First, the straight take:
A day of hit-and-run horror that started with the death of a Fremont pedestrian and erupted into half an hour of chaos on the streets of San Francisco ended in the arrest of a 29-year-old driver described by some relatives as mentally disturbed but by police as apparently rational and unrepentant.At least 14 people were hospitalized Tuesday in San Francisco after the driver of a black 2004 Honda Pilot cut a path of destruction from the Tenderloin to Laurel Heights, striking pedestrians and a bicyclist in 13 locations starting at about 12:45 p.m.
Most of the injured were run down along a corridor of roughly 15 blocks starting on the west end of Pacific Heights. Witnesses said the driver sped up one street and down another, sometimes the wrong way, picking off people in crosswalks and on sidewalks. At least one victim was in critical condition Tuesday night; several others were treated and released.
“It was like ‘Death Race 2000,’ ” firefighter Danny Bright said of the cult movie at California and Fillmore streets, where four victims were hit. “Guys were walking down the sidewalk, and the guy just came up and ran them over. The guy went crazy.”
Crazy American? Or crazy Jihadist? Is the press hiding the fact the man could be and probably is a Muslim? Why no mention of a possible terror attack? Are we jumping to conclusions on the right? Is the left’s non-response to this story indicative of the fact they don’t care about terrorism?
There are times like this when I want to haul off and smack my friends both on the right and left upside the head in order to knock some sense into them.
Let’s go through this very carefully and perhaps, when all is said and done, we can have something of a meeting of the minds on this issue rather than using our responses to incidents like this to prove how silly or how evil the other side is.
When a Muslim-American drives a car into a group of college kids admitting afterwards that he was trying to kill them because they are Americans and he is upset at the way he perceives Muslims are being treated by our country – this is, for lack of a better term, an act of terrorism. The students affected are certainly terrorized. And I daresay in this post-9/11 world, the “message” being sent by the driver was amplified considerably. It was by any definition a political act of mayhem. To date, no terrorism-related charges have been filed despite the political implications of his crimes.
When a Muslim-American walks into a Jewish community center and opens fire deliberately trying to kill Jews because he is upset that the state of Israel and Muslims are at war in the Middle East, this is an act of terrorism. The city of Seattle can spin the incident all they want, trying to make the poor benighted jihadist into a victim – sorry, it won’t wash. This was a crime that was committed to send a message to the Jewish community that he was “tired of getting pushed around and our people getting pushed around by the situation in the Middle East…” If that isn’t terrorism, then there is no meaning to the word.
It doesn’t really matter if the FBI refuses to label these incidents as terrorism. They can pretend for political, bureaucratic, or legal purposes that such is not the case. Terrorism is hard to prove legally and it may very well be that the FBI doesn’t feel it would be a wise expenditure of time and resources for the federal government to go after a lone terrorist when local and state laws can be used to incarcerate the perpetrator. But it doesn’t alter the facts on the ground at the crime scenes. And if we are going to get caught up in some silly game of semantics about these incidents – surprisingly not as isolated as you might think – then we’ll never get anywhere in achieving the goal that all of us, right and left, desire; the goal of making us all safer here at home.
It is also helpful to understand the bind that local prosecutors are in. There is nothing simple about calling a crime “terrorism.” Doing so sets in motion legal machinery that may or may not be justified and could, in some cases, make prosecution more difficult.
The press has its own agenda in not identifying these violent acts as terrorism. They have to deal with the hypersensitivity of the Muslim community not to mention a feeling of responsibility to their readers – misplaced perhaps – that passions aroused over the terrorism issue could lead to violence against innocents. I find the argument specious but understand it nevertheless.
All of this is not necessarily a denial of reality but rather the consequences of changing times. You and I may recognize these and other acts as terrorism. And perhaps, that is enough. What Dr. Daniel Pipes calls “sudden jihad syndrome” is impossible to anticipate and prevent even with the most sophisticated surveillance and intelligence assets we can deploy. This is because it is impossible to penetrate the workings of the human mind nor peer into the human soul. It is there that we will find the plot and the hatred, and the desire to inflict terror in sympathy with their Muslim brethren elsewhere.
