Like the rest of Juan Cole's writings, this is just superficial, nattering, nonsense:
JC> 1. White terrorists are called “gunmen.” What does that even mean? A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US? Other terrorists are called, like, “terrorists.”
I'm all for gun control, but to equate any American who has a HAND-gun to an AK-47 toting person in a training camp is completely silly.
JC> 2. White terrorists are “troubled loners.” Other terrorists are always suspected of being part of a global plot, even when they are obviously troubled loners.
This is like comparing organized crime to a "troubled" kid stealing a bike.
Or comparing a serial killer to a "troubled" kid who kills one person.
The fact of the matter is that there is a network of terrorists who are trying to recruit people, including "troubled" people, to perpetrate acts of mass murder.
JC> 3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen. Doing studies on other kinds of terrorists is a guaranteed promotion.
Which is as foolish as saying that seeking a grant to study homophobia (or anti-black racism) will get you a promotion, while seeking to study why gays hate straights (or anti-white racism) will get you sidelined.
Not to mention the idiocy that no one studies "white terrorists" - or "brown terrorists.
JC> 4. The family of a white terrorist is interviewed, weeping as they wonder where he went wrong. The families of other terrorists are almost never interviewed.
Again layers of falsehoods, For starters, the media has much more access to the families of "white terrorists" than to someone living in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Nonetheless families of terrorists have been interviewed (one comes to mind of a mother hoping that all her children will become suicide bombers / shahids).
JC> 5. White terrorists are part of a “fringe.” Other terrorists are apparently mainstream.
Let's not forget that following 9/11, in some countries support for the attack was well over 50%. (Even while paradoxically claiming that it was an inside job, etc.)
JC> 6. White terrorists are random events, like tornadoes. Other terrorists are long-running conspiracies.
Should we really talk about the numbers?
JC> 7. White terrorists are never called “white.” But other terrorists are given ethnic affiliations.
So Italian (Red Army) terrorists aren't white? Or Germans (Baader-Meinhoff)? Did the British not identify Irish terrorists?
Yes, that's in the past. Which groups today would qualify?
Consider again the contrast: we identify "white supremacists", but not "black supremacists".
JC> 8. Nobody thinks white terrorists are typical of white people. But other terrorists are considered paragons of their societies.
When 80% of a society supports the terrorists, aids and abets them, do they not speak for their society?
See:Who speaks for Islam?http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1090374
JC> 9. White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts or mentally ill. Other terrorists are apparently clean-living and perfectly sane.
This is a variation of #3.
JC> 10. There is nothing you can do about white terrorists. Gun control won’t stop them. No policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them. But hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists.
How odd that airport security predates "brown terrorism", but this is a rehash of #1.