SUV drives into pit at UNC

I figured you felt that way Eric considering your work. Thanks for clairifing.

It's *very* hard to express sarcasm on blogs. Heck it's hard to express any complex emotions period. I like to use little code tags that make it clear.

Ex.
#sarcasm#Duke should win the NCAA tourney!#/sarcasm#

But then again being obvious sorta makes sarcasm not sarcasm. It's much more fun to be subtle, but hard in quick blog comments. :D

I know, Brian; that's true. It's a risk I run.

Well it official I guess. Rick Martinez of the N&O has declared this an act of terrorism, so I guess no further discussion is required. And in his typical fashion, he can't pass up the opportunity to take his swipe at UNC's chancellor:

"Yet the reluctance of UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor James Moeser to call the act and the man what they are is either political cowardice or yet another disturbing display of the special politically correct protection the Muslim faith enjoys at his campus."

As I said above, we are on the proverbial slippery slope and who knows where we will land.

Eric --
I've read a considerable body of work about and by Islamists. Part of the point of my column is that most folks (Americans especially) hope we can come to a workable solution so that we can all live peacefully together. Maybe if we withdraw from Iraq, or support from Israel, or the entire Eastern world... everything will be better. However, in their worldview those are just short-term goals -- our continued existence is eventually impossible. The United States' goals and way of life are incompatible with a restoration of a caliphate and the rule of Islamic law over the world. If you somehow disagree, please feel free to offer some additional information I don't know about.

My whole point is that ISLAMISTS are preaching an us vs. them.

I'm not sure if you've read my column, but it's not exactly calling for a "The Siege"-style roundup of the Muslim Students Alliance in the pit. My whole point is to acquaint the campus community with terrorisms larger goals and let them why I feel as though it's our diversity, rather than our unity, that is important to maintain.

I did read your column, Ginny, and it's a bit more measured than the "us-versus-the-other" screed that you posted here. I encourage others to read the column.

I've posted something about the question of what to call Taheri-azar here.

Eric:
I too was heartened by what I see as a productive debate about what to call him (although my hunches initially were terrorism and they only seem to confirmed as more information is revealed.)

My views on Islamists are actually very complicated -- I think what I argue is less for us to dismiss them with ANY label (terrorists, crazy people, criminals, lone wolf, etc.) and for an examination of the doctrine that leads up to people like him and speculation of its future path. In al Qaeda 2.0 the point is for the organization to be almost exclusively a virtual organization with lone wolves and loosely connected cells as the actors. The capture of one then has no consequence for others in the movement.

Sorry if it came off as "Us vs. Them". I do think it is "us vs. them" but we have to carefully limit who "them" is that we're against. It is by no means all of Islam.

My point in bringing up Taheri-azar's mother was to point out that if this IS 'us v them' then the rift is right down the middle of this man's family.

If she is a federal employee working in Afghanistan, then does Taheri-azar see her as a 'Them' or an 'Us'?

These questions don't have enough background, yet, to label this incident as anything more than a (heinous) crime.

Jim Woodall is not considering motive in his prosecution...the only folks who even Have to ponder that are on an as-yet-unselected jury.

And a central point in this debate is whether Taheri-azar has compatriots with whom he can relate; he has to have allies to be an 'Us'...otherwise, it's just "Me (mohammed).

But then is it a 'Me v Them' or 'Me v the World'?

I think it's most likely that this is a "Me (mohammed) v the World" than anything...after all, if there truly were a specific 'Them' to be targetted, than an indiscriminant attack in the Pit is the wrong way to make a statement - anyone could have been in the Pit.

Ask yourself: would Taheri-azar have stopped if a Muslim student had been in front of that Jeep?

daniel

Daniel, that doesn't work. Surely Mohammad Atta and his colleagues knew that there were Muslims in the World Trade Towers on 9/11/01, possibly even very devout ones. That they were willing to risk killing devout Muslims alongside other victims doesn't detract from their terrorist motivation.

On this I think Ginny is quite right: this was not an "indiscriminate" location, but an attack on the single place on campus that is devoted to public discussion and debate. It's our Speaker's Corner. It'd be a different case, maybe, if Taheri-azar had run over some people at a crosswalk somewhere. But he chose the Pit.

