Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,898
60,271
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
Let me share with my fellow board members a theory that helps us explain all of the administration and MSM proclamations that...
1. Major Hasan was just a ‘nut,’ and his actions were not related to Islamofascist terrorism
2. We should wait until ‘all the evidence is in’…
3. Better we take a pass on identifying Major Hasan’s motivations than risk losing ‘diversity’
4. It's all those right-wingers...

Here is the real skinny’
1. Anyone who hasn’t lived in a distant cave for the last decade knows that this was an act of Islamo-fascist terrorism
2. We had to rely on the British press to find out Major Hasans outbursts and links to terrorists.
3. Red-flags as to the dangers posed by this individual were buried based on a fear of being painted with the red letter “R” for racist.

Here is Dick Morris’ analysis, one which ties together both sets of bullet-points:

A major criticism of both Candidate Obama and of President Obama was that his attitude and actions with respect to protecting this country form Moslem terrorism was both the laxity and use of the power of government to investigate and restrict, vis-à-vis the Bush Administration.
1. Close Gitmo
2. Make nice with captured terrorists
3. Pressure interrogators to restrict investigations
4. Create the atmosphere that makes citizens reluctant to question any 'strange' activities

Many said we would suffer the effects of this ‘new’ attitude, and that if there were to be acts of terrorism, they would be the responsibility of President Obama..

Now we see the big push by the administration and the media to shield the President by announcing that this was surely not terrorism: anything but.

It's your call.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much agree with that.

I do think we should wait until all the evidence is known, however, a couple of things are now clear:

1. He's guilty.
2. His faith played some part in his ramage.

However, I also think this man is basically a coward who seemed only to have an issue with the Military when he was told to deploy.

I want to see more information about who knew what about this guy and when they knew it before I rush to condemn the Army, the FBI or anyone else. However, on the evidence as it stands, it appears that political correctness and fear of being labeled a racist or Islamophobe played some part in preventing this horrific incident. To me, if that is shown to be fact, that is outrageous.
 
Let me share with my fellow board members a theory that helps us explain all of the administration and MSM proclamations that...
1. Major Hasan was just a ‘nut,’ and his actions were not related to Islamofascist terrorism
2. We should wait until ‘all the evidence is in’…
3. Better we take a pass on identifying Major Hasan’s motivations than risk losing ‘diversity’
4. It's all those right-wingers...

Here is the real skinny’
1. Anyone who hasn’t lived in a distant cave for the last decade knows that this was an act of Islamo-fascist terrorism
2. We had to rely on the British press to find out Major Hasans outbursts and links to terrorists.
3. Red-flags as to the dangers posed by this individual were buried based on a fear of being painted with the red letter “R” for racist.

Here is Dick Morris’ analysis, one which ties together both sets of bullet-points:

A major criticism of both Candidate Obama and of President Obama was that his attitude and actions with respect to protecting this country form Moslem terrorism was both the laxity and use of the power of government to investigate and restrict, vis-à-vis the Bush Administration.
1. Close Gitmo
2. Make nice with captured terrorists
3. Pressure interrogators to restrict investigations
4. Create the atmosphere that makes citizens reluctant to question any 'strange' activities

Many said we would suffer the effects of this ‘new’ attitude, and that if there were to be acts of terrorism, they would be the responsibility of President Obama..

Now we see the big push by the administration and the media to shield the President by announcing that this was surely not terrorism: anything but.

It's your call.


LOL It's funny how you end your spin and propaganda with "it's your call" when you had already prepped your counter insult and attack if the reader didn't agree with your spin. oh and since you went there when were "red flags" discovered and who buried them??

The sad thing is that you are trying to spin this that the administration and media are out to "shield" the president while you are apparently out to blame him based on your spin from dick morris when you have presented no factual evidence to support your OPINIONS.
 
Last edited:
Going on a shooting rampage and killing/maiming people IS terrorism. Just like it is when somebody goes postal at work or at school. People commit terroristic acts because they feel impotent against the system. They want to get noticed, or suicide themselves or go to jail.

