| |
|
So, somebody else was also freaked out by what appears to be some rude people. The "disturbing new information" seems to be a) that somebody else on the plane was frightened and b) that one of the men went to the toilet.
NEWS!
Astonishingly, the fact that they are not dead does not seem to have penetrated Annie and Billie Jo's heads. I mean, at all. That is, that when the air marshals say "there was no threat", they seem to be kind of borne out by the fact that no threat materialised on the plane, and presumably also that when the fellows were subsequently interrogated, they were not found to be carrying anything that would suggest a threat. So.... what's up, there? What exactly is she trying to say? That they bottled it, flushed the bomb down the toilet, but then decided to stand during the landing, just to show that they would be engaging in acts of terror if they could, but since frustrated in that they would engage in acts of irritation instead? Would it not make more sense for terrorists *not to draw attention to themselves unless they were actually about to perform an act of terror*? That's on quite an early page of "Terrorism for Dummies", I suspect, along with "one person for a bomb, many people for a hijack". See also "barging in front of somebody to get to the toilet", "spending 10 minutes in the toilet" and "emerging smelling of chemicals". That to me would suggest that somebody got airsick, threw up in the toilet and had then attempted to clean himself or herself up in a confined space with the materials to hand. Is my hypothesis perfect or complete? No. But it does provide a reason why nobody died.
The rest is mere speculation - they were making eye contact and nodding to each other, but not obviously enough to appear to know each other to anyone with eyes less gimlet than Billie Jo's. One of them was not breathing in an acceptable fashion while asleep. One appeared to have a third nipple peeking out from an open shirt - a sure sign of witchcraft.
Essentially, much as the War on Terror confuses an emotion with a movement, Annie Jacobsen apears to have become confused by the ambiguity intrinsic to the phrase "I am threatened". "I am threatened by Arabs" could mean that some Arabs are threatening me, for example with a gun or a knife. It could also mean simply that the presence of Arabs makes me feel threatened. Likewise, "I am frightened by spiders" could mean that a group of spiders has leapt out from behind a door wearing scary masks and going "boo!". It could also mean simply that spiders occasion in me a reaction of fear, notwithstanding their intentions (eat insects, avoid big things). Annie and Billie Jo clearly felt threatened. They felt that there was a threat. They did not feel safe. All well and good. However, this in no way contradicts the statement that there was not a threat. Feeling a threat is not the same as feeling a pinch or a lightswitch, and it certainly isn't the same as being on a plane with a threat. It's more like feeling a frisson of sexual tension - you can certainly say that you felt it, and others in the room might feel it as well, but you couldn't pat someone down for evidence of it.
OK, that's a bad example.
This is a distinction that I would have thought a columnist would understand, but apparently not. The sad thing is, that this could genuinely have been a jumping-off point for an examination of what is being done to improve airport and airline security, whether the crew and indeed the passengers reacted sensibly, and so on. Regrettably, in the hands of somebody apparently intent on justifying her own hysterical (and, lest we forget, dangerous, as she might have identified air marshals whom actual terrorists would have targeted immediately) reaction by maintaining that terrorists can be identified by smell, it is becoming an increasingly undignified and strident meltdown that will appear either inspiring or cringeworthy depending on one's level of Arabnophobia. |
|
|
