Peter Sirota
[SALON] Why did so many conservatives seem to want the suspects to be foreign-born Muslims? In which the writer does his best to ignore the difference between "want" and "expect."
My twitter feed and email box is a display of sheer unadulterated glee from conservatives celebrating the fact that the two suspects are allegedly immigrants of Muslim descent. I believe the "allegations" that they're immigrants has been proven. "Of Muslim descent" implies Moslems are a race, which ain't the case. Chechens are a primarily Moslem tribe originally native to the Caucasus.
These conservatives are overjoyed that my hopes of the opposite did not come true. By obvious logic, then, they were hoping that the assailants ended up being anything but white non-Islamic Americans. Simple question: Why? I "want" to be slender and svelt. I "expect" to remain bulky and graceless. What's complicated about that? The fact makes me neither happy nor sad, usually. Setting up straw men invites that they be gleefully knocked down.
This week, I made a very clear case about why I hoped (though certainly never predicted) the assailants ended up being non-Islamic white Americans. I can "hope" that a spaceship full of aliens lands and carries me off to the Planet of Pining Damsels. Based on experience to date, that ain't gonna happen.
Simply put, I held those hopes because history shows that when terrorism suspects are non-white, foreign or Islamic -- and in particular, the latter -- we have witnessed an overreaction involving everything from preemptive wars to curtailed civil liberties to a serious increase in hate crimes against groups that are collectively blamed, to polls showing a rise in bigotry to a spate of violent attacks on targeted religions to an increase in workplace discrimination against targeted minority groups. Quite a list of allegations. The thrust seems to be that, because the solution to a problem might be difficult or inconvenient the existence of the problem should be denied.
By contrast, when terrorism suspects are non-Islamic white American males (as many are), Not that many, really. Other than Timothy McVeigh, of negligible damage, except to the actual victims.
our governmental and cultural response tends to be more measured and (to say the least) less willing to demonize whole groups of innocent people. Which raises a question: What if there are whole groups of people who should be demonized? Probably the world can stagger along tolerating the corrosive stupidity of the Moslem Brüderbund. Can the world stagger a little further tolerating the murderous eruptions of the Salafists? Can the world roll happily along carrying with it the doctrine of takfir wal hijra?
Because of this, and because of the fact that the suspects had to be of some race/religion/ethnicity, I hoped for the former not the latter. But nobody expected them to be Lutherans from Minnesota, or Methodists from Lubbock. My chief surprise in this whole thing has been that there hasn't been a single Pakistani involved. At least not that we've discovered yet.
I didn't -- and still don't -- want to see the kind of destructive and bigoted overreaction we've too often seen. It's pretty simple. Reaction to domestic Moslems was pretty understated following 9-11. There weren't riots in the streets. Nobody was hung from a lamppost. A few dumbasses beat somebody up, occasionally to discover the victim wasn't even a Moslem. The number of actual incidents I've seen in the past twelve years (and I've been watching) is outnumbered by the number of false reports submitted by Moslems wanting to game the system.
Of course, now that the suspects are alleged to be Muslim, I guess we'll have to see their equivalent to baptismal certificates before this guy will cease referring to facts as "alleged?"
we will see if America follows the same historical path that we have before -- one involving mass surveillance of whole religious communities, hate crimes, new Patriot Acts and calls for other punitive measures. Rush Limbaugh insists that we won't see such a response -- and I sincerely hope he is right. I don't expect to see such things either. In fact I expect the Obama administration to do precisely squat, because other than squat will likely lose votes.
But events suggest history may already be repeat itself. Come up with better solutions, if you please. Try to be original. The late, unlamented, Molly Ivins demanded a "Marshall Plan" for Afghanistan rather than tossing the Taliban. This was prior to the country being reduced to rubble like Berlin, Dresden, Hambug, and other major German cities had been. And before they had unconditionally surrendered like the Reich had. That's an example of both unoriginal and stoopid.
Indeed, in the last few days, we've seen reports of hate crimes against Muslims (before the suspects were identified, by the way); We have? Where? Somebody post them, please, if only the links. As far as I can see the country (at least the part that pays attention) has been more interested in the manhunt than searching out people who look Chechen or Moslem and beating them up. I just looked out my window and there's no one dangling from a lamp post.
Homeland Security Committee chairman Rep. Peter King (R-NY) call for mass surveillance of all Muslims; It's my opinion that we should keep a close eye on Salafists. Of course, I don't think Moslems should be allowed into the country until all fatwas calling for the death of apostates are rescinded, so I'm obviously islamophobic.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) demand that the suspect -- an American citizen -- be deemed an enemy combatant and denied due process; Lindsey's not the brightest bulb in the drawer. The guy's an American--Joker's the one who's a citizen, right?--and he committed a crime within the United States. He's due the protection of the Constitution as far as I'm concerned. Even if he's merely a legal resident, in fact.
the Obama administration deny Miranda rights to the suspect; The reading of Miranda rights isn't a magickall incantation. If he's not given his Miranda rights that's a different story.
and New York State Sen. Greg Ball (R) call for the use of torture. The dumbass shot himself in the neck trying to do away with himself. State Sen. Ball should be the one designated to operate the iron maiden on him. There aren't any laws against being stupid because eventually the condition cures itself--whether for State Senators or for societies.
Notably, these kinds of affronts to civil liberties and the constitution are almost never seen when terrorism suspects are white non-Islamic Americans. Are there enough of them for a valid statistical sampling? Or is this just the obligatory cry of "racism?"
All of this underscores my argument about why I had hoped the suspects ended up being white non-Islamic Americans. I "hope" that I'm irresistible to large-bosomed, leggy blondes with lots of money. Based on the available evidence I'm wrong.
