Terror, Terrorist, Terror Attack

[ScreamingEagle]

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 might get a clue if you can figure out the difference between a planned act of terror and a spontaneous reaction to a youtube video....

 

[Zoom-boing]

“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?

So you're saying they recognized it as an act of terror only to spend the next two weeks never ever saying it was an act of terror but rather a reaction that stemmed from the film?

That makes no sense.

 

[koshergrl]

No, I think he was dancing around and refusing to actually identify this particular attack as an act of terror, because he was expecting to be able to hide that fact from the American public. If they would be happy with the "unruly protest" story, he was perfectly happy to let them believe it was an abuse of freedom of speech that resulted in the attack.

Which is why he devoted so much more time to lambasting the producer of a YouTube vid than he spent criticizing vague and unnamed *acts of terror*.

 

[OODA_Loop]

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?

He said repeatedly, as did his spokespeople, that it was because of the movie and spontaneous.

They knew it was with military grade weapons, coordinated and planned in advance.

You are just not going to word fuck the American people when it comes to the lives our servicemen.

 

[Clementine]

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?

The difference is admitting that it was a planned terrorist attack by an al Qaeda group, because they are still alive and thriving, over drone strikes and saying it was a spontaneous act of terror by some protesters who got out of hand because of anger over a youtube video.

al Qaeda terrorists are way more of a concern than random protesters. It also matters that it was planned for some time, under the radar of our intelligence, rather than an unforeseen and unplanned act of violence by demonstrators. It means our intel failed. It means al Qaeda is not disabled. It means that there is still a strong threat to the U.S. and our allies by radical groups who continue to grow.

By claiming it was a spontaneous attack over a video, it was minimized and while terrible, it would have been old news by now.

By facts surfacing showing that it was planned and that there were warnings that went unheeded, it points to either incompetence or sheer indifference on the part of our government.

Prior to 9/11, it's likely that many warnings weren't taken seriously because none had succeeded in attacking us on our soil. We should be a lot smarter now, yet all indications are that we remain more reactive than proactive when it comes to terrorism.

Prior to the Libyan terrorist attacks, many might have believed that we no longer needed to worry about threats from al Qaeda. Some people were convinced that they had been bought to their knees. The lesson is that these terrorist groups will not give up. If they had only two members left, they would continue to plot and plan. As it is, they continue to grow by recruiting and training people constantly. We can temporarily make them retreat, but will likely never vanquish them from the earth. They must always be watched.

A random act of violence by protesters isn't something you can foresee, though they are more likely under certain circumstances and should be expected from radical Muslims in response to even the slightest insult.

If the administration had no idea that it was al Qaeda, it would make sense they didn't make assumptions, however the state dept. has already revealed that they knew within hours. Despite this, it was not announced that al Qaeda had struck again and the story about protesters reacting over a video continued long after facts were known.

Of course, it's not good when the people are lied to and there is no rational reason why the state dept. would not share it's findings with Obama right away. There has been no explanation for over a month as to why requests by the embassy for more security were denied. If true that a British security firm is responsible, then the entire administration knew that from day one. That was never mentioned, in fact, no one bought up the fact that such a request had been made. For once, the media did it's job and discovered the diary of Chris Stevens 2 weeks after the attacks. It's hard to believe our government didn't investigate prior to that or recall that someone somewhere in the administration had known about those requests. There were numerous threats and attacks in the area, so the writing was on the wall with or without the ambassador repeatedly sharing his concerns.

Who dropped the ball and why the lies after the attack? We have a right to know and it's as simple as that.

 

[OODA_Loop]

An act of terror he wouldnt send the FBI in for three weeks to investigate ?

Come on now.

 

[koshergrl]

"In fact, if you go back to Obama's 9/12 rose garden speech, you find that he was blaming the video for the "senseless violence" in Benghazi. That's front and center in the 4th paragraph of Obama's speech. His reference to "acts of terror" is an aside in the 10th paragraph after he has been discussing 9/11/01 and the loss of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Fact Check: 'Act of Terror' Not Same as 'Terrorism'

 

[tresbigdog]

thank you Clementine...what you said makes perfect sense. And you werent rude about it, thank you

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"In fact, if you go back to Obama's 9/12 rose garden speech, you find that he was blaming the video for the "senseless violence" in Benghazi. That's front and center in the 4th paragraph of Obama's speech. His reference to "acts of terror" is an aside in the 10th paragraph after he has been discussing 9/11/01 and the loss of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Fact Check: 'Act of Terror' Not Same as 'Terrorism'

right....Obammie was playing with smoke and mirrors right from the start.......after having boasted so much about killing Bin Laden he didn't want everybody to realize that Al Qaeda is still at large and killing us....

