The Myth Of The Lone Gunman (1 Viewer)

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The Myth Of The Lone Gunman



Cinnamon Stillwell

Wednesday, August 9, 2006

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the claim has often been made that no further acts of terrorism have occurred on U.S. soil. But anyone following the news closely knows better.

While there has not yet been another large-scale attack, a number of terrorist plots have been broken up and a variety of suspicious crimes and incidents have occurred across the nation. But each time, authorities seem to have made every effort to downplay the terrorism angle.

News of the shooting rampage at Seattle's Jewish Federation building last month involved the usual avoidance of the term "terrorism." Instead, the attack was labeled a hate crime and the perpetrator, Naveed Afzal Haq, just another in a long line of lone gunmen with a history of mental instability. As Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels put it, "This was a purposeful, hateful act, as far as we know by an individual acting on his own."

Haq made his motivations quite clear when he told a 911 operator during the attack that he was a "Muslim American" who was "angry with Israel" and the United States for the war in Iraq. "I want these Jews to get out … I'm tired of getting pushed around, and our people getting pushed around by the situation in the Middle East," he added.

Indeed, it was Haq's "anger" that led him to stake out the building of a prominent Jewish organization, hide behind a vestibule, kidnap a 14-year-old girl at gunpoint as she entered the building and then proceed to shoot six women, including one who was 17 weeks pregnant, almost all in the stomach. One of the victims died on the scene and several remain in the hospital.

• March 2006: Mohammad Taheri-azar plowed into a group of students at the University of North Carolina with his SUV. Afterward, he surrendered to authorities with a 911 call, telling them that he was trying to "punish the government of the United States for [its] actions around the world." Meanwhile, in a letter to the police, Taheri-azar spoke of exercising "the right of violent retaliation that Allah" had given him. Nonetheless, local officials and university officials immediately ruled out terrorism, leading several student groups to hold an "anti-terrorism" rally in protest.

• September 2005: University of Oklahoma engineering student Joel Henry Hinrichs III blew himself up outside a packed stadium in what was dubbed a suicide. But it was more likely a botched suicide bombing. Beyond incriminating evidence found in his apartment, Hinrichs had connections to a local mosque and appears to have been a convert to Islam. Nonetheless, university officials and authorities studiously avoided the term "terrorism" and instead focused on Hinrichs' alleged history of personal problems.

• January 2005: The Coptic Christian Armanious family, originally from Egypt, was found dead in their home in New York City, all with their throats slit. Hossam, the father, had been debating religion with Muslims on a Middle Eastern chat room and had received at least one death threat. The entire family had been involved in converting Muslims to Christianity, and the daughter, Sylvia, was particularly outspoken. When her body was found, it was discovered that she had been stabbed in the chest and the wrist, precisely where she wore a tattoo of a Coptic cross. Authorities chalked up the case not to religious hatred or terrorism but to a robbery gone bad. But questions remain about the true impetus for the murders.

• August 2003: Saudi Mohammed Ali Alayed slit the throat of former friend and fellow Houston Community College student Ariel Sellouk, almost decapitating him in the process. The fact that Sellouk was Jewish and that Alayed had broken with him right after becoming a more devout Muslim played no part in the trial. Not only was the term "terrorism" avoided, even "hate" and "anti-Semitism" were left out of the equation. To this day, Alayed's motive remains a mystery as far as the official version is concerned.

• October 2002: The "Beltway Snipers" John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo went on a killing spree across Maryland and Virginia, terrorizing the nation. Despite the fact that Muhammed was a convert to Islam and member of the Nation of Islam, authorities and media coverage focused solely on his troubled background and his ties to the military. Malvo was portrayed simply as a young victim of Muhammed's sinister tutelage. Rarely was jihad or terrorism mentioned. Later, Malvo's defense attorneys, attempting to illustrate their client's mental instability, presented the judge in his trial with Malvo's jailhouse drawings. Along with anti-American sentiments and drawings of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and the burning towers of the World Trade Center, Malvo repeatedly emphasized jihad against America.

