An open challenge

The use of the term Terrorist(s) ( Islamic, Fundamentalism) etc.) has long been in/on hiatus in this administration, unless of coarse it is ion refe5rcne to Bin Laden;)…



food for thought-

Christmas underwear bomber-


Speaking on CNN's State of the Union, Napolitano would not comment on the ongoing criminal investigations saying it would be "inappropriate to speculate as to whether or not he had such ties" to al Qaeda, as the man,Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, claimed he did.

"One thing I'd like to point out is that the system worked…."

Napolitano Says No Evidence Yet Airplane Bomb Plot Part of 'Anything Larger'


Times Square Bomber-

WASHINGTON—The Times Square bombing suspect apparently operated as a "lone wolf" who did not work with other terrorists, according to the general who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But investigators believe he had some bomb-making training in Pakistan, a second senior military official said.

Petraeus: Times Square bomber likely acted alone - Boston.com


3 days later?

U.S. blames Pakistani Taliban for Times Square bomb plot
By Anne E. Kornblut and Karin Brulliard
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 10, 2010; A10
U.S. blames Pakistani Taliban for Times Square bomb plot
and the media complied as usual…..the poor, sad, lonely man…

Meanwhile, the press leaped on the "lone wolf" meme to suggest that Shahzad wasn't a radical Muslim -- he was a sad little man who had been crushed by the disappointments of capitalism. Diane Sawyer of ABC News described the poor fellow's apartment on May 6: "It's a Spartan existence. A bare kitchen. There were Oreos there. A shelf with the George Clooney movie in it, 'Up in the Air,' and most surprisingly, in a way, professional paints on the table. The FBI took away a painting, apparently, that he may have made, of a mosque ... and a tree." By George, we arrested the Muslim Van Gogh!
CBS's Bob Orr parroted Sawyer's report on Shahzad's humble living conditions and checkered financial background. "Shahzad claims he's angry about U.S. predator attacks on Pakistan," Orr intoned. But Shahzad's word wasn't good enough for Orr -- the real reason for his attempted terrorism, according to Orr, was "financial pressures" which "may have helped his rage. Sources tell CBS News he defaulted on both his mortgage and another $65,000 equity loan." Shahzad "lived a Spartan and seemingly lonely existence."
Why Obama Wanted Times Square Bomber to be a Lone Nut - Ben Shapiro - [page]



Hasan, Ft. Hood-

Just workplace violence?

October 19, 2012, 12:14 PM
Fort Hood victims want shooting called terror act

An October 2011 letter on behalf of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was sent to U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, saying "the department is dealing with the threat of violent Islamist extremism in the context of a broader threat of workplace violence."
The Department of Defense did not return a call or email seeking comment from the AP.
Fort Hood victims want shooting called terror act - CBS News




LIEBERMAN, COLLINS REACT TO ADMINISTRATION’S COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Thursday, December 8, 2011
WASHNGTON – Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., and Ranking Member Susan Collins, R-Maine, issued the following statement Thursday in reaction to the implementation plan issued today to guide the Administration’s countering violent extremism strategy:
“Our Committee has been working on the issue of violent Islamist extremism for over five years. In that time, the number of homegrown terrorist plots has escalated dramatically - with 33 cases since 2009, two of which resulted in the deaths of 14 Americans, 13 of whom were soldiers.
“In addition, we remain troubled that the Administration has not designated one agency to coordinate operations and ensure accountability and effectiveness of the national effort to counter violent Islamist extremism at home.
"We also continue to be disappointed by the Administration's refusal to identify violent Islamist extremism as our enemy. To understand this threat and counter it, we must not shy away from making the sharp distinction between the peaceful religion followed by millions of law-abiding Americans and a twisted corruption of that religion used to justify violence."


Majority Media | Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee | Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee



When your attitude is that acts of terrorism are ′Man-Made Disasters’ and the WOT morphs into ′Overseas Contingency Operation.′ what do we expect?

