Mondoweiss
With no evidence except ethnicity, media declared Nice attack terrorism
Middle East
Eoin Higgins on July 19, 2016 4 Comments
Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel
If the slightest doubt remained that Western media defines “terrorism” solely
as violence committed by people of specific ethnic groups and cultures, the
reaction to the lorry attack in Nice, France, should have completely erased it.
On Thursday, July 14, the people of Nice were enjoying the promenade that
stretches along the shores of the Mediterranean on the inner edge of the city’s
crescent bay. At about 4:45 PM EST, during a parade for Bastille Day, Mohamed
Lahouaiej-Bouhlel drove a white truck onto the boardwalk and drove for almost
two miles through the crowd, eventually killing over 80 innocent people.
News media was quick to jump to the conclusion this was an act of Islamic
terror on social media. Without any indication of the motives, identity, or
allegiance of the driver, international and national news media:
• Called the incident a “terror attack” at 5:44 PM
• “’Terror’ truck attack” at 6:25 PM
Then, after his name- and only his name- was revealed:
• Called the attacker a “terrorist” once his name was revealed with no
other information, at 6:29 PM
• “Terror attack” at 7:04 PM
• “Terror attack” again at 8:36 PM
And on and on. Fox News just went ahead and called its rolling coverage
liveblog “Nice terror attack” and was done with the pretense of objectivity and
fact gathering.
Yet by 9:07 AM EST on July 15 at the latest, some 16 hours after the attack, it
was apparent that Lahouaiej-Bouhlel’s motivations were unlikely to be related
to religious fundamentalism. As The Telegraph reported:
Bouhlel is believed to come from a town close to Sousse called Msaken and has
not travelled back to Tunisia in four years.
BFM TV reports that he was a divorced father-of-three who had become depressed
following the breakdown of his marriage, reports Camilla Turner.
He was known to the police for assault with a weapon, domestic violence,
threats and robbery but had no previous convictions for terrorism.
At 11:30 AM, The Huffington Post said that l’Expresse was citing sources saying
that Lahouaiej-Bouhlel’s was apparently motivated by his anger and insecurity:
Another neighbor, also from Tunisia told L’Express: “On the Thursday night he
was drinking with a colleague and they argued. His pal said ‘you’re worth
nothing’ and he replied: ‘One day, you’ll hear about me.’”
By 3:23 PM, The Daily Mail was reporting that Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was at the very
least not an observant Muslim and instead that he fit the profile of an
abusive, angry man:
The 31-year-old – who wreaked terror on the Nice seafront as he turned an
evening celebrating Bastille Day into a night of terror in which he murdered 84
innocent people – drank alcohol, ate pork and took drugs.
He never prayed or attended a mosque, and hit his wife – with whom he had three
children aged five, three and 18 months – and was in the process of getting a
divorce.
It’s hardly the behavior of a radical religious extremist.
Further muddying the waters, no Islamic group had claimed responsibility for
the attack on the 15th (ISIS released a vague statement calling
Lahouaiej-Bouhlel a “soldier” on Saturday). There was no indication at all that
Lahouaiej-Bouhlel had any connection with any extremist groups, nor that he was
in any way religious.
The BBC reported that French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that
Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was a “terrorist without doubt linked to radical Islamism in
one way or another.” However, as The Guardian pointed out, “Valls said that he
“probably” had some a link to extremism, but admitted the investigation has no
evidence at this point.”
But that lack of evidence hasn’t stopped multiple media outlets in the west
from continuing to report the incident as a terror attack.
• The Daily News told readers at 2:08 PM that “Car-ramming tactic used in
Nice terror attack simple to pull off”
• Mother Jones wrote at 2:10 PM that; “One day after a terrorist attack
killed at least 84 people in Nice, France, French authorities announced that
the man who carried out the attacks had never been suspected of terrorist
sympathies.”
• The LA Times asked “How many terror attacks can France withstand?” at
2:26 PM
• A New York Times analysis posited that the “Attack in Nice, France,
Represents Terrorism’s New Reality” at 5:19 PM and subsequently adjusted the
headline to “Terror’s New Form: A Threat That Can Be Managed, but Not Erased”
by 8:47 PM
All these reports came in after 2 PM EST, well after it had been established
that the attacker was not religious and had no known ties to religious
extremism; nor was there any evidence he was politically radicalized.
So what is a terror attack to today’s media? What can we gather from the
reaction to the Nice attack and the labeling of the event in the absence of any
verifiable evidence of extremist religious views?
