I expect some criticism for saying this. But allowing terrorism to disrupt our democratic processes incentivises terrorists. Personal attention seeking, and the idea that their self-sacrifice will have an impact on the world, is part of the deranged psychology that motivates suicide bombers. To suspend the election campaign again following another dreadful terrorist attack, actually will boost the prestige of the act in the eyes of their supporters and potential future terrorists. If we react in this way, we are promoting the chances of a wave of such attacks every time we have an election.
I abhor and condemn last night’s attack and am dreadfully sorry for all victims, dead and injured, and for their family and friends. But it would serve the memory of the dead better if we reacted by continuing calmly with our democracy, and showed that their killers cannot win, cannot affect us.
That was my reaction too when I heard that campaigning had been suspended again. Initially I thought it would only have been attributed to Tory arrogance if it had not been suspended, but on second thoughts I felt it to have been a mistake. Above all it is important that the election should go ahead on Thursday 8th June.
I find it difficult to believe that anybody who bombs this country in sympathy with the Middle East wants to bring in a government who will continue more war. It doesn’t make sense, they’d want to stop war. If the idea is to bring in a government who wants more war then it’s not sympathizers who bomb us but somebody else. And that brings our own government and secret services under suspicion.
the type of ‘assets’ that carry out these attacks probably don’t have some grand personal crusade, they’re probably just useful nut jobs who are spurred on to do things that affect a context they do not fully understand.
but even if they do have that wider perspective, it is entirely logical to presume that a group which is being funded and armed by the same people the Tories sell weapons would want to return a Tory government. If Labour get in, Saudi Arabia loses an ally, and IS lose some of its protection.
I am afraid it has occurred to me to question why it isn’t religious leaders in their 60’s and 70’s, if they are in agreement with the philosophy behind suicide bombing and similar actions, who do not carry out the actions themselves. They are leaders after all, and they have had plenty of life, so why not go first and give the youngsters a chance at life. J
Indeed why do not generals and prime ministers go and fight in the front line, if they’re so convinced of the righteousness of the fight? Why did Haig and his staff sit in their château sipping claret, while teenage Tommies were being blown apart by German machine guns in the trenches? After all, kings fought in the front-line in medieval times, and got killed.
Quite right – I agree with you. However, with Islamist leaders there is the additional factor that – as I understand it, I am quite conscious that I may merely be misled by propaganda – martyrdom is regarded as blessed, and this life merely a troublesome precursor to the glory to follow. In which case, why are elder Islamic statesmen not eagerly proffering themselves for these delights?
I am afraid I take the rather cynical view that, having tasted so much of life here, the older and wiser heads are not quite so convinced of the virtues of a glorious transition as are their younger colleagues.
JSD
“martyrdom is regarded as blessed, and this life merely a troublesome precursor to the glory to follow. ”
I don’t think you’ll find much difference between Christianity and Islam there. There have been plenty of periods in Christian history where that line was used. It’s nothing unusual. It’s the way you get the young to go to their deaths in a war of religion (religious identity, of course, being a superficial motif of the conflict, not the fundamental cause). There was a case back in 1980, when Khomeini provided plastic keys to the young Iranian soldiers going to the front, which they hung around their necks, and which were supposed to be the keys to Paradise.
How many other people stand to lose? 3 billion pounds a year revenue on weapons? How is that going to stop? Some British weapons manufactured have been in business since 1580! What would be their response to a leader who wants to effectively put them out of business? Labour would have to nationalise the weapons industry completely and then wind it down – that’s a pretty big concept!
Id relish the change. We could manufacture all kinds of useful stuff instead. Stuff that actually helps people and our environment.
These events come out of an environment that’s created. So when do we chose to start creating a better one.
Agreed Ishmael, I just mean that the arms companies are like the mafia – what would they do do you think?
How much like the mafia?
How much alike? “That’s a nice country, be a shame if it burned down…”
I have to say I agree with this. For whatever sick reason, these terrorists aim to disrupt/destroy our way of lives and that includes our democracy. We should, of course, feel sorrow for the victims and do what can be done for them and their families, but by suspending campaigning again, we are letting the terrorists chip away at our democratic process. Carrying on as normal would be a far more effective way of standing up to them, than meekly allowing them to change the way we do things.
