My understanding is that "terrorism" is a legal word and the President can't just throw it around. Considering the very strange situation of this attack I don't think they really know the full motive. It's like the Ft. Hood shooter, there was evidence of radicalization but also a mental state brought about by the death of his mother that caused him to break.

pisses you off doesn't it?
it should

there are enough facts known already to call it what it is = Terrorism, a terrorist attack in this country, radical islamists
it is what is is

I still don't understand why our president will not say the word

They planned it, had bombs and everything and attacked innocent people at a Christmas party. Seems pretty obvious to me.

reason why they don't call a spade a spade = the wusification of America the land that I love.

time to take back America from the pussies who have allowed this to happen in the first place.

Well he is legally the President and this is the time to act like one, if he can't, then get the hell out of the way
wtf

so are we supposed to sit around and wait for the next situation that does not fit nicely in a box and expect the government to protect us?
maybe the next terrorist had some other kind of event or trauma in his life and reaches his boiling point and attacks God knows where next.
This is what they want.
I'm not going to be a sheep

"My understanding is that "terrorism" is a legal word and the President can't just throw it around"

OK, I made it up that liberals are permissive, yet you can claim that Obama is legally barred from saying the word "terrorism".

Remember, when you are painting inside, you need to open the windows a crack. I think you've been painting with the windows closed.

We can start with closing Mosques down, make the Muslims register (we can tattoo the #s on their arm), wear stars on their clothing. If that doesn't work we can put them in camps - might as well make them work to earn their keep.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure that they commit less violence then the jihadists, but what level does the violence have to reach bf something is done?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So then he would face punishment for using a" legal word" if it didn't meet with what
he, the law professsor, whoops LAW INSTRUCTOR, determines is??
Sounds more like he is hiding behind a word to protect his legacy like he tried with the Benghazi tape.

He just said today it could be. You're just looking for gripes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You said there are legal ramifications for his using the word "terrorism" loosely. Please explain, or kindly admit you made it up in a desperate attempt, once again, to make the guy look brilliant.

He says it "might be terrorism, it might be workplace violence". Atta boy, Columbo.

Well, we tried electing a guy who thought he could fix the problem by being softer with them. IT'S NOT WORKING. So what would you do?

For starters, it's time to take the gloves all the way off in dealing with the people we know are involved. Make waterboarding look like an invitation to a noon tea party. If we have to torture these people overseas, fine. But the gloves need to come off. If the last 8 years have taught sane people anything, it's that trying to be nicer, doesn't work.

We all bleed red,so suck it up,move on nothing to see here.

Unfortunately the world's problems will not be fulfilled on this site,world media or on local.


Move on....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If only we could get a handle on this global warming .....
Sorry Nebe
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What gave it away? The bomb making factory ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Making a bomb doesn't make you a terrorist. Using one or intending to use one with a specific political intent certainly could. Currently they really don't know the intent and the couple didn't leave any obvious indication of what they were trying to achieve aside from carnage.

The situation does appear to show something bad was afoot but until they have a better understanding of motive the FBI isn't going to call it terrorism and neither should POTUS.

That's what the investigators are saying. There's a line of thinking that they may not have intended to attack the party but some disagreement changed their actions. Don't know right now.

You know the Fort Hood shooting was never declared terrorism either as it didn't meet the legal standard?

How about we agree that this was a Muslim extremist hate crime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Making a bomb with the intent to use it makes you a terrorist.

They were far too geared up, prepared to do maximum damage, and setup to attack someone. So if they were going to do this and had all the training, weapons, gear, plans, as well as the scrubbing all ready to go, the "some disagreement changed their actions" to attack the party changes it from terrorism to workplace violence? How convenient.

Fort Hood had all the makings of Terrorism, the shooter claimed he was a soldier of Allah

Spence come on UUUUU know what it was an hour after......terrorism.....say it slowly take a deep breath....ter-ror-ism.....:)

I'm not willing to throw away the values that we held for almost our total existance - not torturing people.

There was a special on Showtime the other night and I wasn't really watching it but I did see many former CIA directors saying that the best way to get info. is to be bc friends w/the prisoner.

These people will strap bombs onto their own family members. They have a different set of values then you and I and the rest of the civilize world. By the way that's why they were former CIA directors .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm laughing at the first part of the sentence and I'm in tears at the hypocracy of the second part.
Do you honestly not see how he jumps to judgment ,in a political way , at every turn ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"That's what the investigators are saying"

Who, exactly? Please tell me who said that there are legal ramifications for the President throwing that word around.

Spence, we can debate about when it's appropriate to concluder that it was terrorism., But I don't believe for a second, that there are laws that would prevent him from saying "this looks lik eIslamic terrorism". But, you have prroven me wrong a few times, mybe this is another example.

"You know the Fort Hood shooting was never declared terrorism either as it didn't meet the legal standard"

What 'legal standard'?

I notice that your hero Obama doesn't mind spouting off half-assed, when he says that the Cambridge acted stupidly, or that if he had a son, he'd look like whoever it was. Obama's caution about not putting his goot in his mouth, seems quite selective, does it not?

The Fort Hood shooter had a card in his wallet that identified him as a "Soldier Of Allah". He was screaming "Allahu Akhbar" as he killed Americans. He was a terrorist. Only someone with a real political axe to grind, would debate that.

"I'm not willing to throw away the values that we held for almost our total existance "

If you are a liberal, I think that pretty much means you are quite willing to do exacvtly that, but only on issues that serve your agenda I guess. How else do you explain sanctuary cities? How do you explain trampling on the religious freedom of those who oppose gay marriage?

"I did see many former CIA directors saying that the best way to get info. is to be bc friends w/the prisoner"

No one is saying that soft interrogation never works. Nor would any sane person claim that torture always produces actionable intelligence. But are you really going to deny that some terrorists might not voluntarily divulge useful information, but they might do it if tortured? Isn't that common sense? There are former CIA dirctors who sai dthat waterboarding produced some valuable intelligence that had not been obtained by making nice with them.

In the 'ticking time bomb' scenario, it would be immoral not to do whatever it takes to save innocent lives. It would be immoral not to do it.

We are dealing with an unprecedented threat here. This couple dropped off their baby just before doing this for God's sake. They hate us, far more than they love their own children.

What would you do? Keep digging graves until they run out of bullets?

Correct. Did Spence critcize Obama when he said, wihtout knowing all the facts, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly? That was just more brilliance by Obama I guess. I am just not sophisticated enough to see it.

Just remember. Those were peaceful Muslims. We should blame the "long guns". Ban them all! But this wasn't terrorism. Don't buy into the hype. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They are looking for a video to blame this on because you know, we don't want to jump to conclusions . I understand the political ramifications for the president to call something terrorism that happens on his watch, but really I don't give a #^&#^&#^&#^& about him .Politics have no business in this. Our lives matter
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim they did intend to strike the party.....the wife had pleged her allegiance to ISIS on facebook

Is this confirmed ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R.
Any doubt ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device