2nd Debate Discussion

carlfense said:
krc1995 said:
Things I noticed- acts of terror- vague discriptor. Act of terrorism or acts by terrorists-not so vague.
Click to expand...
How would the definitions differ?

krc1995 said:
Why would a reporter, on the 20th of September ask: "“We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?” Shouldn't this question have been asked by someone on the 12th, immediately after the Rose Garden briefing? Show me a record of any news agency that questioned what terrorist group conducted the Libya attacks prior to the 20th.
Click to expand...
Regarding the bold: I have no idea. You'd have to check with the various news agencies. What are you arguing?
Click to expand...
The use of "we have reports today that the white house,..." The word today implies that this is the first time the White House called the attacks terrorist attacks. How is it possible that if the President said these acts were the result of terrorists on the 12th, news agencies only began to ask information regarding what terrorist groups are involved on the 20th? Wouldn't that be a logical question to ask immediately after the September 12th briefing? The word terrorism is broad, but I believe the questions reporters asked on the 20th demonstrate that the general public was not aware that these were premediated acts, planned and executed by Al-Qaeda- a known terrorist group

 
krc1995 said:
The use of "we have reports today that the white house,..." The word today implies that this is the first time the White House called the attacks terrorist attacks.
Click to expand...
The thing is . . . you don't need to imply anything. You can look at the record. The president referred to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror on September 12. No implication from the media will change history.

krc1995 said:
How is it possible that if the President said these acts were the result of terrorists on the 12th, news agencies only began to ask information regarding what terrorist groups are involved on the 20th? Wouldn't that be a logical question to ask immediately after the September 12th briefing? The word terrorism is broad, but I believe the questions reporters asked on the 20th demonstrate that the general public was not aware that these were premediated acts, planned and executed by Al-Qaeda- a known terrorist group
Click to expand...
You'd have to ask the media. The record as to President Obama's statement on September 12 is clear.

 
That's digging pretty deep, krc.

Also, apparently some of us are still not aware that this was "planned and executed by Al-Qaeda - a known terrorist group". I haven't been following this that closely. So I don't know. It seems like knapplc was just talking about earlier how we don't know who did it. I recall President Obama talking during the debate about finding out who the people responsible were.

 
I am BACCCCKKKK. Notice the phrase, Acts of terror in the speech on the 12th. break it down into 2 parts "acts" and "of terror". Acts- plural for the for act. act is short for action, and when you pluralize action you get actions. So acts = actions, meaning more than one. The acts of terror is multiple terrorist actions. Multiple actions are not specific on one action.

 
Ziggy said:
I am BACCCCKKKK. Notice the phrase, Acts of terror in the speech on the 12th. break it down into 2 parts "acts" and "of terror". Acts- plural for the for act. act is short for action, and when you pluralize action you get actions. So acts = actions, meaning more than one. The acts of terror is multiple terrorist actions. Multiple actions are not specific on one action.
Click to expand...
Obama didn't say what he said.

 
nod.gif
 
Partisanship can be helpful in the search for accountability. But conservatives have been so eager to exploit the incident in Libya for political advantage that they've focused on inconsequential details like what the president said when. The facts surrounding the Benghazi attack are damning enough on their own. But thanks to their penchant for cherry-picking information, the GOP left their presidential nominee on stage with his mouth agape, struggling to understand how something he knew for a fact wasn't a fact at all.
Click to expand...
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/10/why-romney-screwed-libya

Mother Jones . . . so take it with a giant grain of salt. It does offer an interesting theory about why Romney bungled this so badly.

 
Gosh, would everyone feel better if Obama had said "Acts of terror, such as this one"? Can't believe how much attention that is getting. I would've thought the implication there was crystal clear.

...although I suppose it's completely reasonable to suppose that Obama really meant, "We will not tolerate acts of terror. On a completely unrelated note, let us now mourn the loss...oh yeah, did I mention, that previous thing about the acts of terror, totally an aside."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogies said:
Gosh, would everyone feel better if Obama had said "Acts of terror, such as this one"? I would've thought the implication there was crystal clear. Can't believe how much attention that is getting.
Click to expand...
You don't even need to go as far as looking at implication. The plain language is sufficient.

 
zoogies said:
...although I suppose it's completely reasonable to suppose that Obama really meant, "We will not tolerate acts of terror. On a completely unrelated note, let us now mourn the loss...oh yeah, did I mention, that previous thing about the acts of terror, totally an aside."
Click to expand...
In the very same paragraph. :lol:

 
Back
Top