State Department Knew Lybia Attack Was Terrorists Within 2 Hours

[Kasierith]

You mean when the moderator tossed out her OPINION to attempt to save the president? Have you read the transcript? I have, no where in his speech did he call it a terroist attack. He said
"Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi" Called it an ATTACK not a terrorist attack
.

Wait, so I don't understand... he knew about the attack because he called it an attack instead of a terrorist attack specifically?

[conscript]

Nothing to do with looking it up on wikipedia of course.

That crab is adorable.

I support Obama, and I am not happy about what happened in Libya at all. I don't get the purpose of trying to slam Obama for the lack of being absolutely stone cold resolute on the "it was terrorism" stuff and the "ignoring" of security requests (which were to literally add a single troop). Benghazi would have happened whether Obama said it was terrorism or not. Benghazi would have happened whether those security requests to bring the troops up to 5 from the 3-4 they were usually at (5 is the required number) would have been granted. We should ask ourselves should we continue to put these people in harm's way by staffing embassies in hostile territories, not condemn the President for an attack that was unpreventable.

[IIamaKing]

What is the scandal here? What exactly are you accusing the administration of?

Gross Negligence. Willfully ignoring the terrorist attack while it happened to avoid having to face up to the implications of his failed foreign policy.

How bad would it have looked if he had to put boots on the ground to quell the attack in this region where his policy's had supposedly spread "peace". He had said many times that Al'queida (sp) this attack kinda flubs up that narrative for him.

[semaphore]

You mean when the moderator tossed out her OPINION to attempt to save the president? Have you read the transcript? I have, no where in his speech did he call it a terroist attack. He said
"Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi" Called it an ATTACK not a terrorist attack
<...>
"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" Using the generic "no Acts of terror" does not mean he is calling this specific even a terror attack.

The amount of mental arithmetic you had to resort to here is painful to read. The intent is absolutely clear. It was an attack and an act of terror -> terror attack. The moderator simply "tossed out" an objective interpretation that is shared by all sane people that happened to be inconvenient to your "it's the video it's the video" narrative.

---------- Post added 2012-10-24 at 08:25 PM ----------

Wait, so I don't understand... he knew about the attack because he called it an attack instead of a terrorist attack specifically?

They're just pretending to be outraged that he called it an "act of terror" and "attack", rather than a "terrorist attack" in one go.

[stumpy]

Gross Negligence. Willfully ignoring the terrorist attack while it happened to avoid having to face up to the implications of his failed foreign policy.

How bad would it have looked if he had to put boots on the ground to quell the attack in this region where his policy's had supposedly spread "peace". He had said many times that Al'queida (sp) this attack kinda flubs up that narrative for him.

But if he'd called it a terrorist attack, that sure would've changed everything.

Oh wait. He did.

[conscript]

Wait, so I don't understand... he knew about the attack because he called it an attack instead of a terrorist attack specifically?

Ya Obama only said "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation." If you don't put the words right next to each other, they can't show up when the GOP folks ctrl+f and search for key words. Just like the not optimal fiasco from the last couple days where they condemned Obama for not calling it a tragedy because Fox News is too busy being reactionary rather than listening to the entire tape where he literally says it is a tragedy a few words before not optimal (then again they were attacking Obama for the comments before the Daily Show even freaking aired that is how incredibly stupid Fox News is).

[IIamaKing]

Wait, so I don't understand... he knew about the attack because he called it an attack instead of a terrorist attack specifically?

All attacks are attacks, not all are attacks are terrorist attacks. Like All thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs.

If you do not get the distinction I do not know how to help you.

[KDSwain]

"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"

Again, not that pointing out any of this will do any good to the Obots here but if you watch this entire speech, he is talking about 9/11/01 here. Not the attack on Libya.

[Kasierith]

Gross Negligence. Willfully ignoring the terrorist attack while it happened to avoid having to face up to the implications of his failed foreign policy.

How bad would it have looked if he had to put boots on the ground to quell the attack in this region where his policy's had supposedly spread "peace". He had said many times that Al'queida (sp) this attack kinda flubs up that narrative for him.

So.. he allowed a terrorist attack to happen... because a terrorist attack would look bad on him.

You really, really don't see how stopping such an attack cold and essentially one upping the Bush administration since they failed to do so wouldn't be far more than a positive than "those guys that are weakened but still out there aren't still out there?"

[conscript]

Gross Negligence. Willfully ignoring the terrorist attack while it happened to avoid having to face up to the implications of his failed foreign policy.

How bad would it have looked if he had to put boots on the ground to quell the attack in this region where his policy's had supposedly spread "peace". He had said many times that Al'queida (sp) this attack kinda flubs up that narrative for him.

So during a short attack, the US is supposed to fly in a battalion of troops to defend the embassy or are our embassies equipped with teleporters. If so, where can I buy a personal teleporter.

[stumpy]

All attacks are attacks, not all are attacks are terrorist attacks. Like All thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs.

