MSM Terror Blackout Expands

Jeff Taylor | March 10, 2006

The conspiracy to ignore last Friday's terror attack in Chapel Hill is growing, and now extends to the upper reaches of the U.S government. This can only mean the terrorists are winning, or perhaps, may have already won.

"The PATRIOT Act has accomplished exactly what it was designed to do. It has helped us detect terror cells, disrupt terrorist plots and save American lives," President Bush said at yesterday's PATRIOT Act signing ceremony. "The PATRIOT Act has served America well, yet we cannot let the fact that America has not been attacked since September the 11th lull us into the illusion that the terrorist threat has disappeared. We still face dangerous enemies."

There you have it: America has not been attacked since September the 11th.

The conclusion is inescapable: Either President Bush is lying, which post-Iraq has been established beyond all reasonable doubt to be metaphysically impossible, or he is a member of the MSM. As I said, the terrorists may have already won.

Meanwhile, the Muslim extremist who used co-eds for speed bumps, Mohammed Taheri-azar, has been charged with nine counts of attempted first-degree murder and nine counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury. Taheri-azar told police that he meant to kill people to avenge the treatment of Muslims around the world. Even so, the U.S. Attorney has yet to bring any terror-related charges in the case, no doubt awaiting orders from the Justice Department on how to proceed.

This makes sense as Rachel Brand, assistant Attorney General, is also part of the conspiracy. Brand declined to respond to a question asking why PATRIOT did not prevent Taheri-azar's attack, which he had planned for at least two months.

Remember, politically motivated attempted murder is not terror, but too much Sudafed is. Blackout. Indeed.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|3.10.06 @ 10:15AM|#

Remember, politically motivated attempted murder is not terror, but too much Sudafed is.

Good line, Jeff. I wish it wasn't true. If a random angry man carring out a planned attack on innocent people to punish the government isn't a terrorist act, what is?

|3.10.06 @ 10:20AM|#

|3.10.06 @ 10:22AM|#

If a random angry man carring out a planned attack on innocent people to punish the government isn't a terrorist act, what is?

A random angry man carring out a planned attack on innocent people to punish the government in such a way that the government can use it as an excuse to take away more civil liberties. I'm sure this Chapel Hill business will be upgraded to "terrorism" just as soon as the government figures out the right angle to approach it from.

chris green|3.10.06 @ 10:23AM|#

"America has not been attacked since September the 11th."

So, the presdient doesn't rmemeber that a successful biological attack on the media and the us senate, killing 5 people, was launched after sep 11, and that his administration has no clue who did it and isn't trying very hard to find out?

|3.10.06 @ 10:32AM|#

Ed,

Doesn't the Taheri-azar case prove that if one person want to commit a terrorist act, he can do so with ease. PATRIOT did not and will not help prevent such attacks. And what have meth, credit card payoffs, and anti-trust laws to do with terrorist attacks? I'd say sarcasm is justified. It is, ultimately, all we have.

|3.10.06 @ 10:33AM|#

I also recall there was some nutty kid that flew a small plane into a building in sympathy with Bin Laden. Don't know if anyone died, but I'd say that counts as a terrorist attack on the U.S.

VM|3.10.06 @ 10:34AM|#

"The sarcasm gets old in a hurry in these parts."

that post really reads like a "i'm not for X, BUT...". i really like Korn, BUT!... cripes.

the thing is that the Repubs have been trumpeting the myth of "limited government" for many years. They were worried about civil liberties because of Waco. Many don't recall/know that Ruby Ridge was a Bush infraction.

