We hear these phrases all the time, so much so that we don't even think about what it means anymore. We hear "senseless violence" and "senseless tragedy" so often that we pay no mind.
I wish for you to pay some mind.
When I hear these phrases "senseless violence" and "senseless tragedy" I immediately think of circumstances in which they might be appropriate. When a tornado devastates a small Midwest town calling it a "senseless tragedy" seems appropriate. Likewise, when some person with obvious mental illness opens indiscriminate fire on an unsuspecting crowd, calling the act "senseless violence" seems appropriate as the culprit who perpetrated the violence had no logical end.
That is the crux of it, I think. When death ensues from something indiscriminate, whether tornado or mental illness, it can properly be called senseless. It is something that cannot be helped. These things just happen and we cannot make sense of them.
However, when violence is planned and or committed with a specific purpose in mind, it is the exact opposite of senseless and to pretend otherwise is reckless.
In his initial statement on the violence that saw our Ambassador murdered and our embassies sacked, the President made this comment, a comment that now appears in tax-payer funded ads running in Pakistan.
Obama said the United States rejects "all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others -- but there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence. None."
Now this statement was made before the Obama administration admitted that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was a a preplanned terrorist attack. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps the President did not yet understand that this violence was not senseless but a direct attack on the United States, our beliefs, and our way of life with the expressed aim of ending all three.
But surely now, now after the administration has admitted that the attack on the Ambassador was a preplanned terrorist attack and with the knowledge that the film initially blamed for these outrages and had been out for months so the idea of a spontaneous demonstration on September 11th is ludicrous, surely now the President would refrain from such language.
Alas. Alack. In his speech to the U.N. yesterday, in addition to some of the other phrases making news today, the President said this, "The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. "
Mr. President, this violence is neither mindless or senseless just as our bombing of German factories during WWII was not mindless or senseless. We bombed those factories with the aim of hampering the enemy's ability to attack us and to reduce their ability to defend themselves. We bombed those factories to advance our cause. Likewise, these militant Islamists attack our cities, our embassies, and our people in an effort to promote their cause and their cause is our destruction.
If this type of morally neutral language was an aberration, one might be tempted to chalk it up to mere imprecision. But there is a very precise pattern of imprecision with this President that makes me wonder if there is even more to it.
Last year, when there were repeated attacks on Christian Copts and their places of worship in Egypt, something clearly more offensive than any YouTube video, these events barely merited a mention by the President. But he did briefly mention these events issuing a statement saying
"“The President is deeply concerned about the violence in Egypt that has led to a tragic loss of life among demonstrators and security forces,” Obama said in a statement released this week. ”Now is a time for restraint on all sides so that Egyptians can move forward together to forge a strong and united Egypt.”
Muslim Egyptians were targeting and killing Christian Egyptians for no reason other than they were Christian. That is the height of purposeful violence wouldn't you say? Yet the statement issued sought to muddle the issue and decry violence on both sides. Did I miss the reports of Copts blowing up mosques?
And the pattern continues. Right now in some Egyptian towns, Christians are being told to leave or die and the President says nothing. Beyond Egypt, Christians are being attacked and killed throughout Muslim lands and this is never even addressed by this administration.
All this violence is not senseless or mindless. It is the Islamist equivalent of carpet bombing and it is done with a purpose. That purpose is to expel all Christians from "Muslim" lands to make the Christians in the west afraid to fight back, to weaken our resolve.
So when the President said at the U.N. yesterday "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" a reasonable person must conclude that not only is the violence not senseless, but it seems to be effective.
Comments
Post a Comment
Yup. The upside to Obama sucking up to the violent Muslims in the Middle East is that he’s losing some of the reliable Jewish vote back home. My new favorite yard sign that I’m seeing all over the Philadelphia burbs - “Obama…Oy vey!”
What I’m realizing this morning is that I’m so programmed I didn’t even notice that “Prophet” description yesterday. If the world doesn’t belong to those who [slander=refuse to honor] “the Prophet”, it doesn’t belong to me, my children or my grandchildren, or 95% of Americans. This is a clarifying piece of writing, Mr. Archbold, in more ways than just his use of “senseless”.
Mr Obama’s thrown both US Catholics, & Israel under the same bus, but then he denounces attacks on religion & intolerance when it suits him.
Eileen,
Just curious: which group’s putting out the “Obama, Oy vey!” yard signs?
