OR: Bin Laden, Bin Laden on the Wall, Who's the Scariest of Them All?
Quite often in my conversations on-line the topic of terrorist attacks comes up because around the country it is a unifying theme about how we live our lives today. People are somewhat to very concerned that before the election there will be an attack. They have surmised (rightly or wrongly) that homeland security is very difficult to do, that there are holes in the safety net that protects us and they think Al Qaeda must make a statement soon in order to remain relevant as a "topic of discussion."
If you analyze the American perspective on terrorism from a purely political point of view, there are many possible paths Americans might go down in response to an actual attack. So, to set the table, let's hypothesize the following for discussion purposes: A train or bus is commandeered with a sufficient amount of explosives to take out an area the size of a city block. It is driven into a city garage (or train station) and exploded causing 2,000 casualties and 25 million in destruction to property as the buildings above the explosion are either destroyed in the collapse or badly damaged. The attack is done at 9:45 A.M. to get maximum press exposure and if 9/11 tells us anything, is THE story for the next week.
What would that make you think?
The first possibility might be that we have put our trust in Mr. Bush and despite his leadership we were attacked again. You might think that makes him a failure in doing what is necessary to get the job done. We've always known an attack was possible but something of this size is the old fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on us scenario. When I've posed the possibility to people I know this isn't their reaction. It might be yours though.
The second possibility might be that you think Mr. Bush has done a good job on homeland security but couldn't protect us because he was hamstrung by the law and the liberal's lack of support for more security. The Patriot Act, you might think, didn't allow the intelligence community enough leeway to get the job done. While Washington debated over what to call the FBI, NSA, and CIA the terrorists used our division to plan another attack. This time we're going to do the right thing and if every phone in the U.S. is tapped, so be it. This nonsense is going to stop. Maybe it's time to consider the terrorists for what they are, a bunch of vile people with no sense of religion or conscience and get rid of them. I don't remember there being a lot of "so sorry he's gone" when they took out Hitler or Mussolini. Is this what you might think?
How about a third possibility: despair. This experiment in freedom in the U.S. has failed. People need to know that they can be safe and government of, by, and for the people is a luxury we can't stand. Give the military the power necessary to ensure the society, suspend the bill of rights and let's find another method of governing where we aren't vulnerable.
There are probably more possibilities than haven't been mentioned.
What I sense in the people I have discussed this with is more in line with the second scenario. My internet connections come from around the country and come from many different backgrounds politically and socially. A few lean to the other possibilities but it seems most people have already made up their mind what they would think if such an event were to occur. This surprises me because it seems almost to play against logic. If we think an attack will happen, then the current administration has already failed us because we would have to think that it hasn't yet because the terrorists aren't ready.
If we think that security is not "tight" enough and most that talk to me kind of laugh that off because how tight could it be before freedom to travel or talk is restricted so that the experiment of a free society is threatened.
It is easy to want both freedoms and security. It is hard for most to think that terrorism will not occur.
What would be your reaction?