changing lanes

the killing in london is chilling and a sign that the times they are a-changing.

i an referring here to the shooting by armed police of the guy who ran into the tube. details are sketchy but listening to an eyewitness account on bbc last night it seems that cops stood over the fallen guy and then pumped 5 bullets into the back of his head. one expert commentator glibly stated that terrorism is a modern phenomenon and therefore needed modern responses. right.

in america, in the aftermath of 9/11, the americans did far more damage to themselves than the terrorists themselves. take the patriotic act, gunantanamo bay, the invasion of iraq and the reasons given for it and so on. consequent to 9/11, i seem to remember some u s general say that the geneva convention does not apply to america. these are all modern responses. right.

britain might go the same way. given the fact that they have been hit from the inside there is bound to be curbing of rights and freedoms, taken for granted up to now. the problem with these responses is where exactly does one draw the line? this is not to say that terrorism should go unopposed. it should be opposed and opposed strongly. but what of the root causes of it? where in all the actions and reactions of the western world is an attempt made to understand and address the causes of terrorism?

in countries like sri lanka where western concepts of freedom and democracy are fragile at best of times, we used to look to america and britain as the holders of the flame. what we would like to be when we grew up. now we see that, when the chips are down, they are just as likely to resort to third world tyranny as any in the third world.

“come gather 'round people
wherever you roam
and admit that the waters
around you have grown
and accept it that soon
you'll be drenched to the bone.
if your time to you
is worth savin'
then you better start swimmin'
or you'll sink like a stone
for the times they are a-changin'”

- the times they are a changin’ – bob dylan