Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Fish & chips for thought

(Food selected in regard to our British friends.)

We speak with hope, or make platitudes, about every human life being precious. Or having the divine spark. Or of possessing equal moral worth, or potential for good, or promise for the future.

I'm starting to wonder.

All wanton waste of human life is a tragedy, especially when those who aren't direct parties to a quarrel are brought into the death toll despite their moral status. Yet we don't weight it the same way.

On Thursday, at least 50 people were killed by acts of deliberate terror in central London.

On Thursday and Friday, at least 50 people were killed by acts of deliberate terror in various parts of Iraq.

Why does only the former get genuine headlines? Banner headlines, dripping with so much black ink that it almost weights down the front page? Why are the deaths in Iraq shunted to the "World News" roundup on page three?

Because the British innocents matter more? Because they share the same language as nearly all Americans? Because the British government is allied with the U.S. government? Because nobody cares any more about who is ripped apart by bombs and mines that are 5,000 miles further away from New York?

I don't want the innocents to die on their commute in London. I also don't want those innocents who are trying desperately to put their economic lives back together, in a Baghdad still largely without clean water or electricity, to die in the bazaars, marketplaces, and police recruitment stations.

Why is only the former tragedy deemed worthy of oceans of ink and decibels of handwringing on the tube? What has made us so blase and jaded about the latter?

And why don't we -- this vague collective of a "society" -- seem to be rejecting both kinds of wanton violence?

I have to wonder.

Because people dying in Iraq isn't going to sell as many papers as people dying in London.

Politicians and pundits have no such excuse, though.

Maybe it's your selection of reading material? My local newspaper seems to be filled with incidents of citizen Iraqis being blown up by bombings claimed by Ba'athist's, Al Qaida, and the various militaries inhabiting the country. I'm not seeing any less concern for those citizens. Who, generally, is it that you believe has less regard for people in Iraq compared to those in London or elsewhere? Heck, some were so concerned about life in Iraq, they threw a bunch of bombs on the place. I don't see anybody doing that for London.

I suspect that if those blowing up the cafes, pipelines, and other infrastructure would stop, you'd see this war end pretty quickly. There's a government in place but who believes the army and police force in place are up to protecting these citizens any better that the military forces?

From my observation, there seems to be quite a strong objection being registered to the violence going on in Iraq.

I think honestly it has to do with human nature and becoming jaded. Anything, no matter how horrible, is going to begin to dull the senses after a while of continued horribleness. It's like catching a whiff of the smell from a paper mill and getting so used to it after several minutes that you forget that it's there.

But your point does serve to remind me that innocents are still dying by the truckloads over in Iraq, and they should be in our thoughts and prayers just as much as anyone else.

it's old news. and people are just racist, sad to say it's still pervasive. this whole "war"" is a fiasco.

i don't know how anyone thinks that if you go in a blow up somebody's country (ignoring who's "right" and "wrong" for a moment) that they're not going to retaliate however they can over and over again. the "war's" not over for these people, obviously.

Well, what can I say - what a week to take the wife and kids to central London for a holiday.

Being asked to check under seats on the bus for left packages because you've just heard that a bus has been blown up a mile away.

True story. No shit.
Knowing that your loved ones are in the firing line.
F***ing scary - believe me.

Actually having to live the 'continue to live your life or they win' line, when you are walking around with your familys lives as possible targets. We were in Russell Square Tube Station the day before .....

I have to congratulate the Londoners for standing up to the terrorists and getting on with life.


The reason for the outrage / headlines I think, apart from anything else, is the fact that it's the first actual attack on British soil from Al Quaeda (or whoever). Also the fact that Britain has been one of the few Allies on Americas side throughout the whole Iraq hassle.

Whereas deaths in Iraq is 'old hat'.

I don't want another man, women or child to die in Iraq for Allied oil interests (probably a discussion for another time...) , but it's true that we do become jaded to news when it happens every day, and I'm afraid that deaths in Iraq from terrorists is something that happens every day.

The same jaded-ness happened over here in years past when there was one death after another in Northern Ireland. Day after day, week after week until it all ran into one.


Having just arrived back home today, I feel a great deal of relief. And I can let down the 'everything'll be alright, kids' mask that I've been wearing for the last 2 days.

That's a holiday I'll remember for a long time - and for all the wrong reasons.
And the ba**ards called off the Queen gig at Hyde Park on Friday night - F***ers!

glad you're ok.

Thanks DB - it's appreciated.

I'd just like to say good luck to anyone still in London - I hope you and yours are all okay.

FYI - I know that Keith and Belinda are both fine.

well, as others have said, the deaths in Iraq have become expected.

also, I think the bombing alerted a lot of people to the fact that the Quada and company are not content with simply trying to kill people in Iraq.

I have had arguments with people who insist that the Iraq invasion was justified because it is better to fight there than on our home soil. well, sadly as London as seen Quada can multi-task.

Grey,

One thing that I did notice as a difference between American and British Newspapers is the fact that very little overseas news (of any sort) makes it onto the front pages of any American Newspapers.

Obviously for us this is big news and the papers are full of the aftermath of the bombing. But in the quality broadsheets at least the news of the deaths of those poor innocents in Iraq is depressingly commonplace on the front pages.

When one reads a paper, or watches the news etc s/he must remember that the report is not what happened. THe event happened but the report is a construction created by the reporter and her/his editorial bosses.

I feel the media increasingly constructs stories that are easy to explain and bring an immediate emotional response, instead of emphasizing reporting that gives the whole scope and context of more important stories which are often very complicated.

In effect they are under pressure to produce a product that can be consumed by a mass audience, and produce it quickly because of the nature of today's media market.

Ergo we get wall-to-wall coverage of one teenager who's a victim of crime on vacation (terrible as it may be) in Barbados but nothing on the root causes and possible solutions of a never-ending insurrection in Iraq.

While we get next to nothing about the poor lass, other than editorial comments about the american Press.

Sure the European papers are different but that's a function of North American Culture. I'm here in Canada but traditionally North America has been somewhat a world upon ourselves isolated from the troubles of the world.

Those days are gone, within 20 years white Europeans will be a minority in the city I'm living in. Problems in the countries our newcomers come from, will be our problems whether we asked for them or not. Similarly our nationals now travel the world, problems overseas can quickly become our problems.

So I'd hope governments will have the foresight to deal with this, and our media wise enough to tell us why problems over there will trouble us eventually on our own shores, but maybe not.

These days, No nation is an island alone upon itself.

I agree that those deaths are horrible and terrible. No one wants that, and the forces involved are going out of their way to try and insure that they don't happen as much as possible.

And no, I'm not trying to start anything here, but I have to wonder where all the horror and compasion was for the 300,000 murdered by a corrupt regime before we went over there.

It's the story of the boiling frog as far as i can tell. Even france seemed disposed for years to take an "acceptable" level of bombing and terrorism related deaths just to keep a modicum of peace.

When people live in constant fear of the government coming in and killing them because some sick, sadistic degenerate is in power, the world seems to think it okay. Its the government. To me, that is the bigger horror. The sheep accepting the murder of other sheep for no reason.

No one seems to have learned the lessons taught by WWI and II. Watch "the Virginian". It has one of the single greatest ideas in history told in one very powerful scene.

I agree with you Rick on the that mr. Hussein got everything he deserved. And there should be no debate as to whether the world is better for having an involved US, of course it is. Now whether Bush et al's plan or execution of it over there has been everything it should be. That's a legitimate debate.

I will also agree that your case for intervention has merit with a proviso. The US under Clinton put heavy pressure on the UN to stand on the sidelines in Rwanda. How many died in a matter of weeks there? It's also the 10th aniversary of Srebrinica this week. One of my good friends from university missed being there by just a few days. The US and its European allies hemmed and hawed for years on that one.

Sure intervention might be justified, but the problem is no country has a perfect record on choosing when to do it. So when the US does in only one case out of three major cases in a decade don't your arguements words ring a little hollow especially for the survivors of all those other bloodbaths?

Rick, your views are probably in the minority around here but don't sweat it. A lot of conservative America's foreign policies have merit, but have just been framed incorrectly for consumption by groups outside the US.

"Hussein got everything he deserved."

My problem is, Hussein is still alive. What pissed me off over the last 14 YEARS was, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and was in turn invaded by the US and its allies during the 1991 Gulf War, WHY was the job left unfinished? Iraq was invaded, yet Hussein was allowed to stay in charge for more than a decade afterwards? Imagine if The Allies had allowed Hitler to sue for peace in early '45??? I think it's a valid comparison.

As fictional spy John Steed once said, "If you start, you have to FINISH."

Regarding the second world war, the allies did left Hirohito on the Chrysanthemum Throne. A man worshiped as a god didn't know what his generals were planning?

No big deal for me born in the west, a generation later but I assure you that the Red Chinese propagandists have used this as fodder for three generations. And it is a big deal for my grandparents who lived through that war in China.

Let the historians look at why or why he wasn't removed in '91 when they have the full perspective years from now. The insurrection seen now might well have happened all the same. We've arrived at this point in time and our leaders should work with what they're dealt not make excuses or blame the guys before or after them.

Similarly Americans elected GWB twice, the rest of the world should respect that, and get on with it. And GWB the rest of the world disagreed with you. Its done, move on.

This is why people hate politics.

Tamper, thanks for a reasoned response.

It think one major problem with intervening is the UN itself. Look at it's makeup and you will see that many nations are headed by the same sort as Hussein, perhaps not quite as degerate. Part of the reason that other interventions have not taken place is due to those rogue nations acting to preserve themselves by not going after others like themselves. The thinking being "If Iraq, why not Zymbabway (sorry for the spelling, im awful at it)?"

Hussein was buying protection left and right with illegal and illicit oil deals that the leaders of the UN ignored, or even profited from.

The idea that there can be one world government is flawed, as bears out by the story of the Roman empire. Too many different regions with different cultures and different beliefs.

As to the "We invaded Iraq, why not all the rest" portion that gets argued so much, all i can say is that there is only a finite supply of service men and women, combined with differening diplomacies. No one solution works for each and every regime.

Right now in Iran, the pressure to change that is working is not coming from the UN or the US, but from the disaffected youth that have no faith in their government, and are embracing other ways of living that defy without an in-your-face tactic. Economic sanctions have at best a very poor-to-spotty record, as evidenced by Cuba and Iraq (where those offical sanctions were blithely ignored by some in the UN), so a different tactic is needed to deal with Korea's attempt at nuclear blackmail.

International diplomacy is not a one-size-fits-all thing. As for the problems in Africa...man, thats about the worst one going. Most if not all of the governments are corrupt. Aid sent to help the poor is actually hurting the poor for several reasons. One, the money provided gets diverted into the very hands that created the corruption and death. Two, supply aid is destroying the economies, since they eliminate jobs. Textiles are one example of that. Instead of working wage jobs being created, well meaning groups are sending clothing supplies. With those giveaways, they decrease the need for Intranational jobs, so the people are forced to continue to rely on handouts.

Really and truly, the poor suffer, as always, because the well meaning aid is crippling their abilities to invent their own sustainable economies. At the same time, the medical situation is far beyond crisis and into world threatening proportions, and beliefs are literally killing over there. My wife rages that education on subjects like aids is almost non-existent because the governments won't allow the truth to be put out. Her example is witchdoctors that tell aids infected people to have sex with virgins to cure it. Naturally, this leads to more infection, and according to her, the rape of small children at times. I haven't read on that, so i don't know, but she has.

Like i say, there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

Board doubleposted. Sorry.

"Right now in Iran, the pressure to change that is working is not coming from the UN or the US, but from the disaffected youth that have no faith in their government, and are embracing other ways of living that defy without an in-your-face tactic."


That's really encouraging to hear. Back in the 80's, I worked for a company whose engineering department included 3 guys from Iran. As I recall, I got along with them better than anyone else in the place did. I even wound up "casting" them in a story I wrote. I made them bad guys, but it was a comedy, so they were "likeable" bad guys. One detail involved them having left Iran when the Ayatollah took over because they preferred the economic possibilities in the US!

From what i heard, it's more like they don't agree with the hardline religious nonsense and are quietly living as they like. They are embracing american pop culture (not sure thats a great thing, lol, we gave the world michael jackson, madonna, and OJ, after all). It's not that they are openly defiant. They are just doing what they are doing.