President Obama urged in his press conference following the attacks on our embassies in Libya and Egypt: "We must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants."
Thankfully, the President's eloquent words will sway the many of us who support murdering diplomats. Now what?
But is the President right to characterize this as "senseless violence"? For one, it wasn't "violence" that killed and burned. It was al-Qaeda supporters. Muslims.
Secondly, this violence was not senseless. It had definite political objectives: to celebrate Osama bin Laden on 9/11. To further radicalize the Arab Spring governments. To cow the West into silence about Islam. As Andy McCarthy writes, the Egyptian government threatened the U.S. with this statement:
"We ask the American government to take a firm position toward this film's producers within the framework of international charters that criminalize acts that stir strife on the basis of race, color or religion."
The State Department is working with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of 57 Muslim governments, to impose a resolution demanding that all nations enact laws against condemning not only incitement to violence based on religion, but also incitement to discrimination or hostility to religion.
This would obviously be an affront to our freedom of speech.
Senseless violence is when a kid gets shot for a pair of sneakers. Obama's choice of words is further evidence that he doesn't understand the threat of radical Islam.