That’s pretty funny.
:)
Kathleen - I know there are several groups using it, including some in Florida, but the ones I’m seeing are from the Jewish Republicans of Pennsylvania. My next door neighbor, a liberal Jewish Democrat, was so upset at the DNC booing Israel that she told me in tears, “Even if Hillary Clinton were named as his running mate” no way she is voting for Obama again. She put one of those yard signs up and put a little piece of black electrical tape over the word Republican in the sign’s fine print.
I would call the violence in Libya “hate-filled” not senseless.
Oh yes, we do so want the world to belong to the followers of the prophet, Mr. Obama. Democratic Catholics, please do your research before you vote.
Eileen,
Thanks for the info.Maybe I can find a photo of the signs online.
Yes, that was disturbing when they were booing at the DNC.
Pat in the words of President Obama to Mitt Romney on 60 Minutes. “If Governor Romney wants us to go to war, he should just say so.” Quit beating around the bush Pat, just say that you want to put our kids in harms way in another useless war that will definitely bankrupt the country. If you have served our country in the military and have been in combat then I thank you for your servce to our country. I know you’re a father Pat as are many people who post on these blogs and I’m sure many of them have family members who have fought in WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, the Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan. Haven’t we seen enough of ourkids arriving at Dover Air Force Base in metal coffins to be greated by a grieving family?
The purpose of these speeches (whether given by a Democrat or a Republican) is not to reflect the truth, but to shape perception. I think Obama meant something like, “... these attacks, which make no rational contribution to the legitimate desires of the local population, ....” That is a bit cumbersome for the soundbite generations, though.
So although you are right about what should be called senseless, this will mostly be perceived as quibbling. See http://xkcd.com/1108/.
So CeCi, the only way that any President can take a stand for true religious tolerance is to go to war? Why cannot Obama decry the decimation of Christians throughout Muslim lands firmly and without ambiguity. Just cutting our funding would probably help more than any war drum s.
CeCi ,
I think most all of us hate war, but if we desert our allies we have blood on our hands,too.There are sins of omission, also.
Jesus responded quite well to religious oppression. It involved turning over tables and smacking animals with a whip.
Not that he actually *stopped* the shady goings-on of the Temple, though he could have done so by calling ten thousand angels. Kathleen, would this be a sin of omission on Jesus’ part?
Obama’s response to the murder of the Ambassador and his staff, to other acts of murderous violence by Islamists all over the world, including attempted genocide and banishment of Christians in various places, such as Egypt is spine-chilling. He wholly misrepresents the nature and extent of Islamist de facto war against Christians, the US, etc. This blatant appeasement is giving these militant Islamists more confidence and allowing them to continue in the same vein under the umbrella that Obama and other Western leaders have given them. The persistent and escalating persecution of Christians is completely ignored, to the extent that many in the West do not know how widespread and egregious it is - for example, how Christian population has been decimated in the Middle East in recent years. President Obama is increasing the danger that Christians, Americans and others are in. He ought to be standing firm against the genocidal violence of the Islamists across North Africa and the Middle East - instead, disgustingly, he makes excuses for it by treating whatever the Islamists point to as provocation, as if it could amount to a provocation. It is incredible that the American people do not demand he leave office as he is patently unfit.
As a retired Navy officer, I must say that war, with its accompanying violence, destruction, and death, must be an absolute last option when the good and just are oppressed to the point where their survival is in question. The supreme difficulty comes from deciding that a nation is down to its last option and deciding before the option of invoking the last option is co-opted by events. Terrible, terrible to have to make such a decision. I have found that such decisions by dictators, oppressors, and madmen are easy and even flippant. Yet those decisions by American leaders and our allies have been with great pain yet fortitude that it’s the right thing. Pray that our leaders make the right policy decisions to build a better world so that they are not pushed to take the last option.
Gary Simmons ,
I’m guessing you may have missed the point of my post.
Rich,
Thank you for your comments & your service to our country.
Ceci:
I’ve seen a lot of logical fallacies made on this board, but I don’t think I’ve seen a non sequiter that was as far removed from the point of a post as yours was. It does not follow that if one objects to President Obama’s soft-pedaling of the problem that it follows that we are encouraging greater warfare. It’s also quite revealing about where you’re coming from that you take Obama’s words at face value. After all, wasn’t he the one who involved American forces in two additional conflicts, even further removed from any semblance of American interest than Iraq or Afghanistan, and without Congressional authorization of any kind?
