CastleBravo
New member
Hope this isn't a repeat... 
London Telegraph
We Angry White Males Were Right About the Sniper
By Mark Steyn (Filed: 27/10/2002)
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.
London Telegraph
We Angry White Males Were Right About the Sniper
By Mark Steyn (Filed: 27/10/2002)
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.