"would Taheri-azar have stopped if a Muslim student had been in front of that Jeep?"

Probably not. 1) Muslims who disagree with Islamists are viewed as apostate and therefore are actually considered worse than infidels who didn't know Allah in the first place. 2) These acts are viewed as martyrdom: if you die and you're bad, you'll go to hell. If you're killed in a terrorist attack and a good person, then you're a martyr. Either way, you just meet God's justice.

"And a central point in this debate is whether Taheri-azar has compatriots with whom he can relate; he has to have allies to be an ‘Us'…otherwise, it's just “Me (mohammed). "

I think you're looking at this too much in a traditional framework, when it's clear that al Qaeda is trying to establish a political movement of active individuals. As long as they know about the movement, the movement doesn't necessarily have to know about them. His compatriots could be a blogger he liked to read, an author of a book he picked up from the library, statements he heard on a newscast, a guy he talked to on a subway. It doesn't have to be an officially-chartered terrorist cell. (Someone in one of my classes yesterday made a good point -- "What do you want him to do?? Join the Official International Terrorists Registry??") I think the question is whether he can be educated, inspired, and called to action by a movement that doesn't know of his existence. And I believe the answer is yes.

so if we burn her at the stake and she doesn't save herself then we know that even if she wasn't pure, she wasn't a witch?

I think you've moved too quickly, Ginny, in assuming Taheri-azar is an Islamist. Cori Dauber makes a good distinction between 'traditional' terrorists (who use violence to Get to the negotiating table) and new wave/islamist terrorists (who want to blow up the negotiating table)

She also points out that terrorism IS political theater, and I absolutely agree that the Pit is a deliberate target; the victims were indiscriminate, however. That's unlike 9/11, when the targets were the financial and military centers of this country and anyone working in them, even Muslims, were culpable by association. in Chapel Hill, the people themselves were less important than the action itself (in the chosen public space) BUT acting to avenge the deaths of Muslims by killing Muslims hardly builds the base for a successful ideological statement.

And he needs that to be successful in his twisted mind.

By trying to make this a show trial, Taheri-azar seems to fall into the first category of Traditional, non Islamist terrorist, doesn't he? He's playing into the Western system...maybe because he IS western in his upbringing and doesn't know another way.

That's why I tried to separate him from any kind of 'Us' - I don't think he really knows anything but the Cliff's Notes of terror. Remember that this guy was a philosophy and psychology double major. he took the time to get those degrees. And yet he's been planning some kind of attack for two years. His chosen style of attack doesn't require several years of flight school, and it didn't require that he go all the way through college (and the process of applying for a PhD!!) before lashing out.

There's something else. some kind of trigger.

I think it hardly matters at all whether we Call this terrorism or not - and for the record, I think it is - what matters more is understanding why it happened so that we can publicly defrock this fraud in court, and then take efforts to see that his actions aren't repeated.

Ginny--What evidence do you have that Taheri-azar identifies as an 'Islamist'? The only quote I have seen from him (the letter he wrote has not, so far as I know, been released to the public) targeted US actions around the world and said he acted to avenge Muslim deaths. Many people around the world are furious at US behavior. Harry Belafonte, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro are not 'Islamists'. I know lots of people from the Middle East, none of whom are religious, who are very strongly opposed to US policies there (many would also sympathize with protests over the cartoon issue, given the obvious racist overtones of the way it has been played in Europe and the US). It has nothing to do with religion, 'our way of life', 'restoring the caliphate'--it has to do with US complicity (or direct responsibility for) massive levels of oppression and violence (note that Taheri-azar had in his possession a Navy SEALS training video (!) and talked of 'an eye for an eye' (a principle drawn from the Jewish Bible)). Here at home, many actors in the US, on the right, left, and center have used violence to make their political point. The Ku Klux Klan, far and away the most important non-governmental terrorist group in US history, typically identifies as white, family-oriented, and Christian, and, importantly, as American. You use phrases like 'our' and 'us' very freely, as if Americans typically support resolving conflicts 'reasonably' or nonviolently or letting ideas freely compete in the 'marketplace'. A reminder--the US government has bombed and invaded Iraq, tortured thousands of detainees at Abu Graib, Guantanamo, Bagram, murdered numerous journalists in Iraq and Afghanistan, shot at ambulance drivers in Fallujah, supported Israeli policies of firing missiles into crowded city blocks, etc. Here in the Triangle many Muslims have been harrassed, both by governmental agencies and by citizens of the US. These appear to be the way 'we' believe political differences should be handled. If it were not, I suppose there would be thousands of Americans risking death or imprisonment to stop our government from carrying out these policies. But there aren't, are there (and lets not even get into the fanaticism and hatred routinely expressed in many (not all!) churches on Sunday and on popular right wing talk radio)? Even the presence near the top of the US military in Iraq of a mad general prone to rambling on about how God is on his side and his God is bigger than his enemy's has not generated much opposition.

