The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Nothing to see here
Omeed A. Popal gets in his SUV and begins running down pedestrians in a heavily Jewish area of San Francisco. His rampage culminates at a Jewish community centre. He calls himself a terrorist and has shown no remorse for the murderous spree.
According to his family, and police, this was no terrorist attack. Popal was experiencing mental stress over an impending arranged marriage and trouble adjusting to American life after immigrating from Afghanistan. The Examiner assures us in the very first words of its report's lead that Popal "appeared not to care about his victims’ race, age or sex."
These sorts of low-level incidents of Muslim violence are common in Israel—including hit and runs, stabbings, shootings, etc.. There, they call them what they are: terrorist attacks. Next week, on the 9/11 anniversary, Americans will comfort themselves with the notion that it's been five years since the homeland has been attacked by terrorists. The only way they can convince themselves of this by pretending that a list of attacks over the last five years—including (but not limited to) a shooting at an El Al check-in counter; a shooting at a Jewish community centre; Omar killing innocent victims in his Honda Pilot—were simply the tantrums of a few Muslim fellas working out some stress.
Posted by Kevin Libin on August 30, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nothing to see here:
This is typical of the media. They do not want us to think that we have a problem with middleaged muslim men. That might smell of profiling. I wonder what the media would say if one of their's was the victim. Then they would blame G Dubbya for it saying see his plans failed. We are stuck right now and have to accept what the authorities say. I only hope Israel type attacks don't start here. We have been lucky, I thought for sure we would get hit again after the terrorists were so successful in Spain.
Posted by: Sal | 2006-08-30 1:28:29 PM
Also unexplained is why this hit and run driver would leave his native Fremont with its large Muslim population and drive to a relatively distant San Francisco and wind up in a partial Jewish neighborhood.
Posted by: Rodger Beals | 2006-08-30 1:52:41 PM
The first hit was in Fremont then he drove 40 miles on the busy freeway to make his attack in SF.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-30 2:03:34 PM
This incident still has not made the list at www.thereligionofpeace.com ... but give it time ... it'll be duly chronicled along with the rest.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-30 2:32:21 PM
Would the media spin/hype have been greater if he had used a gun instead of a (more dangerous) SUV as a weapon?
Posted by: Mad Mike | 2006-08-30 3:26:15 PM
There media would be all over it like white on rice if it had been a Kansas redneck running down a group of gays. They'd be calling it a hate crime then.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-30 3:30:57 PM
Yours is an obvious point, Speller, but a good one. Perhaps all MSM behavior should be given your redneck litmus test...."if (Muslim person suffering from mental disorder) was a redneck and the victim was instead (fill in favorite redneck target) yada yada. I recommend those interested to Yoni the Blogger's (my go to guy in the Middle East) take on the hit-and-run: http://www.yonitheblogger.com/
Posted by: Rodger Beals | 2006-08-30 3:44:34 PM
MSM are certainly bad enough with their lies to protect Muslims, which, as already stated, they would never do had the attacker been a white male killing homosexuals, Blacks (any other minority group) or abortionists. Yet I maintain that the most guilty in this game of lies is the police/security authorities. It was the same song and dance in Seattle. It was the same with the failed attempt in Toronto. Our "leaders" will bend themselves into any shape in order to assure us that these tradegies have nothing to do with Islam. Please!
Posted by: Alain | 2006-08-30 3:47:43 PM
As a side note, more proof that registering the weapon (SUV)doesn't prevent murder. I assume his SUV was registered. (if not I guess it proves bad guys don't register their murder weapons)
Posted by: thots | 2006-08-30 4:20:15 PM
I do not know how bad your gun laws are there, but here we will soon be unarmed. We cannot own handguns here.
A man with gun is a citizen
A man without is a servant
slowly they will disarm us while the the criminals run wild knowing we are defenceless
Crime in some parts of Florida that allow conceal and carry of handguns is the lowest because criminals do not know who can shoot back.
Posted by: Sal | 2006-08-30 5:50:35 PM
When members of identifiable groups are attacked or murdered for the crime of being a member of that group, there is inevitably a lot of outrage; if the victim is gay or Lesbian, or black, or Asian, we typically see in the media an exploration of the issues surrounding the effects of such prejudice on those communities.
Jews seem to be a special case, though. When they are attacked the examinations tend to be far more "nuanced" and academic -- geopolitical, really -- in nature. This calculated avoidence of the central, salient point -- murderous hatred of an identifiable group -- tends to present itself as a worldly, genteel calmness, a sort of "let's not be too quick to jump to conclusions" sort of attitude that seems entirely absent in other race or religion-based attacks.
Such shrugging, dissembling "analysis" is just anti-Semitism-by-proxy, it's just another face of the same underlying attitude shown in the broad left's silence when Jews in Israel are murdered for the crime of being Jewish, and in their concomitant noisy outrage the moment Israel fights back.
This disturbingly widespread, politically-represented opacity of motivation is more than a bit ominous. Certainly if someone expressed support for a cause that had the expressed goal of murdering, say, blacks, or gays, he would be quickly identified for his hateful motivations; but anti-Jewish sentiment, increasingly, masquerades as a form of enlightenment whose credibility is buttressed by the buzzwords of the left: anti-colonialism, liberation, justice, peace.
Such straight-faced dishonesty is now part of our cultural climate. Arguably, journalists and publishers who back off from accurately fleshing-out such incidents as the "hit -and-run" in San Francisco may not be anti-Semitic at all, but instead just thoughtlessly adhering to conventional protocol. If so, that's a lot worse than it sounds.
Posted by: EBD | 2006-08-30 7:17:32 PM
I just saw Koffi and Ohlmert together and Koffi told him to end the blockade on the ports in Lebanon.
Yet some how never mentioned the kinapped soldiers.
For all the crap Ohlmert has taken atleast he told Koffi beat it until my people are retuned.
I tell you the UN will be a thorn in our side till we pull it out and send it to Belguim.
Posted by: Sal | 2006-08-30 7:59:06 PM
If you haven't noticed, two of the biggest democracies, with the armies to back them up, have rightfully pretty much thumbed their noses at the mighty UN. And thankfully will continue to.
Any clear thinking person, or persons has long ago reached the conclusion you have.
Only the lefties put any credence in them, but of course only when it suits them. I find it amusing the same people who scream from the rafters about obeying international law and following the rule of the UN, believing everything they do or say is gospel, almost every leftie out there, seems to conveniently forget it was the UN that partitioned the Middle East and handed that small sliver of land over to the Jewish people in the first place.
Many of the same people who now side with the terrorists and find blame only in Israel. Unbelievable.
The world has lost it's collective mind.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-08-30 11:38:50 PM
The Media Emperors have no clothes.
Posted by: philanthropist | 2006-08-30 11:52:46 PM
irony is that no major news channel covered this story as breaking news or any thing like that.
This is clearly an act of terror done by a sleeper cell of Islamic terror networks
Posted by: Winston | 2006-08-31 12:03:16 AM
"Only the lefties put any credence in them, but of course only when it suits them. I find it amusing the same people who scream from the rafters about obeying international law and following the rule of the UN, believing everything they do or say is gospel, almost every leftie out there, seems to conveniently forget it was the UN that partitioned the Middle East and handed that small sliver of land over to the Jewish people in the first place."
I don't think it's the "lefties" so much as it is the European Union. They're fighting to become a major world power - to be large & in charge - just like the big boys. They are the ones who cry for international law - because they want to control it. They are the ones who pass judgement on U.S. policies without concern for the effects. They are only interested in the outcome in respect to where they stand in the struggle for power. There may be some "lefties" out there who fall for it, but the E.U. is the driving force.
Posted by: Democrat | 2006-08-31 12:34:15 AM
Why then every day when I turn on my American news do I see Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, any ranking Dem who can get his or her mug in front of a camera, shrieking about how Bush has ignored international law, and has ignored the UN.
Was it not John Kerry who said in the presidential debates he would seek world (see UN) approval to assure any policy passed the international test? Seems many of these "lefties" and their supporters have fallen for it.
