queerbychoice (
queerbychoice) wrote2005-07-07 11:09 pm
Multiple Varieties of Terrorism
Just when I was trying to figure out how to cope with the combined facts that (a) I didn't really want to leave something as big as yesterday's London bombing entirely unacknowledged in my journal, but (b) I really had nothing to say that many others hadn't already said far better all over LiveJournal, I came across this blog entry, which, although it's yet another instance of somebody else having already said it better than I ever could, is from a non-LiveJournal blog, and therefore probably hasn't been seen by so many LiveJournal people already.
"Terrorism" is the act of instilling terror in people. Go look at the picture in that blog entry, and tell me: do you think that guy is making the passengers less terrified, or more terrified? (And don't go telling me, if you're a middle-class white person, that he can't be causing anyone any serious fear just because you wouldn't feel any serious fear of him.)
Don't get me wrong: I think there are plenty of security measures to defend against terrorists that are extremely good ideas, and extremely important to undertake. And even the very bad defensive measures rarely, if ever, horrify me nearly as much as the very bad offensive measures like mass-murdering Iraqi and Afghan civilians.
But really. The chance of murder weapons being on U.S. passenger trains is a very bad thing, but putting murder weapons definitely on U.S. passenger trains is not necessarily an improvement, especially not when they're in the hands of non-cops who probably have little or no training, much less experience, in how to avoid becoming trigger-happy at the slightest fright. Furthermore, even if we can trust this guy to use his gun safely, couldn't he be issued one a little smaller and instructed to keep it holstered or possibly out of sight entirely and draw it only if he sees an actual problem, to avoid scaring passengers needlessly? Issuing him a much larger gun than police officers normally carry and having him march around with it drawn at all times smells distinctly of those in charge wanting to increase people's terror.
And yes, I know the people who instituted this would probably say the idea is to terrify terrorists into not terrorizing. But terrifying everyone for the sake of hoping to terrify some possible terrorists along with them is like the U.S.'s policy in Iraq of just throwing everyone they found in a whole geographic region into Abu Ghraib in the hope that they'd get a few guilty people along with the many innocent ones.
"Terrorism" is the act of instilling terror in people. Go look at the picture in that blog entry, and tell me: do you think that guy is making the passengers less terrified, or more terrified? (And don't go telling me, if you're a middle-class white person, that he can't be causing anyone any serious fear just because you wouldn't feel any serious fear of him.)
Don't get me wrong: I think there are plenty of security measures to defend against terrorists that are extremely good ideas, and extremely important to undertake. And even the very bad defensive measures rarely, if ever, horrify me nearly as much as the very bad offensive measures like mass-murdering Iraqi and Afghan civilians.
But really. The chance of murder weapons being on U.S. passenger trains is a very bad thing, but putting murder weapons definitely on U.S. passenger trains is not necessarily an improvement, especially not when they're in the hands of non-cops who probably have little or no training, much less experience, in how to avoid becoming trigger-happy at the slightest fright. Furthermore, even if we can trust this guy to use his gun safely, couldn't he be issued one a little smaller and instructed to keep it holstered or possibly out of sight entirely and draw it only if he sees an actual problem, to avoid scaring passengers needlessly? Issuing him a much larger gun than police officers normally carry and having him march around with it drawn at all times smells distinctly of those in charge wanting to increase people's terror.
And yes, I know the people who instituted this would probably say the idea is to terrify terrorists into not terrorizing. But terrifying everyone for the sake of hoping to terrify some possible terrorists along with them is like the U.S.'s policy in Iraq of just throwing everyone they found in a whole geographic region into Abu Ghraib in the hope that they'd get a few guilty people along with the many innocent ones.

no subject
i suspect the American government does want to terrorize ordinary people as this helps to control dissent.
no subject
"Modern media--A way to spread panic far more efficiently."
no subject
no subject
no subject
And I'm with chisparoja: I'm not so the idea is not also to terrorize everyone else as well.
no subject
no subject
my very favorite definition:
cindy c. combs
no subject
When I was in Egypt, I actually felt far safer living among the Bedouin nomads in the desert than on the streets of Cairo or Luxor. The Bedouin have a very long tradition of providing hospitality to anybody. (and I do mean anybody) There was nobody for dozens of miles around except my partner and me, 2 dozen nomads, a few camels, and some sheep.
no subject
The possibility of that man being overpowered and stripped of his weapons by people who do *not* mean well, or someone who doesn't mean well being *hired* for that position, also occurs to me.
My paternal grandmother, an nice Southern white lady, had a son who was a cop for a few years. He had to change out of his uniform before visiting her. She had "stress periods" (I did the same thing before learning other ways to manage my fears through therapy), and would have one whenever seeing a cop in uniform, even her own son, come to her home or car.
I hope nobody like that rides that bus...
no subject
I'm glad I don't live in the States right now. :/