NYC bomb

[TxMusky]

I have no respect for the thinking, perhaps its because they get offended by being called a terrorist(which is a proper term by definition) Yet see nothing wrong with blowing up innocent men women and children. I flat refuse to bow down to their whims as long as they find suicide bombing as an acceptable way to protest. I do not have a problem with the so-called lack of civility by a man who uses only words verses a madman who uses explosives and you nor anyone else will change that. A man on a battlefield shooting another, just fine, a person killing an attacker who is threatening them or their family or property with harm, no problem.....somebody strapping on a bomb or setting a bomb off in a public place, is chickenchit and does not deserve any respect at all.

I would imagine it pained the AG to have to say the "T" word but he can always write it off as "just using the proper name of the alleged charge." Oh and by the way....Screw Islam, until they start to respect other human life as civilized human beings, and quit wearing their hearts on their sleeves, they can kiss the fat part of my azz.

[2ndthyme]

put up or shut up... prove that they don't use the word terrorist... link a quote from a credible source that shows they have not used the word. otherwise you are just dementia patient spitting at your computer

[TxMusky]

Other than yesterday when was the last time you saw or heard any of this admin use the word terrorist to describe what has been going on with the Army base, the christmas day bombing or any other "attack on Americans......put up or shut up your damn self.

We have been round and round about what is considered a "credible source", you can use any one of them you want. It was pasted all over Fox when this regime took over and Clinton, Janet and Obama all changed the wording as in "man made disasters".

[TxMusky]

Here is a couple..........

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has an explanation about why she never mentioned the word "terrorism" during her first testimony on Capitol Hill.
Napolitano tells the German news site Spiegel Online that while she presumes there is always a threat from terrorism: "I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509597,00.html

How about one from Jolly old England.....

Ministers have adopted a new language for declarations on Islamic terrorism.
In future, fanatics will be referred to as pursuing "anti-Islamic activity".
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said that extremists were behaving contrary to their faith, rather than acting in the name of Islam.
Security officials believe that directly linking terrorism to Islam is inflammatory, and risks alienating mainstream Muslim opinion.
In her first major speech on radicalisation, Miss Smith repeatedly used the phrase "anti-Islamic".
In one passage she said: "As so many Muslims in the UK and across the world have pointed out, there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorise, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief.
"Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic'.
Another section referred to enlisting the Muslim community against "anti-Islamic activity".
Her words were chosen to reflect new Government strategy on labelling the terrorists and their recruiting agents.
The shift follows a decision taken last year to stop using the phrase "war on terror", first adopted by U.S. President Bush.
Officials were concerned it could act as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, which is determined to manufacture a battle between the values of Islam and the West.
The strategy emerging across Government is to portray terrorists as nothing more than cold-blooded murderers who are not fighting for any religious cause.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0n6l9NHCk

After days of confusion and denial about whether the Obama administration was officially no longer using the term "War on Terror," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that the Obama administration is no longer speaking of a "War on Terror."
"I haven't gotten any directive about using it or not using it. It's just not being used," said Clinton during a briefing with reporters aboard her plane to the Hague to attend an international conference on Afghanistan.
"The administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself," she said at a different point during her trip. "Obviously."
The discontinuation of the term "War on Terror" marks a departure from the practice of the Bush administration which began using the phrase in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
Many in the international community take issue with the term, finding it overly broad.
The story began after the Washington Post's Al Kamen obtained an e-mail from an official in the Office of Security Review, Dave Reidel, saying that, "This Administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' (GWOT). Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' "
Office of Management and Budget spokesman Kenneth Baer said, "There was no memo, no guidance. This is the opinion of a career civil servant."
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell added that he had "never received such a directive...Perhaps somebody within OMB may have been a little over-exuberant."
What has gone unnoticed, however, is that the discontinuation of the "war on terror" phrase also marks a departure for Secretary Clinton and President Obama.
During an April 26, 2007, debate in South Carolina, the moderator asked the eight Democratic candidates to raise their hand if they believed there is such a thing as a "Global War on Terror."
Clinton and Obama joined Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., in raising their hands, indicating that they believed that there is such a thing as a Global War on Terror, or GWOT.
Future Vice President Joe Biden joined former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., former Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, in not raising their hands, indicating that they did not believe that there was such a thing as a GWOT.
As reported at the time on ABC's "Political Radar," Edwards subsequently tried to use his misgivings with the "War on Terror" terminology to differentiate himself from Obama and Clinton. It didn't work. Though apparently Obama and Clinton may have been at least somewhat sympathetic to the argument.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...ere-a-war.html

A couple more...

WASHINGTON -- Janet Napolitano -- former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security -- will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: "The system worked." The attacker's concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son's jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers.
Heck of a job, Brownie..................


The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism "man-caused disasters." Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York -- a trifecta of political correctness and image management.
And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term "war on terror." It's over -- that is, if it ever existed...........


