Mohammad Taheri-azar, a 2005 UNC-Chapel Hill graduate, turned himself into police on Friday afternoon after driving a rented sports utility vehicle into a crowd of students at the University of North Carolina.
Since his arrest, Taheri-azar has admitted he was purposely trying to kill people in a premeditated attack to "avenge the death of Muslims around the world." Then, arriving at his first court hearing on Monday, he smiled and waved at cameras and told the judge that he was "thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah."
A description of these events as they actually happened seems to fit exactly into the textbook model of terrorism as Americans have come to understand it since Sept. 11, 2001. Muslim? Check. Violent act? Check. Done in the name of Allah and Islam? Double check.
But is it terrorism?
After the fulfillment of those familiar "requisites" became apparent over the weekend, the media's refusal to call the violent incident an "act of terror" became glaringly evident. And despite the weighty absence of the word "terrorism" in the media's description of the attack, it didn't take much time for the public to connect the dots and notice its absence. (The American public may be a lot of things, but it is certainly not shy about labelling people "terrorists").
Predictably, some individuals like senior Jillian Bandes, a member of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and former Daily Tar Heel columnist, were incensed at the media's portrayal (or lack thereof) of the incident: "This is innocent people being attacked by an SUV, driven by a man who was doing it for retaliation for treatment of Muslims around the world. To me, that spells terrorism."
Like Bandes, I too was outraged at the absence of the word "terrorism." But having given it a bit more thought, I have to commend local police forces, the national media and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for their far-sighted reluctance in automatically branding this act with so menacing a word as "terrorism."
Americans are in the fourth year of our war on terror, and since it began, politicians, authors and media commentators have done precious little but demonize the Arab world. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, nearly half of Americans express negative views of Islam, and a majority now says that Muslims are disproportionately prone to violence.
Moreover, the ongoing riots in the Middle East over a series of anti-Islamic political cartoons published by a Danish newspaper nearly six months ago and the highly publicized debate over Arab companies managing American seaports are current stories that are only fueling further mistrust and suspicion of Muslims, Arabs and Islam.
Given the particularly volatile political climate, a media-sanctioned stamp of T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-M only begs official retribution against those responsible for acts of violence. It accordingly seems wise for the American media to respond to new, unfolding acts of suspected domestic terrorism as prudently as possible.
In describing Taheri-azar's crime as a "hit-and-run" in violation of North Carolina law, and by not leaping to the seemingly natural conclusion that terrorism had hit the Triangle, law enforcement agents and media alike may have in turn prevented retaliatory violence against Muslims. In their decision to (rightly or wrongly) avoid stamping Taheri-azar's act as one of terror, law enforcement officials and media outlets have also been able to sidestep accusations of harboring racist or anti-Islamic sentiments.
But given that since his arrest, Taheri-azar has made his terror-inspiring motives and violent intentions abundantly clear, it is absolutely appropriate and imperative that the media restructure how the attack is now being portrayed.
Not only is the continued omission of "terrorism" disrespectful to the students injured in last Friday's attack, but it also underplays the brooding menace of Taheri-azar's anti-American message.
Calling it "terrorism" to begin with would have been unjustifiably phobic. But not calling it "terrorism" now is gravely negligent. Taheri-azar's attack was a manifestation of a radical, sadistic and dangerous ideology and, at this point, to avoid labeling this intentional act of violence a premeditated act of terror is unacceptable and contemptible.
Boston Cote is a Trinity senior. Her column runs every Friday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.