July 07, 2005

Bloody Hell – London attacked

A friend came into my room just now and told me there were several explosions in London, including at Edgeware Road and Russell Sq., tube stations whihc are regularly used by many of my London friends and family. So naturally it was a bit of a scare even for me sitting in Cryfields watching Dirty Harry movies.

Now there are two choices. Londoners and, by extension, the rest of Britain can go the way of America and plop for alarmism, fearing a terroirst attack more than the drug-dealers and pimps next door or the car coming very close to hitting them as they ponder when the next dustbin-bomb is going to go off ooooor they can pick themselves up, brush off and accept that no form of travel is free from risk, neither accidental nor deliberate.

Commuters in Tokyo are more wary of hentai-gropers than they are of sarin gas attacks and I think that is the attitude London should take instead of disappearing down the well of fear. And it's not the first time London has suffered such an outrage – in recent memory there have been bus bombings and restaurant bombings perpetrated by non-Muslims. I guess it's going to be pointless wondering whether or not this bombing was down to Muslims for one reason or another. So as a Muslim I feel disgusted with what's just happened and ashamed of whoever has done it.

On top of that I've never understood the stupidity of some people. Don't fucking shit on your own doorstep. It's bad enough directly attacking non-Muslim civilians, but then you go and bloody target Edgeware Road and Russel Square, teeming with Muslims and non-British students. What the hell are you thinking? If you want to go and attack non-Muslims, there are plenty of justifiable targets in the American military stationed in Iraq or in half of the middle east. Why go and attack one of the best multicultural areas in the world? And why go and make the lives of Muslims in London even more difficult and open to attack.


- 17 comments by 1 or more people Not publicly viewable

[Skip to the latest comment]
  1. "If you want to go and attack non-Muslims, there are plenty of justifiable targets in the American military stationed in Iraq or in half of the middle east."

    There's no such thing as justifiable terrorism. But I guess that's not what you're saying.

    I agree we shouldn't overreact. Unlikely when we're used to the IRA.

    07 Jul 2005, 12:09

  2. If there is indeed a "war on terror" then a military target would be a legitimate one, although of course it wouldn't make the cause that such groups are fighting for any more justifiable.

    I suppose in a way it's "better" that a multicultural area is targetted, as it underlines the point that radical Islamic groups are acting only in their own interests, rather than in the name of all Muslims.

    07 Jul 2005, 13:16

  3. Yeeeeeeh…not the most intelligent of responses there Hamid.

    07 Jul 2005, 16:03

  4. Perhaps I should spell myself out in clearer terms. I have no problems with attacks directed against the American military. But to go and bomb the tube or any civilian area just makes me sick.

    07 Jul 2005, 20:12

  5. "I have no problems with attacks directed against the American military."

    What about attacks against the British military?

    08 Jul 2005, 20:06

  6. If the British military is acting in an illegal manner then yes, it does become a legitimate target. This does not mean that I think British servicemen deserve to die, but the government has definately made them legitimate targets for attack.

    08 Jul 2005, 20:34

  7. Right. So you think the Army is at the same level as a bunch of murdering terrorist thugs.

    Since when did the Army send suicide bombers into crowds of civilans?

    08 Jul 2005, 22:50

  8. There's no need to kill yourself as well when you're killing crowds of civilians within the safety of the HMS Victory or your latest jet-fighte.

    Just because the British army contains British people does not make the British army justified in every action it takes.

    09 Jul 2005, 01:47

  9. So, er, i'm in the British Army, am i a justifiable target? These guys just want to kill as many people as possible in order to shock us, so I doubt they will ever attack those who can shoot back, outside the current theatre in Iraq. Where incidently i have many friends who are working out there as we speak to better the lives of its inhabitants at the risk of their own. And i may be joining them once i leave uni.

    Bad hamid.


    09 Jul 2005, 23:01

  10. Yes, if you are a soldier in the British army, you are a justifiable target. You think people should bend over and let the British army have its way with their backsides? The BA and BAF aren't currently being put to use defending Britain, but are being used to invade other nations. Within that context, by joining the British army, you've become a justifiable target. Don't confuse what I've said with "I want you to die". It just means that should you be killed in combat, I don't think you can criticise the people attacking you for it.

    You back from France yet?

    10 Jul 2005, 06:36

  11. Right…

    So by trying to keep the peace in another country, we are now justifiable targets. Good-o.

    I can't remember the british army having it's way with anybody's backsides to be honest, although even if it did that sort of thing is allowed now apparently.

    I suspect your energy would be put to better use haranging the people who enjoy blowing up innocent civilians, rather than the ones that are standing between you and them. Just out of curiosity do you object to peacekeeping missions elsewhere in the world? Since that has been the main role of the british army since the end of ther second world war. Perhaps a world view that has more than 2 sides would also help.

    And yes i am back from france.


