“When you see a group going up with RPGS and weapons to break into one of our facilities, you can assume it’s a terrorist attack. Unfortunately, the word extremist was used which is not as crystal clear as terrorist. The real-time video which we have all seen reveals that there was virtually no defense. The militia from Libya sent to guard the embassy disappeared the minute these people came down the street. These people just walked right into the facility.”Why was the word "extremist" preferred to "terrorist"? I don't think either word is "crystal clear." I think both words are "not a crystal, transparent and unchanging, [but] the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in colour and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used" (to quote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.).
Considering the the circumstances and time in which "extremist" was used and "terrorist" was actively avoided, what was the living thought within each of those 2 words?
Terrorist relates to the war on terrorism. A terrorist seems connected to a network of terrorism, specifically al Qaeda. It suggests organization and it connects a problem of violence to an entire religion. It seems to magnify the significance of the attacks as the leading edge of a group that has been elevated for 12 years as a military enemy, an enemy the Obama administration would like to say it has defeated. One way to claim victory is to stop using the word that is connected with the long war, to demote these violent characters from the status of terrorist. A terrorist terrifies. We are not terrified. We won. We need to get that message out: We won! And we're going to keep winning. We need to win... the war and the election.
Extremist relates to the mind of the individual who's moved into an extreme form of ideation, who's gone from the normal way of thinking about power and politics and has become a crazy nut who will cross the line — perhaps suddenly and insanely — into murderous violence. This misguided individual may have heard a lot of talk — perhaps suddenly, perhaps via YouTube — that he cannot process properly. He's gone into furious thinking and loses control. There's no global network of organized action — nothing like a military enemy in a war — but just the network of disordered thinking within the small globe of a man's skull. This is, unfortunately, something that happens. It happened to Jared Loughner and to Timothy McVeigh. We need to reach and soothe the minds of young men that might burst out into violence. Let them know we care, perhaps through the political theater of distancing ourselves from a disgusting and reprehensible video.
Posts
101 comments:
As Roger J, Aridog and others said 6 months ago, the key markers were the simultaneity of the assault. e.g. 30 guys come around a corner at a dead run headed for the walls.
and mortars.
Use of mortars requires a team of 4-6, trained, drilled, and unless you want to waste lots of ammo, a map, (or laser these days) and firing tables)
Not something you just wander down to the demonstration with and discover that Ackmed happened to bring a bipod and Abdul, stopped by with 8 rounds of ammo, both of which fit the 40 pound tube you have in your brief case :)
dead giveaway, dead giveaway...
Why was the word "extremist" preferred to "terrorist"?
Because an election was 2 months away.
And, that's what lying liars do.
Extremists, as a term of art, works well for his administration. Too bad that term whitewashes a lot of reality.
No matter, best to stay on message and find even the most blindly loyal who will. It's all about the pivot away from Bush, towards international coalitions, peace and social justice.
If you write the words 'the arc of history bends towards justice' they will become true.
Who cares about the word "terrorist"?
Why did the administration lie to us? Teh administration - through their pro-democrats hacks in their media outlets pushed the Rice/ Carney/ Hillary! version of events:
That:
This whole violent episode in Benghazi was due to Noukkoula (sp>) and his youtube video.
This whole thing was a flash mob angered by a youtube video.
Lies..
for weeks on end.
lies...
Does anyone care?
Nope, we are not bogged down with the word "terrorism".
"Gregory Hicks, who served as deputy chief of mission in Libya during the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, voted for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary election and Barack Obama in the last two general elections."
-------
Just getting ahead of the curve on that one, and how do you think he feels about those votes now?
If the arc of history really does bend toward justice Obama and his ilk will have a lot of 'splainin' to do.
So you know he really doesn't believe that either.
State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:
“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”
--Just another career Dem partisan who is worried about the brand of Team Dem.
Workplace violence
Man caused disasters
Overseas Contingency Operations
Extremists
Obama=Orwell
The problem with "extremists", aside from indicating no connection to a larger group, is Obama and his people use it regularly to describe Republican lawmakers and people in the conservative base.
@Jay, if a conservative is a librul who got mugged, I expect him to move rightward of Buchanan.
Patrick, not James.
Yes, Diane, it was terrorism, but the pink elephant in the room is the administration's cover up and lies about what they knew and when they knew it.
