PrintMay 6, 2010
What motivated Faisal Shahzad to attempt to explode a car bomb in Times Square? Might it have anything to do with radial Islam, jihad, and anti-Western hatred?
Nope. Not according many media outlets. Consider a story in today's Connecticut Post, a Bridgeport-based newspaper that's one of the state's largest dailies. It provides fascinating insights on what set off Shahzad -- insights that come from James Monahan, a clinical psychologist and associate professor of criminal justice at the University of New Haven.
"Maybe he (Shahzad) was the runt of the litter; the child who couldn't meet his parents' expectations," Monahan told the paper.
"Maybe he was starting to see the hopes of living the good life in America die and he began feeling like a failure," the professor speculates at another point. "Maybe he wanted the satisfaction of going out with a bang."
And what about jihad? Or radical Islam? Or Islamic-inspired terrorism? The Connecticut Post dares not mentions such words. Not once. Turning to Professor Monahan for sage advice, it only says, "The professor suggests that maybe Shahzad fell into the wrong crowd, who turned his American failure into anger against America."
The professor adds: "They need to be grilling him in an attempt to determine his connections and his associations to radical groups. His wife is someone who they should want to talk to."
Gosh. What a good idea: Talk to his wife! And I wonder what kinds of "radical groups" the professor might be referring to?
Unfortunately, the Connecticut Post's reporting is par for the course in respect to much of the media's coverage of Faisal Shahzad -- something Mary Katharine Ham observes in a Weekly Standard piece on the "dumbest theories on the Times Square Bomber."
Here's a parting thought: If the Times Square Bomber had been a Christian right-wing white guy who went to Tea Parties and opposed ObamaCare, would the media be treating him with the kid gloves they are using in their politically correct coverage of Shahzad?
