One of the notable aspects of yesterday’s horror in Orlando was the speed with which authorities identified the attack at Pulse nightclub as an act of terror. After the San Bernardino murders, it took days to acknowledge what no one in a position of power apparently wanted to admit…that Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik had committed a terrorist attack with the intent of mowing down as many infidels as they could. After yesterday’s much more deadly attack in Orlando, local law enforcement ID’d the investigation as one into an ‘act of terror’ almost before the sun was up.
Maybe that had something to do with the fact that Omar Mateen took time out from the slaughter to dial 911 and pledge his allegiance to ISIS, mentioning Boston’s Flying Tsarnaev Brothers along the way. Oh, and he was also reported to have shouted Allahu akbar as he sprayed the crowd with lead. Details which make it difficult to avoid a jihadi’s motivation, no matter how hard you try.
Well almost. Just because he said he was inspired (if not directed) by radical Islam, doesn’t mean the narrative can’t be steered in more convenient directions.
It didn’t take long for the left and the media (sorry for being repetitive) to try their darnedest to change the spin on what everyone thought they already knew. You can always rely on the spittle-spewers at the Daily News to helpfully, subtly guide their readership toward the approved target for blame after any incident involving a firearm.
Taking a slightly more measured tone was The New Yorker’s Manilowian doppelgänger Evan Osnos (top).
In the hours after the deadliest mass shooting in American history, which killed fifty people and wounded fifty-three others at a gay night club in Orlando, Americans began the ritual of separating our strands of shame after a mass killing. In this case, we are apportioning an armed man’s actions to the influence of isis, homophobia, mental instability, and the availability of high-powered weapons.
Which one of those strands is an Upper West Sider most likely to respond to? The first order of business: attack the vulgarian haters.
Better that than pretending, as we did just a few years ago, that a mass killing was not “the time” for politics, that our horror should impose a holiday on analysis, that we must, in a perversion of civility, pretend that nothing in our laws or culture might have saved those lives. Politics, even when they are flawed and toxic, show us to ourselves—rarely more so than on Sunday, when the presumptive Republican nominee for President, Donald Trump, paused for a moment of self-celebration: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism,” he tweeted. “I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!”
Hold on, we’re getting to the real crux of the problem.
By that hour, anybody watching television knew that Trump was wrong; the Orlando massacre could not simply be ascribed to the influence of radical jihadists, even if the shooter did, as reported, place a 911 call just before the attack to pledge allegiance to isis. On the contrary, as President Obama said that afternoon, “We know enough to say that this was an act of terror and an act of hate.”
An act of terror that was somehow never attributed by His Imperiousness to radical Islam. Pay no attention to those facts behind the curtain.
Yes, Mateen may have thought he was playing jihadi, but all the bien pensents know (and are writing and tweeting furiously) where the blame really lies — or should, if they’re going to keep the public’s ire focused on the things that really need to be taken down in America; ‘toxic’ politics, homophobia and…wait for it…gun rights.
The Obamanauts and Hillary’s advance guard are out in force doing all they can to downplay the terror angle of Sunday morning’s horror show — a focus that would likely benefit Donald Trump — and veer the narrative back toward America and its embarrassing, inexplicable love for guns. They’re dogged, they’re devoted and it’s likely all we’ll hear for the foreseeable future.