Give me a break, the left here at home is every bit as bad as the EU if they feel they can score political points and undermine their leader.
Here in Canada, and much of the weak kneed world, the excuse used to not support the Iraq conflict was because the much vaunted UN had not approved it, which of course was a lie. There were several outstanding UN resolutions in place to use military force against Sodamn Insane.
Which again the lefties chose to ignore, because it didn't suit their agenda. Here at home, and abroad.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-08-31 8:27:22 AM
"Give me a break, the left here at home is every bit as bad as the EU if they feel they can score political points and undermine their leader."
Granted; however, they're shooting blanks and they know it.
The problem with the Democratic Party of today is that 20 years ago (give or take) they were infiltrated by special interest groups who's only agenda was their special interest. The real problem here is that it worked. Today's Democratic politicians have heard this so long, they think it's the mainstream. They think they can be progressive, keep there main base & pick up the special interest votes. They can't, which is why they lost the last presidential election - among other things. Until they get a grip on reality, they will continue to fire banks - controlled by voters - or, their main base who will not follow like sheep as supposed.
The E.U. on the other hand is based on international law - & currency. What would be the motivation for so many countries to expend so much energy? World peace? Easy currency exchange for tourtist?
When the "lefties" develop their own international monetary system, I'll start to worry about the "lefties".
Posted by: Democrat | 2006-08-31 5:48:18 PM
That is why we have to place our faith in the common sense of the voters. We won a big one in 04 due to the fact enough of us are awake. If we keep up the fight we will come out winners.
The change in media outlets has given us a voice and we need to use it.
We also need to keep the pressure on all elected officials. Nothing worse than bad press for them.
Posted by: Sal | 2006-08-31 6:28:20 PM
Posted by: Democrat | 2006-08-31 6:33:34 PM
I agree with both of you... Democrat, I sensed you may have been supporting the Dems even with the obvious infiltration and take over by the hard left, my mistake!
I see our own left wing whack job (Layton) wants to pull out of Afghanistan, seems it is dawning on him there may be serious fighting over there. As I said on another thread, the policy of the far left is always to appease, then cut and run.
One could laugh at these self serving morons if it were not so serious. He is threatening to bring down the present minority government, the first government to actually do anything in the past twenty years, over the soft wood deal and I'm sure the mission "gone wrong in" Afghanistan.
These guys (and gals) are truly frightening in their naivety and downright stupidity. Unbelievable.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-08-31 7:39:16 PM
Winston: I don't think you can jump to the conclusion that this is from someone in a sleeper cell. It may just be one of those "moderate Muslims" deciding to do his part for the "struggle".
Posted by: Markalta | 2006-09-01 8:43:35 AM
"I sensed you may have been supporting the Dems even with the obvious infiltration and take over by the hard left .."
You don't suppose it's the name do ya?
Jeez,left-wingers & right-wingers agreeing with each other...kinda makes your skin crawl just thinkin' about it, huh? (LOL) But I prefer a two party system with two fairly level headed opponents to a one party system & a fruit basket. It may at first sound like a utopian situation to the right at first - unless they loose. We're talking about how we govern our society.
The real point I'm trying to make is in George Washington's farewell address:
I can't remember if he was a republican or a democrat. *s*
Posted by: Democrat | 2006-09-01 11:19:50 AM
Couldn't agree with you more Democrat. I have always liked the checks and balances built into the American system, who could have predicted the Dems could have become so totally unbalanced. Kennedy (John of course)would roll over in his grave. Quite sad really.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-09-01 11:35:50 AM
They did not want to profile him as a terrorist, as he may have inspired copycats!
So, they profiled him as a man with family issues. They are more embarrassed about that, as men are considered the head of the house, therefore whatever goes wrong, is blamed on them, unless they can get people to believe an accussation of adultry, or some such sexual act, that they say, brings shame on the family and clan.
So, by profiling him, as a man with family problems, the thing can be buried!
Posted by: Lady | 2006-09-01 6:06:08 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.