As I drove home from work, I heard a report of 37 dead, 750 wounded on an NPR broadcast. From the reports I have seen from both NPR and other sources (the BBC as well), it is thought by most that these orchestrated attacks have some connection to the G8 summit.
@fable and others: There is hardly anything more disgusting to me than the bombings that happened in London today. It is no different to me than the actions of a serial killer, only on a much larger scale. What I find equally disgusting, however, is the attempt to use this opportunity to bolster support for an already ongoing, rather unpopular and odious agenda such as Bush fronts. What this portends for the future is not good at all in my estimation.
We all must be responsible for our actions. Those who shift the blame for their actions upon others - be they terrorists or politicians in power - are cut of the same cloth in my opinion.
@fable: excellent points concerning Chechnya and the Continental Army of the 18th century.
[quote="C Elegans]EDIT: @Coot: I don't think Osama minds at all that Blair and Bush get re-elected. I think it suits his purposes as well as theirs to continue the polarisation.[/quote"]
This is one of the more unsettling realities of Bush's "War on Terror" and Osama Bin Laden. They rely upon one another...and keeping each other around seems to suit their purposes.
Bombs in London
I am so glad you all are ok and those who are no longer part of GB are ok as well. As usualy i am gonna curse a level of profanity that would make a sailor blush but sadly i can't.
I of course condemn the acts and those who are responsible for them. May they rot in hell and get to hell in the very near future.
I of course condemn the acts and those who are responsible for them. May they rot in hell and get to hell in the very near future.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
[QUOTE=Dottie]<snip>What I do not agree with is the commonly held opinion that accepting civilian casualities in achieving the destruction of a military target is fundamentally different from choosing a civilian target in the first place. For example carbet bombings are not inherently more moral than buss bombings. If you agree with this then I think we are in complete agreement.[/QUOTE]
Any civilian cassulties are in essences not acceptable. Unfortunally in any armed conflict it is impossible to achive. What makes it different however, between civilian casulties caught up in attacks on military targets and this, is the intent of the terrorists/attackers. Specicially targeting civilians to cause terror to them compared to accidently targeting civilians while trying to hamper militarytargets and effort.
And no - Capet Bombing civilians isn't more moral then blowing up a bus, which is also why you don't see the big bomberplanes drop their payload as in WW2/Vietnam any more, in modern combat.
But one could see how effective the targeting of soliders in Iraq was becomming for instance - (and how it was in Vietnam) - the populations, with soldiers in Iraq, atmosphere in the west was turning against the governments, because nobody wanted to see their soldiers getting killed for something they didn't understand and belive in.
Now I think many who where turning, will switch right back to start, and the people supporting these campaigns have just gotten new "ammounition" to continue.
Any civilian cassulties are in essences not acceptable. Unfortunally in any armed conflict it is impossible to achive. What makes it different however, between civilian casulties caught up in attacks on military targets and this, is the intent of the terrorists/attackers. Specicially targeting civilians to cause terror to them compared to accidently targeting civilians while trying to hamper militarytargets and effort.
And no - Capet Bombing civilians isn't more moral then blowing up a bus, which is also why you don't see the big bomberplanes drop their payload as in WW2/Vietnam any more, in modern combat.
But one could see how effective the targeting of soliders in Iraq was becomming for instance - (and how it was in Vietnam) - the populations, with soldiers in Iraq, atmosphere in the west was turning against the governments, because nobody wanted to see their soldiers getting killed for something they didn't understand and belive in.
Now I think many who where turning, will switch right back to start, and the people supporting these campaigns have just gotten new "ammounition" to continue.
Insert signature here.
It seems killing innocent civilians in part of the extreme Islamist religion these days. Kill some people and yourself and you will get a good reception in Heaven.
As for political manipulation, who could say that they didn't expect that to happen. It's one of the worst things of any terrorist atrocity these days, Bush and Blair manipulating it to become a crusade on any who would become a terrorist or harbour one, knowingly or not.