The Benghazi issue ala amended talking points etc. is just more of the same.
 
The use of the term Terrorist(s) ( Islamic, Fundamentalism) etc.) has long been in/on hiatus in this administration, unless of coarse it is ion refe5rcne to Bin Laden;)…



food for thought-

Christmas underwear bomber-


Speaking on CNN's State of the Union, Napolitano would not comment on the ongoing criminal investigations saying it would be "inappropriate to speculate as to whether or not he had such ties" to al Qaeda, as the man,Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, claimed he did.

"One thing I'd like to point out is that the system worked…."

Napolitano Says No Evidence Yet Airplane Bomb Plot Part of 'Anything Larger'


Times Square Bomber-

WASHINGTON—The Times Square bombing suspect apparently operated as a "lone wolf" who did not work with other terrorists, according to the general who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But investigators believe he had some bomb-making training in Pakistan, a second senior military official said.

Petraeus: Times Square bomber likely acted alone - Boston.com


3 days later?

U.S. blames Pakistani Taliban for Times Square bomb plot
By Anne E. Kornblut and Karin Brulliard
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 10, 2010; A10
U.S. blames Pakistani Taliban for Times Square bomb plot
and the media complied as usual…..the poor, sad, lonely man…

Meanwhile, the press leaped on the "lone wolf" meme to suggest that Shahzad wasn't a radical Muslim -- he was a sad little man who had been crushed by the disappointments of capitalism. Diane Sawyer of ABC News described the poor fellow's apartment on May 6: "It's a Spartan existence. A bare kitchen. There were Oreos there. A shelf with the George Clooney movie in it, 'Up in the Air,' and most surprisingly, in a way, professional paints on the table. The FBI took away a painting, apparently, that he may have made, of a mosque ... and a tree." By George, we arrested the Muslim Van Gogh!
CBS's Bob Orr parroted Sawyer's report on Shahzad's humble living conditions and checkered financial background. "Shahzad claims he's angry about U.S. predator attacks on Pakistan," Orr intoned. But Shahzad's word wasn't good enough for Orr -- the real reason for his attempted terrorism, according to Orr, was "financial pressures" which "may have helped his rage. Sources tell CBS News he defaulted on both his mortgage and another $65,000 equity loan." Shahzad "lived a Spartan and seemingly lonely existence."
Why Obama Wanted Times Square Bomber to be a Lone Nut - Ben Shapiro - [page]



Hasan, Ft. Hood-

Just workplace violence?

October 19, 2012, 12:14 PM
Fort Hood victims want shooting called terror act

An October 2011 letter on behalf of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was sent to U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, saying "the department is dealing with the threat of violent Islamist extremism in the context of a broader threat of workplace violence."
The Department of Defense did not return a call or email seeking comment from the AP.
Fort Hood victims want shooting called terror act - CBS News




LIEBERMAN, COLLINS REACT TO ADMINISTRATION’S COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Thursday, December 8, 2011
WASHNGTON – Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., and Ranking Member Susan Collins, R-Maine, issued the following statement Thursday in reaction to the implementation plan issued today to guide the Administration’s countering violent extremism strategy:
“Our Committee has been working on the issue of violent Islamist extremism for over five years. In that time, the number of homegrown terrorist plots has escalated dramatically - with 33 cases since 2009, two of which resulted in the deaths of 14 Americans, 13 of whom were soldiers.
“In addition, we remain troubled that the Administration has not designated one agency to coordinate operations and ensure accountability and effectiveness of the national effort to counter violent Islamist extremism at home.
"We also continue to be disappointed by the Administration's refusal to identify violent Islamist extremism as our enemy. To understand this threat and counter it, we must not shy away from making the sharp distinction between the peaceful religion followed by millions of law-abiding Americans and a twisted corruption of that religion used to justify violence."


Majority Media | Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee | Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee



When your attitude is that acts of terrorism are ′Man-Made Disasters’ and the WOT morphs into ′Overseas Contingency Operation.′ what do we expect?

