Different rules
David Graham at the Atlantic asks a necessary question – why is Trump so speedy at jumping to conclusions about what he takes to be Islamist terrorism and so slow and cautious about a bit of white supremacist terrorism caught on video?
For 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.
Sadly, it’s not even a question. He likes the white supremacists. He likes what they’re doing. He made Jeff Sessions Attorney General so that he Sessions could suppress the black vote as he’s spent his whole career trying to do. He’s an active, enthusiastic racist.
Shooting from the hip is not unusual for Trump. After an attack in Barcelona last month, Trump quickly condemned it as terror and resurrected an old and slanderous falsehood about General John Pershing’s handling of Muslim fighters in the Philippines. Earlier this year, he got into a tiff with London Mayor Sadiq Khan over the response to terror, also drawing chastisement from British authorities. And during the presidential campaign, he was quick to label the downing of an EgyptAir flight as terror, even though few facts were then known.
…
The London attack and Trump’s speculative response to it comes the day after he reaffirmed his “both sides” response to Charlottesville. On Wednesday, Trump met with Senator Tim Scott, a black Republican from South Carolina who had been critical of Trump’s response to the attacks. Scott tried to impress upon Trump the long history that fed into the clash.
“I shared my thoughts of the last three centuries of challenges from white supremacists, white nationalists, KKK, Nazis,” Scott said. “So there’s no way to find an equilibrium when you have three centuries of history versus the situation that is occurring today.”
And Trump listened, and finally got the point?
Scott did not seem optimistic that Trump had grasped the lesson. Asked whether Trump expressed regret, the senator said, “He certainly tried to explain what he was trying to convey.” He also offered caution about future statements, using the soft condescension that allies often use when discussing the president: “Anyone that expects an epiphany or a transformation to happen overnight because somebody walks in a room, I think you don’t understand human nature.”
Human nature is one thing, and Trump nature is another. It’s a bit insulting to humans to imply that Trump stands for all of us. Trump is exceptionally uninformed, and thick, and narcissistic, and callous.
…Sadly, it’s not even a question. He likes the white supremacists. He likes what they’re doing. He made Jeff Sessions Attorney General so that he Sessions could suppress the black vote as he’s spent his whole career trying to do. He’s an active, enthusiastic racist….
So we move from being slow to condemn to actually supporting?
Exactly the same question could be applied to the Liberal Left and their anxiety to paint attacks as ‘right-wing supremacist’ (even when they’re not), compared to their lack of concern over Islamic and left-wing terrorism. In fact, in Germany they go out of their way to hide the crimes of Islamic terrorists.
So I conclude that the Left Wing Democrats are actually a bunch of murderous terrorists, in exactly the same way as Trump “is an active, enthusiastic racist”…
Sure, you could ask those questions, and reach those conclusions… if, you know, you don’t give a shit about having a factual basis for them.
I can’t tell how old you are, but the Dodgy part is spot-on.
What the hell is a “right-wing supremacist”?
BKiSA, I believe it’s a bird with sideist opinions.
‘…so quick to speak with such clarity in cases involving Islamist terrorism and yet so deliberate and equivocating in a clash involving white supremacists.’
Clarity? Hasty, bellicose, tactless, and always self-aggrandizing. I don’t think these should be described as ‘cleara.’
@Dodgy Geezer:
Ooh, a fact! Those are great! They have evidence and everything!
Let’s see it. Then we can talk about your ideas about which things are the same.
@Screechy:
“Geezer” in this sense is an English expression. It doesn’t mean an older person, it means a man (always) who fancies himself as a bit of what anyone else would describe as a COMPLETE COCK. Someone who fancies himself as a rule-breaker but is in fact a staunch guardian of the status quo of thirty years ago. Someone who thinks they are edgy and connected with the underworld but are actually sad little pricks nobody pays the slightest bit of attention to.
Being a geezer is notionally about having a reputation as a dangerous or dangerously-connected man. Needless to say it is almost always 100% nauseating swagger as demonstrated by our new friend here.
latsot, you’re using the ‘mockney’ definition of ‘geezer’ there, as seen in Guy Ritchie movies (Lock, Stock; Snatch, etc). Up until the spate of London gangster movies, geezer was just a slang term for a man.