• July 2002: Egyptian immigrant Hesham Mohamed Hadayet walked into Los Angeles International Airport on the Fourth of July (also his birthday) and opened fire at an El Al (the Israeli government-owned airline) counter, killing an employee and a customer. Hadayet also stabbed an El Al security guard before he himself was shot. Hadayet had been known to express hatred for Jews, Israel and the United States, and according to his political asylum application, which was denied, he had been involved with an Egyptian Islamist group. The initial conclusion was that there was "nothing to indicate terrorism" and that it was simply an "isolated incident," although officials finally dubbed the case an act of terrorism almost a year later.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/08/09/cstillwell.DTL

....................................................................

 

[KidRocks]

....................................................................

Oh, so now you extremists want attacks and crimes defined?

I mean you all screamed bloody-murder when certain individuals were attacked and murdered just because of the color of their skin and the press labeled them as "hate-crimes".

"A crime is a crime" you r-wingers all cried in unison, "why do we have to label them as different" you pleaded?

When a gay person was attacked and or murdered just because they were 'gay' and was classified as a hate-crime you conservatives were fit to be tied.

So now you want certain crimes classified as "terrorism"? And now you want "terrorism" splashed all over the media but only if it's commited in the USA, nevermind Iraq, you don't want to hear or read about that "terrorism" over there, do you?

What hypocricy, what hypocrites. What bigots!

 

[niftydrifty]

KidRocks, althoughy I'm not a righty, I believe the article that TOT posted has a valid point. Mentioning how TOT might feel about terror in Iraq kinda doesn't make sense to me.

I agree, however, about how the article excludes other acts of terror in this country. The article has a point: I mean terror is terror and hate is hate. But why does terror always only have to come from Ay-rabs? The David Horowitzes and the Cinnamon Stillwells and the TOTs of the world want us to believe it.

As long as we're talking about terror in the US, what about all the white serial killers' victims? Aren't these acts of terror? Is there anything we can do about that? How about if we stop celebrating them? We should fear them, too. If fear is what we're attempting to spread here. Let's rise an amber alert level when they strike, eh?

What about gang violence directed against innocent people? Don't we all agree it is a problem? Somebody tell the state department.

Why is the rising murder rate never called a threat on the same level as terrorism? Why is there not an orange or a red alert to go along with stories such as this one? Or this one?

And these aren't after 9/11, but they're still rather noteworthy.

What if we compared the numbers of victims in all these acts of terror, versus the numbers of victims that have died from Muslim terrorists? What would we learn?

There were 16,900 murders in the USA in 2005. This doesn't bother us so much. Because there's not a collective "enemy." (But keep in mind al Qaeda has a few thousand members worldwide). There isn't a network to discover. Just TV violence and gun sales. You sure as heck ain't going to tamper with TV violence or gun sales. We like that $tuff.

TOT's story only mentions two incidents in 2005. This website mentions no incidents in the US in 2005.

Some of us are clearly afraid of the wrong things. TOT is no doubt going to respond about Islamic Terror being a mass movement with hateful people doing hateful things, that we should worry about. I don't doubt that. But when you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

What do I mean by that? Take for example, our miltary base in Saudi Arabia. We were warned not to build it. We didn't listen. But we sure as **** got fired up about al Qaeda's response to it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

KidRocks, althoughy I'm not a righty, I believe the article that TOT posted has a valid point. Mentioning how TOT might feel about terror in Iraq kinda doesn't make sense to me.

I agree, however, about how the article excludes other acts of terror in this country. The article has a point: I mean terror is terror and hate is hate. But why does terror always only have to come from Ay-rabs? The David Horowitzes and the Cinnamon Stillwells and the TOTs of the world want us to believe it.

As long as we're talking about terror in the US, what about all the white serial killers' victims? Aren't these acts of terror? Is there anything we can do about that? How about if we stop celebrating them? We should fear them, too. If fear is what we're attempting to spread here. Let's rise an amber alert level when they strike, eh?

What about gang violence directed against innocent people? Don't we all agree it is a problem? Somebody tell the state department.

Why is the rising murder rate never called a threat on the same level as terrorism? Why is there not an orange or a red alert to go along with stories such as this one? Or this one?

