7.07.2005

Not Funny At All News

As you know, a terrorist attack in London killed over 30 people (current estimate) on Thursday morning (local time). Four or more bombs were detonated on various public transportation vehicles during the morning commute period.

In one sense there's pretty much nothing to say about this. It's horrible, evil, end of story. I don't expect a lot of bloggers to comment on it, which may just end up showing how little I know about bloggers. But I'm gonna share a couple things.

First, Prime Minister Tony Blair's statement in its entirety:

I'm just going to make a short statement to you on the terrible events that have happened in London earlier today. And I hope you understand that at the present time we're still trying to establish what has happened. There's a limit to what information I can give you. And I'll simply try and tell you the information as best I can at the moment.

It's reasonably clear there have been a series of terrorist attacks in London. There are, obviously, casualties, both people that have died and people seriously injured. And our thoughts and prayers, of course, are with the victims and their families.

It's my intention to leave the G-8 within the next couple of hours and go down to London and get a report face to face with the police and the emergency services and the ministers that have been dealing with this, and then to return later this evening.

It is the will of all the leaders at the G-8, however, that the meeting should continue in my absence, that we should continue to discuss the issues that we were going to discuss and reach the conclusions which we were going to reach.

Each of the countries around that table has some experience of the effects of terrorism. And all the leaders, as they will indicate a little bit later, share our complete resolution to defeat this terrorism.

It's particularly barbaric that this has happened on a day when people are meeting to try to help the problems of poverty in Africa and the long-term problems of climate change in the environment.

Just as it is reasonably clear that this is a terrorist attack, or a series of terrorist attacks, it's also reasonably clear that it is designed and aimed to coincide with the opening of the G-8.

There will be time to talk later about this.

It's important, however, that those engaged in terrorism realize that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world.

Whatever they do, it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilized nations throughout the world.

Thank you.


Stirring words. Granted, any third year English major could likely have written it better, but hearing him deliver it on the radio during my commute that morning I was moved by the sorrow, the resolve, and the conspicuous abscence of the phrase "hunt them down." For a fleeting, unworthy moment, I wished our president could sound that profound when reading better written stuff.

But politicians' speeches are inconsequential at these, as at all other, times. My other immediate response was to a comment made by a radio DJ. I happened to hear him remark that the people who had done this "could not even be considered human beings." It pricked something, and I dashed off this email to him. I'll share it here as well, for what little it's worth.

While I totally understand and agree with the sentiment you're trying to express, I think saying that terrorists aren't even human beings might be a device we use to distance ourselves a little bit from the catastrophe, as if it was another tsunami or something. It's a little harder, but maybe worth trying, to recognize that human beings really did do this. Obviously they have sunk much deeper into heartlessness and evil than any human being you and I have ever come into contact with, but you and I are not of a different species than they. Maybe recognizing this fact could be a first step towards finding a more lasting solution to the problem than war, maybe not. Just a thought I wanted to share.

14 Comments:

At 1:47 AM, July 08, 2005, Blogger Brad said...

Either that, or it bring the case for war to a further clarity...that this isn't a "thing" out there, but real, actual human beings...some of who need to be shot.

At some point (and yes, pardon the cliche example)...what would you have done as "a more lasting solution" with Hitler?

 
At 5:13 AM, July 08, 2005, Blogger Josh Fuller said...

I'll pardon it as a cliché, but not as a valid comparison to a "war on terror."

 
At 11:14 AM, July 08, 2005, Blogger Brad said...

I'm sorry...I must have missed your answer.

 
At 11:32 AM, July 08, 2005, Blogger Josh Fuller said...

Not so much an answer as a quip, since for a second there I thought you were my brother.

Here's a three part answer for you.
a) Good point. War isn't always not the answer. That's why the sentence you're critiquing began with "Maybe" and ended with "maybe not."
b) We've never faced an enemy like this before. We're not fighting a nation with a leader. I heard an expert on NPR (note that this sentence begins with 'I heard on NPR' and can be ignored in the name of objectivity) explaining that what is now happening in Iraq is exactly what Hussein intended and planned: not a clash of armies but a neverending series of attacks from an endless supply of independent militants. That's my paraphrase and probably bears no resemblance whatsoever to how Iraq should be correctly described, but I hope you'll see the point. It's a totally different kind of conflict. However we defeat terrorism, it won't look much like how Germany went down. Can't declare war on a noun and all that. Not to bring M.M. into this.
c) Wasn't the US pretty much the last nation in the world to join the Allies in WW2?

My previous post was intended to convey these general ideas, God knows how. Questioning the comparison was based on b) & c), completely dodging your actual question was a).

 
At 6:50 PM, July 09, 2005, Blogger Brad said...

Your syntax at the end there was borderline drunken Yoda ;).

More on the serious stuff later.

 
At 7:05 PM, July 09, 2005, Blogger Josh Fuller said...

Annoyingly and unnecessarily convoluted, my sentence structure frequently is.

 
At 10:48 PM, July 10, 2005, Blogger Brad said...

So...in all seriousness, I'm still missing just what your "lasting alternative" to war is.

 
At 6:14 AM, July 11, 2005, Blogger Josh Fuller said...

Yeah...you and me both. If I had the solution I wouldn't be writing a blog, I'd be on a million dollar book tour. I still think it's pretty obvious that what I originally wrote was only expressing the hope that we could move towards finding such a thing, not that I had found it.

