When a foiled terror plot leads to substantial news coverage, a lot of talking heads fear-mongering, and even greater security restrictions on flights, are we letting the terrorists have their day?
The latest terror threat has led to the banning of liquids on planes, despite chemists continued assertions of the miniscule threat. And of course, it has racheted up the fear factor in boarding a plane.
Here's a question: if the War on Terror simply increases the population's fear of terror, then have we already lost? Is victory the bliss of ignorance of terror, the security of freedom from terror, or somewhere in between?
2 comments:
Well put. As a person to travels nearly every week, it is clear to me that ALL of the airport security is some nice window dressing. The liquids ban is completely useless because all 'they' need to do is get a female suicide bomber and they can fill her bra with nearly any banned substance as the metal detector will not be triggered by liquids or most things.
I completely agree that by drastically changing how we live gives the terrorists a W in their column (pun intended). I don't think ignorance is the answer, but instead recognition of the risk. If you happen to be on the one flight out of thousands that has a problem you, personally, need to fight for your life and freedom.
I'm not convinced that "terrorism" isn't a misnomer.
It's clear that the amount of fear generated by the possibility of attacks is astounding, but as far as I can tell, that is almost entirely our own doing.
Additionally, the terrorists don't seem all that interested in inspiring terror. Rather, they seem much more interested in killing lots of people. Although terror provides power to the one causing it, so does killing, and I would doubt that those interested in blowing up airplanes think the true success is in making ME scared to fly.
Additionally, the power gained from inducing TERROR is that it is a huge negotiating card. ("You're so scared of me you could poop your pants, so give me your lunch money.") But if "W" and Tony Blair sat down with Osama bin Laden, what do suppose the latter would ask for in exchange? I don't think it's that simple anymore, and we've probably passed the point of negotiation. Rather, I would speculate that the KILLING is the goal now.
Thus, "terrorism" does not seem like an apt word to describe the situation, because the point on the part of the terrorists is likely to induce DEATH, not TERROR. In that case, I would suggest that our government is not at all fighting the War on Terror, but rather the War on Al Qaeda, with an outcome that is not likely the primary goal of the terrorist groups, but probably isn't frowned upon either.
Post a Comment