Saturday, July 29, 2006

Terrorism at Home, Again

I'm puzzled why this is being considered a crime of hate, as this story quotes, and not terrorism. Since I couldn't post the link, here's the body of the story:

Muslim charged in Seattle Jewish slaying
By Daisuke Wakabayashi Sat Jul 29, 4:16 AM ET

SEATTLE (Reuters) - A lone gunman burst into a Jewish organization in downtown Seattle on Friday, killing one woman and wounding five others in what authorities were calling a hate crime.

The gunman, Naveed Afzal Haq, 31, was arrested without a struggle at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, where the shooting took place. He was later charged by Seattle police with one count of murder and five counts of attempted murder.

Haq is a U.S. citizen, police said, and their initial conversation with him by phone while he was inside the building indicated that he was a Muslim.
Police would not disclose the content of the conversation, but Amy Wasser-Simpson, the federation's vice president, told the Seattle Times in a story on its Web site the man got past security at the building and shouted, "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel," before he began shooting.

"This was a purposeful, hateful act as far as we know, by an individual acting alone," said Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels at a news conference, adding "This is a crime of hate."

Authorities said they were "taking every precaution" in searching for explosives and additional suspects and were monitoring the city's synagogues and Jewish organizations.

"We are also protecting mosques, because there is always the concern of retaliatory crime," said Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske.

Seattle police alerted its officers earlier this week about carefully monitoring synagogues, temples and mosques, but Kerlikowske said it had received no specific threats.

The FBI was working with local authorities on the case.

Police first responded to reports of shots fired and a possible hostage situation at the center shortly after 4 p.m., when there were about 18 people in the offices.

Haq, described by a 911 caller as a man in his 30s or 40s, surrendered to police unarmed, but authorities found his weapon, a large-caliber, semi-automatic handgun, inside the building, according to Kerlikowske.

A hospital spokeswoman said three of the victims are in critical condition. The surviving women range in age from 23 to 43, including one who is pregnant. The fatal victim was only identified as a white female.

The federation, a group covering the Jewish community around the Puget Sound, had organized a large rally last weekend to demonstrate support for Israel in its fight against Hizbollah in southern Lebanon.

"I express our collective shock and dismay over the attack that has left five of our colleagues wounded and to share our extraordinary sadness for the loss of one of our colleagues," Robin Boehler, federation chair, said.

The Pacific Northwest chapter of the Anti-Defamation League said earlier this year that anti-Semitic incidents were on the rise because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and activities by white supremacists.

In 1999, white supremacist Buford Furrow went on a shooting rampage at a Jewish community center outside Los Angeles, wounding five people including children. Later that day, he shot and killed a Filipino mail carrier.

(Additional reporting by Dan Whitcomb and Mary Milliken in Los Angeles)

OK, it's me again. Did you get all of that? I'll have more to say below. And here's more on the story from the Chicago Tribune, again, without any consideration for calling this terrorism:,1,7810639.story?coll=chi-news-hed

I guess my point is this: at what point would we call a Muslim gunman walking into the Jewish Federation's offices (or a synagogue, or a Bar Mitzvah) and shooting the place up an act of terrorism? Does more than one person have to die? Does it have to become a regular occurrence? Doesn't it fit the common criteria of a terrorist act - "religious" in nature, designed to kill as many people as possible and inflict a sense of fear in the community?

The worst part of that Reuters piece (well, there's two really bad parts, keep reading) was the nauseating comment from the Police Chief. Thanks, Chief, I'm glad to hear you're going to be protecting mosques. You know how those militant Jews and Christians have a history of bloody, vengeful rampages when Muslims kill them. Think of all the retributive violence that happened after 9/11, right? And when you're done thinking of it, give me an example - one would be enough - of that happening after 9/11. I won't hold my breath.

And what in the name of the Eternal does the last paragraph have to do with anything? It is completely inconsistent with the second to last paragraph (which explicitly notes the conflict in the Middle East), and almost seems as if the authors of this piece wanted to say: yes, he was Muslim, but look! There's all sorts of people who hate the Jews! This guy back in 1999 did the same thing!

Well, Dear Reader, say a prayer for the families of those whose loved ones were shot, and a prayer for this Republic, that this type of terrorism doesn't become common. I'd love to hear the terrorist-loving apologists explain this one away, although I guess the ones at Reuters already did.


Anonymous said...

Hi Monarch.

I'm in the camp who thinks that the notion of "hate crime" is a step down a totalitarian-like road that will eventually lead to punishing people for "thought crime." As an accomplice in our enslavement to political correctness, the MSM looks for every opportunity to pull the "hate crime" label out and use it.

This incident is being considered a "hate crime" because it would be politically incorrect to call it what it is: an artifact of Islamism. Contrary to the prevailing mantras, we are not engaged in some "Global War on Terror." Our inability to use explicit terminology out of fear of offending those who want to see us dead or subject us to dhimmitude is nonsensical to the politically correct extreme.

The fact that we fear calling our current conflict by a more proper and explicit name weakens our position and our ability to fight. If we are afraid to even name our enemy how do we ever expect to defeat him?

"The Global War Against Islamism," "The Global War Against Islamic Extremism" or "The Global War Against Jihadism" are all more explicit and proper descriptions of the task at hand. Our failure to face this fact weakens our position and gives unwarranted respect to the world's most dangerous modern evil.

The Monarchist said...

Katie's Dad,

Not surprisingly, it sounds like you think about "hate crimes" the same way I do - the concept might actually be funny if it wasn't so insulting.

And you're right about Islam too: the goal of Islam is world-wide Sharia. Some of them just differ on the methods to achieve that goal. Until people realize this, we're in for a long and painful conflict.


Anonymous said...

Maybe we should just call this "The War to End the Crusades."

Call Me Mom said...

It seems to me that there is a point where sympathy for the perpetrator should stop and justice for the victim(s) should kick in. The MSM seems to have some sort of disconnect at that point. It's rather like listening to a slick salesman manipulate a potential customer. (Or perhaps more accurately listening to an abuser grooming a victim.) There seems to be no end of people who are unable to sort out what is said from the ever so "reasonable" tone in which it is said. It's as though our fear of appearing unreasonable is greater than our fear of death. I have demonstrated the "speaking reasonably while saying outrageous things" technique to my son several times so that he can avoid being ensnared by it. I think maybe the rest of America needs a few lessons too.

When did the concept of punishment for committing a crime become synonymous with creating another victim?

Mr. Light Bulb said...

Mr. Monarchist, don't you know that if the media started calling this and similar incidents "acts of terrorism", it would only lend credence to the Bush Administration's vigilance? We couldn't possibly have that, could we?
And Katie's Dad is absolutely right, "hate crime" is dangerously close to "thought crime".

The Monarchist said...

Hey all,

Figured I'd clarify a remark I made about the concept of "hate" crimes almost being funny if it wasn't so insulting. Point I've always had trouble with was determining what type of crime isn't a hate crime. If you love your neighbor, you're not going to steal from him.

If the absence of love is hate (I would strongly argue that it is, and that people who consider indifference the opposite of love just haven't thought it through from a Biblical-Christian worldview), I'd be hard pressed to come up with a list of crimes that weren't committed with an absence of love. A common retort is so-called "mercy killing" but I can knock that down pretty quickly. I could probably count them on one hand and still hold a pen to write a note that says "I told you so."