One’s first thoughts after horrific events like those which have taken place in London this morning are for the dead, the injured, those who are caring for the injured, and the families left behind. For the dead: eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, and may perpetual light shine upon them. For the injured and the families: we have little to offer you but our compassion and our prayers. For the caregivers: we’re in awe of your courage and your spirit.
Let’s be frank: it’s simply impossible to harden a subway system or bus transport system sufficiently to prevent an attack like this. And the more targets we harden the more likely it is that even more vulnerable and difficult-to-harden targets will be struck. If we harden government buildings, transport systems are struck. If we harden transport systems, hospitals or shopping centers or schools will we struck.
And police forces cannot and should not be in a position to prevent attacks like this. The magnitiude of that kind of police power and how invasive it would have to be to prevent attacks is simply thinkable.
Passive acceptance of attack or appeasement invite escalation: once you start paying Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.
The only alternatives we have open to us to prevent such attacks are the “forward strategy” of which our current activities in Iraq are the mildest and the most merciful and the approach that Israel is taking with respect to the Palestinians: quarantine. The picture of a quarantine of one sixteenth of humanity is not a pretty one.
But I thought we were fighting them in Iraq so we wouldn’t have to fight them at “home”?
Or is London not “home” because it’s not in the US? bombs in the UK doesn’t matter, as long as it’s not here?
Or wait! They are terrorists! those sneaky Brits! and they’re bombing themselves?
But it was in retaliation for Britain’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Does that mean we’re next? — DUH much?
Respect MP George Galloway says: “We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such warnings.”
Blair? Bush? Hello? Anyone home?
Still no, huh.
I feel responsible for these attacks — because I didn’t do enough to stop this or any other war. It’s just not right. There is no way to stop violence with violence. It’s just not possible.
“Our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism upon the world,” Blair said.
But.. our determination to defend our values and our way of life IS CAUSING DEATH AND DESTRUCTION TO INNOCENT PEOPLE. It’s all the same. It has to stop.
SF Knitter, if you browse through my blog a little more closely you’ll find that I didn’t support either the invasion of Afghanistan or the invasion of Iraq. I inclined to a “seal the borders” approach. I’m certainly opened to suggestions on stopping the death of innocent people. Got any?
SF Knitter has it wrong – it IS possible to stop violence with violence, if you use enough violence! In our Revolutionalr War, men fought with rules – NO CIVILIANS are to be targeted or harmed (that’s why the bright red and blue coats – so you could tll soldiers from civilians). Today’s militant terrorists have no such scruples, and ALL are targets, even their own children! Need to treat them like a cancer on more civilized society (or termites in a house) and exterminate them all (if you can’t tell the goodied from the bad’ns, kill ’em all and let God sort them out!). Extreme? Sure, but I’m tired of half-way measures, and, Yes, MY folks are worth more (to me) that THEY are.
L Gordon