Terror spreads as Obama cowers at defining it


Daniel Maibenco, Columnist


“ISIS is a global threat to peace.” That saying is far from new. Over the past few years, ISIS has gone from relative obscurity to surpassing al-Qaeda in notoriety for its sheer brutality. The group’s vicious acts of violence are attracting a lot of attention.

While Obama continues to call for action and airstrikes to cripple and degrade the ISIS organization, he has not defined these terrorists as crazed Islamic radicals.

Despite all the violence, airstrikes aimed at destroying ISIS and international calls for action, ISIS still spreads. First, they carved out a foothold in Syria. Now they are slowly but surely taking over Iraq.

I see that he is trying to be politically correct, but perhaps he is being too politically correct. I know that he is not trying to associate ISIS with the majority of those who practice Islam.

I get that. The majority of those who practice Islam are a non-violent, decent group of people. They’re not the enemy.

But in order to show that he means business, I think Obama needs to bluntly define who the enemy is. Since he has not thus far, it sends a mixed message at best.

No one knows who Obama sees as a radical because he hasn’t given his opinion. It also makes him look weak when the leaders of other nations (Egypt, Jordan, Canada, Japan, etc…) define the terrorists as solely radicals.

Instead of condemning terrorism, like everyone else, he called for more jobs and governance. Obama also compared the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians in Egypt to violence during the Crusades.

How does that make any logical sense? The crusades? Jobs? Talk about out of touch with reality.

I can easily distinguish ISIS from the Crusades for several reasons. However, the main distinction is during the Crusades, women and children were not massacred, beheaded, or crucified like they are by ISIS. And for jobs, creating jobs here in the states or over there doesn’t affect this issue. The terrorists do not care about jobs, because their jobs are to kill people like us.

After the recent executions of the 21 Coptic Christians, the Jordanian pilot and now, “the call of topple Rome,” Jordanian, Egyptian and Italian forces are either attacking ISIS or increasing security.

After all this time and all these atrocities, Obama has not said what his plans are to defeat ISIS.

He claims to be outraged, but I don’t hear of any plan. Making statements without backing them up makes Obama look weak.

This wouldn’t be the first time Obama has made promises he didn’t keep. When Obama promised to take action against the Assad regime in Syria for its use of chemical weapons on its citizens, he did not.

I think this was the first major mistake in emboldening ISIS. I think that the second mistake was his refusal to arm Syrian rebels during the ongoing Syrian Civil war. When that war first started, it was Assad vs pro-western forces. When these groups asked the U.S. for arms and aid, Obama refused for whatever reason.

As time went on, these forces were decimated. Then offshoots of al-Qaeda became involved and morphed into ISIS. ISIS then took over the fighting between the Assad regime.

Later, against the advice of all high ranking military leaders, Obama pulled all U.S. troops out of Iraq. I think that move was like the opening of Pandora’s Box. Without a U.S. military presence, ISIS in Syria saw an opportunity to take over a vulnerable Iraq. Now all we have is total, utter chaos with no end in sight.

I think the fact that Obama refuses to define the ISIS insurgents as terrorists, is rather profound to say the least. This entire conflict was caused partly by his actions and inactions. I fear what ISIS will do next if President Obama continues to sidestep the real problem at hand.