I agree, and still more importantly, the election must go ahead on 8th June.
Just wondering about this, and perhaps I am being overly cynical, though first to make the point that I am not suggesting for even a nano second that May organized, or knew about either attack in advance – I am thinking opportunism. We are in a GE that no one expected till May announced it. Very arguably it was always unnecessary, other than for the perceived political advantage of May and her party to secure a much larger majority and stiff the Labour Party. As the polls have increasingly forecast that now seems very unlikely to the point where a hung parliament is less impossible but just not very likely. GIven the House has been dissolved it cannot be recalled. We have no MPs until next Friday when they are elected (or re-elected). But given that this could be an opportunity to delay Thursday’s vote, reboot the campaign in a week or so, is there anything in the Emergency Powers Act (or similar) that would allow May to pull a stunt like this? Or will there be political pressure to, for instance, stop the national campaigns till (say) Wednesday in which case “you’ll have had your general election campaign” (I understand you live in Edinburgh now, so you will understand the origin of that one?).
You hit the nail on the head “opportunism”
What about asking the families of the victims what they would prefer = suspension of campaigning or business as usual – and making their statements known to the public?
If I know anything the families would tell us all to carry on as normal while honouring the dead and injured at the same time. J
Suspending election campaigns over national emergencies is a far more cynical exercise that most people here seem to realise, it’s just a matter of letting headlines calm down. However I feel someone needs to step up.
This is the US administration response to Saudi democratic credentials (state sponsored terrorism) when asked:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad4PK63FhQQ
The full question asked was:
“While you were over there, the Secretary criticised the conduct of the Iranian elections and Iran’s record on democracy. He did so standing next to Saudi officials. How do you characterise Saudi Arabia’s commitment to democracy, and does the administration believe that democracy is a buffer or a barrier against extremism?”
https://image.ibb.co/f4rUca/Ideology.jpg
The Most State Dept Press Conference Fail Ever (amidst the other notable examples).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42-8jYzCv3M
Fully agreed, Craig. I see no reason why we should ignore what psychologists have been saying round and round. the more the media talk about suicides, the more news headlines such acts attract, the more copycats will be there. This applies to nearly all suicides irrespective of the motivation behind the act. So, once again, we should keep calm and carry on.
Unpopular ?
Apart from our politico’s, and their shills, it seems there is a huge majority that thinks carrying on ‘as normal’ is the only sensible, logical thing to do.
This reaction will give the ‘false flaggers’ and tinfoil hatters ammunition aplenty.
Campaign suspension is merely adjusting the campaigning to circumstances. Labour are linking the need to turn out to vote as a defiant act against the terror. Good campaign move.
You won’t be criticised by me for saying this…just what I was thinking too!
“Personal attention seeking, and the idea that their self-sacrifice will have an impact on the world, is part of the deranged psychology that motivates suicide bombers.”
I think you put it in a nutshell there, Craig. One thing that we as a society could do might be to start taking mental health more seriously. The people who carry out these atrocities are just latching onto a cause. If they hadn’t latched onto a particular religion then they might just as easily become overly obsessed with a football team and started carrying out violence in the name of Millwall, or whatever. Sad that so many far-right people and racists are using this to attack Muslims because a relatively miniscule minority of mentally disturbed people have chosen their religion to latch onto. To say that violent terrorism is in any way reflective of the billions of people around the world who happen to be Muslim is as ridiculous as saying that because BNP Fuhrer Nick Griffin happens to be British then all Brits are neo-Nazis. In fact, worldwide, Muslims probably make up the majority of Daesh’s victims and are in the frontline fighting against terrorism rather than for it. We should actually be grateful and proud of the massive number of Muslims who are making such a courageous stand against organisations like Daesh and al-Qaeda. They’re like the people of Europe who stood up to the Nazis and Fascists in WW2. Whilst I’m not a fan of any of the three patriarchal religions and believe that a move towards secularism would be genuinely progressive, I feel it’s important to remember that there are good and bad in all kinds and also, as you have pointed out Craig, there are a number of people who actually mentally ill and lash out at other human beings causing a lot of damage and heartbreak. In reality, are these terrorist atrocities that different from the Hungerford massacre or Dunblane? When you strip these awful mass murders down to their essentials, you’ll find a person (very often – but not always – a man) whom for some reason has to express his own feelings of inadequacy or fear by taking it out on other people. I’d imagine that if we don’t get down to the nitty gritty of addressing that, and the patriarchal problem in all three patriarchal religions, then we won’t make much progress in stopping these tragedies happen again. I’m really sorry for the victims and their families and loved ones whose lives have now been torn apart just because three men didn’t or couldn’t sort their own destructive psychological issues out.
