# Domestic Terror attack in the United States (Just don't say it out loud)



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2006)

There have been some other incidents in the past (such as the man who opened fire on the El AL desk at LAX a year or two ago) which were similarly "downplayed". This head in the sand mentality prevents people from seeing the danger around them, and thus preventing them from taking steps to protect themselves. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/blosser200603081346.asp



> *Students Are Terrorized. But It’s Not “Terrorism”?*
> Rewriting reality is just so much nicer.
> 
> By Shannon Blosser
> ...


----------



## MountainRunner (9 Mar 2006)

Yes, it's pretty clear they don't want to say the "T" word. 

I looked up the definition of terrorism on dictionary.com and it seems pretty straight forward to me:

*ter·ror·ism *     ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (tr-rzm)
n. 
*The unlawful use * or threatened use *of force or violence by a person * or an organized group *against people or property * with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments,* often for ideological or political reasons.*


----------



## Rodders (9 Mar 2006)

MountainRunner said:
			
		

> Yes, it's pretty clear they don't want to say the "T" word.
> 
> I looked up the definition of terrorism on dictionary.com and it seems pretty straight forward to me:
> 
> ...


----------



## clasper (10 Mar 2006)

For most media to use the terrorist label, the event has to be well organized (like Al Qaida), or large scale (like Timothy McVeigh or the Washington sniper).  If some mail carrier takes a machine gun to the post office, it's normally not called terrorism (although it fits the definition).  The Unabomber is normally described in the media as a nutjob, not a terrorist (although he is one).  I don't see why this convention should change just because the idiot in question is Muslim.  Yes he's a terrorist, but of a vastly different scale than the bogeyman that everyone's afraid of.


----------



## JBP (10 Mar 2006)

I would agree, although I think the term I've also heard often used fits better than all even - Islamic extremist. This denotes that this person is in the extreme end of the spectrum, therefore it doesn't paint the whole religion in a horrible way. I believe now days when someone sees a guy wearing a turbin even, they automatically think "terrorist" because of the way the media has portrayed and painted all of the middle east. 

It seems now days people really don't want to use the "T" word though, because it looks bad on the country and security forces who DIDN'T catch them before hand, and gives the would be "T's" credit in another success with thier "Jihad"....


----------



## MountainRunner (10 Mar 2006)

The media had no problem referring to Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma Bomber, as a terrorist....but that was 1995.  Now the word has far scarier connotations.
_
(As an aside, the scenario Kind of reminds me of the Harry Potter books.  No one wants to say the Dark Lord's real name - "Voldemort".  Just saying that name makes them cringe.  They're afraid that if they say it, it will summon his evil presence.  Only Harry will use the "V" word (much to everyone's dismay).  Of course, Harry is free of the fear that controls everyone else.)_


----------



## MountainRunner (10 Mar 2006)

Clasper, I just saw your reference to Timothy McVeigh and agree. It seems that if an act of violence, done for political or ideological reasons, is _organized and possibly sanctioned by a group, _ then it satisfys the media's idea of terrorism.  Terrorism with a big T.

This nutbar, however poorly organized, is still a terrorist (with a small t).

Only no one wants to use the T (or t) word.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2006)

The traditional idea of terrorists operating in small cells, under control of some master hiding in a cave is morphing into something else, where the "master" creates a narrative which is then broadcast through many channels (like the Internet, Islamic "schools" funded by Saudi Arabia or other, more insidious means). Individuals who pick up the narrative are encouraged to act on it, either alone or in conjunction with like minded people. (Most of the screeds against the West explicitly call for the reader to take some sort of action against people, institutions and other agents of the "Great Satan" and its minions)

This is really the "Dark Side" of globalization and the communications revolution. We are doing the same sort of thing here on Army.ca (with a more positive outcome, one would hope), and bloggers of various stripes are coming together to create and send narratives in support of their particular views, with legions of readers repeating the arguments expressed in the posts, acting on recommendations or using techniques like "spam" to try and shut out their opposition (an insidious technique is to SPAM Amazon.com with negative book reviews for books by conservative authors). 

