Multiple blasts paralyse London

[Asian]

Think John Simpson (who I personally think is a really good reporter) sums it up nicely in his report this week.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4671577.stm

one of the best quotes I've seen in ages is

The huge crowds who watched and joined in Sunday's parade were London's answer to all the fear and anger and excitability of the past few days; a Churchillian hand-signal to the bombers.

Legend

[Asian]

I love the BBC, this one made me crack up, especially the bit about the congestion charges,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4672195.stm

[mharky]

No matter what one thinks of the rights and wrongs of invading brutal and oppressive regimes, such actions can never justify acts against civilians such as those in London.

why?

It's Okey if we do it, is it?

If you invaded my country I'd blow your ass up Guest.

[FatBoy]

If you invaded my country I'd blow your ass up Guest.

I think perhaps the point is the people who got killed weren't the people who did the invading.

Right or wrong the invasions at least took place under the internationally agreed convention for doing so. Always struck me as bizarre there is such a convention but there is.

[Ed]

Right or wrong the invasions at least took place under the internationally agreed convention for doing so. Always struck me as bizarre there is such a convention but there is.

I rather suspect that the people killed in or as a result of the invasions weren't the ones who agreed such conventions either...

I think the point is that whether something is logically and morally (and possibly even legally) right or wrong is not based upon whether or not it follows internationally agreed conventions. IMHO, actions which result in large numbers of people getting killed generally fall into the "wrong" category, regardless of international conventions.

[FatBoy]

I'm not disagreeing with that. Just saying two things: Two wrongs don't make a right, and that the actions carried out in our name (against our wishes or otherwise) are at least legal.

[Ed]

I'm not disagreeing with that. Just saying two things: Two wrongs don't make a right, and that the actions carried out in our name (against our wishes or otherwise) are at least legal.

agree on the first thing, as for the second thing I'm not sure there's yet been a definitive answer to that question, which suggests that it is at a minimum pushing the boundaries of legality. and as far as I'm concerned, its legality or otherwise doesn't affect my opinion of it.

[FatBoy]

There was a definitive answer given before "we" went into Iraq, and that hasn't officially been challenged as far as I know. As to whether it would stand up if challenged is another question.

Personally I agree "we" are in the moral wrong to have gone in (see other thread on Iraq). The reason for the post was more because people with views like Mharky seems to have i.e. "you bomb me I bomb you" are the cause of all unrest. The vast majority of people I think and hope are of the opinion that all wars/bombing/general unrest should stop.

Peronsally my thought are with those who are injured and the families of the dead. Not out for retribution, or thinking we had it coming.

[Braddie]

To be honest the legality (and how any event will be considered historically) is decided by the victor and not the loser.

[Asian]

I don't think this dicussion is one of yes or no, right or wrong, moral or immoral, it's far more complex than anyone seems to accept.

Look at the news today (once again for me, three times lucky) of the anniversary of the massacre of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica here.

The UN sent troops in when this first started but those troops had to sit back and watch the massacre of civilians as the UN rules of engagement did not allow them to intervene unless they were shot at them selves first, which didn't happen and the massacres continued.

Should we sit back and watch such atrocities from a far and say "well it's their own battle they can deal with it" or do we intervene and try and resolve it by some means? what is moral and what is immoral? This is but a pin prick on the surface but all this stereo typing of the "west", "islam", "Muslims" what ever is a load of crap. It's not one against the other. At the end of the day the vast majority of people just want to have a secure living environment in which to live and the freedom to enjoy life to the max, we are lucky enough to have pretty much had that for 60yrs with the very odd exception, a lot of other nations have not.

What is needed is for everyone to just chill out and stop this hatered thing, live life and get out there, not have comments from the Mharky Nixon school of life saying "I'll blow your ass up guest". Get on with life, stop wasting society away or we may as well destroy everything and give it back to the cockroaches from which life came, they'd probably do a lot better job of getting on with life, the world would be a lot cleaner, we wouldn't waste the earths resources and destroy the ecosystem.

Choose life, and not the big T.V. or the society in which we are moving towards. Help others and make peace with one another.

Tired of all this in hindsight bashing of policies, act now and make a difference of whats to come, chill the nope out!

[FatBoy]

It is complex and as I said before I don't have all the answers. My own personal opinion is that by forcing democracy on a country it isn't really democracy is it? Our country had a massive civil war to become democratic and while I hate the loss of life I think we have to sit back and let countries come to their own choices.

[mharky]

Be aware:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4671111.stm

[SIman]

Be aware:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4671111.stm

Thanks for the warning about the virus. Some people must be really twisted.

[Guest88]

Yes, I thought about the "Is terrorism any worse than bilateral action by U.S. / U.K" argument before, and I came to the conclusion that if you oppose terrorism as a valid form of warfare by people who actually have a lot of supporters on the ground in the middle east - then you should also oppose a bilateral invasion by 2 countries against a sovereign state who had not first of all attacked those 2 countries.

If there had truly been sufficient reason to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, as was the main justification at the time, but proved to be very much sexed up, then you could convince me otherwise....

As for argument that Tony Blair is now giving, re: invading on huminatarian grounds, then imho it should be a unilateral action.

[Matt L]

Firstly, it is not a bilateral operation; it's a coalition of numerous nations. But that is beside the main point which is that there is a clear difference between the two acts. In the case of regime change in Iraq the ultimate aim is removing an opressive dictator and installing a democracy. Sadly civilians have died as a consequence of the invasion and ensuing insurgency.
This is by stark contrast to acts of terrorism where the primary aim is to cause death, destruction, and terror.