|
October 12, 2005
How far will denial of denial go?
Considering the lack of any new information (and the near total media blackout), I expected to find nothing new about Joel Hinrichs or the Oklahoma University bombing today. But surprise, surprise! This morning, first I found an editorial opinion by Michelle Malkin, who has pursued this story more tirelessly than anyone in the media. (I apologize for the longish quote, but I know people don't click links and I think the concerns expressed by a journalist to Ms. Malkin are important.) : ....many of my readers wonder why the MSM won't touch the strange and troubling story of the University of Oklahoma bomber, Joel Henry Hinrichs III. On Oct. 1, Hinrichs died on a park bench outside the school's packed football stadium when a homemade bomb in his possession exploded. The Justice Department has sealed a search warrant in the case. The university's president, David Boren, is pooh-poohing local media and Internet blog reports of possible jihadist influences on Hinrichs. The dead bomber was, we are being told, simply a depressed and troubled young man with "no known ties" to terrorism.BTW, lest anyone is imagining she's from the fringes of the far right, Rachel Kahne was selected as an MTV correspondent. She appears to be simply trying to do what ought to be the job of any journalist -- find out what happened and tell us. For that, she's being stymied just like the rest of us. Being force-fed a preordained "depression-and-suicide" story that defies common sense. Imagine. A conscientious journalist is being treated like some uppity blogger! My kudos to Rachel Kahne (and of course to Michelle Malkin). Whether they succeed or not, I like it when journalists attempt to do their job. And this one is an uphill battle. Not to expose any grand conspiracy, but just to tell us what happened. Another dissenting journalist is Mark Davis, radio host and Dallas Morning News columnist. In his column (titled "Media might be missing a story and ignoring a terrorist"), Davis wonders whether the story would have been treated any differently had the same man's bomb gone off in front of an abortion clinic: (WARNING: you can only click and read the whole story once without registering.) ....Mr. Hinrichs is now the subject of understandably intense scrutiny, virtually none of it from the mainstream media. You might think the story fizzled because there was, in fact, no death beyond the bomber. True enough, but I'd suggest that if a raid revealed some radical plan to bomb an abortion clinic anywhere in America, the suspects would be household names by nightfall without a single fuse lit.To that I'd add that had the same explosion occurred in front of a gay bar (say, in nearby Oklahoma City), I think the word "terrorism" might have managed to find it's way into print (minus, of course, the prefatory "no connection to" which seems mandatory in any MSM report on the OU bombing). I said "might have." Because even in the case of the abortion clinic hypothetical, I see a longterm problem posed by terrorist denial syndrome. As I pointed out yesterday, under the emerging standard, Timothy McVeigh himself might not now be considered a terrorist. After all, it was a single bomb, he was said to have acted alone, and there were "no connections to terrorist groups." I hate to think what will happen if a fanatic Islamist bomber ever managed to take out his psychotic religious wrath on an abortion clinic or a gay bar. Would conflict managers and grief counselors be enough? posted by Eric on 10.12.05 at 09:38 AM
Comments
It sounds like hyperbole, but it really isn't: The mainstream media is on the side of Islamic terrorism. They consistently enable it and provide cover for it. They come close to openly cheering for it in Iraq. Just as a fireman's job in Fahrenheit 411 was to start fires, a journalist's job now is to suppress information that does not support the jihadist cause. Van Helsing · October 12, 2005 01:33 PM "They consistently enable it and provide cover for it?" Care to back that up with something other than this one incident? Is it possible that the cops may be covering up police or FBI infiltration of a possible jihadi group? Is it possible that the short-term cover-up might be to aid the pursuit of foreign groups connected to this one? Covering up Islamic terrorism in the name of political correctness, doesn't quite wash here. Wouldn't the Republicans want to hype this news up as proof that the enemy is real and we have to keep supporting our Dear Leader? Raging Bee · October 12, 2005 03:10 PM I second Raging Bee's suggestion. Eric Wilner · October 12, 2005 04:25 PM Yes, the coverup may be in defense of an undercover investigation--oh, wait, does that mean there is a Jihad connection? American Mother · October 12, 2005 05:18 PM Ah, breaking news has it that it appears the American Mother · October 12, 2005 06:45 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I did read the entire Michelle Malkin article. She's always interesting and she's right. In the name of Political Correctness, the media are covering up the obvious fact that these are terrorist acts and that totalitarian Muslims are behind these terrorist acts.
You right that any attack or attempted attack on an abortion clinic would automaticaly be shouted from the rooftops by the same media, because abortion has become the sacrament of those who scorn sacraments.
If a Muslim attacked a gay bar, however, I'm sure they'd find some way to excuse it on the grounds that "well, it's their culture, you must learn to be tolerant of Muslims, you bigot". They never comment on the fact that Muslims routinely drop walls on homosexuals, stone them, starve them, etc., as well as what they do to "uppity" women. Women, homosexuals, Jews, Negroes, will always be sacrificed to Political Correctness. Ultimately, the goal is the destruction of Western civilization. The traitors within are on the side of the enemy without.