Calculated Political lies were used to win an election. With Chicago mobsters and Hillary! and her lie machine, winning is all that counts. Lie now, apologize and sweep under the run later. What are a few dead bodies?
Thank you Candy Crowley, you fat pro-democrat hag.
Wyo Sis,
When he went to Austin the other day to orate on something or another, he was wearing a Stetson. Looked just as comfortable as a Dem riding a tank, or hunting ducks... The caption had that classic Texas quip, that all Westerners recognize :)
"All Hat, No Cattle"
Terrorists = people we don't want to deal with because we agree with them.
Extremists = people we must suppress or blame for what the terrorists do.
Note the liar in chief carrying on:
Obama continued to attribute the Benghazi attack to a protest against a video on Sept. 18 (“Letterman”), Sept. 20 (Univision) and Sept. 25 (“The View” and the United Nations).
He went "all in" that this was all because of a video.
But he's like super-duper smart and stuff.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of the Quran is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of Sharia is no virtue!" - Bari Goldah-Wahhabiwadder
@Jay, if a conservative is a librul who got mugged, I expect him to move rightward of Buchanan.
You would think. But of course his career depends on Team Dem and he's surrounded by them on a daily basis...
Not sure whether to be outraged, or just concerned here. Anyone?
What the Drill SGT said.
In addition doesn't it take some prior planning to register the target?
Didn't someone at sometime before the attack need to measure distances?
Hardly spontaneous.
Garage
Just be whatever suits the arc of history.
The terrorist are those who attacked the consulate. The extremist are those running the executive branch and the senate along with their amen crowd in the MSM.
So Dianne Feinstein immediately knew it was a terrorist attack.
And what did she do when Obama and Rice and Hillary all lied over and over again?
And put a guy in prison who had nothing to do with it?
What did Dianne Feinstein do when these lies were perpetrated?
Nothing.
Nada.
Zilch.
Zip.
I guess it's possible that Obama didn't lie and is merely as stupid as Inga, but that's not comforting.
They want to use the word 'extremist' so as to able to label conservatives with it.
Words like extremist, reactionary, nativist,
racist, homophobe, islamophobe are all used by the MSM and the Democratic party to tar people they disagree with politically.
It is conceptually difficult to call Sarah Palin a terrorist, or to label conservatives terrorists. Much easier to use the label extremist and let prior associations with the word do the tarring for you.
Petraeus referred to the final rewrite as "useless" because not only did it redact what had actually occurred, it was a classic CYA on the part of the State Department and the continuance of the cover story that Obama spreads like a snake oil salesman as a soporific to keep the voters who elected him again in a blind stupor.
garage mahal said...
Not sure whether to be outraged, or just concerned here. Anyone?
We expect you to suspend belief and defend him.
The stetson picture is old. I think from the first campaign, back when he was the person he'd been waiting for.
Petraeus referred to the final rewrite as "useless" because not only did it redact what had actually occurred, it was a classic CYA on the part of the State Department and the continuance of the cover story that Obama spreads like a snake oil salesman as a soporific to keep the voters who elected him again in a blind stupor.
I don't think what they called IT, crystal clear or not, is all that important. What is important is WHY they called IT what they called.
garage mahal said...
Not sure whether to be outraged, or just concerned here. Anyone? "
What is there to be outraged about? People lied, people died, people lied again...it's not like a majority of both parties believed there were WMD's and voted thataway and then started screaming and protesting and living in ditches and shit, right?
How about consistency? Forget outrage, forget concern, just be consistent.
pm317
It's all important. Especially since we know that one of the tactics is manipulation of the language.
That's one reason having lawyers on your team is important. Lawyers use language to hide or reveal what they want to hide or reveal.
They can avoid answering the why forever just by focusing on the words.
Gingrich said something this lorning that I thought was useful in connecting both the Bengahzi and IRS stories back together:
"Again, this isn’t an administration that is shocked at the idea of profiling for terrorism but apparently had an entire part of the IRS that was profiling for patriotism. I find that to be very, very chilling in terms of our political liberty.”
