What's new

Terror, Terrorist, Terror Attack

tresbigdog

Active Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
106
Reaction score
22
Points
36
OK, I havent followed the Libya attacks as closely as some of you. But I have a legit question. I have been reading for the last couple weeks about how some people are bent out of shape about Obama waiting 14 days to call the attacks an act of terrorism. But when I read the transcripts, I notice Obama calls the attacks an act of terror.

My question is: why does it matter? I mean, does it REALLY make a difference what the attacks are referred to? Stevens is still dead, verbage wont change that, right? I just dont get it, honestly. Can anyone shed some light on why the lack of a couple of little words makes such a difference?
 

SniperFire

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
13,627
Reaction score
1,226
Points
48
Location
Inside Your Head
Dickweed, Obama baldfaced lied to the American people by trying to convince us that this Al Qaeda RPG attack was just a spontaneous riot caused by a video that mocked Muhammed.

It was a coordinated deception perped on the public for political reasons.

So fuck him and his entire team of incompetent liars.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,096
Reaction score
14,815
Points
2,180
Let's say you were killed suddenly and without warning.

It is the responsibility of the police to determine your cause of death.

The police get the idea in their heads it was a meteor from space that caused it, chiefly because a meteor fell in the next county over on the same day you were killed and there was a lot of press about it. When holding press conferences about your death for the next two weeks, they speak about the hazards of falling meteors.

Meanwhile, the guy who actually killed you has a two week lead on his escape. The more time goes by, the less chance he will ever be caught.


Something like that.

.
 
Last edited:

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,096
Reaction score
14,815
Points
2,180
On the flip side, I have serious doubts the intelligence community under a Romney Administration would have glommed onto the fact it was a mugging and not a meteor in less time than the intelligence community under the Obama Administration.

Romney is doing the very dangerous tactic of setting a benchmark. And it will probably severely bite him in the ass if he is ever elected.


.
 
OP
T

tresbigdog

Active Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
106
Reaction score
22
Points
36
Let's say you were killed suddenly and without warning.

It is the responsibility of the police to determine your cause of death.

The police get the idea in their head it was a meteor from space that caused it, chiefly because a meteor fell in the next county over on the same day you were killed. When holding press conferences about your death for the next two weeks, they speak about the hazards of falling meteors.

Meanwhile, the guy who actually killed you has a two week lead on his escape. The more time goes by, the less chance he will ever be caught.


Something like that.

.
ok, I get that. But Obama used the word terror in the rose garden. That implies terrorism...I guess what Im asking is why does it matter what the motives were, or what we believed the motives were? Im assuming the authorities still had their suspects, and those didnt change with the circumstances surrounding the attacks, no?
 

koshergrl

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
79,997
Reaction score
13,009
Points
2,190
OK, I havent followed the Libya attacks as closely as some of you. But I have a legit question. I have been reading for the last couple weeks about how some people are bent out of shape about Obama waiting 14 days to call the attacks an act of terrorism. But when I read the transcripts, I notice Obama calls the attacks an act of terror.

My question is: why does it matter? I mean, does it REALLY make a difference what the attacks are referred to? Stevens is still dead, verbage wont change that, right? I just dont get it, honestly. Can anyone shed some light on why the lack of a couple of little words makes such a difference?
Really?

Go ahead and provide the quote.
 

OODA_Loop

Account Terminated
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
8,494
Reaction score
674
Points
175
Location
Lubyanka
I guess what Im asking is why does it matter what the motives were, or what we believed the motives were?
It mattered to Obama. He calculated political downside to declaring it a terror attack.

Just like Ft Hood was workplace violence.
 

NYcarbineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
117,063
Reaction score
13,854
Points
2,210
Location
Finger Lakes, NY
OK, I havent followed the Libya attacks as closely as some of you. But I have a legit question. I have been reading for the last couple weeks about how some people are bent out of shape about Obama waiting 14 days to call the attacks an act of terrorism. But when I read the transcripts, I notice Obama calls the attacks an act of terror.

My question is: why does it matter? I mean, does it REALLY make a difference what the attacks are referred to? Stevens is still dead, verbage wont change that, right? I just dont get it, honestly. Can anyone shed some light on why the lack of a couple of little words makes such a difference?
You have conservatives around here in the mentally challenged department that cannot grasp the simple concept that 'act of terror' and 'terrorist attack' mean the same thing.

Funny thing is, these 'nuts do this all the time. They come up with a certain set of words that the president DIDN"T say, and then they pretend that he had to have said those exact words or he couldn't have said anything that means what those words mean.

Yes, it is childish. But that is who you are dealing with around here. Enjoy.
 

