Maybe Obama can send OJ out to find the Dallas sniper’s “real” motive
It’s “very hard to untangle the motives” of the Dallas shooter
Given what we know about the Dallas sniper, it’s clear to most of us what his motive was in shooting and killing five officers. As Mary noted, not only did he tell the police negotiator that he wanted to kill “white people, especially white police officers,” but he was also inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement and had a long history of not respecting authority. He was also noted to have gone “all Black Panther” and to have been hording bomb-making materials and an assortment of weapons, presumably for some future plans he may have had.
Nonetheless, one prominent progressive with a history of promoting the Black Lives Matter movement is completely confused by and uncertain about the sniper’s motives.
The Weekly Standard has the transcript:
President Obama said at a Saturday press conference in Poland that it is “very hard to untangle the motives” of the shooter in Dallas who killed five police officers Thursday evening.
“First of all, I think it’s very hard to untangle the motivers of this shooter,” said Obama. “I’ll leave that to psychologists and people who study these kinds of incidents…I think the danger is that we somehow suggest the act of a troubled individuals speaks to some larger political statement across the country.”
It’s also very difficult to determine why someone with a bomb strapped to his chest, shouting Allahu Akbar, and having just pledged allegiance to ISIS would shoot unarmed people in a nightclub.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
He was an anti-police leftist. Wasn’t he “angry” about the lies he believed? His motive was social justice!
He’s just serious about being stupid.
Had it been a white person killing 5 black police officers it would have been a massacre, not an “incident”.
It does complicate matters when it happens to be a gay nightclub. It’s perfectly plausible that, as almost everyone seems to assume, his primary motive was homophobia, and jihad was only a secondary motive. It’s also plausible that while jihad was the primary motive for the attack, homophobia was the motive for choosing this target. But it’s equally plausible, and equally supported by the evidence that homophobia played no significant role at all in his motivation. We just don’t know. We may never know. And yet somehow the whole world seems convinced of the first theory.
I take your point, Milhouse. I could have used any of a number of jihadi attacks that have happened and flummoxed Obama in terms of motive. Let’s see, he was confused about the San Bernardino terrorists’ motive, about the Boston bombers’ motive, and about the Fort Hood terrorist’s motive. As I recall, that last one was classified for years as “workplace violence.” My point, in other words, stands.
Actually your point is stronger than you make it. Oddly enough, in this case, where the shooter’s motives truly are “hard to untangle”, where there are at least three equally plausible possibilities, 0bama seems not to be confused. Precisely where reasonable people are confused, he seems sure which theory is correct. It’s only where the shooter’s motive seems to me plain as day that he seems unable to perceive it.
“…he seems unable to perceive it.”
I think he does perceive it but he does not want us to go anywhere near the truth. So, he tries to muddle the facts so the narrative can be the only clear explanation — racism, etc.
If I cop shoots a black (facts notwithstanding), Obama paints all police as racists. If a black shoots cops, Obama says the killer was acting alone and we should not blame ANY group. I think he is never confused. He knows how to lie and manipulate. He has a very clear agenda and he stays with it.
Mateen was probably gay and it was the only way he could expunge his sins.
Muhammad commanded the death of homosexuals, and we can see where Islam rules self-help executions of homosexuals are all too frequently carried out. I find it quite implausible that hatred of homosexuals didn’t inform his choice of targets, just as I find the “not jihad” theory to be equally implausible.
I’d really like to know who the four (so far) morons were who downvoted that. How could anyone object to it?
I honestly don’t recall…
Was Barracula at all confused about the motives of the Charleston church killer?
When the abortionist was killed in the mid-west, was he equivocal about assigning a motive?
It seems that he’s adrift only when a killer screams “Alahu Akbar” or explains in detail to a hostage negotiator that he’s targeting a certain racial group.
It makes you wanna go “huh?”…
You will not find a motive like we think of motives. Leftists do not see individual human beings. They see members of groups. Members of groups are abstractions and their deaths are statistics. We see individuals who have liberty. Leftists see abortions and other deaths as just numbers. Johnson did not kill human beings with families. He just lowered the number of cops. A statistic. What did he ask? Who did I kill? No. He asked how many cops he killed. A number. How do you think a communist dictator can kill millions of people to create Utopia? That can only make sense to a leftist who does not see individuals but does see groups. A leftist only sees groups. Leftists are seriously ill mentally. They think they are doing good by creating evil. You cannot explain a leftist in the framework of a conservative or libertarian. Irrational behavior does not fit in a rational framework. It only “makes sense” in the irrational emotional abstract world of a leftist. There evil leads to good for groups, not individuals.
I challenge you to listen to every word a leftist says and you will see how they think if you want to call it that. How do you think “Hands Up” can continue to live after it is known to be absolutely false? Because it is an abstract concept, not a fact. It fits the group narratives. It had nothing to do with two individual human beings in MO. Watch for the left to make excuses for Johnson. In their hearts, they know he did evil but their heads will dismiss it as a statistic. They have to or their model blows up.
With Obama and his cult, the motives of a Black or Muslim mass murderer are unfathomable, a deep psychological mystery, even when explicitly stated by the perp. When a White, Latino or Asian cop kills a Black, no matter the circumstances, the motive (at minimum, the reason) is immediately discernible, if not blatantly obvious.
We live in interesting times.
Well, you know, intent is now 9.99/10 of the law.
But since we can’t know intent and we can only presume and assign intent,I guess Obama will just have to say that the shooter was a black man in the wrong place at the wrong time who believed that like with Hillary Clinton no reasonable prosecutor would hold these his crimes against him.
It seems fairly simple to the Left -if a white or police or military or Conservative hurts a black or brown or Muslim or LGBT the motive is bigotry, hatred, stupidity and basic evil.
The POtuS DingleBarry and the Dallas Shooter are kindred spirits … both evil.
The right’s worldview utilizes facts, specifics, and individual human beings. The right attempts to discover the truth.
The left’s worldview utilizes groups, narratives, and abstract concepts. The left attempts to define the truth upfront.
Most leftists only understand the left’s worldview so we make no sense to them. We must be idiots and evil. Most on the right only understand the right’s worldview so leftists are idiots and evil. Obama understands both worldviews and manipulates both sides. He is not an idiot. He knows what he is doing even if he overplays his hand sometimes. He is very dangerous. Listen to what he says and when he says it. Look for the patterns and you will see him at work. He is never confused but he wants people to think the situation is confusing so the narrative stays in play.
Obama does not want us connecting the dots on Johnson or any of these attacks so he also attempts to put us on the defensive by immediately calling for more gun control. Clever distraction. Watch the process, not the substance.
Alinsky was focused on the process. Read his rules.
I think OJ is busy. Karma is a bitch!
And we know how he feels about bitches.
Well, those who have the same motive often fail to see it as a ‘motive’ in others.