If the official world refuses to acknowledge what we know to be true because of bureaucratic myopia or fear of the consequences to the community it matters little in that the truth is self evident and can plainly be seen by those willing to look. If one wishes to hide behind legalities or semantics by denying that these are indeed acts of terrorism perpetrated against US citizens, they are only hiding the truth from themselves to their own detriment.
The car rampage yesterday in San Francisco may or may not be a case of Sudden Jihad Syndrome. We just don’t know. While there has been much excellent reporting and some intelligent speculation (did the killer know where the Jewish center was?) there have also been some shocking leaps of illogic and even some examples of good old fashioned American bigotry at work in a few of the posts I’ve seen this morning. All Muslims are not terrorists. And even all Muslims who kill are not terrorists. The only hint of a motive we have from the perpetrator is that the reason he did what he did was because he “felt like it.” This is hardly grounds for jumping to the conclusion that his acts were the result of Sudden Jihad Syndrome.
This may change in the days to come as more of this man’s life and motives are revealed. But for now, it is best that we do something that the blogosphere does extremely poorly; wait. In this, I would compliment the lefty bloggers who have played the story pretty straight (with an anti-Semitic exception from a usual suspect) and, like the rest of us, await the results of the investigation. But I would also say to my lefty comrades that speculation about whether this rampage was motivated by an urge to lash out at Americans for perceived slights – in other words, a political act – is perfectly legitimate and in fact, is something the blogosphere does pretty well when it is done intelligently and carefully.
There is much to get used to in a 9/11 + 5 world. And perhaps the biggest adjustment will be in accepting the fact that identifying those who would do us harm for political reasons is not a sign of bigotry or hate but rather a simple acceptance of self-evident truth. We may be taken to task for overreach and over-simplification. But the ultimate truth that we are targets of hatred by one particular group – fanatical jihadists whether acting alone or as part of a terrorist cell – cannot be denied. And that doing so places us in more danger than we should be.
11:25 am
a 9/11 + 5 world
Catchy! Make sure to trademark it before you start screening it on tote bags.
12:11 pm
Updating SF Hit and Run Rampage
Meanwhile, unnamed sources are saying that Popal was unrepentant and wanted to hit those folks. That doesn’t exactly sound promising for those who want to clear this guy of driving while jihadi, although this is based on leaks from unnamed sources in…
12:19 pm
Cars run into crowds fairly often. A quick Google search offers:
July 3, 2006 “10 Injured When Car Hits Crowd” Madison IN
August 12, 2006 “Man Drives Car Into Crowd at Mosque” ChicoER.com
August 22, 2004 “Man Whose Car Hit Crowd Is In Custody” New York Times
Old Man Plows Through Crowd With His Car, video, nothingtoxic.com
Waiting to get facts in the SF case is the only part of the post that is useful. In fact, the post itself could have waited on more facts.
12:22 pm
I take your larger point in this piece, but…
I was in the pit at Carolina an hour after the SUV drove through. Not a single damn person was “terrorized.”
Perhaps we’re not so cowardly so as to be frightened by a lone nut job, and we had faith in the work of the Carolina and Chapel Hill police.
1:14 pm
Ed:
You’re something of a ninny, aren’t you?
This was not a car “driving into a crowd.” This was a guy driving around town looking for people to hit.
Big difference, no?
And I thought it would be helpful to make the point that terrorism is terrorism regardless what the authorities choose to call it. Politically motivated violence such as we found at NC and Seattle may be an inconvenient fact for some. But tying oneself into knots in order to avoid the “T” word is stupid and ultimately, self defeating.
Tar Heel:
I was referring to the people in the pit at the time of the attack. I’m sure you’d agree there were some people there at the time who may have been frightened.
