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

[a_majoor]

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

Chapel Hill, North Carolina — On Friday afternoon, an act of terrorism at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill left students and faculty in disbelief, wondering why a former student would ram an SUV into a crowded group of students. Many of them extended their disbelief to include a willful denial that the attack was an act of terrorism at all.

Mohammad Reza Taheri-azar, a 22-year-old Iranian native who graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill in December, rented a Jeep Cherokee Laredo from a local rent-a-car dealership and launched his attack at a popular gathering place for students known as "the Pit," located near the student union and campus libraries. Nine people were injured — none seriously — in Taheri-azar's rampage. On Monday, he made his first appearance in Orange County District Court, where prosecutors read out the 18 charges levied against him, including nine counts of attempted murder.

Coverage of the offense has focused on two themes: the reasons for the attack and the reaction of the campus community. The two story lines would presumably be closely related: The motives are revealed, and the campus proceeds to denounce them. But it hasn't been that simple, and the second story line has become oddly disconnected from the first.

Taheri-azar has not exactly been ambiguous about his motives. "I'm thankful you're here to give me this trial and to learn more about the will of Allah," Taheri-azar said to District Court Judge Pat DeVine. More information will likely come to light in coming weeks, but this much is clear: Taheria-azar intended his attack as a response to U.S. foreign policy, and by doing so he thought that he would be viewed as a martyr by radical Islamists who promote terror worldwide.

UNC-Chapel Hill officials released an audio of Taheri-azar's 911 call to dispatchers turning himself in, just moments after he ran over the students. In the four-minute call, Taheri-azar sounded as though he couldn't wait to be arrested. When the dispatcher asked why he ran over the students, Taheri-azar responded, "The reason is to punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world." He went on to tell the dispatcher of a letter in his apartment that explained his reasoning in more detail. Not sure what to expect, local police approached the building with extreme caution, as if to defuse a bomb. None was found.

Perhaps Taheri-azar's decision to attack UNC-Chapel Hill had something to do with a cartoon published recently in The Daily Tar Heel, the student newspaper of UNC-Chapel Hill, depicting the Prophet Muhammed. The cartoon caused a controversy on campus instigated by members of the Muslim Student Association, who claimed the cartoon was offensive. Members of the group denounced Taheri-azar's actions on Friday.

There is more to Taheri-azar than just his words to police. His actions in court, and the images of him in the media, suggest that he views himself as a hero in the Muslim world. A smug smile as he walked out of the courthouse and an exuberant wave to the TV cameras indicated that he thinks someone in the Middle East, or maybe in the United States, will look upon him as a leader and follow his example. He reportedly told detectives that "people all over the world are being killed in war and now it is the people in the United States turn to be killed." If this comment doesn't lead people to conclude that this was an act of terrorism, it is difficult to see what could.

While Taheri-azar's actions and intentions seem pretty straightforward, the reaction by the Chapel Hill community has reflected political ideology more than reality. Though school officials and students have denounced the incident, they have not called it an act of terrorism. UNC-CH Chancellor James Moeser didn't use the word "terrorism" once when he gave his first public comments on the incident. In fact, no one from the school administration has uttered the term. "In times like this, it is so important for our community to pull together, remain calm and offer comfort and assistance to one another," Moeser said in a statement. He added that the school would host an event on the incident once students return from spring break.

On Monday, some students took the initiative to denounce the attack and stage a rally to label it as an act of terrorism. Jillian Bandes, a columnist who was fired from The Daily Tar Heel in September for comments she made about Muslims and terrorism, told The News & Observer, "Why not label terrorism? Not doing so suggests a certain leniency toward that kind of thing."

But many of the attendees at the rally were there to denounce the use of the term. Muslim students told the media they were offended by those who believe it was an act of terrorism. By Monday afternoon, signs were seen in the Pit that called the rally organizers racists and asking about 100,000 people killed in Iraq.

A UNC sophomore, Johnathan Pourzal, told the Durham Herald-Sun that the mission of the event organizers offended him. "By calling it religious violence, you are telling people that Muslims are violent," he said.

Far from it. When we described incidents for what they are, we do not paint broad strokes of judgment on an entire group of people. Do we refer to all pro-life advocates as bomb-wielding terrorists because of the likes of North Carolina's Eric Rudolph? No. Mohammad Reza Taheri-azar tried to kill students in Chapel Hill last week in the service of a wicked ideology. In the process, he has exposed not only the continuing danger of domestic terrorism but also the inability of some leaders and communities to recognize that danger and take it seriously.

— Shannon Blosser is a reporter for Carolina Journal, the newspaper of the Raleigh-based John Locke Foundation.

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

       

 

[MountainRunner]

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]

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.

Exactly right. Terrorism is not only something "the other side" does. By this definition, which seems pretty accurate to me, those who sought Israeli independence from the British(Palestine) were terrorists. So too then was George Washington. I don't say that to be in any way inflammatory. Not at all. I just dislike when people espouse that terrorism is something new.

 

[clasper]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[vonGarvin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."

And yet the M-word appears nowhere in the Times report. Whether intentionally or not, they seem to be channeling the great Sufi theologian and jurist al-Ghazali, who died a millennium ago but whose first rule on the conduct of dhimmis -- non-Muslims in Muslim society -- seem to have been taken on board by the Western media:

The dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle. . . .

Are they teaching that at Columbia Journalism School yet?

 

[MountainRunner]

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]

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.