Political Correctness

[JerrySeinfeld]

We white male loners were right about the sniper

from The Sunday Telegraph, October 27th 2002

After weeks of assurances that the sniper was an "angry white male", it turns out the only angry white males connected to this story are the ones in America's newsrooms.

On Thursday, after being informed that the two suspects were a black Muslim called Muhammad and his illegal-immigrant Jamaican sidekick, The New York Times nevertheless reported in its early editions that the pair were being sought for "possible ties to 'skinhead militia' groups". The Feds had already released a photo of Muhammad looking like one of the less goofy members of the Jackson Five and, though one should never rush to stereotype, it seems unlikely that a black Muslim with big hair would have many "ties" to skinhead militias.

But in the early hours of Thursday morning, the Times wasn't ready to give in: C'mon, there's gotta be some angry white male National Rifle Association Right-wing redneck Second Amendment gun-nut neo-Nazi militia types in here somewhere, preferably living in a compound Janet Reno can come out of retirement to surround and torch.

Sadly not. Instead, we have a Muslim convert. A Muslim convert who last year discarded the name "Williams" and adopted a new identity as "Muhammad". A Muslim convert called Muhammad who publicly expressed his approval of al Qa'eda's September 11 attacks. A pro-al Qa'eda Muslim convert called Muhammad who marked the first anniversary of 9/11, to the exact minute, by visiting the Department of Motor Vehicles in Camden, New Jersey. Two minutes after he left the building, the cops arrived to deal with a mysterious bomb scare.

What are we expert profilers to make of such bewilderingly contradictory signs? Well, obviously, those of us in the media should not to be too hasty in connecting the dots. Instead, we should rush to disconnect them. So CNN's Aaron Brown found it easier to call Mr Muhammad "Mr Williams", a formulation likely to be encouraged by the guy's lawyers, once they're in place. And my local radio news described him as "an ex-soldier" and "an African-American male".

Anyone spot the missing category? You can discern the preferred narrative: an African-American male from a deprived background driven psycho by military culture. But he left the army years ago and his transformation into a killer seems to be more or less coincidental with his transformation into Mr Muhammad.

The media behaved much the same way the last time a 40-year old radical Muslim called Mohamed opened fire on US soil. July the Fourth, Los Angeles Airport, the El Al counter, two dead. CNN and the Associated Press all but stampeded to report a "witness" who described the shooter as a fat white guy in a ponytail who kept yelling, "Artie took my job." But, alas, this promising account proved to be a prank. Instead, it was a Muslim called Hesham Mohamed Hadayet.

Mohamed! What are the odds of that? As with last Thursday's arrests, no one could make head or tail of this strange turn of events. As The New York Times put it, "Officials Puzzled About Motive Of Airport Gunman". Hmm. Egyptian Muslim kills Jews on American national holiday. Best not to jump to conclusions. Denial really is a river in Egypt.

Broadly speaking, in these interesting times, when something unusual and unprecedented happens, there are those who think on balance it's more likely to be a fellow called Mohammed than, say, Bud, and there are those who climb into the metaphorical burqa, close up the grille and insist, despite all the evidence, that we should be looking for some angry white male.

I'm in the former camp and, apropos the sniper, said as much in the Telegraph's American sister papers. I had a bet with both my wife and my assistant that the perp would be an Islamic terrorist. The gals, unfortunately, had made the mistake of reading The New York Times, whose experts concluded it would be a "macho hunter" or an "icy loner". Speaking as a macho hunter and an icy loner myself, I'm beginning to think the media would be better off turning their psychological profilers loose on America's newsrooms. Take, for example, the Times's star columnist Frank Rich.

Within a few weeks of September 11, he was berating John Ashcroft, the Attorney-General, for not rounding up America's "home-grown Talibans" - the religious Right, members of "the Second Amendment cult" and "the anti-abortion terrorist movement". In a column entitled "How to Lose a War" last October he mocked the administration for not consulting with abortion clinics, who had a lot of experience dealing with "terrorists".

You get the picture: sure, Muslim fundamentalists can be pretty extreme, but what about all our Christian fundamentalists? Unfortunately, for the old moral equivalence to hold up, the Christians really need to get off their fundamentalist butts and start killing more people. At the moment, the brilliantly versatile Muslim fundamentalists are gunning down Maryland schoolkids and bus drivers, hijacking Moscow theatres, self-detonating in Israeli pizza parlours, blowing up French oil tankers in Yemen, and slaughtering nightclubbers in Bali, while Christian fundamentalists are, er, sounding extremely strident in their calls for the return of prayer in school.

