I should address a few of the replies from last Fridays post. But first, thanks to those who wrote, and it was good to hear from friends in London who got in touch through the reply button. I sincerely hope knowing that 'home' was still a safe place helped to soothe the nerves a little.
Second, let's face facts, all killing is murder, whether you're dressed in a uniform and accidentally killing your own forces in 'friendly fire', civilians in 'collateral damage', blokes in some other uniform who might be legitimate targets, or guerrillas who'd just as quickly do the same thing to you. Whatever way you dress it up, get emotional about it, or try not to enjoy it, killing is killing.
So while it would be delightful to all live in some utopia where this sort of thing never happens, we all know that it's not going to happen in our lifetime. You can be the most loving, famously half-naked hippy in history, and there's still a chance some lunatic will shoot you at the door to your hotel room.
Strangely, 'peace' is not a particularly infectious meme. But 'hate' and 'anger' are.
And New Zealand is not some perfect haven from the hate building across the globe. But, I'm sticking to my guns on this one, I simply cannot see New Zealand as a credible target in the eyes of the current batch Islamic extremists.
Now taiho there people, before you go racing to the reply button to take a piece out of me, hear me out. I'm not arguing that New Zealand is not a target in the war on terror. I'm arguing that New Zealand is a small and unimportant target, one waaaay down the list of possible places to strike.
I know that New Zealanders like to think that we're movers and shakers in the heady world of political affairs, but sorry, no. New Zealand is a little place thousands of miles from anywhere. We might be active players through our troops in Afghanistan and a navy involved in the Gulf, but as far as global events go, we simply don't register on the radar.
Why do I think this? Because one of the characteristics of guerrilla and terror conflicts is the limited power and resources of one side of the conflict. Naturally there are exceptions to this, but what you can point to in wars like the American War of Independence, the Boer War, the New Zealand Land Wars, or any other asymmetrical conflagration is one side having to avoid any stand-up fight with the bigger player.
OK, now let's put aside all the emotive feeling about Islamic extremists and what they've been doing, and look at the realities. These groups do not have unlimited resources. While they could well have substantial resources, they do not have an endless reach.
Also, terrorism is all about symbolism and fear. If this is the correct group, by their own admission, Thursday's bombers were striking because of Blair's involvement in the 'liberation of Iraq', and wanted to make the British burn with 'fear and panic'. Of course, the British said 'get fucked', and despite the sickening media frenzy trying to prove the contrary, don't appear to be particularly phased (as an ex-flatmate, a born and bred Londoner, replied to me "Hello, I'm fine thanks, just another day in London town. I'm sort of used to it, growing up with I.R.A attacks and wotnot.")
Like Madrid, London wasn't a random target seized on by madmen, it was a deliberate target because of Blair's policies and close relationship with Bush. You can try and repaint that picture any way you like, but it's the cold hard fact of the matter. Downing Street is, as is the Beehive, a willing participant in the war on terror.
Consequently, like London, New Zealand has to be considered a legitimate target. But let's return to the issue of resources. My knowledge of Islamic extremists in our part of the world is sketchy at best, I've spent the last few years reading into how to make people getting along as idiot-proof as possible, but I do not think that we are the target in this region. If you have limited resources you pick your targets very carefully.
And if what you have is limited resources and need to get the biggest media concentration possible, are you going to hit New Zealand? Sure, a strike all the way over here would demonstrate to the world that absolutely no one is safe, but there will be the question, why Auckland? Helen hasn't been cozying up to the Americans, hasn't been making grandiose statements about New Zealand's unwavering dedication to the war on terror, and hasn't been making veiled threats to kick arse in South East Asia should the need arise. New Zealand may well have troops in the Middle East, but our contingent is so very much smaller than everyone else we slip under the radar.
Try and think like a terrorist for a moment. You're going to nail Sydney.