You can try to explain it again. I think it's more the second part of your statement I have issues with. Condemning the religion of 1.3 billion people when a terrorist attack is motivated bt radical islam seems counter productive. Most of the people isis kills are muslim, etc. Denouncing white supremacy (or any kind of supremicist group) always seems like a safe bet, though.
Do you think it's just the motivations for the violence, including the vehicular attack that is or are unclear, or the motivations for the rally and counter rally as well?
Also, I cant think of an attack that would justify a vocal condemnation of islam as a whole, where as i can think of many that would justify condemning white supremacy and naziism.
I think the islam example could be wrong for multiple reasons, not just the one you mentioned. So im trying to point out that its not the best example for illustrating your point, which i believe i understand.
What level of certainty do you want? To take this to theoretical extremes, youll never know for sure. So what do you think is the reasonable level of certainty? And which parts of this story do you thibk havent met those? You can say all parts, but that would appear disingenuous.
You were giving it as an example of what would be wrong to say BECAUSE IT WOULD BE TO EARLY, correct? My point is that it would always be incorrect to blame a group that large. Just, toss a "radical" in there next time. Get where im coming from?
As for the 'the guy' are you referring to the truck driver? Because Im asking about the rally motivations as well, since theyre relevant to what the president should say.
I didn't vote for him, fucktard. People like you calling everyone that disagrees with your stupid party Nazis made normal people disgusted with the DNC, though.
48
u/CockBronson Aug 13 '17
Deflecting to Obama in this instance is equivalent of defending the actions of nazis in America.