In the terrorism case of two young Egyptian nationals and University of
South Florida students arrested August 4 in South Carolina, fascinating
twists and turns abound.
There’s a secret recording of the defendants discussing
strategy shortly after their arrest. There’s a You Tube video in which
one of the defendants gave instructions in Arabic on converting a
remote-control toy into a bomb detonator, which one defendant allegedly
told police was made to help people in Arab countries “defend
themselves against the infidels invading their countries,” specifically
“against those who fought for the United States.”
And for good measure, Mohamed had stayed at a house formerly rented by
convicted terrorism supporter and former USF professor Sami al-Arian.
Yet this compelling drama has drawn scant attention from the
mainstream media. And while apologists might attempt to write off the
paucity of coverage for various reasons, a slew of other terrorism
cases since 9/11 have been met with the same media disinterest.
Following the arrests of Mohamed and Megahed on Aug. 4 with explosives
in the trunk of their car—just seven miles from a naval weapons base in
Goose Creek, SC—the Washington Post and New York Times made fleeting
references. Each paper ran a brief overview from the Associated Press,
with no independent reporting.
After the federal government indicted the two defendants on
explosives charges and Mohamed on terrorism-related charges, the Times
published not even 500 words—on page 14, no less. That was actually
more aggressive than the Post, which discussed the indictment, but only
in the context of the revelation of the You Tube video, which included
a discussion on what might happen to the Internet giant.
Neither highly esteemed outlet reported the contents in the
trunk of the vehicle the pair was driving: a box of .22-caliber
bullets, gun powder, several gallons of gasoline, 20 feet of fuse, PVC
piping and a drill.
Neither paper even mentioned perhaps the most amusing part of
the case: the conversation between the two defendants in the back of
the police car after the arrest. Not knowing an audio recorder was
capturing their words, the two had the following exchange:
“Did you tell them there is something in them?” Mohamed asked, presumably referring to the PVC pipes.
“Water,” Megahed said.
“Water! Right? The black water is in the Pepsi.”
Barely explored by any mainstream media outlet is the possible
connection between Mohamed and convicted terror supporter al-Arian. A
week after the arrest, authorities searched a Florida home where
Mohamed had been staying.
Only meaningfully investigated by bloggers, such as Michelle Malkin and
Bryan Preston, is that the searched residence was leased in the 1990’s
by the World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE). Could this be
coincidence? Of course. But it could also be more than that, and some
digging could reveal far stronger connections between the men.
Even if the connections between Mohamed and al-Arian turn out
to be attenuated, the search itself was noteworthy. Local TV stations
captured video of authorities removing from the house PVC piping,
something also found in the trunk of the suspects’ car.
Also left unreported by the Post and the Times was that
Mohamed’s computer contained a file named “Bomb Shock,” which contained
detailed information on TNT and C-4, a military-grade plastic
explosive.
The prestigious papers further ignored the apparent animus that
Mohamed harbors for the U.S. military. According to a court document,
Mohamed “considered American troops, and those military forces fighting
with the American military, to be invaders of Arab countries.”
When someone with seething anger toward the U.S. soldiers
drives a car filled with explosive materials two states away to a naval
station, how is that not major news?
Contrast that to the coverage afforded the recent mistrial in
the government’s case against Holy Land Foundation, an alleged front
for Hamas.
The mistrial was spun by most mainstream media outlets as a major
defeat to U.S. counterterrorism efforts. The New York Times dedicated
over 1,200 words in a page one story. The Washington Post was a bit
more restrained, putting its coverage on page three, but the editorial
page ran a stinging criticism by Georgetown professor David Cole of
supposed government overreach.
Defenders of high-profile treatment of the Holy Land mistrial
likely would assert the connection to 9/11, as the Islamic charity was
shut down with great fanfare in October 2001.
But what about the case of Ali al-Timimi, a Muslim cleric who
convicted in 2005 for urging his followers shortly after 9/11 to wage
jihad against the U.S. The Times ran its coverage of the April 2005
conviction on page 12. The life sentence Timimi received that July was
bumped back to page 21.
At least the Post placed the story about Timimi’s conviction on
the front page. This might have owed to the local angle, though, as
Timimi taught at an adult Islamic education center in Northern
Virginia.
Yet three months later, the Post editorialized against Timimi’s
life sentence, under the headline, “Sentenced for Speaking.” Stressing
that none of his followers had actually waged successful jihad, the Post lamented, “[he] has been sentenced to life in prison for words that had little effect.”
So success is the barometer for importance? Does this
mean continued media avoidance of thwarted terrorism on our soil until
the government fails to stop an attack?
Source: Townhall.com
Media Silence: Islamic Terrorism Case Ignored
By Joel Mowbray
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Recent Comments