Their actions are probably driving more people to terrorism.
Bring on new politicians. The main reasons for Blair being elected again are due to the lack of credible oppositon and Labour's majority won from the '97 landslide. It gives quite an advantage to start off from.
Just look at the situation in Israel for the changing view of terrorism. Many Palestinians probably view them as freedom fighters and the Israel gov. terrorists. Thank the League of Nations and the Allies aftter WW1 for part of that problem.
Big political shifts are going to be needed to get *anywhere* with this kind of problem. The East/West divides cannot help either.
My smpathies for any who suffered during these kind of attacks. As fable said they are atrocities.
As for political manipulation, who could say that they didn't expect that to happen. It's one of the worst things of any terrorist atrocity these days, Bush and Blair manipulating it to become a crusade on any who would become a terrorist or harbour one, knowingly or not.
Their actions are probably driving more people to terrorism.
Bring on new politicians. The main reasons for Blair being elected again are due to the lack of credible oppositon and Labour's majority won from the '97 landslide. It gives quite an advantage to start off from.
Just look at the situation in Israel for the changing view of terrorism. Many Palestinians probably view them as freedom fighters and the Israel gov. terrorists. Thank the League of Nations and the Allies aftter WW1 for part of that problem.
Big political shifts are going to be needed to get *anywhere* with this kind of problem. The East/West divides cannot help either.
My smpathies for any who suffered during these kind of attacks. As fable said they are atrocities.
-
Georgi
- Posts: 11288
- Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Can't wait to get on the road again...
- Contact:
Actually quite a few people in my office were saying they thought Blair's speech was good, he seemed emotionally affected, etc. I didn't see it, so I couldn't say. Just usual Blair, I would expect.C Elegans wrote:Of all my British friends and colleagues, I don't know anyone who sympathise with Blair. It seems all Brits abhor him - that's why I was so surprised he was re-elected.
Apparently the emergency plan that they have been rehearsing in case of a terrorist attack went quite well - nearly everyone who got to hospital survived. It could have been so much worse.A good thing though that London was well prepared for emergency, the tolls could have been even higher than they were.
The official figures are still 37 dead and 700ish injured, but a policeman who was interviewed on the BBC earlier at Kings Cross said there are still bodies being pulled from the wreckage there.
Who, me?!?
-
boo's daddy
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 9:04 am
- Location: Minsc's coat pocket
- Contact:
My two cents:
I was supposed to be in London this am, but cancelled the meeting. A couple of the people I spoke to yesterday had near misses (e.g. late for work therefore not in King's Cross at the time the bomb went off)
I would echo the praise that the emergency services are getting. Their professionalism and efficiency was awe-inspiring. People were getting hooked up to life-support machines at the roadside within minutes. Truly awesome. Which is in stark contrast to the so-called intelligence services.
As for Bliar, people like to slag him off (including me), but he is very good at this kind of crisis stuff. I must confess I did vote Labour, primarily in the expectation that we'd get Brown, but also because the alternatives would be so much worse.
@CE: I am fully in agreement with your comment about the Blair-Bush-Bin Laden symbiosis.
The people who perpetrate these kinds of act are a tiny, tiny minority whose cause and deranged ideas have, IMO, benefitted from our invasion of Iraq. Another way they benefit is by driving a wedge between Western and Islamic cultures: that increases their credibility amongst more moderate people on their own side. We must be on guard against knee-jerk reactions, which are so easy to lapse into at times like these, especially those which surrender the very freedoms we're supposed to be defending!
It's all too easy to just write them off as "evil", but I don't buy it. We are a nation who celebrates our war dead as heroes. We are a nation who accepts civilian casualties as an "inevitable consequence" of our wars. It's not the same thing as blowing yourself up on a commuter train, but exactly how different is it?
