The Word From London
Jackie Danicki, an American friend of mine living in London, emailed:
This is very strange. I've been wondering for years why something like this hadn't happened yet, and had almost tricked myself into thinking that nothing I pondered that much, in so much detail, could possibly happen.And this morning at the BBC, someone told me that he thought the terrorists show "impressive committment to their beliefs". I told him I wasn't impressed by the mass murder of Londoners or stoning of gays and rape victims, but that he was free to be bowled over.
And on a monkey-see, monkey-do/honesty in blogging note -- I saw that Cathy, who introduced me to Jackie, put this up first, and I followed suit.
Oh, but there's more from Jackie:
Whether I get the Tube or bus to work is less the question than, "Can I walk to work in under three hours?" Do the terrorists win if I'm conscious of the fact that London's security services SUCK?
And here's my response:
Everybody's security services suck. There's no airport, bus, or train that's impenetrable to a terrorist. For citizens going about their lives, it's just a case of wrong place, wrong time, and I refuse to live in fear.The best thing is to just live every day as if you could be dead the next day, but with the probability that you'll live out the week; probably, the month or the year. That way you won't spend every dollar on diamonds and hookers (not that I'd spend money on either, but you get my drift!)
Actually, there *is* a defense mechanism useful against terrorism in the US -- It's described in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Unfortunately, people have been conditioned to believe that their neighbors are lying louts incapable of responsible behavior, and entire industries have sprung up to cater to those who find the idea of doing their own dirty work offensive.
There is little doubt that terrorism is, in fact, crime, and one of our most useful citizens has something to say about that: Cooper vs. Terrorism
Radwaste at July 8, 2005 7:03 AM
I am sure Timothy McVeigh would agree with you.
eric at July 8, 2005 7:48 AM
PS- For a good laugh, read the Cooper link.
It reminds me of when Archie Bunker suggested everyone boarding a plane should be given a pistol to prevent hijackers.
eric at July 8, 2005 8:13 AM
Anyone that knows me knows that I would rather die in a terrorist attack than live in fear of one. Bad things happen all the time - and so do good ones. While we can't be oblivious to the suffering in the world, I believe we should focus more on what we *can* change, and where we *can* help and make a difference.
Goddyss at July 8, 2005 9:30 AM
Here's another word from London.....
Stu "El Inglés" Harris at July 8, 2005 10:46 AM
I see that somebody can't tell the difference between criminals and citizens. News Flash: McVeigh was a terrorist, right there with abortion-clinic bombers.
It is my experience that people defend their helplessness, because they are comfortable. However, life is not fair, has never been fair, and people who say that it is, or that your personal safety is either guaranteed or attainable without effort on *your* part are simply lying to you.
A short bio of Mr. Cooper establishes his credentials; what are yours?
If you are not responsible enough to possess a firearm, then by all means don't, but also do not be surprised when denial doesn't work any more.
Here's a wonderful question: what is the "reasoning" process behind declaring that there is nothing you, individually, can do?
Radwaste at July 8, 2005 3:18 PM
The last time I was in London -- 12 years ago, maybe -- I was in Paddington Station, trying to rid myself of a gum wrapper or something suchlike. When I couldn't find a trash can, I asked a cop what to do. He explained that there weren't any trash cans -- people put bonbs in trash cans.
Don't think our security has come to that, yet.
Todd Everett at July 8, 2005 10:52 PM
But maybe it should have, Todd. In France, there are no trash cans anymore, just green trash bags attached to a rim. Getting on a plane in Israel, or to Israel, you get screened by people who are trained in spotting terrorists, not people who didn't make the cut at McD's. And so on.
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2005 11:38 PM
A friend of mine invited me to travel to Tel Aviv with him this November, which is sorely tempting. However, he was really straightforward about the El Al screening procedure, which involves stripping down to your underwear, being exhaustively patted down (groped) by a same sex security screener, answering a lengthy list of questions, and having everything you packed carefully inspected. He said it's about a five hour process, but it's the safest airline you'll ever fly on.
Alan at July 9, 2005 1:46 AM
Since airlines have been mentioned - you may want to take a look at this site, the Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Center.
One of the things you may find out is that no commercial airliner has ever been brought down by small-arms fire to the airframe; several have survived bombings (not that this is much comfort to those involved). I mention this, and this site, because of a great deal of mythology surrounding air travel and security issues.
Radwaste at July 9, 2005 7:52 AM
> He said it's about a five hour process, but
> it's the safest airline you'll ever fly on.