Many supporters believe we need a PATRIOT act, but current gun laws suffice. we don't need more laws there. "just enforce existing ones better".

the supporters may not guarantee 100% security from attack, but they sure take a lot of credit.

and looking at the mission creep of the snooping, going after a bad law with bad intentions and, presumably, bad outcomes (unless you're innocent: they, after all, have nothing to fear) *is* a good idea.

snap snap, jeff. nice!

|3.10.06 @ 10:37AM|#

It's only terrorism if they attack national symbols or landmarks. Blow up the WTC, it's terrorism; blow up the Elks club and it's just crime.

|3.10.06 @ 10:38AM|#

Ed,

Perhaps no PATRIOT supporters have said that in so many words, but do recall that in the runup to reauthorizing the Act, the president complained that any delay in reauthorization could lead to a terror attack being successful.

Timothy|3.10.06 @ 10:41AM|#

VM: Ed's post does sort of remind me of dating Voltaire.

VM|3.10.06 @ 10:44AM|#

Timothy:

first "Wal-Quaeda" and now this. yoooo da man!

awesome. it's a shame that you don't know anything about economics, tho. :) wink wink.

the shuttlecocks page is a favorite of mine. Sj�berg did a great parody of a text adventure game, recently. fantastic!

Timothy|3.10.06 @ 10:48AM|#

VM: Brunching was a favorite of mine as well, I always loved the ratings. And "Kitchen Floor" is perhaps the best thing ever created in flash. Lore is still around at his blog and that site has links to some of his other interweb projects. I guess he's doing reviews for Wired or something these days.

|3.10.06 @ 10:50AM|#

Wait, are we being sarcastic towards the "conspiracy" or just Bush's comments?

|3.10.06 @ 10:54AM|#

And yes, Brunching Shuttlecocks was excellent. The Ratings were great (I even bought the book) and so was the "Satan on..." series of articles.

Dan T.|3.10.06 @ 11:01AM|#

If the guy�s motive was �revenge�, that kind of by definition is not �terrorism�.

|3.10.06 @ 11:10AM|#

I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't another Acutane-fueled act of terror like the incident that Smappy is referring to.

|3.10.06 @ 11:11AM|#

If the guy�s motive was �revenge�, that kind of by definition is not �terrorism�.

Then 9-11 wasn't an act of terrorism; that was supposedly revenge for the deaths of Iraqi children in the embargo, and the defilement of the Holy Land of Arabia with infidel soldiers, and all the other things America has done to piss off Bin Laden.

|3.10.06 @ 11:13AM|#

Dan,

What definition of terrorism are you using? Because revenge on the US government by trying to kill UNC students seems like terrorism to me.

Jeff, you missed the obvious connection: Bush and the MSM are all part of Al-Queda!

quick, everyone! cancel your subscription to the NY Times! stop paying income taxes! these things are funding terrorism!

Dan T.|3.10.06 @ 11:15AM|#

Then 9-11 wasn't an act of terrorism; that was supposedly revenge for the deaths of Iraqi children in the embargo, and the defilement of the Holy Land of Arabia with infidel soldiers, and all the other things America has done to piss off Bin Laden.

That's actually a good point - if 9/11 was a revenge attack, then it was not terrorism. Same with the 1995 OKC bombing.

Terrorism is when you use terror to achieve a stated goal. Generally, it requires some group to take responsbility for it along with some sort of demands. Simply blowing something up because you're pissed off at somebody doesn't really count, IMO.

Dan T.|3.10.06 @ 11:19AM|#

Dan,

What definition of terrorism are you using? Because revenge on the US government by trying to kill UNC students seems like terrorism to me.

I'm using the stricter definition of terrorism being a tactic used in conjunction with an aim to achieve a goal of some sort.

Admittedly, the current popular definition sometimes seems to be "any act of violence committed by somebody other than the United States government".

|3.10.06 @ 11:25AM|#

Again, the OKC incident was terrorism because it was a government building. If it was just a big law office it would only be crime.

If al-Qaeda really wants to confuse Americans, they should hijack some planes and fly them into a prison.

|3.10.06 @ 11:29AM|#

Jennifer,

Regarding your last post, I remembered this line...

