Salon: "Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American"

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_am erican/

[pcosmar]

Break that link before some one else is foolish enough to click on it.
:(
.

[PaulConventionWV]

Imagine the outcry if he had said something other than white American. Imagine if he had said let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a black American. In fact, I think it would be better if it was an American of some other ethnicity than white because then you know the liberals won't be blaming it on the tea party.

But who am I kidding, it was a government set-up the whole time.

[Pericles]

Salon is obviously one of the party organs.

[Anti Federalist]

Break that link before some one else is foolish enough to click on it.
:(
.

Saving everybody the trouble...INTO THE BREECH!




Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American

There is a double standard: White terrorists are dealt with as lone wolves, Islamists are existential threats

By David Sirota

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_am erican/

As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing — the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity — the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation’s collective reaction to the attacks. That’s because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are — and are not — collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being.

This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.

Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats — the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.

“White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening or threatened with deportation,” writes author Tim Wise. “White privilege is knowing that if this bomber turns out to be white, the United States government will not bomb whatever corn field or mountain town or stale suburb from which said bomber came, just to ensure that others like him or her don’t get any ideas. And if he turns out to be a member of the Irish Republican Army we won’t bomb Dublin. And if he’s an Italian-American Catholic we won’t bomb the Vatican.”

Because of these undeniable and pervasive double standards, the specific identity of the Boston Marathon bomber (or bombers) is not some minor detail — it will almost certainly dictate what kind of governmental, political and societal response we see in the coming weeks. That means regardless of your particular party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing the defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist. Why? Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues.

To know that’s true is to simply consider how America reacts to different kinds of terrorism.

Though FBI data show fewer terrorist plots involving Muslims than terrorist plots involving non-Muslims, America has mobilized a full-on war effort exclusively against the prospect of Islamic terrorism. Indeed, the moniker “War on Terrorism” has come to specifically mean “War on Islamic Terrorism,” involving everything from new laws like the Patriot Act, to a new torture regime, to new federal agencies like the Transportation Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to mass surveillance of Muslim communities.

By contrast, even though America has seen a consistent barrage of attacks from domestic non-Islamic terrorists, the privilege and double standards baked into our national security ideologies means those attacks have resulted in no systemic action of the scope marshaled against foreign terrorists. In fact, it has been quite the opposite — according to Darryl Johnson, the senior domestic terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security, the conservative movement backlash to merely reporting the rising threat of such domestic terrorism resulted in DHS seriously curtailing its initiatives against that particular threat. (Irony alert: When it comes specifically to fighting white non-Muslim domestic terrorists, the right seems to now support the very doctrine it criticized Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry for articulating — the doctrine that sees fighting terrorism as primarily “an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort” and not something more systemic.)

Enter the Boston bombing. Coming at the very moment the U.S. government is planning to withdraw from Afghanistan, considering cuts to the Pentagon budget, discussing civil liberties principles and debating landmark immigration legislation, the attack could easily become the fulcrum of all of those contentious policy debates — that is, depending on the demographic profile of the assailant.

If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates. Put another way, white privilege will work to not only insulate whites from collective blame, but also to insulate the political debate from any fallout from the attack.

It will probably be much different if the bomber ends up being a Muslim and/or a foreigner from the developing world. As we know from our own history, when those kind of individuals break laws in such a high-profile way, America often cites them as both proof that entire demographic groups must be targeted, and that therefore a more systemic response is warranted. At that point, it’s easy to imagine conservatives citing Boston as a reason to block immigration reform defense spending cuts and the Afghan War withdrawal and to further expand surveillance and other encroachments on civil liberties.

If that sounds hard to believe, just look at yesterday’s comments by right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham, whose talking points often become Republican Party doctrine. Though authorities haven’t even identified a suspect in the Boston attack, she (like other conservatives) seems to already assume the assailant is foreign, and is consequently citing the attack as rationale to slam the immigration reform bill.

The same Laura Ingraham, of course, was one of the leading voices criticizing the Department of Homeland Security for daring to even report on right-wing domestic terrorism. In that sense, she perfectly embodies the double standard that, more than anything, will determine the long-term political impact of the Boston bombing.

David Sirota

David Sirota is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, magazine journalist and the best-selling author of the books "Hostile Takeover," "The Uprising" and "Back to Our Future." E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website

[Anti Federalist]

But who am I kidding, it was a government set-up the whole time.

