So while the religion of the first shooter is considered so important it makes the headline, the religion of the second is not mentioned at all.Presumably, they don't think 'Jason Rodriguez' sounds like a Muslim name. And therefore, they don't give a damn what religion he is.
Posts
Bastards.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, while I don't doubt the Mail would mention if a killer is Muslim whether it's relevant or not, it seems quite likely to be relevant in this case.
ReplyDeleteAll other news outlets are saying he's Muslim too.
It could be bull, but he is reported as shouting "Allahu Akbar" as he opened fire and had apparently praised suicide bombers in a blog. I'm afraid to admit it, but his religion DOES seem to be relevant.
ReplyDeleteReports from the BBC, New York Times and Guardian suggest he was terrified of being deployed and had been seriously harassed for his religion. So yes, of course, religion may well play a part in this somewhere. But perhaps not in the way the Mail would like to think.
ReplyDeleteBut the Mail automatically makes his religion the important issue, the identifier. Whereas in other cases, such as this one - http://bit.ly/262uMZ - where a soldier shot his colleagues, that shooter's religion isn't mentioned anywhere.
Can't remember reading the headline. 'Methodist GP kills over two patients' when Harold Shipman was on trial for his crimes.
ReplyDeleteOn one forum, a poster has written: "pakistani sounding name. from sindh?" (comment number #4 here: http://cricketfansforum.net/showthread.php?t=8203).
ReplyDeleteHow some would love that to be true of the Florida shooter, inexplicably ignored in this morning's LBC radio news broadcast at 10am (while Fort Hood's was not).