Fred Black--I was not aware of Odum's opposition to the Iraq invasion. Carter administration notwithstanding, Brzezinski was on the Right, indeed, in his own way was responsible for Al Quaeda, since he thought it would be a great idea to take advantage of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and arm rebels there and recruit more throughout the Islamic world. In "America's Inadvertent Empire" Odum and Dujarric claim that China will fail because it is not Western, that Clinton should not have pulled out of Somalia, that John Rawls is a socialist--these are all 'quite conservative' positions. But I stand corrected on their (or at least Odum's) opinion of Bush.

Steve --
"Our", for the most part, means those of engaging in this debate. Not Americans as a whole. We are definitely not always and in all times a peaceful people. I also would argue that Christianity, like Islam, isn't necessarily a peaceful religion.

Dan --
I think in Dauber's class we fully establish that he's a "bad" terrorist. Quite frankly, he was just awful. Who knows what went through his head... and maybe he isn't very sophisticated in his thinking, planning and execution. But in some ways and at some level, he is merely a tool of or a cog in the machinery of a worldwide struggle that inspired him. Just as he is using the trial as a platform for education on "his" views, I decided to coopt some of his stage as a platform for my understanding of Islamist doctrine. The quotes from him not in the 911 call, but in the trial, are the ones most concerning for me and most indicative of his intent to law out his doctrine.
But I think we'll all have to wait on that one...

Ginny, where did the term Islamist come from? I ask you this because you seem to like throwing it around. Is that a strictly Western term or do Muslims think of themselves as being either Islamist or non-Islamist? Is this idea [so-called 'Islamism'] really any more or less dangerous than Christians who believe that fundamentalist Christian governments should rule the whole world? Are we in an us vs. them relationship with such Christians?

So are folks suggesting that whether or not something is terrorism depends entirely on the person's motives? What if someone was mentally ill/incompetent and professed Islamist ideals? What then?

Ginny, was Wendell Williamson a terrorist? How about Timothy McVeigh? Erid Rudolph? (Examples that Terry B raised earlier and, I think, went unanswered.) I have my own opinions on this question, but I am truly interested in yours.

These are just my opinions:

Wendell Williamson? I'm not extremely familiar with the case, but the article I read to answer this said he was paranoid schizophrenic, had a personality disorder, and had an alcohol abuse problem. No political motive. No policy changes. No adherence to an established movement. He used violence, but it is not clear that he did so rationally or with any further aims. Not a terrorist.

Timothy McVeigh? His actions were part of a strategy to bring about political change. A Salon.com article had psychiatrists saying they met with him and he's not insane, and a Time interview with him goes into his political philosophy and The Turner Diaries. He used violence. Terrorist.

Eric Rudolph? He is identified with an ideology of Christian fundamentalism and aimed to stop abortion and the homosexual agenda. His bombings include abortion clinics and a gay/lesbian nightclub and were part of a strategy to further the cause of the Christian Identity movement. He used violence. Terrorist.

Mark:
I don't have the answers to many of your questions.

Islamists do not identify themselves as Islamists. They choose to identify themselves as Muslims, because they believe they are the true expression of Islam. Islamists is a term used by academics and non-Islamist Muslims, as best as I can tell. So I see no reason why Taheriazar, if he is an Islamist, would identify himself as that. I do not feel uncomfortable using the label -- I much prefer that to simply using "Muslim."