No, they're not "evil", and they're probably not insane either. There are probably grains of truth at the heart of their reasons for existence. The only ways to eliminate terrorism are to undermine that grain of truth to starve them of support, and good old fashioned infiltration, for which, again, you need to engage with people close to the heart of the matter.
I was supposed to be in London this am, but cancelled the meeting. A couple of the people I spoke to yesterday had near misses (e.g. late for work therefore not in King's Cross at the time the bomb went off)
I would echo the praise that the emergency services are getting. Their professionalism and efficiency was awe-inspiring. People were getting hooked up to life-support machines at the roadside within minutes. Truly awesome. Which is in stark contrast to the so-called intelligence services.
As for Bliar, people like to slag him off (including me), but he is very good at this kind of crisis stuff. I must confess I did vote Labour, primarily in the expectation that we'd get Brown, but also because the alternatives would be so much worse.
@CE: I am fully in agreement with your comment about the Blair-Bush-Bin Laden symbiosis.
The people who perpetrate these kinds of act are a tiny, tiny minority whose cause and deranged ideas have, IMO, benefitted from our invasion of Iraq. Another way they benefit is by driving a wedge between Western and Islamic cultures: that increases their credibility amongst more moderate people on their own side. We must be on guard against knee-jerk reactions, which are so easy to lapse into at times like these, especially those which surrender the very freedoms we're supposed to be defending!
It's all too easy to just write them off as "evil", but I don't buy it. We are a nation who celebrates our war dead as heroes. We are a nation who accepts civilian casualties as an "inevitable consequence" of our wars. It's not the same thing as blowing yourself up on a commuter train, but exactly how different is it?
No, they're not "evil", and they're probably not insane either. There are probably grains of truth at the heart of their reasons for existence. The only ways to eliminate terrorism are to undermine that grain of truth to starve them of support, and good old fashioned infiltration, for which, again, you need to engage with people close to the heart of the matter.
[QUOTE=boo's daddy]<snip>
It's all too easy to just write them off as "evil", but I don't buy it. We are a nation who celebrates our war dead as heroes. We are a nation who accepts civilian casualties as an "inevitable consequence" of our wars. It's not the same thing as blowing yourself up on a commuter train, but exactly how different is it?
<snip>[/QUOTE]
There is an immensly huge difference between civilian casulties as an effect from war (especially when trying to minimize civilian casulties) and delibirate targeting civilians only to cause terror amongst them. It can't be compared.
You can somewhat compare these terrorist bombing with the WW2 bombings of major german cities or the nuclear bombs over Japan, because here the intent was somewhat the same, although the time and situations were much different, which means the comparison is flawed to begin with when looking for reasoning.
But this is not a part of "modern" warfare either, anymore then slinging dead animals over the city walls to cause plauge amongst the defenders.
It's all too easy to just write them off as "evil", but I don't buy it. We are a nation who celebrates our war dead as heroes. We are a nation who accepts civilian casualties as an "inevitable consequence" of our wars. It's not the same thing as blowing yourself up on a commuter train, but exactly how different is it?
<snip>[/QUOTE]
There is an immensly huge difference between civilian casulties as an effect from war (especially when trying to minimize civilian casulties) and delibirate targeting civilians only to cause terror amongst them. It can't be compared.
You can somewhat compare these terrorist bombing with the WW2 bombings of major german cities or the nuclear bombs over Japan, because here the intent was somewhat the same, although the time and situations were much different, which means the comparison is flawed to begin with when looking for reasoning.
But this is not a part of "modern" warfare either, anymore then slinging dead animals over the city walls to cause plauge amongst the defenders.
Insert signature here.
-
Georgi
- Posts: 11288
- Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Can't wait to get on the road again...
- Contact:
This was London mayor Ken Livingstone's speech - much better than Blair, I think, and genuinely holding back the tears.
This was a cowardly attack, which has resulted in injury and loss of life. Our thoughts are with everyone who has been injured, or lost loved ones. I want to thank the emergency services for the way they have responded.
