March 10, 2006
Cowardice at Carolina
Chancellor James Moeser of UNC-Chapel Hill refused to name last week's attempted mass murder of Carolina students a terrorist act, even though the suspect admitted that perceived affronts to Islam were the motivation for his attack.
Moeser said of the vehicular assault that intended to kill students in his charge:
"The fact is, this is not the university's call," Moeser said. "The U.S. attorney will determine whether or not this is an act of terrorism."
Perhaps the chancellor is waiting for the U.S. Attorney to read this definition of terrorism to him from Dictionary.com:
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.
Mohammed Taheri-azar's "Jeep Jihad" was an unlawful use of force by a person against people with the intention of intimidating and coercing a society he thought was hostile to Islam. He stated in his 911 call, "It was really to punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world." Is this nakedly an ideological reason? This was a textbook case of the very definition of terrorism, and yet Chancellor Moeser lacks the fortitude to address this terrorist attack for what it was.
Instead, he argues:
"I agree, this could feel like terrorism, especially if you're standing in front of a Jeep that's heading toward you trying to kill you," Moeser said. "As we have investigated this, we've come more and more to the conclusion that this was one individual acting alone in a criminal act."
Perhaps Moeser would like to pretend that crazed individuals and isolated groups are not capable of terrorism. I'd have him remember Timothy McVeigh, Eric Robert Rudolph or Theodore Kaczynski. Dare he not call them terrorists?
Or does Moeser object more to the method of the madness? Will only pipe-bombs full of ball bearings or a spray of machine gun bullets meet his lofty threshold of acceptably terrorist behavior?
Perhaps he is not psychologically equipped to handle the fact that his university was the target of a terrorist act, and so he would like to ignore it and return to business as usual. But ignoring the problem is not the kind of leadership we expect from our flagship university, or it's chief adminstrator.
Waiting for the permission to state the obvious isn't leadership at all.
McVeigh and group are white men. Only white men can be labeled as terrorist as if you say anyone else is then you are being insensitive. If you note, going through the airport more whites are pulled out of line to search as our government seems to think they are at war with us and not the Muslims who on average are of another ethnic background.
Posted by: David Caskey at March 10, 2006 12:53 PMSo, that evil gas guzzling SUV, usually driven by rich insensitive under-taxed white people, drove this innocent Muslim (Arab male between 17 and 40 named Mohammed) into a group of American college students.
Obviously, those behemoth cars are not getting enough hugs and understanding from the commie professors at that school.
Poor Mohammed, now you'll have to endure a lavish life of never ending victim-hood under the lash of your white oppressors.
Don't worry son, Sharpton and Jackson are, as we speak, extorting private jet rides to come to your aid and instruct you on how to turn it into a media career.
Posted by: DELAWARE REDNECK at March 10, 2006 10:23 PMA year or so ago, several crosses were burned in Durham NC. There was no shortage of people then calling the offense an act of "domestic terrorism." The state's Attorney-General was one of them. I haven't found Moeser's comments on the cross-burning yet, but it must be there somewhere.
Posted by: jray at March 11, 2006 01:09 PM
