Late one night, several moons ago, I
found myself on the cold, barren expanses of the Syria-Lebanon
border, in the middle of a decrepit, cinderblock shack without
windows. On this particular instance, the “immigration” lanes
were crowded with armed troops, disinterested looking military types
stamping passports, and the queues were overflowing with cross-border
travelers, mostly Syrian workers going back to make their bones in
Lebanon, a tradition in this part of the world.
In the middle of this bureaucratic
ritual, I encountered a somewhat bizarre sight; a 6'4ish Ginger
standing amongst the generally shorter, and darker complected crowd.
This character looked like someone you'd run into having hashbrowns
and whiskey at the Oxford Saloon in Missoula, Mont., not someone
you'd expect to see out here. Thinking it was another American, I
started up a conversation. Being in Syria, it had been a long time
since I had run into someone who spoke good English.
“Hey man, how in the hell did you get
here?” I inquired in my road wearied state.
My greeting was returned with a blank
stare, like one who has no idea whether or not to shit or go blind,
followed by rants in Arabic. Clearly, he wasn't at the Oxford last
Friday. It turned out he was from Jordan, spoke little English, and
was on his way to manage an internet cafe in Beirut.
Though my diatribe may seem as if it
has no point, it does. We can't always judge people by what they look
like. This was illustrated with my experience on the Syrian Frontier.
Just because someone looks like something, doesn't mean that they
necessarily are. Hell, here I thought the guy was someone I could
swap stories about drinking Oly and being cat-called at by drunken,
sloppy women. Instead, he was a complete foreigner, someone who had
little in common with the bar denizens of Higgins Street, even though
he looked like he could definitely play the part.
This may seem simplistic, but nowhere
was this more prevalent than the aftermath of this past week's Boston
Marathon bombings. The blood was still fresh on Boylston Street, the
explosions and chaos still freshly ringing in Bostonian ears, and
already, people were jumping to conclusions about who did it, and why
they did it. Within minutes of the bombings, the armchair Defense
ministers set the Twittersphere ablaze with rampant speculation. It
was a gun nut, protesting tax day! It was Al-Qaeda! These theories
and myriad more set the tone. On websites like Reddit, would-be
gumshoes had a field day looking for suspicious looking brown people
within the crowd, doing pen drawings on pictures that would have made
John Madden proud, and creating suspects, based solely on the fact
they looked Middle Eastern or South Asian.
A Saudi national was arrested. He was
deported rather suddenly. Evidence, conspiracy theorists maintain,
that this was part of a government plot and his deportation part of
the cover up.
The mainstream news was no better than
this array of crackpots, perhaps even worse, on many occasions
putting on ranting talking heads on the various opinion shows,
talking heads who asserted it had to be some sort of Iranian plot, or
how it was the Al-Qaeda's Malian arm, trying to exact revenge for US
support of France in the Mali Campaign.
And now, in the end, it looks to have
been the work of two Kyrgyz-Chechen immigrant hatchetmen who by all
accounts were pretty normal people who led pretty normal lives. Just
regular looking white kids. One was an aspiring boxer, the other, an apparent pothead who was good at wrestling. Ordinary people, who, for some reason
snapped.
Everybody had the perpetrators of this
whole terrible incident fingered long before there was any evidence.
And everybody was wrong. Worse, people wrongly fingered by the
internet “sleuths” remain threatened by violence by would-be
vigilantes. It wasn't some international plot, it wasn't some
deranged crackpot who was angry about his guns being taken away, it
was just a couple of suburbanites who lost their marbles.
The world isn't always what it seems.
If by "for some reason snapped" you mean "violence in the name of religion" then you are correct. Which, I might add, was indeed a prevalent theory thrown around by the media. So it would seem your article is somewhat off the mark.
ReplyDeleteHow is it off the mark...something caused them to snap, didn't it?
ReplyDelete