Yet again this week we see the recurring narrative amongst head-of-states eager to express there outrage at having not monopolised all forms of violence, espousing the rallying cry for the western nations and there allies that this is "an attack on us all". But what does Miliband mean for example, when he says "us all"? Why wasn't the invasion of Iraq or Lebanon in 2006 an attack on us all. Is a shoot-out in a hotel really more morally reprehensible than a half-tonne bomb dropped on a hotel in Baghdad, or a wedding in Afghanistan. It was also described (presumably equally important) as an attack on "modernity", of course what we do is bomb backward countries in the name of "modernity" which is perfectly acceptable in Miliband's "21st Century international affairs".
An audience member on Question Time asked without irony, are we losing the "war on terror?". The presumptions are all distorted. Who are these self-appointed crusaders assigned to eradicate the scourge of 'terror', the same people who have presided over more civilian deaths in third world countries (where people apparently don't matter, unless they're non-Muslim and reside in "Jewish centres") since the war on terror was declared. Wanton killing of civilians is terrorism, not a war on terrorism, its a shame people are so deeply indoctrinated to see the radically obvious.