Tony Blair has vowed that Britain will hunt down those responsible for last week's attacks. And quite rightly.

It's quite a contrast with his continued refusal to order a thorough investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, not to mention his gutting of the Finucane Inquiry.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't see how the "quite rightly" fits with the actual circumstances. Britain committed an act of wanton aggression against an independent state, and now the British PM is whining because those sympathetic to the people he attacked have hit back? Good luck to the lads who laid the charges; and if the Brits want it to stop, they know what to do.

Wednesday said...

The circumstances were that the bombers targetted ordinary working class people, not Blair or anyone else responsible for Britain's act of wanton aggression. This is indefensible.

Anonymous said...

"No-one is innocent". And I seem to recall that Britain is a democracy, and that these "ordinary working-class people" re-elected Butcher Blair.

A related point: what's your opinion on Birmingham & Guildford, 1974?

Wednesday said...

Come on, how do you know who the victims voted for? Maybe they were Galloway voters. Some weren't even British and probably not entitled to vote at all. The colleague of a husband of mine had a narrow escape from one of the bombs - he had just got off that tube a stop or two previously. He lives here in Dublin, votes Sinn Féin and marched against the war.

As for the Birmingham and Guildford bombs, I don't believe these were deliberate attempts to kill civilians (the warnings phoned and the Guildford pub being a soldiers' hangout), although hindsight being 20/20 I would say they should not have been carried out.

Wednesday said...

That should read "the husband of a colleague of mine", of course :)

Anonymous said...

I don't agree that "ordinary working class people" were deliberately targeted (the death toll if that were the case was derisory, for a start). The target was clearly the transport infrastructure of the enemy's capital, which is certainly a legitimate target if we take the Anglo-Saxons' recent war against Serbia as a standard.

The Guildford pub; ah, yes. An ex of mine used to drink there with her husband, then a sailor. A week or so before the bomb, the soldiers kicked the sailors out. If that hadn't happened, well...

The pub was just an ordinary pub, albeit one frequented by "forces personnel"; so plenty of civies too (I'm presuming soldiers' girlfriends count as civies?)

I agree, Birmingham & Guildford should not have been carried out; the question is, do you think the perpetrators should be "hunted down"?

Lastly, there are only two sides in a war. It's a question of chosing. One can regret the tactics of the anti-imperalists; but to "condemn" and to agree to "hunting down" is to place oneself on the side of the imperialists. Perhaps I'm just picking on words; but words are important.

Wednesday said...

Well, no, actually, I don't take the war against Serbia as a standard. That was also wrong. And of course the people in London were targeted. You don't carry out a no-warning bomb on the tube during rush hour if you are just trying to destroy infrastructure and not kill people.

I also disagree with labelling this attack "anti-imperialist". We don't know that the bombers were motivated by anti-imperialism. If they were in fact linked to the Islamist fanatics known loosely as Al Qaeda, their ideology was not entirely unlike, and no better than, Anglo-American imperialism.

One certainly does not have to choose sides in a war. One can easily believe that both sides are wrong.

Anonymous said...

Well, we are at an impasse here then. A few final points though.

Just because people are killed by bombs doesn't mean they were targeted by them -- a distinction which the Provos used to make much of in times gone by. What's sauce for the goose ... But even if they were, so what? I'd disagree with it, but still and all, the bombs are going off for a reason, and the British people could end the reason tomorrow if they wanted to. But sure they can't be bothered can they? Well, then: they are going to have to learn the hard way that this time round it won't be just anonymous wogs thousands of miles away getting blown to bits.

To equate Al Queda with US imperialism is ludicrous. You'll be calling them Islamo-fascists next.

Finally, the Iraqi resistance, al Queda, and al what-ever-you're-having-yourself all understand something we Irish seem sadly to have forgotten: that there's only one language the Anglo-Saxon understands.

Wednesday said...

The Provos tried to avoid civilian casualties. That's a pretty important difference. Even the Brits are admitting this now.

I completely reject the idea that anyone who happened to be on those tubes was a legitimate target. You know nothing about the victims' politics or what they may have done as individuals to try to stop the war. By your logic you yourself are a legitimate target since you haven't prevented Dublin from allowing the Yanks Shannon Airport. No one person can stop the war on their own, it's ludicrous even to suggest they can.

Your view of "Al Qaeda" as little more than harmless Muslim hippies is incredibly naive. Their ideology is odious. Disagreeing (strongly) with the methods the Anglo-American axis has used against it does not mean one has to be in any way sympathetic to it.

Anonymous said...

You're being silly now. I never suggested that al Queda were harmless hippies, and you know it. I'm enjoying the exchange of views, but let's stick to criticising what the other chap is actually saying!

Nor did I suggest that the people killed and injured were "legitimate targets"; but the transport infrastructure was. There's a war on; people get killed.

Yes, the South of Ireland is complicit in the ongoing war against Iraq, so how could we complain if we were to be attacked? WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT, EVEN THOUGH WE COULD.

On the subject of "doing something", people in Britain are doing less now than the Greenham Common women did in the early 80s against a war that wasn't "hot". That's a disgrace. Actions have consequences; lack of action has consequences too.

Look at the people condeming the London bombs. The louder and more strident they are, they more opposed they are to the IRA. On the same grounds, too. Nothing to do with loss of human life; everything to do with demonising *any* opposition to Anglo-Saxon imperialism. Are you confortable in this sort of company? "Lie down with a dog; get up with fleas".

I don't merely disagree with the Anglo's "methods"; I am opposed to their imperialist wars, regardless of who they are fighting against. Al Queda are no big threat to me -- or at least, they wouldn't be if the government that styles itself my own, and the government of where I live (not the same) were not collaborating with the US and Britain.

One last point: sometimes the RA avoided civilian casualties; sometimes they didn't. Regardless, they were still the Army of the Republic, and entitled to the support of every Irish man and woman.

Wednesday said...

The transport infrastructure was a legitimate target, but there's no reason to target it at rush hour and without a warning unless you are trying to kill people. I think you're being extremely disingenuous in denying that aspect of the motive.

The "loud and strident" condemnation I have heard of the London bombs has not come only from people who oppose the republican movement. Quite the contrary in fact.

I am opposed to the A-A imperialist wars but I am also opposed to the aggressive, reactionary ideology of jihadist Islam, whether or not it is a threat to me personally, or why. There is no reason why both cannot be simultaneously condemned.

And, while the IRA didn't always make as much as an effort as it could have to avoid civilian casualties, it did at least make some effort - which was entirely lacking in the London bombings. I would not have supported an IRA that didn't. No army is entitled to unconditional support from its people.

Anonymous said...

Well, as you wish. One more thought in closing: "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity". As true now as it ever was.

  Subscribe with Bloglines