So, mass shootings only happen in the USA?

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Understatement of the year, Buck.. Even this morning he said" It is POSSIBLE
that this was terrorist related. We don't know. It's possible that this was workplace related. "

Believe it or not there are sheeple who will actually believe he really doesn't know, even with all the facts that have come out in the last 24 hours. Remember the Iissis JV team is under control ?

God Bless our law enforcement officers for their outstanding work.

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.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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

[Slipknot]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

"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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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.

Originally Posted by spence

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

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

[Fly Rod]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

"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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

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

You bet I am! Any red blooded American should be with what's going on with
our people being killed and terrorized and having a CIC who seems to care more about his legacy
than the thousands of our American people who have been killed
and are being killed by terrorists.

He hesitates and almost chokes before he can even say the word terror.
Meantime instead of planning a strategy he's off in France facing the MOST
IMPORTANT,issue, Global Warming. Holy Moses, cut me one break from the clouds youguys float on. Beyond all reason and reality.

Tell me why you and the rest of the Libs aren't ticked and griping too ????