"That said, many in the media jumped on Trump when he came out, I believe on the same day, against the attack at that casino and called it an act of terrorism. They jumped on him for labeling it "an act of terrorism" because the local officials had not yet labeled it as such; however, what they didn't say while they continued to jump on the anti-Trump bandwagon was that ISIS had already taken public credit for the attack and it was being reported that they (ISIS) claimed it was a terrorist attack by them, or one of their supporters, and every one of those jumping on Trump for calling it terrorism knew this information."
The problem was that Trump immediately labeled it as terrorism while both the Philippine government and terrorism experts such as Malcolm Nance were urging restraint because something didn't smell right. Regardless of whatever ISIS claimed, SOME people wait for confirmation that an attack is actually related to terrorism. What didn't smell right was the way the attack occurred, which didn't fit any known pattern. As it turned out, the person who did it was a gambler in heavy debt who was trying to steal money from the casino, and his plan (such as it was) went horribly wrong.
The point is not this one incident - it's that Trump is all too quick to jump on incidents when it APPEARS that a Muslim is involved, and is often silent for days (if he comments at all) when the perpetrator is white and the victims are black or Muslim. Look at what just happened in London - a white man drives a van into a crowd of Muslims, and Trump has no opinion. The perp shouted that he wanted to kill all Muslims, and then was saved from the angry crowd by the imam of the mosque. Why was he silent about that? |