As for "us vs. them" re: Christian fundamentalists. I hear liberals (especially agnostic and atheistic liberals, but also liberal Christians like myself) use those terms all the time. However, the Christian Identity movement is having trouble finding because American Christian culture has traditionally distanced itself from its violent history so the debate between fundamentalists and non-Christian fundamentalists is more carried out on talk shows, newscasts, in voting booths, etc. That's a growing culture war too -- but one I need to do more research into.

Mark:

You seem to be caught up on Islamist. I chose the word because it is usually the word of choice by the academics I'm reading. Try reading the Wiki on Islamist for more information.

I could have said Muslim fundamentalist, I guess, but didn't for three reasons: 1) It doesn't really capture the Islamist normative vision of what the world should look like 2) it's too long and 3) I wanted to separate my label for him from Islam and Muslim.

I'm not entirely sure what your objections are to my use of the term... how would you prefer I describe it?

Mark--Christian fundamentalists have a friend in the White House, so no, 'we' (the US) do not oppose 'them'. But more relevantly, the entire political class in the US, excluding the marginal Buchanan/Kucinich wings, strongly believes in establishing a US based caliphate of 'free-market ' capitalism over the entire globe. They follow a succession of false prophets and philosophers to convince themselves that they epitomize democratic or enlightenment goals. They have nearly succeeded. They are profoundly intolerant of those who resist this goal. And they are both more serious, and more violent than any of the 'fundamentalist' wings of religions worldwide. And it only adds insult to injury when they point to the existence of Brokeback Mountain or Michael Moore as examples of their tolerance and enlightenment or declare anyone who violently opposes them 'mentally ill'.

I wanted to clarify my understanding of Eric Rudolph's motives (I lived in the mountains for years--I guess you could say he was my neighbor, ahem, so I followed the case pretty closely). Did you ever wonder what the Olympics had to do with his agenda? Well, apparently the Olympics represent the "co-mingling of the races." His philosophy went beyond religion. (Not that this influences the issue of whether he's a terrorist.)

Ginny, you seem to be saying that motives are what determines whether or not someone is a terrorist. What other elements are involved?

"Ginny, you seem to be saying that motives are what determines whether or not someone is a terrorist. What other elements are involved?"

Depends on who you ask, but since you asked me...
1) motive; political aims
2) violence or intent of violence (violence here is subjective... some people think that this wasn't terrorism just because he didn't kill anyone)
3) sub-state actors against non-combatants.
4) an act of violence that is intended for a broader audience than just the immediate victims.

I do feel it's a semantic point, and I just come down on the other side. I'm using the academic terms available to me. We'll have to agree to disagree.

His comments from his day in court suggest he'll be laying out his views in his trial. I believe that the letter, when released, and his computer will provide additional details. I'm seeing my initial hunches proven correct as more and more details are released. I'm willing to modify my views, however, if something wildly inconsistent is revealed.

I'm explaining the views (that are not just limited to a few nutjobs) that inspire actions like these. My main goal of dialogue and education were achieved -- i've gotten dozens of emails (from around the world, literally) from people beginning to think about the consequences of this world philosophy.

I think it's safe to say Taheri-azar's statements certainly support a case of labelling him as a terrorist. According to him, he's punishing the United States for a supposed course of action. One can only infer from that that he was attempting to force our hand into a different way of doing things.

Anyway, I think Ginny's argument is hard to punch holes in right now. But that doesn't mean the information to do so isn't out there and just unavailable at the moment.

I personally am inclined to accept Taher-azar's own stated motives, though the DTH is still not using the moniker "terrorist" at this time.

Oddly enough, All Things Considered had an interesting discussion on eco-arsonists in Oregon that are being labelled as terrorists. One guy who burned 3 SUVs will be facing 40 years in prison--simply because of the terrorist designation. While no one was supporting the actions of these 'environmental terrorists', I heard very little support for their prosecution as terrorists.

We see violence against people everyday in this world. Jumping on a bandwagon to label every angry person of Middle Eastern descent as a terrorist is guaranteed to exacerbate existing divisions around race and religion. And what benefit does it serve? Timothy McVey was a terrorist by the definitions used here, but he was tried and executed as a murderer. Using the terrorist designation accomplishes nothing but putting more power into the hands of the federal government. If your goal is to further erode our civil liberties, you can find terrorists around every corner. I just hope you decide not to.

