The day London bled

Terrorism shows no respect. Today, London felt the grim reality of that adage to her core. Thirty seven common citizens died in a senseless act of maligned outrage. Over 700 people were injured. These victims were not powerful; leaders of nations or generals over battalions. They were Mr and Ms Smith next door, on their respective ways to respectable jobs.

Terrorism asks not the victim's religion, sex, orientation, alignment, convictions. It kills and maims and scars for life. It snuffs out the flame of lives not yet fully lived. Terrorism breaks and destroys. It neither corrects nor builds.

So tonight, London has to ask herself: Where-to now from here? Will acts of terrorism induce acts of revenge? Will an indignant and angry backlash send more violence down the path to the perpetrators? Will the clamshell of neurosis draw close around the boundaries and minds of London? Will tit for tat be the solution to the situation that underlies this tragic day?

I would hope not and here is way. Where is the evidence that violence eradicates violence? Unless one side or both obliterates the other, there is no ending violence with violence. The extreme of this policy is Assured Mutual Destruction. At the end of the Cold War, the world had decided to walk away from that piece of mindless folly. Or had it?

Assuming that, besides masochists, psychopaths and pathological psychotics, the human being does not prefer suffering and sacrifice over peace and prosperity, what motivates a common human to acts of terror? Has the Democratic West stopped barking for one minute to ponder that question? Is it but remotely possible that this problem has two sides?

Offer a man a viable option and he will consider it over self-sacrifice and a violent death. Has the Democratic West ever considered shutting up, sitting down and listening to the militants, the potential suicide bombers, that is - the terrorists? Will rhetoric and chest-beating solve the problem facing New York City, London, Madrid and who knows where else?

Once, the spiraling conflict in South Africa, threatening to destroy that country at the start of the 1990's, was defused and solved when progressive leaders came up through the ranks of Parliament and took the lead. F W de Klerk led the Nationalist Government in revolt against the then hardline President P W Botha and brought about the most heralded and dramatic political change of the Twentieth Century - in relative peace and with decorum. The White leaders of South Africa decided to free prisoners such as Nelson Mandela and un-ban the then terrorist organization, the African National Congress (ANC); they decided to shut up and sit down to listen. Only then, after listening, did the negotiations start towards a new South African constitution and real democracy for all citizens of South Africa.

Where once the ANC planted bombs and blew up people, they came to the table, once they were shown respect and a viable option to violence. The White people could put their views and concerns on the table. Negotiations, with a real will to change, commenced. The rest is history.

We of the rich and prosperous West should listen to the screams for justice hidden in the chilling thuds of exploding bombs. Whereas no act of terrorism can be condoned, the outcry amongst the violence deserves our concern and attention. The West, who is in a position of power and leadership, is in dire need of a change of heart.

The spiral of violence will not be won by a bigger hammer for a bigger problem. Blessed are the peacemakers .

Let us offer our hand to the terrorist and disarm his anger with our goodwill and forgiveness. To our surprise, the terrorist may just offer us in return his hand and forgiveness.