That’s just incredibly insulting. Why do most people with mental illness not do things like this? In fact, we’re at higher risk of being the victim of violence. What are the odds there’d even be this many? This specific attack was committed by three men, working together, not an isolated attacker. Armies committing imperialist acts of aggression tend to consist of a lot more. It isn’t mental illness, and neurotypical people are perfectly capable of committing horrific acts, they commit most of them. You have it right by blaming patriarchy – and Islam is a patriarchal religion. Whether it’s Bush and Blair’s Christian holy war, or terrorist attacks, the religious ideaology absolutely is a factor, as is secular patriarchy.
Avoiding criticising the oppressive patriarchal ideaology that is religion in order to blame the mentally ill is not progressive.
“Why do most people with mental illness not do things like this?”
Okay, why do most people living under the oppressive patriarchal ideology that is religion not do things like this?
What was special about this three men that they chose to commit this atrocity when most people do not choose to, oppressive ideology or not?
I am in full agreement with you, by the way, that the vast majority of people living with a mental illness are quite harmless and much more likely to be the victims of violence and exploitation than the other way round. That still leaves a very few who are dangerous. J
Yes but I don’t know if it does to much good pandering in some ways.
We know the ideological underpinning, the resentment channeled by very real control and domination by “western” powers over a region where most are muslim. They could be Irish.
It matters not.
It does annoy me those people who imply some kind of complacency about feelings toward these murders. They are the very ones who won’t point the finger on the actual things we can do to mitigate this threat.
It’s like they just want 1984 five minute hate and let them do what they want. They will fill in the reasons/gaps. Unusually boing down to “EVIL”…..Well that’s really is a helpfull explanation and framework isn’t it? Especially fighting some religious fundamentalist sect. NOT
The SUN and ISIS. What a team.
If we change what we do, the bad guys have won.
A bit simplistic. “we” (some of us) should change what we do so this is less likely, and “we” have very “bad” guys also not helping.
I believe in political process, but don’t really like the event of elections, seen or given as they are, most peoples only involvement. It makes people suseptable to rashness, groupthink. And the process could be improved imo. These events as is are obvious targets.
‘Keep Calm and Carry On’, is the delusional motif we choose to represent ourselves. Yet, (particularly since the ‘Diana’ moment), we have increasingly indulged ourselves in disruptive symbolism which expresses quite the reverse of our self image.
Actually there’s good evidence that keep Calm and Carry On meme on is a recent corporate public relations invention, contrary to all the mythos of ‘re-discovered second world war posters’ etc.
Could you be more precise in your language? To say “we choose to represent ourselves” is inaccurate on so many levels because:
A) ‘We’ didn’t choose it. It was represented to us whether authentic or not.
B) The posters are very likely not authentic, we were told a ‘heart warming’ story to sell the idea of the posters and their message.
C) In any case substantial marketing expertise was used to coerce people into adopting the message, with very specific political and social goals in mind.
If we use language as loosely as this, our thinking is likely to follow suit.
I agree with you Craig. Democracy is not well served by giving in to the terrorists.
UKIP have refused to suspend their campaign, describing such a move as a victory for the terrorists. Come on Craig, credit where its due!
Labour have announced they’ll campaigning this evening.
May says ‘enough’s enough’ don’t what that means presumably sell some more weapons to Saudi Arabia and cut a few more police?
I agree with you Craig.
In any case TM was actively campaigning during her speech earlier!
Not only that but she conflated the words Islam and terrorism on several occasions. You’ve got to admire her script writers.
