Posted on 09/20/2013 5:30:21 AM PDT by SJackson
Imagine that a white man went on a shooting rampage at a location in which there gathered many people of various racial backgrounds. He shoots and kills, say, a dozen people. Most of his victims are black.
Though there is relatively little known about the shooter’s background, this much is known: by all accounts, he was an “angry, frustrated, vengeful” man who not infrequently complained that he was mistreated because of the color of his skin. He was also known to have in turn mistreated blacks who he believed had wronged him.
Had this imaginary scenario played out in reality, is there anyone reading this who could seriously doubt for a moment that all that we’d be hearing about is “white racism”? Can anyone doubt that we’d be hearing about this incessantly well into the future?
Now, picture another hypothetical set of circumstances: A (white) Christian man opens fire on several people, hitting and killing about 12 of them. Most of his victims are Muslims. While all of the details concerning his identity and “motivation” aren’t yet available, those who knew him describe him as “angry, frustrated,” and “vengeful.” We also know that he frequently expressed bitterness toward Islam, and blamed the Islamic world for his ills.
Do you think that the press would busy themselves digging more deeply for other facts concerning such a shooter if they knew this much? Does anyone seriously doubt that the media would bombard us with wall-to-wall coverage of this “angry, frustrated, vengeful” Christian killer?
Or suppose that a heterosexual opened fire in a crowed place, a place filled with both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Most of his victims are homosexuals. The killer turns out to have been an “angry, frustrated,” and “vengeful” man who often revealed to others his animus toward gays.
Do you think that the media would be spending much time talking about “mental health,” the “failure” of the system, or guns if this kind of shooting occurred? Isn’t it a foregone conclusion that all that we’d be hearing about from the talking heads are the evils of “homophobia”?
In the real world, as everyone knows, 12 people were indeed shot and murdered earlier this week by a gunman at the Washington, D.C. Naval Yard. His name was Aaron Alexis. And he was black.
Seventy-five percent of those who he slaughtered are white.
Alexis, we know, has been characterized by those who knew him as “angry, frustrated,” and “vengeful.” It’s also been reported that he often “complained” that “that he was the victim of racial discrimination.” He “felt a lot of discrimination and racism with white people especially.”
Alexis displayed “a growing sense of entitlement and disrespect,” a “tendency to feel like people owed him something all the time.”
In the final analysis, he appeared “like he was fed up with the United States.”
It is now something on the order of a truism that black criminals, particularly when their targets are white, are simply held to a grossly lower standard than that of their white counterparts. Still, given the national notoriety that Alexis, rightly, achieved within the span of hours, and given both his history of racial animus toward whites as well as the particularly brutal nature of the violence that he visited upon his mostly white victims, one would think—one would hope—that perhaps just this once, the media would suspend its self-imposed ban on judging black purveyors of evil according to the same standard by which it binds their white counterparts.
But no.
That even politicians and pundits are unsettled by the race, and racial preoccupations, of Aaron Alexis is clear from the fact that already, just a few short days following the massacre for which he’s responsible, they are talking remarkably little about it. Contrast this situation with that of the extensive coverage that the mass shootings—and white shooters—in Connecticut, Colorado, and Arizona persisted in eliciting for weeks.
The fear and hypocrisy on the part of the punditry and political classes when it comes to race relations truly knows no bounds. Such is their resistance to reality that it’s no stretch to think that had the 9/11 hijackers been, not men of Middle Eastern descent but, say, black American Muslims shouting “Black is beautiful” or, along with Barack Obama’s old pastor, “God damn America,” that even then, a sustained campaign would be underway to ensure that the racial component of that day of infamy was marginalized or denied entirely.
all these mass murderers are video game freaks....and on some kind of drug.
the blame game was invented by satan
this dude will not be missed, even his mother said she is glad he can’t hurt anyone else
there are people in the world that live to hurt others, even others who love them
they are bad
STILL many many questions. Did he only shoot white people? Why security clearance? Why gun-free zone? Why stand down order? I could go on....but I guess there’s nothing to see here. What difference does it make?
He was pretty much an equal opportunity shooter. Although, like the population, most of his victims were white.
I think it would be more interesting to figure out why he went to THAT building and THAT floor.
And where were the security guards ?
Not from the photos I've seen, and do you know what the racial percentages of the people at the scene were?
I think.
1 black guy
1 Asian/Indian
10 whites
Witness say he was specifically targeting people.
All the white victims were between 45 and 55 approximately.
I think there is no doubt the guy was into a get whitey thing.
They were mostly white. At least one black, and at least one Pakistan/Indian.
Yeah, heard about the black man who was killed, I was asking about the racial makeup of the available targets, you seemed to have an idea of that percentage.
I was eyeballing it. Of the twelve dead I saw at least one black guy. Comes out to about 15% of the population.
If you want specific numbers, pull up a list a do the math. It doesn’t matter THAT much to me. Seems to me he did not choose his victims with any preconceived plan.
I don’t know how 1 out of 12 is 15%, but claiming that the people in his target area were representative of the national population sure seems important for you to keep pushing.
I thought you might have the numbers to support your devotion.
WTF, really?
I just said that it did not look like he was targeting anyone. It was said in passing. Go do the math your self.
Why is this important for you to jump all over this. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. You really need to get a hobby. Bothering me will get you nowhere. Because I don’t care.
One more crazy guy shooting up the world. Take a look around. It’s not that unusual.
It seems premature to me to say that a man with a history of racial complaints and race based grudges wasn’t targeting because of race.
One black man among the victims does not prove anything.
Trying to extrapolate one out of 12 as representing something in the population percentages of the national American population doesn’t fit, nor does it have anything to do with his targets on that job site.
We don’t even know who the wounded were, you just struck me as a little fixated on cutting off curiosity about his targeting.
Not fixated at all. I think the dude was crazy.
Now, the guys in Chicago or Kenya or Baghdad this weekend seemed to have a score to settle.
AA just seemed crazy.
As far as I am aware, security guards are at the entrances to military installations, where ID and vehicles are checked. There wouldn’t be ‘security guards’ in the individual buildings of the installation, such as you would find in a commercial enterprise.
It used to be, until Clinton, that service members would be armed, so no one would think of doing anything like this and if they had, they’d have been taken down after the first very few victims. When Clinton disarmed our military on the bases and installations, it appears, nothing was done to rethink security beyond the front gate.
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.