General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGOPers throughout the web are trying to assert that "act of terror" is not equal to "terrorism"
A responder to the video told me I was crazy for asserting this. Here is the thread in question:
Me: Here is a hint to those who don't get it. When you are speaking about an attack event and say, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation", it means you are calling the act a terrorist act. THis isnt even particularly subtle. It's just a shade below completely obvious.
america2revolt: Calling something an act of terror and a terrorist attack is two totally different things. But maybe that's just me.The kid next door can execute an act of terror on my kid. But that doesn't make him a terrorist. These were terrorist that attacked the embassy. Let's call a spade a spade and stop beating around the bush about it. If Obama truely believed this was an act of terrorism he would have said act of terrorism by these terrorists not just calling them attackers. a mugger is an attacker.
Me: Actually, if the kid next door executes an act of terror, he is a terrorist and it was a terrorist attack.
america2revolt: Hahaha you must work for the Dept. of Homeland Security
Me: This really isnt that hard. If someone commits an act of terror, they are a terrorist. I'm sorry, but words have meanings that matter. If you dont like them, thats not my problem.
THis is all in comments to this video:
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)They know how damaging this moment was to Mittens, they're desperate and reaching now with word games.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)LOL
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Nice try, asshats.
fearnobush
(3,960 posts)Romney said act of terror twice. I t was Crowley who used the word terrorism. But to try to deflate this is pure reaching. Face it republicans, you been had tonight.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)OBAMA: Thats what I said.
ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror.
It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what youre saying?
OBAMA: Please proceed governor.
ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
OBAMA: Get the transcript.
CROWLEY: It it it he did in fact, sir. So let me let me call it an act of terror
OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?
CROWLEY: He he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.
ROMNEY: This the administration the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.
CROWLEY: It did.
ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And to suggest am I incorrect in that regard, on Sunday, the your secretary
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/16/full-transcript-of-the-second-presidential-debate/
caraher
(6,279 posts)a "certificate of live birth" was not a "birth certificate."
dballance
(5,756 posts)The diehard GOPers will see it through their lens the way they wish to see it, and there will be no changing their mind.
Peepsite
(113 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)and now they got themselves beaten with it. It's time to let go of that bone. They're outted, it's done. They should've had more sense than to fabricate this bs to begin with.
SunSeeker
(51,734 posts)From day one Obama and Hillary said the people who killed the embassador did not appear to be mere protestors, that they used the protests as cover, that this appeared to be a sophisticated, coordinated attack. And then Susan Rice made that poorly worded statement to the effect that they did not have evidence that it was a terrorist attack--and Fox and Mitt seized on that.
Good timeline and recap here:
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/15/1014241/timline-benghazi-attack/
RedStateLiberal
(1,374 posts)Yes...yes they are.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)substantial and ugly as they are.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)TDale313
(7,820 posts)Tens of millions of people saw Romney get fact checked in real time by the moderator. They saw Obama's "proceed" moment. They can't put that genie back in the bottle. That was a really bad moment for Romney, and I don't think them debating whether acts of terror meant terrorism or was about the event in question undoes that image of Romney smuggly acting all gotcha with the president and getting smacked down by both Obama and CC.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)I find their argument nonsensical and meaningless, as the very definition of terrorism, I would dare say, is the commission of "acts of terror," but whatever fever-ridden save they think they've cooked up in their hive-mind, fuck them.
You lose and there's no fixing that.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Acts of the responsible responsibility? Acts of loving love? Acts of liberals liberal? Acts of conservatives conservatism?
theKed
(1,235 posts)what, exactly, do you mean by "of"?
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)greyl
(22,990 posts)I was just gonna post "depends on what the meaning of "terror" is."
abumbyanyothername
(2,711 posts)4 Americans are dead.
And one side is trying to twist that to advantage.
And one side is trying to run the American government.
And that much is obvious to everyone. So as Obama said tonight, "Proceed . . . . "
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Mariana
(14,861 posts)LOL, my kid has neither - she has a "Certification of Vital Record". I wonder what they'd make of that?
regnaD kciN
(26,045 posts)...that Obama had not called it "an act of terror" until two weeks later.
(I hope, if Romney brings it up again at the third debate, that Obama will be quick enough to correct the one slip I saw him make all evening: going along with the questioner's assumption that there had been a request for more security at the consulate in Benghazi. In fact, the request was for the embassy in Tripoli; neither Obama nor Clinton ever had to deal with a request for security in Benghazi, because no such request was ever made.)
patrice
(47,992 posts)You don't hang your SOS out there in the world, twisting in the wind. You MUST back him/her, because s/he'd be impotent without the President backing him/her. That's a strong position in the world.
I think he did not forget Tripoli. He was just making a different more important statement. It was the right thing to do.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)flyguyjake
(492 posts)They have no plans, aside from flip-flopping. They are fighting tooth and nail to pin Libya on Obama because they're hoping it sticks with the wars monger voters.
Seriously is this all they have to talk about? What about Mittens tax returns or his 20% tax cut that's unpaid for!
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)That always shuts them up IRL & makes them go bother someone else online.
Mariana
(14,861 posts)all this time has nothing to do with terrorism? Because, you know, terror and terrorism are two totally different things. Ask him did he make that distinction all those thousands of times Bush put his face in front of a camera and babbled about "terror".
Also, don't forget to give him grief for not capitalizing "America" in his ridiculous username. Pretty damn disrespectful if you ask me. Why does he hate America?
And that username - america2revolt? Really? Is this person another wannabe RW revolutionary? Those have got to be among the most pathetic people on the face of the earth.