What it all means

While reading online reactions, listening to the radio and hearing people speak today, something kept nagging at me. And that was this:

We can all (well, those of us who aren’t of the terrorist persuasion anyway) agree to be shocked, horrified and sympathetic when something like this happens. As far as that goes, we’re all united for about 10 seconds.

But then the next question is “what now?” And that’s where the divisions start, because that’s where everyone starts telling people that today’s attacks “mean” that… (insert their political viewpoint here).

Some examples:

• Anti-poverty activists are saying that today’s attacks “mean” that the fight to eradicate third-world poverty must be stepped up, because only that can solve terrorism.
• Anti-Americans are saying that today’s attacks “mean” that Bush’s foreign policies, especially in Iraq, are disastrous and responsible for the bombings today, since Blair is an ally of Bush.
• Defenders of the Iraq war are saying that today’s attacks “mean” that going into Iraq was the right thing to do after all, and that the world’s leaders should unite with the US and Britain.
• Socialists are saying that today’s attacks “mean” that the capitalist system is a failure and that only when true social harmony exists under a socialist system will terrorism be eradicated.
• I’m willing to bet that sellers of blue cheese are saying that today’s attacks “mean” that people should eat more blue cheese.

See what I’m saying?

The only thing that today’s bombings in London “mean” is that dozens of people are dead and hundreds more are injured in a cowardly attack. All the rest is just politics.