El Al's a wonderful airline. But the American Way of Life means not putting up with five-hour patdowns for two-hour flights. Furthermore, Amy's right about the purple-sweatered fry-flippers... They're worthless. When shit goes down in the sky from now on, it's almost certainly the passengers who are going to have to deal with it. That's how liberty works, and I guess I'm OK with it. (It's a shame: Nothing improves a shitty, slender serving of wine like the climb to 36,000 feet.)
Raddy invokes this insight in the first comment. Eric's flippant, poopy-talk-at-the-dinner-table response was as inane as it was infantile. Some people are not prepared to continue the civilization of the planet, and can't get out of bed in the morning without presuming that some Daddy figure somewhere has already taken care of everything.
But that's what the war with militant Islam is: A cleanup operation. Congratulations, air travelers, we're on front line. Go easy on the tiny bottles of Cabernet.
Crid at July 9, 2005 7:59 AM
In response:
Bringing in the 2nd Amendment to the question of terrorism is ridiculous. What possible solution could be applied from the right to keep and bear arms to this issue? Would it have helped the people in the Twin Towers? Could the people in Madrid have avoided the explosions if they were all armed? Could a single one of any large scale terrorist acts have been avoided by a less restrictive interpretation of the second amendment?
Large amounts of arms and security didn't stop Shiite terrorists from killing 241 marines in Lebanon back in 1983. It hasn't stop terrorist acts against our well armed and secured embassies.
So to bring the second amendment into this discussion is ridiculous, unless you wish to argue that the ability to purchase assault rifles and ammunition can actually aid the terrorist effort.
It is an attempt to deflect from the ongoing problem and bring into the discussion a simmering political agenda.
Inform us Crid/Radwaste, how the a differing interpretaion of the 2nd amendment could protect us from the terrorists.
eric at July 9, 2005 8:42 AM
> In response:
Um-hmm...
> Bringing in the 2nd Amendment to the
> question of terrorism is ridiculous.
It is, if you think the 2nd is about hardware, which is probably the case with you. Liberals are obsessed with things, while conservatives worry about people. The left talks about guns; the right about responsibilities.
> Would it have helped the people in the
> Twin Towers?
I can't remember which person was first to say it. But within a week of the attacks, someone wrote that the 'Era of the Airliner as Submissive Utility Missile' lasted for one hour, sixteen minutes and thirty-one seconds. That's the length of time between the impact of the first plane in NYC wrought by terrorists, and the impact of the fourth plane in Pennsylvania wrought by defiant passengers.
Can you contend that the hijackers would have been able to slit the throats of the stewardesses and cow the passengers if they'd thought the guy in seat 8F might have been packing? That's one reason the motherfuckers CHOSE airliners for their wretchedness: They knew their hostages would be defenseless as well as surprised. BOTH conditions were necessary to kill Americans.
> Large amounts of arms and security
> didn't stop Shiite terrorists from
> killing 241 marines in Lebanon back
> in 1983.
How could this possibly be relevant? It didn't stop me from getting that head cold a year ago either. So what?
Speaking of distraction...
> It is an attempt to deflect from
> the ongoing problem and bring
> into the discussion a simmering
> political agenda.
What could this possibly mean?
"Simmering?"
Eric.
I'm not a gun nut. But the 2nd Amendment is not a stepchild in the Bill of Rights. Whether or not each of us chooses to exploit it in our personal lives, its presence on the list tells much about the relationship of individuals to the powerful, and how we're to deal with it.
Archie Bunker was a cartoonish creation from a cartoonish leftist from the most cartoonish corner of pop culture in America's most cartoonish decade. If that's where your thinking stopped, you deserve to fear the 'simmering agenda'.
Crid at July 9, 2005 9:33 AM
The Cooper link that was cited (from Guns and Ammo, 1975) repeatedly stated "your best protector is you!"
How can an individual protect himself from terrorism, short of never coming out of his bomb shelter? That was the essence of my mockery of the Cooper piece.
Obviously air marshalls and security professionals are improving the odds for air travelers, but that isn't in the "your best protector is you" mantra.
So please, Crid, please. I'm begging you, for my wife and all the children out there. How can us liberals protect ourselves from the terrorists????? I wanna be my own best protector!
PS- Far as I can tell, there is no Patron Saint of Handgunners\Shottists. Only a society that wants one. I checked the vatican site, and a bunch of other sites. I may be wrong on this one though.
eric at July 9, 2005 10:16 AM
I didn't follow the link and have no idea who Cooper is or what he means to anyone. The "essence of your mockery" is a presumption --which sane men do not share-- that personal responsibility does not apply in war with militant islam.
