The British Prime Minister, Theresa May, has tried to take President Trump to the woodshed for retweeting three videos from the Britain First group depicting radical Muslims in a bad light. Let me see ... depicting radical Muslims in a bad light is bad? The rationale for the Left's hysteria over Trump's action has two prongs: one, Britain First is a "radical" right-wing group ... and, two, the authenticity of these videos is questionable.
To deal with the validity of these videos and what they depict ... are they any more incendiary than the videos that radical Muslims themselves produce: the beheadings of dozens of kneeling Christians dressed in orange ... or the drowning of heretics in steel cages? If Trump had retweeted these radical Muslim-produced videos, would he still be accused of inciting Islamophobia any worse than the radical Muslims themselves? Do people not see this clear paradox?
And secondly, why is not just as bad for PM May to stir up spittle-producing prejudice against the "radical" Britain First group as it is for Trump to incite push-back against radical Muslims. Has the Britain First group driven a lorry into a crowd of London Bridge pedestrians? Or killed dozens of passengers with nail bombs in the London Underground? There is radical and then there is RADICAL!
Please, my (mostly liberal) readers, help me understand this upside-down thinking by answering these two troubling questions?
To your first question: No. These videos are not as incendiary as those released by radical Muslims. Trump had no reason to retweet any videos. Especially those produced by an extreme radical organization and that are viewed as produced several years ago. That incites OUR radical groups: David Duke said "Thank God for Trump! That's why we love him!" Despite platitudes on how Trump is setting a new style, his disruptive agenda is getting eroded by his unfocused screeds. What did retweeting those videos accomplish for the USA?
ReplyDeleteTrump might have been too quick on the trigger here ... but it did show what appeasers the British establishment and American media are ...
DeleteBTW, here in the US, the radical right is hardly the threat that the radical left is. Yes, they need to be monitored, but so does ANTIFA, the New Black Panthers, BLM, and La Raza. (And you can now throw in the NFL with its $100 million donarion to "social justice warriors").
Delete"too quick on the trigger"? There was no good reason to have his finger near the trigger. And what was he doing even following the tweets of that radical British group? Is he following the Westboro Baptist Church, Richard Spencer, David Dukes, and all the far-right parties around the world... as well as Fox News?
DeleteAre you conflating these groups with Fox News? Please disabuse me of such a notion ...
DeleteDisabused. We know that DJT watches Fox News.
DeleteHe also watches CNN. Ergo CNN = David Duke?
DeleteAy caramba! In order for DJT to retweet what Jayda Fransen tweeted, DJT had to be following (or opted to receive direct messages) from her or Britain First. So I conjectured that he follows other far-right leaders and groups. Who do you follow? Do you follow DJT?
DeleteConjecture ... I have lots of conjectures re BHO ...
DeleteTo your second question: If any world leader tweeted links to videos of white supremacist marches and shootings of unarmed blacks to lament how black lives do not matter in the USA, it would be clearly an affront to us. None of their business...
ReplyDelete