Bombs and poverty

There are bombs exploding in London this morning – as I write, 6 confirmed explosions on the London Underground, one on a bus. Two confirmed deaths, many more injured. The Underground network has been closed, and buses are stopped. Central London mobile phone networks shut down owing to overload as everyone tries to phone everyone else to check whether they’re OK.

No announcements yet on what exactly is going on but, if it is bombs, I can think of two possibilities.

Someone’s really annoyed that Paris didn’t get the Olympics. Unlikely.
It’s aimed at the G8 summit, possibly from the anarchist/antiglobalization types, who have threatened some serious action.

If it is the second, I can think of few worse things that they can have done. Many people sympathize to some extent with the antiglobalization message, myself included. But this G8 summit is the poverty summit. MakePovertyHistory, Live8 and Tony Blair himself have placed poverty firmly at the centre of the agenda. We don’t have high expectations, but we do demand some action. However, by this violent action, the anarchist groups (if it is they) have materially harmed the prospects for change. As I’ve said, some people seem to have difficulty separating the two groups of protesters. Why, by using violence, play into the hands of those who oppose trade justice and ending poverty?

Last night, Bono announced at the Murrayfields concert that he had taken over 30 million names from the Live8 list and 175 million names from Global Action Against Poverty to the leaders at the G8 summit. That, he said, is a mandate for change. The greatest mandate that any politician has ever received in sheer numbers. How can the violence, whatever its motivation and whoever is responsible, be justified in the face of that?

(*Update*: the BBC are reporting at least 183 people treated for injuries, probably many more injured; it looks like the number killed will probably increase also; there are reports that Al Qaeda or some group associated with them might have claimed responsibility – if so, my above analysis remains, whatever the alleged justification.)
(*Update 2*: the death toll is now 33, with “hundreds” seriously injured; still no clear idea who is responsible, beyond its obviously being a co-ordinated attack.)

pax et bonum

Article posted at 12:02pm on 07 July 2005
Category: Life, Politics, Struggling, General

Much more likely to be Al-Qaeda, surely?

tony () (URL)
12:52pm on 07 July 2005

That thought had occurred to me, but there’s no way to know at present.

Whoever it is, they are actively working against international justice, not just striking as single “foe”. I wonder how an Islamic organization could justify that?

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
1:12pm on 07 July 2005

Really wanted to see your response…Guess cause we’ve been living it, Muslim terrorists were my first, and only thought. Has their signature. How do they justify their actions at all? I understand the one subway area bombed is heavily Muslim. But they have been killing their own people in Iraq for some time. There is no use trying to get it. But I’m sorry for your lot…it personally affected me emotionally after 9-11, even though I knew no one in the attacks…just hearing the stories and voice recordings from cellphones, it was gut wrenching. I cried easily…because it is a sad, sad time we live in.

cwv warrior () (URL)
03:01am on 08 July 2005

John,
You and your countrymen are in my prayers. Whatever message “they” were trying to send, I hope the the British only respond by steeling their spines and delivering the beat-down. We’re with them on that, for sure.

Hammertime () (URL)
04:05am on 09 July 2005

Thanks for the thoughts and prayers, cwv and hammer.

However, do be aware that we Brits don’t react in the way the US seems to have. We’re not even contemplating “delivering the beat-down”. We absolutely want the guilty brought to justice (not retribution), but the British way is much more reserved than the US one. We do not respond to threats and intimidation, and are well used to attacks on our nation in a way that the USA simply isn’t, especially with the terrorist campaigns we went through in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s from the IRA and the rest. We will not bow down to such pressure, and will simply become even more determined to act correctly.

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
09:27am on 09 July 2005

Perhaps the Brits no longer ‘deliver the beat-down’. Sad. Once upon a time they could be relied upon to defend themselves (one thinks of the Falklands). If you continue to harbor your delusions about how to deal with the militant wing of Islam, you deserve your fate.

Doc ()
10:08pm on 13 July 2005

Doc,
We distinguish between war (fought between armies and nations) and terrorism (fought by intelligence, police and the courts) – a crucial distinction. An army and a war are little protection against terrorism – indeed, they may be counter-productive (as in Iraq). As I said, we are well used to terrorism in the UK, and we try not to allow ourselves to be deflected from the correct course of action.

I have no delusions about the militant wing of Islam – I merely insist on the distinction between the extremists and the moderate majority, between the guilty and the innocent, between justice and revenge. And I stand behind the quote from Bono I posted here the other day – I pray that we do not become a monster in order to defeat a monster.

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
08:49am on 14 July 2005

That’s the beat down I meant, John. The English are, and never have been, the Spanish. Who was it that said something to the effect of “That island breeds men of valour”?

Hammertime () (URL)
11:25am on 15 July 2005