> (from Guns and Ammo, 1975) repeatedly
> stated "your best protector is you!"
Indisputably true.
> Obviously air marshalls and security
> professionals are improving the odds
> for air travelers.
Sez you. Is there anything, anything under the sky that government can spend money on that you won't be happy to pay for?
> How can an individual protect himself
> from terrorism?
The operative word there is "himself." As noted earlier, an airplane is a particular circumstance where Americans could be defeated by surprise AND a lack of weapons. But once the surprise was gone, passengers on Flight 93 were able to defend the rest of us from terrorism fighting only with their flesh & bones. The point is, they knew they couldn't wait for somebody (see 'daddy figure', above) with better equipment and better training who was paid tax money to deal with things. And late in the struggle, they must have known they were doing it only for us.
If you're asking how to fight terrorism at the personal level, my approach is to delay inflight drinking until most of the fuel has been burned, and then to vote Republican upon arrival.
Crid at July 9, 2005 12:19 PM
Apologies to most of you out there for this rehash..
>I didn't follow the link and have no idea who Cooper is or what he means to anyone.
I need you to focus here Crid. RADwaste's first link was to a guy named Jeff Cooper. I actually read the link before commenting on it, as well as other links to Jeff Cooper, and suggested to the others that they read it as well to make up their own minds... (see entries #1,2&3). Then I mocked it. Again, I think you have to read the actual link to understand my statement.
Jeff Cooper is the recipient of the esteemed medallion from Saint Gabriel Possenti Society, whom they claim is the patron saint of handgunners. Trouble with that is the Vatican never accepted the notion of a Patron Saint of Handgunners, due to the Pope being shot by a handgun and all...
http://www.stthomasirondequoit.com/SaintsAlive/id703.htm
The sum of the article was that individuals are responsible for their own safety, and cannot rely on the police or government to protect them. Get a gun, learn how to shoot, and take control over your own destiny!
I mock this thesis because most terrorist victims are randomly selected, and there is no way to protect yourself from, say, a plane being flown into your office cubicle. Personal responsibilty, your Republican mantra, does not apply in this situation, and implying that is does insults the memories of those have already died.
The you jumped in, as Crid the Revelator, spouting how the Republicans are for personal responsibility and the Democrats are for letting the terrorists take over. When you stated "Raddy invokes this insight in the first comment. Eric's flippant, poopy-talk-at-the-dinner-table response was as inane as it was infantile" I assumed you had the context of both statements.
Next you state air marshalls (as well as the CIA from your earlier post this week) are worthless government programs, and liberals always want to throw money at the problem rather than seek a real solution. Another Crid-only insight I would like for you to develop.
So once again, from the top, to Radwaste and Crid: What does the 2nd amendment have to do with terrorism, and how can an indidual protect himself from terrorist activities? There must be some substance to your statements.... or is it just mindless reactive bullshit?
eric at July 9, 2005 2:37 PM
Italics are not inherently poignant.
> RADwaste's first link...
...Was not of interest, so I didn't follow it. It had that PBR/John Birch Society odor that warns you to do better things with your browser. Amy's site attracts ALL SORTS of whackjobs. Nonetheless...
> the patron saint of handgunners.
> Trouble with that is the Vatican
> never accepted the notion...
Asked to choose between caring less about the NRA and the Catholic church, I'd probably go with the NRA, but only because the Vatican has better clothes.
> take control over your own
> destiny!
...is good advice. You're welcome to believe that you have no insights on the war with fundamentalist islam, and that Hillary (or Dubya) can handle your decisionmaking from this point on. (I ask only that you stay off of airliners.) The core of Raddy's first comment was an acknowledgment that there are some jobs that you just can't pay someone to do for you: Your first impulse upon reading this was to fart.
> there is no way to protect yourself
> from, say, a plane being flown
> into your office cubicle.
No, but as noted, there may be ways to protect OTHERS from having their cubicles incinerated... As long as you don't suppose this will always be the responsibility of Purple Sweaters and air marshalls.
Parenthetically, how much does the life of an air marshall suck? You're flying between Tulsa and Columbus every day, and staying at the lowest-bidder hotels, and paid as little as possible. It's not like you can eat good food, or chase tail, or afford to look for old guitars in hock shops as a hobby.
