07.08.05
london terrorism
I’m hardly qualified to make cultural comments about terrorism and its effects. Nonetheless, a few things have been on my heart since the events of yesterday in and around metropolitan London. The first of those things, is that I found myself musing yesterday that terrorism doesn’t seem to be a sustainable form warfare. By that, I mean terrorism–with the intent of causing terror–has already become a little tired. Now, if I were a New Yorker or a Londoner I suppose my viewpoint could be a bit different. However, it seems that even those folks haven’t responded with the supposed terror–rather many folks have responded with a slowly burning rage.
The second thing I noticed yesterday as I scanned CNN for any breaking news, was that they were seriously interested in manufacturing a story. Any quotes from officials that they found to be even moderately confusing were fodder for creating news about the ‘un-preparedness’ of city officials. I find this despicable. Seeing Soledad O’Brien trying to make a story yesterday when there wasn’t one, shifting the blame for these attacks on city officials–that’s just wrong.
Finally, and I’ve said this before, but yesterday was a poingant example, I hate the ‘terror alert warning scale.’ If the goal of terrorism is fear, that terror scale just tells people that they should be scared. The warning level was raised for US metropolitan transit system. Immediately after the attacks police officers with bulletproof-vests, bomb-sniffing attack dogs, and M-16 assault weapons were out in the subway stations en-masse. I just don’t get it. I certainly don’t feel much safer that these cops are walking around. They’re probably not going to stop any explosions in our transit systems. They’re there to make people feel safer–but the truth is, people aren’t any safer because they’re out walking around. The same is true with the ‘how scared should I be’ scale, it makes the chances of an attack no less probable.
Truth is, people need to feel like something’s being done about terrorism. Politicians and other officials don’t get re-elected when the news media is telling the world that they haven’t done enough to be prepared for such a disaster. Thus, we put out attack dogs and M-16s out on the streets. And, we tell people they’re safer because of it. But, the truth is, they’re not safer.
bananie said,
July 8, 2005 at 9:32 am
my two cents: m16s in america’s subways, as well as the precautionary closures of all the dams in central texas (i work for the company who ensures this) simply brings the focus away from this london catastrophe, and back to the stars and stripes. you know: these colors don’t run. they take ridiculous precautionary measures. which, incidentally, make for great headline photos for local papers. once again, america is winning the war on terrorism: we gots knives out before the bad guys get here.
/excuse cynicism. words written are after merely two sips of coffee.
Brandon said,
July 8, 2005 at 9:42 am
I think, bananie, you’ve got a good point there about US selfishness. I hadn’t thought of that angle…I suppose now, I’ll need to start.
RGMB said,
July 8, 2005 at 10:49 am
As a New Yorker, I feel qualified to respond to your post regarding how we feel about and are responding to terror. Having experienced the initial fright of being under attack and not knowing the possible extent of the unknown menace we were facing, 9/11 truly was terrorizing for those of us who lived and worked in or near NYC. We all know first hand or second hand horrible stories of this event and of children whose fathers or mothers didn’t come home that night or of how the schools had to manage the emotional trauma of keeping the children there and explaining to them as delicately as possible that some parents may be “late” that night.
My husband, who at the time was away in Texas on business, told me about how different the outward reaction was to this event there in Texas as opposed to here and certainly for him worrying about his family and friends and being unable to get home for two weeks.
Having said all that, I agree with your comment on terror being unsustainable in that I eventually had to get on with my life and learn to live with fear of the unknown, since as we all know the likelihood of death is far greater as we enter our cars everyday than being attacked by terrorists. Besides which there’s only so long you can maintain that level of adrenalin before you’re either 1) totally burned out or 2) sick and tired of it.
As for the m16’s, and yes they’re all a show for the masses, it still does serve to calm the deep recesses of my psyche– helpful or not. Listen, we’re all on the front line everyday, but we still must go on with our lives, ignore the fear hype, and persevere.
The other bottom line is the news services are always looking for a story, and they’ll dredge up and highlight anything they possibly can to tap into our fears to raise their ratings.
ninjanun said,
July 8, 2005 at 11:42 am
And that is what I find completely reprehensible about the media: they’ll piece together (dare I say “invent?”) a story out of crumbs and quotes, feeding people’s fears because fear is more sensationalist and thus sells more papers/airtime. People want to be comforted, but we also want to have all the information available, so we snatch up the papers and glue ourselves to the news programs that tell us why we should continue to be afraid. As Brandon pointed out, though, there’s not much you can do to prepare yourself against a terrorist attack.
Howie Luvzus said,
July 8, 2005 at 7:24 pm
I appreciate your comments and have mentioned them on my blog. Keep up the good work!
Steve said,
July 12, 2005 at 4:49 am
As a londoner who went to work last thursday I think the media do lose the focus of what is going on.
the death toll is just over 50 at the moment and considering the millions of people who live and work in london the terrorists had a pretty poor effect. not to undermine the loss of the families and people directly effected by this. the media do make far more of it than they should but by raising awareness the idea is we should all look out for mysterious packages left under seats and do something about it (i.e. tell the police) rather than just get frightened to leave the house.