I'm starting to think less so...and I'm the first to accuse that.

Tell you why:

Usually, when it's a government op, they have the suspect, the story and the spin all ready to go.

They have yet to trot anybody out, and place public blame so as to work the agenda.

If the media goes silent on this thing in a week and there is still no public scapegoat for Boobus to throw eggs at, then that, to me, indicates this very well could have been an "organic" or "real" attack.

[pcosmar]

They are really trying the OKC Bombing fraud all over again. (down to the picture of the hero McVeigh)

even more to make me suspect this is a Government Op.

[PaulConventionWV]

What he fails to mention is that this privelege doesn't only apply to whites. In fact, the ONLY people who seem to be collectively denigrated for terrorism are people of Arabic origin. If the guy was black, then we're not going to be bombing Africa. It's only Middle Eastern people that get the blame for collective terrorism. So this isn't a case of white privilege. This is a case of special denigration reserved for Arabic peoples.

That's why I say let's hope he's black. Blacks won't be denigrated for the bombing because of the stigma attached to collectivizing blacks, and liberals won't blame the tea party or a militia.

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm starting to think less so...and I'm the first to accuse that.

Tell you why:

Usually, when it's a government op, they have the suspect, the story and the spin all ready to go.

They have yet to trot anybody out, and place public blame so as to work the agenda.

If the media goes silent on this thing in a week and there is still no public scapegoat for Boobus to throw eggs at, then that, to me, indicates this very well could have been an "organic" or "real" attack.

Interesting. What about the announcements before the bomb went off? What do you make of that?

[pcosmar]

I'm starting to think less so...and I'm the first to accuse that.

Tell you why:

Usually, when it's a government op, they have the suspect, the story and the spin all ready to go.

They have yet to trot anybody out, and place public blame so as to work the agenda.

If the media goes silent on this thing in a week and there is still no public scapegoat for Boobus to throw eggs at, then that, to me, indicates this very well could have been an "organic" or "real" attack.

If it was in fact some terror group,, or individual with a "point" to make..
It would have been accompanied with a Statement, Demand or "manifesto".

This is intentionally vague.. Everyone is Suspect.

[Cowlesy]

Of course leftist idiots like this guy want it to be a white male American, because broadly speaking it's the one group of Americans that's the biggest pain in the ass to control with handouts and promises. That fact is coupled with the fact they have a majority of the guns in the country.

Of course, we're all well-aware that controlling this group is largely mythical, as vast swaths of them voted for the guy Mr. Sirota supports.

Leftists like this guy are the biggest of totalitarians, and you, random white guy just trying to make a living and get along like everyone else, are target #1.

Anything to bring another big boot down on boobus americanus is a victory for these guys.

[The Gold Standard]

I'm starting to think less so...and I'm the first to accuse that.

Tell you why:

Usually, when it's a government op, they have the suspect, the story and the spin all ready to go.

They have yet to trot anybody out, and place public blame so as to work the agenda.

If the media goes silent on this thing in a week and there is still no public scapegoat for Boobus to throw eggs at, then that, to me, indicates this very well could have been an "organic" or "real" attack.

The media has been hammering tea party and right-wing type groups. They have their scapegoat ready to go.

[Anti Federalist]

Interesting. What about the announcements before the bomb went off? What do you make of that?

Could be legit.

The system may have have something that tingled its antenna just enough to send out the warnings and increase "security".

Then again, could be all false flag.

Just applying my personal rule of thumb to this.

Mark my words: this thing disappears off the radar of the government organs and mouthpieces (the media), it was "real" and they have no clue who did it or why.

[Anti Federalist]

The media has been hammering tea party and right-wing type groups. They have their scapegoat ready to go.

True, although they may have their signals crossed as well.

Honestly, somebody gets a painful hangnail in East Vassalboro, and the organs will say it's the evil right wing that caused it.

[Brian4Liberty]

white male privilege

Hillary/Michelle 2016!

What a convenient way to subtly attack the Tea Party and males at the same time. And it doesn't matter who did the bombing. The blame still lies with the white male Tea Party types no matter what the truth turns out to be!

Ignite and stoke the race and gender politics. Never let a tragedy go to waste.

[Anti Federalist]

Hillary/Michelle 2016!