> you state air marshalls (as well
> as the CIA from your earlier post
> this week) are worthless...
Specifically, the dissociative teenagers and diabetic middle-aged men in purple sweaters at the airport are not making me safer. They're the lowest-paid individuals who Tom Ridge could hire to show up sober and wear loud uniforms. They're not eligible for employment at El Al based on sheer performance, and (again,) even even if they were, I wouldn't want them fondling my person or luggage. I assume that on the date of their hire, the federal taxpayer became responsible for their health care throughout their senescence.
And again I ask, since when did the CIA ever earn so much respect? What is this shit?
> Obviously air marshalls and
> security professionals are
> improving the odds,...
Obvious to who? How?
> how can an indidual protect himself
> from terrorist activities?
It depends on the particulars (and the indidual), but thanks for asking.
Crid at July 9, 2005 7:14 PM
Actually, I have no idea where the italics came from. I do want to learn how to post in HTML someday.
When you said that Radwaste invoked insight with his comment, I mistakenly thought you would stand by his comment. So now that you are divided from Radwaste, and bent on adressing only one specific terrorist incident, (which I agree with you upon that those souls acted with true heroism), I again ask Radwaste-
What does the 2nd Amendment have to do with blah blah blah...
(Now I have to give my grandson his Star Trek ride around the orchard in his resin chair...)
PS- Any Air Marshalls listening in: My uncle Robby Rankine from Anne Arbor Michigan was a US Marshall, who tracked down and escorted prisoners across state lines. I think most of us deeply appreciate your presence and duties onboard our airlines.
eric at July 9, 2005 8:01 PM
All the above is much talk that is not proposing a solution to the terrorists’ habit of blowing themselves up in our midst. Could we not discuss the way to solve the unsolvable without bringing the eternal Republicans vs Democrats duel or rather, as the fashion has it nowadays, Conservatives vs Liberals, which is to mean "good guys" vs "bad guys". No philosophical thought or political color is going to stop terrorism. These guys want to kill us all, the infidels, and no gun-packing population will stop them. Like Eric pointed out, in many instances suicide bombers blow themselves up in places filled with people armed to the teeth. Take a good look at what has been going on in Israël for years. Also remember the many years of terrorism in Lebanon which left Beirut in ruins. There is no conventional way to fight terrorism & when the terrorists are living among us, like those who did the job in London, you certainly cannot go and clean up their camps like was done (?) in Afghanistan. As for the right for Americans to bear arms, necessary in the years of the making of the United States & exploration deep into the Far West, this right is not going to be of much help against explosives in the metro of Paris, London, New York or stuffed in the Golden Gate bridge, the Eiffel Tower or a crowded movie theater.
And I do not believe that *we can help make a difference by focusing on what we can change and where we can help*. These people do not want our help to change anything, they only want to kill us.
Frania W.
Frania W. at July 9, 2005 10:47 PM
Apparently, a "gun" still has a label associated with it repellent enough to some people that they cannot focus.
The exercise of your rights under the 2nd Amendment, diluted as they have been over recent years, does NOT mean carrying around three pounds of steel like a magic talisman. It means - and you have clearly missed this in your hasty perusal of the link I provided - a comprehensive mantle of responsibilities must be assumed by the bearer of arms, not matter what form they may take. The first of these is situational awareness. The issue isn't about *guns*, it's about *arms* and the will and ability to use them.
I note that no one here has credentials to speak against Mr. Cooper; in fact, that would be blatantly ridiculous considering the acclaim he has received from damned near every police force on the *planet* - not just those in America. Likewise, you won't be able to gainsay the instruction of Thunder Ranch, Gunsite or the Lethal Force Institute.
Look: NO police force anywhere has a duty to protect your person. You may wish to look up the case, "Warren v. DC" if you like. What worked against infiltration attempts during WW2 was a combination of wartime powers and civilian activism. It would not be a false dilemma to offer the idea that if the lay public does not step up to watch for miscreants and deal with them as it becomes possible, then government will step up to do so.
When that happens - and this is illustrated nicely by the "Patriot Act" - your liberties are at an end. Blame it on religion if you wish; the consequences will not care.
Are we to care about the motives of some nut carrying five pounds of TNT onto the bus? No. We have to worry about the rest of us, and how to better distinguish ourselves. One of the ways to do this is to note that we have an unparalleled number of allies in police action: they are called, "law-abiding citizens". That some people pooh-pooh the idea that they can be effective at anything is an object lesson in arrogance.