Oh, well. It's not just the media who bend over backwards to look the other way. Mr Muhammad was twice reported to the FBI for suspected terrorist links. Though living in a homeless shelter, he had the wherewithal to travel extensively round the country by plane, as the shelter's director discovered when a ticket agent called up to confirm Mr Muhammad's booking. "At the mission, not many airline agents call and ask for residents," says the Rev Al Archer. I'll bet. But, even after September 11, a guy in a homeless shelter stacking up the frequent-flier miles wasn't enough to attract the bureau's attention. Given the performance of the FBI, the Immigration Service and other federal agencies, it may be time for at least one white male to get a little angry: the President.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I thought for sure this would stimulate some debate...

[ceemes]

I thought for sure this would stimulate some debate...

Perhaps it would of......three years ago when it was news

[JerrySeinfeld]

I thought for sure this would stimulate some debate...

Perhaps it would of......three years ago when it was news

Actually its even more relevant today in light of the danish cartoons etc.

[BubberMiley]

Actually its even more relevant today in light of the danish cartoons etc.

Really? How come?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Actually its even more relevant today in light of the danish cartoons etc.

Really? How come?

The cartoons, the ongoing protests and terrorism in general in today's world have AGAIN highlighted the media's odd denial of islam being the source of any wrongdoing in this world.

The media's referral to the sniper as "Williams" (his old name) instead of "Muhammed" (his new name) suggests a bias. Don't you think?

[geoffrey]

Actually its even more relevant today in light of the danish cartoons etc.

Really? How come?

The cartoons, the ongoing protests and terrorism in general in today's world have AGAIN highlighted the media's odd denial of islam being the source of any wrongdoing in this world.

The media's referral to the sniper as "Williams" (his old name) instead of "Muhammed" (his new name) suggests a bias. Don't you think?

All the media I saw on it refered to him as Muhammed.

I think you might have a paranoia condition.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Actually its even more relevant today in light of the danish cartoons etc.

Really? How come?

The cartoons, the ongoing protests and terrorism in general in today's world have AGAIN highlighted the media's odd denial of islam being the source of any wrongdoing in this world.

The media's referral to the sniper as "Williams" (his old name) instead of "Muhammed" (his new name) suggests a bias. Don't you think?

All the media I saw on it refered to him as Muhammed.

I think you might have a paranoia condition.

OK so aside from your personal attacks, Read the article again. Specific references to Aaron Brown on CNN calling him Mr. Williams and the New York Times conveniently avoiding any issues about his conversion to Islam etc.

Same kind of thing that happened here in Canada with Marc Lepine (Montreal Massacre) - another Muslim which was conveniently avoided by the media.

Perhaps is a "denial condition".

[geoffrey]

OK so aside from your personal attacks, Read the article again. Specific references to Aaron Brown on CNN calling him Mr. Williams and the New York Times conveniently avoiding any issues about his conversion to Islam etc.

Same kind of thing that happened here in Canada with Marc Lepine (Montreal Massacre) - another Muslim which was conveniently avoided by the media.

Perhaps is a "denial condition".

Ok, that being considered, your saying that we should identify all Muslim murderers as much. So when we have murders that are Christian or something else, should we say, "the Christian murderer" or the "Buddist Murderer" or the "Jewish murderer"?

I don't see what relevance it has beyond these people being crazy.

[JerrySeinfeld]

OK so aside from your personal attacks, Read the article again. Specific references to Aaron Brown on CNN calling him Mr. Williams and the New York Times conveniently avoiding any issues about his conversion to Islam etc.

Same kind of thing that happened here in Canada with Marc Lepine (Montreal Massacre) - another Muslim which was conveniently avoided by the media.

Perhaps is a "denial condition".

Ok, that being considered, your saying that we should identify all Muslim murderers as much. So when we have murders that are Christian or something else, should we say, "the Christian murderer" or the "Buddist Murderer" or the "Jewish murderer"?

I don't see what relevance it has beyond these people being crazy.

It has relevence for a number of reasons. First of all, it has relevence because the Sniper, MUHAMMED publicly supported the 9-11 attacks and bomb-threatened a government office on the anniversary date of the attacks.

Second, it has relevance because on a weekly basis we DON'T see young Christian, Jewish and Buddhist men self-detonating in the name of their god.

Your "head in the sand" approach might be good politics,but its exactly what the article talks about: we all know their is a direct link between Islamic Fundamentalism and Violence, yet people like you deliberately pretend it doesn't exist.

When a skinhead committs a crime,they do call them "white supremacist skinheads"don't they?

[geoffrey]

Second, it has relevance because on a weekly basis we DON'T see young Christian, Jewish and Buddhist men self-detonating in the name of their god.

We do see mass genocides though by Christian fundamentalists in Africa and Eastern Europe. It isn't the same I agree. More people die in my example.

Your "head in the sand" approach might be good politics,but its exactly what the article talks about: we all know their is a direct link between Islamic Fundamentalism and Violence, yet people like you deliberately pretend it doesn't exist.

