Isn't it curious that whenever a white westerner, especially if that person is a "white supremacists" (at least allegedly) or some other kind of "right-wing extremist" (again, at least allegedly), commits an act of terrorism, the mainstream media, politicians and pretty much everybody immediately knows exactly what the motivations behind the terrorist attack was and who or what is to blame, and there will be loud calls for action to destroy that scapegoat?
Isn't it also curious that whenever eg. a Muslim commits an act of terrorism, the motivations and causes for it seem to always be a complete mystery? It just kind of happens, for unknown reasons. Suddenly all those politicians, journalists and everybody else seem to be completely puzzled about what could have caused this, and they just shrug and leave it as a mystery for the ages. "Well, it just happens... people commit terrorist acts because... you know... they are mentally ill or something, you know. Let's not talk about it too much."
Isn't it likewise curious that if the terrorist in question, prior to committing the act (or sometimes even after it), stated exactly, clearly and unambiguously why he's doing it, it usually gets completely ignored?
In both cases.
When it's a "white supremacist" doing the terrorist act, the media and politicians immediately know the motivations and reasons behind it... but those have absolutely nothing to do with what the terrorist himself stated, no matter how clearly and unambiguously he may have stated it. (The only exception to this is when the stated reason happens to align with the reason that the media and politicians want. In that case they will happily embrace the terrorist's manifesto. But only in that situation.)
When it's a Muslim doing the terrorist act, whatever statement or manifesto that person might have given will be completely ignored, and the reasons will be always considered a complete mystery.
Curious how this works.
Isn't it also curious that whenever eg. a Muslim commits an act of terrorism, the motivations and causes for it seem to always be a complete mystery? It just kind of happens, for unknown reasons. Suddenly all those politicians, journalists and everybody else seem to be completely puzzled about what could have caused this, and they just shrug and leave it as a mystery for the ages. "Well, it just happens... people commit terrorist acts because... you know... they are mentally ill or something, you know. Let's not talk about it too much."
Isn't it likewise curious that if the terrorist in question, prior to committing the act (or sometimes even after it), stated exactly, clearly and unambiguously why he's doing it, it usually gets completely ignored?
In both cases.
When it's a "white supremacist" doing the terrorist act, the media and politicians immediately know the motivations and reasons behind it... but those have absolutely nothing to do with what the terrorist himself stated, no matter how clearly and unambiguously he may have stated it. (The only exception to this is when the stated reason happens to align with the reason that the media and politicians want. In that case they will happily embrace the terrorist's manifesto. But only in that situation.)
When it's a Muslim doing the terrorist act, whatever statement or manifesto that person might have given will be completely ignored, and the reasons will be always considered a complete mystery.
Curious how this works.
Comments
Post a Comment