End the Bombings of All Innocents

Much has already been written in bloggieworld about the bombings in London this morning.  My thoughts pretty much went along the lines of: oh my god, that's awful; great, we'll soon be drowned in the idiocy of the media and "world leaders"; don't that many people die in Iraq daily?; it must not be fun to be an anti-G8 protester in Scotland right now; i'm going to ride BART this evening; oh my god, that's awful.

As many have already formulated their thoughts, I figured I'd compile some of those.  May we mourn this tragedy and fight against the reactionaries who will attempt to hijack it for their own draconian ends. 

The Ethical Anarchists have a statement on Indymedia UK,

We disagree entirely with theories of collateral damage and the idea that the way to get to those in power is through killing their subjects. Not only is it outrageously counterproductive, but it is a crime against humanity. Such types of acts tend not to touch people in power, but poor and average working people - those who ride in public transport, not in armoured vehicles protected by bodyguards. Everything we do in our struggle against the state and economic order is in the firm belief that we all can make life better for the average person - not destroy it.

Two brief statements from British anarchist groups on Anarkismo.net,

We condemn the use of violence against ordinary people and the perpetrators of the violence whether they be Islamists or anyone else. We believe their ideology and actions are at total odds with our aims and beliefs and will never help oppressed people in any part of the globe.

the common man writes,

Bush, bin-Laden, Blair: all cut from the same cloth and all safe from the consequences of their sick, fucked-up minds.

And linked to this post at the dissembly line,

How did we end up here?

7 bombs & 50+ dead in London, a continual hell in Iraq, ongoing violence and resurgence of Taliban scum in Afghanistan, American neo-cons trampling across nations and people in an attempt to impose a New World Order Empire, torture a rational discussion topic on daytime TV, climate change and environmental degradation threatening ecogeddon, the rich still getting richer while the poor are ground in to the dirt, in the year 2005 people still starving to death in their thousands [...]

red cedar's london meditation,

the notion of becoming collateral damage on a skytrain or ferry, in transit to one more day in the office is horrifying - but i’m pretty sure equally horrifying is the imprisonment, torture or death of one’s children, husband or wife at the hands of us and allied troops.

The Anarchocyclist goes on a rant encompassing several issues,

People are fucking starving and dying all over the world so that white corporations in the north can make mega-profits, and they don’t see any moral problems with that. but 30 white people get blown up and suddenly it matters. Why can’t they feel any of the grief and rage that i feel for all of the victims of their ongoing imperial projects around the globe? It’s been going on for centuries, and it’s still intensifying.

Finally, Anarchist6[zero]6 shares some Thoughts on London Attacks,

Then there is the fact that so many ordinary people will be affected by the attacks – whether wounded, grieving or simply terrified.  The group who carried out the attack explained, in their own moronic flawed logic, that they have 'punished' the UK government. Well news flash – by killing ordinary people you have not punished the government – you have helped them.

My condolences to all those touched in some way by the attacks, and to all those soon to be touched by the backlash.

Comments

[sean]

Here's my post on the events...

http://tothebarricades.blogspot.com/2005/07/i-woke-up-this-morning-and-watched-cnn.html

[Smitty]

Anarchists are profoundly stupid people who serve as megaphones for psychotic killers.

[scott]

thanks sean, i like what you wrote. may we all stop being spectators.

[Womble]

Bloody unbelievable. Not a single person of those you have quoted here actually condemned the terrorist attack for what it was. And neither did you. It's all along the "you think that's bad? Look at Iraq" lines in the best case, and in the worst case they condemn the attack because it supposedly helped Blair (that is, if it would harm Blair, they wouldn't mind all that much).

[Prettysick]

I guess that, as long as I wave a red flag and scream about Bush/Hitler, I can do pretty much anything and get their support, as long as it does not exceed what we imagine is happening in Iraq on a daily basis. Awesome, dude!

[elemental]

24/7 maudlin news coverage, sanctimony from world leaders who kill thousands of people every month, outraged right wingers pointing fingers at liberals for not showing the proper amount of piss and spittle at terrorism, and Fox News is happy because they think it will unite us (ad their security stocks will go up).

Get over yourselves, right-wing fucks. We get it - killing white people is bad. Now fuck off.

Poor old Womble, still not reading the post, just regurgitating his "keeper of the gate" response. The majority of the -- thanks Scott for posting them -- statements condemn the attacks on innocent civilians.

I think most of the world -- that is the non-knee jerk right wingers and Fox news -- appreciate some context and history when trying to understand terrible things that happen.

[adwred]

Sorry my post above

[Womble]

Poor old awdred, still not reading my posts before replying to them.

I've read Scott's post and links. I don't see him condemning the attack. I see him trying to ride it. The blood in the streets of London hasn't dried up yet and he is already trying to exploit the deaths by making references to Iraq and whatever.

Imagine a guest at your father's funeral coming up to you and saying "I am very sorry for the death of your father just like I am for the deaths of 1000 Africans who died of starvation the same day". That's more or less what Scott and his quotees are doing. It's not "context and history", its a blatant, in-your-face disrespect for the dead.

[adwred]

Okay that example makes no sense at all, actually it just reminds us that when death or horror happens, we do place in to a context that makes sense to us.

I have never been to a funeral where discussions don't involve reasons why the death happened, the universal experience of sorrow and pain, the history and life of the deceased.

When you attend a funeral you make no attempt to understand how this event fits into the world you continue to live in? That's a bit sad.

So, why don't you lay off your sanctimonious line about how Scott, or any of the links provided, should mourn or try to understand the events in London. Your judgement is peevish and moralistic, and no one should have to apologize to you for not "mourning correctly".

[scott]

Womble, almost all of the links I provided explicitly condemn the attacks. Next time, why don't you make a checklist for us, "How to Appropriately Post After a Terrorist Attack", and I'll distribute it to everyone.

It seems you are opposed to contextualizing events and, like the media, Bush, Blair, etc., view terrorism as occurring in a vaccuum. Well, it doesn't, and you can get mad at us for pointing that out, but is still doesn't change anything.

And placing it in context does nothing to justify it either. It's horrible and we all condemn it. That doesn't mean we can't try to understand it and all its implications.

As for the ones trying to ride it, that would be Bush, Blair, et al, who are using this tragedy to push their own agenda, just as they did with 9/11.

Question for Womble: Were the Spanish who voted out Aznar disrespecting the dead by connecting the dots?

[Womble]

"Next time, why don't you make a checklist for us, "How to Appropriately Post After a Terrorist Attack", and I'll distribute it to everyone."

It'll be a short one, trust me:

1)When you condemn a terrorist attack, you condemn a terrorist attack. You do not condemn "violence in general". (You'll get a grasp on this one easily Scott. When you condemn Israel, you never condemn "violence in general" or "bombings of all innocents", so just apply the same skill in all cases).
2)Under no circumstances are you to use the words "but", "however" or "nevertheless".
3)If you get the urge to exploit the death of the attack victims for political or ideological purposes, at least have the decency to not do it in the very first post you make about their death.

[Womble]

Ohh forgot that one:

"Were the Spanish who voted out Aznar disrespecting the dead by connecting the dots?"

Actually, the Spanish have always denied that the Madrid attack had determined the elections outcome. Even if it wasn't true, it shows that they did not want to appear dancing on the graves the way you just did.