If you can find a leftist who doesn’t condemn leftist terrorism, please do pile on the contempt. It’s going to be a bit hard, what with the very, very small amount of leftist terrorism out there. Heck, the chief challenge for leftists looking to condemn such is finding examples TO condemn. Some Antifa sorts have roughed up somebody somewhere – and that’s bad and I’d welcome their fair trials and appropriate punishment for it. And Rep. Steve Scalise and others were shot by someone who’s an unhinged leftie – again, this is terrible though punishment is moot there, the shooter being dead.
Islamic terrorism is an odd case this way, since it’s another variety of right-wing terror. Yes yes, I know, right-wing sorts like the Geezer think the whole right is Judeo-Christian – or maybe just Christian – but radical Islam isn’t a leftist movement by and large.
It’s got the right-wing affection for religion, and old-time religion like that: let’s bring 800 AD back!
It’s generally hostile to Jews – again, not a leftist sentiment.
It takes religion and nationality as important, precious indicators of identity and sorts people into bad guys and good guys on that basis – decidedly conservative there too.
It’s not in favor of equal rights for women or sexual minorities – leftists ARE.
Christian conservatives are eager to call out Islamic conservative terrorism, heck, often so eager they will make it up in order to call it out. When they’re not that over-eager, here’s some credit for them, though I have to wonder that the problem they have isn’t so much the terrorism but that it’s a win for the other team in the Terror Olympics. If that’s the whole of it, well, maybe that credit shouldn’t be extended.
Where the left may be reticent about condemning Islamic terrorism, it’s – as far as I can tell – usually a matter of worry about condemning all Muslims for any terrorism by any Muslim, something we see happening mighty frequently from the Christian (and maybe atheist) right. That’s excellent reticence to exercise, and imagine the grief we’d be in for if we condemned every Christian for every abortion clinic bombing or lynching. (Suggesting that they maybe should regard violence in the name of their religion as an especially troubling thing personally, if they really don’t support it, is another thing, and being careful about just how this is stated is important – one can easily go wrong here.)
But when people of religion X condemn terror of religion Y hard, fast, and often, but tell us about the very fine people on both sides when there’s terror attacks of religion Y – we’re well within our rights to suggest he’s a religion Y terror cheerleader.
With one exception: there are a lot of leftists who don’t condemn violence against women if it’s committed by self-proclaimed trans activists against women they call “terfs.” That’s not terrorism (as commonly understood), to be sure, but it is violence-as-silencer for sure.
AoS, no I’m not. Geezer has long meant either man or idiot, depending on context. But thanks for patronizing.
latsot, for some reason I seem to be having difficulty at the moment in expressing my thoughts clearly. I didn’t intend to patronise you and I apologise for doing so.
@AoS
Nothing at all to apologise for, I’m not offended and I didn’t think you intended to patronise. Sorry I was a bit terse. Funny, I’m terrible at expressing myself at the moment, let’s start a conspiracy theory ;)
On the subject of “geezer”, dictionaries (perhaps other than the urban one) say that it means man or, possibly, old and/or eccentric man. But in my experience the term has been used in practice to mean both that and Jack The Lad since at least the 80s and I’d be surprised if it didn’t go back further than that.
There’s a difference between a geezer and a Geezer. Did you buy something from a geezer down the pub or from a Geezer down the pub? A geezer told you something or a Geezer told you something. I think you’re right that it’s largely a distinction without a difference. The upper case version is just the lower case version who happens to be more of a swaggering dickhead.
Either way, I reckon our friend Dodgy here drew inspiration from the dickhead form of “geezer” rather than the relatively benign one.
Ophelia@9
Not an example of literal violence but sings the same tune: there was a “no men” festival in Sweden the other day. You’d think that excluding men would make the event about its stated purpose, which is showing how festivals can be dangerous places for women and how to try to make a festival that isn’t.
But nah, *obviously* it’s all about discrimination against trans men.
According to various loud people and groups, THAT is what’s wrong with having an all-woman festival. I’d have thought that the priority was the obvious need to have safer spaces for women, to publicise it and solicit donations and volunteer work.
But what the fuck do I know? Apparently it has to be more about trans men making their point than about women making theirs.
Phew! Air cleared. Thanks, latsot.