Dennis said,
July 16, 2005 at 3:36 am
I’ve been inspired by the web page iamnotafraid.com wherein people post pictures of themselves showing defiance to the ultimate aim of terrorism; fear. I’ve begun to wonder if we the people so to speak need to reassess our individual roles in this so called war. I think that we as a people need to accept two things. Firstly, the government can’t protect everybody, and giving a government more power to do is inherently risky. Secondly, if every suicide bomber in the world went off right now, they still wouldn’t get us all. Maybe we the people need a grass roots movement called We Are Not Afraid wherein the membership of the movement sends back a message to the terrorist that we’re here to stay. I see 10000 members of We Are Not Afraid (WANA) chartering planes to visit London and Madrid to ride the trains. After that, we’d finish up in New York for a great party. Our message to the terrorist would be “we are not afraid, and you are irrelevant”. Am I dreaming in technicolor?
nathan said,
July 25, 2005 at 11:55 pm
Welcome to the game, London. A few days before our government needed a reason to renew the Patriot Act, a small part of your city blew up. Then, a few days later, the wrong kid got killed for no reason by a trigger happy (and most likely very scared) cop. This is how it pans out. First, you get the explosion, then the outrage, then the overreaction, then the death of innocents. It’s okay though; Halliburton will rebuild your infrastructure. They gotta be good for something, right?
And hey, at least when your leader gets on television to give a speech, he sounds slick. Hell, Tony Blair could sell crack cocaine in church. I don’t know what he said to make you feel better, but I’m sure it worked. He’s that good.
Now, after the untimely death of an innocent, it becomes necessary for you to change some laws (it’s easier than having the people involved take responsibility for their actions). Here are some suggestions to prevent another unwanted murder by cop.
Make it illegal to fail to respond to a cop. Give the suspects four seconds, and if they don’t respond, shoot them. This will seriously cut down on the number of hearing impaired (see that? I’m politically correct. I could have written ‘deaf’, but they don’t like that so I didn’t) people in your population, but what the hell? Sometimes you gotta take the good with the bad.
Take a page from New York City and make random searches legal in the subways. This way, you can slow everyone down and possibly attain some illegal contraband, you know, as a bonus. Maybe it violates our fourth amendment, but we don’t care so why should you? Come on guys. We don’t need rights. We have fear.
Get some damn guns already. Look, the main reason that kid got shot is because the limey cop had probably fired a gun once in his life and he didn’t know what the hell the damn thing could do. Plus, the kid who got shot probably figured the cop wouldn’t shoot, you know, since no one shoots each other over there. I’m an American, and in my few years on planet earth I must have fired at least twenty different hand guns and an uncountable number of rifles. Keep in mind, I grew up in a city, never was in the military and have never owned a gun (which means that my experience with firearms is limited to random adventures with friends and family). You can’t be expected to respect the weapons if your own citizens aren’t allowed to carry them. Here in America, we all have guns. Granted, we have a lot more murders and what not, but still we live with the fact that at any given moment in public, at least one out of every eleven people is carrying a gun (source: total fiction). Thus, we have the knowledge necessary to respect someone holding a gun. This is a respect that your socialist, pansy citizens clearly lack. So, loosen the laws a little. Let the people shoot each other. Come on London, they worked hard all week.
And finally, make sure to make it very clear to your citizens that the young, unarmed man who was killed was a necessary fatality in a war against a much greater evil. I’m sure Tony Blair already handled this one in his speech, but people forget speeches. You have to reinforce the idea. So, before the liberal media and the activist groups make the murdered young man a martyr for their cause, make him one for yours. Have a funeral honoring him posthumously as a valiant soldier in the war against terror.
Now, these are just the suggestions of a layman, London. I’ve spent a grand total of twenty four hours in your fair city (the most expensive twenty four hours of my life, by the way) so I admit, I don’t have a great grasp of how your citizens think. But I’m pretty sure I know how this game is played. I am, after all, an American, which means that I understand why you were bombed and subsequently stricken with fear: the terrorists hate freedom, and you were way too free. So, take a page from America. If they hate freedom, make yourself less free. It works like a charm.
I’m Nathan DeGraaf and I approved this column (though I’m pretty sure I’m the only one who did).
Peace.
Steve said,
July 28, 2005 at 4:43 am
In response to Nathan’s eloquently put tirade I have now seen the error of my ways.
Firstly I’m off to load up on guns and ammo, dig myself into the ticket office of the local underground station and pick off anyone carrying a rucksack. If you’re not wearing a bowler hat, carrying a brief case and today’s copy of the TIMES then you aint from round here.
Secondly we should have half day closing on Fridays with a ten minute pause for the socialist pansies amongst us to get home then anyone walking the streets becomes fair target.
And finally I’m just going to pop in to St Paul’s Cathedral because I hear Tony Blair and the Queen are having a Turf war on whose patch this is and what with my new found marksmanship ability I think I can level the playing field (with the Queen’s eyesight not being what it was she’s probably better at hand to hand combat).
On a more serious note although I do admit to finding the last post amusing I’m not sure what you seem to be saying. If you are pointing out that when these terrible things happen, no-one really knows what to do and we all end up behaving worse because of it, then why advocate the use of guns on the streets, even if it was in jest.
nathan said,
August 7, 2005 at 9:40 pm
Thanks for your interest. All I was trying to say is that we are being scared away from Freedom in the name of some feeble attacks on it. Our governments take advantage of the fact that we don’t know what to do and use that fear as an excuse to increase their level of control without any question from the citizenry. I can see by the proposed law changes, that y’all are already getting some law changes. World socialism is afoot. And though it may seem better at first, it’s nothing more than a sacrifice of freedom, and much to the favor of goevernment, it’s a voluntary sacrifice. They love that.