Politicizing London Bombings-

OK, yeah I'm a Yank, but I have a lot of interest in the WTO/G8 too. I know of a few locals who are there with my blessing. I know now is the wrong time think about the politics behind the bombings.

Let me just relate how I saw 9/11 unfold here. First there was this period of great cooperation, mourning, shock. No one was willing to politicize the event. There were great memorials attended by both conservatives and progressives where they both expressed their desires for peace and for justice without judging each other. That was the first and the last time these two sides agreed on anything in this country in the last 50 years. Everyone has been attacking each other since.

Whatever the situation now, just keep in mind the similarities to 9/11, conspiracies aside- the bombings were political, they could be politicized to great effect in the future, they came at the perfect moment for hawks, and yes they were probably the result of the general policies of some of the G8 in the third world. If the events can be steered clear of political exploitation by either side, yet the core issues still debated without constant and sickening exploitation of the victims it might work greatly to prevent the police state mentality that developed in the US.

The Brits have some real advantages, though. They have years of experience working through huge problems in Ireland despite IRA bombing. I would say some Brits learned to keep an extraordinarily level head. Also, the UK is just smarter or at least more aware on a political level than most Americans in my opinion.



Edinburgh Protests-

I think it's very treacherous morally to condone violence carried out by someone else. A person's battles are that person's alone, but you can work politically to reconcile the issues.

A few observations about Edinburgh. It's certainly not just foreigners. A lot of people there are from the UK, and even from Edinburgh. A lot of those have traveled to other WTO events themselves. Wherever they are from, they feel the G8 events effect them, and they feel they have the right to be there and protest it. Many people feel the G8 is incredibly destructive in the third world and sometimes even in the first world. If that is true, it's impossible for me to understand how the G8 could meet without some peripheral violence. Please explain that to me. Whatever happens, it's also clear the point of the protests is not to kill or harm anyone. Anyone who thinks that does not understand anarcho-socialists very well, if some protesters can be called that. The propaganda that they might is important for the police, however. Some mostly symbolic levels of property damage and hooliganism is really nothing compared to the perceived damage from the G8's policies or what happens in Iraq every day now.

In Seattle, locally owned establishments suffered little more than lost business, and many of those owners were actually sympathetic to some loss resulting from a freaking WTO event in their town. Some corporate establishments like Starbucks were pretty torn up. Again, robbery or physically harming people was not the point and I don't think it happened. The police are the only ones who hurt anyone there. On the other hand, the level of soccer hooliganism in the UK, which is virtually unknown in the US for any kind of event, indicates you would have to almost expect at least the same level of violence at any event where passions run high. Hell, the G8 is more important than soccer, right? And violence at soccer matches is almost every one, right? And it's even accepted or not controllable? I don't know.. you tell me, Brits. I will say everything in Seattle was cleaned up and paid for by insurance really fast.

A cynical view is that the G8 brought a lot of money to Edinburgh, right? Maybe the only way to make corporations or municipalities reconsider participating or at least how they participate in the G8 is to make it less profitable for them.