Sides? (was Re: the terrorist bombings in London

[Sean Mannion]

Hi all,

Sorry to make the subject of my first post (death to lurking) to the list a 
non-pynchon (though arguable pynchonian) one, in light of yesterday's 
attacks.

>The G-8 leaders are meeting at Gleneagles to ratify plans to provide 
>further debt relief to African nations (those which aren't ruled by corrupt 
>despots and genocidal warlords), to discuss other ways of easing African 
>poverty, and to implement protocols aimed at reducing global warming and 
>long-term environmental degradation. Those are issues that should be 
>discussed, initiatives that should be supported and put into effect.

I place no faith in anything the G8 appears to have in the way of 
humanitarianism in its 2005 agenda.
The widely touted ('Make Poverty History') aim at $40 billion in debt 
cancellation across a ten year period pales when you consider that 
sub-saharan Africa owes $230 billion in external debt alone. The entire 
third world owes roughly (it's hard to be nit-picky here) two and half 
trillon dollars, meaning that for every $1 officially given in aid, $3 are 
paid back to western lenders. So for all the pomp and ceremony of the G8, 
'Live8' and 'Make Poverty History' campaigns, we're really all just screwing 
them. Conditionalities are placed upon debt cancellation - and arguably, 
while 7.2% of oil reserves (more than all of North America) are located in 
the continent, the enforcing of liberal economic policies upon African 
states can be seen in terms allowing multinational corporations to exploit 
them legally, rather than the terms of "democracy as best possible conduit 
to economic and social recovery".

If anyone's that interested, the 'Make Poverty History' wristbands you may 
or may not be wearing were  sourced (by the british media) to Chinese 
sweatshop -- so maybe if the G8 are successful, you never know -- they could 
import them from sweatshops in Kenya when 'Make Poverty History' rolls into 
Latin America, or Afghanistan and Irag (provided we're not still there 
trying to sort the collective pragmatics of our nations' foreign policy.

And until the Bush military Junta goes, theres probably no chance in getting 
a US government to legislate its way to the kind of reduced carbon emissions 
that can only come when people aren't allowed to buy SUV's like there's no 
tomorrow (though there probably by the time this happens).

>What's most disturbing about yesterday's terrorist attack on London is that 
>the jihadists who perpetrated the bombings and the protestors in Edinburgh 
>seem now to be on the same "side". Both groups were attempting to derail 
>the G-8 meeting and to hijack the agenda of those talks.

That's not what's most disturbing -- what's most disturbing is the fact that 
Mossad (Israeli Intelligence) were given information regarding the attacking 
prior to the event occurring, subsequently contacting Scotland Yard to 
inform the British Police of an attack on British soil, and regardless of 
prior warning, yesterday still happened because the unit carrying out the 
attack were completely unknown to intelligence agencies. What's disturbing 
is that we're now feeling (in the UK) the added repercussions of what is 
liable to occur in a country whose Prime Minister was jointly-responsible 
for destroying UN protocol and conducting an (extremely arguably) illegal 
war against a non-agressor nation - pretty much against the majority of his 
electorate's will.

Furthermore The only way that Anti-Capitalist Protestors and Jihadists could 
  *seem* to be on the same side, however, is if you're stupid enough to 
confuse method and aim (or write for a British tabloid); Anti-Capitalist 
Protestors weren't aiming to "hijack the agenda of those talks" but to 
protest against the idea of a 'G8' itself in as peaceful a manner as 
possible -- though there have been riots at several of the summit-meetings. 
The Jihadist aim and method is terror.  There is a universe of a difference.