    P.S. If i get killed in combat i doubt i will be criticising anybody, or indeed doing anything again, but i doubt my last thoughts will be on the lines of 'oh well, i probably deserved it, those poor terrorists are only acting in self defence'.

    10 Jul 2005, 08:27

  12. "So by trying to keep the peace in another country…"

    Just as American soldiers were legitimate targets for attack when they invaded Korea and Vietnam, so are the British in invading nations in the Middle East. The British did not have an international mandate for launching their war.

    The people who "enjoy blowing up innocent civilians" don't really frequent my Cryfields room nor do they blog here. Rest assured, when I meet one of them and they say "Hey guy! I enjoy killing people" I will give them a serious haranguing.

    I find it ironic that you criticise me for having a one-sided world view. I'm not going to criticise people attacking legitimate and aggressive military targets. As for the British keeping the peace since the end of the second world war, the people being carried on the Belgrano would probably disagree with you. British inability to actually do much else for the past 50 years aside, If another nation invaded Britain, I doubt you would be attacking those who were attacking the attackers.

    P.S. If you are unfortunate enough to be killed in combat, that's a shame. But if you join the army and get sent off into a combat area then you should expect that there is a risk of dying. I would hope that your last thought wouldn't be "Oh hell. I can't believe somebody's shooting at me. I mean, I came here to hand out flowers!

    10 Jul 2005, 10:07

  13. I'm sorry, but the Belgrano wasn't a passenger ship. It was a warship, flying the flag of a country which was occupying British territory. It is the very definition of a 'legitimate' target.

    The reason we and the Americans didn't have an international mandate to attack Iraq is that many interests in the UN were doing very well out of the pre-war status quo. France and Russia involvement in selling weapons to Saddam, oil-for-food, etc.

    British troops are now propping up a regime which, for all its faults, is a thousand times better than Saddam's. And it is democratically elected.

    In addition, British (and American) troops are the armies of democratically-elected governments. Their mandate to perform acts of violence derives from the their respective governments, whose authority in turn derives from the people. This is a million miles apart from the Islamist terrorists, whose horrible ideaolgy is their 'justification' for their acts of terrorism.

    Therefore, the British army is not a legitimate target for attack.

    10 Jul 2005, 11:19

  14. I am actually reaching the point where I believe the US/UK armies should withdraw from Iraq. The Iraqis want them out, huge numbers of people across the world say what they are doing is illegal…

    So let them withdraw. Then Iraq will implode on itself, Iraqi casualties will rocket, and the place will eventually settle back into a Saddam-like regime. At which point the rest of the world will look at it and say "Oops. Sorry about that".

    10 Jul 2005, 12:19

  15. You say the US invaded korea. The US didn't invade Korea, the US and many other countries were asked as part of a UN security force by the South Korean government to help repel an invasion by the North Korean army. By your logic as the 'invasion' was by the UN every member of the UN should be a legitimate target for attack.

    If the UN and the US had done nothing south korea would be like north korea which i'm sure you know isn't a very nice place. Hopefully Iraq willl go the way of south korea – a highly successful democratic society.

    11 Jul 2005, 02:19

  16. Hey you're right, "invade" wasn't the most appropriate term. But you should know that The US took military action before it obtained a UN mandate and without making a congressional declaration of war. The UN joined later and only because the USSR had been boycotting the UN over Mongolia. At the time the UN was essentially NATO.

    You realise of course that the North has not only been crippled by the Kims but also by US actions during and after the war? More napalm was dropped on NK towns and villages in one year than during the entire Viet Nam war. Pyongyang was nearly completely destroyed, the US targetted several irrigation and hydroelectric damns, flooding swathes of NK land and killing hundreds of thousands of NK civilians. Since then the rash of trade embargoes etc has continued to work together with dire mismanagement to cripple Korea. North Korea 'isn't a very nice place" partly because of US action.

    11 Jul 2005, 05:59

  17. Not much i can do to press my point if you persist in seeing an intention of keeping peace in an area already torn by conflict as an invasion. I'm not just talking about Iraq, the British Army is active in many areas of the world trying to keep people from shooting each other.

    Personally i didn't agree with the invasion of Iraq, but now we are there we need to stay there as keepers of the peace, if we leave things will only get worse.

    And stop lumping me in with the Americans. Please.

    11 Jul 2005, 16:48

Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.


Blog archive



July 2005

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Jun |  Today  | Aug
            1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31


Most recent comments

  • JHVJL by SAMRSAG on this entry
  • Nothing surprises me any more. No wonder there is so little trust in these people. by Quinny Buzz on this entry
  • It really is a disgrace. by fisher price rainforest jumperoo on this entry
  • And now our police and security at Heathrow airport are not allowed to wear a small British flag on … by Quinny Buzz on this entry
  • Yes…get them out, completely change the government. Although I don't like the look of either party… by Hauck Infinity on this entry

Copyright Notice

Search this blog

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder