- This topic has 88 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by
ucodegen.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM #753829November 6, 2012 at 10:35 AM #753830
ucodegen
Participant[quote=SK in CV]What is magic about the word “terrorism”? He called it “an act of terror” at least twice in the two days following the attack.[/quote]
Show reference here! What I found shows quite the opposite even though he was informed of it (that it was terrorist in nature) two hours after the occurrence. Obama still wanted it to be attributed to that ‘bad old video’.PS: There is nothing ‘magic’ about the word terrorism. It goes to the intent of the act, which would be to spread fear and attempt control through fear.
[quote=SK in CV]And apparently during the CBS interview, he did not. Is that the lie? Would everything have been just perfect if he’d called it terrorism at every opportunity? Are terrorism and a spontaneous attack mutually exclusive? Does calling it terrorism change anything? If so, what is different?[/quote] As I stated earlier.. it doesn’t look as bad for Obama as it does for CBS. The only parts that look bad for Obama is that it looks like:
- He did not have control of the situation, was not on top of it.
- Obama misrepresented how things went down during the debate.
CBS has a bigger problem going down to their credibility. They tried to justify his statements on the debate when they knew otherwise. CBS should have called him on it. I am much more bothered by CBS’s behavior than Obama’s on this.
November 6, 2012 at 10:36 AM #753832Participant[quote=CA renter]Yes, I understand that; however, embassies are often the targets of attacks because they are involved in issues that the citizens of that country feel are very much against their best interests.
..
What I’d really like to know (and what is really being covered up) is what, specifically, our “diplomats” in Libya were doing over the past ~18-24 months.[/quote]Considering that the people in the neighborhood were the ones that extracted the injured from the Embassy and brought them to the hospital, I would have to say that the attackers were the fringe not the core of the people in the area. The US was also partially responsible for helping the Libyans oust Gaddafi. I suspect that real terrorists used the cover of a peaceful protest.
November 6, 2012 at 10:42 AM #753834Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=ucodegen][quote=craptcha]The Benghazi outpost was not an Embassy. And if we are to believe Allan the ambassador was not just a diplomat, but also a facilitator in weapons proliferation scheme.[/quote]Umm.. how about some references to support your contention there? From what I find, it was quite the opposite. There were some weapons, particularly ground to air weapons (ie Stingers) that the US was trying to locate. Remember the empty containers shown on the news? Considering that a 737, 747, 777, A300 etc makes a nice juicy target for a Stinger or similar missile, and it would make a great target/weapon combination for a terrorist.
Did you mean to reply to another post? This comment is entirely non-responsive to the quoted comment.[/quote]
Actually it is right to the point. Read it again. The ref quote indicated:
Allan the ambassador was not just a diplomat, but a facilitator in weapons proliferation scheme. I am showing that the real intent of any action there was not weapons proliferation, but bringing some dangerous weapons back into control and remove them from circulation. I also indicated how these weapons would be used by a terrorist. My news link is backup on the ground to air missile.. since I asked for proof on the insinuation of participation in a weapons proliferation scheme.November 6, 2012 at 12:02 PM #753841all
ParticipantAllan’s post in the other thread:
There was an on-going CIA operation to move heavy weapons to Syria and Stevens was providing diplomatic cover for same.
http://piggington.com/obama_intellectual_or_empty_suit#comment-220744
November 6, 2012 at 12:22 PM #753842SK in CV
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=SK in CV]What is magic about the word “terrorism”? He called it “an act of terror” at least twice in the two days following the attack.[/quote]
Show reference here! What I found shows quite the opposite even though he was informed of it (that it was terrorist in nature) two hours after the occurrence. Obama still wanted it to be attributed to that ‘bad old video’.PS: There is nothing ‘magic’ about the word terrorism. It goes to the intent of the act, which would be to spread fear and attempt control through fear.
[quote=SK in CV]And apparently during the CBS interview, he did not. Is that the lie? Would everything have been just perfect if he’d called it terrorism at every opportunity? Are terrorism and a spontaneous attack mutually exclusive? Does calling it terrorism change anything? If so, what is different?[/quote] As I stated earlier.. it doesn’t look as bad for Obama as it does for CBS. The only parts that look bad for Obama is that it looks like:
- He did not have control of the situation, was not on top of it.
- Obama misrepresented how things went down during the debate.
CBS has a bigger problem going down to their credibility. They tried to justify his statements on the debate when they knew otherwise. CBS should have called him on it. I am much more bothered by CBS’s behavior than Obama’s on this.[/quote]
Obama did not misrepresent anything during the debate. He asserted that he called it an act of terror immediately after the attack. His words from his address the following morning:
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.
He used almost identical wording the following day.
As to whether it was a “terrorist” attack, do you have any evidence that the intent of the act was to spread fear or attempt to control through fear, as opposed to an attack to kill or harm anyone that was inside the consulate facility? IMHO, the “terrorist” label is stupid. It does nothing to explain anything.
