Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ordered Liberty

President Obama Utters the T-word

April 16th, 2013 - 7:45 am

The Obama administration, which generally chokes on the word “terrorism” and fought against applying it to the jihadist atrocities at Fort Hood and Benghazi, is calling yesterday’s Boston Marathon bombing “terrorism.” Its reasoning, coupled with the way the term was rolled out, is intriguing.

Initially, President Obama made a brief statement to the nation last night in which, characteristically, he did not use the word “terrorism.” Moments afterward, however, an unidentified “senior administration official” pronounced that the bombing was a terrorist attack, telling Fox News, “When multiple devices go off, that’s an act of terrorism.”

In point of fact, while bombing is a common tactic of terrorists for obvious reasons, the choice of attack-method is not what makes violence “terrorism.” If, say, the mafia were to use two or three car bombs to rub out several rival gangsters at the same time, that would not be terrorism even though “multiple devices” would be involved. Terrorism is violence directed at political communities — usually, nations and their governments. It is carried out for the specific purpose of intimidating the political community into submitting to the terrorists’ preferred policies, and, significantly, it is almost always ideologically motivated.

That last attribute of terrorism is the cause of the Obama administration’s paralyzing misgivings about the T-word. The president is mulishly determined to cultivate Islamic-supremacist governments and movements like the Muslim Brotherhood. The stubborn problem is that al Qaeda — the only Muslim outfit the administration seems willing to hang the “terrorist” label on — is also Islamic-supremacist. That is, al Qaeda is adherent to the same ideology — based on sharia, Islam’s legal code and societal framework — as the groups the administration considers “allies” and “moderates.”

Organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood have tactical disagreements with al Qaeda about what situations call for the use of violence to advance the supremacist agenda and how quickly sharia should be imposed. At bottom, though, they are in agreement with al Qaeda about the imperatives of imposing sharia, eradicating Israel, destroying the West, and eliminating Western influences from Islamic countries. Islamic supremacism is a mainstream Islamic ideology — held by tens of millions of Muslims, not just a few thousand al Qaeda members and collaborators. Thus, if the administration were to admit that this ideology and agenda catalyze terrorism, they would logically have to admit the problem is much bigger than al Qaeda.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Why they were so quick and willing to use the "T" word with this attack is obvious. They are desperately hoping that this was done by some nutty white guy who they can tie to the Tea Party/anti-tax/anti-big-government movement. If facts force them to depart from their preferred script (that is, when we find out it was, in fact, the usual members of the Religion of Peace [tm] that it almost always is), then we'll go right back to having terrorist attacks that are called everything *but* "terrorism".
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Identity and therefore race is the centerpiece of the Dem Party. What that works out to in real terms is exaggerating the moral failings of the race currently in the ideological dog house, which would be white folks, and minimizing the failings of anyone else.

It's no coincidence the Southern Poverty Law Center has a different standard for hate groups and hate speech between white and non-white groups. The same is true in Holder's DOJ, where they sometimes literally won't hold whites and blacks to the same standards, because they feel the Civil Rights era never truly took hold. Both organizations still live in 1953 to a certain extent.

Comments by artists that would be relegated to white supremacism are seen completely differently if they're black. It's common to see "unapologetically black" on websites with no problem and with mainstream acceptance. If any white artist had a website that said "unapologetically white," it would be the end of their careers.

From terrorism to illegal immigration, this double standard is being used to dismantle America towards no purpose I can see. The general idea seems to be that all non-whites are unsuccessful as groups because of whites.

The odd thing is that this seems to be another weird double standard that says it's impossible for a group to fail because of a failure of its value system and then turning around and saying its because of the failure of someone else's value system.

To anyone with common sense, the tie-breaker should go to success, but liberals don't have that common sense, they have identity to tell them right from wrong.

In this sense, Obama is easily the most divisive President since the Civil Rights era. He is convinced that the entire Third World is simply unlucky and not an actual expression of failure. If that's true, he would have no problem with replacing all of America with what he sees as a more moral people, namely, non-whites. It's a goofy racist, anti-racist philosophy wherein terrorism by Muslims can never be fundamentally wrong.

Only when a bomb is stuck in his face will Obama reluctantly concede the point and even then the terrorism will be seen as an anomaly while militia groups that don't really do anything are a constant threat. You can see that in the comments of Dems. Both sides would like this bombing to confirm their views but only one side has facts like planes flying into buildings on their side.

Dems believe we deserved those planes. Probably the only thing that will wake America up is simultaneous dirty nukes going off in American cities. There is no doubt there are groups who would do such a thing if they could and so that's the mystery and question.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (36)
All Comments   (36)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
"Terrorism is violence directed at political communities — usually, nations and their governments."

