America suffered another Islamic terror attack on Tuesday when an Uzbek immigrant ran down pedestrians in Manhattan with a truck, leaving eight dead and many more injured.
The events following this jihadi attack have followed a predictable course.
Commentators were quick to condemn any attempt to pin the tragedy on Islam, while pointing out the alleged hypocrisy of calling the truck plowing a terror attack but not saying the same about a white guy shooting up a country concert in Las Vegas. (Fact check: plenty of people did call the Las Vegas shooting, which has no known motive so far, terrorism.)
News outlets began running stories about how the Muslim community is bracing for another backlash that never occurs after these attacks.
The terrorist turned out to be known to authorities as a potential radical.
The preferred solution to the problem, according to urban elites, is to continue as we always have and just start loving people more. Except for those evil Islamophobes, they don’t deserve any love.
The way some people have handled the NYC attack is very similar to how they treated the Orlando shooting and last year’s bombings in New York. It’s just something we have to live with and not get too worried about.
It’s not something scary like a Confederate statue or calls to reduce immigration. Those are serious problems, not Islamic terrorism.
Obviously there is a huge difference in how our nation’s elites handled an ideologically-motivated vehicle attack in August during the Charlottesville riot and now. Then, it was a huge problem that demanded immediate action from the government to ban that ideology from America. Now, a truck plowing over people in the middle of New York City isn’t so bad.
Wonder what changed…
One difference between the Islamic attacks of 2016 and Tuesday’s tragedy is that we have a new president who is willing to use this issue to push for changes in immigration law.
President Trump has called for more “extreme vetting,” doubled down on the commitment to his travel ban, and promised to end the diversity lottery that gave the Uzbek terrorist a visa in 2010.
Considering how the attacker, Sayfullo Saipov, was an immigrant known to authorities, it’s right for the president to look into ways the government can stop future terrorists from coming to our country.
But that idea is already receiving flak from Trump’s many foes. Apparently it is wrong for the president to see a problem with Islamic terrorism and seek solutions to it through government policy.
Leading the charge against Trump’s “divisiveness” was Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the man largely responsible for the creation of the diversity lottery. “I guess it’s not too soon to politicize a tragedy,” Schumer tweeted Wednesday.
This is an odd stance for the senator to take, considering he blamed the NRA for the Las Vegas shooting right after it occurred. (RELATED: Flashback: Schumer Immediately Politicizes Vegas Shooting)
Guess it was okay to politicize that tragedy.
One can always guarantee that the powers that be will always push back against any attempts to tie immigration policy to terror. We’ve seen this happen often in Europe when a jihadi strikes.
The leaders of the United Kingdom and other countries prefer to focus on censoring the internet than restricting migration, and journalists in those countries make sure to shame anyone who will “exploit” tragedies to call for changes in immigration policy. (RELATED: Theresa May’s Answer To Terror: Restrict The Internet)
Here in America, politicians and journalists make sure to make the discourse favor their agenda by shifting the focus off the Islamic terror attack, such as promoting dubious claims that right-wingers commit more terrorism than jihadis.
The New York Times did such a thing when it published on Wednesday a remarkably stupid article wondering why the Manhattan attack was labeled terror while the Las Vegas shooting wasn’t. The article answered its own question in the third paragraph when it provided a definition of terrorism as “an attack on civilians meant to frighten a larger community for political purposes.”
Then, in order to better serve a left-wing agenda, the Times’ writers went down a post-modern route to muddy the circumstances of Islamic terror to come to the stunning conclusion, “terrorism is often in the eye of the beholder.”
The piece then gives legitimacy to the idea that leftists think the Las Vegas shooting “represented the terrorism of unchecked gun laws.”
Rather than giving a straight answer on why the Manhattan truck plowing is terror and the Las Vegas shooting is not, The Times’ opted to give credence to left-wing stupidity in this debate.
It’s reasonable to think that the article’s authors would rather have Las Vegas considered terrorism and Manhattan labeled random violence because it better serves left-wing interests. Las Vegas brought up gun control, Manhattan made immigration restriction seem reasonable.
Which act of violence earning the designation of terrorism better serves a left-wing agenda?
After Charlottesville, leftists wanted to censor the internet to stop the spread of white nationalism. After Las Vegas, they wanted to restrict gun ownership to stop criminal mass murderers.
After Manhattan, they want to do nothing.
In summary, average citizens have to give up a free internet and their right to own guns because of terrible tragedies, but it is un-American to limit the arrival of any number of non-citizens to prevent future tragedies.
Terror attacks by their nature are political. It is right to politicize them when the attacker himself intended it for such a purpose.
The only ones who warn against politicizing such terrible deeds are those who don’t care about the problem in the first place.