“When you see a group going up with RPGS and weapons to break into one of our facilities, you can assume it’s a terrorist attack. Unfortunately, the word extremist was used which is not as crystal clear as terrorist. The real-time video which we have all seen reveals that there was virtually no defense. The militia from Libya sent to guard the embassy disappeared the minute these people came down the street. These people just walked right into the facility.”
Thanks senator for once again proving that democrats always put the party above the country. The time to make the comment was as soon as the information was made available to you and not after your party accomplished its upcoming electoral goal.
Every time I hear Hillary speak, I hear echos of her fake southern drawl speech.
Self aggrandizing and insincere.
Why did the administration lie to us?
Did someone ask Mme. Pelosi that question?
Or were they afraid her face would crack if they did?
A war has been going on for 1300 years, ever since the Prophet's armies began fighting and attempting to conquer everyone they encountered.
And it will all be over merely by "declaring victory."
???
I'm sure that the Obamaites are more than willing to engage in such delusions.
Jay said...
State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections ...
What I found irritating about Victoria Nuland is that all of her comments were aimed at protecting her agency from inquiry and portrayed no regard for the dead or anyone else.
The event had already occurred and she was concerned only about imagery? Nuland is the almost perfect example of what I've referred to as the institutionalized bureaucracy of Washington DC.
Nuland served under Clinton, then Bush, including a period directly for Cheney, and now Obama....non-stop. Elections come and go, but these organizational narcissists remain in some position of power. They always resurface, frequently in controversy.
just be consistent.
No. Just be honest. For once.
wyo sis said...
-------------
I am laughing here because what you said is apt for something else I am working here.. with lawyers of course.
My point is WHY leads you to the more reprehensible behavior. The discussion on which is clearer makes it seem like a mundane choice.
Why didn't they want to use the T word? Because they didn't want to respond to the attack. There was no CBA which could only come from Obama and which would have escalated it into something more sinister just before the election than a garden variety protest.
"Because an election was 2 months away. And, that's what lying liars do."
You missing the point. What was it about the difference between those 2 words that made that word choice the one that appealed to them? That's my question. Why was "extremist" so much preferred?
Use of mortars requires a team of 4-6, trained, drilled, and unless you want to waste lots of ammo, a map, (or laser these days) and firing tables)
This doesn't really describe terrorists or extremists. Terrorist goals are to incite terror. The goal here was a planned military attack on a defended (at least presumably) position.
Extremist is a vague and unhelpful word. Are they extremists because they used mortars to achieve their goals, or their goals are different than our own. It's a very condescending word, really. Something the British might say in defending their empire, as far back as 1776 or so.
Why not 'militia'?
"Extremist"
To use the word "extremist" is a judgment on the part of the person using it. It is to impose his value judgment upon the target of the term. In this case, it is imperialism of the most pernicious sort.
Who the hell is Obama and the rest of the U.S. government to establish what is and is not mainstream Islam?
Bin Laden and Khalid Sheik Mohammed speak more for what constitutes legitimate Islam than does any non-Muslim who wants to impose their non-Muslim view upon them.
To say that these guys are extreme is to say that the Koran itself is extreme.
“When you see a group going up with RPGS and weapons to break into one of our facilities, you can assume it’s a terrorist attack. Unfortunately, the word extremist was used which is not as crystal clear as terrorist. The real-time video which we have all seen reveals that there was virtually no defense. The militia from Libya sent to guard the embassy disappeared the minute these people came down the street. These people just walked right into the facility.”
SGT Newt would do the country a favor if he actually completed his statement by saying this Administration considers Islamacists to be a distracting annoyance and patriots the enemy. Which from a Marxist perspective is probably true.
Every time I hear Hillary speak, I hear echos of her fake southern drawl speech.
At least Hillary actually lived in the south for almost 20 years. What's Obama's excuse for his fake southern drawl?
Ann Althouse said...
"Because an election was 2 months away. And, that's what lying liars do."
You missing the point. What was it about the difference between those 2 words that made that word choice the one that appealed to them? That's my question. Why was "extremist" so much preferred?"
Because Obama vanquished terrorism and the whole world loved America again, once the evil Bush was deposed.
Never mind that Obama's policies allowed the terrorists to regroup.
But an extremist--you can't do anything about extremists. Just like all those extremist Republicans that refuse to rubber stamp *everything* Dear Leader wants.
Some of us have been saying this stuff a long time.
