Until this time, after 9/11 and all those news about suicide bombings, I still cannot fathom why a person or an organization would resort to mass killing of uninvolved and innocent civilians just to prove a point, or just to get noticed.
Details of the London BlastsFour blasts tore through London's transport system during the morning rush hour in a choreographed series of terrorist attacks.
Police said at least 33 people were killed, 21 near King's Cross station, and the ambulance service said it had treated around 350 people, with more than 40 of those in a serious condition.
Three of the blasts were on tube trains and a fourth was on a bus. Explosives were said to have been found at two blast sites.
[ Guardian Unlimited, Jul 7 2005,
The Times, London]
Here's an excerpt from an article about justifying horrendous acts like the one above:
The article from which this was taken condemns the concept of "collateral damage" with reference to the US war on Iraq and Afghanistan. An interesting read which I recommend to you.As the argument goes, it is not murder to bomb innocents, or to kill them during an invasion, so long as the killing is incidental, and the primary target of the attack is a genuinely bad man or regime.
If you are striking at an evil network of terrorists, and some innocents die in the process, it is justifiable, since it was not your intention to kill the innocents. And we should not hold the attacking State --- especially if it's the United States --- responsible for the unfortunate, but excusable, deaths of innocents. After all, "collateral damage" is inevitable in war. Innocents die.
Here we see the contradiction imbedded in this argument that invalidates it entirely.
When you bomb a city, innocents die. When you wage war on a country, innocents will die. Whether or not you wanted them to die does not enter into the consideration that laying waste to a neighborhood, a city, or a country will predictably result in dead innocents. If you know that doing something will kill innocents, and you do it, you cannot exempt yourself from responsibility.
[ 'Collateral Damage' as Euphemism for Mass Murder, Apr 30 2005]
The current London bombings itself, might one day, be made a reason for more retaliative bombings. My point is, more killings beget more killings. The cycle does not seem to stop.
I see no justification whatsoever in killing people.
As an anonymous author once said: "If you murder an innocent man you are responsible for the blood of his unborn descendants, and the weight of this responsibility is yours to carry to the end of time."
For me, even claiming responsibility to the vile act does not justify it.
Ken Livingstone, mayor of London said:
"This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at presidents or prime ministers.My deep sympathies to all the victims and their loved ones.
"It was aimed at ordinary working class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. Indiscriminate slaughter irrespective of any consideration for age, class, religion, whatever.
"That isn't an ideology. It isn't even a perverted faith. It is just an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder."
Sources: Images courtesy of The Times, London and CNN TV grabs.