The terminology used to describe terrorists is being used to steer response to the Boston bombing, even before anyone knows who is to blame.
The trauma of the Boston Marathon bombing is still shaking America. As the identity of the culprit(s) is still being sought by investigators, the “terrorism experts” and media pundits are typecasting that identity in advance around one of their ready-made scapegoat categories.
And the early contender is to place the blame on a likely “domestic” terrorist who may be a “lone wolf.” And he could look like… YOU.
“My sense of it is that from the nature of the bombs that were set off that this is a most likely a domestic act, possible a lone wolf,” Moore said.
Moore, who favors greater national security measures, further admits in the interview that even if advance security were in place, it may not have stopped this attack, and certainly couldn’t stop all attacks. A significant security force was already present at the Boston Marathon, and yet it couldn’t prevent this tragedy from occurring. A coach from the University of Mobile confirmed that bomb-sniffing dogs and lookouts were in place at or near the finish line of Monday’s marathon and were conducting a security exercise and yet they did not catch the explosives.
Shockingly, writers at Salon.com expressed their explicit “hope” that the culprit would be a “white American” as a Muslim extremist, they calculate could give Republicans political currency to block Obama’s immigration agenda.
“If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates,” author David Sirota wrote. [emphasis added]
Why? The answer is straightforward: so that the reaction to this deadly attack can be directed towards an agenda to further expand the security state and leave room for curtailing individual freedoms.
Using vague and potentially all-encompassing terms like “domestic extremists” and “lone wolf” allows checkpoint enforcers like TSA to take root in more places and circumstances as anyone could be a potential threat, even children in wheelchairs and elderly people traveling with colostomy bags or other equipment for medical conditions.
Further, it adds fuel to the vehicles in Washington and state capitols pushing legislation and policy towards gun control, background checks and a big brother society where suspicion is king.
Back in 2009, “Big Sis” backed an agency report predicting attacks would come from “lone wolf” individuals or “domestic”/”rightwing”/”returning veteran”/(fill-in-the-blank) extremists, essentially setting up the potential energy to exploit nearly any tragedy in a media-driven world where some form of tragedy is inevitable.
The Homeland Security report claimed there was a dangerous rise in “lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology [as] the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States,” particularly in lieu of the fact that the first black president in history had just taken office.
All this despite the lack of any real or presentable facts to back Homeland Security’s claims…
FEAR IS AMPLIFIED BY PERCEPTION
In his time, Franklin D. Roosevelt warned the public in the face of danger that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
Today, fear has built up an establishment as troubling as Eisenhower’s “military industrial complex.” The Department of Homeland Security has become a true occupying force, establishing an umbrella over most of the national security and investigative bodies based in Washington and a great deal of the power structure at the state and local level as well. The security super-structure has become a big deal.
And yet, the fear of terrorism has been drastically overblown. [pullquote]Furthermore, freak accidents causing death like deer running into the road, people slipping in showers or lightning striking unlucky souls all happen more than we think, while our perception of the threat of terrorism is exaggerated. Statistical analyses have confirmed it.[/pullquote]
This fact has been quantified by Scientific American, as well as others, who’ve analyzed the odds of being killed in a terror attack as compared with other frequent causes of death. Ordinary events including heart attacks, car accidents, cancer, drownings and even bee stings/allergic reactions obviously kill more people day after day than Fear itself could possibly hope to do.
Furthermore, freak accidents causing death like deer running into the road, people slipping in showers or lightning striking unlucky souls all happen more than we think, while our perception of the threat of terrorism is exaggerated. Statistical analyses have confirmed it.
Moreover, the concept is redundant in that terrorism is a tactic that induces fear, so the conditioned fear itself is part of the larger effect that is perhaps initiated by actual attacks, but which is clearly perpetuated by the televised media and the establishment rhetoric. Thus, these public figures are literally themselves the terrorists as much as any member of al Qaeda or some shadowy homeland extremist group.
President Obama and his ilk love to rub our faces in the sorrow of the dead children at Sandy Hook so long as it helps with attempts to restrict the 2nd Amendment, yet he could practically never be found discussing the fact that between 1.5 million and 2.5 million crimes are admittedly deterred by law abiding gun owners EACH year. Moreover, examples in the news of children, customers/shop owners and crotchety veterans using firearms to stop home invasions and robberies happen on a regular basis without any fanfare, and even cases of armed citizens stopping mass shooters in progress barely receive mention in the press.
As strikes killing civilians at the hands of American drones continue on an almost daily basis in foreign locales across the globe with shocking silence (five people were killed and seven were injured yesterday in Pakistan), the media is playing up the casualties in Boston, which include at least three dead and more than 170 injured and suffering from missing limbs or terrible wounds, for all their shock value.
Rest assured, our beloved leaders in Washington and on the television are emphasizing the loss of life NOT out of care for the actual victims, but so that they can exploit the tragedy to further their agenda.
As hurtful as it may seem to many of the readers to say so, it is time to face the facts.
We must realize that if “security” created safety, this never would have happened. Sadly, no amount of security personal can stop some tragedy from occurring sometime in the future. Homeland Security is NOT in place for our safety.
Instead, the “security” that is rolled out in greater increments by Homeland Security and its sub-agencies including FEMA and the TSA is put in place to expand money, control and power.