"I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he fucking said! Are we a nation of 6-year-olds? Answer, yes." --David Cross

Dan,

Fair enough, but I don't think that the government shares that definition.

|3.10.06 @ 11:45AM|#

I'm as much against the Act as the next guy here but your post is as disingenuous as it is sarcastic, Jeff. There isn't a single supporter of the Act who would guarantee its absolute power to prevent every "terrorist" act. Come on. The sarcasm gets old in a hurry in these parts.

I agree. This is no more logically consistent than the people who hold up a pregnancy resulting from a broken condom to say that birth control is ineffective. I don't think it strengthens the political case for civil liberties to play loose with the facts and conclusions.

That's actually a good point - if 9/11 was a revenge attack, then it was not terrorism. Same with the 1995 OKC bombing. Terrorism is when you use terror to achieve a stated goal.

The stated goal is revenge. But this entire "is it or isn't it terrorism" argument has as much real-world application as medieval theologians debating how many angels can fuck on the head of a pin.

|3.10.06 @ 12:11PM|#

...do recall that in the runup to reauthorizing the Act, the president complained that any delay in reauthorization could lead to a terror attack being successful.

Yeah, and that wasn't different from his re-election campaign itself: Vote for me or terrorists will destroy your city.

Is it just me, or did that not seem coercive? All that were left out were the words "I'll have terrorists destroy your city".

|3.10.06 @ 12:12PM|#

Dan T.|3.10.06 @ 12:26PM|#

The stated goal is revenge. But this entire "is it or isn't it terrorism" argument has as much real-world application as medieval theologians debating how many angels can fuck on the head of a pin.

I disagree totally - it's very relevant in this day and age when deeming an act to be "terrorism" subjects the accused to a whole different standard of legal protection, or lack thereof.

Dan T.|3.10.06 @ 12:29PM|#

I think Dan means that if the stated goal is something like "We're going to keep driving SUV's into college students unless you withdraw from Iraq", it's terrorism and if it's"I drove into those kids to avenge the invasion of Iraq", it's not. I don't agree with that as the end result is the same. Panic about violent acts against non-combatants for political reasons.

I suppose the current definition is that "terrorism" is political violence committed by an entity that is not a recognized state.

You can't really use the term "non-combatants" because attacks on the Pentagon and USS Cole were also labeled terrorism.

|3.10.06 @ 12:33PM|#

You can't really use the term "non-combatants" because attacks on the Pentagon and USS Cole were also labeled terrorism.

That, I would call a misapplication of the term (except that in the Pentagon attack, a plane full of noncombatants was flown into it); rather than calling the driving of a truck into a crowd of college kids a misapplication.

|3.10.06 @ 12:42PM|#

The truth, I think, is that for the average American, "terrorism" just means a threat to Westerners (military or civilian) not posed by an organized military. This broad definition, in skillful hands, can include anything from suicide bombers to insurgents in Iraq to drug traffickers, which of course is the main problem with declaring a War on Terror in the first place. The fact that we're arguing over the details of how the term should be applied proves Mr. Taylor's point in the article; that is, unless we can agree on a specific definition of the threat, it doesn't make to sense to treat it differently than normal crime under the law. So we (that is, Congress) had either better come up with a reasonable definition quick, or abandon laws that treat it differently.

|3.10.06 @ 1:06PM|#

Not that I think many here are looking for one, but it seems to me that there's really a distinction in 'terror' between what I'd call 'organized terror,' and 'lone nut terror.'

An organized terror group is probably going to operate in a minimally rational way to achieve its objective, and thus stands a chance of being stopped by rational countermeasures. A 'lone nut' only acts on the impulses inside his squirming brain, and his attacks are almost impossible to anticipate or stop beforehand.

That this Chapel Hill guy claims he was avenging Muslims doesn't really take him out of the lone nut category, to my mind. If he had claimed he was avenging our oppression of peaceful space visitors from the planet Zworp, we'd obviously say he was nuts. Just because this guy uses the buzzword 'Muslims' to me doesn't automatically make him much different from the insaniac who shoots up a McDonald's or a post office, in spite of all the terror these things inspire.