As for the police, I’m sure they’re more than competent. But there is something almost surreal about denying the political motivations of the perpetrator or, if not denying them, dismissing them out of hand as if they didn’t matter.
1:35 pm
Out curiousity do you see every violent act commited by say a christian as an example of a Global Crusade? I only ask becasue your willingness to attribute the actions of every isolated nut to some sort of unifed Jihad seems kinda paranoid. (Note: I’m not saying that some actions, especially those by al Queda and others aren’t intended to be part of a jihad against the West, but rather that attributing all violent acts by Muslims to this is kinda sloppy and ignores Occam’s razor: what if they’re just nuts. I mean noone would say that the Mother in Texas who cut off her babies arms because God told her too, exemplifies Christianity’s War on Children so why should some Jackasses rampage in a vehicle represent an act of Jihad?)
1:36 pm
Forgive my punctuation of Jackasses, it should have been Jackass’s.
1:36 pm
Rick: Indeed, many were frightened at the time. And you could perhaps call it “attempted” or “failed terrorism.” But we did not stay scared and we have not changed our lives one bit as a result. Successful terrorism results in a change in mindset, attitudes, and actions.
It bothers me that some commentators have repeated described my fellow students, staff, and faculty as being terrorized. We were not, and are not. One asshole isn’t going to do that to us.
1:42 pm
1. Christians are not seeking a global crusade. That’s a real tall straw man ya set up there, fella.
2. Where do I attribute the actions of the lone jihadist to a worldwide conspiracy? Put down the kool aid and walk away slowly.
3. Acts of terrorism are just that. And if you’re struggling to connect “jihad” to conspiracy you needn’t bother. A jihadist need not join a group or a cell to wage war on the west. And both the NC and Seattle incidents involved, from what we can tell at this point, people who are not suffering from any form of mental illness so drop the lone wacko motif. You also have conflicting stories on this fellows mental state from family members.
Terrorism doesn’t have to be inspired by radical Muslim beliefs (remember McVeigh!). But when it is, it is idiocy to deny it.
2:47 pm
1) Nor I would wager are the vast majority of Muslims pushing for Global Jihad.
2) I apologize for miscontruing your post in this manner, however I stand by my statement, ie.e that it is a fallacy to posit that that the actions by a lone Muslim who may or may not being seeking a jihad reflect anything other than that individuals misguided beliefs.
3) I would question how this is anymore an act of Terrorism than a man going on a shooting spree in a crowded amll is an act of terrorism, quite simply If these, the actions of a single indivdiual as of yet unconnected to any larger terrorist group/network, than is any act of violence commited outside the home to be construed as a terrorist action? Furthermore if we are to limit ourselves to those who claim a vague political reasoning or ideology behind there action must there actions have a rational goal?
Finally now that I re-read your piece I am struck by the fact that you share many of my reservations (sorry, I orignally only skimmed your post, thus comitting a sin in rational debate which I now regret) and that perhaps some of your earlier (first few paragraphs) statements (such as the accusation of Anti-semitism) are softened by your later hedging.
2:51 pm
To add to what I posted above:
Again I’m sorry with some of what I said, I lumped you into a group with people like Malkin without really reading what you had written and in doing so betrayed that exact smae type of intellectual prejudice I attemped to rail against.
2:58 pm
I just pooped in someone’s backyard.
...scatological terrorism. Cower in fear, infidels.
Honestly, is this the dumbest Pajamaline blog, or do I have to keep searching?
2:59 pm
Violence committed in the name of a political or religious agenda is terrorism no matter who does it.
And nowhere in the piece do I say that all Muslims or even a majority are terrorists. In fact, I specifically take some on the right to task for making such a ridiculous and bigoted assumption.
Those “misguided beliefs” are shared by jihadists all over the world. They are not simply his own. If he’s a lone nut, does that mitigate the fact that his inspiration came from people who would just as soon behead you as give you the time of day?
I just want the language we use to describe the threats we face accurately and forthrightly. Are we threatened by Christian crusaders? Or Islamic extremists?
