Friday, July 28, 2006

Lopez on terror

So a very bad thing happens.

A Muslim walks into a Jewish center in Seattle and kills someone and wounds five others. Do I think this is motivated by hate? Of course, I don't think terrorism. I think nutjob.

If someone loses it and goes on a rampage, that's nutty. If someone is motivated by an ideology and kills innocents in order to send some sort of message, that's terrorism. So sayeth Nitpicker. So sayeth Merriam-Webster. So sayeth the FBI.

So this tragic event occurs and the first thing that Kathy Lopez over at National Review's "Corner" can think is that the damned biased media FBI won't say the "t word."

Yes, my bringing this up is, perhaps, as petty as Lopez's comment--this does seem like a stupid and ridiculous thing to be concerned with at this point--but why is it that, when some whackjob walks in and begins shooting at people erraticly, Lopez wants to call him a "terrorist," but when someone methodically plants four bombs over a two year period--killing two people and wounding more than 110 others--she thinks the media is being excessive when they call him an "extremist"?

Is it only terror when she disagrees with a person's motives or does she just think anything bad thing a Muslim does should be called terrorism?


Blogger Jim said...

This is so sad, so pointless, and so wrong.

May those injured all experience a full recovery. May the family and friends of the woman killed, in due time, find some measure of peace.

As to Ms Lopez, here's a multiple-choice quiz:

In February of 1994, Israeli Jewish settler Baruch Goldstein opened fire on Muslims at prayer in the Ibrahimi Mosque/Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, killing 29 and wounded 125.
(text from Wikipedia)

Was Goldstein
A) A Terrorist?
B) An Extremist?
C) A Nutjob?
D) All the Above?

(The Israeli government chose "A". I am partial to "D", myself.)

Of course, both the Israeli government and Lopez chose the "terrorist" label for political reasons.

I'm afraid, Terry, that in modern discourse, you, Merriam-Webster, and the FBI may be wrong. Terrorism may now simply mean "that which I am pointing to as I say the word terrorism"

10:55 PM  
Blogger Bryan said...

He was a diagnosed bi-polar Pakistani-American who recently re-discovered his Islamic religion.

He also had an extensive list of misdemeanor offenses including flashing.

Apparently the sex of the victims was as significant as their religion.

9:59 AM  
Blogger Jim said...

The latest I've seen (links from Hominid Views)
paint a picture of someone desperately confused. The first article asserts that Haq had been baptized into a non-denominational christian group "last year", but stopped attending that groups meetings after a "few months." It also reports that he visited an Islamic Center (which his father had helped to found) just two weeks ago.

What ever was driving this man, it appears to be far from terrorism, as Terry pointed out.

Sadly, that didn't stop some (e.g., Lopez) from branding it as terrorism. I just scanned "The Corner" to see if Ms Lopez has anything more to say on the topic. There was nothing of substance.

6:38 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home