|
one more thing. as regards to the official designation of "was this a terrorist act or not?" i have a thought, which is an expansion of the notion going around that criticizes hte media and law enforcement over the whole "of course it wasn't terrorism - he's a white guy - and white guys are 'lone wolf's".
on the one hand, does it matter a whole hell of a lot if we call it terrorism or lone wolfing? i think the answer to that is yes, of course it does, but i'll get back to that i think.
lets get back to the question of, was it terrorism?
and i notice that it's only ever acknowledged to be terrorism when an act is done in service of a cause which we recognize, and particularly one which we disagree with. it fails to recognize that terrorism can be done in service to that which we support. the dude who shot up the republican senate softball team? that dude was a terrorist, whether or not you like the currently ruling party, whether or not you're pro trump or anti. but wait, he acted alone (so far as we know). so did the boston marathon bombers.
what separates one motherfucker form another, here? on the one hand, we recognize the boston marathon bombers as subscribing to an ideology which we already recognize as terroristic. whereas we generally don't consider the senate shooter to be a member of any terrorist group. but why do you need to be part of a terrorist group to cause terrorism? you don't. you can be a terrorist of one, or two, or however many. it shouldn't matter from the definition of things.
what truly matters is that the senate shooter and the boston marathon bombers, and all terrorists, committed their acts in service of an ideology to which they ascribed. doesn't matter what ideology it is. in service of their ideology, they attacked.
but, why did they attack? is there something inherently flawed with the gereral ideology around which they wrapped themselves? inherently no. there is nothing wrong with islam, nor is there anything wrong with liberalism, or anti-trumping. nor is there anything wrong with environmentalism (as much so-called eco-terrorism is performed around the world). at teh root of it all, what it boils down to is that some dude out there (yeah, typically it's dudes, almost exclusively in fact - we should really look into that) is so damaged that he feels the need to share his pain with the world, so the world can feel the way he does, and the only way to make that happen is through violence. maybe he wants the world to think that islam is the one true religion, or maybe he wants the world to think that republicans are ruining the country, or maybe he wants the world to think that trees are awesome and pollution sucks, but really, honestly, it doesn't matter what hte motivation is. someone so damaged is going to find something to hang their hat on in the end. somehting is going to radicalize them, to motivate them. and it shouldn't matter if its a god i don't bow down to, or just the he feels really strongly against puppies.
when it's a motivation we don't agree with, or don't ascribe to, we blame the motivation, and use it as a cudgel against those who happen to follow similar beliefs, no matter how peacably. when we choose not to recognize the motivation as a valid 'cause' for violence, we throw it away and grant the killer 'lone wolf' status.
and this is why it's important to call terrorism when it truly is an act of terrorism. because terrorism is used against people who happen to follow the same beliefs. a muslim shoots people up, all muslims are terrorists in waiting, because islam makes them so. a black guy shoots people up, all black guys are terrorists in waiting, because they hate white guys so much. (maybe he gets labeled as a common criminal instead, or a gangbanger, to further minimize him). a tree hugger shoots people up, and all environmentalists are whack jobs.
yes, in many movements, there are people who actively recruit and radicalize those who are already damaged goods. and that exacerbates the problem. of course. but damaged people will tend to latch onto whatever comes their way, to justify their actions.
i'm rambling.
sorry.
bottom line.
this guy had a reason to shoot up a crowd of people, and unless he did it just to see if he could, or to get his rocks off, he did it for a reason. and that makes him a terrorist. whether or not he had help planning and executing the attack. whether or not he had accomplices. whether or not he was a muslim, or a white dude, or just really hated puppies.
he was a terrorist.
so we can now go out and try to find some sliver of his personality that made him aberrent, some group of outsiders he was a part of, and round them up because they must clearly be part of some terrorist ideology...
or we can maybe start to think of how we can offer help to those among us who are damaged. not only in our own communities, but in hte whole goddamned world itself.
does an individual feel so damaged that he must speak out in violence in order to be heard? lets go help that dude out.
does a whole group of people - a community, or a race, or a region, feel so damaged that they too must speak out in violence in order to be heard? lets help them out too.
because goddamnit, you don't fight terrorism with bullets or bombs, or jails or jdams, or tarrifs or treaties, but with human compassion and decency and love and attention.
you defeat terrorism by sharing the light and pulling people out of darkness, out of the shadows.
if it really is true that people, and not guns, kill people, then is not the only right solution to the problem to help all the people so as not to leave them so bereft of their own humanity, and so numb to the humanity of others, that their only solution is violent?
|
