Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
Actually that would be a nationality, right?
|
Actually, that would be a distinction without a difference, right?
You responded to the "Middle Eastern" looking comment by the OP by noting, rather GLEEFULLY in capitals, that LE described them as "white males".
The "Middle East" isn't a nationality or a race, as some apparently believe. And it is not synonymous with "North Africa".
Some MEs are rather dark skinned, as in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, while others are more olive skinned with black hair and brown eyes - swarthy-looking, if you will. This would include some countries I listed from the edge of Europe - Balkans and Turkey - to south Asia - Khazakstan, Afghans, Chechens, Turkmenistan (I don't know how I left Iran off my original list).
Let's be honest, when the left says "white males", they don't mean "looks Sicilian" or "could pass for Greek". They have someone in mind who looks more English, German, or Scandinavian. Blue eyes preferred. Tea Partier a plus. Anglo-sounding name a must.
And, if we were counting minorities for diversity purposes and hiring quotas, progressives would no doubt count
Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev as minorities in need of protection from the white majority and NOT part of the white majority, right?
So, when I first saw those photos, I thought "Middle Eastern", not "white males". And I'm pretty certain the authorities were using the phrase "white males" for politically correct purposes as well.
The left was hoping in the worst way possible that the bomber(s) would be some Tea Party gun nut(s) that looked like Karl Rove and ranted like Wayne LaPierre. It would so perfectly have fit their agenda.
Instead, they got the usual suspects. But, if they were "reality-based', they would have known that.
I imagine David Sirota of Salon.com is disappointed today. He is the progressive twat that hoped the Boston Bombers would be white males:
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets...hite_american/
Check out the sub-heading:
"White terrorists are dealt with as lone wolves, Islamists are existential threats."
Notice the subtle assumption there? A racial group (whites) is contrasted with a religious group (Islamists). It seems this liberal regards whites and radical Muslims as never being in the same group, huh? I guess he never heard of John Walker Lind.
