Monday, March 06, 2006

Muslim Nutcase Runs Down Students

Last Friday a 22-year-old Iranian, Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, plowed an SUV into a group of students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, injuring nine people, six of whom were taken to a hospital for treatment, but were not seriously hurt. Taheri-Azar, a graduate of UNC-Chapel Hill told police he did it to protest Muslim deaths around the world.

This nut is now charged with nine counts of attempted murder and nine counts of assault. Too bad the bystanders didn’t do what they ought to have done after this mindless act, which would have been to drag that jackass from his SUV and beat him senseless. That type of immediate and commensurate justice makes an impression on the rest of us that no jury trial can match.

Yes, I know: We don’t believe in vigilante justice in America. We are a nation of laws, and that certainly is of great value. But you know what? Maybe if ol’ Mohammed had known that if he tried to run down a bunch of students that the rest of them would beat his brains out, he might not have done it. It’s called deterrence, and there’s not nearly enough of that these days.

As it is, ol’ Mo was shown on TV being escorted while in custody with a smirk on his face. I’m betting that if a couple of irate students had dealt with him first, he wouldn’t have been smiling.

If things go as they should, Mo will be able to reflect on his stupidity for several years in jail, although that’s not quite as good as if he had gotten his butt stomped first.

Meanwhile, here’s yet another piece of evidence in support of the idea that Islam is full of people who are either willing to inflict violence on us non-believers, or just stand by watch others do it without saying a word of protest.

Technorati Tags: , , ,


JL Pagano said...

I have read your blog for a long time Mr S, and I have always respected your stance on numerous issues despite not agreeing with them, but I really must express disappointment with your assertions in this post. In my view, if there is a "line" to be crossed, for the first time, your toe has strayed over it.

Of course this man's actions were reprehensible by every account.

But to take a blatantly anti-Islam stance when such random acts of violence are known to have happened all over America by people of all race and creeds and claiming to be motivated by all kinds of fanaticism [White Aryan supremacy to name but one], is absolutely astounding. Such rhetoric can only serve to prolong the problem in my view, and if repeated often enough can lead to someone being unjustly harmed.

America quite rightly prides herself for embracing the concept of "Liberty and justice for all". It's quite simple. She should uphold those values at all times. The man was dealt with correctly.

James Shott said...

You have indeed been a loyal reader, Mr. P., even if we most often disagree philosophically.

However, I would argue that my stance re: Islam is not at all a blanket opposition to it, but a growing impatience with the increasing instances of violence committed by Muslim fanatics, and Islam’s continuing failure to stem this growing violence against innocents in Allah’s name by what we are led to believe is a relatively small faction. Furthermore, I don’t believe that Muslim violence is random at all. There may be no central planning, but there certainly is a connecting thread, and that thread is a fanatical desire to destroy all who don’t worship Allah.

I also am angered that the person who committed this act benefits from the American justice system, compounding the wrong: Not only were people injured and nearly killed, but the perpetrator gains notoriety during the judicial process. That is why I think vigilante justice would be apt, and why it might deter some other similar acts. Most of these people are cowards. They won’t face their enemy in a fair fight.

JL Pagano said...

"I also am angered that the person who committed this act benefits from the American justice system"

This is where we fundamentally disagree. You seem to think that some people are entitled to a different kind of "justice" than others, which for me, makes a mockery of the very word justice itself.

While I actually appreciate your view more than you may realise, it is where you suggested that onlookers should have administered a beating that I took umbrage. How on earth were they to know what had just happened or that it was deliberate? And if enough statements like yours are made, who is to say a Muslim person may not unjustly take a beating in the future? Is that an America you can be proud of?

I take a similar view in the troubles that face the island of Ireland. It is easy to see the "war" as between America and Islam. If you buy into that concept, it makes rationalisation extremely simple. "We are the good guys, they are the enemy". I argue that the true polarization exists between those who want peace and those who want conflict. Those of the former variety exist in both "camps"; in fact, most of them don't even fully recognise the existence of "camps". It is generally fear that keeps their voices silent, a fear of reprisals [ironically from either side] if they express their desire for a resolution.