![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I started this post two weeks ago. It is no longer timely, but I thought I would finish it and post it anyway, as an exercise in discipline if nothing else. Several of the points I was going to make were also made in comments to a previous post about the London bombings.
**********************************************************************************************
I have seen a number of posts on my friends' list about the Londoners' reaction to the terrorist bombings to the effect that the Brits reacted so much better than we did after 9/11.
It's not that simple.
First of all, because of the IRA, Britain has more experience with random terrorism. While there has been terrorism in the US, it has tended to be focused on individuals (such as that done by the KKK, or gay-bashing) or discrete identifiable groups of people (abortion center bombings, the Murrah building in Oklahoma City which was aimed at federal employees). This does not make them less horrific, simply different in their impact. (I would argue that in some ways terrorist attacks that are focused on individuals based on specific characteristics such as sexual orientation or race do more damage to society than more random attacks). In my memory there have been only two really random terror attacks aimed at possibly hurting a lot of people -- the Olympic Centennial Plaza in Atlanta and the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Neither of those resulted in a lot of casualties.
Randomized terror affects people other than those who fall into specific targeted groups. It is more immediate for *all* of us. I don't know personally anyone who works in an abortion clinic, for example. Attacks based on sexual orientation or race affect me more, because I worry about people I care about. (One of my big worries post 9/11 was not that Al-Qaeda would attack again, but that![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
brian1789's Pakistani sister-in-law, who lives in Georgia, would be the victim of a hate crime.) Even so, such attacks lack the visceral "it could be me" effect. And while I can imagine what it would be like to live under such fear, I am bound to be somewhat detached. This doesn't mean I lack empathy, or am a bad person: I can fight for the safety of others when they are threatened.
Secondly, it is simply to soon to evaluate the British response to the bombings in the long term. In the past, they have had their own occasion to react repressively in response to terrorism. [Current edit: And it seems that their reaction to the most recent bombings may not be so sanguine after all.]
The biggest reason, though, may be something else entirely.
Scale.
Don't get me wrong --- terrorism is terrorism, death is death. The deaths of those killed in London, and the 200 killed in Madrid in 2004, are no less tragic than those killed on 9/11 in the U.S.
But the 9/11 attacks killed 3000 people. A couple of city blocks were levelled, more made uninhabitable for weeks. The entire nation's airlines were grounded for days, leaving travelers stranded far from home. (One of my own memories of the days after the attacks was sitting worrying whenbrian1789 would be able to get out of Phoenix. I am very fortunate that that is my most significant memory: before his meetings got rearranged, he was scheduled to have been in Manhattan the morning of the attacks, and had been booked into the Marriott at 3 World Trade Center.) It took many days -- weeks -- to identify the dead. Not to mention the fact that the attacks took place in two cities.
Furthermore, the attacks were of a type not seen before, at least not on this scale. They were not BOMBS -- which we as a nation have experienced, as mentioned above -- but objects that are otherwise useful being used to wreak terror on a population. Yes, when you look at it, an airliner makes perfect sense as an weapon, but it had not been used as such before, and I don't think your average person in the street would have thought of it. When the benign becomes dangerous, it is not merely frightening, it is is extremely unsettling in an almost primal way. The bogeyman is not in the closet or under the bed, where you would expect, he may be in the fridge or the recliner in the living room.
A great many people have been willing to sacrifice liberty in this country for a sense of security. They have been manipulated by people whose main driving desire is neither liberty nor security but the amassing of power.
This is wrong. It is dangerous. It is shortsighted. It presents the greatest threat to America and what she stands for since the Civil War.
But, unfortunately, it is also understandable.
**********************************************************************************************
I have seen a number of posts on my friends' list about the Londoners' reaction to the terrorist bombings to the effect that the Brits reacted so much better than we did after 9/11.
It's not that simple.
First of all, because of the IRA, Britain has more experience with random terrorism. While there has been terrorism in the US, it has tended to be focused on individuals (such as that done by the KKK, or gay-bashing) or discrete identifiable groups of people (abortion center bombings, the Murrah building in Oklahoma City which was aimed at federal employees). This does not make them less horrific, simply different in their impact. (I would argue that in some ways terrorist attacks that are focused on individuals based on specific characteristics such as sexual orientation or race do more damage to society than more random attacks). In my memory there have been only two really random terror attacks aimed at possibly hurting a lot of people -- the Olympic Centennial Plaza in Atlanta and the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Neither of those resulted in a lot of casualties.
Randomized terror affects people other than those who fall into specific targeted groups. It is more immediate for *all* of us. I don't know personally anyone who works in an abortion clinic, for example. Attacks based on sexual orientation or race affect me more, because I worry about people I care about. (One of my big worries post 9/11 was not that Al-Qaeda would attack again, but that
brian1789's Pakistani sister-in-law, who lives in Georgia, would be the victim of a hate crime.) Even so, such attacks lack the visceral "it could be me" effect. And while I can imagine what it would be like to live under such fear, I am bound to be somewhat detached. This doesn't mean I lack empathy, or am a bad person: I can fight for the safety of others when they are threatened.Secondly, it is simply to soon to evaluate the British response to the bombings in the long term. In the past, they have had their own occasion to react repressively in response to terrorism. [Current edit: And it seems that their reaction to the most recent bombings may not be so sanguine after all.]
The biggest reason, though, may be something else entirely.
Scale.
Don't get me wrong --- terrorism is terrorism, death is death. The deaths of those killed in London, and the 200 killed in Madrid in 2004, are no less tragic than those killed on 9/11 in the U.S.
But the 9/11 attacks killed 3000 people. A couple of city blocks were levelled, more made uninhabitable for weeks. The entire nation's airlines were grounded for days, leaving travelers stranded far from home. (One of my own memories of the days after the attacks was sitting worrying when
brian1789 would be able to get out of Phoenix. I am very fortunate that that is my most significant memory: before his meetings got rearranged, he was scheduled to have been in Manhattan the morning of the attacks, and had been booked into the Marriott at 3 World Trade Center.) It took many days -- weeks -- to identify the dead. Not to mention the fact that the attacks took place in two cities.Furthermore, the attacks were of a type not seen before, at least not on this scale. They were not BOMBS -- which we as a nation have experienced, as mentioned above -- but objects that are otherwise useful being used to wreak terror on a population. Yes, when you look at it, an airliner makes perfect sense as an weapon, but it had not been used as such before, and I don't think your average person in the street would have thought of it. When the benign becomes dangerous, it is not merely frightening, it is is extremely unsettling in an almost primal way. The bogeyman is not in the closet or under the bed, where you would expect, he may be in the fridge or the recliner in the living room.
A great many people have been willing to sacrifice liberty in this country for a sense of security. They have been manipulated by people whose main driving desire is neither liberty nor security but the amassing of power.
This is wrong. It is dangerous. It is shortsighted. It presents the greatest threat to America and what she stands for since the Civil War.
But, unfortunately, it is also understandable.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
I myself have reached a No More point: someof the people labelled as terrorists in the past have is reality been a kind of freedom fighter, and I see arguments that some of the current crop can be seen this way.
My view is that whenever ordinary civilians are targetted it isn't freedom
fighting, it actually is terrorism, and I will no longer excuse it however compelling the situation would otherwise be.
Target the powerbrokers if you must, is my view: but I'm not holding my breath as I believe the manipulative leaders have more in common, and know it, with others like themselves than they do with their pawns.
I guess it's the Stalinism/sociopath infiltration problem again. Sometimes I wonder if we shouldn't be teaching our kids about this as carefully as we do about, say, honesty.