Ali Abu Kamal's Attack Was Terrorism

Update: Michelle links with a post that also includes a link to a gallery of single shooters where the motivation may not yet be known.

Ali Abu Kamal opened fire at the top of the Empire State building in 1997, now a member of his family comes forward to say it was political.

GAZA CITY - Ali Abu Kamal's relatives say they are tired of lying about why the Palestinian opened fire on the observation deck of Empire State Building, killing a tourist and injuring six other people before committing suicide.

The New York Times reported that there had been no suspected political inkage.

The report below seems to be from Feb 25 1997 - take one point from Rudy - he used the incident to push gun control. Oops!!

NEW YORK -- The Palestinian teacher who went on a fatal shooting rampage atop the Empire State Building carried a note blaming the United States for using Israel as "an instrument" against his people.
The note found in Ali Hassan Abu Kamal's pocket contains "rambling, angry stuff," and appears to contradict claims by the man's family that the shooting had nothing to do with politics, a high-ranking police source said last night.

At City Hall, Mayor Giuliani attempted to shift the focus toward gun control. He was accompanied by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., whose husband was killed and son wounded in the 1993 shootings on a Long Island Rail Road commuter train that killed six people and wounded 17.

Comments

[TallDave]

Well, he was for gun control. I'm not shocked gun control advocates would seize on any kind of gun violence to promote gun control; it's like the sun rising in the east. But he's made it clear recently that he doesn't think America at large needs NYC-style gun control. If he'd made those remarks yesterday rather than 1997, then I'd be concerned.

While I don't agree with everything he's done, I've been for Rudy since his 2004 RNC speech and haven't heard anything yet to change my mind. I think he gets it more than anyone else out there.

[rockdalian]

While Rudy is pro gun control he is also pro abortion,pro global warming,and pro gay marriage. About the only thing he appears conservative on is the war on terror. There seems to be a concerted effort to define conservatism down. These red flags should cause Conservatives to be extremely wary.

[Dan Riehl]

I think it shows some things - pre-9/11, post 9/11 perhaps. If anything bothers me it's that the note wasn't really understood. The first WTC attack was in 1993. It took a lot for some of us to wake up, and many are still asleep.

[TigerHawk]

I'm with TallDave. Rudy was a mayor in favor of gun control. If he hadn't made the argument it would have been surprising. And that he didn't identify it as terrorism in 1997 hardly makes him unique among even Republicans. I'm sure I read about that incident at the time and didn't give it a second thought. September 11 shouldn't have changed everything, but it did.

I don't agree with Rudy on gun control, but I still like him. Other people don't agree with him on abortion or divorce, but they still like him. Let us not drive out our best people -- in either party, frankly -- with litmus tests. Rudy may or may not have what it takes to get elected president, but we need that guy doing something important.

[Darth Malice]

Rock,Republicans are the ones that let us down.I don't blame Rudy,but GW and the gang.

[B in Oklahoma]

We in the heartland will never trust Rudy because of his flip-flopping on the right to keep and bear arms. We just don't trust politicians who have a track record of shifting positions as they go from audience to audience. Remember, Al Gore was solidly in favor of the right to keep and bear arms. Until he aspired to national prominence as a Democrat. Then when he ran for President, he couldn't even win his home state.

Richardson in 2008!

[ajacksonian]

From the Hannity and Colmes Transcript ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250497,00.html ):

HANNITY: Let me move on. And the issue of guns has come up a lot. When people talk about Mayor Giuliani, New York City had some of the toughest gun laws in the entire country. Do you support the right of people to carry handguns?

GIULIANI: I understand the Second Amendment. I support it. People have the right to bear arms. When I was mayor of New York, I took over at a very, very difficult time. We were averaging about 2,000 murders a year, 10,000...

HANNITY: You inherited those laws, the gun laws in New York?

GIULIANI: Yes, and I used them. I used them to help bring down homicide. We reduced homicide, I think, by 65-70 percent. And some of it was by taking guns out of the streets of New York City.

So if you're talking about a city like New York, a densely populated area like New York, I think it's appropriate. You might have different laws other places, and maybe a lot of this gets resolved based on different states, different communities making decisions. After all, we do have a federal system of government in which you have the ability to accomplish that.

HANNITY: So you would support the state's rights to choose on specific gun laws?

GIULIANI: Yes, I mean, a place like New York that is densely populated, or maybe a place that is experiencing a serious crime problem, like a few cities are now, kind of coming back, thank goodness not New York, but some other cities, maybe you have one solution there and in another place, more rural, more suburban, other issues, you have a different set of rules.

HANNITY: But generally speaking, do you think it's acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?

GIULIANI: It's not only -- I mean, it's part of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You've got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment.

HANNITY: How do you feel about the Brady bill and assault ban?

GIULIANI: I was in favor of that as part of the crime bill. I was in favor of it because I thought that it was necessary both to get the crime bill passed and also necessary with the 2,000 murders or so that we were looking at, 1,800, 1,900, to 2,000 murders, that I could use that in a tactical way to reduce crime. And I did.

