Posted on 10/24/2002 9:19:57 PM PDT by Pokey78
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:04:55 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The media's "racial profile" of the sniper turned out to be dead wrong.
"This person is kind of a wallpaper white male, a disenfranchised, disrespected man who's getting back at society." So explained Brian Levin, a criminologist and director of the Center for Hate and Extremism in San Bernardino, Calif., to the Christian Science Monitor on Oct. 9. "That's one of the reasons he's kept his distance from inner D.C., where he might lose his cover."
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
He's sitting in Brooklyn, responding to a Jonah Goldberg article just posted on Free Republic by Pokey78.
I loved how all of those overeducated female journalists kept whining about "angry white men" following the 1994 election.
They took the things he was angry about and
made him see that:
1. His anger would result in hurt feelings of enablers.
2. Anger might lead to violence which is never justified.
3. He was really only angry at himself, way down deep.
4. The things that angered him were just cultural differences.
5. His anger was the result of misperceptions from his
Dead White Male education.
6. Destroying his liberty was part of a more important,
overarching secret plan.
7. Actually thinking about the candidates he was supposed
to vote for was divisive and futile.
8. Politicians with tacky personal lives could not possibly
do any good in office.
9. Anger on the part of the majority is always racist.
10. Getting angry without doing anything is corrosive, but
doing anything is racist.
Were here. I'm in a Nashville cozy suburb on this forum while my less angry(but still riled) white female spouse is sleeping and my clueless toddler is sleeping the sleep of angels. Clemenza's in Brooklyn...so that makes 2 of us accounted for.
You mean the guy with the Southern drawl? He parked his rig and kept an eye on the murdering scum while contacting a radio station and then the police at risk of his own life. His anger at the killing of his fellow Americans overcame his instincts for self survival.
He did the right thing when nobody was looking. A damn fine angry white male American.
I'm still here and they're still pi$$in' me off!
Bingo. One of the themes rising (predictably) from the feted swamp of bias passing for thought among the media is the worn line about how the simple fact(s) that even though John Mohamhead is a Muslim, worked the MMM, expressed displeasure over the Gulf War, expressed respect for the 9/11 killers, and expressed disgust for the ongoing war on islamofascist terrorism, and might have been "inspired" by AlQaida operations... this does not make the sniping spree an example of islamofascist terrorism, and does not serve as an indictment of the "religion of peace"(tm).
To which I say: Hogwash.
Islamofascism is an inherent part of its parent religion, fully supported by that faith's holy writ and apocrypha as well as a long and continuous history of practice. The very fact that so-called mainstream Muslims generally either do not condemn islamofascism or follow timid and hedge-laden apologies with "BUT...(litany of "we are the real victims")" and in practical terms have done f*ck-all in rooting out the militant from their ranks indicts them all, at the very least as accomplices after the fact. Those few Muslims who have had the guts to become Americans first and foremost, this dedication proven by strong words and observable deeds, are exempted. they are my brothers, and I am glad to have them. But for the rest, the "already spooked and persecuted" whining apologists who insist that these Muslim terrorists are not Muslim Terrorists...
So WHAT, if it turns out that there was no formal plan or chain of command involved in this sniping attack? How many times must charismatic Imams/Mullahs spout inflammatory rhetoric encouraging the devout to pursue violent jihad against the infidel, how many times must it be demonstrated that their disciples actually LISTEN to them and follow their recommendations, how many times must innocent Americans bleed and die before we infidels are allowed to cease blindly tolerating these two-faced liars?
The teachings of Islam foster these terrorists. The preaching of Islam inspires these terrorists. The promises of Islam reward these terrorists. The propaganda of the Islamic world directs these terrorists. The attitude of Islam aims these terrorists. The will of Islam sets these terrorists off.
Islam is the religion of Terrorists.
'Nuff sed.
On Wednesday night, the networks showed admirable restraint in not revealing the name of the alleged sniper. Many correspondents, including NBC's Pete Williams, assured viewers that "we know more than we can report," which clearly included the man's name. In the wake of the Richard Jewell case, the anthrax scare and, most recently, the Florida "terrorist" medical students, restraint was a hard-learned virtue for the media. But one can't help wondering whether they would have been so responsible if the suspects hadn't been black and the leader a Muslim.
Did they not tell the "armed racist's" name?
Talk about wallowing in it, huh? Sheesh.
B L A M !
very well said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.