And produces linguistic -- and logical -- oddities that littered Obama's public pronouncements following the Christmas Day attack. In his first statement, Obama referred to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as "an isolated extremist." This is the same president who, after the Ford Hood shooting, warned us "against jumping to conclusions" -- code for daring to associate Nidal Hasan's mass murder with his Islamist ideology. Yet, with Abdulmutallab, Obama jumped immediately to the conclusion, against all existing evidence, that the bomber acted alone.
More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a "suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You can hear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor."
Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant -- an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians -- and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.
Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point -- surprise! -- he stops talking..........


The president said that this incident highlights "the nature of those who threaten our homeland." But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as "extremist(s)."
A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is not one of these. He is a jihadist. And unlike the guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and are openly pledged to war on America.
Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy -- jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon -- turns laxity into a governing philosophy.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...war_99742.html

and the last for now, I have barely covered by US and foreign papers.......

Even as President Obama compares bankers to suicide bombers, his Homeland Security Secretary is suggesting the T-word, terrorism, is too inflammatory and representative of old-fashioned "politics of fear." She's announced a new term: "man-caused disaster." From an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel:

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?
NAPOLITANO: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

But what if the suicide bomber is a female? Isn't it sexist to use "man-caused disaster"?

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...#ixzz0n6npRqx9

[2ndthyme]

moving away from the "War On Terror" is just fine as its STUPID, you can't have a war against an attack tactic... which we have discussed here for many years.. bigg freaking deal

So in one testimony to congress the word wasn't used. wow... btw, posting the same one incident several times doesn't multiply the single incident. One person chose in one speaking engagement to use different language....

The rest of what you are trying to include is terminology reflecting the attachment of a religion, it does not state the non recognition of terrorism. and no, you don't have to take an accusatory tone with half the worlds populations' religious beliefs... when soldiers are putting their lives on the line in moslem countries, trying to win the trust of the population so we can accomplish our goals.. it seems pretty STUPID to continue giving terrorist organizations recruiting material!

[TxMusky]

you said put up or shut up. I did and you havent!

[Dave Grubb]

OK--well here is the transcript from one speech where the President used the "T" word three times.

Amazing that grown people actually believe this crap.

[2ndthyme]

oh my... we should all be complaining about how often he used the word... bolstering the the egos of those who are attacking us!

[TxMusky]

I saw a whole bunch of violent extremists and extremism. Can he get any more boring? Did I fail to show you in a balanced way, from different newspapers from not only the US but overseas as well? You can call me whatever you want to, makes no difference, I believe I made my point which was to show that public perception was that this regime has taken a word that was normally used to describe the actions of people out of their vocabulary.

oh my... we should all be complaining about how often he used the word... bolstering the the egos of those who are attacking us!

I see you are still doing your parrot impression instead of backing your comments. Have a cracker and do some reading.

[LawDog]

oh my... we should all be complaining about how often he used the word... bolstering the the egos of those who are attacking us!

Naw, moved on to complaining about how many terrorists he has "created" with his drone strikes on civilians in Pakistan....

[TxMusky]

Another one just this morning....

In the past two days, Robert Gibbs has taken to the podium in the White House briefing room to talk up a major administration win in the anti-terror fight – the fast capture of suspected Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad.

Yet during both Q-and-A sessions Tuesday and Wednesday, President Barack Obama’s press secretary fielded more than 75 tough questions about things that nearly went awry — and about several missteps that nearly allowed the 30-year old naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan to slip the dragnet.

“I think maybe the tale of this is law enforcement continues to do a superb job in keeping us safe,” a beleaguered Gibbs reminded reporters on Tuesday — after fielding a dozen queries about how Shahzad managed to board a Dubai-bound plane despite being listed on the federal no-fly list.

Gibbs’s grilling reflects a larger dilemma of the Obama administration in selling the public on the idea that they are waging a successful war on terror – especially after discarding of the uppercase “War on Terror” label coined by the Bush administration.

Making that argument even harder: The increasingly unpredictable and asymmetrical nature of the evolving threat of Islamic terrorism – and the administration’s change-on-the-fly approach to fixing holes in their own anti-terrorism policy.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz0n9Zy99s4

[Dave Grubb]

OK Tx--one last time since I'm not sure if this is an issue of sick, thick or both--I'm leaning toward both at the moment---but here goes:

You said:

The current admin has gone so far as to not even mention the word "terrorist" since they took office.

You with me so far?

That is a lie--I presented proof to you that is not the case---get it yet?

...and no I am not pissing away any more time to disprove your lies---be they lies of ignorance or lies of intent.

[TxMusky]

Okay a play on words then, didnt realize this was a court room. Guess I should have added or subtracted a letter or two. You got the gist of what I was trying to imply, but you decided to argue the exact wording and not my point. Thats fine, but then I considered that since you are the wiser after all of this time, was smart enough to figure out what the plot was... my bad.