Right-Wing Media Falsely Claim Candy Crowley Walked Back Her Fact Check Of Romney

Because we don't label our home-grown terrorists as such. We rely on words like societal outcast, angry protester, mentally-ill. There's nothing in the definition of terrorist that means attack from outsiders only.

Apparently, Obama doesn't label our international terrorists this way either, since he has YET to publicly state that terrorists killed Ambassador Stephens. He has been asked numerous times, from town halls to debates to The View, and he refuses to label the killers of the Ambassador as terrorists. His officials have, bleatingly... but he continues to avoid using that word.
 
Presidential debate: Libya questioner says Obama didn’t answer

By Erik Wemple
Kerry Ladka stood before President Obama at last night’s town hall-style debate and asked the question that would touch off an onstage verbal brawl and, later, an intense national discussion. Here’s how it went:
Q: It’s Kerry, Kerry Ladka.​
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Great to see you here.​
Q: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola yesterday. We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?​
Was Ladka satisfied with how the president responded? Simply no. “I really didn’t think he totally answered the question satisfactorily as far as I was concerned,” Ladka tells the Erik Wemple Blog.

President Obama, though, wasn’t done with Kerry Ladka. “After the debate, the president came over to me and spent about two minutes with me privately,” says the 61-year-old Ladka, who works at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola, N.Y. According to Ladka, Obama gave him ”more information about why he delayed calling the attack a terorist attack.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...109898e-1867-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html


Okay...so Mr Ladka, the Washington Post and yourself are all in agreement that President Obama did in fact call the attack a "terrorist attack".
 
I didn't say he was referring to Aurora, I gave an example like you requested. Regardless of how you parse it, the shooting in Aurora was an "act of terror" by any fucking definition of the term. It was NOT a "terrorist attack" which denotes an attack specifically planned and orchestrated by a terrorist organization. These are two different things altogether. Unless, of course, you are some kind of retarded myopic fuckwit or liberal.


What we are witnessing is merely word parsing of the highest order...Dixie's twist-a-palooza is a shining example of the Right exploring ways to blame crazy, RightWing militia types who wreak havoc and attack innocent people without calling them terrorists.
 
Because we don't label our home-grown terrorists as such. We rely on words like societal outcast, angry protester, mentally-ill. There's nothing in the definition of terrorist that means attack from outsiders only.


EXACTLY!

This is just the beginning.

Dix and people like him are using this situation to parse words so in the future when some nutbar militia type goes off the deep end and guns down a crowd of innocent people, they can claim by definition, he wasn't a "terrorist".
 
Yes - but what's impressive is how they all cooperate with each other and repeat the same lying meme, lending an air of 'credibility' to the lie.

The end justifies all means (lying, smears, etc.).

And an even more ironic post by Bitchyou, will always be an even more ironic post. :D
 
and zappa, once again, offers nothing of substance, just derision and insults

typical for zappa the two faced douchebag



The fact remains I offered several salient points, but of course the Yurtrd's hatred for me won't allow him to discuss my points.

This just proves the depths of the hatred the Yurtard has for me.

He won't even discuss THIS issue with me, even though we both come down on the same side of the argument.
 
The fact remains I offered several salient points, but of course the hateful Yurtard refuses to acknowledge my points and once again goes for his now standard issue personal attack.

It's just sad how the Yurtard won't even discuss THIS issue with me, even though we both come down on the same side of the argument.

no you didn't. there is nothing to discuss with you. all you did was post derision and insults. i discussed the issue with other posters who actually made points about the topic. you are just a hateful hack.
 
Zapped, YOU are the one "parsing words" here, not us. We all know what "terrorist attack" means and what "act of terror" means, and we can view the transcripts of what the president said on 9/12 in the Rose Garden. As Candy Crowley admitted after the debate, Romney was correct about the main point, which was, that the administration stood by their story this was a "spontaneous protest" about a video, and NOT a planned "terrorist attack." The fact that Obama delivered one line of patriotic platitude and included the words "acts of terror" in that, doesn't mean he called it a terrorist attack, he didn't. He still hasn't come out and specifically said the people who killed the Ambassador were terrorists.

YOU are the one parsing words, you want to pretend the Administration has called this a terrorist attack all along, and that simply isn't the truth.
 
Zapped, YOU are the one "parsing words" here, not us. We all know what "terrorist attack" means and what "act of terror" means, and we can view the transcripts of what the president said on 9/12 in the Rose Garden. As Candy Crowley admitted after the debate, Romney was correct about the main point, which was, that the administration stood by their story this was a "spontaneous protest" about a video, and NOT a planned "terrorist attack." The fact that Obama delivered one line of patriotic platitude and included the words "acts of terror" in that, doesn't mean he called it a terrorist attack, he didn't. He still hasn't come out and specifically said the people who killed the Ambassador were terrorists.

YOU are the one parsing words, you want to pretend the Administration has called this a terrorist attack all along, and that simply isn't the truth.

seriously, this is just stupid dixie. YOU are the one parsing words. it is clear to any rational being that acts of terror is the same as acts of terrorism, especially, given obama's context.

you're just giving the left ammunition. keep quiet. thanks.
 
seriously, this is just stupid dixie. YOU are the one parsing words. it is clear to any rational being that acts of terror is the same as acts of terrorism, especially, given obama's context.

you're just giving the left ammunition. keep quiet. thanks.

