Posted on 06/12/2016 1:45:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
President Barack Obama is commenting about the horrible tragedy/terrorist attack in Orlando. Obama called the situation a terrorist attack, but didn’t try to get into the mind of the shooter, except to say he was “full of hate.”
"We are still learning all the facts. This is an open investigation. We’ve reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer. The FBI is appropriately investigating this as an act of terrorism. And I’ve directed that we must spare not effort to determine what, if any, inspiration or association this killer may have had with terrorist groups."
It’s not surprising Obama went with the line of “terrorism” without mentioning religion, because we don’t know what the motivation was just yet. Yes, it appears Omar Mateen may have had a connection to Islamic radicalism but we don’t 100% know this yet. Obama’s call for hesitance on trying to establish a motive isn’t a bad idea because it’s probably best to wait for the authorities to finish their investigation before leaping into blaming one group or another for what happened.
Yet the caution Obama seemed to show when it came to whether or not Mateen was a radical Islamist he completely threw out when it came to what was used to kill the club goers.
"Today marks the most deadly shooting in American history. The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school or in a house of worship or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing, is a decision that’s wrong."
It’s also not surprising, and horribly misguided, to turn this into a discussion about gun control. We’re just barely 12 hours past an awful situation which has left people clamoring for answers while they try to process the grief they’re dealing with. This type of doublespeak by the President in urging for caution in blaming particular groups of people, yet immediately rushing to blaming the instrument used in the tragedy, is something he’s done time and time again. It is hypocritical for him to do this, and just shows how political he wants to make this tragedy (even if he might claim otherwise).
Maybe it’s human to immediately rush to blame in what caused terrorist attacks and mass shootings. The Left likes to rush towards blaming the gun in the Orlando shooting, just like they rushed towards blaming the gun in the awful shooting death of Christina Grimmie from The Voice. There are plenty on the Right who want to immediately rush to blaming religion or ideology for what happened, even though a motive hasn’t been reached yet. It’s understandable, but right now, maybe it’s best to try to support others, instead of rushing to point fingers.
...puttin’ the cheese on the cracker for the American people...
He always hesitates, and say that we shouldn’t rush to judgment, but he was sure quick to say that the cops “behaved stupidly” in the Gates case, and say that “if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon” in the Martin case. No waiting to rush in on those and other cases where he saw an opportunity to fan the flames of anti-white hatred.
No, the real question is how this guy got trusted to be so close to his victims.
NO, he called it a act of terror..
History globally has demonstrated that no matter where the practitioners of Islam migrate and no matter when, innocent people will ALWAYS die because of the personal religious interpretation of faith. The question is whether the fact that the overwhelming number of muslims may be personally “peaceful” and do not practice extreme jihad is enough to justify an immigration policy that accepts the risk that some of their populace will sacrificed to maintain the notion that no religion however risky may be discriminated against in considering immigration policy. When it comes to consideration of the issue, there are three types of politicians.The first politician avoids controversy by denying the fact and saying there is no risk or that innocents died not because of the religion but because the islamic executioner was driven to it by reasons other than religion. The second politician acknowledges the risk and says I accept it without restrictions. The third politician also acknowledges the risk and sets immigration restrictions to take the risk into account. That is how we define the difference between a liar, a fool and a wise man.
Domestic terrorism by a US citizen.
Must. Crack. Down. On. U. S. Citizens.
Only to a liberal is there so much terrorism and gun violence that we need to ban guns...but if you want a gun to protect yourself from all that violence you’re just being paranoid.
Typical
Well gun control kept ISIS from shooting up night clubs in France, didn’t it?
Lemee see. Shooter a security guard withan extra licence re: guns. The Kenyan makes no sense.
What we need is immigrant control.
This guy was the product of a failed immigration policy that allows in people who have no intention of assimilating. Or of allowing their children to assimilate.
Muslim anchor baby .
Radical Taliban supporting father .
Gee look how that turned out
It wasn’the terrorism, it was workplace violence.
Islamic terror?
What a total POS this clown is. Gun control eh? We need control from people like him.
Obama wants to disarm the American people and then compares Trump to Hitler. That’s some weird sh*t right there. I guess the low info types lick that vomit up.
How to make America better for the day:
Give Obama a golf club and Biden a bottle of scotch. /sarcasm
A Muslim radical who shoots up servicemen and women in Texas is just committing workplace violence. But if gays are shot up, that’s terrorism. The liberal mind is something to behold.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.