Nothing to see here, move along

Via The Corner

A Muslim man walks into not just any building in Seattle — not even just any identifiably Jewish location in Seattle — but into the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, whose mission since 1926, according to the website it maintains, is to “ensure Jewish survival and to enhance the quality of Jewish life locally, in Israel and worldwide.”

The Muslim man has obviously not only carefully chosen the target but cased the place. There’s a security system, so he waits until someone attached to the Federation enters using her access code, then he pounces, forcing his way through the open door. He brandishes a large caliber, semi-automatic handgun. He announces that he’s a Muslim angry at Israel. Then he randomly, wantonly opens fire — shooting six women, one of whom is pregnant, one of whom is killed.

So what happens? The police don’t even want to admit that he’s Muslim (”You could infer that,” the police chief tells the reporters who press this patently relevant question). And the FBI insists it’s not terrorism.

It is not terrorism for several reasons. First of all, only Americans or Israelis can commit acts of terrorism. Acts, as above, or say blowing up a bus full of children, if committed by Muslims or persons of color, are acts of resistance against colonialism, racism, and (whatever)ism. If you don’t understand this, you are a colonialist, racist, and (whatever)ist. Furthermore, Islam is the Religion of Peace™. Ergo, the man’s act were peaceful. Perhaps he can file a federal lawsuit against those Jews for harassing him. Or maybe against their estates.

Posted on July 29th, 2006 by pwyll
Filed under: cartoon, politics, religion

4 Responses to “Nothing to see here, move along”

  1. steve, on July 29th, 2006 at 10:27 am Said:

    Remember Baruch Goldstein? Jewish terrorist who murdered 29 people at prayer a few years ago.

  2. pwyll, on July 29th, 2006 at 10:36 am Said:

    So what is your point? Pretty much everyone admitted he was a terrorist.

  3. steve, on July 29th, 2006 at 12:53 pm Said:

    Fanatics of any stripe are not a definition of you, me, anybody.

  4. pwyll, on July 29th, 2006 at 2:56 pm Said:

    That’s not quite true. The fanatic defines himself. And if there are enough fanatics of like mind, say with a religious ideology which embraces holy war as duty against those not so minded, we may have a problem.

    Reuters quotes the FBI as saying this was not an act of terrorism. What exactly disqualifies it?

    I guess Naveed Afzal Haq was just one more lone gunman. It is odd that the statistical distribution of religiously motivated lone gunmen is so skewed. I never hear of Jehovah Witnesses shooting Mormons, or Taoists beheading Buddhists. Except for Islam I cannot name a religion which espouses holy war against infidels. The difference between Baruch Goldstein and Naveed Afzal Haq is that the former sinned grossly against his faith; the latter is an exemplar of his faith who put jihad into practical action. If the state of Washington has a death penalty, he might even achieve martyrdom.

« Who knew? messing with the neighbors’ heads »