My innocent victims, your collateral damage

I know the names of each and every one of the victims of the London bombings of 7/7. I can look up the stories of all of them here, along with photos for most of them. There was a vigil held in Trafalgar Square for them, tens of thousands attended. I wanted to go too, I swear to God I really did. I wanted to say that I deplored these terrorists acts, I wanted to light a candle and say a prayer for them. But the only thing that stopped me was her, the lovely young girl with tears welling up in her eyes. The sad thing is, I don't even know her name, no one does. She doesn't matter. Her story doesn't matter, the reason for her tears is inconsequential, because she's Iraqi. If she's crying because of a parent killed by US bombs or tank shells, then we can't call them innocent victims, for they are "collateral damage". Innocent victims are only those that wear a shirt and tie (or a skirt), that speak english, and most of all, innocent victims only live in the west. In the east live the dirty, worthless sandniggers and terrorists (and their progeny).

Coming back to the Trafalgar Square vigil and why I couldn't attend it, even though I wanted to. A voice in my head kept asking me, "has anyone ever held a vigil for the thousands that have died in Iraq and Afghanistan?". In all good conscience, I couldn't ignore that nagging voice. What makes one human life so much more valuable than another? What makes one person an innocent victim, and another one collateral damage? At first, I thought maybe it's the color of the skin that's the deciding factor, but then I noticed that there were black and Asian people among the London victims. "Is it perhaps nationality that's the determining factor?", thought I, but then was forced to reject that as there were Polish nationals, Italian nationals and a Turkish national among the innocent victims. Finally, the answer hit me:

It's the killers! If the killers are terrorists, then the dead are innocent victims, if the killers are wearing a uniform (a western one), then the dead are collateral damage. But how much difference does it make whether someone is killed by a bomb-toting Islamic fanatic with a death-wish, or a gun-toting Christian fanatic with a thirst for oil? The end result is the same: another innocent person dead. So why make this distinction between innocent victims and collateral damage? Simple, so people back home (State-side and in the UK), who have watched this entire war from the comfort of their sitting rooms, don't get pangs of conscience when they see their boys in khakhi blasting holes in homes with their howitzers.

This distinction is made so that you and I can calmly pat our inquisitive 4 year old daughter's head and say reassuringly, "don't worry sweetheart, there's no innocent victims in that house they just blew up, just collateral damage" while we cuddle up with her on the sofa and channel surf through the news. Only let's just pray to God that our 4 year old daughter doesn't see the picture of the 4 year old daughter at the beginning of this post.