And these aren't after 9/11, but they're still rather noteworthy.

What if we compared the numbers of victims in all these acts of terror, versus the numbers of victims that have died from Muslim terrorists? What would we learn?

There were 16,900 murders in the USA in 2005. This doesn't bother us so much. Because there's not a collective "enemy." (But keep in mind al Qaeda has a few thousand members worldwide). There isn't a network to discover. Just TV violence and gun sales. You sure as heck ain't going to tamper with TV violence or gun sales. We like that $tuff.

TOT's story only mentions two incidents in 2005. This website mentions no incidents in the US in 2005.

Some of us are clearly afraid of the wrong things. TOT is no doubt going to respond about Islamic Terror being a mass movement with hateful people doing hateful things, that we should worry about. I don't doubt that. But when you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

What do I mean by that? Take for example, our miltary base in Saudi Arabia. We were warned not to build it. We didn't listen. But we sure as **** got fired up about al Qaeda's response to it.

Aside from the abortion clinic violence none of what you just stated classifies as terrorism.

Furthermore; we were invited to place a military base there by the house of saud to defend them against saddam are you honestly suggesting that we should have abandoned an ally due to the threat of a terrorist org.? How very French of you.

 

[niftydrifty]

Aside from the abortion clinic violence none of what you just stated classifies as terrorism.

I beg to differ. Murder in general, sure. But gang violence? Directed at innocent civilians? Serial killers that choose random victims? If that's not terror or terrorism, what is? Overall I am speaking about Americans that die. My point is that we should get more worked up about the worst terror problems. Let the record show that you are most concerned about the lesser ones.

And please don't come at me an explanation about the way words are understood at this site. I'm interested in the real world. Not a virtual world.

Furthermore; we were invited to place a military base there by the house of saud to defend them against saddam are you honestly suggesting that we should have abandoned an ally due to the threat of a terrorist org.? How very French of you.

LOL! No, I'm not saying something that I didn't say.

Do you do everything that you are invited to do? I sure don't. I do the things that seem wise. It's not about the threat of a terrorist organization. It's about being forceful, when force isn't always necessary. Please, don't accuse me of being French. Don't lecture me about a mistake I never would have made. Why not speak about a mistake that the US did make?

PS. pssst, who's French? Who cut and ran? Who folded to al Qaeda?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I beg to differ. Murder in general, sure. But gang violence? Directed at innocent civilians? Serial killers that choose random victims? If that's not terror or terrorism, what is? Overall I am speaking about Americans that die. My point is that we should get more worked up about the worst terror problems. Let the record show that you are most concerned about the lesser ones.

And please don't come at me an explanation about the way words are understood at this site. I'm interested in the real world. Not a virtual world.

so what political goal are the serial killers and gangs trying to accomplish?

LOL! No, I'm not saying something that I didn't say.

Do you do everything that you are invited to do? I sure don't. I do the things that seem wise. It's not about the threat of a terrorist organization. It's about being forceful, when force isn't always necessary. Please, don't accuse me of being French. Don't lecture me about a mistake I never would have made. Why not speak about a mistake that the US did make?

It was in our national interest to protect the saudi oil reserves and it was in their interests to have us protect them. so should we listen to everything that UBL says so al-qaeda won't attack us? OK let's abandon Israel and all convert to Islam to placate the terrorist scum. :roll:

PS. pssst, who's French? Who cut and ran? Who folded to al Qaeda?

That's because there was no longer the threat of saddam thus there was no longer any purpose of having our troops there.

 

[southern_liberal]

so what political goal are the serial killers and gangs trying to accomplish?




It was in our national interest to protect the saudi oil reserves and it was in their interests to have us protect them. so should we listen to everything that UBL says so al-qaeda won't attack us? OK let's abandon Israel and all convert to Islam to placate the terrorist scum. :roll:



That's because there was no longer the threat of saddam thus there was no longer any purpose of having our troops there.

