29 July 2006

Ghazi in Seattle

Well, after a nice relaxing morning servicing M-16s, renumbering them, and rearranging my rifle racks (Martha Stewart would have fun in an arms room), I find this all over the internet.




Well, white folks routinely go nuts and shoot each other, and inner city drug wars claim more lives on a daily basis. What's interesting, though, is that it is a Pakistani male whose stated motivation is anger at Israel.

Marla Meislin-Dietrich, a database coordinator for the center, told The Associated Press. "He said 'I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel,' before opening fire on everyone," Meislin-Dietrich said. "He was randomly shooting at everyone."

There is an Arab tradition, which expanded with the front of Islamic conquest. It is that when there was no formal military campaign going on along a frontier, young males would group together and cross the border. They might steal livestock, burn buildings, rape women and/or carry them off into slavery, and kill anyone they thought they could. These men were called 'ghazis' and were considered holy warriors of Allah. No sanction, no recognition, and no formal organization. It has long been a hallowed tradition in Islam that the infidel is fair game.

And this individual fits perfectly in with the tradition. He decided that it was his religious duty to kill Jews, which he has been told are evil subhumans since his first day in the mosque as a child, and so he went and did. Quite incompetently, as he only killed one person. If you have the only gun in the building, you should be able to take your time and aim well enough to kill folks. Chalk it up to the Islamic cultural reluctance to use weapon sights.

There are some Americans who are Muslim. I've linked to one in my blogroll. They, like any other immigrant, asimilate into American culture with distinctive traits carried over from their heritage. Most Muslims who reside in America (regardless of their citizenship status) do not seem to meet that description. They hang onto their culture and their loyalty to that culture. Look at how many Americans of German heritage fought Germany in WWII, starting with a fellow named 'Eisenhower'. Can we rely on putative Americans of Middle Eastern heritage? Unfortunately, the answer is 'sometimes, and you can't really tell the good from the bad'.

Solution? Don't know. For one thing, immigrants of Islamic heritage need to be scrutinized much more closely. Don't tell me this is prejudiced. It is no different from scrutinizing members of various Communist Parties during the Cold War. For better or worse, we are at war. And we are at war with many (most?) ideologies which are interpretations of Islam--and we (Western Civilization we) have been since the 7th century.

Muslims in the United States need to be better scrutinized. Sermons should be recorded and analyzed and those imams which incite violence need to be jailed or deported. Literature should be scrutinized. The Constitution is not a mutual suicide pact, and the Islamic community in the United States has been shown time and time again to provide cover for agents acting against the United States with the fixed intent of murdering a significant number of Americans and enslaving the rest of us. The First Amendment does not protect speech which constitutes incitement to riot. Why should it cover conspiracy to commit murder? And what does an imam do when he declaims from the pulpit that Jews are evil and the enemies of God, and should be murdered?

I'm sure there are problems with this idea in the implementation. But how many people have to die before the danger of Islam is fully recognized by the nation as a whole? And what will happen then? Americans have a history of being panicky critters when something finally sinks in. Ask the Japanese. Ask the Indians.

As an end note;


On a related note, a concise discussion of Just Warfare as it applies to Israel's operations in the Middle East. As done by. . . Der Spiegel??



Anonymous cMAD said...

For one thing, immigrants of Islamic heritage need to be scrutinized much more closely. Don't tell me this is prejudiced. It is no different from scrutinizing members of various Communist Parties during the Cold War.


6:34 PM  
Blogger Zero Ponsdorf said...

Linked and thanks

4:21 AM  
Anonymous Rurik said...

It ain't prejudice.
It's postjudice.

12:45 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home