Following the al-Qaeda attacks on September 11th in America we conducted a series of exercises in London in order to be prepared for just such an attack. One of the exercises undertaken by the government, my office and the emergency and security services was based on the possibility of multiple explosions on the transport system during the Friday rush hour. The plan that came out of that exercise is being executed today, with remarkable efficiency and courage, and I praise those staff who are involved.
I'd like to thank Londoners for the calm way in which they have responded to this cowardly attack and echo the advice of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair - do everything possible to assist the police and take the advice of the police about getting home today.
I have no doubt whatsoever that this is a terrorist attack. We did hope in the first few minutes after hearing about the events on the Underground that it might simply be a maintenance tragedy. That was not the case. I have been able to stay in touch through the very excellent communications that were established for the eventuality that I might be out of the city at the time of a terrorist attack and they have worked with remarkable effectiveness. I will be in continual contact until I am back in London.
I want to say one thing specifically to the world today. This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever.
That isn't an ideology, it isn't even a perverted faith - it is just an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder and we know what the objective is. They seek to divide Londoners. They seek to turn Londoners against each other. I said yesterday to the International Olympic Committee, that the city of London is the greatest in the world, because everybody lives side by side in harmony. Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack. They will stand together in solidarity alongside those who have been injured and those who have been bereaved and that is why I'm proud to be the mayor of that city.
Finally, I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life.
I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others - that is why you are so dangerous. But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail.
In the days that follow look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential.
They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don't want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.
Who, me?!?
-
boo's daddy
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 9:04 am
- Location: Minsc's coat pocket
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Xandax]There is an immensly huge difference between civilian casulties as an effect from war (especially when trying to minimize civilian casulties) and delibirate targeting civilians only to cause terror amongst them. It can't be compared.
You can somewhat compare these terrorist bombing with the WW2 bombings of major german cities or the nuclear bombs over Japan, because here the intent was somewhat the same, although the time and situations were much different, which means the comparison is flawed to begin with when looking for reasoning.
But this is not a part of "modern" warfare either, anymore then slinging dead animals over the city walls to cause plauge amongst the defenders.[/QUOTE]
Fair point: clearly, the intent is one of the differences. The outcome, however, is the same. Dead civilians in Fallujah probably don't think "that's OK, they didn't mean it".
As you say, intent can only get you so far. One could argue that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives even though the specific intent was to kill civilians.
You can somewhat compare these terrorist bombing with the WW2 bombings of major german cities or the nuclear bombs over Japan, because here the intent was somewhat the same, although the time and situations were much different, which means the comparison is flawed to begin with when looking for reasoning.
But this is not a part of "modern" warfare either, anymore then slinging dead animals over the city walls to cause plauge amongst the defenders.[/QUOTE]
Fair point: clearly, the intent is one of the differences. The outcome, however, is the same. Dead civilians in Fallujah probably don't think "that's OK, they didn't mean it".
As you say, intent can only get you so far. One could argue that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives even though the specific intent was to kill civilians.
To those on this thread who called the perpetrators of this attack all kinds of names and by times disqualified them from the human race: please, let's not make the same mistake as them.
To paraphrase Terry Pratchett, a writer of comical books but who offers between the slapstick and puns some tiny pearls of insight in human nature: "Evil starts with seeing humans as things". Or in modern psy-speak: evil starts with dehumanising people. That's what allows suicide bombers to set themselves off on a bus, that's what allows interahamwe to pick up a machete and butcher their neighbours, that's what allows warlords to twist 12 year old children in psyched out killers.
To paraphrase Terry Pratchett, a writer of comical books but who offers between the slapstick and puns some tiny pearls of insight in human nature: "Evil starts with seeing humans as things". Or in modern psy-speak: evil starts with dehumanising people. That's what allows suicide bombers to set themselves off on a bus, that's what allows interahamwe to pick up a machete and butcher their neighbours, that's what allows warlords to twist 12 year old children in psyched out killers.
