Apparently, some today are willing to argue that water isn’t wet.
A rally at UNC on Monday turned into a heated debate between protestors who were calling on university administrators to label Friday’s attack as “terrorism” and students who thought the protest was divisive and insensitive to Muslims.
About 20 students gathered in The Pit, a gathering point near the center of UNC’s campus where Friday’s attack occurred, to “condemn religious violence” and to ask UNC administrators and the news media to call last week’s crime terrorism, organizers wrote in a news release.
Nine students were injured after being hit by a Jeep Grand Cherokee allegedly driven by Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, a recent UNC graduate. When Taheri-azar, a native of Iran, called 911 to turn himself in, he said he attacked the students to “punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world.” University police have said he specifically intended to avenge the deaths of Muslims.
Monday’s protestors had intended to give speeches about their aim, but those plans were scuttled following a large and impromptu debate about the message that the rally sent to Muslim students.
Jonathan Pourzal, a UNC sophomore, told the protestors that their mission offended him. He said attempts to label the alleged crimes as terrorism strengthen prejudices against Muslims.
“By calling it religious violence, you are telling people that Muslims are violent,” Pourzal said.
Well, let’s see. The attack was most assuredly violent, and the motivations were most definitely religious in nature. To correct Mr. Pourzal, by not calling it religious violence, you are telling people that you’re an idiot.
No, Taheri-azar didn’t open fire with an AK-47 or trigger an IED. He did not fly a plane into the crowd of students, but he did drive an SUV into a crowd of innocents with intent to harm and possibly kill. It may seem pretty penny-ante (from a distance) when compared to other acts but, make no mistake, it was certainly an act of terror.