More bad news for the world

[altivo]

Whoever is responsible for the bombings in London, it seems obvious that a planned terrorist action was involved. In my innocence, I still fail to understand terrorism. Invariably, the targets of the anger are world leaders, politicians, bankers, religious elite. But the targets of the slimy and nefarious actions are ordinary people who have little or no control over the course of world events.

Don't terrorists understand that these leaders really don't care about individuals? To them, we are nothing but cockroaches, worker bees, ants. They use us to achieve their own goals of wealth and power, and turn their backs on us when it gets uncomfortable to admit they have hurt us. At the most, they send form letters of condolence to the victims' families, signed by an automatic check signing machine or a secretary. Trying to get at them by hurting common people is pointless and wicked. All it does is damage the terrorists' own cause and provide fuel to encourage those leaders to hurt other common people by bombing them out of their homes and workplaces. Those are people who were no more responsible for the actions of the terrorists than the victims of terrorist crime were responsible for the obscene, greedy actions of those world leaders.

I probably shouldn't post this, because I'll just be targeted from all sides of the political spectrum. But I think terrorism is stupid and pointless. It only harms the perpetrators and innocent victims. Equally, I think making war on entire nations because of the independent actions of some few people who may be resident within their borders is stupid and pointless. It only harms the innocent and makes the real perpetrators more angry and dedicated.

I weep for the victims of today's bombings, those who survive, those who lost loved ones. I weep for a world so filled with stupidity and pigheadedness and greed. And I despise the politicians and selfish, wealthy men who bring these crimes to pass. They bear the ultimate responsibility for everything.

Comments

[songdogmi.livejournal.com]

I'll just target you for agreement. I don't see much to dispute in what you say.

The people could perhaps elect leaders who are less venal, shun corporations whose only motivation is greed, et cetera. But there aren't many options besides venal and greedy. And not every country gets to elect leaders.

The leaders may not care about individuals, but then neither do the terrorists. We're all just targets to them.

[thedarkdruid.livejournal.com]

What's to disagree about? This is exactly what I think as well about leaders/terrorists and the common innocents.

The "Point" of terror

[rhenemet.livejournal.com]

I won't disagree with you that the events of today in London were tragic.

But to understand the attacks, you need to look deeper into the motives of the perpetrators. The knee jerk response "they hate democracy" or what have you doesn't really touch the surface; you can understand the deeper motives without sympathizing with them and I think its important to look beyond the surface if we're to ultimately find a solution to this crisis.

I think the important realization has to be that the short term objective of attacks like this is not to "win the war". The perpetrators know perfectly well that they will not obtain any concessions from this action; indeed, I'm sure they anticipate a substantial retaliation. They know perfectly well they are blowing up powerless people. Their objective is to sustain the cycle of violence that provides them secular power. This is crucial to hardline elements, sustaining a state of war & oppression is absolutely key to maintaining their stranglehold on authority whether that be in remote areas of Pakistan, Palestine, or wherever. The words are religious, but the objectives are very real and physical. Rhetoric aside, the leaders of these organizations are very keen to maintain their wealth and authority. In a society of peace, what is the value of a warlord?

What does this mean for shaping our response? I don't agree with the people who say retaliation is wrong; but I do agree with the position that retaliation should be measured and specific, and we must find a way to maintain compassion for the hundreds of millions who were not involved, who are not represented by these fringe elements.

Re: The "Point" of terror

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Oh, I understand that concept of warlords keeping themselves in power. The thing is, it applies to both sides. George W. Bush has maintained his stranglehold on power in the US precisely by playing jingoistic patriotism for all it's worth, declaring war on innocents in order to derive political advantage (or economic advantage) and convincing the American public that he is doing all in their best interests. He and his cronies have used the whole thing so effectively as leverage to promote fascist concepts and practice under the name of patriotism that, alas, I don't trust some of his supporters to the point of being sure they wouldn't commit terrorist acts in the name of al-Qaeda just to feed the flames. Of course Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin all used similar techniques, but history and independent thought have been carefully cleansed from the American mind and school curriculum.

To my way of thinking, both sides in this conflict that will go on forever are equally evil. It has already degenerated to the level of children playing an endless game of "you hit me, I hit you", a perpetual feedback loop that will not break of its own accord.

Re: The "Point" of terror

[bariki.livejournal.com]

And in the meantime, while this 'game' is being played by the powerful, the innocent die...

I lost a friend in 9/11.. I thought that I had lost another today, but thank the goddess that she is fine. For now, relief is overriding any other emotion, but the anger that I felt four years ago will doubtless surface again. Kathy did nothing to deserve death.. as little as my friend would have today. My anger will be short-lived, but what of those with the callousness and the means to respond? Will more innocent people die 'for the cause'?

Re: The "Point" of terror

[altivo.livejournal.com]

The short answer to that is yes. It's happening every single day. We have to remember that those responsible for these disasters are on BOTH sides, though. And as I said before, they don't really care about the actual casualties. It's a game to them, and people are just expendable pawns. This has always been true, and doesn't seem likely to change.