posted October 28, 2012 03:46 PM            

Was it a terrorist attack?

posted October 28, 2012 11:27 PM            

pire.

posted October 29, 2012 11:24 AM            

Its about 2 SEALS who knew it was WRONG to be told to do so.
It is about our administrating FAILING those men..

Why would they be told stand down?
Lack of experience?
Hiding something?
Too busy with not doing their jobs?

posted October 29, 2012 01:17 PM            

Bush and Obama are two different people.
Bush was 4 years ago.
Obama is now.

posted October 29, 2012 01:22 PM            

Please not the "i am more compassionate than u" song

posted October 29, 2012 02:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fairaqua:
Bush, huh?

Bush and Obama are two different people.
Bush was 4 years ago.
Obama is now.

The fact of the matter is, the help was THERE.
The help was told not to help.
The help was told to let those people die.

---

I guess I've been away from GU so long, I forgot the part where we don't cite sources to accompany absolute (clearly false) statements.

Sidenote: People are still defensive when it comes to Bush. The guy who got warnings for months about a possible second attempt at bring down the Twin Towers. The guy who used the 9/11 attacks as an attempt to bomb Iraq for his administrations and father's political (and financial) self interests. Welcome to the world of politicians who have their own self interests and personal agendas in mind and the idiots who follow them and emotionally defend their most heinous acts and crimes.

posted October 30, 2012 10:17 AM            

Last night on Geraldo at Large, Charles Woods, the father of murdered Benghazi SEAL Tyrone Woods, sent this message to Barack Obama:

“It’s better to die a hero than live a coward.”
Well said.

Yesterday, former National Security Adviser Bud McFarlane added this on Obama’s non-response to the Benghazi 9-11 terrorist attack:

“To have known what he had available, to have known that Americans were under fire, and to have done nothing, is dereliction of duty that I have never seen in a Commander in Chief from a president of any party. Outrageous.”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/father-of-slain-benghazi-seal-to-obama-its-better-to-die-a-hero-than-live-a-coward-video/

posted October 30, 2012 03:02 PM            

And would they have obeyed orders to slay innocents?

What kind of men and women are guarding nations when they have no conscience nor understanding of basic duty?

This rot exists in several countries. Recently in India, a battalion destroyed a tribal hamlet, claiming they were terrorists. A dozen children were host in cold blood. Nobody dares to ask questions in the media for if we do, the jingoists label the human rights activists to be anti-national.

posted October 30, 2012 03:32 PM            

Are you trying to suggest the terrorists who were in the US consular compound firing mortars, RPGs and automatic weapons at consular personnel and buildings were "innocents" IQ?

Oh, and while you're here acoustic, let's knock your equine excrement into the toilet bowl where it belongs.

An attack on a US installation is not by definition "a terrorist attack". What an utterly stupid construction for you or anyone else to place on the event and language.

Let's dispose of your bovid excrement shall we.

When an Islamic Muslim extremist, Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire on unarmed military personnel at Fort Hood in Texas, killing 13 and injuring 31, did the Marxist Messiah, O'Bomber call it "terrorism"?

No acoustic, the Marxist Messiah most certainly DID NOT. That attack went into the books as an incident of "workplace violence", not a terrorist attack" even though Hasan was a devotee of bin Laden and had been in contact with a foreign terrorist, now dead.

Oh, and terrorist attacks were renamed by the Marxist Messiah. New name, "man made disasters".

Oh, and strikes against terrorists abroad were renamed by the Marxist Messiah. New name, "Overseas contingency operations".

So how about this acoustic.

posted October 30, 2012 06:54 PM            

Even the Senate report...the Senate under the control of demoscats labeled the attack at Fort Hood a..."Terrorist Attack" acoustic.

"Hasan was discovered to have exchanged emails with the late Imam Anwar al-Awlaki asking for spiritual guidance regarding violence. Al-Awlaki has since been linked to other attacks by radical Muslims, and he quickly blessed the Fort Hood operation because it was against a military target. Al-Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn also praised the "Mujahid brother" as a "pioneer, a trailblazer and a role-model."[6]

The attack was described by a Senate report as "the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hassan

Yeah, the US Senate said the Fort Hood attack was a "Terrorist Attack". O'Bomber said it was "workplace violence". Imagine that.