Radwaste at July 9, 2005 11:35 PM
Radwaste: I have a mint 1918 Smith & Wesson .357 officers sidearm, and a few others in the safe. I am in no way against the 2nd amendment or gun ownership for law abiding citizens. As a citizen of Idaho with no criminal offenses, I have access to weapons that can shoot faster, more powerful weapons, more leathal bullets, and even concealed weapons permits that are easier to obtain than a drivers license. So your "diluted" right to keep and bear arms does not hold water. The point is that not one of these factors will make me even the littlest bit safer during a terrorist event.
Mr Cooper does seem to have earned a great deal of respect in his community, and his gun skills are indisputable. The schism here is when you try apply a theory written about criminal activity to terrorism. Situational awareness simply does not apply.
How funny- John Lennons "Imagine" just came on the radio. Irony!
eric at July 10, 2005 8:52 AM
> I mistakenly thought you would
> stand by his comment. So now
> that you are divided from
> Radwaste...
It's telling, and disheartening, to see political persuasion pursued with the tools and intentions of high school clique formation. It's further evidence there's been no growth in perspective since Carroll O'Connor's career peaked.
> ...bent on adressing only one
> specific terrorist incident...
We can talk about all of them, as soon as you take the larger and smaller points at hand. Raddy invokes the 2nd as an expression of the citizen's relationship to authority and how to the deal with it, individual responsibility being pivotal. And in the attacks that triggered these wars and crises (which will persist into your grandson's old age), our assailants were compelled to select a venue where we conditionally surrender our access to this Right.
Jeez Golly, Eric, turns out you're correct: A $90 Saturday night special with a poorly-alloyed muzzle tucked into the backpack of a tourist who happened to be in King's Cross station last Thursday morning would not have protected its owner from grim death. Is this what you wanted to read? During transit and other tasks, free men temporarily surrender rights and responsibilities. But the 2nd is about more than hardware. The spirit which produced that Amendment is one reason these attacks happened in London three days after our birthday, and not in Philadelphia.
You're being a dick about this because it serves some larger political purpose, perhaps the concentration of responsibility in the hands of third parties. I'll have nothing to do with it. Dubya and Hillary are merely servants, not leaders.
> Could we not discuss the way
> to solve the unsolvable without
> bringing the eternal Republicans
> vs Democrats...
The distinction is too useful to be ignored just because it becomes contentious.
> "law-abiding citizens". That some
> people pooh-pooh the idea that
> they can be effective at anything
> is an object lesson in arrogance.
And in what I like to call "The infantilism of the left." To wit:
> How funny- John Lennons
> "Imagine" just came on
> the radio. Irony!
Haven't we covered this particular annoyance in comments here earlier? Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Crid at July 10, 2005 9:39 AM
"So your "diluted" right to keep and bear arms does not hold water."
This is *grossly* wrong, and easily shown.
Case law, notably Morton Grove v. Quilici, has followed population growth and related factors to prohibit you from more and more activities - notably those at which you are sure security is low or non-existent. Every added situation in which you are expected to surrender personal defense to another agency reinforces the notion that you should not think about independent action. I remind you: no public agency can be held responsible for *failing* to provide for your defense.
Radwaste at July 10, 2005 10:41 AM
Crid- it's nice to see you grew your balls back overnight.
Radwaste: whatever.
eric at July 10, 2005 11:07 AM
PS- To Jackie and all Londoners and Anglophiles: No offense is intended, only the sincerest sympathies and heartfelt condolences.
Why haven't attacks of this kind occured in the States? After all, on Wednesday night, Britons were wondering why it hadn't already happened in London.
Andy Sullivan noted this week that Brits have a stoicism that did not take root in the Colonies. When Americans yell in pain, people hear it in Khandahar and Tikrit. Huge swaths of islamic authority collapse as history takes remarkable new directions in faraway lands. It would not, and probably WILL not, be pretty. It's at least possible that the bombers know this. And then there's the domestic side. After an attack in the States, some folks would demand that Ashcroft be restored to AG to enforce Patriot Act XIV. Hell, some people would want HOOVER back.
As Blair noted, decent people everywhere felt the loss in London this week. But when it comes to drawing inspiration from British singers in recent decades, I have a different favorite.
Crid at July 10, 2005 11:41 AM
Never miss that there is always someone near who is ineffective, and intent on seeing that you are ineffective, too.
This time, it was "eric".
Radwaste at March 28, 2022 6:46 PM
Leave a comment