If we were to find out this guy was sent out as part of a plot to inpire terror, then I'd be inclined to call him a 'terrorist.'

|3.10.06 @ 1:10PM|#

All you're talking about is degree of organization. I think we can agree that they're all nuts.

|3.10.06 @ 1:13PM|#

What zach says is what should have every libertarian minded person terrified (ha!). The fact that there is no definition of terrorism set down by the president or congress, nor, do I suspect, they want one, means that pretty much anyone could be a terrorist.

Launder money? Terrorist.

Do drugs? Terrorist.

Piss in a stream? Terrorist.

Etc, etc, etc.

I know the slippery slope arguement gets a little tired, but it's so goddamn accurate, it needs to be constantly trotted out.

|3.10.06 @ 1:39PM|#

Fair enough, but I don't think that the government shares that definition.

No, you're right. The government's definition of terrorism is "Whatever we choose to call terrorism."

|3.10.06 @ 1:47PM|#

What about the shooting at LAX a few years ago? They didn't call that terrorism. And few people called John Mohammed a terrorist. Nobody supposed the explosion at the oil depot on Staten Island was terrorism. And despite a warning a week in advance, nobody blamed the refinery fire near Houston on terrorism. So, I don't expect this one to be the perfect-record breaker.

|3.10.06 @ 2:58PM|#

medieval theologians debating how many angels can fuck on the head of a pin.

ANGELS DON'T EVEN HAVE BODIES, BIOOOOTTCHH!

Jadagul|3.10.06 @ 3:14PM|#

Well, UA, that was sort of the question, wasn't it?
(note to the less-dorky-than-I: the midieval debate that we've described as 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' was the question of whether angels have physical existence. If they do, only one can occupy any point in space-like the head of a pin-at a time. If they don't, you can have as many as you want in one place).

David 2|3.10.06 @ 3:44PM|#

Remember the phony anthrax scare? Remember what the President said about those? I remember it quite well... "Anyone who sends Anthrax by the mail is a terrorist... and anyone who send phony Anthrax threats by mail is a terrorist."

Then it was discovered that one of the people sending phony Anthrax threats was a radical anti-abortion Christian... and suddenly there wasn't any talk about charging people with terrorism.

So why should we be surprised by the revelation that people aren't calling THIS an act of terrorism either?

|3.10.06 @ 4:45PM|#

Remember the phony anthrax scare?

Actually, at least one person died in the 2001 anthrax attacks . .

David 2|3.10.06 @ 5:08PM|#

Petunia: one person died from the ACTUAL Anthrax attacks, but there were several phony Anthrax attacks as well. Some were done as sick pranks, but others were carried out against women's clinics. One of the people who got caught in the latter was Clayton Lee Waagoner, who was NEVER considered to be a terrorist, even though by all rights he should have been.

But speaking about the actual attacks... whatever happened to THAT investigation? Isn't it strange that the manhunt for that person sort of dried up after the PATRIOT Act got passed?

|3.10.06 @ 6:11PM|#

I forgot to mention that Bush as part of the MSM also explains how it is that the MSM is Losing the War in Iraq. In fact, we all know everything that goes wrong in Iraq can be traced to the...MSM.

|3.10.06 @ 7:04PM|#

FIVE people were killed by the anthrax attacks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax_attacks

|3.10.06 @ 9:05PM|#

Then it was discovered that one of the people sending phony Anthrax threats was a radical anti-abortion Christian... and suddenly there wasn't any talk about charging people with terrorism.

Link Here shows:

US District Judge Anita Brody on Thursday sentenced antiabortion advocate Clayton Waagner to 19 years in prison without the possibility of parole for several federal convictions, including threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction, the... Allentown Morning Call reports.

I think "threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction" would be a terrorism related law, even though it's not a new one.

|3.11.06 @ 3:43AM|#

I'm as much against the Act as the next guy here but your post is as disingenuous as it is sarcastic, Jeff.