A terrorist is someone who spreads terror. No political goal necessary, Just a dangerous twisted mind. The Crips, The Bloods, The Washington DC snipers, The Green River Killer, any serial rapists or kidnappers. Any of them can be described as a terrorist; just ask the people whom these individuals scared whitless, they would say they were terrorized and afraid, and there was no political goal involved.

 

[niftydrifty]

Southern Liberal is right.

OK let's abandon Israel and all convert to Islam to placate the terrorist scum.

Rolly eyes, indeed. No, I didn't say something that I didn't say. It gets old, TOT. Because every situation requires individual consideration. If you would have the US respond to every situation similarly, that's your problem, not mine.

That's because there was no longer the threat of saddam thus there was no longer any purpose of having our troops there.

Who said anything about Saddam?! I thought this thread was about terrorist threats to the US! That's why I brought up Saudi Arabia, TOT. Our presence there inspired terror attacks against us.

 

[Gill]

A terrorist is someone who spreads terror. No political goal necessary,

Not according to the dictionary:

terrorist: characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

 

[niftydrifty]

That's one definition. The myth of the lone definition.

The political goal could be to scare a community.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

A terrorist is someone who spreads terror. No political goal necessary, Just a dangerous twisted mind. The Crips, The Bloods, The Washington DC snipers, The Green River Killer, any serial rapists or kidnappers. Any of them can be described as a terrorist; just ask the people whom these individuals scared whitless, they would say they were terrorized and afraid, and there was no political goal involved.

Ya crack a dictionary:

ter·ror·ism [térrə rìzzəm]
n
political violence: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Southern Liberal is right.

Actually he like you doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

Rolly eyes, indeed. No, I didn't say something that I didn't say. It gets old, TOT. Because every situation requires individual consideration. If you would have the US respond to every situation similarly, that's your problem, not mine.

No this is what you said:

But when you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

What do I mean by that? Take for example, our miltary base in Saudi Arabia. We were warned not to build it. We didn't listen. But we sure as **** got fired up about al Qaeda's response to it.

As if to say that 9-11 was somehow our fault the old blame the victim mantality of the new left.

Who said anything about Saddam?! I thought this thread was about terrorist threats to the US! That's why I brought up Saudi Arabia, TOT. Our presence there inspired terror attacks against us.

Actually wahhabism inspired terror attacks against us. You brought up us being in saudi arabia and the reason we were there is because of saddam and the reason we left is because we got rid of saddam.

 

[southern_liberal]

Not according to the dictionary:

terrorist: characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

What I was saying totally went over your head. I'm not even going to try and explain.

 

[southern_liberal]

Ya crack a dictionary:

As long as I been posting here, I have always thought you were....special. Now I know for sure. You broke out the dictionary instead of thinking, dare I say, rationally, about what I was saying.....

Okay. I'm done.

 

[southern_liberal]

Actually he like you doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.



No this is what you said:



As if to say that 9-11 was somehow our fault the old blame the victim mantality of the new left.



Actually wahhabism inspired terror attacks against us. You brought up us being in saudi arabia and the reason we were there is because of saddam and the reason we left is because we got rid of saddam.

I really try not to let neocons suprise me anymore. But you are just ridiculous. I've read reports where there were many warning signs that an attack was comming. Maybe they came when Dubya was riding his bike through the woods, the same as he did with Katrina. Or maybe, just maybe, he is inept. At any rate, our government dropped the ball on 9/11. The US is not to blame for what happened; we stopped chasing the guy who is to blame in March 2003. But we did let our guard down, which I'm sure is what ihe is saying, but of course like all neocons, your neurons can't fire fast enough to comprehend.

Truly Sad.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I really try not to let neocons suprise me anymore. But you are just ridiculous. I've read reports where there were many warning signs that an attack was comming. Maybe they came when Dubya was riding his bike through the woods, the same as he did with Katrina. Or maybe, just maybe, he is inept. At any rate, our government dropped the ball on 9/11. The US is not to blame for what happened; we stopped chasing the guy who is to blame in March 2003. But we did let our guard down, which I'm sure is what ihe is saying, but of course like all neocons, your neurons can't fire fast enough to comprehend.

Truly Sad.