The cold eyed killers who plot the murder of abortionists are just as much a terrorist as Popal. And we have no problem referring to them as domestic terrorists – and if we do that’s a problem also. But it is unlikely that the abortion terrorists will branch off and start killing people in the street (far away from any clinic). Thus, the threat from Islamist terrorism is pervasive while the threat from abortion terrorists is highly localized.
Not a difference in severity of the crime but a difference in the degree of the threat. And if we’re going to call domestic terrorists by their proper name – someone wrote yesterday what would Mayor Newsome be saying if it had been 15 gay people run down – then all terrorism should be identified and accepted as a threat.
3:02 pm
I like how you’re calling it 9/11+5 to remind all them folks a recent poll shows can’t remember the year it happened.
But, a couple problems. First, if you’re going to say we should wait on the facts, an admirable goal, shouldn’t you say that before already labelling the case in question an act of terrorism? Otherwise, you’re just covering your ass to sound more reasonable while still doing exactly what you criticize. Also, you forgot to mention the Seattle attacker was, at the least, somewhere between christian and muslim, having professed belief in both at points in his life. Of course, mentioning that would complicate calling every act of violence by a muslim a terrorist act, which you are, as you take pains to be politically correct and say, in no way shape or form supporting doing, aside from in the first half of this post.
And how, exactly, is tbogg anti-semitic? Or how is the post you link to anti-semitic? Because it features a picture of Hasidim? Because it quotes a joke from Annie Hall about anti-semitism? Because it implies that jewish delis tend to be of a high quality? Inquiring minds want to know.
4:22 pm
This was not a car “driving into a crowd.†This was a guy driving around town looking for people to hit.
People who have nothing at all in common apart from being (mostly) pedestrians. Black, white, Asian; male, female; young, old; there just isn’t any kind of common characteristic that he seemed to be targeting.
Except, as I said, that all but one were pedestrians. If this was ‘terrorism’, it was the standard garden-variety terrorism practiced by drivers against pedestrians. And sadly, this nation has yet to declare war on that kind of terror.
9:14 pm
Is it not beyond the realm of possibility for the blogger to admit that sometimes people do impulsive, irrational acts because they are just pure CRAZY? I bet my two cents that this guy has a history of mental illness or else simply went off his rocker; if a woman kills her children because she thinks she needs to save them from the devil, does that make her a religious-fanatic-terrorist? Gracious! It seems sometimes like you wingnuts don’t even know how to SPELL P-E-R-S-P-E-C-T-I-V-E.
12:09 am
TBogg isn’t antisemitic. Just anti-impulse control.
2:40 am
Are you jumping to conlusions? Yes, you ignorant shit. I live a few blocks from the JCC. This guy was not targeting Jews. He was crazy. He was running over people all over town. The fact you jumped to these conclusions reveals more about you than the Left or the Media. It reveals your wet dream for a holy war. You right-wing retard.
4:15 am
I find it fascinating that the last two commenters didn’t bother to read the post:
The car rampage yesterday in San Francisco may or may not be a case of Sudden Jihad Syndrome. We just don’t know. While there has been much excellent reporting and some intelligent speculation (did the killer know where the Jewish center was?) there have also been some shocking leaps of illogic and even some examples of good old fashioned American bigotry at work in a few of the posts I’ve seen this morning.
Yep…jumping to conclusions allright.
Why don’t both of you guys close your mouths when you breathe and learn how to read. Then you can come back here and play with the grown ups.
7:41 pm
I heard he had gone to Afganistan to get married and his bride had to stay due to paperwork to get her over and he was pissed off. THAT IS PROBABLY WHY HE WENT OUT LOOKIN FOR AMERICANS TO RUN OVER.
I am sure he will get a dem attorney funded by cair and they will use the insanity bit when the truth is he was a MUSLIM, not a typical sane Muslim, but a Muslim, just the same who went out and ran over people ON PURPOSE.
6:51 am
very best idea make rules time!