If you think Obama’s actions in Cuba showed some sort of disinterest in terrorism, or disrespect for the victims, you might be right. It is an inconvenient subject for Obama. It forces him to again have to try to differentiate terrorists and minimize their numbers from all others who might be in the camp of the unmentionable and much larger group -- radical Islamists, and almost alone describe the bad guys as ISIL rather than ISIS.  

For Obama,there are good victims of terrorism, and bad victims of terrorism.   Annika Hernroth-Rothstein writes:

If the Brussels bombers had been Palestinian, committing their murders in Israel, there ‎would probably have been a statement issued from the White House; something about ‎‎"both sides needing to show restraint" before adding that "all terrorism is horrendous." ‎(snip)

The victims of Islamic terror are not given any of the president's time because they do not fit his ‎overall plan. The same is true for the jailed freedom fighters in Cuba or the Iranian poets who have been ‎condemned to death. These are not good victims because they were not killed or jailed at ‎the hands of Israel or America. They were not persecuted by the West, so Obama cannot ‎afford to let them matter. ‎

By choosing to be an ideologue rather than a leader, Obama is dividing the ‎world into good and bad victims, the deserving and undeserving, and the ramifications of this choice will resonate long after someone else takes over at the White House. The soon-to-be eight ‎years under his watch have not only seen a lackluster response to the rise of Islamic terror ‎and the fall of American leadership but ironically also a world less liberal and less free than ‎when he was sworn into office.