You have no clue what I am, Krystol aint fit to lick my boots. I'm a Goldwater conservative but I do believe in the Democratic peace theory.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

As long as I been posting here, I have always thought you were....special. Now I know for sure. You broke out the dictionary instead of thinking, dare I say, rationally, about what I was saying.....

Okay. I'm done.

No sir under your definition every violent crime would be an act of terrorism which is totally false.

 

[Pen]

The op/ed lost me when it mentioned the Seattle killing. The author should have done a little more fact checking before including that specific instance as a "myth."

Op/ed's can be very informative and I enjoy reading them, but they can also be driven by an underlying personal/political agenda. As such, I try to take them with a grain of salt.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

As long as I been posting here, I have always thought you were....special. Now I know for sure. You broke out the dictionary instead of thinking, dare I say, rationally, about what I was saying.....

Okay. I'm done.

Oh I'm sorry I didn't know we were making up our own definitions of words to fit our argument now. Well if that's the strategy then have at it.

"Okay. I'm done," henceforth will have the definition of "I lost the debate."

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The op/ed lost me when it mentioned the Seattle killing. The author should have done a little more fact checking before including that specific instance as a "myth."

Op/ed's can be very informative and I enjoy reading them, but they can also be driven by an underlying personal/political agenda. As such, I try to take them with a grain of salt.

What are talking about it wasn't a myth that's a fact yet you wouldn't know it from the medias lack of coverage on the subject, never the less it did happen Haq killed 4 Jewish women (one of them pregnant) because he doesn't like Israel.

 

[Binary_Digit]

No sir under your definition every violent crime would be an act of terrorism which is totally false.

Yet two months ago you used that same definition to say John Kerry called the troops terrorists. Amazing! So which is it ToT? Is anyone who terrorizes a terrorist or not? Bumbling hypocrite. :rofl

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yet two months ago you used that same definition to say John Kerry called the troops terrorists. Amazing! So which is it ToT? Is anyone who terrorizes a terrorist or not? Bumbling hypocrite. :rofl

How the hell do you figure that? I didn't use any definition I let Kerry's own words do the talking he has a long history of calling our troops terrorists and criminals. Furthermore; our goals in Iraq are political in nature so if you have a warped view of the world like Kerry then it fits.

To reitterate the point at hand the use of violence or the threat of violence against the civilian population in order to obtain a political aim is terrorism serial killers are not terrorists they are murderers.

 

[Pen]

What are talking about it wasn't a myth that's a fact yet you wouldn't know it from the medias lack of coverage on the subject, never the less it did happen Haq killed 4 Jewish women (one of them pregnant) because he doesn't like Israel.

The Seattle media has covered it in great detail. I live within the Seattle media reach. You are the one misinformed when you claim that four women were killed. Perhaps you need to look into your media sources as to why they would lie to you?

I'm not going to bother informing you of what is mainstream news in Seattle, and what has been reported about this sick individual. Do your own google.

I honestly would have expected better of you TOT. The position that you have willfully bought into just saddens me.

 

[Pen]

To reitterate the point at hand the use of violence or the threat of violence against the civilian population in order to obtain a political aim is terrorism serial killers are not terrorists they are murderers.

Tot, haven't you just described the political manipulation of our Threat indicator? Frickin' code red for nothing but political advantage, with the intent to promote fear in our civilian population. It appears that you have just defined the Bush Administration as terrorists.

Not that I would disagree with you on this point. Bravo, TOT. :spin:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The Seattle media has covered it in great detail. I live within the Seattle media reach. You are the one misinformed when you claim that four women were killed. Perhaps you need to look into your media sources as to why they would lie to you?

I'm not going to bother informing you of what is mainstream news in Seattle, and what has been reported about this sick individual. Do your own google.

I honestly would have expected better of you TOT. The position that you have willfully bought into just saddens me.

Oh I didn't understand what you were saying I thought you meant that the incident itself was a myth. I don't live in seatle so I wouldn't know one way or another what's reported there, however, on the cable news which is all I listen to they hardly mentioned it at all, not on CNN, MSNBC, or even Fox.