'Terrorism, even the terrorism of radical Islamists and right-wing extremists and lone actors all put together, is not an "existential threat" against our nation. Even the events of 9/11, as horrific as they were, didn't do existential damage to our nation. Our society is more robust than it might seem from watching the news. We need to start acting that way. […]
How well this attack succeeds depends much less on what happened in Boston than by our reactions in the coming weeks and months. Terrorism isn't primarily a crime against people or property. It's a crime against our minds, using the deaths of innocents and destruction of property as accomplices. When we react from fear, when we change our laws and policies to make our country less open, the terrorists succeed, even if their attacks fail. But when we refuse to be terrorized, when we're indomitable in the face of terror, the terrorists fail, even if their attacks succeed.'
"We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Which is, perhaps, an overgeneralization, but it's much closer to the truth than "The Sky is Falling!"
The Boston Marathon Bombing: Keep Calm and Carry On
It is easy to feel scared and powerless in the wake of attacks like those at the Boston Marathon. But it also plays into the perpetrators’ hands.
With respect, Mr. Schneider is terribly wrong. Anyone who looks at the reactions to Sept. 11, 2001 will see a nation that was indeed terrorized, indeed began to become more authoritarian, and otherwise was existentially damaged by the definition of anyone who sees constitutional adherence as part of the United States' existence.
That said, I am still unconvinced that the attack in Boston was truly terrorist in nature nor, if it was, that it will have any effect like that of the 2001 events on our national policy.
+Gary Roth
My opinion is that the amount of actual damage caused during 9/11 was nothing in comparison to the violence that's consistently present in our country. Terrorist attacks cause terror.
We as a nation have to choose to be scared.
In September of 2011 we CHOSE to be scared for our safety due to the event that happened. We were willing to give up some of our personal freedoms and close of our country.
News is a propagator of this fear. If we chose to recognize the act, then analyze how and/or why it came about we would be able to alleviate our fear. Instead the attack happens, then our news and media make a major story over the people that were injured, which is sad, but not the most relevant part of the event in some cases. If the media were to reflect ways we could educate and support each other within our community to avoid attacks or get to know the people in your city, terrorist attacks would be just attacks.
I think 🙂
His point is that the attacks themselves do not represent an existential threat — our reactions to them may very well do so (and, arguably, have, as you note).
As to Boston — it was either mass murder (if there's no particular social / political motive) or it was terrorism (if there was), by definition. Which doesn't inform us at all per se. So we investigate. I agree it seems less likely to have the impact of 2001, but we'll see.
Gary, Bruce Schneier has been the biggest post- 9-11 voice against “security theater” and erosion of our constitutional rights. With respect, you might have missed his point, which hinges on the simplest and most direct meaning of “existential”. You might like his blog http://www.schneier.com/