You still don’t get it Manju. My argument is not debunked because you say it is so. It also isn’t my argument anymore. Lots of people before and after this post saw the same double standard I did. Greenwald in Salon and Sullivan in the Atlantic highlighted it as well. A dude McVeighed a Federal building 9/11 style and he gets far less coverage than similar incidents were the person is “foreign.” The press secretary then implies that terrorists can only be foreign as well. You can rationalize that away all you want. Peace.

I’m hoping there is a journalism student or faculty member out there that can go the extra mile on this and actually document the media and Political bias in a research paper.

Dr. Shukla is a representative of the Hindu American Foundation–an wholly american foundation–and was attempting to politely respond before he was forced to defend himself. Would Nihad Awad of CAIR have been treated so shabbily?

Yajnavalkya, I don’t know what Shukla comment you are referring to but I would happily be rid of comments like your second sentence (pure religion baiting). It is the kind of bullshit I am tired of and why the comments section is often worthless.

Now to actually enjoy my weekend.

Just a rough cut, which I think calls for more investigation, not the conclusion that there’s no double standard in coverage or bias. My opinion.

NYT 11/7:

WASHINGTON — After two days of investigation into the mass shooting at Fort Hood, investigators have tentatively concluded that the attack was not part of a terrorist plot. Rather, they have come to believe that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused in the shootings, acted out under a welter of emotional, ideological and religious pressures, according to interviews with federal officials who have been briefed on the inquiry.

Washington Post 11/6:

The Fort Hood attack is the third instance this year in which American military personnel in the United States have been targeted by people reportedly opposed to U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorism experts said. Investigators are seeking to determine the motivations of the Fort Hood suspect, Army Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, in part to understand whether his alleged actions fit in with what experts see as an emerging pattern of plots developed by U.S. citizens or residents rather than foreign attackers. Federal prosecutors in September charged two North Carolina men for allegedly conspiring to kill personnel at the U.S. Marine Corps base at Quantico, seeking to attack U.S. forces at home if they could not overseas. In June, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, an American Muslim convert, allegedly shot and killed one soldier and wounded another at a military recruiting center at Little Rock, Ark., in what he said was retaliation for U.S. counterterrorism policies worldwide.

Washington Post 11/8

Federal investigators are examining possible links between Fort Hood shooting suspect Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and an American-born imam who U.S. authorities say has become a supporter and leading promoter of Al-Qaida since leaving a northern Virginia mosque, officials said. Hasan attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Va., in 2001, when its spiritual leader was Anwar al-Aulaqi, a figure who crossed paths with Al-Qaida associates, including two Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers, one senior U.S. official said.

so it’s a mixed bag on a quick surface glance, but it has some links to an alleged global terrorist network.

Say what you want about Manju, but he/she has at least attempted to argue on the basis of facts and not ad homs, but was ultimately cast aside–in spite of plentiful links. Since we’re talking double standards here, why was Aseem Shukla so shoddily treated in the comments then? One of the commenters practically pounced on him as though he were Bal Thackeray himself. Dr. Shukla is a representative of the Hindu American Foundation–an wholly american foundation–and was attempting to politely respond before he was forced to defend himself. Would Nihad Awad of CAIR have been treated so shabbily? I am not raising this question to be “anti-minority” as some would predictably say, as I have plenty of friends from all religious backgrounds. I only raise that point because those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I would urge those of you who say “look at the facts, it’s simple logic” etc etc, to look at your own records. A number of bloggers here have themselves professed ignorance about key issues in the subcontinent, so the leitmotif of having to put up with ignorant and underinformed rightwing malcontents becomes even more misplaced. Now if merely pointing this out as politely as possible (my tone in all of this is nothing but civil) gets me banned from this blog, so be it. All you would be doing then is proving Manju’s point about the far left and freedom of speech. Please bear in mind, I say this as a registered democrat. Trolls like bizarro feed off of this attitude towards more conservative perspectives and their mockery and one line non sequiturs are encouraged through benign neglect. This forces legitimate commenters such as manju and yoga fire to change tactics and tone to match bizarro. So if this blog is sincere about restoring the tone of civility, that is a good place to start.

In sum, I think this blog is a great idea and a wonderful resource for south asians of all backgrounds and communities. Moreover, I commend the founding bloggers for not attempting to cash in on this–truly a rare showing. However, if you’re going to ask the question “why has there been a decline in the tone and overall quality of comments” it’s only fair to do a little self-reflection as well. I think it is possible for people across a wide range of political perspectives and ideologies to engage in civil conversation. However, the onus for civility is on all of us and not just the conservative few.

Abhi…I think he’s a terrorist too, but your double standard argument was debunked effectively as early as Anand in 17. Clearly the NY Times did not label Nidal a terrorist, even when it was known he posted comments on the Internet about suicide bombings, yelled “”Allahu akbar!”, and held anti-American and anti-war views. it wasn’t until evidence emrgerded of contact with — well–terrorist, that the tide began to turn. and even then they hedged their bet, asking:

Was Major Hasan a terrorist, driven by religious extremism to attack fellow soldiers he had come to see as the enemy? Was he a troubled loner, a misfit who cracked when ordered sent to a war zone whose gruesome casualties he had spent the last six years caring for?

your accusations against the Obama admin are equally weak, as you’ve been presented with evidence that they also declined the terrorist label for nidal. there was more debate about this than I think you remember–probably because of the peculiar partisan phenomena i identified in 83. for example, the noecon TNR said at the time:

We don’t know yet whether Nidal Hassan had any connection to al Qaeda or a similar terrorist movement, or even whether, like the Oklahoma City bombers or Scott Roeder, he imagined that he was acting on behalf of such a movement…I am reluctant to call him a terrorist, particularly because doing so arouses fears of a Jihadist conspiracy in our midst that may not exist, or that may be containable by the same means we are presently using.

doesn’t quite fit the narrative, eh? I think if you examine the cases of the SUV terrorist or the LAX shooter–both Muslim assailants–you will find a similar reaction.

Last time I will engage this stupidity. The point of “getting worked up” is the double standard! Not just in the media (who gives and ef about them, right??) but by OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS. Same crime. One standard if you are white, another if you are not. If you don’t get worked up over just a blatant double standard then nothing will work you up. And writing and bringing attention to the double standard IS doing something about it.

Always amusing to see non-whites defending white privilege at their own expense. Very stupid.

Wasn’t defending anyone’s privilege. If I’m not agreeing with you, it doesn’t mean I’m defending someones supposed superiority.

I just don’t see the point in getting so worked up about the media not labeling him a terrorist.

Damn near ever soldier who ever picked up a gun was motivated by some ideology or other. That doesn’t make them “terrorists.”

You can’t just cavalierly throw that word around because it makes you feel good. It actually means something and that has an impact on the real world. Especially given that we seem to be headed into a norm of detaining people indefinitely and withholding certain constitutional rights on the basis of terrorists being “enemy combatants.”

Always amusing to see non-whites defending white privilege at their own expense. Very stupid.

This nutjob was motivated by ideology as are the al-Qaeda, unlike the other examples you ridiculously try to lump him with.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/19/terrorism