Comments on: But there’s no terrorist connection

By: Jonathan McLeod

Jonathan McLeod — Fri, 07 May 2010 00:05:20 +0000

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).

By: Mark Peters

Mark Peters — Thu, 06 May 2010 12:27:06 +0000

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. :)

By: balbulican

balbulican — Thu, 06 May 2010 12:10:05 +0000

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.

By: Mark Peters

Mark Peters — Thu, 06 May 2010 11:14:47 +0000

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.

By: c

Wed, 05 May 2010 22:01:49 +0000

No, I just stuck to looking for the things you wrote.

By: Mark Peters

Mark Peters — Tue, 04 May 2010 23:16:16 +0000

Did you bother to try "tea party" terrorism?

By: c

Tue, 04 May 2010 17:49:09 +0000

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=

By: Barbara

Barbara — Tue, 04 May 2010 15:31:46 +0000

I have a feeling that the politicians and experts were hoping the would-be bomber would turn out to be another Timothy McVeigh.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 04 May 2010 14:38:42 +0000

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.

By: balbulican

balbulican — Tue, 04 May 2010 13:29:28 +0000

Were there a lot of “angry white tea-partying gun-toting male” theorists out there, Mark?