While Islam is a hateful spawn of Judeo-Christianity, why should Obama provoke more violence by offending muslim leaders who have command of armed forces? Why make a bad situation even worse?.
.
Believers in Islam are no better or worse than this Catholic site—both want to establish their religion as the only path to glory, both have small subgroups that are extremely violent. The majority in both religions assert that their religion is loving of everyone and promotes peace. Islamic leaders now control armies—in the past it was the Christians who attacked Muslims (did anyone here read about the Crusades?)
.
If anyone disagrees with a blogger on this post, they are confronted with at least one response that is prejudiced, insulting and vitrolic; or they are immediately labelled a “troll” and valid ideas are bypassed. Sometimes Mark Shea will delete writers and ban a person from his blog rather than deal with ideas he can’t answer.
.
It’s one of Obama’s responsibilities to prevent war and violence against Americans abroad. You would blame him if he condemned Islam and more violence toward Christians/Western countries was a consequence. We live in a nuclear age—stop citing ancient books as reasons for war.
“...It’s also quite revealing about where you’re coming from that you take Obama’s words at face value. After all, wasn’t he the one who involved American forces in two additional conflicts, even further removed from any semblance of American interest than Iraq or Afghanistan, and without Congressional authorization of any kind?”
.
No, Paul Zummo—that was President George W. Bush:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_and_the_Iraq_War
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror
.
Paul—you take Romney’s and other Republican’s words at face value. Don’t you know Republicans lie when their lips are moving?
Rita: What part of other than Iraq or Afghanistan did you not follow? I was referring to Egypt and Libya, two conflicts which had absolutely nothing with American interests but which Obama inserted American military without Congressional approval (which we had with the other conflicts.
“Don’t you know Republicans lie when their lips are moving?” Rita, get back to me when you have something beside trite cliches.
“If anyone disagrees with a blogger on this post, they are confronted with at least one response that is prejudiced, insulting and vitrolic”
You see, when you write ignorant things like “Believers in Islam are no better or worse than this Catholic site—both want to establish their religion as the only path to glory, both have small subgroups that are extremely violent” you don’t really show yourself to be a very thoughtful person worth arguing with. When Catholics storm foreign embassies, or when we riot over offensive films, then you might have a point.
” senseless violence” my ***! Who in their right mind cannot see the evil intent behind these actions? To have a President who refuses to even acknowledge them as such is a fearful condition for our children and all our country! We must place our trust in the Lord and do what we can to bring about real “change.”
I have not seen this point made anywhere else. Good job.
Both Catholics and Islamists have an “us vs. them” mentality that makes “them” the enemy of their faith. If Catholics weren’t limited by the secular laws of the United States, they would be storming embassies and rioting over films. (remember the fuss over that The Da Vinci Code?
.
Islamic government has incorporated blasphemy as a crime—to be punished by imprisonment and even death. If Catholics could pass such a law, which censors schools, news agencies, the internet, and other communications with secular society, a generation of Catholic rioters would grow within the next 15 years. Power corrupts.
.
Paul, you hate blasphemy as much as any Muslim, but fortunately you don’t have the secular power to prosecute me for blasphemy.
.
Again, CATHOLIC/CHRISTIAN, ISLAMIC, JEWISH, RELIGIONS ARE MORE OR LESS THE SAME. Each of them are spewing self-righteous hate against the other two—and everyone is killing each other over different interpretations of the SAME STORY. The stupidity and stubborn ignorance of all three religious organizations fuels your hatred of others while you convince yourselves that your religion is the “truth.” And your “truth” doesn’t even matter.
You know Mr. Archbold I saw a program on Euro Catholics helping smuggle Nazi SS officers to undeserved safety after WWII. 12 Years ago, I would have been inclined to dismiss such a program as just more anti-Catholic agitprop. But now 12 years after 9/11 having read so much about Islam, the Quran, Muslim societies, etc. and having seen so many clueless, kumbaya, Catholic comments insisting we have to just give up our liberties and learn to tolerate an intolerant cult that seeks our demise or submission, I am inclined to believe there are those Catholics willing to submit to evil in any age and call it “peace”.
