If people are not terrorized by a blackout (in fact they seem to be handling it quite well, both here last week and today in London) then how can a power-blackout possibly be “terror-related”? If nobody is terrorized, does it matter if Al Queda or a disgrunted power company worker caused it? Note that, of course, there is no evidence that today’s London blackout “may” be intentional, only the fact that there are two big blackouts close in time to one another does the second one seem more suspicious than it otherwise is. But that doesn’t stop the media from speculating (something the media should not be in the business of doing) that it is “terror-related.” It seems foxnews anchors get off on saying “terror-related.”
Anyway, the bottom line is if nobody is running around terrorized, it is per se not terror related, because there is no terror to relate to it. And we shouldn’t give faith-based nutgroups a monopoly on terrorism (even though faith-based terrorism does comprise nearly all of today’s terrorist acts). I don’t see how a faith-based group shutting off the power in the name of god is any more “terrorism” than if a disgrunted employee did it to get back at his former employer. But we all know that, were that the case, it would not be called “terrorism” but merely “an act of sabotage” (which would end the news coverage instantly).
and if it were accidental due to some sort of mechanical failure, shouldn’t that be equally as “freaky” since it means the same thing – the power could go out at any given time?
The bottom line is that if a blackout is a result of someone trying to create widespread terror, that does make it a terrorist act per se. I’d say it’s the purpose that counts. If people stay calm and don’t react with terror, that’s still a terrorist act, just not completely successful. Basically you’re quibbling over the meaning of the word “terrorism”.
You can’t be serious. For the media to avoid that completely would be simply ignoring the reality that that thought is on everyone’s mind. But I think most people are smart enough to know that speculation is not proof.
Again, you can’t be serious. Would you really be just as fearful if you found out a blackout was due to a lone nut as opposed to a group? I doubt it.
You’ve also said “faith-based” a few times. Are you implying that the US is at risk from terrorism from all religions equally? (And before anyone objects, the current threat is from a relatively small number of Islamic extremists, not the vast majority of peaceful and law-abiding Muslims.)
I am not quibbling over what terrorism means, but maybe I am quibbling over what “terror” (used in the definition of terrorism) is. If doing an act doesn’t cause terror, then there is no use of terror as a means of coercion, thus no terrorism.
The media should not blindly speculate, even if something is on most people’s minds. There are other outlets for speculation, such as this website. The media should report facts, not what-ifs.
My point was that a lone nut causing a blackout is no more or less “scary” than a group having done it.
No, I am not implying the US is at risk from all religions equally. The US, and the world, is at risk from only one* religion – islam. I was merely pointing out that, even though it is true that a huge majority, if not nearly all, terrorism today is caused by faith-based groups, the label “terrorism” should not be reserved solely for acts caused by such groups. If a group causes a blackout in the name of god, it is no more terrorism than if an environmentalist group does it to save animals.
Unless you are at an abortion clinic or a gay funeral in America, then you should legitimately fear right-wing christians.