The Benghazi issue ala amended talking points etc. is just more of the same.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't see why it matters.
 
Uhm, you didn't answer the question, WHO did, he did? it doesn't say that he redacted them...if so, WHY did he remove them when he had originally inserted them?


Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell, said they did not know who changed the talking points. He said they went out to multiple departments, including the State Department, National Security Council, Justice Department and White House.

Read more: Intel officials unable to say who changed CIA talking points on Libya, lawmaker says | Fox News


:eusa_eh:


"Terrorist attack" and "protest of the video" are not mutually exclusive exclusive events.

:eusa_eh: so the attack was a by product of the video? mutually exclusive exclusive, come on, and and you are asking me about semantics?
As in, the attack was done under the cover of a reaction to the video, or any number of other possibilities.

Link? here ya go-

CBS transcript: Obama wouldn't call Benghazi terrorism

Kroft: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack. Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?

Obama: Well it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.

CBS transcript: Obama wouldn't call Benghazi terrorism

Obama suspects Libya attack targeted Americans - 60 Minutes - CBS News


Obama said, he called Benghazi a terrorist attack, did he not? "read the transcript Candy"....

Thanks for the link. I still don't see why whether or not he calls it "terrorism" matters.
 
More importantly, I don't understand the fascination with the semantics coming from the right. Who cares whether or not Obama called it a "terrorist act" or not? Would the ambassador have survived if Obama had said al-Qaeda did it?

How does that change anything?


You don't see how it is politically advantageous to downplay the event especially a month before an election on the cusp of the debates to boot, not calling it a Terrorist act?

so let me reverse this; what harm would have been had he called it a terrorist attack as to any 'investigation; etc etc....your position can't be that in a place with a huge CIA footprint that the T's in Libya who carried this out would believe that not hearing it called a terrorist act would provide them some relief, as if they got away with it? These folks may be extremists bit they are not stupid, clearly.
 
Uhm, you didn't answer the question, WHO did, he did? it doesn't say that he redacted them...if so, WHY did he remove them when he had originally inserted them?


Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell, said they did not know who changed the talking points. He said they went out to multiple departments, including the State Department, National Security Council, Justice Department and White House.

Read more: Intel officials unable to say who changed CIA talking points on Libya, lawmaker says | Fox News


:eusa_eh:


"Terrorist attack" and "protest of the video" are not mutually exclusive exclusive events.

:eusa_eh: so the attack was a by product of the video? mutually exclusive exclusive, come on, and and you are asking me about semantics?
As in, the attack was done under the cover of a reaction to the video, or any number of other possibilities.

Link? here ya go-

CBS transcript: Obama wouldn't call Benghazi terrorism

Kroft: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack. Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?

Obama: Well it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.

CBS transcript: Obama wouldn't call Benghazi terrorism

Obama suspects Libya attack targeted Americans - 60 Minutes - CBS News


Obama said, he called Benghazi a terrorist attack, did he not? "read the transcript Candy"....

Thanks for the link. I still don't see why whether or not he calls it "terrorism" matters.

well, for one its not the truth?

and again why did obama contradict himself? and I am being kind in that description btw.....
 
More importantly, I don't understand the fascination with the semantics coming from the right. Who cares whether or not Obama called it a "terrorist act" or not? Would the ambassador have survived if Obama had said al-Qaeda did it?

How does that change anything?


You don't see how it is politically advantageous to downplay the event especially a month before an election on the cusp of the debates to boot, not calling it a Terrorist act?
Of course I see how it's politically advantageous to downplay the event and not call it terrorism. But why are you guys so upset about it? Just because he acted in a political way?

so let me reverse this; what harm would have been had he called it a terrorist attack as to any 'investigation; etc etc....your position can't be that in a place with a huge CIA footprint that the T's in Libya who carried this out would believe that not hearing it called a terrorist act would provide them some relief, as if they got away with it? These folks may be extremists bit they are not stupid, clearly.