If you do not get the distinction I do not know how to help you.

This from the guy whose brain experiences a critical error while trying to parse "acts of terror" into "terrorist attack."

[Deadvolcanoes]

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." Implying the video is to blame

So you can make assumptions about what Obama is implying, but if I can't?

When Obama said "No act of terror will shake the resolve..." he was obviously implying the Benghazi attack was perpetrated by terrorist.

[IIamaKing]

But if he'd called it a terrorist attack, that sure would've changed everything.

Oh wait. He did.

It would have changed nothing, him not acting still resulted in 4 deaths, we know now they watched the attack in real time. We also know there were/are deploy-able forces are hour away his failure to act cost American lives.

[semaphore]

All attacks are attacks, not all are attacks are terrorist attacks.

All attacks that are acts of terror are terrorist attacks.

Critical thinking is hard.

[Kasierith]

All attacks are attacks, not all are attacks are terrorist attacks. Like All thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs.

If you do not get the distinction I do not know how to help you.

Terrorism is not a massively objective concept; it is, in fact, quite subjective. Even going by the current working model of it, however, an attack is an attack, and terrorism is an attack meant on spreading fear. So an act of terror + attack =

Get what I'm saying?

[stumpy]

It would have changed nothing, him not acting still resulted in 4 deaths, we know now they watched the attack in real time. We also know there were/are deploy-able forces are hour away his failure to act cost American lives.

So why were you bleating about what (you thought) he chose to call it, again?

[Rukentuts]

All attacks that are acts of terror are terrorist attacks.

Critical thinking is hard.

I give up. Too hard for me.

[Kasierith]

All attacks that are acts of terror are terrorist attacks.

Critical thinking is hard.

Is a ball with red paint on it, a red ball? These puzzles are so confusing....

It would have changed nothing, him not acting still resulted in 4 deaths, we know now they watched the attack in real time. We also know there were/are deploy-able forces are hour away his failure to act cost American lives.

And your reasoning for this is what exactly?

[tehdef]

The amount of mental arithmetic you had to resort to here is painful to read. The intent is absolutely clear. It was an attack and an act of terror -> terror attack. The moderator simply "tossed out" an objective interpretation that is shared by all sane people that happened to be inconvenient to your "it's the video it's the video" narrative.

---------- Post added 2012-10-24 at 08:25 PM ----------


They're just pretending to be outraged that he called it an "act of terror" and "attack", rather than a "terrorist attack" in one go.

So. Funny story. He didn't call it a violent demonstration. He called it an attack. When it comes to physical attacks there are really only two types. One would be an organized military attack which is generally seen as an act of war, or a terrorist attack. However, attacking an American Embassy with American Officials inside would not generally be considered an ACT OF TERROR.

Terrorism:
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

From what I can see, there was no terror involved. Generally terrorism results in civilans being targeted, and has an underlying political statement. Since these attacks have no political affiliation, nor did they target civilans or attempt to encite any terror, I wouldn't even consider it a terrorist attack. It would be an attack.

They are just using the word Terrorism to justify "hunting down those responsible". Terrorism is a hot word, and it allows for certain freedoms in retaliation. I feel pretty confident what Obama said was accurate. It was an attack. It wasn't meant to incite terror. Nor was it an act of country to country war.

[araine]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...rageMixRelated

This is major stuff IMO. I'm really disappointed that it isn't a major "lead" story on all the channels. The Embassy was attacked, and the assault lasted 7 hours. By the 2nd hour the State department knew that terrorists had claimed responsibility, and yet not a SINGLE troop, plane, or ship was ordered to save the lives of the Ambassador or his staff. Then for over a week the story from the White House was "it was the video it was the video it was the video". Then "Oops!" - it was terrorists. Then Clinton says its her fault (but doesn't accept any responsibility). Then Obama says it is his responsibility (but doesn't accept any blame). Now they're telling everyone to ignore the whole thing until the "investigation" is conducted...but they didn't send any investigators to the site for weeks and they were only there for less than an hour.

Either Obama's administration is even more incompetent than anyone possibly imagined (and that would be REALLY hard), or they've been lying through their collective teeth since 2 hours after the attack began. This is way bigger than Watergate ever was. This is way bigger than Iran-Contra ever was. This is way bigger than the whole Scooter-Libby thing was. The news media was having group orgasms over the simple mentioning of the name of one moron agent (Plame) who wasn't worth the powder to blow her up. But when an Ambassador is killed as a direct result of inaction and incompetence of the highest order (plus the clear appearance of a subsequent coverup) they are missing in action. What happened to all their vaunted role in speaking truth to power?

Just look upon the transcripts of the 2nd presidential debate where your buddy Romney gets his clock cleaned when he puts out the same lies as you are doing right now. Already in the pressconference in the rose garden on Sept 12th is it labeled an act of terror. So try to spin it i am sure FOXnews told you different but do your own research next time and just get the entire unedited version of the 1st press conference after the attack.