How not to get shot in the face on the London subway

Here's an article I'm working on for the GuardDawg's first issue. Even though I've graduated and moved some 600 miles away, I was informed that I wasn't allowed to stop writing for them. And since I've spent the last two months kinda holding my tongue and having my ideas watered down, I was happy to oblige them.

So here's a draft of my first contribution:

It's George W. Bush's fault. It's Tony Blair's fault. This only happened because of the Iraq war -- these, as well as any number of other justifications, have been hurled from the left both at home and abroad in the aftermath of the attacks in London on July 7th.

Curiously, these detractors seem to forget that there was no war in Iraq when 19 radical Muslims flew planes into American landmarks taking more than 3,000 lives. George W. Bush had not even been elected when two al Qaeda operatives bombed the USS Cole that was ported in Yemen, killing 17 American sailors. The same holds true for the 1998 attacks on American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, in which hundreds of people were killed, as well as the 1996 attacks on the Khobar Towers, and the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. I think you get the point. The Iraq war did not cause the attacks in London -- it merely provided a convenient scapegoat.

Terrorists might be several things -- evil, barbaric, fanatical, lacking in hygiene -- but they're not stupid. In fact, they’re brilliant public relations strategists and quite politically savvy. They understand the huge unpopularity of the war in Iraq, especially in Europe, and they witnessed the resolve of the Spanish people crumble after similar attacks in Spain. Terrorists seek to undermine the goals of the War on Terror by using the liberal factions of Western nations’ citizenry to their benefit -- ‘useful idiots,’ if you will. They’ll exploit those who share their hatred of America and the West.

It's probably cliché at this point to say that we're at war with terrorists, but its redundancy in the media does not affect its standing in the truth. In as much as liberals in this country and abroad would prefer that terrorism be handled with olive branches, criminal trials and mutual understanding, these things only
amount to prevention of future terrorism, and do little to disarm the current horde of disgruntled Muslims hell-bent on meeting Allah and spending eternity with their six dozen virgins.

These fanatics are immune to reason, and trying to reach an agreement with them is utterly useless. They often claim that they would rather die than surrender to the 'infidels,' and we should be happy to oblige them.

During his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, former president Clinton claimed that 'we cannot possibly kill, jail or occupy all our potential adversaries.' Jail and occupy? Probably not. But kill? Now there's a possibility we can work with.

But war isn't without its innocent victims. Consider the case of Jean-Charles de Menezes. Menezes was a Brazilian national living in London and working as an electrician. On July 22, he was walking from his home toward a London subway station. His apartment had been under surveillance since the day before, when a second wave of attacks on the London subway were attempted but unsuccessful.

The scenario was suspicious from the start. A dark-skinned man (let's be honest — the first wave of attacks wasn't perpetrated by pale-faced Britons) who was under surveillance was moving toward a subway station. To make matters more complicated, he was wearing a heavy coat — quite strange for the middle of July.

As police approached him, Menezes disregarded their orders, and eventually started running from them. In what was likely the worst nightmare of the British police, Menezes was running towards the subway train. Police followed him onto the train, shouted for the passengers to get down, and two officers pounced on him while another shot him in the head seven times.

The protocol used by the police officers was entirely justified and they acted heroically. Londoners would be singing their praises if not for one exception — Menezes was an innocent man. He was in no way connected to the attempted bombings from the day before.

Such an event is indeed tragic, and ideally would have never happened. But as it is, Menezes was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and was behaving the wrong way. His visa was also expired and was thus in the country illegally.

As tragic as this event was, however, it should be seen as nothing more than collateral damage in an ongoing war. That is not to trivialize the death of Mr. Menezes or any other innocent casualties in this conflict. But this is exactly the kind of mistake on which our critics thrive.

Even though police followed protocol and acted as they should have, there is always the chance of 'false positives,' and this can lead to future, more deadly mistakes. The next time a suspicious man is running to a subway car, there will be a shade of doubt, even fear, in the minds of police officers. What if he's another innocent person? How is this going to play in the media? These are exactly the kind of hesitations that terrorists exploit, because while the police are weighing their public relations, the bomber has already let out his 'Allah akbar' and detonated.

This isn't to suggest that police should make it a habit to put seven slugs in the head of every suspicious-looking citizen. But they should be allowed to trust their instincts and follow their protocol without fear of demonization in the media.

And here's a little advice to average citizens everywhere -- don't wear heavy coats in the middle of summer, don't run from police, obey their commands, and for God's sake, if you do run from them, don't run onto a subway car. It just might save your life.