- This topic has 191 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by
svelte.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 19, 2012 at 10:58 AM #752854October 19, 2012 at 11:15 AM #752856
SK in CV
Participant[quote=Veritas]”The mother of an American diplomat killed during a terrorist raid on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi has hit out at Barack Obama for describing the attack as ‘not optimal’, saying: ‘My son is not very optimal – he is also very dead.'”
“During an interview shown on Comedy Central, Obama responded to a question about his administration’s confused communication after the assault by saying: ‘If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.'”
That was a bullshit, out of context quote. He was talking about the communication process.
October 19, 2012 at 1:54 PM #752868Zeitgeist
ParticipantWhat is bullshi+ SK, is that we have a president who cannot bring himself to clearly condemn as “terrorism” the attack against the Ambassador and his staff while they were in Benghazi. All your machinations and gyrations in support of his administration will not change it. Humpty Dumpty has taken a great fall.
Four-score Men and Four-score more,
Could not make Humpty Dumpty where he was before“Owing in part to the inability of either the Libyans or the Americans to mount a serious investigation, American dissections of the assault on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi have become muddled in a political debate over the identities and motivations of the attackers. Some Republicans have charged that the Obama administration initially sought to obscure a possible connection to Al Qaeda in order to protect its claim to have brought the group to its knees.”
October 19, 2012 at 2:53 PM #752869Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]What is bullshi+ SK, is that we have a president who cannot bring himself to clearly condemn as “terrorism” the attack against the Ambassador and his staff while they were in Benghazi. All your machinations and gyrations in support of his administration will not change it. Humpty Dumpty has taken a great fall.
Four-score Men and Four-score more,
Could not make Humpty Dumpty where he was before“Owing in part to the inability of either the Libyans or the Americans to mount a serious investigation, American dissections of the assault on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi have become muddled in a political debate over the identities and motivations of the attackers. Some Republicans have charged that the Obama administration initially sought to obscure a possible connection to Al Qaeda in order to protect its claim to have brought the group to its knees.”
First, he did call it terrorism. The day it happened. The following day. And in the days that followed. Unless of course there’s some secret code I’m not aware of that make his words disappear, as if they were never spoken.
I guess what I don’t get is the obsession with the word terrorism. Maybe I do. It was the stupid “war on terror”. There is no such thing as a war on terror. There can’t be. You fight wars against enemies. Terrorism isn’t an enemy it’s a tactic. A tactic used by people who are desperate, fanatical, outmanned, and incapable of fighting a conventional battle, with either words or weapons. It’s used by scizophrenic junkies, by people pissed off at the IRS, by kids who have been bullied their whole lives, and by radical islamists who want us dead. As a practical matter it can’t ever be eliminated.
And the middle east and northern Africa is packed with those sorts of interests. It’s a tiny minority in a population of more than 600 million people, but it’s real and it’s not going anywhere. For what will probably be the rest of our lifetimes, we’ll be playing whack-a-mole. Al Queda is like McDonalds, except there is no franchise fee and no royalties. So these fanatical groups, by whatever name, will pop up everywhere, with their green star and crescents instead of golden arches. Some might be loosely affiliated with other groups and some will have no affiliation at all. And the only real tie that they may have to each other is that they want us and Israel dead. Insisting on calling them terrorists is stupid semantics.
They attacked and bombed a US consulate facilty. They killed a US ambassador. Calling it terrorism doesn’t change anything. Insisting that word is important is moronic. The war on terror SHOULD be dead. It never should have started. We need to fight our wars against enemies. Not tactics.
October 19, 2012 at 3:48 PM #752873all
ParticipantIf we see Anwar al-Awlaki as a legitimate target then the other side would probably argue the local US Ambassador and two ex-seals on government payroll are legitimate targets. The IT guy is collateral damage.
October 19, 2012 at 4:05 PM #752874Aecetia
ParticipantTechnically he did not call it “terrorism.”
This is what the President said on 9-12, the day after the attack on the US Consulate at Benghazi:
“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.”
“As noted by one of my colleagues, the President mentioned “acts of terror” but didn’t directly say Benghazi was one. When he directly addressed the attack he called it an ‘outrageous and shocking attack.’”
It is not the word, it is the entire aftermath after the attack including what he did afterward. By making the attack about the video for whatever reason. I cannot understand his thinking on this or why he would continue his trip to Las Vegas.
October 19, 2012 at 5:47 PM #752877Participant[quote=Aecetia]It is not the word, it is the entire aftermath after the attack including what he did afterward. By making the attack about the video for whatever reason. I cannot understand his thinking on this or why he would continue his trip to Las Vegas.[/quote]
If it’s not the word, why are people complaining about the word?
October 19, 2012 at 11:42 PM #752892Participant“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”Your mileage may vary.
October 20, 2012 at 7:45 AM #752897Participant[quote=Aecetia]”When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”Your mileage may vary.[/quote]
Non-responsive.
October 20, 2012 at 8:00 AM #752900svelteParticipantIt is really easy to figure out what side of the political fence someone sits on by whom they nitpick to death. It is especially easy in this thread.
I found it amusing when the Dems nitpicked Bush over his Katrina reaction. I’m finding it equally amusing now that the Reps are nitpicking Obama to death over Libya.
Sometimes I wonder if there is anybody out there at all who can be truly objective.
October 20, 2012 at 8:00 AM #752901scaredyclassic
Participanti can be completely subjective, if that helps.
October 20, 2012 at 11:00 AM #752916ParticipantThe bias on both sides is abundantly evident, even by the folks who think they are objective. Nitpicking, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
October 21, 2012 at 9:53 AM #752951dumbrenter
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: There was considerable intel and in the MONTHS leading up to the Benghazi attack and this intel came from US, Western (largely British) and Libyan sources.
[/quote]Western “intel” is code word for 2 FBI agents going over facebook updates.
It was this same “intel” that got us into un-needed wars and made us pretty much a neighbor to Iran.
There was no al-kaeeda in Iraq when dear leader saddam was in power and it is clear now his scientists haven’t even managed to complete coloring of the nuclear warhead book.
There were no al-kaeda in Libya when dearly departed leader was in power. I’d say had he been alive, the ambassador would never had been killed (and before some humorless dimwit jumps on me for this, think about this for a second!).
Which makes me wonder who exactly are these western ‘intel’ fellows working for? At every step we are becoming weaker and the al-kaeda boyz are becoming stronger after their “involvement”.
Budget cuts anyone?October 21, 2012 at 9:58 AM #752953Participant[quote=svelte]It is really easy to figure out what side of the political fence someone sits on by whom they nitpick to death. It is especially easy in this thread.
I found it amusing when the Dems nitpicked Bush over his Katrina reaction. I’m finding it equally amusing now that the Reps are nitpicking Obama to death over Libya.
Sometimes I wonder if there is anybody out there at all who can be truly objective.[/quote]
The objective ones in politics have been run out of town in the 80s. They cannot exist in this current setup anymore since nobody will vote for them. Thank cnn/fox/msnbc for that. Most partisan posts here take a cue from these sources & their talking points.
October 21, 2012 at 10:10 AM #752954Participant[quote=craptcha]If we see Anwar al-Awlaki as a legitimate target then the other side would probably argue the local US Ambassador and two ex-seals on government payroll are legitimate targets. The IT guy is collateral damage.[/quote]
Yes, but killing somebody in name of religion is wrong, but killing somebody in name of freedom and peace is ok.
Doesn’t the other side get this? -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.