======

They report, you decide.

[Dan Riehl]

Living in NJ as I do, trust me, there are some people I don't want having guns.

[TallDave]

Dan: Yeah, I agree that was the interesting part. The woman -- who seems quite unashamed, perhaps even proud as she uses the word "patriotic" to describe his actions -- says she tried to contact media about the letter at the time, but no one wanted to listen.

I wish I could say I was surprised.

[Dan Riehl]

But one problem with gun laws is they tend to roll. Phila got them, then started to make the case it was because of the suburbs that guns were coming into the city. It's a complex issue.

[rockdalian]

Rudy's viability should not come down to just gun control but to the totality of his positions. So far he seems to be just another Rino. I simply do not take the man at his word.

[bloodrage bob]

more importantly, let's talk about how we've got us yet another instance of a peaceful, "loves-his-family-just-like-we-do" muslim went out and decided to kill him some infidels. strictly *because* they were infidels.

yet again. have we reached the point where WE can start gunning down innocent mohammedans going about their day, minding their own business, TOO?? why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm not shocked gun control advocates would seize on any kind of gun violence to promote gun control; it's like the sun rising in the east."

Or non-gun violence, such as the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

[peter jackson]

Rudy can be for gun control all he wants. In Congress, where our laws are written, it's a dead issue, even among the Democrats. The concealed carry laws did it in. The prohibitionists predicted mayhem but the exact opposite happened. Only a string of hyper-lethal gun crimes could breathe life into gun control, and only for a few news cycles.

Gay marriage? That's a matter for the states. Abortion? Divorce? Likewise, matters our Constitution (wisely) leaves to the States.

I don't vote for drug prohibitionists, so I likely won't vote for Rudy. But Republicans should understand that he's the only Republican candidate who's materialized so far that's got a snowball's chance in hell of winning. A Rudy/Condi ticket would be a shoo-in. Political independents, who just handed the Republicans a clue sandwich a few months ago, simply aren't buying the social-con agenda. Unless the Republicans want another extended stay in the political wilderness, they should listen.

yours/
peter.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

1. I don't trust Republican politicians who suddenly find themselves anointed as "conservatives" by the Holy Pundits of television, print and blog media. These are the same twits who assured conservatives that Bush was a solid conservative and look how that turned out. These are the same jackholes who assured conservatives that fighting to elect liberal Republicans would help conservative issues. And we all know how that turned out too.

So having various Pundits in the television, print and blog media talking up the "conservatism" of McCain, Guiliani, Romney and Rice doesn't do a bloody thing for me. Frankly it does the reverse as I figure anybody who *needs* such treatment is as far from a conservative as it's possible to be.

2. Guiliani is pro gun control and nothing, absolutely nothing, can change this. So the chance of my voting for him is about the same for my winning the Powerball in New Jersey.

3. I've written this before and I'll continue repeating myself: Condi Rice has NEVER run for an executive position in public office. Better yet; Condi Rice has NEVER run for public office.

EVER.

To think she could go from a terribly lackluster performance in the State Dept, excuse me but wasn't she supposed to clean up the State Dept?, to the Presidency is fooling himself. She doesn't have the background, the experience in office, the experience in campaigning and she absolutely has not shown any level of talent for politics.

Give her a professorship in some ivy league college and leave it at that.

[ZF]

Peter is right. The issue for Republicans is going to be: do you want to see a Democrat elected President? If not then Guiliani will almost certainly have to be the candidate.

[Phoenix]

There are a lot of valid comments on this thread, and it seems the same ire against both sides is pushing people into independent status. Smart people are sick of both extremes and realize someone like Guiliani's personal opinions about gays, gun control, abortion are not going to be problems. Presidents don't make laws. Just find one who will lead and who will have the nerve to tell any extremist to kiss off.

[Darth Malice]

Pheonix as a Right winger Rudy and Romney are in the ball park...McNasty is a hard dog to pull the lever for.

[Paul Green]

This Feb. 25, 1997 New York Times story, headlined “Mayor shifts the focus from city crime to gun control laws,” shows Il Rudolfo's true colors:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E5D81F3EF936A15751C0A961958260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=1

It reports that Giuliani called Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., to request that she appear with him at a press conference to, as McCarthy put it, "bring this tragedy onto a national level. We can't stop the guns from coming into New York if we don't do it around the country, and that's what THE MAYOR AND I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS." (Emphasis mine.) Giuliani, for his part, declared that "a much better place to look" for responsibility for the Empire State Building attack was "lawmakers who fail to pass sensible gun-control laws." So much for states' rights to have looser gun laws than New York's -- which, be it noted, leave a citizen's right to keep and bear arms at the complete discretion of police executives, and as a result, the law-abiding citizenry almost completely disarmed. Il Rudolfo is blowing smoke at Second Amendment defenders to gain a nomination he oughtn't to have.

