I Am A Pacifist

EbolaFan is in good shape, was very lucky he wasn’t on the tube from Aldgate…that makes me feel a little icky. He was my first kiss and was very close to being one of the 38 dead.

Now let me get one thing straight before I get pissed off. I am a pacifist. I am anti-war. I am also anti-terrorism. The two are not mutually exclusive. Kiling/maiming/deliberately hurting someone else so that you get your own way is not on. As far as I am concerned whether you launch a major offensive on Iraq or set off six bombs in central London during rush hour you are wrong and bad and not doing a good thing at all.

However the one ex-MP and the one blog that I have read (and I am sure there are a million more) who are both claiming that George Bush is responsible for the London bombings are wrong. (Hey look my blog…my opinion!)

Much as I dislike Bush and his decisions, much as I hate the stupid lies that got Britain into Iraq, much as I protested Afghanistan and Iraq, you can’t pin London on him. (And come on theres enough that he is responsible for without blaming him for things he didn’t do!)

As far as I can see growing up in the UK in the 80s means that you ought to have a basic knowledge of terrorism (no not nearly as much as someone growing up in Israel or Palestine or Iraq right now), but a basic working knowledge. Enough to know that the responsibility for the bomb lies with the person who sets the detonator. The person who plants the bomb is the person who kills and maims and deliberately hurts the people caught in the blast. Doesn’t matter what caused them to decide to place the bomb, doesn’t matter who because the decision to plant a bomb is a wrong one.

Maybe I’m just an indoctrinated product of John Craven’s Newsround but as far as I’m concerned as soon as you start buying into the stated reason of the terrorist for their planting the bomb you’re validating their bombing. You’re saying it’s a reasonable decision and it’s not. It never is.

8 thoughts on “I Am A Pacifist

  1. Comprehensible decisions are not always reasonable.

    I can comprehend that the Americans voted Bush into office, saw that happened, and did so again.

    I can comprehend that some people believe in killing themselves in order to kill others.

    Doesn’t make it reasonable. Doesn’t make it sympathetic.

  2. Man of Taste are you saying that the decision to plant a bomb in London Rush Hour is comprehensible?
    Because I’m afraid I can’t comprehend it.

    Daemonic, I think Kimblebobs might object, and she’s certainly never be godmother!

  3. Mish, I cannot comprehend the decision to plant bombs in rush hour London. However, I can, sadly, understand how others might think it necessary.

    I do not agree with them. I think they are wrong (and for a longer explanation of why please see the recent entry on my blog. But I can understand why they think the way they do. Understanding does not automatically equal sympathy or empathy or agreement.

  4. Ok Man of Taste and Erfalaswen:

    I understand that people choose to do this, if I didn’t I’d be worried that I was living in a flowery world wearing rose-tinted spectacles. However it is wrong, that is a basic premise which I don’t think you can argue with.
    My entry was aimed at the people (and yes I did mean George Galloway the sadly now back to being MP) who are saying that Blair and Bush are directly responsible for the bombings in London. I believe this to be a mistaken assertion.

    I do not object to understanding the terrorist says that he is planting a bomb because George Bush attacked his country. However the decision to blame Bush for the bombers when you are not a terrorist, when you are external to the situation is not a reasonable nor comprehensible one in my book.

    I cannot comprehend putting a bomb in rush hour traffic. I agree that understanding the reasons may minimise the actualities of this happening but there must be a fine line between understanding and agreeing, if we start to agree we legitimise the action and that can never never be.

  5. there must be a fine line between understanding and agreeing, if we start to agree we legitimise the action and that can never never be.

    I know. Which is why I explicitly said in my previous comment:

    Understanding does not automatically equal sympathy or empathy or agreement.

    I know where the line is Mish. I was drawing it out carefully.

  6. No, I’m saying that I comprehend it happened.

    And that that doesn’t make it a reasonable action or a sympathetic one.

    Understanding that people think this is necessary is the second step to figuring out how to minimise the number of people who do; understanding and comprehending that people choose to do this is first.

  7. On the off-chance that that was George Galloway you were referring to as the ex-MP, he’s not an ex any more.

    Won on an anti-war ticket for the Respect party. Basically, he’s a one-note loudmouth with an ego larger than Kilroy-Silk’s. The worst possible advert for the anti-war/anti-Blair/anti-Bush factions, yet their self-appointed spokesman.

    Either way, he came right out yesterday and accused Blair of being responsible for the bombings. (Let the dust settle and the casualties stop bleeding first, you fucking asshole…) A cabinet minister replied by branding him "a poisonous tongue dipped in a lake of blood", which I think is pretty good considering it seems to have been off the cuff.

    Ironic, the person to say, "I told you so," on 9/11 was Saddam Hussein, and now it’s Galloway.

    Don’t mind me ranting. I have a problem with evangelical extremists on both sides of any struggle, whichever side I support.

Leave a Reply