By process of elimination, we can reasonably assume the media’s definition of
“terror” does not mean a mass killing of innocent people on western shores; if
it did, the media would have called the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary and
Aurora Colorado terrorism.
We can reasonably assume “terrorism” does not mean acts of violence taken out
against the west for political reasons; if it did, the media would call Andrew
Joseph Stack’s suicide attack on an IRS building in Austin, Texas, in 2010 an
act of terror.
We can reasonably assume that violence done in the name of religious
fundamentalism does not meet the standard for being defined “terror” by the
media; if it did, the attacks on Palestinians by Israeli settlers in the name
of Judaism would be called terrorism.
We can reasonably assume that violence done against people of a particular race
or ethnicity does not meet the standard for being defined “terror” by the
media; if it did, Dylann Roof and Micah Johnson would be called “terrorists”
and not deranged gunmen or shooters.
No, the media definition of “terror” is quite clear: it means when an
individual from the Global south with a Muslim name commits an act of violence
against the West. As Jim Naureckas writes in FAIR:
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that… when the suspect is an Arab—Lahouaiej
Bouhlel was a Tunisian immigrant—then allegations of terrorism require no
evidence whatsoever.
That’s exactly right. That’s the rule. Religious extremism, even religious
belief, political radicalism- they have nothing to do with it.
The action of “terror” is defined purely by the ethnicity of the actor.
Update: Even in a Times article dated July 17, the paper found it impossible to
objectively look at the facts. In an article acknowledging the very facts we’ve
just covered, the Times used language that was vague at best when describing
Lahouaiej Bouhlel’s motivations:
The authorities in France are still trying to piece together what direct ties,
if any, Mr. Lahouaiej Boulel had to the Islamic State.
Notice that even in an article that describes the total lack of evidence of
extremism or ties to terror groups, the Times is incapable of objectively
allowing that. The missing ties are only the “direct” ones, says the Times,
implying that there were indirect ones.
This piece originally appeared on Eoin Higgins’s website.
•
•
•
•
• About
• Advertise
• Comments Policy
• Site Status
• Archives
• 100 Recent Comments
• Register
• Log in
• Donate
Advertising
•
http://mondoweiss.net/wp-content/plugins/oiopub-direct/modules/tracker/go.php?id=28http://mondoweiss.net/wp-content/plugins/oiopub-direct/modules/tracker/go.php?id=28
Mondoweiss
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
Search for:
• http://mondoweiss.net/
• Israel/Palestine
• Middle East
• US Politics
• Activism
• Features
With no evidence except ethnicity, media declared Nice attack terrorism
Middle East
Eoin Higgins on July 19, 2016 4 Comments
• Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
• Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
• Adjust Font Size
Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel
If the slightest doubt remained that Western media defines “terrorism” solely
as violence committed by people of specific ethnic groups and cultures, the
reaction to the lorry attack in Nice, France, should have completely erased it.
On Thursday, July 14, the people of Nice were enjoying the promenade that
stretches along the shores of the Mediterranean on the inner edge of the city’s
crescent bay. At about 4:45 PM EST, during a parade for Bastille Day, Mohamed
Lahouaiej-Bouhlel drove a white truck onto the boardwalk and drove for almost
two miles through the crowd, eventually killing over 80 innocent people.
News media was quick to jump to the conclusion this was an act of Islamic
terror on social media. Without any indication of the motives, identity, or
allegiance of the driver, international and national news media:
• Called the incident a “terror attack” at 5:44 PM
• “’Terror’ truck attack” at 6:25 PM
Then, after his name- and only his name- was revealed:
• Called the attacker a “terrorist” once his name was revealed with no
other information, at 6:29 PM
• “Terror attack” at 7:04 PM
• “Terror attack” again at 8:36 PM
And on and on. Fox News just went ahead and called its rolling coverage
liveblog “Nice terror attack” and was done with the pretense of objectivity and
fact gathering.
Yet by 9:07 AM EST on July 15 at the latest, some 16 hours after the attack, it
was apparent that Lahouaiej-Bouhlel’s motivations were unlikely to be related
to religious fundamentalism. As The Telegraph reported:
Bouhlel is believed to come from a town close to Sousse called Msaken and has
not travelled back to Tunisia in four years.
BFM TV reports that he was a divorced father-of-three who had become depressed
following the breakdown of his marriage, reports Camilla Turner.
He was known to the police for assault with a weapon, domestic violence,
threats and robbery but had no previous convictions for terrorism.
