Tuscon shooting was an act of terrorism

Unfortunately, I am not surprised to hear everyone from professional psychiatrists to radio talk show hosts immediately labeling the Tucson shooter as delusional, unstable, mentally ill, bizarre, a schizophrenic, a strange young man, erratic, even a criminal defendant, but not once called a terrorist.

He was not labeled a terrorist — clearly, in my opinion — because he has absolutely no ties to Islam. Had Loughner even once been acquainted with a Muslim person in his past, the “Islamic terrorist” route would have been pursued.

I not only view the Tucson shootings as an act of terrorism, I also vehemently agree that the attacks on 9/11 qualify as terrorism. At the same time, I am compelled to argue that you cannot find a more delusional, erratic, criminal, bizarre, unstable, strange action, than to fly a filled passenger plane into a 110-story tower in the middle of a crowded city to commit suicide, mass murder and destruction. Now why weren't the alleged hijackers, such as Mohammed Atta, labeled as delusional, erratic, criminal, bizarre, unstable and strange? Why wasn't his psychological background brought into the forefront as the major motive of his actions? Can you be more demented?

While I am inclined to argue that both Loughner and Atta can justifiably be called criminal terrorists, I wonder why this is not the case. Since Atta is long gone, we will never know for sure his motivations, but what we do know is that Islam is not and never was an instigator of violence and devastation.

Sadly, as long as we live, we will see people from all walks of life emerge as terrorists. It is about time that Islam, as a holy religion of God, discontinue from being tarnished and impugned by the media as the culprit whenever desired.

Asma Jarad

Glendale Heights