What we got from her today was a Party Political Broadcast RoS. Appalling considering those poor people are barely cold.
And they’re off. We didn’t even make it until lunchtime. In a carefully crafted “I’m having my cake and eating it” campaign speech, Theresa May did her predictable UKIP/BNP style getting-far-tougher-than-Jeremy-will speech on terrorism, whilst simultaneously saying she has suspended campaigning. Excuse me?
Won’t work she’s sleafy screwed it – she already has the tough on terrorism vote
*already!
Good point.
What’s sleafy ?
An extremely affluent leafy area, I just made that up on the spot. Kind of like Tory policies.
So it’s not a drunk man, giving directions to Edinburgh’s port town then ?
It could be, if that’s what you want it to be. ?
I hate most everything Thatcher stood for but she did, and was sharp in her day.
In todays context a similar ideological approach just isn’t flying. I think the nationalists all a bit absurd nowadays, Dress up, wave a flag, that’s so not cool.
I wonder back then what reactions were like.
Could not agree more. Appalling speech by May where she used the horrific events and deaths to her advantage in an attempt to recover lost ground. And of course BBC news eagerly helping. One of their lot just asked Corbyn if last night affected his campaign in a positive or negative way.
Not forgetting TM’s speech, asked for a crackdown on internet users. She wants to stifle your opinion.
And TM spilled the beans saying the attack required the government to bomb foreign countries!
Sublime message from TM, Syria! Syria! Syria!
Some commenters on other sites are saying last night’s event was a hoax with no dead, the reason being the Tories are desperate to win because US, UK and French forces are on the borders of Syria waiting to invade for Zionism. They know Jeremy Corbyn won’t invade.
I wonder if western governments say these people bomb us to change our way of life because our governments bomb them to do exactly that. To change their systems of government, their status quo, their way of life. They deny it’s blowback by projecting their own causes.
One thing is certain, it is time to talk openly and rationally about foreign policy…
See my above comment.
Agree.
I entirely agree with you Craig. If we close down the democratic process for a few days after every terrorist attack, how long will it be before terrorists come to think that a sequence of attacks – even small ones – could shut down election campaigning entirely? I can’t think of a bigger victory that we could hand them.
And will Team TM being adding these events to their election expenses?
I think that suspending campaigning for a day, as a mark of respect to those affected, is a reasonable response. Having said that, I have just listened to May talking outside 10 Downing St., where just about everything she said was political, wanting to appear strong & stable no doubt. But, to me, she appeared to making points about “a united country” & “pulling together”, more appropriate in a campaign context than as a response to this atrocity.
Not the tone I would expect from a PM.
Emily Thornberry, on the other hand, when asked to respond, maintained the line that today was not the the day to talk about this.
I feel for her – after all, the PM presumably has to say something. J
The only thing you’ll be feeling is the cold when she cuts your winter fuel allowance.
Give yourself a good shake man!
I’m not quite that old yet. But thanks!
Apologies John, your comments give you the air (in my opinion anyway) of a elder statesman. ?
I couldn’t agree more. Not sure if you know, but Another Angry Voice had a great post about this in the wake of the Manchester tragedy.
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/why-self-imposed-political-silence-is.html
The glorification of terrorism is illegal and yet this event has been extensively promoted as a terrorist attack, but how could this be possibly known as the attackers were immediately killed no questions asked. In law terrorism, as opposed to a violent attack, is an act of violence for political objectives (like war itself). Thus the illegal promotion of this event as terrorism reveals the identity of those behind the event.
This attack was timed perfectly in terms of burying the story of a Tory MP being charged with election expenses fraud.
So you think it was a false flag aimed specifically at burying that story?
This election* was timed perfectly –
That’s not true though is it? The expenses story was a couple of days ago and had already run out of steam. Have another go.
I totally agree. We should carry on. I hope people realise that in order to stop terrorism we need to stop selling arms to countries who use these weapons to kill innocent people.
I didn’t notice any suspension of electioneering; Theresa May’s speech, post COBRA meeting on the doorstep of No10 was wholly and simply political.
Cynical and opportunistic.
Yes. It was nothing short of a Party Political Broadcast!