The Lone Gunman Syndrome

Michelle Malkin has commented a lot about this--when a terrorist attack is written off as a wild random accident that, like innumerable other wild random accidents, just happens to be committed by an Islamist fanatic.  She had the occasion to do so Sept. 4  with the latest wild random accident in Amman, recounted yesterday in the Post on A12: Man Opens Fire At Tourists In Jordan:

A gunman fired on a group of foreign tourists here in the Jordanian capital Monday, killing a British man and wounding seven other people, according to police and witnesses.

The tourists were visiting the ruins of an ancient Roman amphitheater in central Amman when the gunman approached them from behind and fired more than a dozen bullets, witnesses said. The British man, who was not identified, was fatally wounded and six other foreigners -- two British women, two Australian women, a Dutch man and a New Zealander -- were also hit, according to Jordan's official Petra news agency...

A man, a gunman, whatsoever religious identity might this fellow have? Well, it's a short dispatch and AP writer Yasmine Mousa (or whoever edited the story) eventually fits it in. And then, left until the very last sentence, we are allowed to hear:

"I was walking when I saw someone pull out a pistol from his pocket and start shouting ' Allahu akbar ' [God is greatest] and fire repeatedly," Mohammad Jawad Ali, an Iraqi witness, told the Reuters news agency.

I suppose it's a marvel this was printed at all.

Comments

[just a wanderer]

Is your point that all Islamic fanatics should be identified as terrorists? Are there no random acts of violence committed by deranged individuals, without a specific terrorist goal? What about others who kill in the name of God, or the devil, i.e. Son of Sam? Is it more important for the paper to record their acts, or to identify them as religious fanatics, and therefore terrorists?

[Christopher Fotos]

Well, look, there isn't exactly a Son of Sam movement threatening the planet right now. There is no organized Son of Sam cult that bombed the World Trade Center, bombed the USS Cole, "bombed" the World Trade Center a second time to the point of destroying two skyscrapers, and today conducts virtually daily acts of violence around the world in the name of Son of Sam.

So when yet another multiple murder takes place with someone screaming Allahu Akbar, drawing some kind of connection between Islamist terrorism and that latest act of terror isn't exactly the last thing a reporter should be considering.

[just a wanderer]

Damn you! You have forced me to read all the links to better understand this situation. Now I understand your original post even less. Lets start with some basics. I understand you are looking to highlight a liberal bias in the mainstream media. OK, fine- no problem with that and more power to you, although after reading many of your posts and lack of response to same from the Post I don't understand why you don't just start pounding your head against a wall- it would seem less frustrating, if not less painful. But in this particular post you seem to be indicating that the reporter or editor 'hid' any connection between the gunman and terrorist until the last sentence. In fact, the report midway thru (after laying out the facts of the incident) states that the government is looking into whether this was a 'random act' or connected to terrorist organizations. It also notes facts both pro and con to a connection. Is this not relatively even reporting, or am I being naive? As I said earlier, are you making the case that ALL incidents of violence/ murder where the name of a deity is invoked constitute an act of terrorism and should be reported as such?