The incomprehensible diversity of “homegrown terrorists”

Leonard K. writes:

From an article by AP:

[T]here is no one predictable path toward violence. Homegrown terrorists have been high school dropouts and college graduates as well, people from poor and wealthy families alike. Some studied overseas. Others were inspired over the Internet.

That has complicated government efforts to understand and head off the radicalization process.

So, our hapless government still can’t understand the “radicalization” process. I can give them a hint: what is the one thing that all those “homegrown terrorists”—rich and poor, well educated and ignorant—have in common?

- end of initial entry -

Greg W. writes:

Karl wrote:

So, our hapless government still can’t understand the “radicalization” process. I can give them a hint: what is the one thing that all those “homegrown terrorists”—rich and poor, well educated and ignorant—have in common?

It’s obvious. They are white, black, or brown; male or female; Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or Jewish; tall or short; have short to long hair; and between the ages of 0 and 100.

That whole Muslim thing is just a coincidence.

James R. writes:

“I can give them a hint: what is the one thing that all those “homegrown terrorists”—rich and poor, well educated and ignorant—have in common?”

Is it that they’re all teapartiers? That’s what the newsreaders all tell me, and how could they possibly be wrong?

Kilroy M. writes:

This reminds me of the Canadian Globe and Mail’s headline a few years ago about 17 arrested Muslim terrorists representing a “broad strata of society” and that the authorities were at a loss to find a common link between them. You can’t make this up. It’s absurdism come to life. Here is Malkin on it from back then.

LA replies:

Yep, I was thinking of that too when I posted the entry, but at the moment didn’t feel like taking the time to look it up. Thanks for jogging my memory and giving me a phrase to help me find it. Here is VFR’s piece on those arrests of terrorists in 2006. I begin by referencing Malkin’s column, and then examine a long New York Times article on the arrests in which the suspects are never once referred to as Muslims.

The Times article avoids any reference to Muslim terrorists as Muslim terrorists in the same systematic and comprehensive manner in which Mark Steyn avoids any reference to Muslim immigration in his book about the Islamization of the West. It’s the difference between left-liberal PC, and right-liberal or neoconservative PC.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 10, 2011 12:50 PM | Send