I think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated his ability.
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
-
Cuchulain82
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:44 pm
- Location: Law School library, Vermont, USA
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Georgi]Actually quite a few people in my office were saying they thought Blair's speech was good, he seemed emotionally affected, etc. I didn't see it, so I couldn't say. Just usual Blair, I would expect.[/QUOTE]
I went out with a few people from my office yesterday evening, and they said that they thought Blair's speech was very moving and genuine. Apparently he was a little shaky, sounded emotional, etc. I didn't see it personally (and I don't know how they did either) but I was very surprised to hear that after what people had said here at SYM. The people from my office said that it was especially good when compared to Bush's reaction- apparently GWB said "folks" multiple times, referring to every group possible- ie- "We're gonna go get these folks" "...the folks in London..." etc. It is almost like he is trying to sound like a bumpkin.
Death toll as of this morning (9:15 am here... so 1:15 pm gmt?)- 50+, with multiple uncounted bodies still stuck on a train.
I went out with a few people from my office yesterday evening, and they said that they thought Blair's speech was very moving and genuine. Apparently he was a little shaky, sounded emotional, etc. I didn't see it personally (and I don't know how they did either) but I was very surprised to hear that after what people had said here at SYM. The people from my office said that it was especially good when compared to Bush's reaction- apparently GWB said "folks" multiple times, referring to every group possible- ie- "We're gonna go get these folks" "...the folks in London..." etc. It is almost like he is trying to sound like a bumpkin.
Death toll as of this morning (9:15 am here... so 1:15 pm gmt?)- 50+, with multiple uncounted bodies still stuck on a train.
Custodia legis
-
Fiona
[QUOTE=the_limey]whether you agree with it or not, a "war" with soldiers and tanks and aircraft fighting the same of an enemy is not the same thing as blowing up a bus full of innocents.
However I am quite sure that George Washington never said to is men " I know chaps, lets go into that town over there and blow up a ton of gun powder under those civvies," no, and the heathens (there can be no other word) that perpetrated these acts today are terrorists of the purest sense and no one will ever consider their acts to be for the good of their people.[/QUOTE]
I cannot agree that there is much difference. We tend to take comfort in the fact that we do not intend to kill civilians and that this makes a moral difference. So far as I know the proportion of civilians killed in conflict is steadily rising as a proportion of total deaths in war. Some support at:
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/leban ... smith2.htm
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/ ... 986/1079/a
and many others.
If there is a difference it is not just about intent it is also about how hard you are trying. Not very I think.
If you are a soldier what are you going to do ? Maybe you won't be too fussy especially since the dehumanisation of the enemy is pretty much universal
However I am quite sure that George Washington never said to is men " I know chaps, lets go into that town over there and blow up a ton of gun powder under those civvies," no, and the heathens (there can be no other word) that perpetrated these acts today are terrorists of the purest sense and no one will ever consider their acts to be for the good of their people.[/QUOTE]
I cannot agree that there is much difference. We tend to take comfort in the fact that we do not intend to kill civilians and that this makes a moral difference. So far as I know the proportion of civilians killed in conflict is steadily rising as a proportion of total deaths in war. Some support at:
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/leban ... smith2.htm
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/ ... 986/1079/a
and many others.
If there is a difference it is not just about intent it is also about how hard you are trying. Not very I think.
If you are a soldier what are you going to do ? Maybe you won't be too fussy especially since the dehumanisation of the enemy is pretty much universal
-
Georgi
- Posts: 11288
- Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Can't wait to get on the road again...
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]The people from my office said that it was especially good when compared to Bush's reaction- apparently GWB said "folks" multiple times, referring to every group possible- ie- "We're gonna go get these folks" "...the folks in London..." etc. It is almost like he is trying to sound like a bumpkin.[/QUOTE]
Don't get me started on how Bush ought to have a better grasp of rhetoric than to talk about the terrorist "folks" - he did the same after 9/11. I don't really find it appropriate - ok, so it's a colloquial word for "people", but world leaders ought to know when to speak in more formal terms.
