Posted on 09/15/2017 11:08:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
or the second time in a month, President Trump has rushed to condemn a terrorist attack abroad as the work of Islamist terrorists, speaking out before the facts are known even to local officials. Trump’s remarks came just a day after he once again insisted he was right to cast blame on both sides after violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August. And they renew the question of why he is so quick to speak with such clarity in cases involving Islamist terrorism and yet so deliberate and equivocating in a clash involving white supremacists.
Within hours of an apparent attack in London, which injured several people, Trump tweeted:
______________________
Another attack in London by a loser terrorist.These are sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard. Must be proactive!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 15, 2017
______________________
He added that the attack made the case for his ban on people from several predominantly Muslim countries entering the U.S.: “The travel ban into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific-but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!” (This statement is difficult to parse: How can a ban be both larger and more specific? Moreover, the problem with the initial version of his ban was not that it was politically incorrect, but that courts repeatedly found it to be constitutionally incorrect.)
Trump’s remarks drew quick condemnation from British authorities. Prime Minister Theresa May, one of the allied leaders with whom Trump has forged a good relationship, scolded the president, asking him not to speculate on the culprits of the attack. A police spokesperson also told CNN Trump’s statement was “pure speculation given we don’t know who is involved” and “unhelpful.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Yet that doesn’t explain why he was so deliberate in his response to Charlottesville, where clashes broke out during a neo-Nazi and alt-right rally in defense of a statue of Robert E. Lee, and a man with white-supremacist links allegedly murdered a young woman by driving his car into a crowd. In that case, Trump was slow to speak, and when he did, he condemned bad actors “on all sides.” That stunned many observers, who couldn’t understand why Trump wouldn’t draw a line between white supremacists and those opposing them. The following week saw a tortured series of Trump statements. He tried to clean up his initial remarks with a sober “racism is evil” statement, then delivered a blistering press conference saying there “were very fine people on both sides.”
Great graphic.
There’s one big difference
In Charlottesville, there were two sides faced-off against each other.
In London, it was very clearly ONE-SIDED
That makes “moral-clarity” very easy.
I thought SY deemed it a terrorist attack. Does Trump’s tweet identify them as Islamic? Don’t think so. He says terrorist.
These same creatures had no problem with Zero rushing to judgement and condemning the police before all the facts were known.
I thought Trump had moral clarity on Charlottesville: Both KKK and ANTIFA are wrong. It is the Atlantic that lacks moral clarity on ANTIFA.
Libtards can’t condemn violent Antifa.
Trump condemns all the violent lawless types of whatever beliefs.
That is “moral clarity” of which the left is incapable.
Exactly. One is a “clash” and one is an “attack.” When one side attacks first, you condemn that side. It’s not rocket science.
By an author who imho managed, while editor of the Duke University student newspaper, NOT to be greatly outraged by the railroading of three Duke students by Nifong; shut down comments on the paper’s website about the case immediately after it was ended; and appeared (again imho) to be bored stiff during Nifong’s bar trial, sitting in the back even as the mothers of the falsely-accused were quietly sobbing at hearing the testimony presented.
WHat is this writer talking about.
Trump had plenty of moral clarity regarding Charlottesville.
Screw em. They let returning ISIS guys back into England without monitoring even. People from the UK should have to get a Visa before they enter the usa at this point. No more Visa waiver
Not complex. The fake Nazis lead by the same old leftists agitators that led occupy came out with the expressed purpose of yelling some stuff through a bull horn. Antifa came out with the expressed purpose of starting a riot, kicking some ass and repeal the 1st amendment. The police forced these two groups of useful idiots together to watch them fight. Another day another elitist puppet show.
There’s one big difference
In Charlottesville, there were two sides faced-off against each other.
In London, it was very clearly ONE-SIDED
That makes “moral-clarity” very easy.
I find it odd that the press seems to get so confused about things that are so simple and obvious. Are they stupid or just trying to get people worked up?
I asked the editor of my high school newspaper, way back in 1970, about his op-ed pieces. He said he rarely presents his opinion. Rather, he presents an opinion that will create a response in people.
And here we are...
Great point.
Also, in Charlottesville, ONE side had a permit to be there. The other side came with the sole intent of causing violence. Furthermore, the police DELIBERATELY set them upon each other when they could have kept them apart.
All of the true leaders, talent, brains, and patriots in western europe died in world war II.
What is left is the dregs, the defeated, the fatalistic, and the invaders from east and south.
...because most of them and most of the MSM are closet Antifa cheerleaders.
I saw the video where it looks like someone hit his car prior to his running thru antifa. He might have been scared for his life. But there seems to be a new blackout on this guy and case. I wonder why?
is it possible that the Islamic attacks are always directed against peaceful people going about their daily lives, and the clash at Charlottesville was between two groups, one being the aggressor (antifa) and the other which was prepared to fight back if attacked.
There is a huge difference, the fact that the writer can’t or doesn’t want to admit there is a difference says a lot about him.
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.