Transcript Truthers: Conservatives Deny Obama Called Libya Attack An "Act Of Terror"

Dixie said:
No acts of bravery will go unnoticed.
No challenge is too big!
No man is too wise!

These are platitude statements that are base generalizations. They lack any specificity whatsoever, and nothing specific is defined by them.

Obama never called the attack in Benghazi "an act of terror" and the remainder of his speech indicates he didn't believe it was an act of terror, because he chastises those who "seek to denigrate another religion." As I pointed out before, it can't be both a spontaneous uprising because of a video, and ALSO a terrorist attack! It is impossible to believe that Obama intended to mean BOTH!
Click to expand...

You are so thoroughly dishonest and sloppy in your thought.

He said "act of terror" and then immediately followed that by referencing the 4 dead. He said nothing about a “spontaneous uprising” in the speech nor does he chastise those who "seek to denigrate another religion." That quote is inaccurate. Also, you clearly changed what it implies, but that is for ANOTHER lesson.

We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

By that, I, as an intellectually honest person, assume he is making a general reference meant to include the film but there is no mention of the film anywhere. Not in the next sentence - not anywhere in the speech! So that connection lacks anything remotely approaching specificity.

You are very obviously reading it in any way you can to make a political issue out of these 4 dead people. You disgrace them and Romney would be wise to ignore idiots like you.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????.....he said Obama did not call the Benghazi attack an act of terror......that was accurate.....he called it senseless violence following an apology for events denigrating the religious beliefs of others......
Click to expand...

It is not accurate. And I checked the thread title. You guys are parsing and grasping at straws. He was giving a speech on the Benghazi attack. He said act of terror and immediately reference the 4 dead.

Romney was stupid to follow the logic of the right wing lunatics.
 
evince said:
But he did apologise to the terrorist huh?
Click to expand...

he didn't know that terrorists were involved, so obviously not....by the way, even the AP is asking if anyone in Washington bothered to read the CIA's incident report that came out within 24 hours.....do you also want to know?.....
 
I can't wait for Monday.

The day after the 2nd debate, the Obama campaign raised more money than they ever have in a single day -- including 2008.

I can't wait for Nov. 6.
 
evince said:
when will you people EVER be honest?


lies about apologising to the terrorists and then you lie about him not calling it a terror attack.



You people are dispicable.


You have NO morals left.

You just fucking lie and then lie and then lie until your fucking lies run up against each other and then you lie about your lies.



You live on a steady diet of lies and denials of your lies.



Facts are facts and the tape shows Obama talking about an attack aimed at causing terror will not ever stop this country.


That means he called it an act of terror.


parse away and ignore that.


Lie away and say an embassy release trying to ward off a terror attack was an example of Obama apologising to the terrorists.


You fucking meatsacks need to find something to have an emotional response to besides lies and tax cuts
Click to expand...

Here's how others have described your behavior:

"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.
Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.
An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another person or object.
The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud - in his letters to Wilhelm Fliess, '"Draft H" deals with projection as a mechanism of defence' - and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud; for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as Freudian Projection."
 
evince said:
Your a fucking liar Dixie.

you have proven it over and over and over here.

Its getting to the point where there is no choice but to call you people what you are.


You lie and lie and lie and lie and lie.


You have NO remorse for it no matter how obvious your lies are.


What kind of human being would do that?


a mentally ill human being.


Your an insane liar.



No amount of tip toeing arround this fact can be useful to any decent human being anymore.

Your a fucking insane liar.


Meatsack covers it pretty well.

But even that is a niceity when dealing with you sociopaths who inhabit the shambles you have made of a once proud party
Click to expand...

And yet, others who have read your posts have described your behaior as:

"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.
Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.
An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another person or object.
The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud - in his letters to Wilhelm Fliess, '"Draft H" deals with projection as a mechanism of defence' - and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud; for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as Freudian Projection."
 
evince said:
he said an act of terror would not stop our country.


It was an attack


He called it a act of terror.


You guys just LIE about fucking everything.

just like when he clearly said a busness owner did not build the roads.

and then you claimed non stop and even named your damned convention after a LIE about what obama said.

LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE


Its all you fucking guiltfree lying sociopaths do anymore.


dicksee your a fucking heartless lying meatsack
Click to expand...

There are others, who have exchanged posts with you, who feel you're the one who has the problem:

"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.
Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.
An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another person or object.
The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud - in his letters to Wilhelm Fliess, '"Draft H" deals with projection as a mechanism of defence' - and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud; for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as Freudian Projection."
 
Dixie said:
HE DIDN'T CALL IT AN ACT OF TERROR!

"No acts of terror will shake our resolve..."

There is not one single solitary thing about that statement that tells me the attack in Libya was a terrorist attack OR act of terror!
Click to expand...


Except for the tiny fact that President Obama was commenting on the terrorist attack in Bengazi.
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
It is not accurate. And I checked the thread title. You guys are parsing and grasping at straws. He was giving a speech on the Benghazi attack. He said act of terror and immediately reference the 4 dead.

Romney was stupid to follow the logic of the right wing lunatics.
Click to expand...