At least Hillary actually lived in the south for almost 20 years. What's Obama's excuse for his fake southern drawl?
1. I thought he marched at Selma, holding a banner high?
2 Because that's his negro dialect, according to Harry.
Rusty said...
Didn't someone at sometime before the attack need to measure distances?
Hardly spontaneous.
Hardly indeed. To quote myself on Hillary's outrageous comment cited on a prior thread:
Hillary's remark about **out for a walk and decided to kill some Americans** belies a total lack of how terror is organized and carried out. It reeks of blaming Americans for any attacks on them as well. See, well beyond our actions in warfare...no matter how generous we are, or how much we do to assist people to improve their lives, we deserve to die? Check.
Why was "extremist" so much preferred?
Because "terrorist" is associated too much with "Muslim" or AQ and OBL was dead and Obama had ingle handedly won the GWOT.
"extremists" at least by this admin means "right wing etremists"
the VRWC has Hillary declared
Why was "extremist" so much preferred?
Because that's what they were calling Republicans.
It's establishing that the mainstream is on your side, and those opposing it are extremists. Applied to both Republicans and the Benghazi attack, it contributed to the narrative that Obama had everything under control, there were just these people outside of their respective mainstreams causing trouble. Don't believe them. They don't represent the real folk.
Control the metanarrative, win the election.
Why was "extremist" so much preferred?
There are extremists here, there, everywhere? (who get angry over a simple, stupid thing like a video)
Makes it a 'problem individual' than a group better organized and better equipped to hurt which would of course require them to respond?
Goes better with their other narrative of garden variety protest over a video.
Howard Kurtz says the reason Benghazi got no traction was cuz Republicans overhyped it.
Fucking what now?
Lurking in the back of my mind is the belief that the Benghazi operation was probably designed to funnel weapons to Syrian rebels. (if this would be a wise policy is an other question--but that type of operations has more CIA cachet than does a State Department operation). If my thought is correct, then AQ and their affiliates understood this and struck at the nexus of weapons transshipments. From their perspective they were probably successful.
The intellectual destruction wrought by PC is difficult to exaggerate. It is rare for public speech and thought to be clear about anything. We live in a sea of mush.
You missing the point. What was it about the difference between those 2 words that made that word choice the one that appealed to them? That's my question. Why was "extremist" so much preferred?
A terrorist act would require a response. Besides if the story you are selling is we killed Bin Laden and the war is over but for a few mope up actions then acknowledging the attack as a planned enemy action blows your story.
Using the term extremist is also useful in trying to dismiss and discredit those who oppose your ideology. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why the democrats use the term extremist in their talking points.
"Extremist" as used by the contemporary left, has come to mean "anything that opposes my statist ideology." Do you believe that the government should be smaller? Extremist! Do you believe that the government should balance its budget? Extremist!
Oddly, they are not opposed with similar language. Try out this sentence- "homosexual extremists seek to overturn countless millenia of the cultural practice of marriage." Sounds a bit more extreme than balancing budgets, no?
To my mind is part of the general effort to class the other as "extremist." Hey, maybe is was Tea Party extremists at work in Benghazi, who could be sure in the early hours?
CEO-MMP said...
Howard Kurtz says the reason Benghazi got no traction was cuz Republicans overhyped it.
Ideally, the Repubs should wait for the media to dig in and commit journalism.
Yup, that would work.
Since journalism is dead, it's up to the opposition party to look for the truth (which is the truth even if it hurts the other side).
But Dems are the best at this game. A Dem lies, deceives, abuses power, all for partisan purposes, and as soon as the Repubs notice, if they do, the Dems have their minions in Congress, the White House, Dem National Committee Media, all run out to yell "playing politics." And the media carry this as 50-75% of the story - Repubs politicize ______.
Roger J. said...
-------
There are published accounts pointing toward that. Recent lefty article on it is Eli Lake's in the dailybeast (though he makes it a joint effort between the state and cia and of course, wh was not involved, heh)..
Geez, Aridog. Null and sounds like a Gorelick-in-waiting.
Nulland
pm317--thanks for the additional info--I would suggest the notion of "interagency cooperation," especially between CIA and DOS is then gruel--there is no trust between them--and for good reason.
Words still matter.
Well... some words matter more... maybe.
