Because You Never Asked

TERRORISM, I

(4/08)

     There are a number of things about the contemporary brand of terrorism --- its “modus operandi”, etc. --- that seem not just peculiar, but suspicious in nature, suspicious in the sense that its sincerity might even be called into question. Some of the questions I will raise in the following essay (see essay, “Terrorism, II“) could even suggest a conscious lack of optimal effectiveness, thus leading to conspiracy theories with regard to who are truly enemies in the global economic struggle that is the trigger for all geo-political action in the world.

     Terrorism is nothing new. Although we now associate the word with hawk-billed Moslems, peering out gaunt with hate from under Middle Eastern head garb, any number of allegedly aggrieved groups operating from a position of military weakness, have resorted to such tactics. Still fresh in historic memory is the “Cubana” plane blown up by Cuban exiles over Venezuela, or the libertarian Americans who destroyed the federal building in Oklahoma, without even mentioning such institutional-habituals as the I.R.A. operating in the British Isles, or the militant arm of Basque separatism, ETA . This represents a micro-list of similar behavior that could fill a thick volume.

     Today’s most prominent version of terrorism is sprung from the gargantuan energy needs caused by the Occidental idea of an economic system. The source of this energy is found most abundantly in Moslem lands. The procurement of this raw material has created enough western interference in the exploited lands to antagonize a large segment of the Arab and Moslem world. Throw in the added insult of the creation of Israel in what had been a Moslem stronghold for more than 1000 years (in truth, without the oil resources nearby, I doubt if the Zionist idea would have ever been brokered), and you’ve created a boiling stew of anger whose military capabilities are, at best, piddling compared to the perceived aggressors. This is a perfect ecosystem for the incubation of terrorism.

     The Islamic terrorists had signed their signature to many acts of aggression before 9/11, but the spectacular events of that day crossed an emotional frontier that was exploited with ease by an adolescent, headstrong Bush Administration with imperial designs far beyond its predecessors. One would have to go back to Teddy Roosevelt to find an American government with such imperial zeal.

      The crossing of this emotional frontier could be attributed to a number of things: the spectacular magnitude of the event; the fact that it happened on American soil, even though a similar attack took place at the same site less than a decade before; the geo-political situation it was sprung from. Undoubtedly, the accumulation of all these things contributed to the collective mentality necessary for the second Bush Oil War, but for this writer, the circumstance of how the event unfolded was the determining factor.

     Would anyone dispute that the aerial assault on the Twin Towers and their subsequent collapse, was the most photogenic news story in history? Perhaps its closest relative in this kind of genealogy would be the explosion of the great air ship, the Hindenburg. Our memories have been etched forever with the brilliant play by play of that bygone newscaster. The spontaneity of his genuine grief and dismay have still not been forgotten.

     The Hindenburg disaster, being the spin off of a scheduled event in an accessible place, was visually recorded. The same cannot be said for the spectacular Titanic disaster, whose photogeneity and scope could actually rival the Twin Towers episode. It’s legacy not only never seems to die, but continues to grow. Hardly ten years go by without another extravagant Hollywood production adding to its legend --- the icy clear night, the windless flat sea, the kaleidoscope of stars, the severe angle with which the behemoth vessel slid to its final resting place. All this conspired in creating an image that seems impervious to both indifference and Alzheimer’s.

     But alas! It took place in a technologically simpler time. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there seems to be no motion picture documentation of the tragedy. Obviously, there are excellent first hand accounts, but almost all of humanity has only seen representations of it, not the real thing.

     If we update the technology to the year 2001, and match such to the events of 9/11, we have finally seen created the “perfect storm” of visually recorded news events. All the stars lined up militarily to give us a pictorial representation thought only possible in the fictional world of Hollywood moguls, and we were seeing it as it happened, as if we were spectators at a sporting event. It became another kind of “where were you” milestone in the same vein as Pearl Harbor or JFK, but we saw it not just as consumers of news, but as live onlookers. I can still remember my mother coming out of her bedroom, somewhat confused and unsure, and saying that a plane had just flown into the World Trade Center. A big plane? An accident? Who? We adjourned to the TV screen where a nasty gash filled with flames had deeply scarred the upper reaches of the skyscraper. Thick plumes of dark smoke were already painted across the perfect blue sky of that beautiful late summer day.

     By then, just like my mom and I, millions of Americans must have been watching. In other words, the huge crowd was still filing in as the first inning ended. No one could imagine what an unbelievable game it would turn out to be.

     There is no need to refresh anyone’s memory here. If you saw the events of that day, you’d now have to be dead or certifiably mentally incapacitated to not remember. (The murder of Lee Harvey Oswald has a similar spontaneous quality, but its audience and visual grandeur cannot be mentioned along side 9/11.)

     The 9/11 spectacle marked a new era not so much in terrorism (in truth, not much has changed in that forum) but the way in which it is treated in the public arena. Although it had always been on the team, it now became the super star in the political lineup of our day. How a candidate relates to this issue is quite possibly the strongest or weakest political currency he or she can have. Is one weak or strong on terrorism? Can this person protect us from terrorism? --- and other such simple minded banalities, now permeate our electoral burlesque. It is a “fool’s gold” kind of issue that can decide who becomes the Fearless Leader of the world’s only Stupid Power.

     It is easy to say that the geo-political facts of our times made 9/11 the blockbuster video it will always be. But the amazing set of circumstances which provided for an almost unanimous TV audience already in place to watch such spectacular real “theater” as it happened, is unprecedented. It had a major role in creating the hysterical climate which paved the way for the extraordinary blunders of an American government adept at propaganda, but woefully short on policy intellect. The visual imagery associated with 9/11 probably had a greater influence on the future than the geo-political reality it took place in. We didn’t just hear about it or see film of it later --- we actually lived it. For Big Media, it was their walk-off home run in the 7^th game of the World Series.

     Which brings me to --- “Terrorism, II”.            

back to the Table of Contents

Email: JerryG@postcman.info