It also begs the aforementioned question: knowing the differences in how we react to Muslim terrorism and non-Islamic white American terrorism, why are so many conservatives gleefully cheering the possibility that the suspects are the former? Perhaps they're "cheering" because their off-hand statistical analysis has proven correct. Again.
Could it be that some Americans actually want to see the kind of bigoted, violent, civil-liberties-trampling reaction we tend to see when terrorism suspects end up being Muslim? The U.S. has become a remarkably un-bigoted country in the past forty years, at least in the sense the author's trying to push. That lack of old-fashioned bigotry has left a vacuum that's been filled by the new-fashioned bigotry of people like the writer. He's got a view of the world built up from theory and any inconvenient facts become evidence of low motives on the part of the people uncovering them. We're looking here at a mind that's closed and locked tight.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/22/2013 13:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Wait, wasn't he the piece of work who was so certain the Marathon bomber(s) were white, Tea Party type Americans? Looks like a lot of people are having alltogether too much fun telling Mr. Sirota that he was wrong-wrong-wrongedy-wrong.
But he's not the only pseudo-intellectual having himself a pity party today. Sarah Hoyt posted about one Amanda Palmer (who apparently happens to be married currently to Neil Gaiman.)Ms Palmer wrote an atrocious poem dripping sympathy regarding the surviving Beantown Blaster Brother. It's on her blog, here. Take a sickbag if you follow the link, although she seems to be getting a lot of unfavorable and sometimes hilarious blowback.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/22/2013 13:39 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Why does anyone pay attention to Sirota? It's what he's whoring for.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
04/22/2013 14:00 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Why should these 'conservatives' be pleased that the Boston bombers were in fact islamofascists?
When islamofascistic terrorists committed atrocities in the West the standard reaction has been to reward Islam and Muslims.
The idea was to show Muslims that the method 'terrorism' was not needed to reach their political objectives.
Remember that when Khomeini demanded submission to Rushdie rules in 1989 this insane demand was seen as proof of the aggressive fanaticism of the Iranian regime.
In the 21st century however the consensus among the Western political class is that Rushdie rules are fully legitimate if not (yet) the law of the land.
As a result of the Boston attacks non-terroristic islamofascists will be rewarded. There will be no backlash against Muslims, just as there was none after 9/11.
#6
From the people who broad brush conservatives, Trunks, Tea Partiers, gun owners, red state/flyover country inhabitants, etc. Clean thy own house first.
Having read Amanda's poem, I fear the poor woman has cheese for brains. Condolences to Mr. Gaiman.
Here's just a teensy taste:
... you dont know how to mourn your dead brother. ...
I suppose driving over him in a car is one way. Which is kinda sorta what made him dead. Assuming, of course, he would survive the wounds from his shootout with the cops.
#8
Crap like that is the reason many people believe (rightly or wrongly) that all poetry is nonsense...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
04/22/2013 17:48 Comments ||
Top||
#9
As James Taranto said, What the hope-theyre-white crowd really wishes for is a reason to treat their domestic political adversaries as enemies of the state.
And now that that's fallen through, he wants to be able to declare that the people who didn't want to be treated as enemies of the state are racists.
I think 'racist' is the modern liberal religion's word for 'heresy.'
If your concern about the threat posed by the Tsarnaev brothers is limited to assuring that they will never be in a position to repeat their grisly acts, rest easy.
The elder, Tamerlanapparently named for the 14th-century Muslim conqueror famous for building pyramids of his victims' skulls to commemorate his triumphs over infidelsis dead. The younger, Dzhokhar, will stand trial when his wounds heal, in a proceeding where the most likely uncertainty will be the penalty. No doubt there will be some legal swordplay over his interrogation by the FBI's High-Value Interrogation Group without receiving Miranda warnings. But the only downside for the government in that duel is that his statements may not be used against him at trial. This is not much of a risk when you consider the other available evidence, including photo images of him at the scene of the bombings and his own reported confession to the victim whose car he helped hijack during last week's terror in Boston.
But if your concern is over the larger threat that inheres in who the Tsarnaev brothers were and are, what they did, and what they represent, then worrya lot.
For starters, you can worry about how the High-Value Interrogation Group, or HIG, will do its work. That unit was finally put in place by the FBI after so-called underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up the airplane in which he was traveling as it flew over Detroit on Christmas Day in 2009 and was advised of his Miranda rights. The CIA interrogation program that might have handled the interview had by then been dismantled by President Obama.
#1
Timur, 9 April 1336 18 February 1405), historically known as Tamerlane.
Timur's armies were feared throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe, sizable parts of which were laid to ruin by his campaigns. Scholars estimate that his military campaigns caused the deaths of 17 million people, amounting to about 5% of the world population.
I also wonder how long the current administration will do backward somersaults and cartwheels avoiding using Islam and terrorist in the same sentence.
I would have thought the cast of characters they are assembling right now in the investigation would have pretty well established what "motivated" the attacks.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
04/22/2013 10:40 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Don't they still claim that the Beslain terrorist takeover of a school and massacre was by 'gangsters' and 'hostage-takers'? Never ever, ever, ever mentioning 'Islam'?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The elder, Tamerlanapparently named for the 14th-century Muslim conqueror famous for building pyramids of his victims' skulls to commemorate his triumphs over infidelsis dead. The younger, Dzhokhar, will stand trial when his wounds heal, in a proceeding where the most likely uncertainty will be the penalty. No doubt there will be some legal swordplay over his interrogation by the FBI's High-Value Interrogation Group without receiving Miranda warnings. But the only downside for the government in that duel is that his statements may not be used against him at trial. This is not much of a risk when you consider the other available evidence, including photo images of him at the scene of the bombings and his own reported confession to the victim whose car he helped hijack during last week's terror in Boston.