This video was in the context of the 2008 campaign Obama was responding to Hillarie's charge that Obama was all "just words" and speeches... that Obama had no substance, no experience and therefore he was not ready to lead.
The nomination is not just a word... its everything.
Roger J interesting hypothesis but for the fact that AQ is a large part of the opposition "freedom fighters" in Syria. From an AQ perspective US clandestine gun running from Libya would be a reverse Iran-Contra affair. In their favor. I don't see how stopping the weapons transfer would benefit them.
Terrorist means AQ which we were told was in retreat after Teh Won took out OBL. Extremists is generic enough to include anyone. This was, and still is, about the story and re-election.
It's time to start a post where we predict what Obama will do post Jan 2017 when he leaves office. I say he becomes an alcoholic just like his Dad. And he will never be remembered for much more than getting elected president twice.
Terrorist=loss of control
Did he consult with distinguished professor Bill Ayres?
Cubanbob (by the way I am cubanrogerJ my dad being born in Havana. I take your point, I the cynic suspects that the US Government and intel agencies have no idea what is going on in Syria--I am sure the AQ folks see Syria as an opportunity. As to who the good guys are in Syria, I have no idea.
It's the perfect two-fer.
"Extremist" avoids the "T word", which would mean AQ isn't dead, and Islamists are still at war. Inconvenient just before the election, and refutes the narrative.
"Extremist" also reinforces that those eee-vil Republicans are the enemy. Perfect subliminal message, since every act of domestic violence the Dems & MSM (but I repeat myself) try to pin on right-wingers.
What was it about the difference between those 2 words that made that word choice the one that appealed to them?
A bunch of "extremists" gathering spontaneously because of a video is a better narrative to sell to the soccer moms in Ohio you want to vote for you 7 weeks from now than the truth of the matter - people linked to al-Qa’ida acting in a coordinated fashion with heavy mortar fire.
That's why.
Roger J. said...
Lurking in the back of my mind is the belief that the Benghazi operation was probably designed to funnel weapons to Syrian rebels.
I think that is a good supposition, but I think there was even more going on...internally in Libya in the effort to track down the Man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS) ...missiles Moammar Gadhafi lost control of when deposed. Like who didn't want to give them up?
Another commenter has cited that search previously...sorry I can't recall the name or thread...just the Link cited.
My customary cynicism tells me that the White House [John Brennan] directed assets, independent of official agency direction, from SOCOM/CIA/USAID folks were up their usual actions of "renting" a few "rebels" for assistance. "Rentals" don't always work out so well...like the consulate guard, eh.
I'm impressed that to date, to my knowledge no one has asked about or interviewed any of the CIA annex survivors, let alone even identify them. 20+ people who were there, doing a job, in the attack, under fire....like what would they know, right?
Nah, General Dempsey, after a meeting with Obama and Panetta, phoning up *pastor* Jones on the morning of 12 September 2012...potentially within 2 hours of the attack on the annex ... yep, that call set the narrative as soon a Dempsey's PAO notified Reuters.
I may start carrying ammonia capsules or smelling salts to use for shock recovery if anyone in government just happens to tell the truth to me or anyone else.
Howard Kurtz says the reason Benghazi got no traction was cuz Republicans overhyped it.
Well, the narrative has been confused at times. Was it the pre-attack preparedness? Was it the timid response? Was it the false narrative post attack?
If you say "All three!!", you've created a confusing story.
We remember the Watergate cover-up; we forget about the break-in.
Because "extremist" is a favorite Democratic term for any conservative position. It subtly ties the atrocity to the groups Homeland Security warned about.
Since King Obama lowered the sea levels and rid the world of all terrorists with his mere existence - why use that word?
Terrorism is so yesterday.
Extremist is where it's at. Nakoula was an extremist.... An extremist of the worst order. He's worse than a terrorist.
Tea Party tax payers with American flags who don't worship Obama, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow are "extremists" too, ya know.
Extremists, you know, sounds like it might be Tea Partyers. Feinstein and the rest of the administration is still holding out hope that it was some right-wing conspiracy that killed those people. Right Hillary?
AJ Lynch said...
It's time to start a post where we predict what Obama will do post Jan 2017 when he leaves office.
I predict he will not leave.
