Notice how on Thursday at the very beginning of the episode when the word terrorism was announced. It was like everyone had some sort of confirmation. People went ahhhh ok it’s the terrorists and continued on. But what does that mean, ‘the terrorists’?
The word is used to call someone’s enemy. It has become a condemnation rather than a description or explanation. This is nothing new. In the second world war, the German occupation force called members of the Dutch resistance ‘terrorists’ while the latter’s self image was that of patriots and resistance fighters. In effect, for much of the modern era of terrorism, all liberation movements have been called ‘terrorists’ by their opponents. Indeed, Hizbollah is labelled terrorist by the U.S and Isreal but not the Lebanese or the EU. Is terrorism, then, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder?
Not this kind of terrorism, or what some people like to call ‘super-terrorism’. The old terrorism was followed up by an announcement of responsibility of the act followed by long speeches that state the ‘terrorists’ objectives and what they want. This new kind of terrorism is confusing even for an Arab, Muslim and bearded man.
Freedman in his Superterrorism-Policy Response (Very good book for anyone interested in topic) believes that a threshold was crossed in 1995 with the Tokyo subway attacks by Japanese Cult Aum Shinrikyo. It was the first time an independent sub-state group, acting without state patronage or protection had managed to produce and use biochemical weapons on a large scale. Then came the September 11 attack. This kind of terrorism has led to a new theme in terrorist thinking. Rather than on trying to understand the organisation themselves and their objectives, counter-terrorist thinking has focused on the means and technology at the disposal of terror groups This is unfortunate as it has got some states to terrorize themselves far more than the terrorists themselves. We all heard the vengeful cries of Americans after September 11. People in a moment of crisis tend to be willing to sacrifice freedom when their security seems to be seriously threatened, even when a democratic tradition is strong. Scapegoating and indiscriminate labelling are two of the most spiteful anti-democratic symptoms of generalised public fear and insecurity. Overly dramatic depiction of events by media and shallow coverage are all the elements that enhance these sorts of reactions.
So far this does not seem to be the case here. Riding on my bike on Thursday towards in the centre of London, I have to say i was in awe of how organised and calm everyone was. I’m not sure if it’s because I’ve been in Beirut way too long and the slightest thing there causes utter chaos and people screaming and in comparison London seemed so Calm or whether…
1. The English in general are serene and composed
2. The English have had experience with terrorist attacks and world wars before so this is nothing new
3. They were expecting this any day given their prime ministers external political affiliation
Feel free to comment….
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree with you completely on the way that current terrorist attacks are seen as simple attacks rather than underlying demands and a call for action from the perpetrators. However, there is also wrongdoing on the side of the 'terrorists.' Terrorist attacks perpetrated before 9/11generally had specific aims and motives, by groups demanding light on precise issues. Whether ETA in Spain, the IRA in the UK, Hezbollah for the withdrawal of Israeli troops...
The difference seems now to be that the New Terrorism is almost too vague in its accusations. Yes they denounce US supremacy, and revel in comparisons to the Crusades... but most of the time, their fingers are pointing in many different and simultaneous directions, at a generalized Evil West. This makes understanding them too complex, and generally cuts the dialogue with EU or US populations.
If the bombings had been directed at more standpoint locations, embassies, political landmarks, etc, it would focus the dialogue with greater ease, and make the acceptance of the issues more at reach for the masses. However, multiple random targets, and ambiguity and metaphor in the Terrrorits' statements leads to this kind of confusion, hatred, lack of analysis, and mere generalisations...
On another note, I would like to say that I am equally stunned at the British people's calm behavior in the wake of what could have become a scapegoat for even more hatred and indignation. This seems to show a far more level-headed EU population, that is aware of the increasing divide between the international East and West, and the resulting issues at stake, all the while retaining a certain level of patriotism. Very inspiring stuff, and quite a relief...
Finally, Maha, I strongly disagree that bombs in Beirut cause people to panic and scream. Rather than that, recent explosions in Lebanon have hightened a sense of raging political responsibility within the population. There has never been chaos after a bomb there, and if there is a certain sort of disorganization, that is only because there have not been multi-millions invested in dealing with such a crisis, just old habits...
Cockroach stories are funnier then post subway bombing analysis. Felt like reading the news.
Unfortunately (?), there have been no cockroaches since my last adventure. It seems mice have taken over, since I encountered and tried to battle another one last night... or was it the same?
In any case, our beloved Bethnal Green cockroaches may have been blasted out by the terrorist bombs. Curious, since I've been told that in the event of a nuclear wipe-out, cockroaches would be the only ones to survive...
Post a Comment