You're just so far behind the knowledge curve you're never going to catch up acoustic.

One other thing acoustic. Because there is direct evidence this attack was being watched in real time in the White House Situation Room and also by the US State Dept and also because there were US military assets which could have been deployed to save 4 American lives; and because the CIA operators were told to "stand down" multiple times and not try to intervene and because General Petraues, CIA Director bluntly said he gave no such order, those orders and the orders to not send military assistance came from only one source. Barack Hussein O'Bomber.

posted October 30, 2012 07:12 PM            

The November 23 cover of both the European and U.S. editions of Time magazine had a picture of Hasan with the title "Terrorist?" over his eyes.[141] Terrorism scholar and Georgetown University professor Bruce Hoffman told the magazine that "I used to argue it was only terrorism if it were part of some identifiable, organized conspiracy... the nature of terrorism is changing, and Major Hasan may be an example of that".[142] The article also said "Hasan's motives were mixed enough that everyone with an agenda could find markers in the trail he left", and acknowledged as well that "Hasan matched the classic model of the lone, strange, crazy killer: the quiet and gentle man who formed few close human attachments."[142] The Christian Science Monitor also raised the question of terrorism in its November 9, 2009 edition.[143]

On November 14, The New York Times also asked: "Was Major Hasan a terrorist, driven by religious extremism to attack fellow soldiers he had come to see as the enemy? Was he a troubled loner, a misfit who cracked when ordered sent to a war zone whose gruesome casualties he had spent the last six years caring for? Or was he both?" The article goes on to say that "Major Hasan may be the latest example of an increasingly common type of terrorist, one who has been self-radicalized with the help of the Internet and who wreaks havoc without support from overseas networks and without having to cross a border to reach his target."[144]

A Rasmussen poll has found that 60 percent of likely American voters believe the shootings should be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act.[145] An analyst of terror investigations, Carl Tobias, said that the attack did not fit the profile of terrorism: "Terrorist attacks are undertaken by people who typically ... have some agenda they want to forward politically, and from what I see in the news, this is just a person acting individually because he doesn't want to deploy overseas".[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hassan#Retrospective_analyses

As I correctly stated, there are ongoing questions as to his motives.

quote:

---

You're just so far behind the knowledge curve you're never going to catch up acoustic.

---

Yeah, that's why I was able to cite your source back to you as justification for what I said.

quote:

---

Because there is direct evidence this attack was being watched in real time in the White House Situation Room and also by the US State Dept and also because there were US military assets which could have been deployed to save 4 American lives; and because the CIA operators were told to "stand down" multiple times and not try to intervene and because General Petraues, CIA Director bluntly said he gave no such order, those orders and the orders to not send military assistance came from only one source. Barack Hussein O'Bomber.

---

posted October 31, 2012 11:30 AM            

The only reason O'Bomber didn't want to label the Fort Hood terrorist attack by Hasan a...terrorist attack was for political reasons. O'Bomber didn't want to acknowledge there was a successful terrorist attack on American soil on his watch...so he called it "Workplace Violence".

posted October 31, 2012 01:22 PM            

I reported accurately, and there is no disputing that.

quote:

---

Fuzzy thinking leftist morons are a dime a dozen and can be found at most leftist rags like Time and at most universities. Continue to quote them acoustic. Doing so only shows how out of touch with reality you are.

---

I don't know who you believe you are converting here, but it certainly isn't me. Nor am I the one with the credibility gap. I've never been that person here. You're engaging in more fantasy writing.

quote:

---

The only reason O'Bomber didn't want to label the Fort Hood terrorist attack by Hasan a...terrorist attack was for political reasons. O'Bomber didn't want to acknowledge there was a successful terrorist attack on American soil on his watch...so he called it "Workplace Violence".

---

posted October 31, 2012 02:02 PM            

You are that unreasonable, illogical, irrational foil who can always be counted upon to take the extremist viewpoint which cannot be defended...such as in this case.