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.
I could have missed this on the news, but so far I haven't heard Obama use any form of the word "terrorism" regarding the bombings in Boston yet (as of 4/16/13 at 12:23 pm).
Has he, to anyone's knowledge?
Do you believe this term is an important designation? Does it make any difference or not? Do you believe using the term, or choosing not to use that term, is significant?
To me this is just another replay of politics that were at play in the aftermath of the Benghazi consulate attack; when did the President call it terrorism and why did it take so long yada, yada, yada. It is a semantically argument of absolutely no import and I find it a similarly distasteful dissent in to political gamesmanship played on the back of the suffering of others.
Violent acts, mass killing, terrorist attack, act of terror, who the frack cares (he asks rhetorically) outside of the criminal process of charging the perpetrators with the appropriate crime? Colloquially speaking feel free to use any of the above, they are all appropriate. The mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was all the above why do we not debate the appropriate appellation for a mass shootings or is the problem that terrorism is reserved for non-domestic actors?
I don't disagree with you at all, and I have my own theories about why the OP brought it up. I was only pointing out that she's not talking about "mass murder" as opposed to some sort of terrorism. For the record, I don't think that politicians are up to some dastardly scheme by talking about an "act of terror" as opposed to "terrorist attack" and I don't think the choice of words indicates what sort of action they'll take in the future. To me, the terms are interchangeable.
I do, however, believe that words have meanings, sometimes quite subtle meanings.
Words do matter. A lot. Pay attention.
However, there is not just one definition for any given word or phase; there are many. We cannot be so arrogant as to assert that our definition is the only definition.
Ithink he will want to leave the charges to the FBI and prosecutors. He has realises that FBI is investigating it has terrorist act. That allows Mass. murder to be tried as capital offense when a state murder charge would not carry that penalty.
Terror doesn't kill people - PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. This isn't an "act of terror." This isn't a "terror attack." Terror can't act - it's an emotion. This weenie talk makes me sick.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't understand how simply using a bomb makes it an act of terrorism. People can use bombs to kill civilians for non-political reasons. The Columbine Massacre used bombs, but it was not labeled terrorism because it was not politically motivated.
So either the FBI has evidence that this is politically motivated, or this is propaganda.
One of the first airline bombings was on a flight out of Denver in 1955. Some nut wanted to kill his mom, so he put a bomb in her luggage. He just happened to kill 43 other people too.
I could have missed this on the news, but so far I haven't heard Obama use any form of the word "terrorism" regarding the bombings in Boston yet (as of 4/16/13 at 12:23 pm).
Has he, to anyone's knowledge?
Do you believe this term is an important designation? Does it make any difference or not? Do you believe using the term, or choosing not to use that term, is significant?
Words MEAN something. I despise the label "terror attack."
This implies that TERROR came, like a bolt out of the sky, and SMOTE the people. No, folks, it wasn't TERROR that planted the bombs in Boston - it was a real person (or people). Real criminals, real perpetrators. NOT TERROR. TerrorISTS perhaps, but not terror itself.
Terror doesn't kill people - criminals kill people. Terrorists kill people.
Damn it, I hate the way the English language is contorted and meanings are watered down.
So - he says it's being investigated as an act of terrorism. And actually, ABC - he STILL hasn't said directly that this IS A TERRORIST ATTACK. Remember - he's a lawyer. Pay very close attention to the exact phraseology.
To me, there is no QUESTION that it's terrorism. There was no question yesterday, as soon as the first bomb was found. Bomb - detonation - civilian targets - TERRORISM.
And so we have yet ANOTHER pointless, splitting hairs thread from the Obama Hater Peanut Gallery....shocking
Shame, shame.
Very few people hate the president.
Most of us simply disagree strongly with his policies.
"Hate" is a word that the left loves to throw around in order to shut down debate.
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.