Not really.

The war is, or should be, defined as a war against Islamic Fundamentalists, i.e. Muslims who kill civilians for whatever twisted reasons. We got 'em here, we got 'em in Iraq, they're all over the globe.

Half an ounce of common sense says this is how the enemy in this war is defined. The same common sense says that Mohammed Taheri-azar is a terrorist, given his professed motive. The fact that other criminals could or have done similar things isn't relevant. What's relevant is that Taheri-azar has identified himself as one of the enemy.

Jeff may not spell every detail of this logic out for y'all, but it's implicit in what he said and makes far more sense than what our politicians are saying. His comments are not "disingeneous" and the sarcasm aimed at Bush is well deserved. It's Bush who lead the charge to fight the enemy -- and then failed to identify an enemy soldier right in our mist. WTF?

Bush and Congress unfortunately have no common sense and have blurred the universe with their undefined War on Terror. Or maybe they do have common sense, and took the chance to declare war on whatever they pleased (which is almost everything).

|3.11.06 @ 3:49AM|#

You do have to wonder if there isn't President-MSM complicity here. Same as the Beltway snipers, who were Muslim but it was almost never mentioned.

Whether the snipers shot civilians in the name of Allah or not, their religion should have been looked at as an odd coincidence.

But present Republican incarnation is to be "compassionate", which is PC enough that I could see the MSM going along with a Bush request to down play the Islam part of the story. After all, we don't want to have any backlash against our Muslim community.

|3.11.06 @ 10:01AM|#

Kahn,

So, anytime someone commits murder, the media should emphasize their religious background, even if it doesn't have any relevance to the deed?

|3.11.06 @ 11:53AM|#

The point of the war on terror is not to defeat any and all people who might wish to do harm to Americans for reasons of religion or ideology. That is impossible. The goal is to defeat organized terrorist groups, since groups generally have greater capabilities than individuals. If this guy was some lone nut, well, then there's really no reason to read any greater significance into it.

OTOH, when a member of an organized terrorist group carries out an attack, then it is of course appropriate to find out who else was working with him.

|3.11.06 @ 11:57AM|#

In other words, I'm not particularly interested in a murderer's ideology or religion. I'm interested in finding out whether he had any accomplices, and capturing his accomplices. That would be just as true whether the accomplices are Crips, Bloods, Mafiosi, Al Qaeda, Symbionese Liberation Army, Militiamen, Klansmen, Hatfields, McCoys, Hamas, Hizbollah, Shining Path, whatever.

If this guy is a lone nut, then just prosecute him, try him, and punish him if he's found guilty. If he had helpers, then still put him on trial, but also track down his helpers, regardless of what their motivation might be.

|3.11.06 @ 12:15PM|#

In other words, I'm not particularly interested in a murderer's ideology or religion.

In most cases I'd agree. But when this guy says he's acting in sympathy with orginized terror groups, has he not made himself "one of them"? Or will you try to tell me that his professed sympathy is of no meaning or relevance, because after all there's only one of him and not two acting in concert -- in this specific instance?

In any other war we'd at least call this person a traitor, and we don't treat traitors the same as common criminals.

In which case,

So, anytime someone commits murder, the media should emphasize their religious background, even if it doesn't have any relevance to the deed?

their religion does have relevance.

The reason for "emphasizing" religious background is, at this point, to determine whether or not these are the motives.

Motive does matter. That's the whole point.

|3.11.06 @ 12:58PM|#

Kahn-

He may very well be acting out of sympathy with organized terrorist groups. And I certainly have no problem punishing people who aid terrorists, even if the people provided assistance without receiving assistance in return. The questions are:

1) Did he receive support from somebody else?

If so, then we need to find those assisting him.

2) Did his actions, even if conducted without assistance, aid somebody else in carrying out an attack?

If so, then he should be punished not only for the attack and the harm he caused, but also for whatever else comes of his actions.