AvantiBev—I agree with you—conservative Islam is as big a threat, if not more, as were the Nazis. Something needs to be done, but it’s not really smart to insult the enemy while he’s pointing the gun at innocent people. It seems people who think they know what Obama should be doing as president are willing to defend their principle to the last drop of other people’s blood.
.
Maureen—don’t you see the evil intentions of the people who made the film and burned the Koran, knowing how the terrorists would respond? Would you like some on to pi$$ on a Bible in your presence?
Catholic democrats are hypocritical in claiming their opponenets are for war. If I claim to be anti-crime and say let’s abolish the police and jails so there will be no crime, would my opponents be pro-crime? So because I support a strong military and favor using them does not make me pro-war. If pacifists had their way, the whole world would be totalitarian because there would be no military force from freedom-loving countires to stop the totalitarians. A totalitarian would would be anything but peaceful.
Now, Catholic democrats are voting for an evil man who says the abortionts should be allowed to “finish the job” if a baby girl survives their attempt to kill her. This evil man claims to know more than God abouth the definition of marriage. And this evil man’s scapegoating of the wealthy is absolutley Hitlerian. I have never made above $30,000 per year. If we chop off the heads of the rich and steal all of their money, we could run the sacred democrat programs for some months. Then what, democrats? As long as we are all equal…..equally straving and miserable. And my parents, who were penniless immigrants from overses, built a family business from scratch. Yes, Catholic democrats, they built it. Neither you nor the evil man you vote for built it.
Mike Robertson sounds like you are so filled with hatred that evil actually permeates your heart and soul. You’re the one who’s the hypocrite. Like so many on these blogs you spew your hatred while blasphemously using the name of God who happens to be a God of love and mercy and commanded us to love our neighbor. You use the Catholic faith as an instrument of hate of hate instead of love.
Mike sounds a lot like Romney and Ryan.
Good Post, Mr. Archbold. And, I’m sorry, I just couldn’t let a few of “Rita’s” comments go by. Rita - Please educate yourself before you write of that which you know very little to nothing. The Crusades (there were many, and not all were the same) were IN RESPONSE to Muslim attacks AGAINST Christians. Why don’t you pick up a scholarly writing on them and read it yourself. You might learn something, versus just parroting the popular revisionist version. And on “truth”, there actually is something known as an “objective truth”, but those living in the convenient and intellectually comfortable (and dishonest) world of “relativism” are loathe to acknowledge it.
Paul—are you suggesting you would know better if YOU were President of the United States? Why do you think we have no international interests in Egypt and Libya?
.
Jim and others—you sure throw around the words “stupid” and “ignorant” when you can’t give valid evidence. Catholics act like Muslims when they think their religion is under attack. What makes your religion any different—if sure isn’t “love thy neighbor.”
Rita, speaking of valid evidence of Catholics acting like Muslims, do tell what facts you have of Catholics bombing and attacking embassies after our religion has been insulted. I realize it might take awhile to sift through all the times the Catholic Church has been insulted so take your time…
For “wisdom” commenter. The depictions in the USA and Europe mcking Jesus, the pope, etc. are far too numerous to mention. The crucifix immersed in urine comes readily to ind as this was reopened recently. And yes Catholics and all Christians are offended and angry this farce is called art. But,
Who censored it?
Who died becauea of it?
Answer to both…no one. No one was mired, no buildings burned. If you can’t see the difference between Christianity andisalm in this modern example, you probably refuse to acknowledge other fact string you in the face.
@Pattymelt, “So CeCi, the only way that any President can take a stand for true religious tolerance is to go to war? Why cannot Obama decry the decimation of Christians throughout Muslim lands firmly and without ambiguity. Just cutting our funding would probably help more than any war drum s.” No Patty I’m not saying that the only way the President can take a stand is to go to war. Read my blog. On the contrary, I believe that diplomacy is the best route to take and if all else fails then we go to war as a last resort. I realize that there are many people on this board who hate President Obama with a purple passion and that’s their right. Yes there is a great deal of persecution against Christians in the middle east both from Israel and the Muslims. This has been going on for centuries and it’s not going to end regardless of what President Obama does or does not do. Ahmajinidad (spelling) of Iran is a nut job with an itchy trigger finger and the United States must tread carefully and that’s not showing fear, that’s showing common sense.
Think the crux of this discussion is objectivity or subjectivity. I for one cannot determine these acts of violence as anything other than senseless. The perpetrators can invoke whatever ‘sense’ they wish…..... I pass
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.