And yes, Bush did make Blair look good.
[QUOTE=boo's daddy]It's all too easy to just write them off as "evil", but I don't buy it.[/QUOTE]
But Charles Clarke said they are very few evil needles in the giant haystack that is London! It must be true!
Don't get me started on how Bush ought to have a better grasp of rhetoric than to talk about the terrorist "folks" - he did the same after 9/11. I don't really find it appropriate - ok, so it's a colloquial word for "people", but world leaders ought to know when to speak in more formal terms.
And yes, Bush did make Blair look good.
[QUOTE=boo's daddy]It's all too easy to just write them off as "evil", but I don't buy it.[/QUOTE]
But Charles Clarke said they are very few evil needles in the giant haystack that is London! It must be true!
Who, me?!?
[QUOTE=Fiona]I cannot agree that there is much difference. We tend to take comfort in the fact that we do not intend to kill civilians and that this makes a moral difference.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. There have been civilian casualties both during the war in Iraq and now during the occupation, and please believe me when I say that there is no justificatrion for there deaths even if they were "accidents".
My point was simply that claiming a military conflict in which groups of trained professionals have chosen to fight for their country is an adequate reason to intentionally kill innocents is as abhorrent as the act itself.
Agreed. There have been civilian casualties both during the war in Iraq and now during the occupation, and please believe me when I say that there is no justificatrion for there deaths even if they were "accidents".
My point was simply that claiming a military conflict in which groups of trained professionals have chosen to fight for their country is an adequate reason to intentionally kill innocents is as abhorrent as the act itself.
England expects...
...you to visit:
limey-simey.deviantart.com
...you to visit:
limey-simey.deviantart.com
[QUOTE=Fiona]So far as I know the proportion of civilians killed in conflict is steadily rising as a proportion of total deaths in war.[/QUOTE]
True, but that has more to do with the fact that wars changed themselves. At the begining of last century (and before that) wars were either fought between nations (France vs. Germany; Spain vs. England; etc.) or were fought for freedom (American Revolution vs. England). At the end of last century most wars were fought either between ethnic groups (Tutsi vs. Hutu in Rwanda; Serbs vs. Croats and Bosnians in former Yugoslavia; Russians vs. Chechen in Chechenya; Azerbaijanis vs. Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh; etc.) or between various religios groups (Afganistan after Russians left; various militias in Lebanon; etc.).
While wars between nations were fought for land and resources, this new wars were fought with single goal in mind - extermination of another ethnic or religious group, which leads to increase in civilian casualties.
[QUOTE=Fiona]I cannot agree that there is much difference. We tend to take comfort in the fact that we do not intend to kill civilians and that this makes a moral difference.[/QUOTE]
But there is a difference. Soldiers go to war with intent of fighting other soldiers (unless reason for war is based on ethnic or religious differences).
True sometimes civilians get killed in cross-fire which is regretable, but most professional soldier will try their best not to cause civilian casuelties. In most of the above mentioned wars attrocities were mostly commited by various para-military troups, not regular army.
Terrorist, on the other hand specificaly target civilian population, and they do not care who dies, as long as they kill as many people as possible.
True, but that has more to do with the fact that wars changed themselves. At the begining of last century (and before that) wars were either fought between nations (France vs. Germany; Spain vs. England; etc.) or were fought for freedom (American Revolution vs. England). At the end of last century most wars were fought either between ethnic groups (Tutsi vs. Hutu in Rwanda; Serbs vs. Croats and Bosnians in former Yugoslavia; Russians vs. Chechen in Chechenya; Azerbaijanis vs. Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh; etc.) or between various religios groups (Afganistan after Russians left; various militias in Lebanon; etc.).
