• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

obama wants to know why

sawyerloggingon said:
obama's first comment on the Boston terror attack was puzzling, he didn't call it terrorism and said he would find out why they did it. God help us with a president like this at the helm.:peace
Click to expand...

He didn't use a buzzword and said we'd find out why someone or someones planted two bombs, God the nerve of that guy.
 
Well, then tell us, why did they do it, and who did it?

I'm no Obama fan, but I don't see anything wrong with how he's handled this, or statements that he's made about this, thus far.
 
Wiseone said:
He didn't use a buzzword and said we'd find out why someone or someones planted two bombs, God the nerve of that guy.
Click to expand...

This is almost as pointless as the thread about Joe Biden calling it a "bombing."
 
Wiseone said:
Because he's the President? Do you think he shouldn't care or that he doesn't care?
Click to expand...

That is a non response. Why does he care why an act of terrorism happens? I will answer for you. His first instinct is to blame America that's why, he feels we must have done something to deserve this.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Honestly, why does he care why???? AND terrorism is not a buzz word and he fell all over himself to use the word in his next statement.
Click to expand...

Conservatism is like the Dark Side of the Force. Is has to be nourished with continual anger or it sparks out. To that end, we're going to obsess over the specifics of Obama's vocabulary and spin every other word into the greatest outrage that has ever been and could ever be committed by a president.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
That is a non response. Why does he care why an act of terrorism happens? I will answer for you. His first instinct is to blame America that's why, he feels we must have done something to deserve this.
Click to expand...

Well you can't argue against stupid.
 
Morality Games said:
Conservatism is like the Dark Side of the Force. Is has to be nourished with continual anger or it sparks out. To that end, we're going to obsess over the specifics of Obama's vocabulary and spin every other word into the greatest outrage that has ever been and could ever be committed by a president.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it obama himself that once said, "words have meanings". Not calling it terrorism from the get go was very telling of who this guy is and then wondering aloud why they did it is frosting on the rancid cake.
 
It was Rush. Dittos
sawyerloggingon said:
Wasn't it obama himself that once said, "words have meanings". Not calling it terrorism from the get go was very telling of who this guy is and then wondering aloud why they did it is frosting on the rancid cake.
Click to expand...
 
The Man said:
Well, then tell us, why did they do it, and who did it?
Click to expand...

You have to start with the target(s). The targets were civilians, first responders and LEOs at a public event. In general terms, people that target civilians and non specific government employees are usually making a political statement. If the political statement was domestic in nature, the target would be specific (i.e. OKC Federal Building, Pentagon, Representative, Senator, etc). Since the target wasn't specific, we can presume that the group is likely international in nature whose goal is likely to be target "America".

In support, we look at other international terror attacks:

In 2010, a loan actor, trained in Pakistan, attempted to plant a car bomb in NYC Times Square. His goal was "to kill Americans."
2010 Times Square car bombing attempt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2007, four terrorists used suicide bombs to target UK civilians on public transportation.
7 July 2005 London bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The common thread is that they don't target anything more specific than the general population. They also used a bomb style that is specifically promoted by Al Qaeda. If you compare Boston to NYC and UK bombings, they used bombs previously used by Al Qaeda, they target civilians and they attempted to kill as many people as possible. Granted, it is only speculation, but it is reasonable to believe this will be an attack that is attributed to Al Qaeda or an affiliate.
 
ksu_aviator said:
You have to start with the target(s). The targets were civilians, first responders and LEOs at a public event. In general terms, people that target civilians and non specific government employees are usually making a political statement. If the political statement was domestic in nature, the target would be specific (i.e. OKC Federal Building, Pentagon, Representative, Senator, etc). Since the target wasn't specific, we can presume that the group is likely international in nature whose goal is likely to be target "America".

In support, we look at other international terror attacks:

In 2010, a loan actor, trained in Pakistan, attempted to plant a car bomb in NYC Times Square. His goal was "to kill Americans."
2010 Times Square car bombing attempt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2007, four terrorists used suicide bombs to target UK civilians on public transportation.
7 July 2005 London bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The common thread is that they don't target anything more specific than the general population. They also used a bomb style that is specifically promoted by Al Qaeda. If you compare Boston to NYC and UK bombings, they used bombs previously used by Al Qaeda, they target civilians and they attempted to kill as many people as possible. Granted, it is only speculation, but it is reasonable to believe this will be an attack that is attributed to Al Qaeda or an affiliate.
Click to expand...

You wrote all of that and answered neither of my questions: Who did it, and why?

A simple "I don't know" would have said the same thing and been much less effort for you.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Wasn't it obama himself that once said, "words have meanings". Not calling it terrorism from the get go was very telling of who this guy is and then wondering aloud why they did it is frosting on the rancid cake.
Click to expand...

In the past I would have gone into the detail about the role of restraint of press releases, but I don't care anymore.

If Obama called it terrorism and it turned out it was some type of psychopath looking for his 15 minutes of media fame (we seem to have had a lot of them lately), then the opposition would have considered it irresponsible for him to suggest terrorists could have struck on American soil.

Aside from the fact that obsessing over Obama's vocabulary is ridiculous, in conservative logic, it is a contest where there are no winnings conditions for Obama.

For example, if he said it was terrorism on the spot and (in due investigative course) it turned out to be terrorism, they would call him reckless for saying it was terrorism without first heeding the investigative process, cataloging it as yet another example of how the Administration makes statements without thinking through the consequences.

If you are waiting on Obama's every word to spin it into an outrage, then no power of his can stop you.
 
Last edited:
So your upset that he didnt use the "t" word from the very beginning? And your mad that he wants to find out who did it? Your ****ing me right?
 
The Man said:
You wrote all of that and answered neither of my questions: Who did it, and why?

A simple "I don't know" would have said the same thing and been much less effort for you.
Click to expand...

No, the answer is terrorists and because they wanted to. Which terrorists is all that matters now.
 
ksu_aviator said:
No, the answer is terrorists and because they wanted to. Which terrorists is all that matters now.
Click to expand...

Terrorism is violence with a political purpose. Unless terrorism has become any type of violence directed toward civilians.
 
Morality Games said:
Terrorism is violence with a political purpose. Unless terrorism has become any type of violence directed toward civilians.
Click to expand...

It would be extremely rare for an attack of this nature not to have a political motivation.
 
I care a hell a lot more about the why rather than what we label it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom