Anonymous asked in Social ScienceGender Studies · 8 years ago

GS: is calling something an act of terror the same thing as a terrorist attack?

One would think Fox News and the Romney campaign would have said, "Oops, sorry. I misspoke." but they're actually doubling down on this.

One would think saying that ""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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. 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." in a speech about Benghazi, the day after it happened, would be sufficient and self-evident proof, no?

--Jesse Pinkman


Fox News is really going nuts over this.

I've heard that he wasn't talking about Benghazi specifically, in a speech about Benghazi. I've heard that Romney was actually right because he said, "You didn't say 'terrorist attack'." when Obama said, "acts of terror."

It's really quite pathetic.

3 Answers

  • Favorite Answer

    No Ma'am additional detail answer to his own question may help clarify your questions.

    Here's my own answers:

    The only way the incumbent can score points is for a disciple whose suppose to be just an impartial moderator, not a referee, to step in the picture at a moment's request making herself look foolish as she later recanted her interference, but still blame the use of the wrong word somewhat threw her off.

    The terror act the incumbent claims he addressed wasn't aimed at the terrorist whose ideology are bent on destroying the west giving the notion it could be anyone when there have been prior attacks. A coptic christian fed up with the injustices perpetrated by islamist in the middle east are the perfect scapegoat with this administration to adhere to UN resolution 1618 as the incumbent displayed in his U.N. speech even appearing in 5 talk shows for weeks tauting on the video as responsible for the attack & deaths of 4 Americans, 'NOT' the policy & security measure the incumbent has implemented in the mid east, & specially middle eastern Islamist terrorist group.

    A subordinate following policies put in place has balls to take responsibility before the one in charge promoting & putting in place policies that even lara logan disagrees with in tackling islamist ideologue extremist-ism, tells me that the wrong person is occupying the office who's chair has been vacant the last 4 years for leisure, fame, & glory sake whether it be in house concert, party, dinner, celebrity presence, talk show atmosphere, etc. as eye candy for the public away from security briefings & other strenuous administrative duties.

    Guards armed with flashlights & batons in a very hostile environment does not indicate a competent security & foreign policy.

    State secretary taking the bullet for the security failures of benghazi does not excuse the administration's attempt or scheme to redirect focus or jin up protest over a video through amb. to U.N rice who takes orders from the executive house in an attempt to water down danger & return of Al Queda in the spotlight in an attempt to be sensitive to islamist under UN resolution 1618 that essentially over rides the 1st amendment.

    Youtube thumbnail

    Youtube thumbnail

    Jumping the gun seems to become a habit for this administration whether it's to misdirect to a video or to proclaim victory over Islamist terrorist group that hasn't surrendered unconditionally. The incumbent should have delivered a speech on an aircraft carrier that had accomplished their mission (tour) with a banner above the podium.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Yes, but Obama never did answer the question he was asked at the town hall.

    "Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?"

    It's a good question that I think is a bigger issue than whether the Administration admitted it was a terrorist attack or not. I think Obama is acutely aware the buck does stop with him and this is gross incompetence on display. Better to just avoid the question.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Acts of terror = Terrorist acts = Terrorist attack.

    It's like the word "social" can be replace for "societal."

    Virtually the same meaning.

    But then, who can argue with idiots and win?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.