I got out of LAX a couple hours before the shooting gallery excitement over at El Al, and arrived safely in St. Louis. What is the deal of this idiocy in not calling it terrorism? A hate crime? Puhleeeeeze. If you want to play that game, what happened September 11 was a "hate crime." Certainly, if you listen to their rhetoric, Al Qaeda was largely motivated by hate. Can we please put this politically-correct stupidity to rest? Crimes are crimes. That they're motivated by "hate" is irrelevant, and renders them thought crimes.

My opinion: the FBI is too embarrassed over their failure to prevent this at what was supposedly one of the most secure (and targeted) locations in the US. It sounds less like they were asleep at the switch if they can call it something other than "terrorism."

But it's unreasonable to think that this could have been easily prevented, anyway. We don't have security at the ticket counters--it starts at the entrance to the gates. My biggest concern now is that they're going to use this as an excuse to move the brain-dead security policy (and lines) to the airport entrance, instead of the gate entrance. If I were the paranoid sort, I'd think that big (and blundering) government partisans were setting these things up to give them an excuse to increase their intrusions on our lives.

Anyway, on the fourth, we went downtown and watched a spectacular fireworks display, framed by the Arch. No terrorist incidents, other than some squirt guns. We were in a perfect position to watch them destroy the Arch, if they were of a mind to, but it didn't happen. As similar fearsome scenarios didn't play out elsewhere.

I'm finding myself in agreement with those who think that Al Qaeda shot their wad last September. The guys who pulled that one off weren't the brightest bulbs on the string, and they were likely the best they had (at least of those willing to sacrifice themselves).

Which doesn't mean, of course, that it's no longer necessary to drain the Arabian swamp.

Welcome to MCJ country. If we'd known you were coming, some of us might have moved the upcoming Midwest Blogbash to the weekend of the Fourth. Hope you enjoy your stay. Catch a Carnals game and then get drunk on the Landing.

"...Al Qaeda shot their wad last September."

Atta first wanted to spray, and when the cheap s.o.b. couldn't get us to loan him the money to buy the plane and equipment he switched to air liners. The anthrax was his pre-flight extra that didn't come off to any great extent. Who was the idea man or men, and whether said ideas came from Afghan headquarters or from Atta and his buddies is still, I believe, unknown. But the whole al Qaeda operation begins to look more and more amateurish and uncoordinated.

Rand, calling this limited shooting spree "terrorism," especially within the context of the "War On" same, stretches the definition of the word far too thin. In light of similar treatment over the decades of the word "racism," we can't afford to render the word "terrorism" meaningless by attaching it to every hatred-motivated crime that takes place (...incidentally, can we pass a moratorium on the hideous act of substituting the verb "hate" for the noun "hatred?"...).

"Terrorism," in today's context, implies organization, training, and outside funding. Walking up to a ticket counter just a few feet from the outside door and blowing away two unarmed people before being gunned down yourself does not require any of these things; all one needs is a gun and a motive.

The big things to look for coming up..

Sept. 11, 2002

October 7 (one year anniversary of the counterattack)

The November elections.

IF we get through all that with no major AQ operations, and no sign of OBL, then, yes, categorically, these guys not only shot their wad but are suffering a world 'o hurt because of it and yes, Osama is bug-food, both of which I am already inclined to believe.

Funny thing is, we (US) are a battleship. It's takes a LOT to get us to turn, and a LOT to get us to move, but when we do it we do it BIG.

These guys were through on Sept 12, and we right now have basically just finished lacing up our boots. AQ may think it's over. It's not.

"I ain't through wid' choo, hillbilly. Not by a DAMN sight!" Pulp Fiction

I think that you're the one changing the definition of terrorism. It certainly would have been classified as that pre-September. And I don't believe in the war on "terrorism." It's a war on Islamism--terrorism is just a tactic.

Rand, I like the way you think regarding the war on terrorism/Islamism, but I'm afraid you haven't even begun to persuade me as to how this would have been classified, "pre-September." Let me give you an example.

