Image by The U.S. Army via Flickr
Listen: Ed Ross, behind the column.
Barack Obama has an aversion to labeling people who attack America in the name of Islam as terrorists. As conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer observed, on March 2 when President Obama made his brief appearance before the White House press corps to speak about the two U.S. airmen killed and two wounded at the Frankfurt airport in Germany, “he talked about it as if it was like a bus accident, a tragedy.” As he did following the shootings at Ft. Hood, Texas, and other recent incidents, he couldn’t bring himself to call the attacker a terrorist. How can the President of the United States successfully lead America in a war against terrorists if he refuses to accept them for what they are? (More)
Filed under: Terrorism, Afghanistan, Allen West, Arif Uka, aversion to terrorism, barack obama, Cairo speech, Charles Krauthammer, Chicago, Columbia, criminal justice, criminologist, culture, economically marginalized, Ed Ross, ewross, Fox News, Frankfort airport, Ft. Hood Texas, Gabby Giffords, Germany, Harvard, ideology, in cold blood, Jared Loughner, jihadists, Kosovar, liberal philosophy, liberal thinking, Muslim fanatics, Muslim world, Muslin, Nidal Hisan, P.J. Crowley, Religion, socially excluded, Special Report, university, US Airmen, US Military, war with Islam, White House press corps
Ed:
My goodness, maybe the President and his spokesman should have said the attacker might have been an alien from Mars. Just becasue he invokes Allah does not mean he is a terrorist. He may well be, but after you make that claim it is about impossible to take it back. I don’t get why there has to be a rush to label such things before the dust has even settled.
I remember when the Okalahoma bomer struck there were those in the media and even in our office convinced it had to be a “terrorist” attack. The same way with the DC snipers, again people and some of the media were convinced terrorists were behind the shootings. Well in both those cases terror was created but I don’t think anybody would call those guys terrorists.
With the situation the way it is in the Middle East/Arab/Muslim world right now, I’m thinking that in most cases the less “would of/could have been/should have been” put forth by the administration the better off the U.S. will be.
Willy, your point would be a valid one if this wasn’t a familiar pattern. As for the Oklahoma bombing, it was a domestic terror attack. McVeigh had a political motive, his anger at federal government’s handling of the 1992 Federal Bureau of Investigation standoff with Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge as well as the Waco Siege.
But keep telling me I’m full of BS it reminds me of the good old days when you stormed into my office and told me that to my face.