Government Blindness: Ad Hoc Islamic Terrorists
Mon December 8th, 2003 12:28 MSTThere have been at least two Islamic terrorist attacks in the United States since 9-11 that have not been reported as such. One was the “Beltway Sniper” series of killings, and the other was the July 4th Shoot-out at the El Al Corral at LAX.
In both cases, a dangerous form of terrorism appeared which is outside the scope of most terrorism prevention efforts: attacks by unaffiliated individuals who derive their motivation from the extremist program of the Islamofascists.
In the case of the El Al attack, the killer was a well educated Egyptian who reportedly had frequently denounced Israel. His attack was clearly Islamic anti-semitic terrorism.
The Beltway Sniper case was considered spree killing, in spite of the fact that both defendants are Muslim and one had previously shot up a synagogue. Out of political correctness, the press played down the obvious possibility of Islamic terorism. For that reason, and possibly to prevent additional fear, the government likewise ignored this reason. It is possible that the snipers would have been captured more quickly had the police agencies been alert to terrorism rather than using the stale stereotype of the disgruntled white male. The IRA used the same sniper-in-the-trunk technique, after all.
Interestingly, in spite of an almost total press blackout on the mention of terrorism, John Muhammad was sentenced under a terrorism statute (which this blogger did not discover until research the case, indicating it was not widely reported).
Recent release of the writings and drawings of his partner, Lee Malvo, shows conclusively that his attack was at least partly motivated by Islamic terrorism and specifically Al Qaeda.
We can expect more of these unaffiliated attacks by losers motivated by the dangerous poison of Islamic extremism. Furthermore, preachers of this doctrine are widespread in the United States and even serve as prison chaplains. So in the future, expect former prisoners and other converts to Islam to enact these same kinds of attacks.
Radical Islam has long appealed to those who feel they are oppressed or unfairly treated - it blends well with the emotions of envy and resentment and provides an theological matrix to justify acting against those perceived as the oppressors. In that sense, it is similar to communism. It was and remains popular in the Black revolutionary (’60s and ’70s) and criminal culture, a fact which also makes it harder to discuss openly.
It is time to ditch political correctness, be less sensitive towards the supposed sensitivities of Muslims (I say supposed because it is always the same few people who complain), and fight this ideological poison in our society.
The Islamic terrorist intentions of Mohammed and Malvo were reported in the European press, at very low volume but still quite clearly.
Specifically, a friend of Mohammed was quoted as stating that he was pleased with the 9/11 attacks, and that he stated that with his military training he could help fight by getting a sniper rifle so he could “do some real damage”.
Needless to say, this and other clear evidence of their terroristic intentions were not described as such by the Europeans, and were not repeated at all by the Americans.
Why are we so afraid to state the obvious? Everyone I know from there (from Tunisia to Afghanistan) agrees that radical Islamists are the problem, not their current tactic of terrorism.
What, are you kidding me? John Muhammad was NOT a Muslim, he was part of something called “Nation of Islam,” a totally different organization, run by Farrakhan. Not only that, but what fanatical “muslim” would tell police “I am God”?
Following that, the guy who just opened fire like that was crazy. Police say he snapped when people in the airport started making fun of him (I think he had a turban). I wouldn’t label him an “Islamic terrorist,” what was his agenda? The media and the world seem content to label him a one-man madman and not connect him to anything or any cause.
Errr… James - what planet are you living on?
John Muhammad (notice the last name) changed his last name to Muhammad when he converted to Islam. You may not realize this, but a Muslim is someone who believes in Islam. So of course John Muhammad was a Muslim. Nation of Islam is a Muslim organization.
As far as the Egyptian guy who opened fire at El Al… if he opened fire because people were making fun of him, WHY DID HE HAVE A GUN WITH HIM AT THE AIRPORT? WHY DID HE SPECIFICALLY ATTACK A JEWISH AIRLINE?
He was Islamic. He committed an act of terror (did you notice that July 4th is a highly symbolic date - which a typical choice of terrorists?). His act was against the most hated group by modern Islamic fanatics: Jews.
Of course he was an Islamic terrorist. Just not part of an organized cell (although there is some evidence that he had some connections with them).
John,
I believe that James was referring to the fact that the commonly accepted Muslim authorities have officially decreed that The Nation of Islam is not true Islam. They do believe some weird stuff - but those are details on top of the Islamic core. The authorities that reject NOI also reject Sufism, because Sufis believe that salvation lies in love and compassion, not in rigid adherence to the law, or in externalizing your belief into secular laws that all must obey (or suffer dhimmitude at best, or death for apostasy at worst).
It is also worth noting that the Wahhabis (the official sect of Saudi Arabia, who spend billions of $ each year proselytizing their version around the world (”promote virtue and punish evil”, as the Koran commands)) reject all four of the dominant schools of Islam as not really being Islamic - reserving that title to themselves alone and excluding almost all of the world’s people who consider themselves Muslim.
Bottom line: Islam is riven through and through with sectarian divisions, rival authorities, and so on. They are held together more by common culture and loyalty than by any one immutable doctrine.
I have a lot of Muslim friends and relatives, so these comments are not based on armchair speculation.
VBC,
Somehow I doubt that this was James’ understanding, given his other posts. However, I would argue that one who believes himself to be Islamic, acts based on Islamist terrorism, and worships Osama Bin Laden is an Islamist terrorist, even if the sect he belongs to is not a recognized one or his beliefs are not in accordance with the Koran.
After all, Islam does not recognize a central authority like the Catholic Church does, and hence has multiple sects each claiming to be the true followers of Islam, with the Wahhabis having an influence far beyond what would be expected because of their missionary efforts funded by Saudi money.
Finally, Islam as a religion and Islamist terrorists, while tied, are certainly not the same thing! My article is warning that terrorists are not just members of organized groups, but also individuals inspired by those groups, and hence the ideas themselves are dangerous, not just the organizations.
This “war on terror” is just a lie and an excuse for Bush to finish the war of his fathers.
By day one I bet Bush was planning to attack Iraq.
There wre NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ao why did Bush still invade?
Whose is going to be paying for the war?-the children of today thats who.
Why is Bush spending money in other countries for education and homeless people when we need the money here.
All BUSH CARES about is the WAR not the US!
Alram,
It sounds like you would believe anything. There is ample evidence of why Bush invaded. Furthermore, why do you think Saddam refused to cooperate with UN inspectors if he didn’t have WMDs? EVERYONE thought he had WMDs.
You need to adopt, perhaps, a more mature way of looking at why people do things.