Some reflections on the bombings in London

It seems like there is no good way to describe a terrorist attack. We seem to self-consciously fail to find the appropriate words. We talk about the date it happened and make vague references to "events" or "attacks". This was the case with New York, and I find myself following similar conventions when I struggle to find the phrase I want, when I want to speak of the bombings in London. I can't quite put my finger on why people are so reluctant to refer directly to what happened. It was a bombing, so let's call it a bombing - however scary that word is.

The difficulty of finding appropriate words was put into particular focus as I tried to go about doing my job - which is essentially finding the right words to describe violence in Irish history. I became acutely aware in the wake of the bombings of the great impact that words have. Every day I talk about the violent reactions that Irish men and women made to the injustices our nation suffered under successive British Administrations over a considerable breadth of time, and while it is in a reasonably distant past, it still has a legacy which is connected with terrorist activity. Activity that I have been exposed to many times in my life in various ways.

I suppose the most disturbing exposure I got to the 'troubles' was when I was in a bomb scare in the London underground in 1992 as a twelve year old boy. I was separated from my father in the crush. It was utterly terrifying. I threw-up my dinner later that night and bizarrely I suppressed the memories of the scare so that I didn't think or talk of it at all until a couple of years later when my Dad reminded me of that day and it all came flooding back.

At times some tourists to the prison where I work think that what I am giving them is the IRA 'line' when it is far closer to the truth to say that I am merely giving them the history of prison and the only reason that this isn't quite the truth either is that I am well aware that there are significant gaps in my reading on Irish history. But hey, cut me a little slack here - there is a bloody lot of it!

I talk about the pre-cilil-war revolutionaries of my nation with pride and admiration. Many of them gave their lives clear-sightedly to change the course of history and I am well aware that their acts of violence ultimately partially produced its desired outcome. I think I would also say that they were not only fair and just, but necessary. Irish people suffered terribly under British administration. Today I passed by the statutes of James Connolly and Robert Emmet, in the course of my day and I saluted them both and thanked them both under my breath for what they did and what they stood and died for. The bombing of London reminded me of the bombing in London that was carried out by the IRA who would also look to these figures with similar admiration, but I think I can say with confidence that these two Irish revolutionaries (my favourite two) would never have advocated taking the conflict from Irish soil and bringing it Britain in the way that the IRA did in the 1980s and 1990s

That said, it seems obvious enough that the bombing of the Baltic Exchange in London's Finacial District (to mention the most significant one), was a major catalyst to the British Government making a concerted effort on the peace process where countless bombs and acts of violence in Belfast left them largely unmoved and politically uninspired.

Of course I would never condone a terrorist attack for any reason and I would only condone violence in the most compelling circumstances, but I do find it difficult not to check myself for hypocracy when I am outraged by terrorist attacks while it is my job to honour and commemorate the men and women who are a clear link to the acts of terrorism that have occurred in recent times. Taking a broad view though, it is difficult to come up with any real moral position. The Unionists and the British hardly have clean hands.

But to return to the new terrorists in London. They are called extremists and evil. They bombed London to make their voice heard. What I find disturbing is that after the bombings, after the destruction of the world trade centre in 2001, I still can't hear their voices. This is considerably different to the IRA bombings. What are they saying, what is their agenda, and what exactly do they want? And why are western governments not asking these questions?

It seems highly hypocritical to me to speak of the 'war on terror'. We don't want wars and violence begets violence. Eagerness to go to war in the past is most likely one of the main causes of the phenomenon of terrorism. What we need, to state the obvious, is an end to violence - but we don't know how to achieve this. Clamping down on the free-movement of individuals; holding people in constant suspiscion, and over-spending on security measures seem to us like a far more achievable 'solution'. We need a little creativity.