I'm right, whatever the cost

This was a reaction to 7/7, and also reflects my growing unease that the majority of both left and right wing camps couldn't give a shit about the cost in human lives.



The last 7 days have been what might be euphemistically referred to as "Interesting Times". What with bombings in London, riots in Belfast, and the re-emergence of the Mullet as a fashion statement, it's almost like being in the 1980's again. All we need is for the country's 27 remaining miners to go on strike and get beaten to a bloody puddle by some overly zealous policemen, and the illusion will be complete.

Upon hearing of the bombings, I confess that my first reaction was "My word; the French Olympic Bid team really ARE bad losers aren't they?". Self-congratulatory sarcasm soon gave way to a somewhat despairing sense of helplessness; I go on at great length about the War on Terror, and it's destablising effect on the security of ordinary people like you and me. Yet here was something that was happening as a direct result of the WoT, and I couldn't do jack sh!t except talk about it. Did this prove that Dubya and Tony's little crusade does have a basis in reality? Or was it a case of proving my point for me; that the only reason a War on Terror is "necessary" is because that self same War has increased the likelihood of terrorism across the western world?

Before any of that though, I think it's worth making the following couple of points; firstly, in the aftermath of the bombs in London, the way that both the emergency services and ordinary Londoners dealt with it left me awestruck with admiration. The sense of calm, of stoicism, of a determination not to panic...I'm not going to try to claim these traits as part of any notion of national character. But I am going to say that, to a very large extent, they defeated the purpose of any such terrorism. I'm sure that the sense of anger and outrage will grow in the coming weeks, but as a knee-jerk reaction to a dreadful event, one cannot fault it.

Secondly, both Blair and Ken Livingstone (the mayor of London) struck exactly the right note in their responses. The former displayed his usual stage-managed affront and outrage, but his language was both temperate and soothing to the nation at large in my opinion. He displayed that nebulous quality called "statesmanship", and for all the gallons of vitriol I have in reserve for Blair, that was what was needed from a Prime Minister. Livingstone on the other hand cut through the bullsh!t and called the bombings exactly what they were; a cowardly and indiscriminate attack on ordinary people. The bombings would not make life more difficult for the people who make the decisions that generate the outrage that provides extremists with their recruits (if one is of an extremely paranoid mindset, one could make a case for it making their lives easier...). All it did was create a little pocket of misery, nothing more.

So then; what does last weeks bombing say about the War on Terror? Unsurprisingly, my conclusion is that the bombing indicates that the Iraqi land grab has made the world a far more dangerous place. I've found that a lot of the more Pro-war people whom I talk to with any regularity are claiming that the bombing proves that the Anti-Terror legislation brought in by the government was not just a tactic to keep people uncertain and afraid, but something that was desperately necessary. My response is always the same; how did that "duck and cover" style pamphlet of last year help prepare us for the bomb? And how could putting tanks in public places (as was done in the terror drill of not so long ago) made even the slightest of differences to the events of last Thursday? How would ID cards have prevented the bombs exploding?

The only planning that made any difference was the quiet preparations of the emergency services for terror attacks, and those plans pre-date the ludicrous and unwinnable WoT. Not one of the high profile "WOOOO....darkie terrorists will murder your budgie!! Vote for us and we'll keep you safe!" announcements made by the government made a blind bit of difference to the bombs going off.

I also think that the government's reaction to anyone who attempted to draw a link between the WoT and the bombing backs up what I'm trying to say. George Galloway expressed outrage at the bombs and the devastation to ordinary Londoners, but made it clear that it was an inevitable price of the WoT. And the government...launched the kind of ferocious and highly personal attack on him that they usual try to condemn when made by the likes of Galloway. Note, however, that they did not try to give any hard factual reasons why he was wrong. The LibDem leader Charles Kennedy made much the same point yesterday, and faced a similarly smear-heavy/fact-lite attack. Dear Lord, the speaker of the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) stated the obvious in his condemnation of the bombing; his words were presented by many news organisations in a "Look what the evil foreign man is saying" kind of fashion, but they couldn't present anything in the way of facts as to why he was wrong.

And the response of the pro war faction of politics? "Oh, it didn't take long for the 'I told you so' brigade to start crowing about this, did it?" Well...no, it didn't. Does that made them wrong, or do you simply hate to admit they have a point? Leaving aside this sour grapes on the part of those in favour of war, that did get me thinking about something else...

Amidst all the inevitable "He said, she said" bickering resulting from this bombing and the reasons that it happened, I've seen very little from either side talking about compassion for the poor sods who lost lives, limbs, and loves as a result of the bomb. The initial messages of "Christ, is everyone okay?" have given way to the apportioning of blame. In fact, the only mention of compassion I've read since the first 24 hours after this squalid little murder was on the website where the Extremist organisation claimed responsibility for the bombing. Apparently it was proof of Allah's mercy and compassion; clearly their definition of those words differ somewhat from mine.

But then again, should I be surprised? A lot of the talk about the Iraqi people suffering the equivalent of a daily London bombing (at least) is, although clearly well intentioned, usually the precursor to a political statement about how this PROVES that Dubya and Blair are pure, moronic evil. I'm just as guilty of doing that (in defence of that school of thought, I would say that at least we acknowledge the human cost of the land grab. The coalition refuses to even keep a count of how many Iraqi civilians are killed in the name of securing their freedom...), so I find myself rather shamefaced even as I make the criticism.

It seems that, in amongst all the partisan discussions that use loss of life or the threat of it that are used to fuel the pro and anti war ideologies, we very easily forget the important thing; the loss of life itself. I've seen people say that the bombing shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things because, hey, look at all the poor Iraqi's being murdered by the coalition bombing. By the same token, I also heard someone advance the charming opinion that Iraqi loss of life shouldn't be given as much weight as the loss of Western ones because their history means they don't place the same value on life as we do. Both of these arguments have their intellectual merits, but as statements of humanity and empathy they are about as worthwhile as a charity drive for Windsor family. What the hell happened to the very basic idea that killing people, for whatever reason, is a fundamentally bad thing to do?

But no; the deaths of 50+ people in London has, together with the deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bali, New York, Madrid, Sudan, Israel, Uzbekistan, Russia, Chechnya, (I could go on but you get the idea...), those deaths have become one more aspect of a cause for people who, if they're honest, care more about being proved right than about the death and misery. Be they the lunatic fringe of the left (one of whom claimed, within hours of the bombs going off, that it was clearly CIA who had planted them; had he been referring to the fact that Al-Quaida only exists because of the CIA, he would have had a point...), or the lunatic fringe of the right (Ann Coulter's claim that the whole War on Terror can be ended by "killing their leaders and converting the rest to Christianity" never fails to raise a chuckle and a cold sweat), or all points in between, we all seem to lose sight of the fact that people are dying for no reason than someone, somewhere, wants to be proved right.

Maybe I'm just mellowing in my old age and coupledom, but I don't think a human life is a fair price to pay for a group of people to say "HA! I KNEW I was right!". If ideas aren’t worth dying for (and I don't believe they are), then they're not worth killing for either. By all means, debate the rights and wrongs of the WoT (damn sure I'm still going to do so...), just try to keep in mind that some things are more important than our opinions, however justified we feel them to be.