November 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM #753854ParticipantThe difference between a ‘terrorist attack’ and ‘act of terror’ is much like the difference between ‘murder 1’ and ‘manslaughter’. It comes to full intent and planning.
November 6, 2012 at 8:28 PM #753856Participant[quote=craptcha]Allan’s post in the other thread:
There was an on-going CIA operation to move heavy weapons to Syria and Stevens was providing diplomatic cover for same.
http://piggington.com/obama_intellectual_or_empty_suit#comment-220744%5B/quote%5DInteresting, but if it was caused by this.. then the only group who would do this would be associated with the existing regime in Syria. I don’t think that Assad would want to add US to the mix by attacking diplomatic personnel on foreign soil. Under this scenario, Al Qaeda would not be interested in stopping the heavy arms. They would have more opportunities with Assad gone.
That said, I don’t think it is likely that the diplomats know of CIA operations within the country. It doesn’t always get flowed down to them. Operations are ‘stovepiped’ so there is plausible deniability on the part of the diplomat. The article also said:
there’s evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to Syrian rebels.
which does not state certainty, nor direct involvement.
November 6, 2012 at 9:28 PM #753860Participant[quote=ucodegen]The difference between a ‘terrorist attack’ and ‘act of terror’ is much like the difference between ‘murder 1’ and ‘manslaughter’. It comes to full intent and planning.[/quote]
Really? Why is that? Terrorism would be a belief in the use of terror. An act of terror would be actually using terror. If anything, I would think that the words would imply that an “act of terror” is much more significant. More like “an act of terror” would be murder 1, and “terrorism” would be attempted murder.
Is there a political words dictionary that defines this somewhere? Or was it just decided by people that wanted to imagine something did not happen when it actually did?
November 6, 2012 at 9:44 PM #753861FlyerInHi
GuestYou guys who are obsessed about Benghazi are screwed up.
Chris Stevens wanted to be at the Consulate. He liked going out and mingle with the locals. And he was privy to intelligence. He could have been holed up in security behind guards at an embassy fortress. . But he chose to take risks in doing his job.
November 6, 2012 at 10:27 PM #753864Veritas
Participant“Last night, it was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked where four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by Al-Qaeda, but President Obama denied the request. Klein also said that those same sources said that former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife [Hillary] to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/clinton-asked-for-more-security-benghazi-obama-said-no
November 6, 2012 at 10:28 PM #753865Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=ucodegen]The difference between a ‘terrorist attack’ and ‘act of terror’ is much like the difference between ‘murder 1’ and ‘manslaughter’. It comes to full intent and planning.[/quote]
Really? Why is that? Terrorism would be a belief in the use of terror. An act of terror would be actually using terror.[/quote] Nope.. try again.. I did not say belief. See the quoted section again.
November 6, 2012 at 10:32 PM #753866Participant[quote=Veritas]”Last night, it was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked where four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by Al-Qaeda, but President Obama denied the request. Klein also said that those same sources said that former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife [Hillary] to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/clinton-asked-for-more-security-benghazi-obama-said-no%5B/quote%5DRemember what I mentioned about Hilary being shoved under the bus on this…[quote=ucodegen][quote=livinincali]Of course Obama will probably try to shove Hilary under the bus if that happens.[/quote]I think that is already being considered/is in the works..
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57532916/secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-takes-responsibility-for-benghazi-attack/ [/quote]November 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM #753868Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=SK in CV][quote=ucodegen]The difference between a ‘terrorist attack’ and ‘act of terror’ is much like the difference between ‘murder 1’ and ‘manslaughter’. It comes to full intent and planning.[/quote]
Really? Why is that? Terrorism would be a belief in the use of terror. An act of terror would be actually using terror.[/quote] Nope.. try again.. I did not say belief. See the quoted section again.[/quote]
No, I said belief. That’s what “terrorism” means. A belief in the use of terror.
Did you find that political term dictionary that explains the difference? Or did you just make it up because it suits your purpose?
November 6, 2012 at 11:57 PM #753871CA renter
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=CA renter]Yes, I understand that; however, embassies are often the targets of attacks because they are involved in issues that the citizens of that country feel are very much against their best interests.
..
What I’d really like to know (and what is really being covered up) is what, specifically, our “diplomats” in Libya were doing over the past ~18-24 months.[/quote]Considering that the people in the neighborhood were the ones that extracted the injured from the Embassy and brought them to the hospital, I would have to say that the attackers were the fringe not the core of the people in the area. The US was also partially responsible for helping the Libyans oust Gaddafi. I suspect that real terrorists used the cover of a peaceful protest.[/quote]
*Some* local people brought him out of the compound…it does not mean that most of the local people were in favor of what the U.S. was doing there.
Also, like him or not, Gadaffi was very well respected and loved my many Libyans, largely because he drastically improved the quality of life of the Libyan people. From everything I’ve heard and read, the Libyans are dead-set against foreign intervention in their affairs. That might have something to do with what’s gone on in Benghazi.
http://globalciviliansforpeace.com/2011/11/09/the-standard-of-living-in-libya/
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.