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.
The USS Cole would not have been damaged if the sailors on watch were permitted the have BULLETS IN THEIR WEAPONS and could have repelled the attack.
Or the ship could have not pulled into the harbor. You do know those ships can go to the Middle East and back and never need to pull into any harbor. Also have you been on a ship before? I wouldn't want those guys running around tight quarters with loaded weapons when it isn't needed.
Yeah, somehow I doubt that you right wingers would be satisfied because you would come up with something else about that which upset you.
Pot meet kettle:
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
That is false, I care very much about people who were killed, much like I care about people who were killed during the 9/11 attacks. Shame on you for assuming otherwise.
I don't think you know what that term means based off those two quotes from me.
Do i need to post my quotes also? Just to show exactally how wrong you are?
Or are you saying it is o.k. for you to make a general statement about me, but when I make a general statment about you, I'm worng for doing such, and you are justified...
The report makes clear that the Ambassador bore some of the blame. He twice refused offers by the military to reinstate special ops forces in Libya, during the few weeks before the attack.
It also refuted suggestions by some Republicans ( usually on Fox News) that military assets were ready to assist but ordered to stand down. Only unarmed drones were based close enough to respond and they were launched immediately.
There is a lot of revisionist history about the administration's classification of the attack. The people doing so have to know it's the case because that approach never came out until Obama used it to spin the debate.
Clinton on the 12th: "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."
Obama: In the Rose Garden speech where his supporters cite his use of "act of terror," he also said "“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.”
After his Rose Garden speech, Obama taped an interview for “60 Minutes.” Obama said he didn’t use the word “terrorism” in his Rose Garden speech because “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.” Steve Kroft, the show’s host, wonders how the attack could be described as a “mob action” since the attackers were “very heavily armed.”
On Letterman on the 18th, the President was asked about the attack and said,"Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.” He also said, “As offensive as this video was and, obviously, we’ve denounced it and the United States government had nothing to do with it. That’s never an excuse for violence.”
Also on the 18th Carney said, “would rather wait” for the investigation to be completed. “But at this time, as Ambassador Rice said and as I said, our understanding and our belief based on the information we have is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped — that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere. What other factors were involved is a matter of investigation.”
act of terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
terrorist attack - a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims
You are right, there is a difference, one is considered a surprise attack an the other is a calculated use of violence. So was Benghazi a surprise attack or a calculated use of violence?
Seems to be a deliberate us e of violence to kill Americans thus a terrorist attack
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.
