All content is copyright © 2000-2008 Seldo.Com and licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-sharealike license. Remix away!
Written with Code Igniter in PHP. Fuelled by tea.
...so I guess on July 9th, 2011 I should be very, very careful about where I go?
So, as everybody and his dog has already related, a plot to blow up multiple transatlantic flights has been foiled by UK police. The presumed terrorists were evidently planning to use liquid explosives, composed of ordinary materials and mixed on board and detonated with small electronic devices disguised as everyday items. Britain's airports have gone into massive security alerts, and hand baggage and all liquids have been banned from flying.
Of course, when an attack is foiled, it's all very well for everybody who's been not-bombed, but what of the poor news networks? Deprived of scenes of carnage and heartbreak, they're stuck with only hastily-arranged interviews with "experts" of dubious provenance and endless retelling of the only actual victims of the attack, those of the massive delays to flights -- "Oh god, there's nearly been a terror attack! It's made me 90 minutes late for work!" doesn't really have the same emotional gravitas. Mind you, when there actually was a terrorist bombing last July I was only an hour late.
The British media have so far been admirably careful with their use of language and admirably restrained about speculating, but there is a certain depressing inevitability to the news that all 24 of the suspects are so far apparently young British Muslims. We* as a nation have done nothing since July 7th to lessen the disillusionment and alienation felt by this segment of society, and since September 11th have actually been actively making things worse.
And what exactly is it that young British Muslims are so angry about? Let's remind ourselves, paraphrasing from an interview last year with a friend of mine who also happens to be young, British and Muslim:
We've not done anything about any of this. We've not even tried. So we shouldn't be surprised that people are still trying to blow us up.
* Again the schizophrenic use of "we". This time I mean the UK.
All content is copyright © 2000-2008 Seldo.Com and licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-sharealike license. Remix away!
Comments
Chez
Point Two. I have to admit, I don't know enough about this subject. I do know that it is Earl Mountbatten's fault, and therefore Britain's. Whether there is anything we can do, I don't know.
Point Three: most of the killing is being done by Islamic terrorists. Since the invasion fewer civilians have been killed than Saddam - a Sunni Muslim - was killing. We can't win.
Point Four: indifference? Well, we intervened on behalf of the Muslims. Aside from that, the UN rules of engagement were pathetically weak (see: Sebrencia). That's the UN's fault, not the West's.
Point Five: bullshit. The example given lacks context and several basic facts (e.g. WHY does the soldier kill the child? The solider is in uniform - you can see him coming, you can't the suicide bomber. These are important differnece with implications on who gets called a terrorist.)
Point Six: Again, I call bullshit. There is a massive difference between those who kill civilians *on purpose* and those who go to great lengths not to. If your friend can't see that, that's his failing.
My reaction here is to his points - not yours, Laurie. You're right, we do need to engage these concerns. The strategic battle is one of ideas, not bombs or bombs. And in places it means convincing some people that they're wrong.
Just because some people are prepared to murder innocent people to "make a statement" doesn't mean they're right. I hope it's not the case, but your post does sound like you're saying they are.
Tom Williams
Robert