[lbo-talk] "Come friendly bombers"

James Heartfield Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk
Wed Jul 13 22:07:48 PDT 2005


Carl 'bomb on' Remick affects boredom to conceal his hatred of London's bomb victims:

'<Yawn> Brits have merely taken the scenic route to the same destination -- reelecting a government that has waged illegal war.'

The meaning is clear: the "Brits" (would he call the bombers "Pakis"?) are guilty of waging war against the Iraqis, they elected the government so they must "pay the price", i.e. their lives. Plainly all the caveats about 'of course nobody supports terrorism' are just lip-service. Remick thinks that these people had it coming:

Laura Webb, 28, a personal assistant; Gladys Wundowa, 51, a hospital cleaner; Jennifer Nicholson, 24, Benedetta Ciaccia, 30, an Italian business analyst; Miriam Hyman, 31; Jamie Gordon, 30; Ciaran Cassidy, 22; Rachelle Chung For Yuen, 27 ; Karolina Gluck, 29, an administrator; Susan Levy, 53; Ojara Ikeagwu, 55, a social worker with three children, Shahera Islam, a 20-year-old Muslim, bank worker Shyanuja Parathasangary, 30, Mihaela Otto, 46; Philip Russell, 28.

Remick's glee at these deaths is just the rage of impotence. Unable to convince his compatriots in the US that they should oppose the occupation of Iraq, he hopes that bombings will do it for him, or failing that, that bombers will dissuade his country's allies.

He wants to believe that the bombers are the armed wing of the anti-war movement. But the difference is that the anti-war movement was interested in persuading people, while the bombers had already written their fellow British citizens off as unworthy of persuasion, just as Remick has.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list