Interesting development in the Oklahoma suicide-bombing carried out by Joel Henry Hinrichs III on Oct. 1st outside a University of Oklahoma football game. CNS is reporting that the FBI is now denying that they have found any links between Hinrichs and Islamic terrorists.
Director Douglas Hagmann, who has been a source of such information as the bomb being made out of TATP and who also claims to have information that jihadi material was found in Hinrichs' apartment:
The article doesn't shut the door on Hinrichs being part of a larger Islamic terror cell, but it certainly
that the FBI are not leaning in this direction.
What we know about Joel Henry Hinrichs is dwarfed by what we don't know. For instance, Hinrichs attempting to purchase ammonium nitrates is part of the public record. What we don't know, though, is why Hinrichs was after ammonium nitrates if he was a lone suicidal nut. Maybe he just wanted to go out with a bigger-boom? It's possible.
So what is the truth about Hinrichs? Was he part of an Islamic terror cell in Norman, Oklahoma? Still too early to tell based on public information.
But it's also way too early to dismiss the notion given the context of the present war against radical Islam. When someone commits what is normally considered an act of war (suicide-bomb), during a time of war, it's not being hasty to come to the initial conclusion that the act in question was part of the larger war.
So, we'll continue to cover this story as a case of terrorism--just as the FBI continues to investigate it as an act of terrorism--until all avenues of investigation have been exhausted.
This and all other posts related to Joel Henry Hinrichs and the Oklahoma bombing can be found on this archive.
1
Rusty,
Even I'm confused now as to where some of the claims came from. The TATP claim? Was that NIN or FBI or a combination? The only thing I cleary remember is Hinrichs' dad saying hydrogen peroxide.
Obviously, I don't know how to make bombs (but, I'm finding plenty of web sites that offer suggestions and recipes), so I'm wondering what the deal is.
Posted by: ken at October 11, 2005 04:36 PM (xD5ND)
2
Given the FBI's past proclivity to cover up, I don't really trust anything they say. Mark my words, when there is war on the streets of America, the FBI will be on the 'slamotards' side.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 11, 2005 05:53 PM (0yYS2)
3
I continue to not understand this distrust of the FBI. How can anyone say that the FBI will be on the Islamic side if there is war on the streets?
Please! How about some objectivity?
Posted by: StormWarning at October 11, 2005 09:23 PM (85Vr/)
4
NIN sucks. They are worse than Debka.
Posted by: Ariya at October 11, 2005 09:52 PM (noCGr)
5
All governmental agencies will act to suppress any attempts by Americans to expel the invading islamic vermin from our soil. Ever wonder why we hear so much about the government bowing to islamic groups, rather than arresting and deporting terrorists and their supporters? Ever wonder why when a muslim is attacked, the person who did it gets the full PC hate-criminal treatment? The feds are NOT on our side, they are trying to hedge their bets, because they like all the Saudi oil money that buys them nice houses and cars and such. Read Sleeping with the Devil and See No Evil by Robert Baer; he is an ex-CIA man and lays out in intimate detail exactly how our government is bought and paid for by the Saudis. Make no mistake, they are not on our side; they are whores and mercenaries and do not give one good flying damn about us.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 11, 2005 10:22 PM (0yYS2)
6
The government is against us? Please! That kind of paranoia is counterproductive in my opinion.
Baer is credible...NEIN (NIN) is not. Neither is most of the stuff on WND.
I've maintained from the beginning that Hinrichs was not involved with Islamic terrorism. But who listens to me? No one...LOL. Not really true. I simply do not agree with the paranoia and conspiracy theories.
And no. I don't wonder about the gov't bowing to Islamic groups (are they really?). I'd rather be concerned with preventing another Sept. 11th.
Paranoia will only drive you crazy.
Posted by: StormWarning at October 11, 2005 10:52 PM (85Vr/)
7
Even if he wasn't involved with a cell, the direct and obvious evidence can't be ignored. So maybe he did act alone. I still believe that at the very least he wanted to terrorize others with his suicide, and at the very worst he wanted to take others out with him in his anger and he just screwed up. It's not a lot different from any person who wants to take their own life but shoots their whole family just before they turn the gun on themselves.
If he was not influenced by others in a terror cell, I'm only slightly relieved. It sends a message to others who are depressed and "angry" to do the same.
Posted by: Oyster at October 12, 2005 06:10 AM (YudAC)
8
This may end up being a classic example of PC. Perhaps Mr. Hinrich has not been linked to any large terrorist groups and did act alone. That does not mean that Islam did not influence him or that he did not intend to harm others in the name of Jihad.
The MSM along with academia would not want it known if he had converted or was involved with Islam in any way because it might conflict with the PC mentality that allows nothing negative to be said concerning Islam.
What a strange country we have become.
Posted by: Ron at October 12, 2005 07:05 AM (goMsF)
9
Not all terrorism or terrorist acts are Islamic related. I still question if Hinrichs was attempting a terrorist act, but this thread starts with a comment that the FBI had found "No Known Link Between Hinrichs & Terrorists."