 
At 1:53 PM, July 11, 2005, Blogger Brad said...

http://protestwarrior.com/new_signs.php?sign=1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4670945.stm

 
At 4:16 AM, July 13, 2005, Blogger Brad said...

I still think it's pretty obvious that what I originally wrote was only expressing the hope that we could move towards finding such a thing, not that I had found it.

Well, I would say that that's not the case...you weren't "only expressing hope", you were specifically criticizing war as being an illegitimate choice in this situation (partially due to the differences you've mentioned in your post and in your comments) and such a criticism is based on the presupposition that a better, "more lasting solution" does, in fact, exist.

While I share your "hope in moving towards finding such a thing", let's not eject from the real world and force a nirvana found only in Heaven into a world that is distinctly fallen and evil (no, not all of it, but let's agree that significant parts are).

 
At 7:51 AM, July 13, 2005, Blogger Josh Fuller said...

Hmm. I've reread the post and comments, and I'm going to have to remain in disagreement with you. I don't see any statement that said war was an illegitimate choice in the situation, just not a perfect one. And I don't see any place that I said we shouldn't act until we had the perfect solution, or that I was positive it existed. All I see is the same old pie-in-the-sky hopeful naivety that keeps my cynical pragmatism in check.

I use a lot of qualified statements on my blog, like "The same songs that can sometimes strike me as cheesy, trite, formulaic or simplistic" and then my wife accuses me of calling those songs trite. I did not call them trite; I confessed that they can strike me that way at times and that is my shortcoming. I understand how when someone says something that hits close to an issue we care about, we often hear them make the entire argument that we've deemed incorrect, and we may miss words like "I think," "sometimes," "maybe," or "hopefully." But the fact is I didn't say anything more than what I said, and I usually do that on purpose.

 
At 6:37 PM, July 13, 2005, Blogger Brad said...

The "on purpose" part is to have a glimmer of a sliver of hope to weasel out of your opinion.

For instance, on the songs...it is, in fact, your opinion that they are trite. Now, we can all understand that everything that you say is your opinion and your perspective, but yes...in your opinion, they are trite. That's how they strike you; that's what you think of them. Sorry to cause trouble so close to home, but it's the example that you brought up and I thought that it would be one people would less likely to let you get away with (unlike the political examples where their own prejudices might let you slip through the grip of reality).

As for the war, you weren't simply musing about how war is imperfect. Such a comment would be so obvious and so unneccessary--and so utterly unprofound--that it wouldn't warrant being said at all.

The "maybe" and "maybe not" was clearly leaving wiggle room for whether or not the bent-on-war dolts were going to start finding this hypothetical non-war answer or not...not whether you thought such a process might exist or such alternatives do either. Cramming your hope (as is all of ours) of a non-war alternative into the presumption that there is one is silly...particularly in proclaiming war to lack in the "lasting" department.

-England is permanently out of the U.S.

-The South is permanently part of one, unified Union and one side-effect of that is that slavery was finally abolished in the U.S. Spin the Lincoln history all you want, but slavery is abolished and it wouldn't have happened without war.

-Nazism is permanently eradicated from Europe because of war. Death camps are ended, bombings are stopped, etc. etc.

-Iraq was permanently kicked out of Kuwait with war.

-Kosovo, Bosnia (they're Clinton wars...you should like them):
http://protestwarrior.com/new_signs.php?sign=14

-The Cold War. Don't tell me you were ever a Reagan supporter, but even though there wasn't a shot fired, it certainly was a war and he's certainly one that everybody on your tip of The Left still loves to hate.

http://thoseshirts.com/reaganplain.html

You simply don't get to cross your arms and comment on the imperfections of the real world and wash your hands of it all because you don't want to taint yourself with the messiness of it all.

 
At 6:55 PM, July 13, 2005, Blogger Josh Fuller said...

My goodness.

I trust myself to know my opinions better than you do, although neither of us know them in full, to be sure.

I can only say the same thing so many times, so this is the last time I'll reiterate that I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I'm sometimes good at implying, yes, but I had and have no intention of implying nearly anything you've accused me of, most of which (like you) I don't agree with at all.

I don't think those songs are trite, and when, as I said, they sometimes strike me that way (you again missed the "sometimes"), I try to reprimand myself and strive for a more open mind. I refuse to accept that a momentary knee-jerk reaction constitutes my opinion. Here's where this becomes a bad example, because nowhere in my post is there even a momentary knee-jerk reaction in the direction you're suggesting.

I don't put maybe's in my sentences to leave wiggle room for anything. I actually talk that way, all the time...ask anyone who's ever tried to have a conversation with me about anything more significant than pizza toppings. And I certainly wouldn't bother putting them in an email to a radio DJ which I only later thought to cut & paste onto my blog.

Finally, lest the tone of this comment seem less than warm, let me assure you that I love this type of dialog and am very glad for your input. You're always welcome here!

 
At 10:18 PM, July 13, 2005, Blogger Brad said...

I think it's okay to have the opinion that those songs are trite. I happen to share it...while recognizing that others hold a different opinion on the matter. I don't know how to slice between, "They strike me as..." and "It's my opinion that they're...". Truly, you're a surgeon beyond your time ;) .

 

Post a Comment

<< Home