Here We Go Again!

Another ride on the Terrorism roller coaster.

The media just couldn't pass up an opportunity to inject us with a booster shot of War On Terrorism emotionalism. Now there they go again.

I'm going to put the bombing of the Boston Marathon Monday (April 15^th) in perspective- something sorely lacking in the media frenzy. But first I must say this.

I hope the perpetrators are correctly identified, arrested, tried- and executed.

I think such a vicious act is worthy of death.

So now, let no one misconstrue- either accidentally or deliberately- what follows to be a apologia for, excuse for, justification for, or defense of the bombing or the bombers. I'm not “on the terrorists' side.”

Although they were not immediately branded terrorists. Apparently what makes a bombing a “terrorist” bombing doesn't depend on the target, but on the motive and/or perpetrator. There was much hanging on Obama's words and note was taken that he didn't use the “T” word on the day of the bombing. Immediately after his speechlet, a White House flunkie ran out to the media- which didn't identify him- and told them that of course the bombing was “terrorism.” And the police at first hesitated, saying they wanted to figure out the motive first. So “terrorism” is as much a thought crime as a crime of violence, it would seem. (Of course the branding of various dissident activists as “terrorists” also proves it can be entirely a thought crime.)

The next day, Obama presented himself to us again, to intone the T word four times, apparently to make up for his earlier omission. (Man, that's decisive.) He instructed us that anytime bombers deliberately target civilians, it is “terrorism.” (Unless of course it's U.S. bombers, or Israeli ones- as when they bomb Palestinian refugee camps, including UN-run ones.)

But whether the bombs were “terrorist” bombs or just plain old bombs, the harm was exactly the same. Bombs aren't “worse”- except in people's minds- if they are “terrorist” bombs.  

That last statement is completely at odds with the atttitude and ideology of the power structure in America- government and media.

The two bombs, planted near the finish line, were filled with nails and ball bearings and metal scrap, to maim. Homemade cluster bombs, you might say. Nasty. And those who planted them- intending to kill and mutilate people they don't even know- should be put to death. There is no reason to let them live among us, since they have no respect for our right to live.

They may have in their minds been striking a blow against “America.” In reality, they struck about 173 people they don't even know.

I hope “China” was on their hit list too, because one of the three dead was a Chinese grad student.

Still, the media is blowing this out of all proportion. Three people are dead, over 170 injured, and a number of people were maimed, over a dozen losing legs. That's awful, for them, and for those who love them. But for the rest of us it is merely vicariously awful, and the media should stop pretending otherwise. This is not a national catastrophe. It is a crime.

Even the media, every time something like this happens, has some commentators saying that “attention is exactly what the terrorists want.” So it would logically follow that if the terrorists are your enemies, you don't want to give them what they want, right? You don't want them to achieve their goal. You don't want them to succeed.

So I guess the media is on the terrorists' side. They must be, by their own logic.

No, not quite. Because they have their own agenda, the agenda of the ruling class, which wants people to accept more and more domestic repression, a more and more pervasive secret police state.

Either that, or they really are on the terrorists' side, because what they are doing is giving them what they want, playing into their hands. It inflates their importance. And it inspires others to join their “cause.”

But obviously, as George Orwell so incisively showed in 1984, repressive states thrive on external enemies, real, imagined, or inflated. And they already deliberately allowed the original 9/11/01 attacks to occurs. (That's a subject for another essay.)

As for the marathon attack; as I said, it's awful for the victims. The rest of us should be disgusted, and contemptuous of the lowlifes who perpetrated it.

But not shocked. Is not violence part of the human condition? Is violence unusual? Ever hear of war? Millions die in wars. As wars go, the “war on terror” is small potatoes.

Nor should we be frightened. Or anxious.

If you're frightened, how come it never occurred to you before that you are mortal? Don't you know that YOU ARE GOING TO DIE, someday, inevitably?

Get used to it.

The three killed are far less than die in bad airliner crashes.

Three dead is the exact same number who died the same day in Brooklyn, NY, when a policewoman shot her boyfriend dead, shot her one year old son, and killed herself. By all accounts there was no acrimony between them and she loved her son.

Death is death.

Three is fewer than the 300 people who die every year in bathtubs in the U.S. A hundred times fewer.

The point isn't to minimize the crime, or the pain and suffering for those impacted.

It is to put it in reasonable perspective, instead of inflating the important of the act, which is no doubt what the perpetrators hoped for by bombing this highly visible, public event.

I don't see how going along with their plan is helpful. Unless of course it suits the covert ideological and political goals of the U.S. power structure.

There were some bombings the day before the ones in Boston- in Mogadishu, Somalia. The perpetrators are known, because they proudly announced themselves- the al-Shabab Islamic fanatics. (There victims were Muslim too, of course.) Thirty people died in those attacks- ten times the number as died in Boston.

Didn't notice a big stink in the U.S. media about it. (Much foreign media has copied U.S. media, inflating the importance of the Boston bombings with exaggerated coverage- including the BBC and Aljazeera.)

And on Monday. the same day as the marathon bombings, over 20 attacks in Iraq killed about 50 people and wounded almost 200.

Media people, and probably most Americans, will piously tell you that they don't think one human life is worth more than another- for example, that a Somali life or an Iraqi is less valuable than an American one.

