Bloody hell, what was that bang?
Jul. 7th, 2005 02:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksWell, an exciting couple of days for Londoners, I think you will agree. With inspired timing, I decided to work at home today. Londoners at work, I suspect, will be less worried about being blown up than they will be about how they are going to get home.
Of course, there is much that one could write about this, but I'll just say that the most impressive speech about the affair came from Ken Livingstone in Singapore. Tony Blair was clearly deeply shaken, and I don't think that we will see as many major leaders in agreement on a single stage again in my lifetime. But Livingstone's speech was the only one that got me nodding my head in vigorous agreement. To quote single parts of it would be to reduce its impact, but the gist of it was:
people come to London from all over the world because no-one tells them how they should live their lives. You who are trying to kill us want to tell us how we should live. No matter how many Londoners you may kill, Christian or Moslem, Hindu or Jew, white or black, you cannot win, because we will never let you tell us how we should live.
As a PR person from Soho might say. Absolutely.
Of course, there is much that one could write about this, but I'll just say that the most impressive speech about the affair came from Ken Livingstone in Singapore. Tony Blair was clearly deeply shaken, and I don't think that we will see as many major leaders in agreement on a single stage again in my lifetime. But Livingstone's speech was the only one that got me nodding my head in vigorous agreement. To quote single parts of it would be to reduce its impact, but the gist of it was:
people come to London from all over the world because no-one tells them how they should live their lives. You who are trying to kill us want to tell us how we should live. No matter how many Londoners you may kill, Christian or Moslem, Hindu or Jew, white or black, you cannot win, because we will never let you tell us how we should live.
As a PR person from Soho might say. Absolutely.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
..and here we go again?
Date: 2005-07-07 03:36 pm (UTC)It's very strange but my reaction to the death toll of 30-50 is bizarrely detached. There's a feeling of deja vu about bombing London stations and the thought that if this is Al Kayeeda's (sp?) thing then it's not so bad considering we are probably number 2 target on the list.
Whether I'd be so blase about it if Nicki was in London, just over the road from the Kings Cross location, I don't know.
But we did get very bored by the IRA doing this sort of thing. They were more of a lower level nuisance with their regular railway station hoax alerts. If it's Thursday it must be Paddington. I am more encouraged by the whole thing, although I recognise for those more directly affected, feelings will be different.
The Germans did it more thoroughly
Date: 2005-07-08 06:02 pm (UTC)Actually, if Saddam Hussein had managed to organize an air strike on London, it would have had a similar effect in terms of casualties, and it would have counted as a normal act of war.
Sure, it's a horrible thing to happen to the people affected, but Tony Blair could reasonably have anticipated this sort of thing when deciding to join in the war. When you hit people, sometimes they hit back -- whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter.
Re: The Germans did it more thoroughly
Date: 2005-07-08 06:17 pm (UTC)In which case, the terrorists showed remarkable prescience.
The Al-Qaeda doctrine is based on, if anything, opposition to an ideology (America's) that would remain in place whether the US had invaded Iraq or not. Much though I would like to believe that standing up to Bush and opposiing an invasion of Iraq would have kept us off the hit list, I fear that would not have been the case. And, stubborn bastards that we are (unlike the wimpish Spaniards) it makes us even less likely to oppose Blair now.
Re: The Germans did it more thoroughly
Date: 2005-07-08 08:19 pm (UTC)No, the Americans have been making enemies in the Middle East long before the war in Iraq.
Opposing Blair now is hardly an option, and I wasn't suggesting it: he has no real opposition in current British politics.
-- Jonathan
Re: Wimpish Spaniards
Date: 2005-07-09 05:54 am (UTC)But it's worth bearing in mind that an overwhelming majority of Spaniards had never wanted to join the war in Iraq in the first place. Aznar defied the voters in sending troops to Iraq, and they had a right to punish him for it, even though the timing was unfortunate.
If you'd accuse them of wimpishness for wanting to stay out of the war, I don't think I agree. Spain's armed forces exist to defend Spain, and arguably its vital interests abroad. Iraq certainly isn't Spain, and I don't think it counts as a Spanish vital interest either.
If I had friends or relations among Spanish troops sent to Iraq, I guess I'd be cross with Aznar too for putting their lives at risk just so that he could sit at a table with the big boys.
Don't get me started on Livingstone!
Date: 2005-07-11 12:31 am (UTC)It might be an idea for the Met to interview him on his return from Singapore, to see whether he can provide alibis for some of his friends.