Juan Cole: top 10 differences between white terrorists and others

[Enrique]

#10 imo is the most important one

http://www.juancole.com/2012/08/top-ten-differences-between-white-terrorists-and-others.html

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.

[Lionessa]

1. Seems 100% accurate. Well done Juan Cole.

K n R

[ananda]

2. Whoa, this is excellent!

nt

[The Magistrate]

3. He Presents A Perfect Understanding Of The Matter, Sir

[RZM]

4. I don't know. I can think of a few recent mass shootings by non-whites where this stuff applies

The DC snipers, the Virginia Tech shooter, and the recent shooter at the Korean Christian University in Oakland were all non-white. I'm not aware of them being referred to as terrorists. They weren't really connected to any global plots, they were considered loners/fringe, they weren't considered typical of their races, etc.

So perhaps Cole has got this wrong. Maybe he should have switched it around and described the way that Muslim terror is described, because the cases I mention seem to throw a wrench into his argument that white mass shootings are in a league by themselves.

On edit:

I forgot Omar Thornton (that was the guy who went on a shooting spree at the brewery where he had worked). That's another example that doesn't really fit into Cole's argument.