Ginny, if it was also your goal to be favorably quoted by Michelle "In Defense of Japanese American Internment" Malkin, you achieved that one too.

See http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004727.htm

Congratulations.

Eric:
If I can offer something that I believe to be insightful to Malkin's audience, then I'm glad. I'm a liberal who is saying something that resonates with them -- it doesn't mean that I suddenly agree on all of their politics. As the author of "Free to Die for their Country: The Story of the Japanese American Draft Resisters of World War II" I understand why Malkin may be up there on your public enemies list -- but please don't drag me into your beef with her. I am in no way associated with favorable views on Japanese-American internment... what are you trying to insinuate there?

The enlightened, diversity embracing America is well displayed on the Chapel Hill News comments board:

http://www.topix.net/forum/city/chapel-hill-nc/T45P6MO9NBDTR6P0R

Ginny, what I am trying to insinuate is that it should give you serious pause when the arguments you are making about "Us" and "Them" are picked up and served as red meat to the clamoring reactionary right by the nation's leading race-baiting, anti-immigrant, surveillance-supporting defender of racial profiling and mass internment.

What leads you to think that Malkin and her ilk are interested in "insightful" consideration of terrorism? Malkin is a cheerleader for a political agenda, Ginny. Mohammed Taheri-azar is a pawn in a chess game for her.

Now you are too.

That's not where I'd want to be.

Eric --

You're right. I've changed my ways -- from now on, only liberals can read my columns.

Ginny,

The place where I write as if it doesn't matter who is reading me is my diary -- where, in fact, nobody else is reading me.

When I write for public consumption, I think about not just what I want to say, but also about how what I say might be read and used by others.

I'd like to make a couple of quick points by pointing everyone to a couple of relevant books.

Eric- I'm glad to hear someone else making the "us vs. them" argument so pointedly (noticed on your blog as well). This has been a central tactic of governments throughout history. A really great source on this is Why Nations Go to War by John G. Stoessinger. It's much easier to advance a position - in the book's case, war - by making the other side appear to be different from you.

Mark (et. al)- As an unabashed progressive, I get a lot of flak for this, but I'm afraid that neither Christianity nor Islam are inherently peaceful religions. "Islamists" are simply people who are more devoted and faithful to their holy teachings. I'm certainly not arguing that their position as correct, in fact, I think it's the opposite. By keeping the good (i.e. peaceful, charitable, etc.) parts of their religions, Christians and Muslims alike can make their own "custom" religions. A great book on this (and a quite mainstream one, too) is The End of Faith by Sam Harris. In many respects Islam hasn't had the time to be diluted to the extent that Christianity has.

As a point of interest, I have still not gotten a single letter to the editor over at the DTH disagreeing with Ginny. That includes students and nonstudents.

I don't write in a vacuum, but I said what I meant and I meant what I said so I don't see the problem.

I felt that I wrote to a broad audience in a way that allowed both strong conservatives and strong liberals to gain *something* from what I wrote, even if it didn't significantly change their views -- even if it just got them thinking. I choose to write to a general audience -- what I write in a column is not what I'd write if talking to only likeminded individuals. My goals are not your goals, and I see no reason to adopt yours.

This thread of debate is getting cyclical and is beyond the "agree to disagree" point; oddly enough, most lines of debate in which you engage me on OP wind up there. If you have some sort of insightful new commentary to add then by all means do so, but we're exhausting the topic here.

Or heck, feel free to be my first negative letter to the editor to The Daily Tar Heel.

For folks inclined to judge such acts as terrorism, Fred Black has already pointed out that Rick Martinez, the Bushbot apologist at the N&O, is squarely in your camp. So is John Hood, second in command at the Art Pope Puppet Theatre, otherwise knows as the John Locke Foundation. Not exactly what I have in mind when I look for common ground.

"most lines of debate in which you engage me on OP wind up there."

If memory serves, Ginny, you and I have had a grand total of two lines of debate on OP.

And Rick Martinez' wife works at John Locke Foundation.

I don't agree with Ginny on the terrorist issue, but I also don't agree with the implication being made here that she is wrong simply because certain conservatives hold a similar position. I would hope that as liberals, we can accept that individuals have a full range of beliefs and positions and it's the balance of those positions rather than single issues that locates their point of reference on the political spectrum map--if there is any need to label one's political philosophy at all.