[Purple Avenger]

The bottom line is that BATF isn't interested in shutting down corrupt FFL's. Hasn't been for as long as I can remember.

Here's my personal experience with BATF and how corrupt dealers are NOT dealt with:

http://www3.fdle.state.fl.us/fdle/guns_res_detail.asp?recnumber=1306374

That pistol went missing well over 10 years ago after being sent to Interarms for repair. It was stolen from a FFL's premise, by one of the FFL's employees (I have the signed UPS receipt from Interarms when it was shipped back to the dealer). The FFL denied it ever ever shipped back even after being presented with the UPS paperwork and signature of said employee.

Local Lake Worth PD denied there was any "crime" involved claiming it was a civil matter between me and the FFL. Next day I went back with my 27 CFR copy and the Florida criminal statutes and demonstrated to those morons that in fact SEVERAL state and federal had in fact been committed. They were unhappy about that, but were at least willing to enter the firearm into the stolen gun database. No action on questioning the FLL or their employees was taken however.

Next I call Miami BATF to see if they have any interest in looking at a dealer who is stealing customer's firearms. No dice. No interest at all. Wouldn't even take a report. Their comment (exact words "seared into my brain") when I gave the dealer's name: "Oh, we know all about them. Son you'll never see that gun again."

If I'm skeptical about calls for more "gun control", now you all know why. What we have isn't being enforced. They're not even trying to enforce it.

[lonetown]

I will probably support Giuliani given the circumstances but not because he's a conservative, but because of his management skills.

When he ran in NY, he ran under the Republican AND Liberal banners against the Democrat and the Conservative. There really are no truly conservative Republicans in NY because there is a Conservative party.

[Jack Hamilton]

To say that it has to be Rudy or the Republicans face certain defeat is nuts. There are several people that can win the office on the Republican ticket. If there is no difference between the Republican canidate and the Democrat canidate what difference then does it make who is elected?

[Buzzy]

I was worried about GWB's views on illegal immigration in 2000 but everyone said that a President's personal views shouldn't matter and we had better not let Al Gore in so I sucked it up and voted GOP. I was still worried about GWB's views on illegal immigration in 2004 but by that time we had John Kerry so I sucked it up and voted GOP. Now the GOP has Giuliani who is pro abortion, pro gun control and pro amnesty and I just want to know how in the hell is he different than Hillary and the others from the left? Is it enough that he's a democrat who won't raise taxes? A President's personal views do matter, a bunch, and since the GOP didn't learn anything from last November then they might learn something from the 2008 election. There are a lot of folks who would rather sit this one out if the choice is Giuliani or McCain, I know I would.

[M. Simon]

B in Oklahoma,

"We in the heartland will never trust Rudy because of his flip-flopping on the right to keep and bear arms."

Better to have Dems in office who are more consistient.

[M. Simon]

Buzzy,

I'm totally in agreement. If the Dems let the Islamic fascist win the war, the fascists will fix the abortion thing for sure. They are campaigning on that platform. Plus pandering to the homos will cease and adultry will be a capital crime - for women.

I can see lots of cultural improvements on the horizon if the Dems win.

[MikeB]

So Rudy isn't a "true conservative" -- this isn't news to anyone, is it? Conservatives looking to vote for a conservative-hero-resume are going to be dissappointed, because that sort of candidate is likely to lose in a general election.

I think Guiliani is an extremely attractive candidate on conservative grounds. He will fight terrorism, which is the clear #1 issue. And his more liberal past and his 9/11 experience gives him a huge amount of credibility on that issue with the country, and that shouldn't be underestimated (another Republican might be able to win the presidency, but is anyone more likely to be able to _win_ the war on terror?) On almost all issues where Guiliani leans left of the typical conservative stance, Guiliani has shown flexibility to defer on those issues. I think it shows a great deal of political sensibility and awareness, and it indicates that Guiliani has his priorities in line as well. I think he's offering conservatives a fair bargain -- he will lead the nation to a successful outcome in Iraq and elsewhere, and he'll keep the federal government's powers in check on a variety of social issues.

The bottom line is that America can't win against terrorism without both parties on board. Of all Republicans, Guiliani seems uniquely positioned to make that happen. The fact that he's trying to respond to conservative concerns is very heartening.

[tom swift]

Gun control is an abuse of power. When G. was in New York he abused the powers of his office. If he's in a more powerful office, I'd expect him to abuse the powers of that office as well, resulting in even more serious abuses. His claim that a particular situation (in NY's case, some aspects of the overall crime situation) made it "necessary" for him to abuse the fundamental rights of the citizenry is just a version of the classic dream of the totalitarian wannabee. I won't help to put such a man in any office.

[Darth Malice]

Simon,the effemint Europeans are about to find out that their liberalism and willingness to turn over their cultureare going to give them changes that will shock them.

[BobInStamford]

What the hell is effemint? Is that a flavor of Dentyne or something. I swear, you dopey cons just sit around all day making shit up.