Insomnia (insomnia) wrote,

Something to think about.

If we as a country should repudiate and renounce acts of terrorism, then perhaps we should address some of our moral blind spots too.

While civilian terrorist attacks are widely despised, it's worth noting that the terrorists, by attacking civilian targets inside London, attacked targets which were arguably far more valid than many of the civilian targets which are routinely attacked inside Iraq. By bombing London, they attacked targets that were as valid in many ways as those destroyed during Sherman's March to the Sea, the bombing (and subsequent firestorms) of Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo, the atomic blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the B-52 carpet bombing of cities in North Vietnam, and arguably about as valid as many of the civilian targets in Iraq which the coalition have attacked at times.

Approximately 130,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war so far, with the majority of the deaths credited to Coalition attacks. Prior to the war, another million or so Iraqis died as a result of sanctions -- sanctions which the U.S. kept racheting up, despite the reported civilian deaths, the increasing poverty and hunger, the inability of Iraqi hospitals to obtain needed medical supplies, and the inability of their country to obtain goods needed to supply their people with fresh drinking water. It was a sanctions program so ruinous that the head of the UN program stepped down in protest of the humanitarian disaster.

The attacks on London were horrible, awful, inhumane, and unacceptable, but...

The Iraqis lose over five times as many people per capita to the war every day.

Imagine over a thousand such attacks and you start to get the full picture.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.