Replies

We’re at war with an enemy that has attacked schools in the past, and made their intentions of attacking more schools in the future well known. We’ve found diagrams of US learning institutions in caves in Afghanistan. Last month, an FBI warning went nationwide alerting school officials to possible terrorist plots involving school buses. Last year, an Islamist student used an automobile to attempt mass murder at the University of North Carolina. Two years ago, two grown middle eastern men boarded a school bus in Tampa for no apparent reason.

The point is, when the news of this shooting broke yesterday, the logical first reaction of any moderately well-informed person should have been “is this terrorism?”.

So far, that question hasn’t come close to being answered. Therefore, the question remains.

And if connecting the name “Ismail” to the Koran is ridiculous, why isn’t connection the name to “Moby Dick” even more ridiculous? Which book commands its readers to carry out acts of violence and which one does not? Is there some sort of worldwide uprising of “Moby Dick” readers we need to know about?

I agree, like you and many others here, my first question was indeed "Is this terrorism?" Obviously, prior to any of the details being released, many people began to wonder whether this was another Islam-related incident. That is a common reaction, and something that should definitely be followed up on.

However, after news began to emerge regarding the shooting, some details came to light. For example, the shooter was described as an Asian male. Many people then began to wonder -- "Well, what type of Asian? Could this mean Middle Eastern? Is this the media's way of hiding this fact?" Though a bit of a stretch, even then, I still felt it possible that Asian = Middle Eastern, though I personally felt that to be a bit unlikely. But possible, yes.

Now, hours later, we learn the name, we see his picture, we realize more details of his life. The Islam factor now seems extremely unlikely ... though actual proof may come about later. Suddenly, a reference on his arm to "Ismail Ax" (sp?) means that he was making an Islamic reference. Taking this one reference and making it the crux of the argument that religion was a motivating factor rather than seeing the "in-your-face" evidence that there was undoubtedly something else wrong with the guy -- as can be seen in the play he wrote -- is just plain ludicrous.

Personally, I don't know what the reference means. Moby Dick, Islam, World of Warcraft, etc. Who knows. But to keep pushing for this to somehow be related to Islam seems a stretch.

And nobody is saying that Islam's connection with terrorism isn't a problem we face today. I'm simply saying that this incident is likely not connected. That's it.

The point is, when the news of this shooting broke yesterday, the logical first reaction of any moderately well-informed person should have been “is this terrorism?”.

It's a logical question to ask, but it is surpassingly smug to assume that it is the first question to ask.

Given the overwhelming precedents set by past mass shootings in the US, the logical first question would be -- "I wonder what sent the nutjob over the edge?"

Had numerous FReepers asked that question first, they'd have saved themselves the embarrassment of once again spinning out of control without benefit of facts.