With my limited knowledge of the situation, I don't see any harm in calling it a terrorist act. But again, my (and yours, and everyone other person opining on this) knowledge of this isn't very complete.
 
This is all so silly. The people freaking out are upset that Obama didn't go on tv and describe who, what, when, where and why. The people freaking out keep forgetting that Obama said the next day that it was terrorism related.

Not that this silly semantic argument matters in the least.

We all know none of you questioned invading the wrong country after 9/11 or held Bush accountable for it.

…and partisan.

Why... Because it involves dirty rottenDemocrats?


Got it :thup:
 
Tell me, how is it better to accuse completely random people for violence instead of identifying it as terrorism?
 
More importantly, I don't understand the fascination with the semantics coming from the right. Who cares whether or not Obama called it a "terrorist act" or not? Would the ambassador have survived if Obama had said al-Qaeda did it?

How does that change anything?


You don't see how it is politically advantageous to downplay the event especially a month before an election on the cusp of the debates to boot, not calling it a Terrorist act?

so let me reverse this; what harm would have been had he called it a terrorist attack as to any 'investigation; etc etc....your position can't be that in a place with a huge CIA footprint that the T's in Libya who carried this out would believe that not hearing it called a terrorist act would provide them some relief, as if they got away with it? These folks may be extremists bit they are not stupid, clearly.

I don't think it provided them any relief, but calling it a terrorist attack blunts their political advantage. They can take credit for it of course--they would do that anyway--but that is pretty much ho hum as all the other terrorist attacks were leading up to the attack on the consulate at Benghazi. Blaming it on a video, if that story had stuck, would give them huge ammunition to use as ammunition to stir up more unrest and violent mobs. As it was, they seem to have gotten quite a bit of mileage out of it in a number of countries where people would likely not have ever heard about that video if it wasn't for an American President and his surrogates on television talking about an offensive video.

Admitting I could be wrong about that, but you sometimes get additional insight by taking time to connect all the dots.
 
This is all so silly. The people freaking out are upset that Obama didn't go on tv and describe who, what, when, where and why. The people freaking out keep forgetting that Obama said the next day that it was terrorism related.

Not that this silly semantic argument matters in the least.

We all know none of you questioned invading the wrong country after 9/11 or held Bush accountable for it.

…and partisan.

Yet no one, including you, has actually defended the decision. The best anyone has done is attack me as a partisan for wondering what happened.

Why is that?

Maybe the whole premise of your thread is wrong.
In that case, there's nothing to defend.
 
…and partisan.

Yet no one, including you, has actually defended the decision. The best anyone has done is attack me as a partisan for wondering what happened.

Why is that?

Maybe the whole premise of your thread is wrong.
In that case, there's nothing to defend.

If the whole premise of the thread is wrong, I haven't seen a single credible comment provided by anybody to make a case that it is wrong. I've seen some, and he himself, say that Obama called it a terrorist attack the day after the event, which even the moderator of the second debate who tried valiantly to defend him, has to admit that he did not. And that begs the question of why several days later, in an address to the United Nations, he went on and on and on about an offensive video without one reference to a terrorist attack on our consulate.

I've seen some defend Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice for going on national TV multiple times as giving the 'unclassified version of facts." Really? It is okay to go on national television, stir up further riots by citing an offensive video again and again and again days, even more than a week after even the administration admits they were informed that it was a terrorist attack by the CIA and others? And yet some still put blind trust in these people and accept everything they say as gospel.

I've seen some say it is much ado about nothing and nevermind the multiple Congressional hearings and never mind what General Petraeus said. He didn't really mean it.

The thing I wonder is how we became a country with so many people willing to ignore or blow off questions and concerns and who will blindly defend an Administration no matter what they say, no matter what they propose, no matter what they do.
 
The adminstration has tried to spin at every point along the path up to and including today.
 
Since the Obama adminstration is so out of the loop, maybe we should tell them Israel has nukes...
 

Forum List

Back
Top