For what it's worth, Terri, my point is slightly different. What I'm saying is not that Ginny is wrong because conservatives agree with her.

What I'm saying -- translated to a different setting just to make the point more vivid -- is that if I were giving a speech to a big audience about, say, race relations, and I said something, and a subset of my audience jumped to their feet and started cheering wildly ... and then I noticed that the ones standing and cheering were all wearing white sheets, that would stop me dead in my tracks and set me to wondering whether maybe in formulating my views, I had missed something important.

Let's pretend for a moment that everyone -- me, you, James Moeser, my dog -- agrees that Mohammed Taheri-azar committed an act of terror, and is in fact a terrorist.

Now what?

I understood your point Eric, and I don't disagree with it. But then there were follow ups. I don't think any one person intended to try and whip Ginny into the liberal line, but that was the sum total effect of the message as I read them together.

Duncan asks now what. As I understand it, the legal implications of a terrorist act are quite different than those of attempted murder. My observation of life in the USA since 9/11 is that every deviation from the norm adds to the further erosion of our civil liberty.

I'm not arguing anyone is wrong or right for sharing an opinion with John Hood or Rick Martinez. I'm just noting that two of the most divisive reactionaries in North Carolina are fanning the flames of hysterria with a level of hypocrisy that is breathtaking.

This is the same John Hood who opposes the very concept of evaluating criminal actions on the basis of the victim's status. or intent -- as evidenced in one of his rants about cross-burning:

In a December 2002 piece titled “A Right to Beg?” John Hood, president of Raleigh-based conservative think-tank the John Locke Foundation, admitted that while cross burning was a “vile practice,” it should still be protected as “free speech,” and not considered a hate crime. “For example,” Hood wrote, “there is a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that's gotten a lot of attention. It's about cross burning. Is this vile practice a ‘hate crime' or an exercise in constitutionally protected speech? That's what legal commentators have been asking.

“That's the wrong question,” Hood continued. “The right one is: Whose lawn was the cross on? If a racist burns a cross on his own lawn, he's an idiot. If he burns a cross on another person's lawn, he's a vandal and possibly guilty of other crimes, such as communicating a threat. He's not a criminal because he chose a particularly egregious way of expressing his Neanderthal ideas. He's a criminal because he did so on someone else's property.”

Hood and Martinez jump on the terror bandwagon because they want to make political points. That is how they think about any issue . . . how can they spin it to affirm their ideological biases.

James

For the record, I question the wisdom of defining hate crimes -- and terrorism -- as legal concepts. Such definitions get us exactly into the place this thread has gone -- a debate over motive and politics instead of crime. So in that regard, I actually agree with what John Hood used to think about the whole idea of hate crimes -- that is, until he flip-flopped to be conveniently in favor of them.

I object to the entire legal concept of "hate crimes." The deeds themselves are illegal-- must we criminalize THOUGHT?

As to condemning Ginny because certain folks agree with her...y'all better be careful. Kathleen Parker doesn't think it's appropriate to label this crime terrorism either:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/kathleenparker/2006/03/08/189040...
..and somehow I don't see most of you agreeing with Ms. Parker a majority of the time!

melanie

Excellent points James. And as previously stated, it really doesn't matter much what WE desire to label this, it matters what the Feds label it. What is interesting is how some strongly believe that the Feds should call it an act of terror but there is little discussion of what doing so might mean for life at UNC down the road?

PS: Off until the 20th while going with some UNC and Duke students who will do an "Alternative Spring Break" project, "deconstruction" homes for Habitat for Humanity in the NOLA area. These young people are our bright future!

Fred,

E-mail me offline if you all want a tour of the city.

Duncan

I am less concerned about what the feds label it as; I care about the community/social/political response more than the legal definition of what it is or isn't prosecuted as.

A hit-and-run doesn't invite a discussion.
Terorrism forces us to educate ourselves, analyze the situation, look at causes and respond quite differently as a community.

The fact that the chancellor will be supporting a "student-led" response after Spring Break suggests this is more than a hit-and-run. Why not call it that? That was more my point.