Hasan is not going to Afghanistan now. He's a sick unit, regardless of his religious leanings.

As always, we have this wacky thing called due process. Motive isn't essential to the process however, so we may never know what flipped his switch. I'm sure his lawyers will keep him from saying anything except in the court martial. Until then, you can stop holding your breath.
 
Gotta luv ya Cali. My sentiments exacty.
This guy was in contact with a jihadist in Yemen. Sure the weather wasn't under discussion. He is an American born Muslim and his faith obviously meant more to him than his country or fellow soldiers. I will be interested to see what else investigation will reveal. Was he a nut job? Don't really care. Actions speak louder than words and his actions were those of a terrorist. Hope he burns in hell along with the rest of the terrorists.
 
I'm not yet a subscriber to the "Islamo-Terrorist" theory. Nor will I at any point be blaming the President for the massacre. I blame the alleged shooter. The "alleged" shooter because, no matter what else happens, he is innocent until proven guilty and has the same rights no matter what he's accused of doing.

All of that said, I want to see a full Congressional investigation, a complete accounting of who knew what, when and what they did/didn't do about it and why. I want this guy's activities investigated and brought out into the open.

Until then, I draw no conclusions.
 
Let me share with my fellow board members a theory that helps us explain all of the administration and MSM proclamations that...
1. Major Hasan was just a ‘nut,’ and his actions were not related to Islamofascist terrorism
2. We should wait until ‘all the evidence is in’…
3. Better we take a pass on identifying Major Hasan’s motivations than risk losing ‘diversity’
4. It's all those right-wingers...

Here is the real skinny’
1. Anyone who hasn’t lived in a distant cave for the last decade knows that this was an act of Islamo-fascist terrorism
2. We had to rely on the British press to find out Major Hasans outbursts and links to terrorists.
3. Red-flags as to the dangers posed by this individual were buried based on a fear of being painted with the red letter “R” for racist.

Here is Dick Morris’ analysis, one which ties together both sets of bullet-points:

A major criticism of both Candidate Obama and of President Obama was that his attitude and actions with respect to protecting this country form Moslem terrorism was both the laxity and use of the power of government to investigate and restrict, vis-à-vis the Bush Administration.
1. Close Gitmo
2. Make nice with captured terrorists
3. Pressure interrogators to restrict investigations
4. Create the atmosphere that makes citizens reluctant to question any 'strange' activities

Many said we would suffer the effects of this ‘new’ attitude, and that if there were to be acts of terrorism, they would be the responsibility of President Obama..

Now we see the big push by the administration and the media to shield the President by announcing that this was surely not terrorism: anything but.

It's your call.


LOL It's funny how you end your spin and propaganda with "it's your call" when you had already prepped your counter insult and attack if the reader didn't agree with your spin. oh and since you went there when were "red flags" discovered and who buried them??

The sad thing is that you are trying to spin this that the administration and media are out to "shield" the president while you are apparently out to blame him based on your spin from dick morris when you have presented no factual evidence to support your OPINIONS.

Wow, you are quick!

In no time at all you read the post, analyzed the language, put two and two together...and almost figured out what I said!

Did you miss "... a theory that helps us explain all of the administration and MSM proclamations that..."?

Next time bust out that dust covered Collegiate Dictionary and check out the meaning of 'theory."
See, it's a theory, one which connects many of the events in recent days, 'theory'- that's why "It's your call." Duh.

Now, here is another of your problems: "when were "red flags" discovered and who buried them?"

An understanding of this OP requires that one that one was immersed in the series of events, and followed the myriad posts outlining the statements of fellow students in medical school about outburst by the Major, the FBI's admission that they knew he tried to contact Al Qaeda, his PowerPoint presentation about Islam, Muslims, and the military, etc.

See, these are 'Red Flags.'

"...you are trying to spin this that the administration and media are out to "shield" the president..."
Wrong. I am clearly stating a persuasive theory, and if you had the intellect, you would parry my thrust by outlining a counter-theory that would connect the dots, i.e. all of the MSM coming up with the same concept, as an alternative.