Aridog--thanks for your comments--and I agree entirely that there seemed to be a significant CIA presence in Benghazi--far more than would normally be present in a "consulate." And the stonewalling of CIA types in hearings suggests to me there is something they know that people in the administration would prefer be kept silent--From the DOS perspective, the Russians have drawn some lines in the sand as well, and the situation in Syria is expanding into great power relationships.
What Allen said (hey, he took my idea).
An extremist can be anybody, even a "guy in the neighborhood" and "distinguished educator" at Columbia, like William Ayers; he or she just has to hold to his or her views with greater than normal fanaticism.
A terrorist doesn't exist because, by 9/11/12, Choom had won the war on terror.
The left's sacred cow- your Hero
Fortunately John Kerry is our Sec State and can sort all the great power things out.
Perhaps they were channelling another Barry, that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
The key obfuscation was describing the attack as spontaneous. Using the term extremist instead of terrorist successfully changed the subject.
Roger J. said...
And the stonewalling of CIA types in hearings suggests to me there is something they know that people in the administration would prefer be kept silent
Aren't there about 30 CIA types rescued by Woods and Doherty that are still being kept incommunicado?
Maybe Petraeus refused to play ball so we learned about Paula Broadinthebeam.
Roger J ... my wacky conspiracy theory is that Obama's John Brennan was acting as a clone of LBJ's Robert Komer, both running clandestine operations, including *kill lists*, using Special Ops assets, CIA assets, drones, and the ubiquitous USAID beard, directly from the White House without passing directions through command structures at the Pentagon, SOCOM, CIA, State, et al.
No worries now...Brennan is confirmed DCIA so that can of worms is permanently sealed. And the man who still has "the hat" is running State. Time until the next clusterfuckup: 5-4-3- ...
Roger J, hermano, there are no good guys in Syria. The best possible outcome would be to quote Henry K regarding the Iraq-Iran War " too bad both sides can't lose". The Russians are backing Assad because be is their SOB. No doubt they have numerous reasons to back his regime but the main one is show by example that they unlike the Americans back their allies to the end. The CIA running a big operation in Benghazi while everyone else's got out of dodge is indicative of something but what it is isn't exactly clear.
Roger J, hermano, there are no good guys in Syria. The best possible outcome would be to quote Henry K regarding the Iraq-Iran War " too bad both sides can't lose". The Russians are backing Assad because be is their SOB. No doubt they have numerous reasons to back his regime but the main one is show by example that they unlike the Americans back their allies to the end. The CIA running a big operation in Benghazi while everyone else's got out of dodge is indicative of something but what it is isn't exactly clear.
Howard Kurts: There was no press bias. Bengazi didn't get traction in the mainstream press because the Republicans overhyped it.
Me: Mr. Kurtz, can you identify a single instance in which the press failed to report on an issue because the Democrats were hyping it to hurt George Bush?
Kurtz:
Me: Mr. Kurtz, could you answer my question?
Kurtz: Well, obviously, the Democrats don't overhype issues to try to hurt Republicans. They raise serious questions in a passionate way, sure, but the press obviously has to cover those serious questions. I can't believe you think we are biased.
point. What was it about the difference between those 2 words that made that word choice the one that appealed to them?
Professor, "Terrorism" has a defined meaning in the US Code. Here is just one example (22 USC 2656F(d)):
(1) the term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the
territory of more than one country;
(2) the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence
perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or
clandestine agents; and
(3) the term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or which has
significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism.
What I find interesting in these definitions and the original story from the State Department, isn't just "extremist", but the word "spontaneous", which would prohibit the event falling under the term "terrorism" as defined in this part of the US code, since the activity would not have been premeditated.
Just my thoughts on why it does matter whether it was spontaneous or not. It can not both be spontaneous and a terrorist attack.
I have argued for months that there were operations in Benghazi that we are not to know about under any condition. Gun running, waterboarding, God knows but we wont.
Whatever was going on in the CIA Annex and the Consulate was obviously understaffed and over organized...e.g.,too many Chiefs, not enough Indians. It reeks of "executive" use of agency assets without clearance by or coordination with the agency leaderships. This is not a new phenomena in our government....and it gives almost everyone plausible deniability.
It was used because when Leftists like Feinstein and Obama say "extremist" they mean everyone to the left of Stalin. That way, we can all be slandered and suspected.
