Responding to fear

In the aftermath of the bombing, I've read every article I can find on the event. When something dramatic happens to shock your system, people respond in different ways. Some become so gripped with fear they want to act without the benefit of forethought, any action being better than inaction. Others fill with retaliatory rage and want to respond in kind or more extremely. The message boards associated with the articles I've read have borne this out with crystal clarity.

I've been trying to organize my thoughts for this entry for the last several days. I am finding this exercise to be more challenging than I had expected. I had hoped I could find a methodical, coherent way to share my perspective on all of these topics. Hopefully, I have.

My approach to a dangerous situation is to logically, yet quickly, perform a risk assessment. Which activities are safe, which are unsafe. In the minutes immediate following the event, I had to determine what activities I considered safe for my family. I surmised that personal residences would not be a target and, if they were, they would focus on names people would recognize. Bombing places with large congregations of people - malls, schools, etc. - would make a statement. This is why I advised my wife and daughter to stay at home.

Once my family was safe, I had to determine what made the most sense for myself. I felt I had two options: return home and be with my family or stay at work. I knew I would be safe at home. I work for a Western company already under attack in other parts of Indonesia, in a building with other Western companies, across the street from a Western embassy that was a target of previous attacks. I decided we were on a list of potential targets, so risk existed. My preference was to go home.

Reports of car bombs found on the street (which were later discredited) complicated my decision. I was sure the roads would be crowded. Many in the city would want to return home, emergency vehicles would be rushing to and from the scene of the attack. I also had to think of the impact of my disappearance on my staff. If I left, and required them to stay, what message would that send? I determined that, in the immediate aftermath of an attack, building security would perform their duties with increased vigilance. I decided to remain at least until lunch and reassess the situation.

By lunch, the city was under control, the media had rescinded all reports other than those at the two hotels, and my day was more than half over. Ultimately, I decided to finish my day at work and only left about fifteen minutes early.

We spent much of Friday evening reading on the Internet and watching on TV every report available about the attacks. Before we went to bed, the media had reported on the possible connections, the room they had stayed in, and even the theories on how they had circumvented security. When we went to sleep Friday evening, the reverberations of a slamming car door were enough to make the heart race.

Saturday, with the exception of a trip to a small, local store and the nearby grocery store, we stayed within the comfort of our secured compound. It appeared most of our neighbors had decided to take a similar approach. No one was on the streets, no one was at the playground, the pool, or other common areas.

By Sunday, we felt the risk was gone. I went to a mall to buy the wireless router so I could finish configuring our home network. For lunch we went to Hacienda, only to find it filled with expats. The city is back to normal. I consider this is a good thing. If a city shuts down, or we alter our behavior after a terrorist attack - like Spain did after their subway bombings - then the terrorists have won. I don't advocate being unsafe - I explained my thought processes. I also don't advocate recoiling and hiding in fear. That benefits no one but the terrorists.

In addition to reading the articles, and the comments, I've also spoken with several colleagues, expats and Indonesians, about the events. I want to provide my perspective on several comments I've heard.

1) Islam is not a religion of peace/Muslims are evil. As much as I disagree with these comments, they do not surprise me. Western society's experience with Muslims, for the most part, is either non-existent or violent (terrorism, war with the Moors). There are two reactions to things we do not understand - interest, or revulsion. I experienced this first hand when I changed high schools my Junior year. Because of violent histories with Muslims, we have chosen revulsion.

The reality is suicide bombers are the destitute or the village idiot. They have nothing in life, or they are struggling to provide for their family, and a wealthy, twisted, power-hungry "brother" gives them a way out. The masterminds behind the attacks are wealthy individuals who want to transform their wealth into absolute power. They manipulate and brainwash impoverished, mostly illiterate, men and women under the veil of religious conviction and send them on suicide missions promising them glory, and riches for their families.

If you are familiar with history at all, using religious fervor to advance your political power is as old as religion itself. I could make an argument that Christians invented this practice. From the Catholic papacy of the Dark Ages, to the Knights Templar, and even America's conquering of the West, Christianity has been the justification for wars for millenia.

What interests me, and dismays me, most about the broad condemnation of all Muslims is we do not apply the same stereotyping to Christians. We often hear of people bombing abortion clinics, killing abortion doctors, or torturing and killing homosexuals with the misguided belief that Christianity demands this of them. "Smite Satan in all his forms", is often quoted. We never apply the fringe, fundamentalist beliefs and actions of these fanatics to all Christians. We seem so willing to do that to those who are unlike us.