Instead, you are reduced to something along the lines of 'you meany, you just don't like the President..."

So, you blew it. Today could have been your annual 'smart day.'
 
The question everyone should ask themselves and honestly answer is:

Had it been a suicide bomb instead of guns, would there be any debate over whether it was a terrorist act?
 
What if a white separatist went on a shooting rampage at a military base?

Do you think the media and the Army would say, "Hey, let's not jump to any conclusions here. This guy was just a little crazy. Diversity means including everyone, even white separatists."
 
1. Anyone who hasn’t lived in a distant cave for the last decade knows that this was an act of Islamo-fascist terrorism

Not correct.

The guy is (upon conviction) a scumbag, mass murderer but in THIS instance he did not commit an act of terrorism. Even if he was a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, THIS act was not an act of terrorism.
By definition.

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
U.S. Law Definition of Terrorism

Folks who try to label everyone they disagree with a "terrorist" and any act that they find repugnant as "terrorism" are trying to gin up hatred by association.

There's no need.

What this guy did (allegedly) is deplorable enough without trying to enhance the outrage with silly, inaccurate associations.

I really hate to dispel the ol' "it's the media's fault" stand-by complaint but I would have to suggest that the reason the media is not calling it terrorism is because THEY know what the term really means and don't throw it around as indiscriminately as some other folks.
 
Last edited:
1. Anyone who hasn’t lived in a distant cave for the last decade knows that this was an act of Islamo-fascist terrorism
Not correct.

The guy is (upon conviction) a scumbag, mass murderer but in THIS instance he did not committ an act of terrorism. Even if he was a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, THIS act was not an act of terrorism.
By definition.

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
U.S. Law Definition of Terrorism

Folks who try to label everyone they disagree with a "terrorist" and any act that they find repugnant as "terrorism" are trying to gin up hatred by association.

There's no need.

What this guy did (allegedly) is deplorable enough without trying to enhance the outrage with silly, inaccurate associations.
Had it been a suicide bomb instead of guns, would there be any debate over whether it was a terrorist act?
 
1. Anyone who hasn’t lived in a distant cave for the last decade knows that this was an act of Islamo-fascist terrorism

Not correct.

The guy is (upon conviction) a scumbag, mass murderer but in THIS instance he did not commit an act of terrorism. Even if he was a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, THIS act was not an act of terrorism.
By definition.bullshit

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
U.S. Law Definition of Terrorism

Folks who try to label everyone they disagree with a "terrorist" and any act that they find repugnant as "terrorism" are trying to gin up hatred by association.

There's no need.

What this guy did (allegedly) is deplorable enough without trying to enhance the outrage with silly, inaccurate associations.

I really hate to dispel the ol' "it's the media's fault" stand-by complaint but I would have to suggest that the reason the media is not calling it terrorism is because THEY know what the term really means and don't throw it around as indiscriminately as some other folks.

it was terrorist jihad waged against the American soldier. It's perhaps the third suck attacks. Others were planned and stopped. It was terrorist in the name of islam plain and simple.
 
1. Anyone who hasn’t lived in a distant cave for the last decade knows that this was an act of Islamo-fascist terrorism

Not correct.

The guy is (upon conviction) a scumbag, mass murderer but in THIS instance he did not commit an act of terrorism. Even if he was a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, THIS act was not an act of terrorism.
By definition.bullshit

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
U.S. Law Definition of Terrorism

Folks who try to label everyone they disagree with a "terrorist" and any act that they find repugnant as "terrorism" are trying to gin up hatred by association.

There's no need.

What this guy did (allegedly) is deplorable enough without trying to enhance the outrage with silly, inaccurate associations.

I really hate to dispel the ol' "it's the media's fault" stand-by complaint but I would have to suggest that the reason the media is not calling it terrorism is because THEY know what the term really means and don't throw it around as indiscriminately as some other folks.

it was terrorist jihad waged against the American soldier. It's perhaps the third such attack. Others were planned and stopped. It was terrorist in the name of islam plain and simple.
 

Forum List

Back
Top