Barcelona Van Attack

What makes you think that? Because some republican talking head told you so? Then you say that "Our last president didn't seem to understand the threat radical Islamic terrorism poses" when our current president thinks the problem can be solved by killing a few terrorists with pigs' blood dipped bullets and releasing some to let the others know what happened... I mean dude.

p.s. there is nothing "silly" about our president pushing some myth that espouses extrajudicial murder in order to solve terrorism... it's insane.

"There is no doubt, and I've said repeatedly, where we see terrorist organizations like al Qaeda or ISIL -- They have perverted and distorted and tried to claim the mantle of Islam for an excuse for basically barbarism and death," he said.

"These are people who've killed children, killed Muslims, take sex slaves, there's no religious rationale that would justify in any way any of the things that they do," he said. "But what I have been careful about when I describe these issues is to make sure that we do not lump these murderers into the billion Muslims that exist around the world, including in this country, who are peaceful, who are responsible, who, in this country, are fellow troops and police officers and fire fighters and teachers and neighbors and friends."

"If you had an organization that was going around killing and blowing people up and said, 'We're on the vanguard of Christianity.' As a Christian, I'm not going to let them claim my religion and say, 'you're killing for Christ.' I would say, that's ridiculous," Obama said.

Howard Hughes:

Yeah it's silly, but compared to what? Our last president didn't seem to understand the threat radical Islamic terrorism poses

OMG YOU'RE RIGHT! So many people died in terrorist attacks under the Obama administration compared to the GWB. Obama didn't kill any terrorists with drones or undergo a program that so overtaxed the special operations community with missions/operational tempo that even the NYTimes was concerned.

.

Come on, this is just spin. Europe has to contend with very different geopolitical circumstances than the U.S. They have a proximity to the various epicenters of terrorism that the U.S. is removed from, at least geographically. Terrorism is obviously a global problem that warrants growing global concern – no dispute there. But, Europe lacks a lot of the geographical advantages that the U.S inherently benefits from.

Additionally, their borders are deliberately more lax because the EU charter allows for free movement and the EU economy depends upon it. It can’t be boiled down to weak and strong, it’s just different circumstances entirely.

Furthermore, once you get into the calculus of what lives are worth based on geography and beliefs it becomes a game of moral relativism that is unwinnable and undignified. A sovereign state clearly has an obligation to its citizens, but there is a raw, universal human aspect that shouldn’t be ignored either, especially in its current scale. The plight of a million refugees deserves the same global concern as the thousands of lives lost due to terrorism. However, the latter gets the focus because it's ostensibly the easier problem to solve, especially if you’re willing to neglect and overlook the former.