Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
According to the Obama administration and his lapdogs in the media, the Tea Party, which has no history of violence or murdering people, is classified as a "domestic terrorist group", but Nidal Malik Hasan, a muslim-American soldier who murdered 13 others in the name of Allah, is not classified as a terrorist, domestic or otherwise?
I would love to hear any Obamacrat out there seriously try to defend this atrocity.
According to the Obama administration and his lapdogs in the media, the Tea Party, which has no history of violence or murdering people, is classified as a "domestic terrorist group"...
Are you still hung up on "acts of terror" vs. "terrorist acts"? And why are you derailing your own thread - I thought this was about Ft. Hood?
Maybe he's hung up on Obama's own words...
Quote:
At his press conference, Obama expressed frustration with those who label the administration’s initial response to the attack a “cover-up.” He said, “The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”
Not quite. The president, in remarks Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden, used the term “acts of terror.” The president 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.” Later that night, he used the term “act of terror” at a campaign event in Las Vegas.
Between the morning speech and the evening fundraiser, Obama spoke to CBS News reporter Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes.” Kroft noted that “you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack.” Obama said, “Right.” Asked why, the president said that “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.”
Ehm - I typed "acts of terror". Your cite says that Obama said "acts of terror". I am not sure what that contributes, except perhaps proving that I can at times cite correctly from memory?
And it appears people are still hung up on "acts of terror" vs. "terrorist acts", I wish I was surprised.
Ehm - I typed "acts of terror". Your cite says that Obama said "acts of terror". I am not sure what that contributes, except perhaps proving that I can at times cite correctly from memory?
And it appears people are still hung up on "acts of terror" vs. "terrorist acts", I wish I was surprised.
I don't get that either. Acts of terror.....terrorist act. Act....terror. They're both there, what's the problem exactly?
Ehm - I typed "acts of terror". Your cite says that Obama said "acts of terror". I am not sure what that contributes, except perhaps proving that I can at times cite correctly from memory?
And it appears people are still hung up on "acts of terror" vs. "terrorist acts", I wish I was surprised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by northnut
I don't get that either. Acts of terror.....terrorist act. Act....terror. They're both there, what's the problem exactly?
Well apparently the two of you have a reading comprehension problem.
Between the morning speech and the evening fundraiser, Obama spoke to CBS News reporter Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes.” Kroft noted that “you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack.” Obama said, “Right.” Asked why, the president said that “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.”
I underlined the part you two seem to have a hard time comprehending. If he thought it was an act of terror why would he then say "it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.”
The shooter is an American citizen and a commissioned officer in the Army.
Those facts drop him into a big grey area that is always present in the military but is extremely rare- soldiers have always gone crazy and killed their comrades ever since there have been organized armies.
What has happened in the past? The deaths were not combat deaths. Purple hearts were never awarded from death or injury from known friendly fire in previous wars.
The injured are receiving exactly the same medical treatment they would have received in combat. They will continue to receive exactly the same VA med treatment all veterans are entitled to once out of active service.
Trying to say that this administration is not concerned with our soldiers is the rankest, most stupid nonsense I've read on this forum. Trying to make hay from the deaths at Ft. Hood is about as slimy as it gets, even for you.
Hasan can use any defense he wants. I am perfectly sure the military tribunal will sentence him to death unless he can show some solid evidence of insanity. In 1984, the method of execution was changed to lethal injection. He will join 5 others awaiting execution in Ft. Leavenworth, and by the time he's strapped down, about 20 some years from now, you won't give a damn about it because President Obama will be long retired. By then, you'll have an entirely new set of things to snivel about.
Until then, shame on you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Foot Hood Shooter shot American soldiers to protect the Taliban
