[…] most importantly, showed some real fire in the belly.Update: Memeorandum thread, also linked at Protein Wisdom, Daily Pundit, and Obi’s Sister.Category: Barack Obama, Debates, Election 2012, Mitt […]
Obama used the phrase “act[s] of terror” in three speeches right after the attacks in Benghazi. The one in the Rose Garden wasn’t very clear what “acts of terror” he was talking about as it was in a paragraph far removed from the mention of the attacks.
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.
However when he used an almost identical phrase later at a fundraiser in Vegas he did connect the Benghazi attacks to being terrorist acts.
As for the ones we lost last night: I want to assure you, we will bring their killers to justice. (Applause.) And we want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America. (Applause.)
My problem is not with whether Obama called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” or not but with this use of the word terror to describe this action. It was an act of war. We started down an incoherent linguistic pathway when we started calling the war we are in “The War on Terror” which meant in turn that every group that would attack us would then be labeled a “terrorist” group who of course commit “acts of terrorism”. This nonsense is there because we will not, the Western world will not, face up to the fact that we are at war and state exactly who and what we are at war with.
This failure is in large part due to the fact that the West has within itself a group which is aligned with those who, from outside, are making war on the West. Our fifth column is the Left and it is they who demand that we not recognize, not speak openly of this actual war and of those who wage it against us but instead use circular dodges and linguistically idiotic phrases to keep reality away long enough for our enemies, within and/or without to bring down Western civilization for good.
A good start would be to publicly state that a state of war exists between our civilization and Fundamentalist Islam. Even that does not get right to the heart of the matter as what we would be referring to as Fundamentalist Islam is Islam. Those who practice some form that is not are not practicing Islam. Their form lost out in the first reformation of Islam back in the 9th century. If they wish to have a counter-reformation and take back what they lost over a thousand years ago then I would welcome them to the war.
It is however, as it is with the Left too, hard to know what side they are on when lying is seen as not just a necessary evil but a praiseworthy trait. So as with the Left actions must be the form of speech we must use to judge intentions and where someone’s heart is truly.
Three cheers to that geoffb. How strange that the Islamists have been at war (even declaredly so) for nigh on 20 yrs and the US can’t find its way to speak truthfully to itself about the nature of our antagonists? That our entire view of our strategic position can be waylaid by otherwise minor seeming linguistic errors? Yet that even coming to a recognition of our difficulties will be a worse struggle than pulling teeth without anesthetics?
FYI the use of the term i***am is an act of submission. ??????? in arabic means submission. Hispanos use the term musulmana when discussing the cult and or its followers.
“No one said the Islamists couldn’t fight.” Not according to my father. He fought in N. Africa at the start of the war. He referred to them as “s**t for brains.”
[…] most importantly, showed some real fire in the belly.Update: Memeorandum thread, also linked at Protein Wisdom, Daily Pundit, and Obi’s Sister.Category: Barack Obama, Debates, Election 2012, Mitt […]
Morning talk is avoiding this topic like a case of the clap.
Probably getting their talking points together for the evening news.
If Obama said Bengazhi was an act of terror on 9/12, he still kept insisting it was a YouTube video for two weeks thereafter.
Which makes the “knowingly mislead” case that much stronger.
Endangering American lives even unto their deaths is to Obama what the decision to turn the Oval Office into a cathouse is to Bill Clinton.
Obama used the phrase “act[s] of terror” in three speeches right after the attacks in Benghazi. The one in the Rose Garden wasn’t very clear what “acts of terror” he was talking about as it was in a paragraph far removed from the mention of the attacks.
However when he used an almost identical phrase later at a fundraiser in Vegas he did connect the Benghazi attacks to being terrorist acts.
Later as they got their talking points worked on and written out by top administration officials then the word terror disappeared and it became all about a “protest” over a video. A “protest” which got out of hand.
My problem is not with whether Obama called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” or not but with this use of the word terror to describe this action. It was an act of war. We started down an incoherent linguistic pathway when we started calling the war we are in “The War on Terror” which meant in turn that every group that would attack us would then be labeled a “terrorist” group who of course commit “acts of terrorism”. This nonsense is there because we will not, the Western world will not, face up to the fact that we are at war and state exactly who and what we are at war with.
This failure is in large part due to the fact that the West has within itself a group which is aligned with those who, from outside, are making war on the West. Our fifth column is the Left and it is they who demand that we not recognize, not speak openly of this actual war and of those who wage it against us but instead use circular dodges and linguistically idiotic phrases to keep reality away long enough for our enemies, within and/or without to bring down Western civilization for good.
A good start would be to publicly state that a state of war exists between our civilization and Fundamentalist Islam. Even that does not get right to the heart of the matter as what we would be referring to as Fundamentalist Islam is Islam. Those who practice some form that is not are not practicing Islam. Their form lost out in the first reformation of Islam back in the 9th century. If they wish to have a counter-reformation and take back what they lost over a thousand years ago then I would welcome them to the war.
It is however, as it is with the Left too, hard to know what side they are on when lying is seen as not just a necessary evil but a praiseworthy trait. So as with the Left actions must be the form of speech we must use to judge intentions and where someone’s heart is truly.
geoffb says October 17, 2012 at 10:27 am
Three cheers to that geoffb. How strange that the Islamists have been at war (even declaredly so) for nigh on 20 yrs and the US can’t find its way to speak truthfully to itself about the nature of our antagonists? That our entire view of our strategic position can be waylaid by otherwise minor seeming linguistic errors? Yet that even coming to a recognition of our difficulties will be a worse struggle than pulling teeth without anesthetics?
Oral sex is to “that’s not sex” as terrorism is to “that’s not war, it’s a criminal matter for the courts”.
The military forces of one State fire on the military of a neighboring State and what word is used? Terrorist.
And this ties to Benghazi too as what we were doing there was trying to stop these very weapons from getting out of Libya.
Well said, geoff.
Fundamentalist Islam.
Jihad. In all its imperial forms, whether by violence or lawfare or other methods of sneaking Sharia into our society.
FYI the use of the term i***am is an act of submission. ??????? in arabic means submission. Hispanos use the term musulmana when discussing the cult and or its followers.
Sorry the wordpress will not transcribe the Arabic writing.
Hispanos have rather a long history with the followers of Mohammed.
The Spanish sure knew how to handle the desert savages back in the day.
Eventually but it took almost 800 years to win back all of Spain from them.
Well the ROP are a tenatious bunch but the Inquisition would probably weaken the hardiest among us.
The Spaniards are xenophobic or were back in the day. They tossed out all the Jews, too and spent a lot of time hunting down heretics.
No one said the Islamists couldn’t fight. There was better military weapons parity back then is all.
If they had the capabilities we have, we’d be in a very hot war, and no one could deny it.
R.O.P. religion of pieces
“No one said the Islamists couldn’t fight.” Not according to my father. He fought in N. Africa at the start of the war. He referred to them as “s**t for brains.”
Heh. Good one, Gulermo.
They’ll fight. They just suck at it, mostly. They’re at they’re best when we train them. We should probably knock that off.
[…] Memeorandum thread, also linked at Protein Wisdom, Daily Pundit, WyBlog, and Obi’s […]