 

[OODA_Loop]

Obama outsourced security in Libya to a small unknown British company.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Obama outsourced security in Libya to a small unknown British company.

Obama is not at war with the Muslims....

 

[NYcarbineer]

“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.

Bullshit. He was making the remarks directly to respond to the attacks. That was the subject of the statement.

Here is exactly what he said:

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.

As you see, he first references acts of terror. Next he references the four deaths. Then he puts them together referring to this terrible act.

......You have to be off the deep end to think the president isn't talking about this act as one of those acts.

 

[koshergrl]

You left out the context.

Go figure.

Breitbart had it right. He didn't refer to acts of terror until paragraph ten, and you have left out the context immediately before it, thinking you can pretend he was referencing comments made 6 paragraphs previous.

He wasn't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"In fact, if you go back to Obama's 9/12 rose garden speech, you find that he was blaming the video for the "senseless violence" in Benghazi. That's front and center in the 4th paragraph of Obama's speech. His reference to "acts of terror" is an aside in the 10th paragraph after he has been discussing 9/11/01 and the loss of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Fact Check: 'Act of Terror' Not Same as 'Terrorism'

So when he says

But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.

Who is he blaming, exactly???

 

[koshergrl]

"Justice done for this terrible act" is not calling it an act of terror.

 

[koshergrl]

"In fact, if you go back to Obama's 9/12 rose garden speech, you find that he was blaming the video for the "senseless violence" in Benghazi. That's front and center in the 4th paragraph of Obama's speech. His reference to "acts of terror" is an aside in the 10th paragraph after he has been discussing 9/11/01 and the loss of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Fact Check: 'Act of Terror' Not Same as 'Terrorism'

So when he says

But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.

Who is he blaming, exactly???

Well if you look at the entire transcript, he appears to be blaming the youtube video and a bunch of really upset protestors.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You left out the context.

Go figure.

Breitbart had it right. He didn't refer to acts of terror until paragraph ten, and you have left out the context immediately before it, thinking you can pretend he was referencing comments made 6 paragraphs previous.

He wasn't.

]

'No acts of terror' is inclusive. It's plural. It includes the killings directly referred to immediately after that.

Stop making a fool of yourself.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Bullshit. He was making the remarks directly to respond to the attacks. That was the subject of the statement.

Here is exactly what he said:

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.

As you see, he first references acts of terror. Next he references the four deaths. Then he puts them together referring to this terrible act.

......You have to be off the deep end to think the president isn't talking about this act as one of those acts.

He already preceding it referenced 911 attacks after he first blamed the video.

Nice try. Candy Crowley would be proud though she walked her inaccuracy back.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"In fact, if you go back to Obama's 9/12 rose garden speech, you find that he was blaming the video for the "senseless violence" in Benghazi. That's front and center in the 4th paragraph of Obama's speech. His reference to "acts of terror" is an aside in the 10th paragraph after he has been discussing 9/11/01 and the loss of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Fact Check: 'Act of Terror' Not Same as 'Terrorism'

So when he says

But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.

Who is he blaming, exactly???

Well if you look at the entire transcript, he appears to be blaming the youtube video and a bunch of really upset protestors.

What does the phrase 'absolutely no justification' mean to you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bullshit. He was making the remarks directly to respond to the attacks. That was the subject of the statement.

Here is exactly what he said:

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.

As you see, he first references acts of terror. Next he references the four deaths. Then he puts them together referring to this terrible act.

......You have to be off the deep end to think the president isn't talking about this act as one of those acts.

He already preceding it referenced 911 attacks after he first blamed the video.

Nice try. Candy Crowley would be proud though she walked her inaccuracy back.

What does the phrase 'absolutely no justification' mean to you?