Please explain this to me, because no one ever has
How exactly does saying the attackers had a particular motivation do anything whatsoever to neutralize allegations of a weak and vulnerable response? If the response was in fact somehow inadequate, what on earth does the motivation for the attack have to do with that? Why would the administration's response vary depending on the motives, and why would they believe that saying it was incited by a video would shield them from criticism about the effectiveness of the response? It. Makes. No. Sense. [Post edited by SixerHoo at 05/20/2016 3:30PM]
|
(
In response to this post by Hoos Operator)
Posted: 05/20/2016 at 3:25PM