What a convenient way to subtly attack the Tea Party and males at the same time. And it doesn't matter who did the bombing. The blame still lies with the white male Tea Party types no matter what the truth turns out to be!

Ignite and stoke the race and gender politics. Never let a tragedy go to waste.

Keep in mind this is a Tim Wise echo chamber piece, and his self loathing at who he is, is clinical, it's pathological and painful to read.

[chudrockz]

The writer is delusional if s/he thinks that this will not be used to massively enlarge the Security State, regardless of who it ultimately gets pinned on.

[TonySutton]

If it were a govt job the bomber would have A) been cornered and eaten a bullet or B) got caught driving out of town in a car with fake plates.

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

Of course the lamestream media is quick to politicize this tragedy. As Rahm Emanuel famously said: "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

[Orgoonian]

This writer is a racist supremacist,and former APAIC staffer.

[TheGrinch]

However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings

Of course not, they have to wait and see what his political affiliation is before they start the collective denigration/targeting of the group. :rolleyes:

[AuH20]

Of course leftist idiots like this guy want it to be a white male American, because broadly speaking it's the one group of Americans that's the biggest pain in the ass to control with handouts and promises. That fact is coupled with the fact they have a majority of the guns in the country.

Of course, we're all well-aware that controlling this group is largely mythical, as vast swaths of them voted for the guy Mr. Sirota supports.

Leftists like this guy are the biggest of totalitarians, and you, random white guy just trying to make a living and get along like everyone else, are target #1.

Anything to bring another big boot down on boobus americanus is a victory for these guys.

Generally, the 'white man' knows what's taking place, so he needs to be first stigmatized and then eliminated.

[mad cow]

The writer is delusional if s/he thinks that this will not be used to massively enlarge the Security State, regardless of who it ultimately gets pinned on.

This.I hope whoever did this gets caught and punished severely,but I also think the best chance of catching him/them is by scrutinizing all of the film,iPod pictures and such of the area before the explosion.

This will lead to calls for even more security cameras everywhere,I'm afraid.

[Anti Federalist]

This.I hope whoever did this gets caught and punished severely,but I also think the best chance of catching him/them is by scrutinizing all of the film,iPod pictures and such of the area before the explosion.

This will lead to calls for even more security cameras everywhere,I'm afraid.

This bastion of freedom and liberty (and former funder of terrorists)...

http://nyopoliticker.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/petert.jpeg

Has already called for more surveillance cameras.

[jmdrake]

Could be legit.

The system may have have something that tingled its antenna just enough to send out the warnings and increase "security".

Then again, could be all false flag.

Just applying my personal rule of thumb to this.

Mark my words: this thing disappears off the radar of the government organs and mouthpieces (the media), it was "real" and they have no clue who did it or why.

Well the 1993 WTC bombing dropped off the radar once it came out that a government informant built the bomb.

[jmdrake]

I hate to say this, but the Salon writer has a point, albeit a twisted one. Depending on who's doing the "analysis", whether someone is deemed a "lone nutcase" or part of a "terror network" does depend quite a bit on the script the talking head is reading from. Many of the same talk show hosts who were upset that Obama didn't label the Ft Hood shooter an "Islamic terrorist" are quick to say anyone else is a "lone nut." And the reverse is true. Note that when Clinton was no longer able to sell the "vast right wing conspiracy" angle on the OKC bombing, the idea of "John Doe # 2" dropped off the radar?

[affa]

i don't think this article is nearly as bad as the title suggests it might. it makes some valid points (specifically, in regards to the way our culture perceives mass violence). it's absolutely true that if most school shooters were, say, Muslim, we'd deal with it much differently than we do now, where they're generally white males.

that said, the article fails to get into where backlash against white males does exist, such as... at playgrounds, for example.

[affa]

The media has been hammering tea party and right-wing type groups. They have their scapegoat ready to go.

I think many here are missing the point.

The damage has already been done. I repeat, the damage has already been done.

It doesn't matter if this turned out to be a generator randomly exploding at this point (which obviously it isn't), because the mainstream media has already successfully imprinted 'right wing extremist' and its variants ('gun lover', etc) as something 'bad' and worth pointing the finger at.

They already made the association, doesn't matter who did it anymore (in regards to the blame game -- obviously getting the culprit remains important).