thing, that as a movement or worldview or set of practices it would be historical and strange to the world of the present. I don’t have the same aspiration for myself or my society or the institutions I inhabit. So there’s an asymmetry here that can’t be waved away by saying there is no “us” and “them”. There is.

But what to do about people who don’t define themselves outside their ideology? You can’t love the sinner (the person) and hate the sin (terrorism) then. You can’t just fight the idea. I’d use an army analogy: you can’t separate the soldier from what or who he’s fighting for. We can’t reject terror just by tackling terrorism. We need also to deal with terrorists and their constituency. And for me that does demand a communitarian strand of sorts. That community being ‘Britain’ or ‘London’ or ‘Europe’, and the strand being a basic understanding of and agreement with liberal democratic values, on which membership is contingent.