nope, still don't get it
Jul. 7th, 2005 07:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
The alarm clock is set for 0545, which means that the BBC World Service was airing on NPR when I woke up. Took me a while to realize that I was actually awake, and not half-dreaming.
Anyway. I understand terrorism, in the abstract. The goals of terrorists are generally secular rather than religious: they're not out to convert anyone, they're just attempting to remove the influence of a foreign nation from their homeland, etc etc. So when they attack, they're doing their best to compel a democratic government to action by hurting its most valuable asset: its citizens. When the citizens of a democracy are attacked, they clamor for change. Chances are, that change might involve switching to a different government or at least a different foreign policy, one that will favor the terrorists' goals. It's bullying, but bullying has a depressingly good success rate.
The irony of it is, they picked London. The Brits are famously sanguine, stoic, stiff-upper-lip sort of people. What were the terrorists thinking? Whose bright idea was this?
Anyway. I understand terrorism, in the abstract. The goals of terrorists are generally secular rather than religious: they're not out to convert anyone, they're just attempting to remove the influence of a foreign nation from their homeland, etc etc. So when they attack, they're doing their best to compel a democratic government to action by hurting its most valuable asset: its citizens. When the citizens of a democracy are attacked, they clamor for change. Chances are, that change might involve switching to a different government or at least a different foreign policy, one that will favor the terrorists' goals. It's bullying, but bullying has a depressingly good success rate.
The irony of it is, they picked London. The Brits are famously sanguine, stoic, stiff-upper-lip sort of people. What were the terrorists thinking? Whose bright idea was this?