OODA_Loop

Account Terminated
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
8,494
Reaction score
674
Points
175
Location
Lubyanka
"Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks.....No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for".

- President Obama in Rose Garden 9/12/2012
 

Rozman

Gold Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
16,683
Reaction score
3,089
Points
290
Location
Brooklyn,NY
OK, I havent followed the Libya attacks as closely as some of you. But I have a legit question. I have been reading for the last couple weeks about how some people are bent out of shape about Obama waiting 14 days to call the attacks an act of terrorism. But when I read the transcripts, I notice Obama calls the attacks an act of terror.

My question is: why does it matter? I mean, does it REALLY make a difference what the attacks are referred to? Stevens is still dead, verbage wont change that, right? I just dont get it, honestly. Can anyone shed some light on why the lack of a couple of little words makes such a difference?
Some of us are interested in the WH being truthful with the people.
They swore up and down before any investigation that this was the result of some crazy
Arabs getting their freak on...
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,096
Reaction score
14,815
Points
2,180
I guess what Im asking is why does it matter what the motives were, or what we believed the motives were?
It mattered to Obama. He calculated political downside to declaring it a terror attack.

Just like Ft Hood was workplace violence.
He called it an act of terror the NEXT DAY.
Yes. He spoke of the deaths of the four Americans in the context of acts of terror.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya | The White House
 
OP
T

tresbigdog

Active Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
106
Reaction score
22
Points
36
OK, I havent followed the Libya attacks as closely as some of you. But I have a legit question. I have been reading for the last couple weeks about how some people are bent out of shape about Obama waiting 14 days to call the attacks an act of terrorism. But when I read the transcripts, I notice Obama calls the attacks an act of terror.

My question is: why does it matter? I mean, does it REALLY make a difference what the attacks are referred to? Stevens is still dead, verbage wont change that, right? I just dont get it, honestly. Can anyone shed some light on why the lack of a couple of little words makes such a difference?
Really?

Go ahead and provide the quote.
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation”
 

koshergrl

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
79,997
Reaction score
13,009
Points
2,190
OK, I havent followed the Libya attacks as closely as some of you. But I have a legit question. I have been reading for the last couple weeks about how some people are bent out of shape about Obama waiting 14 days to call the attacks an act of terrorism. But when I read the transcripts, I notice Obama calls the attacks an act of terror.

My question is: why does it matter? I mean, does it REALLY make a difference what the attacks are referred to? Stevens is still dead, verbage wont change that, right? I just dont get it, honestly. Can anyone shed some light on why the lack of a couple of little words makes such a difference?
Really?

Go ahead and provide the quote.
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation”
That DOESN'T IDENTIFY THIS ATTACK AS AN ACT OF TERROR.

My god you guys are dense. I know you don't understand the language..anyone with even 1/4 of a brain can see that (please reference the moronic thread where the progressive loons are claiming that Ann Romney, by saying missionary and military service are DIFFERENT types of service, was really saying THEY ARE THE SAME) but saying "we won't tolerate acts of terror" is not a paraphrase for "this was an act of terror". Particularly in the context of calling it a mob uprising and a protest.
 

OODA_Loop

Account Terminated
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
8,494
Reaction score
674
Points
175
Location
Lubyanka
Last thing Obama wanted was terrorist attack on his watch by Al-Qaeda this close to the election.

Thus the spin.
 
OP
T

tresbigdog

Active Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
106
Reaction score
22
Points
36
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation”
Incomplete quote.

Obama first spoke to and prefaced it with respecting the religions of others........the movie.
so he was saying it was an act of terror brought about by a movie? So.........still, whats the big deal? The movie is irrelevant, IMO. Whether or not that was the real reason, at the end of the day, Obama is still recognizing it was an act of terror, no?
 

Zoom-boing

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
25,764
Reaction score
7,800
Points
350
Location
East Japip
The spin has come from the WH. Now why in the world would they spin a terrorist attack as angry mob reaction over some Muslim hating film? Makes you wonder.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
T

tresbigdog

Active Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
106
Reaction score
22
Points
36
Really?

Go ahead and provide the quote.
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation”
That DOESN'T IDENTIFY THIS ATTACK AS AN ACT OF TERROR.

My god you guys are dense. I know you don't understand the language..anyone with even 1/4 of a brain can see that (please reference the moronic thread where the progressive loons are claiming that Ann Romney, by saying missionary and military service are DIFFERENT types of service, was really saying THEY ARE THE SAME) but saying "we won't tolerate acts of terror" is not a paraphrase for "this was an act of terror". Particularly in the context of calling it a mob uprising and a protest.
so you are of the opinion that, in the middle of a speech about the Bin Ghazi attacks, the President just broke fool and started talking about something completely different?
 

New Posts

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top