When a skinhead committs a crime,they do call them "white supremacist skinheads"don't they?

I agree the link exists... I don't have any respect for any murderer regardless of his religion though. They are all the same to me.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Second, it has relevance because on a weekly basis we DON'T see young Christian, Jewish and Buddhist men self-detonating in the name of their god.

We do see mass genocides though by Christian fundamentalists in Africa and Eastern Europe. It isn't the same I agree. More people die in my example.

Your "head in the sand" approach might be good politics,but its exactly what the article talks about: we all know their is a direct link between Islamic Fundamentalism and Violence, yet people like you deliberately pretend it doesn't exist.

When a skinhead committs a crime,they do call them "white supremacist skinheads"don't they?

I agree the link exists... I don't have any respect for any murderer regardless of his religion though. They are all the same to me.

You are trying to tell me the christians are killing in the name of their religion? or is there some other motivation?

[geoffrey]

You are trying to tell me the christians are killing in the name of their religion? or is there some other motivation?

The KKK say they have God on their side, the Christian God.

The Catholics and Protestants were killing each other in the name of their religion for many years in Ireland.

The Serbians didn't like the Muslims in their nation so they booted them out and those that stayed were systematically raped and killed.

I'm not going to defend Muslims, but like I quoted. Removed the plank from your eye before you go bashing everyone else.

[JerrySeinfeld]

You are trying to tell me the christians are killing in the name of their religion? or is there some other motivation?

The KKK say they have God on their side, the Christian God.

The Catholics and Protestants were killing each other in the name of their religion for many years in Ireland.

The Serbians didn't like the Muslims in their nation so they booted them out and those that stayed were systematically raped and killed.

I'm not going to defend Muslims, but like I quoted. Removed the plank from your eye before you go bashing everyone else.

Body counts please?

[geoffrey]

You are trying to tell me the christians are killing in the name of their religion? or is there some other motivation?

The KKK say they have God on their side, the Christian God.

The Catholics and Protestants were killing each other in the name of their religion for many years in Ireland.

The Serbians didn't like the Muslims in their nation so they booted them out and those that stayed were systematically raped and killed.

I'm not going to defend Muslims, but like I quoted. Removed the plank from your eye before you go bashing everyone else.

Body counts please?

Body counts for the KKK... you can't possibly think more people died in the Beltway sniper case than the KKK killed.

Between 1865 and 1965 over 2400 African Americans were lynched in the United States. Even after the passing of the Civil Rights Act (1964) lynchings continued in the Deep South. The most significant of these was the Michael Donald case. In 1981 the trial of Josephus Andersonan, an African American charged with the murder of a white policeman, took place in Mobile. At the end of the case the jury was unable to reach a verdict. This upset members of the Ku Klux Klan who believed that the reason for this was that some members of the jury were African Americans. At a meeting held after the trial, Bennie Hays, the second-highest ranking official in the Klan in Alabama said: "If a black man can get away with killing a white man, we ought to be able to get away with killing a black man."

SOURCE: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlynching.htm

Soa Christian fundamentalist group were just killing those blacks left and right, but they don't count in your books I guess. They were even in your favourite country!

And then we have Ireland:

Cathal Goulding sought to channel Official IRA energies into class politics and secure the support of Protestants on social and economic issues like housing and unemployment. What remained of the Official IRA eventually adopted the name of the Workers' Party. But as late as 1992 government ministers in Dublin and Belfast claimed the Official IRA was still an active organisation. According to the book Lost Lives the Official IRA was responsible for 54 deaths during the Troubles.

So during the 'troubles' the Catholic IRA killed 54 people. Quite the count.

And in Srebrenica, 8,100 men were slaughtered by the Catholic Serb Army on the campaign to kill the Muslims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre (further references on the wiki page)

Thats just Srebrenica... who knows about the rest of the country, we are still finding the mass graves. The whole world agrees this was Christians commiting genocide.

[BubberMiley]

The media's referral to the sniper as "Williams" (his old name) instead of "Muhammed" (his new name) suggests a bias. Don't you think?

Well, it definitely suggests you have a bias. Once it was established what his "new" name was, the media started using it. But he had only just changed his name, so there may have been some understandable confusion until they figured out who they were dealing with.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Well, it definitely suggests you have a bias. Once it was established what his "new" name was, the media started using it. But he had only just changed his name, so there may have been some understandable confusion until they figured out who they were dealing with.

No - it suggests I callhim by his real name - the name he adopted when he converted to Islam, publically supported the 9-11 attacks and threatened a bomb on the anniversary of those attacks.

Yet the media skates past these facts - same as Marc Lepine the Montreal killer muslim woman hater. Just a small detail.

But you're probably right - better not "jump to conclusions" on this one Give the poor guy the benefit of the doubt. Lefties crack me up.