But there’s no terrorist connection
May 4, 2010 · By Mark Peters
And Faisal Shahzad is not a Muslim.
A Pakistan-born U.S. citizen accused of driving a bomb-laden SUV into Times Square and parking it on a street lined with restaurants and Broadway theaters was to appear in court Tuesday to face charges that he tried to set off a massive fireball and kill Americans, federal authorities said. [...]
Shahzad, 30, is a naturalized U.S. citizen and had recently returned from a five-month trip to Pakistan, where he had a wife….
That sucking sound you hear is the “angry white tea-partying gun-toting male” theory going down the drain.
Update 1: Shahzad was seated on the plane. He was that || close to making it. (H/T)
Update 2: Robert Dreyfuss figured “the perpetrator of the bungled Times Square bomb plot was either a lone nut job or a member of some squirrely branch of the Tea Party, anti-government far right.” While MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer really, really hoped the alleged would-be bomber would not be a Muslim.
“There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country.”
Yes, Contessa, it’s the part that leads you to equate Islamic jihad with the Michigan Hutaree; the part that ascribes to the Clintonian nonsense that the greatest threat to America comes from those who question the legitimacy and reach of big government; the part that considers the David Koreshes a greater threat to America than the Muhammed Attas.
It’s the neo-Liberal, conservative == bigot, big Democratic government 4ever, hope-and-changey, take-me-now-Barry, tea party == threat to America, religion == bad, culturally-relativistic, dhimmi-in-waiting part.
Update 3: You couldn’t make this stuff up. Shahzad trained at a terrorist camp in Pakistan.
The Pakistani Taliban has taken credit for the bomb plot, but U.S. officials say there’s no evidence to back that up.
None except the guy sitting right there in front of you, whose MO is almost boilerplate for jihadists funded by international Islamist organizations, like — oh, I don’t know — the Pakistani Taliban, and who admits to having attended a training camp in the region dominated by said organization.
Were there a lot of “angry white tea-partying gun-toting male” theorists out there, Mark?
glad someone said it. I nearly puked when I heard that inane theory spouted by canadian intelligence ‘experts’ and democratic-appointed intel officials that it could be the result of ‘radical right wing militias’.
Anything to discredit the tea party movement – even if it means ignoring your real enemies to persecute fellow countrymen.
I have a feeling that the politicians and experts were hoping the would-be bomber would turn out to be another Timothy McVeigh.
It’s really odd — every time I put “angry white tea-partying gun-toting male” into google, it just links back to here.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl.....38;gs_rfai=
Did you bother to try "tea party" terrorism?
No, I just stuck to looking for the things you wrote.
c–
My “angry white tea-partying gun-toting male” line condenses sentiments read or heard in the predominantly neo-Liberal media since the rise of the Tea Party in America.
Perhaps you need to swing a wider net next time.
Mark, your carefully clipped and framed quote from Dreyfus reads:
“Robert Dreyfuss figured “the perpetrator of the bungled Times Square bomb plot was either a lone nut job or a member of some squirrely branch of the Tea Party, anti-government far right.”
Uhh….no. That’s not what he “figured.” The unedited quote reads:
“It may be that the Pakistan-based Taliban, the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), has quietly established a Connecticut franchise while we weren’t looking. That’s possible. But it seems far more likely to me that the perpetrator of the bungled Times Square bomb plot was either a lone nut job or a member of some squirrely branch of the Tea Party, anti-government far right. ”
Not quite the same thing.
When I heard about the bombing, I assumed Islamist terror rather than redneck terror – but I allowed for the possibility of the latter. You can’t keep stoking the fires of hate without consequences.
Thanks, balb.
“… far more likely to me…” I take that to mean this is where his prediction lies. If Dreyfuss had to make a reasoned bet, he would have put his money on a tea party right-wing type. He figured the person would be a right-winger. Both you and I had the opposite hunch; we both figured the perp would be a jihadist.
For what it’s worth, I hoped the terrorist would not be an affiliate of the Tea Party. The thought of Bubba’s position on the Tea Party being played out mere weeks afterward… it makes a conservative groan. :)
balb,
When I first heard about this incident, my reaction was similar to yours. If I had to guess, I would have put my money on some sort of Isamic terrorist type of person, however, I was not comfortable making any declarations. You’re certainly right that when we don’t have all the facts, a bit of humility is called for.
However, I am with Mark. I think Mark portrayed Mr. Dreyfuss’s comment fairly (if not exhaustively).