If this turns out to be the result of a state sponsor of terrorism what will Obama do

[mudwhistle]

Some Democrats are claiming this may have been a result of sequester cuts.

Barney Fwank said no tax-cut would have prevented it.

 

[Seawytch]

Why doesn't everyone just STF up and wait for facts? News, just report what you fucking KNOW.

 

[J.E.D]

Well we know if it was Saudis he will do nothing about it.

And Bush would?

 

[J.E.D]

Speculation of course but what if? How do you think we would respond?

Also if the perp(s) are caught should they be detained by public officials or military officials? Basically do you think this should be treated as a crime or an act of war?

Obama will find a way to spend more money.

So, we shouldn't spend resources on catching the perps and bringing them to justice?

 

[Rocko]

If it is State-Sponsored then Obama should bomb the fuck out of whatever country did this. The only way to deal with something like this effectively is to hit them harder than they hit us. Period.

 

[bendog]

Speculation of course but what if? How do you think we would respond?

Also if the perp(s) are caught should they be detained by public officials or military officials? Basically do you think this should be treated as a crime or an act of war?

As we learned from the Republicans, the most important thing is deciding what terms to use to refer to things. Policy, action, and facts are only minor concerns - the most important thing is to get our language right.

This time, we invade Canada and take their tar sand. We've had two cracks at these canucks, and they escaped both times. Time to erase this national humiliation. As Obama says, never miss an opporunity from a crisis.

 

[MondoBongo]

I think he should follow in the footsteps of the Greatest President EVAH, RWR and invade a small Caribbean nation.

 

[Rocko]

Terms like "act of war" and "terrorism" have, at this point, completely lost any sense of meaning.


Barring any extraordinary new pieces of information coming to light, this should be handled by law enforcement, not the military.

Why have those terms lost any sense of meaning? Give me an example as to when they've been used inappropriately. From where I stand, this administration has gone out of their way to not use such language, even when it was obviously appropriate.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well we know if it was Saudis he will do nothing about it.

And Bush would?

And Obama would?

 

[Little-Acorn]

The only way to deal with something like this effectively is to hit them harder than they hit us. Period.

No.

The only way to deal with something like this effectively, is to hit them hard enough to remove any possible capability they have, to ever do it again.

You don't make war, simply to retaliate.

You make war, to eliminate the threat.

Countries that don't like that, should think twice before threatening us.

 

[Rocko]

The only way to deal with something like this effectively is to hit them harder than they hit us. Period.

No.

The only way to deal with something like this effectively, is to hit them hard enough to remove any possible capability they have, to ever do it again.

You don't make war, simply to retaliate.

You make war, to eliminate the threat.

Countries that don't like that, should think twice before threatening us.

Sometimes you can't eliminate the threat without going to all out War, which we can't afford right now, and I wouldn't suggest we do over this, but we can't sit back and do nothing. We have retaliate against who did this. That way they'll think twice before doing it again.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Terms like "act of war" and "terrorism" have, at this point, completely lost any sense of meaning.


Barring any extraordinary new pieces of information coming to light, this should be handled by law enforcement, not the military.

Why have those terms lost any sense of meaning? Give me an example as to when they've been used inappropriately. From where I stand, this administration has gone out of their way to not use such language, even when it was obviously appropriate.

This is actually a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

You've attached some non-existent relevance to the word "terrorism", which is the only reason why from where you stand, you see a lack of that language.

What difference does it make if Obama calls it "terrorism" or not?

 

[Rocko]

Terms like "act of war" and "terrorism" have, at this point, completely lost any sense of meaning.


Barring any extraordinary new pieces of information coming to light, this should be handled by law enforcement, not the military.

Why have those terms lost any sense of meaning? Give me an example as to when they've been used inappropriately. From where I stand, this administration has gone out of their way to not use such language, even when it was obviously appropriate.

This is actually a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

You've attached some non-existent relevance to the word "terrorism", which is the only reason why from where you stand, you see a lack of that language.

What difference does it make if Obama calls it "terrorism" or not?

You made the claim these words have lost their meaning. Explain.

What non-existent meaning did I attach to the word terrorism? I wasn't criticizing Obama for not calling this terrorism, but in other situations ,generally, he's avoided the word in as an attempt to downplay other acts.

 

[BlindBoo]

Some Democrats are claiming this may have been a result of sequester cuts.

Barney Fwank said no tax-cut would have prevented it.

The only thing I've heard is Pseudo-Conservatives saying that Democrats are saying that.

 

[Katzndogz]

He would deny it.

 

[J.E.D]

Well we know if it was Saudis he will do nothing about it.

And Bush would?

And Obama would?

Hey, talk to TheHawk. I'm not the one who made the stupid statement.

 

[Decus]

Well we know if it was Saudis he will do nothing about it.

And Bush would?

And Obama would?

I really don't know what is more laughable: Obama's Nobel Peace Prize or his bowing to anyone and everyone. The Japanese were in fact embarassed when he did that in Japan. What a Maroon.

 

[asaratis]

Speculation of course but what if? How do you think we would respond?

Also if the perp(s) are caught should they be detained by public officials or military officials? Basically do you think this should be treated as a crime or an act of war?

If this turns out to be the result of a state sponsor of terrorism what will Obama do?

I think it depends on which state it turns out to be. If it's Illinois, they'll get a pass!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The bombing is a criminal act.

The investigation and followup will be handled by federal and state LEO agencies, and tried in courts.

 

[velvtacheeze]

Speculation of course but what if? How do you think we would respond?

Also if the perp(s) are caught should they be detained by public officials or military officials? Basically do you think this should be treated as a crime or an act of war?

What third party country that has nothing to do with it do you right wing twits want to invade and occupy in response to the attack? Iraq again? Syria? Lebanon? Pfft. What a joke.