[romania_eu_list] In the face of danger

Sun, 10 Jul 2005 23:13:57 -0700

orice comentariu ar fi de prisos, cred
 
London bombings
In the face of danger

Leader
Friday July 8, 2005
The Guardian

"As I write, highly civilised human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me," wrote George Orwell at the height of the second world war Blitz. Londoners have lived with the fear of many such waves of unseen enemies over the years. Less than a mile from this newspaper's offices, for example, is the site of the Clerkenwell bombing of 1867, in which Irish Fenians tried to blow their way into a prison to rescue two of their comrades, but instead succeeded in demolishing a row of houses killing 12 local people and injuring 126. A Peabody building immediately across the road was reduced to rubble by the Luftwaffe, killing some of the 43,000 British civilians who died in the Blitz. During the 1970s and 1980s Londoners became hardened to repeated bombs placed by the Provisional IRA. And now yesterday, just a few minutes' walk from this newspaper, Londoners riding to work on the Piccadilly line south of King's Cross and others in a number 30 bus making its way past Russell Square in the rush hour were attacked cruelly and without warning as part of a coordinated assault which was intended to kill - and which did so, murdering and injuring dozens of working Londoners without discrimination.
Just like their predecessors in the face of those earlier horrors, today's generation of Londoners responded to this latest unprovoked act of evil - which in terms of lost lives seems to have been the deadliest act of terrorism in our modern history - with a combination of calm and courage. This was, we have repeatedly been warned by police and security chiefs, an event which was likely to happen one day. When it came, it seemed to be accepted without bitterness. Within minutes of the first reports of the explosions on the tube, emergency plans went quickly into action. Down in the dark, in spite of smoke, debris, death and danger, passengers were evacuated, mostly without hysteria, by emergency services implementing well-rehearsed operations. Up on the streets, as the transport system ground to a halt, tens of thousands walked on uncomplainingly to their work through the streets in the morning rain. The stock market, which dipped at first, recovered its nerve later - the City providing a metaphor for the city as a whole. As in New York on September 11 2001 and in Madrid on March 11 last year, much larger events with which comparisons must nevertheless now be drawn, the main stories of London on July 7 2005, are not merely of individual tragedy, but also of individual heroism and bloody-minded determination.

Less than 24 hours before the bombs went off, London won a golden accolade from the rest of the world because it offered them an Olympic Games based on hope and inclusiveness towards all races, creeds and nations. As Ken Livingstone said yesterday, these bombs were a direct assault on that noble and admirable vision. This was not an attack on the rulers or the powerful. It was, as the mayor and the city's faith leaders all said in their different ways, an attack on ordinary Londoners, men and women, young and old, black and white, Christian and Muslim, Hindu and Jew who all abhor such violence. The Chief Rabbi surely got it right when he said yesterday that the bombings were the rage of the angry against the defenceless and the innocent. Yet the important thing was that rage was not met with rage. London has won the Olympics because it is an open and tolerant city. The way Londoners responded to the vicious attacks on them has vindicated the Olympians' confidence.

World leaders gathered at Gleneagles for the G8 summit were quick to draw the contrast between the message of hate in yesterday's bombings and the message of hope the leaders still claim will emerge from their talks in Scotland today. They were right to highlight the chasm between the barbarism of the bombers' actions and the continuing efforts this week to tackle African poverty and the effects of climate change. Equally, it is important to keep in mind the anger within the Muslim and Arab worlds over the actions of some of those countries represented at Gleneagles. Robin Cook, elsewhere on these pages, will speak for many when he writes: "President Bush is given to justifying the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that by fighting terrorism abroad it protects the west from having to fight terrorists at home. Whatever else can be said in defence of the war in Iraq today, it cannot be claimed that it has protected us from terrorism on our soil."

The terror of the past was ultimately political. It was a means to an end. We could either defeat it, submit to it or negotiate with it. Terror like yesterday's is more elusive and less formal. It is not a movement or an army in any traditional sense. Its sense of itself is apocalyptic rather than political. Its demands are therefore difficult to meet, even if negotiation was either practicable or acceptable. Fighting this kind of terrorism therefore calls for a permanent combination of smart strategies - the protection and security of communities and societies that are its potential victims alongside a recognition of the need to drain what can be drained from the reservoir of grievances from which the terrorists draw strength.

Yesterday was a dark day, when infamous acts were carried out by dangerous people. The killers, if they are still alive, must be brought to justice and we have no alternative but to keep our guard up against the likelihood that there are others plotting to repeat the assaults. Mr Blair was right to insist that our determination to defend our values and our way of life should be indomitable. That certainly means implacability in the face of the direct threat from the terrorist enemy. It means keen policing and long-term intelligence work. But it also involves trying to understand why people are drawn to commit such infamous and evil deeds, not merely tightening security to prevent them from happening again. And it means sticking resolutely to all the values that make an open society so worth living in, including tolerance and civil liberty. In the end, as Mr Bush and Mr Blair each said, it is the contrast that counts. This is a conflict of values. But it is not just the contrast between the hate of the terrorists and the labours of the world leaders that will turn the tide. It is the contrast between the anger of the terrorists and the decency of ordinary people, as Londoners so powerfully showed yesterday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,1523623,00.html

 

Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger
Téléchargez le ici !

*** sustineti [romania_eu_list] prin 1% din impozitul pe 2005 -
detalii la http://www.europe.org.ro/euroatlantic_club/unulasuta.php ***


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



Raspunde prin e-mail lui