Debate #3 - Page 4
+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 34 of 34
Like Tree8Likes

Thread: Debate #3

  1. #31
    Supporter
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    175

    Default

    [QUOTE=GloriaInTX;9004943]No one is disputing he said act of terror, just what he was referring to. His own white house spokesman said that it wasn't referred to as a terrorist attack until Sept. 19th. So I guess EVERYONE is wrong except for Obama. Convenient. And even if he DID say it, he followed it up by trying his best to purposely mislead people into thinking it was in response to a video.

    Even as late as Sept 24 on the View Obama still avoided using the words terror attack to describe what happened. And now all of a sudden he wants to claim that is what he did from the start? Sounds like he wants to have his cake and eat it too.

    From the transcript: "No acts of terror will ever shake...We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." Not sure why the reference to "terrible act" isn't tied back to "acts of terror". And really, as if this country hasn't ALWAYS been in a position to be cautious with regard to calling out another country - this is a part of foreign diplomacy that has to be allowed to happen. How long before 9/11 was called an act of terror, or the Lockerbie bombing, or any of the other embassy bombings?

    And just as an additional comment on the government not calling Fort Hood an act of terror - Since 9/11, most insurance policies (including life and AD&D policies) specifically exclude benefits for "acts of terror" - but will provide benefits for "workplace violence". At the end of the day, the classification of the incident being workplace violence was not inaccurate.

  2. #32
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krislee View Post
    From the transcript: "No acts of terror will ever shake...We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." Not sure why the reference to "terrible act" isn't tied back to "acts of terror". And really, as if this country hasn't ALWAYS been in a position to be cautious with regard to calling out another country - this is a part of foreign diplomacy that has to be allowed to happen. How long before 9/11 was called an act of terror, or the Lockerbie bombing, or any of the other embassy bombings?
    See post #17. I posted the whole transcript. Just to repeat he had MULTIPLE chances during that speech to specifically call it a terrorist attack and he purposely chose not to so he could have it both ways and claim it it was a spontaneous outburst from a movie trailer for the next week. Then sent the UN Ambassador out to tour the talk shows and say just that. It is ludicrous to believe that his words weren't carefully chosen to specifically avoid using that word to describe it. Even his own White House spokesman stated that it wasn't called a terrorist attack until Sept 19th. There are multiple sources that have said that they had the intelligence within 24 hours that it was a planned attack and had nothing to do with the movie, yet they purposely mislead people for over a week afterward. If it doesn't matter than why is he trying to claim now that he did call it a terrorist attack?
    Rivergallery likes this.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  3. #33
    Posting Addict Rivergallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    9,761

    Default

    Doesn't matter to me what it was called at first. What matters to me is #1 why - was it because of lack of intellegence? It is acceptable to not give the public the full info IMO. #2 the lying after the fact, saying you said something that you didn't. Hate that.. on BOTH sides it happens.
    DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03

  4. #34
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krislee View Post
    And just as an additional comment on the government not calling Fort Hood an act of terror - Since 9/11, most insurance policies (including life and AD&D policies) specifically exclude benefits for "acts of terror" - but will provide benefits for "workplace violence". At the end of the day, the classification of the incident being workplace violence was not inaccurate.
    The families and soldiers that were there are working for it to be classified as a terrorist attack because they WOULD be eligible for compensation.

    Because the incident is not considered an act of terrorism, the victims do not get combat-related special compensation that provides disability pay for medically retired servicemembers. Manning, who was shot six times, was recently denied such benefits.
    The victims are also ineligible for Purple Hearts or medals for valor.

    Stalnaker said her husband, Sgt. Rex Stalnaker, feels diminished by the government denying he suffered through a terrorist attack, and it causes him to doubt the importance of what he did that day. As a medic, Stalnaker treated many of the victims and was one of the last to leave the building. His uniform was soaked in blood.

    The coalition has the support of two Republican congressmen from Texas, who wrote a letter this month to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta asking for the designation.

    “Based on all the facts, it is inconceivable to us that the DoD and the Army continue to label this attack ‘workplace violence’ in spite of all the evidence that clearly proves the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terror,” Reps. John Carter and Michael McCaul wrote.

    Should the government classify the shooting as terrorism, the victims and their families could be eligible for compensation and benefits similar to those received by families of 9/11 victims.

    The congressmen believe Hasan, despite being known to colleagues as an unstable, radical Islamist, was promoted in the Army and not fully investigated after suspicious behavior because the military was afraid being seen as biased against his religion. They think that hesitancy is still at play in deciding what to call the shooting.

    The Fort Hood victims “should not be ignored or mistreated now because of misplaced and inappropriate practice of political correctness,” the congressmen wrote.
    Fort Hood shooting victims want attack called terror - Stripes Central - Stripes
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions