|
Living with Terrorism
By Harry Scapin, Torrington
One definition of "terrorism" is: the use of force or threat to demoralize, intimidate and subjugate. Lately this word has been tossed around as loosely as "have a nice day," awesome, cool, etc. Seems like the "in" word, the new word on the block. You can't turn around without bumping into it. Pour out your cereal and what do you get? A bowl of terrorism. It's like back in 1941, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, people in California were seeing "Jap" periscopes in their swimming pools and in their bathtubs.
Today, in the analysis of any incident that happens in the course of everyday living, the word "terrorism" is the first word you hear. It's either, "Was it an act of terrorism?" or "There's no proof that it was an act of terrorism." The news media moguls like Rather, Brokaw and Jennings use the word like a sword, waving it around to increase their ratings.
We have probably been living with terrorism since day one, and it hasn't affected us that much—at least not to the point of the paranoia that we seem to have reached now. I could go back in the archives of any local newspaper and come up with names and dates of many accounts of terrorism perpetrated on the civilized world. I don't have the energy or time to do this research, but I do remember some: the guy from Waterbury who was planting pipe bombs in phone booths in New York; those two guys from Connecticut who were going around in the Bristol area robbing and killing the proprietors of little "mom and pop" businesses; the "Son of Sam" and his counterpart in California, the "Red Light Bandit." The world has been full of nut cases forever—people who thought they could change things by strapping a bomb around their body and blowing themselves up along with a few innocent people or a building. Well, by now even they should get the message that it just doesn't work.
Why is it so different now, after the World Trade Center incident? Because of the enormity of the damage, the loss of lives. I think this act was a one-time deal, that the enormity has frightened the perpetrators, that they did not expect so much destruction, but expected the damage to be just enough to send a message that we are not safe. But I don’t think there is a master plan. They are sneak attackers, bombers of buses, restaurants and market places; they are a bandit country, much like Mexico was back in the Old West. They are still tribal—not many rocket scientists there—but if we keep educating them there soon will be, and then we will have a problem.
My main fear is our own people: the crazies like that kid who stole and crashed a plane. I also fear the government and the news media; they keep suggesting places to attack—like bridges, Olympic sites, those bunkers near Davenport, IL that contain our gas and germ warfare missiles. (Did you know about them? I didn't. Now everybody knows, even them—if there is a "them" out there.) So if there are terrorists in waiting, they don't have to do much planning; we're sorta laying out a pretty good blueprint for them.
To show us that they are on the ball, the government blabs about what it is doing to prevent any attack and the media, under the guise of "the public's right to know" (but we all know it's about ratings), tells us all about it. Personally, I don't want to know. I had an old Marine Corps buddy who always said to me, "Harry, ignorance is bliss. You'll always be happy." And I want to stay happy.
|
|