While wars between nations were fought for land and resources, this new wars were fought with single goal in mind - extermination of another ethnic or religious group, which leads to increase in civilian casualties.
[QUOTE=Fiona]I cannot agree that there is much difference. We tend to take comfort in the fact that we do not intend to kill civilians and that this makes a moral difference.[/QUOTE]
But there is a difference. Soldiers go to war with intent of fighting other soldiers (unless reason for war is based on ethnic or religious differences).
True sometimes civilians get killed in cross-fire which is regretable, but most professional soldier will try their best not to cause civilian casuelties. In most of the above mentioned wars attrocities were mostly commited by various para-military troups, not regular army.
Terrorist, on the other hand specificaly target civilian population, and they do not care who dies, as long as they kill as many people as possible.
My thoughts and prayer's go out to the victims, and the friends/families of the victims of yesterday's bombings.
Mitch:You know, um, something strange happened to me this morning... Chris Knight: Was it a dream where you see yourself standing in sort of sun-god robes on a pyramid with a thousand naked women screaming and throwing little pickles at you?Mitch: No... Chris Knight:Why am I the only one who has that dream?
-
Luis Antonio
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:00 am
- Location: In the home of the demoted.
- Contact:
I just want to say that i was on holiday in london when this happened, the explosions at the bus and at russel street station were just a few blocks away from our hotel, luckily me and my family was eating breakfast then.
however, if we had planned to leave london a day earlier, things could have been very different...
My deepest condolences to the victims of this horrible crime
however, if we had planned to leave london a day earlier, things could have been very different...
My deepest condolences to the victims of this horrible crime
This is my signature.
-
Gwalchmai
- Posts: 6252
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 11:00 am
- Location: This Quintessence of Dust
- Contact:
I am very glad that the London-based SYMers are all ok. Georgi, Yshania, Gruntboy, and others. Sleepy too? (I’m so out of touch)
Yshania’s discomfort at Blair’s first response got me to thinking. He wanted to avoid the mistake of GW Bush and tried to show an immediate reaction (instead of hiding in an airplane for hours before making an appearance), and he needed to offer words of comfort to the people of his country. But did he really have to use the opportunity to pump up his anti-terrorist rhetoric? I very much like Ken Livingston’s approach, as cited by Georgi. He talks of how well-prepared the emergency services were. This would seem to have several effects: It instills confidence in the population and complements them at a vulnerable time, but maybe more importantly, it deflates the accomplishment of the terrorists somewhat. Anything that can be done to diminish the success of any terrorist activity is good in my opinion. Immediately pointing to the great war on organized terror does not do this. Blair’s emphasizing how much of a threat terrorism is (and therefore how much good he is doing by fighting against it the way he is) only serves to promote the accomplishments of the terrorists and encourage them to continue their efforts. Livingston specifically pointed out how futile and ineffective terrorism is. I like that.
Yshania’s discomfort at Blair’s first response got me to thinking. He wanted to avoid the mistake of GW Bush and tried to show an immediate reaction (instead of hiding in an airplane for hours before making an appearance), and he needed to offer words of comfort to the people of his country. But did he really have to use the opportunity to pump up his anti-terrorist rhetoric? I very much like Ken Livingston’s approach, as cited by Georgi. He talks of how well-prepared the emergency services were. This would seem to have several effects: It instills confidence in the population and complements them at a vulnerable time, but maybe more importantly, it deflates the accomplishment of the terrorists somewhat. Anything that can be done to diminish the success of any terrorist activity is good in my opinion. Immediately pointing to the great war on organized terror does not do this. Blair’s emphasizing how much of a threat terrorism is (and therefore how much good he is doing by fighting against it the way he is) only serves to promote the accomplishments of the terrorists and encourage them to continue their efforts. Livingston specifically pointed out how futile and ineffective terrorism is. I like that.
That there; exactly the kinda diversion we coulda used.