No... He clearly said "No ACTS of terror" not "act" ..and there is a big difference. "No acts of terror" is undefined, and doesn't specify this was an act of terror. He never specifies this was an act of terrorism. He does NOT "immediately reference" the 4 dead, he mentions them in an entirely different sentence, and he does so several times in his speech, since his speech is largely due to their deaths. He speaks of the attacks several times as well, and not once did he ever state they were "terrorist attacks" or the perpetrators "terrorists."

All we have to do here, is use common sense. I know that's hard for Yurt and some of you pinheads, but most of us don't have that problem.

He COULDN'T have meant it was an act of terrorism and also a spontaneous uprising. These are two entirely different animals! His speech indicates he thought it was a spontaneous uprising and not a terrorist attack. His administration's actions the following two weeks, also indicates they thought it was a spontaneous uprising and not a terrorist attack. It is only NOW, after the fact, after being called out on this, you run to the one usage of the word "terror" in his speech, and try to CLAIM he meant it was a terrorist attack. He NEVER defined this specific attack as an "act of terror" and never called it a "terrorist attack." As of the debate, he was STILL reluctant to call it a "terrorist attack." And I will bet, if someone asked Jay Carney today, "was this a terrorist attack?" Mr. Carney would dance around the question and REFUSE to call it that.
 
Dixie said:
No... He was commenting on the deaths of 4 people due to a 'spontaneous uprising' caused by a YouTube video. He NEVER defined it as a terrorist attack.
Click to expand...


Right.

He was commenting on acts of terror, including the "act of terror" that caused the deaths of 4 people in Bengazi and therefore, by definition, had to have carried out by terrorists.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Right.

He was commenting on acts of terror, including the "act of terror" that caused the deaths of 4 people in Bengazi and therefore, by definition, had to have carried out by terrorists.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but that's not what he said in the speech. There is where the problem lies. You all want to CLAIM he said something he did not say. You want to interject meaning into his words that were not there. It's clear to anyone who reads the transcript, or who watched the speech, he did not call the attacks "terrorist attacks" and his administration ran around for 2 weeks claiming it WASN'T a terrorist attack, but rather, a spontaneous protest over a video.
 
Dixie said:
Perhaps, but that's not what he said in the speech. There is where the problem lies. You all want to CLAIM he said something he did not say. You want to interject meaning into his words that were not there. It's clear to anyone who reads the transcript, or who watched the speech, he did not call the attacks "terrorist attacks" and his administration ran around for 2 weeks claiming it WASN'T a terrorist attack, but rather, a spontaneous protest over a video.
Click to expand...


You can play this "well he said terror, not terrorIST so you are wrong" game til the cows come home.

It won't change the fact that anyone operating without their partisan blinders on can tell he was obviously referring to the Bengazi attack when he made those comments.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You can play this "well he said terror, not terrorIST so you are wrong" game til the cows come home.

It won't change the fact that anyone operating without their partisan blinders on can tell he was obviously referring to the Bengazi attack when he made those comments.
Click to expand...

He said "no acts of terror will shake our resolve.." He did not call this an act of terror, or the perpetrators, terrorists. Without PARSING what he said, he simply didn't say what you now want to CLAIM. And it defies all logic that it's what he meant, because he considered this a spontaneous uprising, not a terrorist attack. It's IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been BOTH!
 
Dixie said:
He said "no acts of terror will shake our resolve.." He did not call this an act of terror, or the perpetrators, terrorists. Without PARSING what he said, he simply didn't say what you now want to CLAIM. And it defies all logic that it's what he meant, because he considered this a spontaneous uprising, not a terrorist attack. It's IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been BOTH!
Click to expand...


So the President gives a speech the very next day after the Bengazi attacks, but you're going to pretend he couldn't possibly be referring to the attack that had just occurred when he stated "no acts of terror will shake our resolve".

While Obama may have INITIALLY considered the Bengazi attack a "spontaneous uprising", as intel continued to come in, that assessment changed.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
So the President gives a speech the very next day after the Bengazi attacks, but you're going to pretend he couldn't possibly be referring to the attack that had just occurred when he stated "no acts of terror will shake our resolve".

While Obama may have INITIALLY considered the Bengazi attack a "spontaneous uprising", as intel continued to come in, that assessment changed.
Click to expand...

It simply can't be an organized terrorist attack AND (as the Admin claimed for 2 weeks) a spontaneous uprising. So how could he have called it something he didn't believe it was at the time? I mean, I get that you want to defend him here, and you really wish that he had stated what you claim, but he simply did not say it. And furthermore, HAS NOT SAID IT YET! Even in the debate, he was reluctant to call this a terrorist attack or the perpetrators, terrorists. Why are we supposed to ASSUME that is what he believes, if he refuses to SAY IT?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
So the President gives a speech the very next day after the Bengazi attacks, but you're going to pretend he couldn't possibly be referring to the attack that had just occurred when he stated "no acts of terror will shake our resolve".

While Obama may have INITIALLY considered the Bengazi attack a "spontaneous uprising", as intel continued to come in, that assessment changed.
Click to expand...

so obama lied?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top