Remember August 1999, when a gunman burst into a Los Angeles Jewish center with an Uzi (how's that for irony?) and killed five people before fleeing the scene? (I'd link to the stories of the shooting and apprehension, but tags don't seem to work in these comments). His name was Buford Furrow, and he was a self-described white separatist; he was also charged with killing a Filipino postal worker "because of his race or nationality," as the L.A. prosecutor put it.

Furrow's motives three years ago appear identical to Hesham Mohammed Hadayet's in the July fourth murders last week, particularly with respect to the two shooters' underlying hostility to Jews, deliberate targeting of sites where Jews and/or Israelis were sure to be found, desire to kill their victims because they were Jewish, etc. Also, neither one appears to have had any help; both of them simply walked into their respective murder sites and commenced spraying bullets. All outward appearances point to the conclusion that each of these men was a "lone gunman" with a hatred-driven agenda.

The one striking difference between the two incidents is that in the 1999 news items describing and following the Furrow shooting, his actions are described solely in terms of hate crimes. No one except the Israeli government has yet gone on record calling the Hadayet shooting a terrorist act (some hypotheses have surfaced about possible meetings with AQ operatives, but nothing remotely solid); however, only after September 11 would so many people be scrambling to find a terrorist connection in a case that came together the same way as Furrow's. In other words, "terrorism" is in danger of being redefined to lump raving lunatics acting alone together with hired killers acting as part of an organized, ongoing movement. If this redefinition is ultimately successful, not only with the term be diluted, but it will make further dilution that much easier, and fighting terrorism that much harder.

Charging the newly-formed Department of Homeland Security with tracking down and nailing lone cranks like Furrow and Hadayet would be something of a nightmare scenario, no?

It hasn't been established that Hadayet is a lone crank, and there's some evidence to the contrary. That assumption, with no basis, is what I dispute.

And there is a difference between simply attacking Jews, and attacking an Israeli ticket counter. If the Israelis aren't calling this terrorism, I sure don't know why. They'd do it if it were anywhere other than LA, because there have been numerous incidents like this in the past that they have called that.

But I do, in fact, think that this would be something that that department would handle (though I hate the name). Certainly, in terms of preventing it, they should have more resources for such a task than a local police department, assuming that he does have ties overseas.

And Chris, thanks for the thought, but it's probably just as well you didn't change the schedule just for me--familial obligations might have prevented me from attending anyway--I spent most of the weekend in Columbia.

Rand, my apologies if I wasn't clear: the Israeli government has indeed gone on the assumption that there is a terrorist connection to the Hadayet shooting. My point in bringing it up is that they're pretty much alone in that assumption, and not just with respect to governments and law enforcement bodies...the media haven't uncovered anything either.

I agree that it hasn't been established conclusively that Hadayet was a lone crank, but nobody has nailed down a terrorist connection either, and in the absence of conclusive evidence either way, law enforcement entities are going with the empirical evidence. What they have is a man who brought an unremarkable weapon to a relatively easy-access location, with no apparent cooperation from anyone else, and who was dispatched quickly by what little on-site security there was in the immediate vicinity.

The fact that his apparent agenda against Israelis and/or Jews and in support of Arabs and/or Muslims is what spurred the spree is not enough to point to a larger terrorist connection. I'm sure attacking an El Al ticket counter on July 4th had significance to him, but similar agendas aren't enough to establish a solid link either (Buford Furrow apppears to have acted alone, as well, although terrorist organizations such as the KKK share his sentiments). In fact, the narrow, shallow nature of the carrying out of the attack itself favors the theory that he was working alone; ergo, that's the initial assumption.

If terrorist cooperation is uncovered -- and you and I both know investigators are looking -- then they'll reassess (as will I, of course). Until then, I'm going with the "lone crank" presumption.

(Damn, this is cool...I knew there was a reason I bookmarked this blog so long ago!)