The Boston Bombings and the Insidious Victories of Terrorism

The criminal acts in Boston fit the purest definition of terrorism: a terrorism without goals, because it is unconnected; a terrorism without target, because it only hit innocent civilians; a criminal terrorism, because it just spread confusion, fear and death.

The Boston bombs had, however, one consequence in a perverse logic that emerged after Sept. 11: The tolerance and cooperation between communities and creeds suffered another blow. The insidious victories that terrorism is achieving are exactly against the principles that one would hope were esteemed and enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since the twin towers in New York became a symbol of terrorist power, we have seen a consensual and even assisted degradation in the general and basic principles of human rights. Terrorism wins insidiously when people tolerate, accept and help restrictions to freedom of information (official or not), intercommunity intolerance, negations of the presumption of innocence, deprivation of liberty without proven guilt, torture, etc.

The true psychological terror spread by the acts of indiscriminate violence bring many to suspend theoretically inalienable principles for which generations fought and wars were waged. The way that some of the more conservative media got hold in the ‘60s and ‘70s of the terminology of power opened doors to an unacceptable confusion. The liberation movements that since that era have fought at the margin of traditional confrontations — in the case of the Palestinian Liberation Organization — or in guerilla wars — from Cyprus, where tens of combatants were forcibly executed, to Angola — were easily characterized as terrorists. Now the same term is applied to Islamic radicals and even criminals like those in Boston. It is worth bearing in mind that there is a fundamental difference between the former and latter, since the conservative radicalization of terms brings a dangerous confusion. Some were fighting for liberty and independence, values respected internationally. The others only bring citizens to destruction or wind up destroying liberties and rights acquired over more than half a century.

Apart from human sights, terrorism has led in fact to another victory inside societies. Its identification with Arabs, Muslims and/or Islam stigmatizes communities for their origin and/or religious practice. It’s not about a “holy war” of Christians against Muslims, or vice versa; according to the majority view, it’s about instilling fear and hatred deriving from acts of indiscriminate criminals in the subconscious.

The fight against this terrorism is not only in the hands of power. Citizens as a community have to take up that war and not permit its moral patrimony to be demolished.

In continuing those insidious victories, acts of racial discrimination and religious stigmatization will be emphasized; the press will lose its objectivity, opening the door to the arguments of power, especially on television.

Information and entertainment, much to the delight of television, are weapons that terrorists, and above all their mentors, know how to use in their favor.

Informational live bulletins of events have transformed information into entertainment. On the other side of the screen, in unhealthy fascination, the watcher “lives” what are the true moments of glory of the act of terror. The next day, the citizen is ready to accept or vote for measures that limit their rights, prepared to view other races and creeds with distrust. This is the real way to limit the insidious victories of terrorism — victories much more dangerous than the criminal act.

The criminal act is finished with the action; the insidious victories have effects in the medium term that last a very long time.