Taxicab jihad

Has it ever happened in America that a cab driver tried to run over his passengers, because of a disagreement over religion? Well, It’s happened now, because there is an element among us that feels, uh, very strongly, about their, uh, “religion,” which in reality is a call to war against all non-members of that religion.

However, what I just said is a guess, based on the cab driver’s name. I don’t know for a fact that he is a follower of that particular religion because the tv station does not deign to tell us what his religion is. Can you imagine—an organization the ostensible purpose of which is to provide the public with news, reporting that a man attempted to murder two people because of an argument over religion, without the station mentioning the respective religions that were at issue?

From Channel 4 News in Nashville:

NASHVILLE, Tenn.—A local cab driver allegedly tried to run over two customers after a fight over religion became heated.

The incident happened early Sunday morning on the Vanderbilt campus and left one man hospitalized and a cab driver arrested, said police

Two students visiting from Ohio were coming from a bar downtown when they got into an argument with their driver over religion, said police. After they paid the driver he allegedly ran them down in a parking lot.

Ibrihim Ahmned, of United Cab, was arrested and charged with assault, attempted homicide and theft. One of the passengers, Andrew Nelson, managed to outrun the cab but Jeremy Invus was taken to the Vanderbilt University Medical Center with serious injuries, said police. [cont]

There’s more to the story, of course, and so much more to the larger story of which it is a mere part, so much more, for the rest of our lives, and the lives of our posterity, FOREVER, as long as Muslims are here in significant numbers.

- end of initial entry -

An Indian living in the West writes:

Not the best example Larry. This is what happens when you have 150 million members of the religion of peace living next to you:

WASHINGTON, Feb 19 (Reuters)—The White House on Monday condemned those responsible for two bomb explosions aboard a train bound from India to Pakistan.

“We express our deepest sorrow for this tragedy and extend condolences to the families of the victims. We appreciate the leadership of Indian Prime Minister (Manmohan) Singh and Pakistani President (Pervez) Musharraf, and condemn those who seek to undermine the progress in relations between the two countries,” said White House spokesman David Almacy.

At least 66 people were killed on the train bound from the Indian capital to Pakistan, most of them Pakistanis. Officials said the attack appeared to be an attempt to sabotage a tentative peace process between the nuclear-armed neighbors.

The attack came just before Pakistani Foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri was due in New Delhi for talks with Indian leaders to push forward a slow-moving peace process.

LA replies:

Some observations:

- Since most of the victims were Pakistani, it’s possible that the perps were Hindus.

- My blood boils when people call a monstrous crime a “tragedy.” This is the very signature of liberal civilization, that it defines evil out of existence, not by openly saying, “there is no such thing as evil,” which is at least a proposition that one could dispute, but by the use of loaded, non-judgmental words that are snuck insensibly into the language and are almost impossible for people to notice or resist.

- The White House “condemn[s] those who seek to undermine the progress in relations between the two countries.” Notice what the White House condemns the murderers for: not for committing a devilish act of mass slaughter of innocents, but for undermining a peace process. In other words, the real crime is not a crime against against man and God, the real crime is a crime against liberalism. For the White House, mass murder is just a “tragedy,” and not to be judged as morally evil, while interfering with a peace process is a wicked act that must be morally condemned.

Ken Hechtman writes:

All right, I’ll take the bait on this one.

Killing dozens of innocent people is evil. But killing them with the specific intention to provoke a war in which many more innocents will be killed is more evil. Provoking a war between two nuclear powers is even more evil than that.

LA replies:

You’re taking the view that the purpose of this act was indeed to start a war between India and Pakistan. If that is true, then you have a point.

However, where I was coming from on this was the Arab war on Israel. Every time there is a terrorist attack killing Israelis, the U.S., government says this is a “tragedy”—not a crime—and that the real meaning of this act and what is most objectionable about it is that it is an attack on the “peace process,” not an attack on Jews. That is what I object to, and it seemed to me the White House was taking the same attitude with regard to this attack in India.

But again, you may be right and this was not primarily an act of terrorism meant to kill and terrorize a community but an act of agitation designed to spark a war.

A student writes:

You mentioned how liberals subtly plant their premises in reader’s minds “by the use of loaded, non-judgmental words that are snuck insensibly into the language and are almost impossible for people to notice or resist.”

Perhaps its not quite relevant to the topic, but another example of this is the liberal tradition of referring to the poor as “low-income,” i.e. “low-income families” have higher rates of births out of wedlock or violent crime than the “middle class.” It is quite a disgusting and sly tactic, as it implies that the cause of the poor’s maladies is a difference in income. If only their income were not low… As you say, were they to make this assertion explicit, one could recognize and try to refute it.

A similar tactic is not to discuss impolitic explanations of controversial phenomenon. For instance, though the black-white gap in education is often discussed in mainstream channels, the possibility of differences in intelligence, partly genetic or not, is never offered, making this explanation taboo and in effect, nonexistent. By omitting it, they are ensuring that the response to this explantion when it eventually is aired is one induced by shock and anger, rather than a reasoned analysis (cf. The Bell Curve Wars).

LA replies:

You’re right. There are many similar examples. Think of the way the media constantly refer to the children of ordinary middle class families as “privileged.” By that one word, the desideratum of having a decent life is made to look like something guilty, something gained through unfair and unequal means. The implication is that anyone better off than a lower-class black is enjoying unfair advantage. It’s a leftist construction, morally inverting good and bad, yet it’s become a part of our vocabulary, with no one protesting it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 20, 2007 12:07 AM | Send