Posted on 08/18/2017 7:12:09 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Responding to this editorial:
Protesting the Racist Violence in Charlottesville
Which linked to, end endorsed, this extreme anti-Trump view from BBC:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40948812
Hello Consistent Life Friends,
This is worth a look:
I have to say the CL response to the Charlottesville Violence did not display your usual careful, disciplined sense of accuracy and justice.
It seems strange to me that when the alt-right guy's car plowed into the crowd, causing horrible injury and death, it took a nanosecond for the media to determine that it was deliberate and motivated by race-hatred, an instant judgment apparently accepted by CL as well.
But when a Muslim shouting "Allahu Akhbar" does the same, we hear "What could possibly be the motivation?" "Was it terrorism? Homesickness? Mental illness? Disappointment? Unemployment? Reaction to European climate and cuisine?" "We may never know!" --- followed by a judicious caution about the grave error of thoughtlessly linking Islam to Islamism.
I do not know for a fact that the Charlottesville killing was murder. I grant you, it looked like second-degree murder to me at first glance, but we do not judge at first glance, do we?
There are observers who studied the video, seemingly pixel-by-pixel, who say there are indications the driver hit the breaks before his car hit the other vehicles and the crowd. Is this true? I don't know. I have no idea. But the point is, neither do you. If it IS true, it would change everything. Isn't that why we have trials, forensic evidence experts, and juries before we pronounce on an accused perpetrator's guilt?
The idea that there was a huge moral gulf between the alt-right protesters and the ctrl-left counter-protesters also seems rather spurious.
As far as I can make out, on the Right, there was a spectrum ranging from KKK and Nazi to Sons of the Confederacy, Southern Partisans, culture-and-heritage groups, various curators/conservators of civic, historic and gravesite monuments, and free speech advocates. (All listed by the SPLC as hate groups, of course. SPLC also lists the Family Research Council, Fidelity Press, and Catholic Family News.)
They had worked together with the police for weeks in advance to try to insure a peaceable, orderly assembly. They had a city permit.
(Interestingly, the United the Right coordinator, Jason Kessler, was ---according to SPLC--- also involved with Occupy Wall Street and the Obama campaign. Is this true? Well, maybe, maybe not, depending on whether SPLC research can be followed through all the zigs and zags!)
On the Left, there was CPUSA, Revolutionary Marxists, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, Unidos US (formerly La Raza), Black Bloc anarchists, and various wannabe felons (legit protestors don't bring cement-filled beverage cans, ball-bats wrapped with barbed wire, bike chains and and steel-shot-weighted gloves) plus liberal Democrats, peaceful race harmony people, and again, free speech advocates.
According to the article listed above, it is not a grotesque or ignorant fringe, but a plurality of Americans surveyed, who believe (despite the unbroken drum-beat of media bias) that the Right was not solely responsible for the violence. The numbers were that 40% said there was blame on "both sides," 9% said "it was mostly the Left," and 46% said "mostly the Right." That's 49% said "both sides + Left," vs. 46% saying "it was just the Right."
The accuracy of these perceptions or the significance of these numbers may be debated, but one conclusion you can draw is that Trump's remarks deploring violence "on both sides," was not an ominous, pro-KKK-Nazi stance. It reflected what many or most people saw and thought.
With sincere good will,
[signed]
Excellent!
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.