I’ve seen a bizarre form of argument from liberals trying to argue that Islamic terrorism isn’t as big a problem as the rest of us say it is.
An article that appeared in Buzzfeed argued that in the US, white supremacist terrorists have caused more deaths (31) than jihadis have since 9/11 (26). Not only is the “26” figure completely false, notice how they conveniently (and admittedly) specify that they’re only looking at fatalities post-9/11. In other words “if you ignore the worst Islamist terror attack ever on American soil, it’s just not that bad!”
Barack Obama made even a more ridiculous claim than that there have only been 26 deaths due to Islamic terrorism in the U.S. since 9/11. He says there have been none!
My initial reaction: “ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?”
Boston marathon bombing: 3 killed in bombing, plus one police officer later on.
Fort Hood shooting: 13 killed
San Bernardino Shooting: 14 killed
Pulse Nightclub Shooting: 49 killed
The Boston marathon bombers and Fort Hood shooter were all inspired by radical American Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who joined the al-Qaeda affiliated terror group Al-Shabaab before being incinerated by a hellfire missle. The San Bernardino and Pulse Nightclub shooters were both inspired by ISIS.
And there were attempted terror attacks that we’re lucky didn’t claim any lives, such as the Minnesota mall stabbing attack, and recent attack at Ohio State University.
What’s Obama’s logic here? That they don’t count because they were merely inspired by foreign terrorist groups, not directly carried out by them? I don’t think the relatives of those who were killed care much about the difference.
The fact of the matter is that under Obama’s presidency, the Taliban has grown back to the size it did prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, and ISIS has rose to power and began conquering territory in Iraq and Syria. Does that sounds like much of a success to you?