2) The bombs in Jakarta make it an unsafe city. I've heard this from several people in the US, some have even said it is time to come home. I associate this fear with those who are afraid of flying. Every time a plane crashes, the air-phobic use it to reinforce their irrational fear of flying.

The reality is that gun violence in the US kills more people than any type of violence in Jakarta. The Phoenix Sniper, the South Carolina Serial Killer, gang violence have all killed more people than the bombings that took place here. Every nation, state, city have violence. In the US, we accept gun violence as a fact of life. We dismiss our personal risk by saying "that only happens in X part of town", when in reality, it can happen anywhere.

In nations like Indonesia, where citizens are not allowed to have guns, bombs are an easier method of creating havoc, and are the weapon of choice. I feel safer from violence in Jakarta than I do in Phoenix or Grand Rapids, Michigan. Health issues are more of a concern here, but violence is not.

One other thing to note is many foreigners are scared of visiting the US because of gun violence. I've had several expats, from all over the world, ask me if we live in fear of people with guns in the US. When foreigners hear reports of guns in schools, random shootings, serial killers, they have the same reaction Americans have to bombs in other countries.

3) Muslims are not condemning the attacks; that must mean they support them. This could not be further from the truth. The majority of the people I work with are Muslim. My domestic staff are all Muslim. When the bomb attacks occurred, they all had fear in their eyes. They condemn the attacks as much as anyone. They just don't have a voice. Read the last part of this article on Yahoo. The Muslim taxi driver says that they, as Muslims, must stop them.

If you want to change the argument to say that Muslim leaders don't denounce the attacks, then you don't understand the situation, or the facts. The President of Indonesia, a Muslim, very quickly condemned the attacks. You won't hear religious leaders in devoutly Muslim nations speaking out against the attacks for the same reason people in New Jersey and New York City don't speak out against the mob - it isn't conducive to long life and good health. Christ said "You are either for me, or against me." Muslims believe that, too, and the fundamentalists kill you if you are against them.

4) Terrorists are attacking Westerners. The truth is they are attacking Western symbols. The people are just collateral damage. More Muslims and Indonesians are hurt in these attacks than Westerners. If the bombers went to a grocery store filled with Indonesians that only Indonesians shopped at, the international media would limit coverage to three paragraphs buried in the "World" section of the paper. Attacking well-known, international targets gives them front page, global attention. I think we would be better off not reporting on it at all.


Not one to leave the problem of fixing terrorism to others, here is what I would do:

1) Stop buying oil. If you think terrorism is cheap, think again. These groups need financing. Oil makes Arab nations rich beyond their capacity to spend. Wealthy people with money to burn find a cause (you see this all the time with celebrities and athletes in the US, even Bill Gates did it with his quest to eliminate malaria). Muslim oil magnates have decided their cause is making Islam the global religion at any cost. We stop buying oil, they have no money to finance it.

2) Stop reporting it on the front page. All the attention we give these events just makes others on the margin join the cause because they see how important it is. We are doing the marketing for them.

3) Stop supporting Saudi Arabia. The number one gripe terrorists have with us is we provide military support for a ruling family of a Muslim nation that terrorists believe are not true Muslims. We support them because of our dependence on oil and their control of it. Once we end our reliance on foreign oil, we can let Saudi Arabians decide for themselves who should rule their country.

4) Don't just take the information given to you by CNN, your local news, or national broadcasts. These organizations are no longer "news" organizations. They are profit organizations. They will print what people will buy, not what is most important in the world.

Read the facts. Read translations of the Al Qaeda manifesto. Read the Quran and understand for yourself what message it sends. Understand the history of religion and how easily it is to manipulate people. Benjamin Disraeli, a former Prime Minister of Israel once said "People never do evil so willingly and completely as when done with religious conviction." Power hungry, wealthy Muslims use this fact to their advantage.

Finally, retaliation is not the answer. That is their method, not ours. I've seen comments on discussion boards that have said "if they bomb a hotel, we obliterate a city". Asinine. Gandhi said it best: "An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind".

My advice to everyone: calm down, take a deep breath, understand the facts, and respond rationally and without emotion. Only then will we do the right things as individuals and as nations.