The Top Ten Differences Between White and Non-White Terrorists by Juan Cole

[Demeter]

http://www.alternet.org/media/top-ten-differences-between-white-and-non-white-terrorists?akid=9203.227380.LVtRnB&rd=1&src=newsletter691462&t=4

Not all terrorism is created equal.

1. White terrorists are called “gunmen.” What does that even mean? A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US? Other terrorists are called, like, “terrorists.”

2. White terrorists are “troubled loners.” Other terrorists are always suspected of being part of a global plot, even when they are obviously troubled loners.

3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen. Doing studies on other kinds of terrorists is a guaranteed promotion.

4. The family of a white terrorist is interviewed, weeping as they wonder where he went wrong. The families of other terrorists are almost never interviewed.

5. White terrorists are part of a “fringe.” Other terrorists are apparently mainstream.

6. White terrorists are random events, like tornadoes. Other terrorists are long-running conspiracies.

7. White terrorists are never called “white.” But other terrorists are given ethnic affiliations.

8. Nobody thinks white terrorists are typical of white people. But other terrorists are considered paragons of their societies.

9. White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts or mentally ill. Other terrorists are apparently clean-living and perfectly sane.

10. There is nothing you can do about white terrorists. Gun control won’t stop them. No policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them. But hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists.

************************************************************************

Juan Cole is a professor of history at the University of Michigan and maintains the blog Informed Comment.

[Zax2me]

1. I heard two of recent shooters called terrorists.

Two that were white. By many media outlets.
The Colorado shooter was described as white constantly until his picture was posted as proof.
I see where Cole is going with this and has a valid point about double-standards but so much of this list of ten isn't what happened, not in these recent cases.

[Deep13]

2. Where are all the moderate whites? Why won't they denounce this violence? nt

[oberliner]

3. Juan Cole loves his "Top Ten" lists

I guess that's his way of generating hits and getting his name out there.

Google Juan Cole Top Ten (and Top Five) and you will be amazed by how many you find.

[MyTwoSense]

4. You forgot workplace violence..

Major Nidal Hasan's murderous spree was called workplace violence, all while shouting Allahu Akbar. Where does that fit into the list?

[Beartracks]

5. This list seems to have a lot guesswork in it.

For example, does he have examples or statistical evidence to back up his claim that Homeland Security staffers get sidelined by white Congressmen for studying white terrorists? Or that promotions are guaranteed to those studying non-white terrorists? Or does he just make this assertion because it sounds truth-y?

=====================

[Rohland]

6. Not correct

1.White,Brown,Black,Purple terrorists are ALL called "gunmen". type in Google search " Fort Hood Gunmen" to give an example.

2.Each case is different but you cannot call a guy who paints his hair orange calls himself the joker and shoots up a movie theater because the voices in his head told him to do so a terrorist.Terrorism is roughly defined as purposfully targetting civilians for ideological,religious or political reasons.

3.This would be racist, also it would be pointless since terrorists come in all colors so excluding the blue eyes blond girl or the brown eyed bearded guy is stupid and dangerous.

4.Families of non-white terrorists are also often interviewed, but especially in the Middle East this is often quite vulgar as the family supports the deeds of their (usually) son and call him a martyr It's a kind of morbid spectacle.I cannot recall a case of terrorism where the family was not interviewed.

5.If I read mainstream media all I read is "radical" this " radical" that the media goes out of it's way to give the impression these are rare and unique event that have nothing to do with the ideology,religion,political motives the terrorist is saying he is committing his acts in the name off.

6.A individual snapping and going on a shooting spree quite often is random,some kind of mental breakdown. No one sees it coming.We know there are organized terrorist groups that want to target the USA.The video's asking for recruits to fight the USA for all sorts of grievances are rampant.

7. White terrorists are often called white, I remember a case where a Belgian woman convert to Islam traveled to Iraq and blew herself up.The fact she was a white convert was put front and center.Black terrorists,brown terrorists, yellow or red terrorists don't however exist. And I've never read this in a news article but maybe Juan can point me to some.

8.I think this is not true either, if you look at say Anders Breivik the one known case of a individual committing a terrorist act out of anti-Islamic sentiment this fact was broadly debated in the media and links were placed between him and people who oppose and monitor Islamic jihadist activity or who oppose Islamisation were accused and held responsible by commentators.

9.I don't know of such a case but I do know the fact the 9/11 hijackers were seen drinking before they boarded the planes was widely reported so I don't think there is a difference here either.

10.I do think you could do something about spree killers and lone gunman going crazy. 1. gun control is a very good idea. Societies with strict gun control show a remarkable lesser rate of gun related homicide it cannot be a accident. 2.You need to invest more in mental and social care. There is clearly some kind of problem in the USA of picking up and treating the mentally ill.Perhaps having a national healthcare service might help so people aren't discouraged from seeking treatment due to cost. Also the views I state here are in no way not debated in US mainstream media. They are in fact broadly and widely debated.

[Rohland]

7. important

I forgot to make a very important point here, the fact these issues are debated in the media and among the American people doesn't mean government policies are effected. The US government shows a remarkable disconnect between it's positions and those held by the general population.The American people and there opinion For example majorities of Bush voters believed Bush would or had signed up to Kyoto.The vast majority of Americans want the UN to take the lead in international crises not the USA. Vast majorities of the US population want less spending on defense and more on things like welfare and healthcare.This is not new either but are positions held by the population for a very long time.They are simply ignored this is also called a "democracy deficit".In the USA but most Western democracies it's the special interests the corporations the owners the people with money , who decide what official policies are.Corporations and wealthy individuals represent concentrations of power and politicians to get elected need a lot of money to run adds and get on corporate television so they largely do nothing that angers them.Obama for example was funded by Wall Street and the financial sector and they were rewarded by the bailout. When Obama said that Wall Street firms should be less evil he was quickly told to shut up and apologize and he did. He then called them "patriotic Americans" who we cannot live without.