I realized I didn't answer the full question. Why choose "extremist" over "terrorism"? I don't think it was to avoid reporting Benghazi as a terrorist event by region to Congress, as that part of the code proscribes. I think the reason was part of the general effort by this Administration to disassociate "terrorism" with "Islam" or "Muslims". They didn't want another "terrorist" attack caused by muslims. I think this is because the adjective and subject "muslim terrorist" became so common under the previous Administration as to negate the need for the adjective. However, the definition certainly doesn't limit the activity to any particular religous or national group. It can even be domestic.
Now, as to why the Administration would make a priority trying to disassociate "Islam" from "Terrorism"? I don't know. I speculate that, particular with Department of State being a major player in this, the Administration is trying to rebuild (in its mind) relationship with nations in the Arab world. This begins with the major speech in Cairo and then is followed up by the scrubbing of the term terrorism from other bureaucratic regulations. The Administration can't scrub terrorism from the US Code, that requires Congress, and besides the definitions there do not automatically associate to religion.
"Not sure whether to be outraged, or just concerned here. Anyone?"
You make a joke, Garage, but it's a telling joke. In an attempt to belittle those who disagree with you, you betray your mindset. As I said the other day, it's your side that has to wait for instructions from on high about what to think. The hive mind determines the party line and you all jump to it. We, on the other hand, are perfectly capable of forming our own opinions because we don't demand 100% uniformity. It's sad that you don't understand and exercise the great gift given to you by the Founding Fathers.
The President just said we don't have time in Washington to be playing politics with this stuff.
So that should shut you up. We too busy for politics in D.C.
Obama’s re-election campaign was premised on the claims that he had decimated al Qaeda, that the war on terror was thus nearing an end, and that his Middle East policy of aiding Islamic supremacists in places like Egypt and Libya was stabilizing the region and fostering the birth of real democracy. The campaign could not afford powerful demonstrations that al Qaeda was anything but in its death throes; that terrorists were still targeting American facilities and killing American officials; and that, under Obama’s policies, Egypt and much of Libya were now controlled by rabidly anti-American Islamic supremacists.
-That's the answer to Ann's question
I have to agree with my mano, Cuban bob, and Aridog--the CIA is up to its ass in Libyan operations--I thought the reference to Komer and previous CIA ops was on target.
I wonder if Banstein would have disdained the use of assault weapons to fight off the attack?
I have long had a problem with the use of "extremists" to refer both to Republicans thwarting the President and Islamic terrorists. Maybe some on the left actually believe that they are similarly evil (or, maybe they believe the Republicans are the more evil of the two). So, I think that it is an intentionally effort to show that the terrorists are not really that bad, and that the Republicans really are. It is the usual liberal/progressive 1984 type double speak.
Another part of this is that "extremist" being used for Islamic terrorists portrays the rest of those practicing it, those who don't take up arms against the U.S., as mainstream. Likely, even if they help the terrorists, but don't actually pull the trigger. The basic problem with that narrative is that, sure, world wide, terrorism may not be mainstream in Islam, but it sure seems to be well accepted in certain Islamic countries, such as Iran, Egypt, Yeman, and maybe even Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf States.
And, yes, acknowledgement that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack by al Qaeda affiliates would have totally screwed up the narrative, that the war on terror was won, that Islam is the religion of peace, that the Arab Spring was the best thing that had happened in that part of the world in a long time, that our actions in toppling Kadaffi were justified, etc.
My working definition of terrorist - as opposed to insurgent, not extremist - is someone who assaults non-military forces, civilians, not to defeat a military opponent but to spread terror. An insurgent assaults military forces in order to defeat them directly.
Was Princess Di this clear about knowing right away that it was a terrorist attack back when she was making the Sunday rounds in the wake of the attack?
So why the Blockbuster defense vis a vis the Mohammed video?
A community organizer feeds off leading the 51% to give him power by demonizing "extremists" who are outside the group and by definition dangerous to the group.
But Terrorists are the 10% warriors intent on murdering enough of the 90% infidels to achieve their submission.
Obama insists that all the world only needs his his skills. He will not admit that the 10% first need preemptive killing which is a more traditional American attitude displayed by Bush II.
Post a Comment