At 11:30 AM, The Huffington Post said that l’Expresse was citing sources saying
that Lahouaiej-Bouhlel’s was apparently motivated by his anger and insecurity:
Another neighbor, also from Tunisia told L’Express: “On the Thursday night he
was drinking with a colleague and they argued. His pal said ‘you’re worth
nothing’ and he replied: ‘One day, you’ll hear about me.’”
By 3:23 PM, The Daily Mail was reporting that Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was at the very
least not an observant Muslim and instead that he fit the profile of an
abusive, angry man:
The 31-year-old – who wreaked terror on the Nice seafront as he turned an
evening celebrating Bastille Day into a night of terror in which he murdered 84
innocent people – drank alcohol, ate pork and took drugs.
He never prayed or attended a mosque, and hit his wife – with whom he had three
children aged five, three and 18 months – and was in the process of getting a
divorce.
It’s hardly the behavior of a radical religious extremist.
Further muddying the waters, no Islamic group had claimed responsibility for
the attack on the 15th (ISIS released a vague statement calling
Lahouaiej-Bouhlel a “soldier” on Saturday). There was no indication at all that
Lahouaiej-Bouhlel had any connection with any extremist groups, nor that he was
in any way religious.
The BBC reported that French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that
Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was a “terrorist without doubt linked to radical Islamism in
one way or another.” However, as The Guardian pointed out, “Valls said that he
“probably” had some a link to extremism, but admitted the investigation has no
evidence at this point.”
But that lack of evidence hasn’t stopped multiple media outlets in the west
from continuing to report the incident as a terror attack.
• The Daily News told readers at 2:08 PM that “Car-ramming tactic used in
Nice terror attack simple to pull off”
• Mother Jones wrote at 2:10 PM that; “One day after a terrorist attack
killed at least 84 people in Nice, France, French authorities announced that
the man who carried out the attacks had never been suspected of terrorist
sympathies.”
• The LA Times asked “How many terror attacks can France withstand?” at
2:26 PM
• A New York Times analysis posited that the “Attack in Nice, France,
Represents Terrorism’s New Reality” at 5:19 PM and subsequently adjusted the
headline to “Terror’s New Form: A Threat That Can Be Managed, but Not Erased”
by 8:47 PM
All these reports came in after 2 PM EST, well after it had been established
that the attacker was not religious and had no known ties to religious
extremism; nor was there any evidence he was politically radicalized.
So what is a terror attack to today’s media? What can we gather from the
reaction to the Nice attack and the labeling of the event in the absence of any
verifiable evidence of extremist religious views?
By process of elimination, we can reasonably assume the media’s definition of
“terror” does not mean a mass killing of innocent people on western shores; if
it did, the media would have called the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary and
Aurora Colorado terrorism.
We can reasonably assume “terrorism” does not mean acts of violence taken out
against the west for political reasons; if it did, the media would call Andrew
Joseph Stack’s suicide attack on an IRS building in Austin, Texas, in 2010 an
act of terror.
We can reasonably assume that violence done in the name of religious
fundamentalism does not meet the standard for being defined “terror” by the
media; if it did, the attacks on Palestinians by Israeli settlers in the name
of Judaism would be called terrorism.
We can reasonably assume that violence done against people of a particular race
or ethnicity does not meet the standard for being defined “terror” by the
media; if it did, Dylann Roof and Micah Johnson would be called “terrorists”
and not deranged gunmen or shooters.
No, the media definition of “terror” is quite clear: it means when an
individual from the Global south with a Muslim name commits an act of violence
against the West. As Jim Naureckas writes in FAIR:
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that… when the suspect is an Arab—Lahouaiej
Bouhlel was a Tunisian immigrant—then allegations of terrorism require no
evidence whatsoever.
That’s exactly right. That’s the rule. Religious extremism, even religious
belief, political radicalism- they have nothing to do with it.
The action of “terror” is defined purely by the ethnicity of the actor.
Update: Even in a Times article dated July 17, the paper found it impossible to
objectively look at the facts. In an article acknowledging the very facts we’ve
just covered, the Times used language that was vague at best when describing
Lahouaiej Bouhlel’s motivations:
The authorities in France are still trying to piece together what direct ties,
if any, Mr. Lahouaiej Boulel had to the Islamic State.
Notice that even in an article that describes the total lack of evidence of
extremism or ties to terror groups, the Times is incapable of objectively
allowing that. The missing ties are only the “direct” ones, says the Times,
implying that there were indirect ones.
This piece originally appeared on Eoin Higgins’s website.