The thing is, this guy seems to be acting alone, and I don't really how he's aiding anybody else in carrying out an attack. So what of it? He clearly plowed a car into a bunch of people, I don't see any way for him to escape a conviction, so what else do you want? The guy's in deep trouble, and he's going to be punished after a fair trial. It seems like the system will work just fine, so what else is to be accomplished by labeling this as terrorism?

|3.11.06 @ 1:03PM|#

To elaborate on providing assistance to the enemy:

Let's say that a guy, acting on his own, attacked an office where federal agents were investigating terrorism. (He could always attack CTU Los Angeles, which gets infiltrated every season on 24.) You could make a strong case that he's providing aid to the enemy, even if he isn't actively coordinating with the enemy. OK, charge him with aiding terrorism in addition to charges of murder/attempted murder/arson/whatever.

But if some dude just says "I agree with Bin Laden" and then randomly goes postal or sets off an improvised bomb or plows a car into a crowded area or whatever, without doing anything that really impedes the fight against an organized terrorist group, it's hard to argue that he was aiding an organized terrorist group. Moreover, I don't really see what we'll gain by adding those charges on to the indictment. He'll already be facing a very long prison sentence, if not a death sentence (depending on the casualties). So if the punishment won't be any steeper in practice, and investigating him won't turn up any useful information on an organized terror network, why not just prosecute him for what he did and leave it at that?

|3.11.06 @ 1:05PM|#

I'm not accusing Kahn specifically, because I have no basis for doing so, but my guess is that some people simply want to be as tough as possible to send a message to angry Muslims everywhere. We've already invaded two Muslim countries, so I don't see how throwing more resources at this prosecution will make the message significantly stronger.

|3.11.06 @ 1:13PM|#

Final thought: I agree with Douglas Fletcher.

Robert|3.11.06 @ 9:54PM|#

But isn't everyone here ignoring an important point? If it's out of character for the MSM to be so ingoring such a story, or neglecting important details of it, why are they doing so, expecially in consideration of the fact that, "mainstream" as they may be, they're a diverse and competitive bunch? Could they be intimidated by terror itself? Could part of the terror be a desire not to identify it as such?

|3.12.06 @ 12:37AM|#

thoreau,

I hear you. But it still seems to me that declaring oneself idealogically in league with a declared enemy is a step above common criminal acts.

That said, you're right. The guy is hosed either way.

Still,

If it's out of character for the MSM to be so ingoring such a story, or neglecting important details of it, why are they doing so

this is something I find disturbing. But I find the MSM inherently untrustworthy anyway.

Funny thing is, lots of people say the same thing. Then they base all kinds of opinions on nothing but the MSM.

For example a couple of days ago on yahoo (sorry, lost the page) they published a survey saying most Americans think Iraq is decending into all out civil war.

Gimme a break. If everybody thinks so, it's because that's what the MSM has been putting on page 1 for weeks.

I don't like my news pre-digested, but I suppose there really isn't any way around it.

|3.12.06 @ 6:08AM|#

But it still seems to me that declaring oneself idealogically in league with a declared enemy is a step above common criminal acts.

Sounds like a "Thought Crime" to me.

M. Simon|3.12.06 @ 11:17AM|#

If it is a law enforcement problem I think we need to form FBI kidnap squads to kidnap terrorists from states that do not cooperate in the law enforcement effort.

Of course such acts could be considered an act of war.

Back to square one.

|3.12.06 @ 7:07PM|#

M. Simon-

Thankfully, the person in question is on US soil and already in custody, so no military operations will be necessary.

|3.12.06 @ 7:53PM|#

In fact, any lone nut carrying out an attack on US soil would, by definition, be a law enforcement matter. If he's a lone nut then there's certainly no need for the level of force that only the military can bring to bear. And if he's on US soil then there's certainly no need to invade foreign territory to deal with him.

Nonetheless, I'm sure that there are some posters who would support invading Morocco, or Egypt, or Yemen, if a lone nut of Iranian descent drove a car into a crowd.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements