CHINA, INTERNATIONAL, NEWS ANALYSIS: Why Bomb London?
By Julia Zhu
Nobody foresaw it, but it happened. On July 7, London suffered from a series of public transportation explosions that claimed at least 55 lives and injured hundreds. While crying for the dead, caring for the injured, searching for the lost, heightening alert, and reinforcing the security system, people wonder: why London? Why now? In the course of tracing the answer of this question, a number of ironies are exposed.
As we all know, the bombings came while the UK hosted the first full day of the 31st G8 summit at Gleneagles Hotel in Perthshire. It follows a rational line to infer that these cruel attacks had something to do with the G8 summit.
In fact, many people have come to this conclusion. Yet, in my eyes, it is not a sufficient cause. Especially when there was already the larger "cause" which all but guaranteed that al-Qaeda would attack Britain at some point; al-Qaeda had professed defiantly soon after the 9/11 attacks that England was their next target.
Many of us had taken it as an empty threat, and as time went by, the fact that Britain had safely gone through the previous three critical years had no doubt reinforced this thought. The irony is that the disaster happened in the fourth year.
Based on all this, it is reasonable to conclude that the London terrorist attacks were due to happen; the only question was the time and the form. And finally, as reality turned out, Al-Qaeda chose July 7, taking Londoners by surprise, and shocking the whole world.
The impact was instantaneous and tremendous, to the economy, the government, and to the mentality of the Londoners. It is even more ironic to mention that London had bid successfully for the 2012 Olympics--announced only the day before--with an unimpeachable security system as a large part of the winning package.
Don't take me wrong. I'm not making light of the disaster but rather saying that no matter how tight the security may be the terrorists will find ways to get through. There is no point in boasting how safe a place is. One who does it is only boasting to his silliness.
Here is another irony. To interrupt the G8 summit was surely at least one of the purposes of al-Qaeda. Yet the G8 summit was discussing solutions to the problems of African poverty and the issue of environmental climactic change. These topics are for the good of the whole world. Then, are the terrorists, who claim to aim their attacks at power politics and hegemonism, now shifting their bombsight towards basic human happiness all over the world? Or is there another reason?
Looking back, we know that the G8 actually was met by many protests. The purpose of most of the protestors is well known: objection to the economic robbing of the developing countries by the developed countries, and objection to globalization itself. They call for debt reduction, fair trade and international aid to the poor.
The number of G8 protestors is increasing. It is said that during the 2003 G8, there were 60,000 people who participated in demonstrations. And this year, the number is likely to reach 100,000. The question is this: If there is little actual conflict between the purpose of the demonstrators and the G8, then what's wrong?
The truth is that the G8 hasn't taken the heretofore passed aid plans seriously and carried them out, which is like drawing a beautiful and tempting cake for the suffering poor only to look at. Doubtlessly, it has added to the instability of international society and given terrorists further excuses for launching attacks.
Some people asked: There are bombings and death in Iraq every day, what's the big deal about the London attacks? They say that judged by scale, there is little comparison.
Some people answered: The difference is that the Iraqi people were used to the blasts but Londoners were not. That this is new.
It is a simple example of question and answer, yet in it there is something horrible. With regard to the situation of Iraq and the comparison of the two, we know that Britain, namely London, is the luckier one. It has received more international attention and care.
Comparatively, the present Iraq is more like a skeleton of its past, a sacrificial lamb to power struggles, a tomb. Explosions and deaths have become so common in Iraq that it is expected daily news. Less and less attention is being paid to it. On this point, I cannot help myself from wondering: Both sides are now suffering, is it fair that we express our care to one side while forgetting all about the other?
Are we just cold-blooded lookers-on who are watching out of novelty even when we know it's our own species that is getting hurt? I do not know the answer.
But this much I do know, the London blasts are evidence of the failure of current policy toward terrorists, attacking them with violence. This policy throws the whole world deeper into a vicious cycle of violence: First, attacks by al-Qaeda, and then counterattacks by government (not exactly aimed at al-Qaeda), then again by al-Qaeda, and again by government. One thing we should realize is that the government side is in the weaker position as it is in the light while the terrorists are in the dark.
Of course, to fight against terror is a mission that every righteous, rational person should carry out. It calls for courage and unity. But still, I think it is wrong for politicians to make use of it and consider people's lives as chess pieces to be used either for fame or political success.
Postscript: This article is based on the assumption that these attacks were launched by Al-Qaeda, as is the current belief of UK authorities.
Nobody foresaw it, but it happened. On July 7, London suffered from a series of public transportation explosions that claimed at least 55 lives and injured hundreds. While crying for the dead, caring for the injured, searching for the lost, heightening alert, and reinforcing the security system, people wonder: why London? Why now? In the course of tracing the answer of this question, a number of ironies are exposed.
As we all know, the bombings came while the UK hosted the first full day of the 31st G8 summit at Gleneagles Hotel in Perthshire. It follows a rational line to infer that these cruel attacks had something to do with the G8 summit.
In fact, many people have come to this conclusion. Yet, in my eyes, it is not a sufficient cause. Especially when there was already the larger "cause" which all but guaranteed that al-Qaeda would attack Britain at some point; al-Qaeda had professed defiantly soon after the 9/11 attacks that England was their next target.
Many of us had taken it as an empty threat, and as time went by, the fact that Britain had safely gone through the previous three critical years had no doubt reinforced this thought. The irony is that the disaster happened in the fourth year.
Based on all this, it is reasonable to conclude that the London terrorist attacks were due to happen; the only question was the time and the form. And finally, as reality turned out, Al-Qaeda chose July 7, taking Londoners by surprise, and shocking the whole world.
The impact was instantaneous and tremendous, to the economy, the government, and to the mentality of the Londoners. It is even more ironic to mention that London had bid successfully for the 2012 Olympics--announced only the day before--with an unimpeachable security system as a large part of the winning package.
Don't take me wrong. I'm not making light of the disaster but rather saying that no matter how tight the security may be the terrorists will find ways to get through. There is no point in boasting how safe a place is. One who does it is only boasting to his silliness.
Here is another irony. To interrupt the G8 summit was surely at least one of the purposes of al-Qaeda. Yet the G8 summit was discussing solutions to the problems of African poverty and the issue of environmental climactic change. These topics are for the good of the whole world. Then, are the terrorists, who claim to aim their attacks at power politics and hegemonism, now shifting their bombsight towards basic human happiness all over the world? Or is there another reason?
Looking back, we know that the G8 actually was met by many protests. The purpose of most of the protestors is well known: objection to the economic robbing of the developing countries by the developed countries, and objection to globalization itself. They call for debt reduction, fair trade and international aid to the poor.
The number of G8 protestors is increasing. It is said that during the 2003 G8, there were 60,000 people who participated in demonstrations. And this year, the number is likely to reach 100,000. The question is this: If there is little actual conflict between the purpose of the demonstrators and the G8, then what's wrong?
The truth is that the G8 hasn't taken the heretofore passed aid plans seriously and carried them out, which is like drawing a beautiful and tempting cake for the suffering poor only to look at. Doubtlessly, it has added to the instability of international society and given terrorists further excuses for launching attacks.
Some people asked: There are bombings and death in Iraq every day, what's the big deal about the London attacks? They say that judged by scale, there is little comparison.
Some people answered: The difference is that the Iraqi people were used to the blasts but Londoners were not. That this is new.
It is a simple example of question and answer, yet in it there is something horrible. With regard to the situation of Iraq and the comparison of the two, we know that Britain, namely London, is the luckier one. It has received more international attention and care.
Comparatively, the present Iraq is more like a skeleton of its past, a sacrificial lamb to power struggles, a tomb. Explosions and deaths have become so common in Iraq that it is expected daily news. Less and less attention is being paid to it. On this point, I cannot help myself from wondering: Both sides are now suffering, is it fair that we express our care to one side while forgetting all about the other?
Are we just cold-blooded lookers-on who are watching out of novelty even when we know it's our own species that is getting hurt? I do not know the answer.
But this much I do know, the London blasts are evidence of the failure of current policy toward terrorists, attacking them with violence. This policy throws the whole world deeper into a vicious cycle of violence: First, attacks by al-Qaeda, and then counterattacks by government (not exactly aimed at al-Qaeda), then again by al-Qaeda, and again by government. One thing we should realize is that the government side is in the weaker position as it is in the light while the terrorists are in the dark.
Of course, to fight against terror is a mission that every righteous, rational person should carry out. It calls for courage and unity. But still, I think it is wrong for politicians to make use of it and consider people's lives as chess pieces to be used either for fame or political success.
Postscript: This article is based on the assumption that these attacks were launched by Al-Qaeda, as is the current belief of UK authorities.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home