All of the hullabaloo started with the implication that Hinrichs was an Islamic-styled suicide bomber. Then Malkin and others started calling for the FBI to "come clean" and tell us the truth.
Personally, I don't believe that Hinrichs, Georgia Tech or UCLA were related to Islam at all. And my opinions on terrorism/counterterrorism are public record. I've also made it clear that if the facts as they are revealed prove that my opinion is wrong, I'll admit it openly. Its not yet time for me to do that.
But to suggest that the FBI is on the side of the Islamic terrorists is simply "paranoid babble," based on what I do not know.
Posted by: StormWarning at October 12, 2005 07:50 AM (85Vr/)
10
C'mon, the blogosphere is never wrong. He's clearly involved and Cindy Sheehan put him up to it (because she's a lefty). I'm sure both are (were) receiving instructions from the president of Iran, whom we all know was a hostage-taker in 1979.
Posted by: Venom at October 12, 2005 09:17 AM (dbxVM)
11
Does anyone remember that 13 year old nutjob who flew the Cessna into the side of a building in Miami not long after 9/11? Evidently he had all that jihadi crap in his house and left a suicide note about hating America and loving Bin Laden.
Sounds to me like this clown might just be another version of that..
Posted by: disgruntledinca at October 12, 2005 09:36 AM (IpG/2)
12
You're probably more right than wrong disgruntled, but I'd say he had some "friends" to influence him, as radicalism generally dies in a vacuum. Remember, we are the company we keep.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 12, 2005 12:56 PM (0yYS2)
13
In all likelyhood, the kid was disturbed and nuts! In the good old days suicide was a private affair - a note, a noose, a gas stove whatever. Now its a multi-media event in search of that post-mortum 15 minutes of fame. Were there no bridges in Norman to jump off at 3 in the morning?
Posted by: hondo at October 12, 2005 04:49 PM (/jH/1)
14
The real issue Hondo is factual, not conjecture.
Too many blogs wallow in the mud of speculation and conjecture. This one doesn't appear to do so...and at least is the only one to date to "report" the FBI statement of no connection. I know that mine does not deal in conjecture at all, and I know that personally, whenever I take a position that is proven to be wrong, I will (and have) admitted my mistaken beliefs. That doesn't make me a "saint" it just makes me honest.
Posted by: StormWarning at October 12, 2005 05:02 PM (85Vr/)
15
StormWarning: I'm a little confused at a couple of your statements. The first one being,
"...and the real issue was that the kid did a fly over of MacDill AFB (SOCOM) before he crashed the plane into the Bank of America." Why is that the "real" issue? I thought the "real" issue was why he did any of it. And that being his al Qaeda sympathies, regardless of what brought on the psychopathy (ie. medication).
And then this:
"I'm not even going to address the question of Bishop having al Qaeda literature. If y'all want to believe that he had converted to Islam, then so be it." One doesn't have to convert to be sympathetic. I would think that would be only a minor point compared to the action taken. After disgruntledinca brought it up, I looked through the comments and didn't see where anyone claimed that Bishop converted.
Frankly, I'd forgotten about the incident until DI brought it up and I thought it may very well be a good comparison to the Hinrichs episode as far as motive goes.
Posted by: Oyster at October 13, 2005 07:23 AM (YudAC)
16
You've got to start with the belef that the plane crash into the Bank of America building was inspired by Islam or was an act of Islamic terorrism.
If you do not accept that premise, the issue was his flyover at MacDill AFB, a real security lapse. I also do not think that you can reject or discount the effects of the Accutane on the entire event. Whether or not Bishop was disgruntled or suicidal or an Islamic sympathizer, and the same holds for Hinrichs, I simply do not see it as an act of Islamic terrorism.
Posted by: StormWarning at October 13, 2005 08:26 AM (85Vr/)
17
I still think that while the MacDill flyover was certainly an issue to be addressed and not ignored, the influence of Islamic fascism in those easily influenced is the "real" issue. I think that without that underlying premise to his act, the flyover wouldn't have occurred.
According to Encarta, only 15% to 25% of those who commit suicide leave a suicide note. So it's no surprise that there's been no mention that Hinrichs left one. But Bishop did and he plainly stated his sympathy with al Qaeda.
True, there's technically a difference between such acts committed by those who proclaim themselves as Muslim and those who merely sympathize. But the ideological influence underlies both. With that said, you are correct to label it as a non-act of Islamic terrorism, per se. But it's hard to deny that it was inspired by the ideology and previous acts committed in the same manner, only on a much grander scale (on 9/11), and the drug reaction may have simply amplified these feelings and forced him into action.
Of course, it goes without saying that this is my opinion.
Posted by: Oyster at October 13, 2005 09:11 AM (fl6E1)
18
If you haven't read this before, I think you may find this illuminating.
I did think that you might be interested in reading this article, "Terrorists are Made, Not Born..." that appeared in the Journal of Homeland Security a while back.
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/newjournal/Articles/displayArticle2.asp?article=109
Posted by: StormWarning at October 13, 2005 10:16 PM (85Vr/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
