"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Mr. President: How Many Have to Die To Call it a "Large Scale Attack?"

The President, in an attempt to stop talking about the scandals surrounding his administration, gave what was labeled a "big talk" on terrorism. And guess what, he reminded us that he personally strangled the life out of Osama bin Laden and tossed him into the drink. I know, he never talks about that, right?

But as Greg Pollowitz points out at The Media blog at National Review, Obama then boasted, "There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure."

Just for clarification, I'd like to know what the Boston Marathon bombing classifies as. It killed three and injured hundreds. Clearly it's not "large scale" because the president personally told us so. So was Boston a "medium scale" attack? Maybe a "bigg-ish attack?" Or was it "small?"

How about the Fort Hood shooter who yelled "Allahu Akbar" while he killed 13 people while wounding 32 others. Is that a "small-scale" attack? Medium? Oh wait, that wasn't a terror attack at all. It was just workplace violence, right?

And what about Benghazi? Aren't our embassies technically American soil? Was that not large scale? Oh wait, that was a bunch of angry movie reviewers voicing their displeasure over a Youtube video, right?

It seems there's been no large scale terror attacks simply because they've been labeled as otherwise.

The president did give a shout-out thought to Fort Hood and Boston by saying they were the work of "deranged or alienated individuals." But doesn't that really miss the problem that Islam seems to be creating deranged and alienated individuals like it's their job. Jihad doesn't seem to be an accident. It seems like the goal.

I'm just not sure of President Obama's distinction of large scale and otherwise. When Obama refers to large scale does he mean the number of people killed or injured? Is he referring to the number of conspirators? Are we just using the cataclysmic scale of 9/11 to judge all terror attacks? That doesn't seem the right way to go about it.

For the president to use 9/11 as the barometer seems intentionally misleading. Boston, Benghazi, and Fort Hood became hell on earth for a while. It was terror. To belittle those attacks in order to score political points is disturbing and insensitive.

*subhead*Scale.*subhead*

Your Ad Here

3 comments:

Sherry Antonetti said...

How many have to die for a mistake?

Suzanne Carl said...

Dead On. Pun intended.

Donna M said...

...obama, biden, holder,...

....really getting sick and tired, "fed up!" with their verbal antics and physical inaction!

"Stuck on Stockholm!" Theirs, a pattern of behavior that routinely sides more with the criminal than with the victim!

...Fort Hood's, hassan nadal gets a paycheck behind bars, and his victims are not only out of a job, but can't get their medical issues successfully resolved!

Horrible! Looks like the corpses are going to keep piling up like "cord" wood!

Post a Comment