What you need to do, Yurt, is go back and read the transcript from Obama's Rose Garden speech on 9/12. What you will find, is ONE mention of the word "terror" in a generic statement about American resolve. He goes on to clearly chastise those who made the anti-Muslim video, and reinforce the notion the attack was a spontaneous protest gone awry. For the following two weeks after that, his press secretary repeatedly dodged direct questions regarding whether this was a terrorist attack, refusing at any time to label it as such. For days, we were told this was NOT a terrorist attack, NOT coordinated, NOT organized or planned. I don't know where you were when all of this was going on, but it's what happened. This was not a figment of our imagination, millions of Americans questioned it along the way, since the attacks did happen on the anniversary of 9/11, and the amount of firepower used, didn't seem fitting for some spontaneous protest. When it finally became obvious that they couldn't continue this misconception, they began to ease toward calling it a terror attack. However, in spite of the administration officials going on record to say it WAS INDEED a terrorist attack, President Obama has yet to call it that, or call the Ambassador's assassins, terrorists.

Now you can shut the fuck up, go get yourself educated on the details and facts, or crawl back under the rock you live under most of the time, I don't really care.
 
What you need to do, Yurt, is go back and read the transcript from Obama's Rose Garden speech on 9/12. What you will find, is ONE mention of the word "terror" in a generic statement about American resolve. He goes on to clearly chastise those who made the anti-Muslim video, and reinforce the notion the attack was a spontaneous protest gone awry. For the following two weeks after that, his press secretary repeatedly dodged direct questions regarding whether this was a terrorist attack, refusing at any time to label it as such. For days, we were told this was NOT a terrorist attack, NOT coordinated, NOT organized or planned. I don't know where you were when all of this was going on, but it's what happened. This was not a figment of our imagination, millions of Americans questioned it along the way, since the attacks did happen on the anniversary of 9/11, and the amount of firepower used, didn't seem fitting for some spontaneous protest. When it finally became obvious that they couldn't continue this misconception, they began to ease toward calling it a terror attack. However, in spite of the administration officials going on record to say it WAS INDEED a terrorist attack, President Obama has yet to call it that, or call the Ambassador's assassins, terrorists.

Now you can shut the fuck up, go get yourself educated on the details and facts, or crawl back under the rock you live under most of the time, I don't really care.

cite where he chastised the video maker.

your OPINION as to his 'generic' statement is so full of shite it is laughable. the entire speech was about the bengazi attack you retard.
 
What we are witnessing is merely word parsing of the highest order...Dixie's twist-a-palooza is a shining example of the Right exploring ways to blame crazy, RightWing militia types who wreak havoc and attack innocent people without calling them terrorists.

Frankly, I don't understand what point they're trying to make. Terrorism or act of terror, how is the bottom line different no matter which words were used.
 
cite where he chastised the video maker.

your OPINION as to his 'generic' statement is so full of shite it is laughable. the entire speech was about the bengazi attack you retard.

You remind me of 'Andy' from The Office.

"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."

His "generic" statement:

"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."

This statement does not stipulate THIS is a terrorist attack. It's a declarative open-ended statement that does not specify THIS event in ANY way. It is the ONLY place the word "terror" is used in the speech. It is no different than saying "puppies are nice!" To date, the president has still not called this a terrorist attack, and has still not called the Ambassador's assassins, terrorists.
 
Zapped, YOU are the one "parsing words" here, not us. We all know what "terrorist attack" means and what "act of terror" means, and we can view the transcripts of what the president said on 9/12 in the Rose Garden. As Candy Crowley admitted after the debate, Romney was correct about the main point, which was, that the administration stood by their story this was a "spontaneous protest" about a video, and NOT a planned "terrorist attack." The fact that Obama delivered one line of patriotic platitude and included the words "acts of terror" in that, doesn't mean he called it a terrorist attack, he didn't. He still hasn't come out and specifically said the people who killed the Ambassador were terrorists.

YOU are the one parsing words, you want to pretend the Administration has called this a terrorist attack all along, and that simply isn't the truth.

in simple terms even Dixie can understand...

A "terrorist attack" is an attack perpetrated by a TERRORIST.

An "act of terror" is an act perpetrated by someone wishing to instill terror in the hearts of the innocent-in other words-A TERRORIST.

A "terrorist attack" is, by definition, an ACT OF TERROR.

Anyone carrying out an "act of terror" is, by definition, a TERRORIST.
 
in simple terms even Dixie can understand...

A "terrorist attack" is an attack perpetrated by a TERRORIST.

An "act of terror" is an act perpetrated by someone wishing to instill terror in the hearts of the innocent-in other words-A TERRORIST.

A "terrorist attack" is, by definition, an ACT OF TERROR.

Anyone carrying out an "act of terror" is, by definition, a TERRORIST.

Further clarification of CONTEXT...

An "act of terror" can be ANY act perpetrated by someone wishing to instill terror.
A "terrorist attack" generally refers to an attack planned by a terrorist organization.
A "terrorist attack" is ALWAYS an "act of terror."
An "act of terror" doesn't ALWAYS have to be a "terrorist attack."

"ACTS of terror" is non-specific and does not define any particular incident.

Obama used the phrase "ACTS of terror" in his speech, he did not call it a "terrorist attack."
 
Further clarification of CONTEXT...

An "act of terror" can be ANY act perpetrated by someone wishing to instill terror.

And someone wishing to instill terror is, by definition, a terrorist.

A "terrorist attack" generally refers to an attack planned by a terrorist organization.

Terrorist attacks in the recent past have been planned and implemented by a single terrorist.

A "terrorist attack" is ALWAYS an "act of terror."

Naturally.

An "act of terror" doesn't ALWAYS have to be a "terrorist attack."

Then please give us an example of an act of terror that you believe isn't a terrorist attack.

"ACTS of terror" is non-specific and does not define any particular incident.

Obama used the phrase "ACTS of terror" in his speech, he did not call it a "terrorist attack."

Then please tell us which "acts of terror" the president was referring to when he made that comment?

Was it 9/11? The Oklahoma City bombing?

Or just maybe was he referring to the terrorist attack that had JUST OCCURRED in Bengazi?
 
Back
Top