Post by illeatyourdates02 on Apr 19, 2013 16:48:49 GMT -5
Ann Coulter said: “Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.” The Liberals in this country are inscrutable. They try at every turn to give the massive terrorist network (Al-Qaeda) the benefit of some doubt. As if there is any doubt. They try shamelessly to link attacks, like the Oklahoma City bombing, to a wide network of “right-wing extremists,” because they feel some peculiar need to show that profiling is racist; that white people are equal terrorists; and that our enemies are not so bad after all.
Following the Boston marathon bombing, the Left has run wild with speculation that the attack could have been made by “right-wing extremists;” going as far as likening those on the Right with middle-eastern terrorists. CNN was first to jump on the bandwagon, but MSNBC wasn’t far behind. Now, Salon is throwing its hat into the speculative ring with this ditty.
In a piece called Let’s Hope The Boston Marathon Bomber is a White American, Salon columnist David Sirota writes that privilege protects white people from being uniformly slandered and beat upon when an atrocity is committed by someone of Caucasian decent. He goes on to say that lack of privilege on the part of minorities does not give them such protection. But here’s where Sirota gets really kooky:
“Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats — the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.”
Hold the phone.
1. Sirota makes the claim that any attack made by a white non-Islamic individual is treated as if it is not part of a larger organized attack. If we take a look at history, that proves to be true. The Unabomber–a single, white man–was not part of a systemic problem. Timothy McVeigh–a single, white man (albeit with accomplices)–was not part of a systemic problem. Presidential assassins, and would-be assassins, including Oswald, and Hinckley–single, white men–we’re not part of a systemic problem. Attacks made by non-Islamic individuals never turn out to be part of an organized mission. This is the case because the attacks are not based on a religious ideology that is practiced by a large number of people.
2. Sirota then makes the claim that non-white or developing world terror suspects are immediately thought to be part of a larger, more complex operation. In this, he is correct. Once again, if we take a look at recent history, this proves to be true. 9/11, the WTC bombing, the attacks in Madrid, the London Subway bombings–not to mention numerous embassy attacks, and Al-Qaeda bombings throughout the world–have all been shown to be part of a complex, organized system, based on religious ideology. Radical Islamists hate the West, and they organize in an attempt to destroy it. It just so happens that those who practice radical Islam are dark-skinned. Oh no, is that ok to say?
Sirota, in his attempt to disprove a nationalist and religious component in Islamic terror attacks, has done nothing of the sort. With a small bit of thought, and some basic Googling, his argument can be torn apart, like a piece of tissue paper. He decries the fact that Islamic terror suspects are immediately assumed to be part of an organization when it is simply the truth. He cannot stand to look at the facts for what they are.
Do I agree that just because radical Islam is a major force of terror, we should not abuse peaceful practitioners of Islam? Of course. But that’s not the point. David Sirota doesn’t want that to be the point; he is using that as a disguise for his real agenda. He so desperately needs white terrorists to be part of some sort of organized network, so that his probable disdain for things like profiling can be vindicated. In order for Sirota’s beliefs to be substantiated, he needs to build a case. With his article in Salon, he tries to do so.
It’s unfortunate that Sirota isn’t very intelligent; otherwise, he may have constructed a better argument. People like David Sirota hate western culture, and do everything in their power to give the benefit of the doubt to our enemies. My question is: Why? I may never fully understand.
lastresistance.com/1936/liberal-journalist-hopes-boston-bomber-is-white/
;-)
Following the Boston marathon bombing, the Left has run wild with speculation that the attack could have been made by “right-wing extremists;” going as far as likening those on the Right with middle-eastern terrorists. CNN was first to jump on the bandwagon, but MSNBC wasn’t far behind. Now, Salon is throwing its hat into the speculative ring with this ditty.
In a piece called Let’s Hope The Boston Marathon Bomber is a White American, Salon columnist David Sirota writes that privilege protects white people from being uniformly slandered and beat upon when an atrocity is committed by someone of Caucasian decent. He goes on to say that lack of privilege on the part of minorities does not give them such protection. But here’s where Sirota gets really kooky:
“Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats — the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.”
Hold the phone.
1. Sirota makes the claim that any attack made by a white non-Islamic individual is treated as if it is not part of a larger organized attack. If we take a look at history, that proves to be true. The Unabomber–a single, white man–was not part of a systemic problem. Timothy McVeigh–a single, white man (albeit with accomplices)–was not part of a systemic problem. Presidential assassins, and would-be assassins, including Oswald, and Hinckley–single, white men–we’re not part of a systemic problem. Attacks made by non-Islamic individuals never turn out to be part of an organized mission. This is the case because the attacks are not based on a religious ideology that is practiced by a large number of people.
2. Sirota then makes the claim that non-white or developing world terror suspects are immediately thought to be part of a larger, more complex operation. In this, he is correct. Once again, if we take a look at recent history, this proves to be true. 9/11, the WTC bombing, the attacks in Madrid, the London Subway bombings–not to mention numerous embassy attacks, and Al-Qaeda bombings throughout the world–have all been shown to be part of a complex, organized system, based on religious ideology. Radical Islamists hate the West, and they organize in an attempt to destroy it. It just so happens that those who practice radical Islam are dark-skinned. Oh no, is that ok to say?
Sirota, in his attempt to disprove a nationalist and religious component in Islamic terror attacks, has done nothing of the sort. With a small bit of thought, and some basic Googling, his argument can be torn apart, like a piece of tissue paper. He decries the fact that Islamic terror suspects are immediately assumed to be part of an organization when it is simply the truth. He cannot stand to look at the facts for what they are.
Do I agree that just because radical Islam is a major force of terror, we should not abuse peaceful practitioners of Islam? Of course. But that’s not the point. David Sirota doesn’t want that to be the point; he is using that as a disguise for his real agenda. He so desperately needs white terrorists to be part of some sort of organized network, so that his probable disdain for things like profiling can be vindicated. In order for Sirota’s beliefs to be substantiated, he needs to build a case. With his article in Salon, he tries to do so.
It’s unfortunate that Sirota isn’t very intelligent; otherwise, he may have constructed a better argument. People like David Sirota hate western culture, and do everything in their power to give the benefit of the doubt to our enemies. My question is: Why? I may never fully understand.
lastresistance.com/1936/liberal-journalist-hopes-boston-bomber-is-white/
;-)