No one (except maybe Glenn Reynolds  ) is directing this, it is rather a spontaneous development of people who are able to express themselves to a mass audience for the first time ever. In the long run, we need rigorous improvements in the education system to shrink the audience of weak willed potential followers.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Mar 2006)

clasper said:
			
		

> For most media to use the terrorist label, the event has to be well organized (like Al Qaida), or large scale (like Timothy McVeigh or the Washington sniper).  If some mail carrier takes a machine gun to the post office, it's normally not called terrorism (although it fits the definition).  The Unabomber is normally described in the media as a nutjob, not a terrorist (although he is one).  I don't see why this convention should change just because the idiot in question is Muslim.  Yes he's a terrorist, but of a vastly different scale than the bogeyman that everyone's afraid of.



Racism, naturally.  Look at the port authority deal with the Arab company - it was scrubbed for racial reasons.  President Bush had a valid point - why was there no concern when it was an English company running things, but now because it is an Arab company vying for the job, there is a huge concern?  

A_majoor, you just posted in another thread telling us to "push" the message that we are in an important war, etc.; so doesn't branding this act a terrorist act fit nicely with your agenda?  You admit as much in your post preceding mine.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2006)

Insofar as I have an agenda (dah Dah DAH!), yes.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Mar 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Insofar as I have an agenda (dah Dah DAH!), yes.


RUN AWAY!  RUN AWAY!  A_Majoor has a *hidden* agenda!  He _says_ he's a Libertarian, but is he really just a conservative (neo, at that) in Libertarian clothes?

LOL


----------



## Wizard of OZ (10 Mar 2006)

I think the shock value of the attack has a lot to do with the definition of it.  It seems that the public would not be shocked by an SUV crashing inot a builiding as much as say if the young man blew himself up in the building after doing so.  

Yes the world has changed and gone and made itself a far scary place to be in doing so the public threshold has increased and the T word is used when it seems to effect more then an isolated few.

MOO


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Mar 2006)

But the larger points are these;

a) EVERYONE has an agenda
b) words mean things

I'd be very loathe to consider anything a "terrorist" attack just because the media reported it that way.  During Oka, they called the M113s of the Van Doos "tanks".  When a firearms collector has their house raided, their collection is usually referred to as "an arms cache."  Their job, apparently, doesn't involve reporting with supreme attention to detail - which makes rational discussion of issues difficult sometimes.  Or sometimes - the point here - different words are used for a reason.  Some guy with an arab-sounding name holding up a liquor store can become a terrorist act with the flick of a pen or a few keystrokes.  It's up to the reader to determine if the author was aware of the distinction or not.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2006)

I am looking at the context of the action; if a person drove into a crowd of people for no reason, they are crazy, if they drove into the crowd to target a person or persons (i.e. drug deal gone bad, ex boy/girlfriend) they are committing a criminal offense, etc.

Given the fact the attack was made against a random group of people and given the content of the statements the individual made after the attack and during his court appearance, is seems clear the motive is not based on a mental disturbance or run of the mill criminality. If you change the name of the attacker and the "injustice" he/she was avenging against the American people, it is still terrorism in terms of motive. 

In this particular instance, the self professed motives are terrorist in nature, and the actions of the school and the press to evade or deny what was plainly spoken seems to be out of whack.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Mar 2006)

Mark Steyn comments on this incident here:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn121.html

A sample quote


> "According to statements taken by the police, Mr. Taheri-azar, 22, an Iranian-born graduate of the university, felt that the United States government had been 'killing his people across the sea' and that his actions reflected 'an eye for an eye.'"
> 
> "His people"? And who exactly would that be? Taheri-azar is admirably upfront about his actions. As he told police, he wanted to "avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world."
> 
> ...


----------



## MountainRunner (13 Mar 2006)

*Okay, that's a little freaky.*  I talked about the "T" word and referred to Voldemort in this thread.  *That was 3 days ago.*  The there's an article 1 day ago by this journalist....

"MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST  
"This week's *Voldemort Award * goes to the New York Times for their account of a curious case of road rage in North Carolina" and then he writes the following, "And yet *the M-word * appears nowhere in the Times report."
How uncanny....both the reference to Voldemort and the expression, "M word".  

What do you want to bet Mr. Steyn has been watching this forum?


----------



## Centurian1985 (18 Apr 2006)

If you want spooky, look up the Al-Fuqra activity and attacks in the US (pre 9/11 stuff).  Prior to 9/11, many US departments prefered to treat these cases as 'criminal acts' vice 'terrorist acts', a concept that is still true today as terrorism is a much harder charge to prove in court.  On a worldwide scale, many countries treat terrorist attacks as 'criminal acts' to avoid disrupting tourism and subsequent national gains.


----------