Yes, but hasn't the existence of the hate crimes industry throws all such definitions into doubt? Terrorism has mutated as a legal concept because we have opened our justice system to widespread politicized declarations via the application of hate crimes law.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
We need legislation to register the purchase of and limit the size of pressure cookers! Its a known fact that these dangerous devices are commonly used as IEDs. Registration would allow the Federal Government to keep pressure cookers out of the hands of those that would do us harm and the mentally unstable. If we limit the capacity of the pressure cooker to say three liters rather than six we can limit the destruction caused by these pressure cookers when used as IEDs. Its obvious and merely common sense, if you can only fit 3 liters of explosives and shrapnel into the device you won't be able to cause as much damage as a pressure cooker twice that volume. And really, if it saves the life of just one child isn't it worth it?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
How are they going to handle the fact that a Republican Senator got some ricin in the mail today? I mean, gee, it doesn't fit the narrative. Ricin somehow seems more like an OWS tactic . . .
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
CNN is already spinning this as Tea Party backlash against Wicker for going to dinner with Obama and voting for cloture on the Gun Bill.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Here's a blogger from the Kos, first line. "The explosion in Boston reminded me of a brilliant Peter Cook joke from 'Beyond the Fringe.'"

In 31 comments no one says a thing. One calls the post "brilliant."

This is what you're up against folks and they are mental cases.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The reason why they don't want to admit that this is a terrorist attack is because it would reveal to the whole world that The Department Of Homeland Security is an incompetent joke under the Obama Administration. They have spent almost five years wasting money and resources on imaginary domestic terrorists like returning veterans and conservative political activists. Meanwhile, our real enemies have been plotting their strategy with almost no surveillance. That's why Saudi nationals and women in burkas are not required to submit to TSA molestation. What does that tell you?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There should have been surveillance cameras monitoring the street during the marathon and at least 72 hours prior to its start. It could have been done so easily.
Now, they ask the population for any information that could help to find out who did that.
What kind of administration runs Boston?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Boston, where I lived for awhile, is completely liberal Democrat and has been solidly so for over a century. It has also been one of the most corrupt cities in the country for the same amount of time. Today's press conference was a typical lib-Dem administration trying to cover their incompetence by praising themselves for how very hard they're working and then pulling on the heartstrings by getting touchy-feely about how wonderful the people of Boston are. It's obvious they don't know what they're doing.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
In a city that undertook "The Big Dig" project, their lapse in security is not really a big surprise. They didn't vet their contractors very well, did they?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The kind that sucks up to Islamists and Jew Haters at the Islamic Society of Boston Islamic Cultural Center.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I thought this would be classified as a sporting event accident by Homeland Security and the Obama Administration.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The "T-word" aside, I get the sense from the Media that we are to feel like victims to no end.

To have been a victim at Pearl Harbor meant a person could say: "We were Americans. We were attacked. We HAD to do something." To be a victim of "Terror" is coming to mean much less. When a murderous attacker is transformed into a terrorist, we seem to diminish our power to respond. Knowing the "why" is valuable only if it is useful ... if it helps us act with greater clarity and resolve. It is fatal if we only derive fear, helplessness or self-loathing.

What are we afraid to say openly about this class of humans? That they are evil and must be dealt with? Generations before us knew there was evil in the world. They dealt with it.

The modern Media intend us to watch the violence perpetrated against innocents again, and again, and again, as the implied lesson sinks in. There was nothing you could do. Consider: How might we have come to feel after seeing hours and days of video of the maimed, dead and dying at Pearl Harbor?

Hurried, inaccurate, and sometimes plain wrong, the drive to know "who did it" is healthy, natural and right. It powers justice. It moves us out passive victimhood into the real world of action.

The blood and bone of the wounded cry out for justice. We should make haste, deliberately. But act we should.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
With Pearl Harbor it would've been "Japanophobia" and chickens coming home to roost. Liberals are themselves insane bigots who accuse everyone else of that exact thing. The average PC liberal is not someone I disagree with, they are a moron. The only thing dumber than someone in the KKK is someone in the KKK who thinks they're anti-racist.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yes, I found that formulation very interesting as well. "find out who did this and why" As if we could then change our behavior so they wouldnt do it again. As if we were to blame, and these were just chickens coming home to roost. Why did Bill Ayers bomb Americans?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Bombers usually like to let the world know why they've killed people. Unless it's a "mad bomber" who just wants to "watch the world burn." I guess a Joker-wannabe is also a possibility.

I'm trying to figure out if it was one person or two. I've heard speculation that the timing of the bombs was intentional - the first to stop the race, the second to kill people in the backup. But it could have been due to a single person setting the finish-line bomb first, then walking to the other location and setting the second bomb. If his bombs were primitive, he might not have been able to time them precisely. So the first one he plants goes off first, the second one he plants goes off second.

All speculation, though. I just hope they catch the guy.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I've always been under the impression that terrorism is a method used to induce terror in populations of people and political persuasion may or may not be part of the motive. The guy who walked into a Home Depot in Ca. last week and cut off both his arms with a saw that was on display, in full view of all who happened to be nearby, may have simply wanted the perverse reward of seeing the terror on the faces of the innocent bystanders. Is he then a terrorist, too? How many people decided to skip their planned trip to Home Depot as a result? His actions changed some people's behavior, no doubt, so was his act terrorism? Does there always have to be a political motive?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The Vietnamese monks who burned themselves alive during the Vietnam War were trying to change the Vietnamese government's policies, but they were not terrorists. The Viet Cong who murdered their fellow citizens and blew up GIs were also trying to change the Vietnamese government's policies, and they were terrorists.

Whatever they might do to themselves, terrorists ALWAYS hurt or kill other people.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All