Muslim guns down Jews in Seattle

I didn’t even find out about this until many hours later. Typical religious-extremist Muslim activity: target and kill unarmed civilians. The synopsis:

A woman was dead and five others were hospitalized this afternoon after a shooting at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle building in downtown Seattle by a man who declared he was “angry with Israel.”

Seattle police later arrested the alleged gunman, who reportedly had walked into the building between Lenora and Virginia streets on Third Avenue in Belltown and started shooting. One victim died at the scene, according to police.

All five of the wounded are women, said Pamela Steele, a spokeswoman for Harborview Medical Center in Seattle. The women, ranging in age from 20 and through their 40s, were brought in between 4:30 and 5 p.m. Three victims are in the operating room now and are in critical condition, Steele said. All three were shot in the abdomen.

It doesn’t mention until almost halfway through the story that the man claimed to be “a Muslim American” who was “angry at Israel.” These people are our enemies living in our own country, and we need to name them as such.

Here’s a quick round up of blogger reaction over at Instapundit. I have the same sentiments as them, including this one: “Me? I’m going to buy a gun. I’m serious.” Something like this would have stopped the dirtbag, keeping the body count to one — the bad guy.

7 thoughts on “Muslim guns down Jews in Seattle

  1. if you’re running to buy a gun out of fear, haven’t the terrorists won?

    and realistically, if you wanted to be protected from violent crime you’d have to carry it at all times. are you really going to buy a gun and wear it bowling? 😉

    also, if you take the blackest, most apocalyptic outlook, a gun isn’t going to save you from a suicide bomber. i’m just saying…

  2. …and the fifty-odd unarmed civilians killed by one single Israeli attack today? A lot of people would say that’s a pretty Israeli thing to do….so how about we stay a little more objective and just condemn attacks on the innocent rather than bring race/religion into it.

  3. Except when Israel kills civilians it’s almost always an accident. Accidents that are likely because Hamas and Hezbollah are hiding and fighting from residential neighborhoods, cowardly using women and children as human shields while they continually, indiscrimantly lob bombs and launch rockets into civilian cities. Collateral damage is always sad, but sometimes it can’t be avoided, especially when the enemy are scum like these extremists. You can’t seriously think Israel’s killing today is on the same moral level as these terrorists who are driven by radical ideology and extreme religious zealotry. There is no moral equivalency here. I would condemn Israel if they were specifically targeting civilians, but they are not.

  4. If you acquiesce to what terrorists want out of fear, then they have won. (That last phrase, having grown tiresome and overused, should be retired.) Preparing to resist is not defeat.

    And it is possible to stop a suicide bomber with a gun. It happens in Israel. The bomber is spotted before they have detonated their bomb and is shot before they can do so.

  5. I say, as long as the positive at least outweighs the negative it’s “a-ok”. Such a utilitarian, practical, and viable approach to ending the global war on terror. Look at it this way. If we kill a terrorist and the 3 non-terrorists standing next to them, those 3 people can’t become terrorists in the future. It’s a winning situation for everyone! And we’ll all lose less sleep because the bomb someone dropped on a 6 year old Lebanese girl also blew up a terrorist.

    No Steve. There is moral equivilancy. Each terrorist killed does not mitigate the loss of innocent life. Go ahead and continue your morbid cost benefit analysis if it works for you, but the fact of the matter is that one innocent life lost equals one innocent life lost. Whether it’s in Seattle, Iraq, Isreal, or Lebanon.

    Why don’t you think real hard about what the Christian response to the loss of civilian life is? Is God playing the justification game or does he see the senseless deaths of one of his creations? Sounds like you’ve got a tidy “political solution” to the problem of global terrorism.

  6. What are you condemning, Matt? Outcomes or motives? If you cannot distinguish between the two you probably can’t tell the difference between someone who accidentally kills a child who runs out into traffic and Ted Bundy.

    Should all homicides be treated as murders? If you slide on an icy street and kill a pedestrian, should you be executed as a murderer? That’s the outcome you’re arguing for with your moral equivalence.

    The Israelis are accidentally killing civilians while trying to kill combatants. In my analogy you killed an innocent while trying to get to the store. If you only focus on the outcome, the death of an innocent, then you cannot draw a distinction between the two. It is precisely because motives and intent matter that the Israelis are not the same as Hamas and Hezbollah and people who run over children on accident are different from Charles Manson.

  7. but again, to be truly prepared you’d have to carry a gun…everywhere. and most israelis have military training and would probably be alert and skilled enough to stop something (without accidentally shooting a bystander), but i seriously doubt that most americans could. but anyway, it’s just not a practical or reasonable solution. i’m not going to bring my sawed-off into starbucks 😉

    and bravo, matt.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s