Bullshit. That's obviously not their actual attitude.

And the perpetrators of the bombings and shooting in Somalia and Iraq are not “terrorists” in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, but “militants,” insurgents, “gunmen.” Those are the words they used. They didn't say “terrorism” or “terrorist” once.

Why is that? Is “terrorism” only attacks on Westerners?

Apparently so.

Of course, most people everywhere are parochial in their sympathy like that, to some degree. And Americans are fond of deluding themselves that they're an extraordinarily generous people- contrary to the facts of the matter, that U.S. foreign aid- not military aid- is tiny as a percentage of the Federal budget, and a much smaller percentage than that of many other nations. And domestically, the U.S. has always been stingy towards the poor, and now Social Security and other social spending programs are under assault, so rich people can pay less and less tax.

But again, it's not as if the U.S. isn't involved in Somalia. It's a major front in the “war on terror.” The CIA runs a prison there, for example, and the U.S. conducts military operations to prop up the Potemkin Village “government” that it installed. (A government in name only that makes the Karzai crowd in Afghanistan look like a model of stability.) And al-Shabab, the boasting perpetrators of the Somali attacks who took credit for the assault on the High Court in Mogadishu, are on the U.S. “terrorist” list.

A proper balance would be more attention to the Somalia attacks and less Boston.(Not less than to Somalia, just less than the saturation "coverage" we're being force-fed.)  Because the Boston bombing “coverage” so far has had almost no facts. The story consists in harping on blood, and on the exiguous scraps of info about the bombs.

Farcically, on the first day media people were saying on air “it's too early to speculate” and then proceeding to speculate at length, without benefit of actual information.

That makes it undeniable that the “coverage” is over the top, when there's nothing to report.

Predictably, Murdoch's minions choose to fill the information void with false “news,” like a Saudi in custody who wasn't.

Other false reports- 5 unexploded bombs found. (Not true.) And today, Wednesday, a false report of a suspect in custody. (FBI denies it.)

The media wants to make us sad about this. And sure, it saddens me to hear about the 8 year old boy who was killed, and whose sister lost a leg, and whose mother suffered brain damage. They were there to watch their father run the marathon. Will he be racked by guilt for having brought them, for entering the race? (We'll probably get a followup on that topic.) But what is the point of all this emotional manipulation? PEOPLE DIE EVERY DAY!! Get used to it.

There are bombings that kill more people- civilians- happening perhaps daily in Afghanistan. There are several a month, or more, in Pakistan.

Boko Haram bombings in Nigeria are routine.

How about Mexico? Tens of thousands a year slaughtered by drug gangs and the police. Piles of bodies are routinely found. That's not so far away.

And yes, the U.S. media reports it. From an emotional distance as if it's happening on the moon.

The people who died and were wounded in Boston are just as much strangers to me as the people who die violently in Mexico every day. Apparently

I care in that I don't want to be killed in a bombing that some scumbag planted because he could care less who he kills. Just as I don't want to be killed by some car jumping the curb while I'm walking down the sidewalk. The fact that there was malevolent intent in one and not the other doesn't make me any more or less dead.

And the truth is, no bomb planter is trying to kill me specifically. Nor you. Which means that it is irrational to feel that “the terrorists are targeting us.” Don't take it so personally. They just want to kill a bunch of people. Understand that and accept it as a hazard of living. One with an infinitesimal chance of killing you.

Unlike cancer. Or heart disease. Or a stroke. Or Alzheimer's. Which are literally MILLIONS more times likely to kill you.

In other words, be rational.

The government would save many, many more lives if it ignored terrorism (I'm not saying it should) and concentrated on reducing the amount of carcinogens we're all exposed to in the air, food, and water.

Death is an inevitable part of life. People die every day. People kill people every day. Is it worse to do it with a bomb than with a gun or a knife or a club or a broken bottle?

Ah, we get back to the motive. And the “randomness.”

Auto accidents are random.

I suppose some who are in a lather will be enraged that I'm not as enraged as they are. I refer them back to what I said at the beginning of this essay. I don't think I can be accused of solicitude for the perpetrators, or of not caring.

But as I am saying, all things should be put in proper perspective. And the media is totally over the top about this.

Day after, Morning Edition: NPR milking it for all it's worth: “It was an emotional reunion...” an NPR dame tells us, and we get a little girl blubbering. No one in the family was hurt. But it was scary!  

Are they trying to make everyone weak? (And all the more emotionally dependent on the Government for protection!)

  Boston Police chief - Monday, 4/15/13:

“We will not take this in stride.”

“There's been a horrendous loss of life... at least three people are dead.”

Man, I wish you would take it in stride. And if three dead is “horrendous,” I guess you never heard of Auschwitz, or Hiroshima, or a few thousand other examples I could cite, but hardly need to. Doesn't anyone ever die in Boston? No murders there before, Chief?

What an idiotic statement. Nothing like stressing people out and trying to make everyone into emotional wrecks.

It's not like we're living under a daily aerial bombardment, like some people have.

Like people in Vietnam, on which was dropped 6 million tons of bombs- triple the tonnage the U.S. dropped in all of World War II.

Hey Chief: Suck it up and get on with it, man.