The three headed dragon against Obama

[Ckmlb1]

badgenome said:

Ckmlb1 said:

http://youtu.be/ZSEM2rYjHcI

He specifically mentions that last night there was an attack in Benghazi and then talks about American freedom is contingent on the sacrifices of people like those that died followed by an act of terror won't change the US. Why would he still be referring to the original 9/11 right after mentioning the new attack and those that died? 

And then he follows it up with justice will be done for this act and that their deaths are in stark contrast to the attackers and that their death stood for liberty. 

It could be that he was. It's just not particularly clear to me. I agree that whether it's a mob angered by a video or a designated terrorist group, such an act of murder could still technically be called a terrorist attack. So I'm not particularly concerned with what words he used and whether or not he called it "terrorism" but with the misleading about the video and the way we were all allowed to think it was just a protest that had turned violent. Did they just not want to use the words "al-Qaeda" because it was politically problematic, or what?

If I was going to speculate it might have a lot to do with the definition of terrorism when it comes to media narrative. I think an angry mob attacking civilians with weapons for a political or religious reason is terrorism, but some people are satisfied with limiting the definition of terrorism to specific kinds of attacks like trained gunmen, bombers and so on belonging to organized terrorist groups. Usually being non-state actors or backed by states but not being military personnel. 

'An act of terror' sounds like terrorism to me, but maybe some people think a 'terrorist attack' means something else? Linguistically they're the same thing. So it might be after saying 'act of terror' the first two days, the administration thought they shouldn't use that language until they knew specifically which terrorist group did what? I can only speculate that they did this while waiting to be 100% sure what happened. 

So by being extra cautious after the first two days of the attack and not using the word terror for a few days to avoid making claims without evidence and sounding incompetent, they ironically sounded incompetent and confused. To me this is bad media management, not a cover up. 

If the definition of terrorism was 'any act of violence against unarmed civilians for political/or religious reasons' then none of the semantics conflict would come up.