Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism

[nodoginnafight]

Had it been a suicide bomb instead of guns, would there be any debate over whether it was a terrorist act?

Nope there would still be no debate - it STILL would not be an act of terrorism. It doesn't fit the definition because of the targets - the METHOD doesn't mean squat in terms of defining it as an act of terrorism.

You can try to ignore the definition and proclaim "I am right" until you are blue in the face. THAT doesn't make you correct in labeling this an act of terrorism either.

What the guy did (allegedy) was a deplorable, reprehensible act that (IMHO) deserves the most severe punishment we can dish out.

But it wasn't an act of terrorism - even if the guy turns out to be a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, that doesn't change the definition. THIS was not an act of terrorism.

 

[kwc57]

We tend to throw around the word terrorist and terrorism a little to freely these days the same way we do hero. The defintion of terrorism is, "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes". Is this what Hasan did? Not really.

 

[nodoginnafight]

We tend to throw around the word terrorist and terrorism a little to freely these days the same way we do hero. The defintion of terrorism is, "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes". Is this what Hasan did? Not really.

Actually - you can argue that he did those things in a way that fit the term as you define it. But the definition of terrorism under U.S. Law states that to qualify as an act of terrorism is has to be committed against non-combatant targets. Like it or not, U.S. Military and contractors on a U.S. Military Base do not qualify as "non-combatant targets."

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"60% Want Fort Hood Shooting Investigated as Terrorist Act"
60% Want Fort Hood Shooting Investigated as Terrorist Act - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[nodoginnafight]

Public opinion doesn't change the definition under U.S. Law either.

I might even join in that group that thinks we are entitled to TREAT it as such if it is proven that he was some sort of sleeper agent for Al Qaeda.

But my preferences, your preferences, nor the preferences of 60% of the people Rassmussen talked to changes the definition under U.S. Law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Utter nonsense.

Maybe the media is just following the dictates of the rightwing earlier this year when it insisted we not jump to conclusions that the killing of the abortion doctor was terrorism.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

You can try to ignore the definition and proclaim "I am right" until you are blue in the face. THAT doesn't make you correct in labeling this an act of terrorism either.

I haven't made any proclamations or affixed any labels. Please find where I did and quote it for us all.

YOU however, are.

 

[Polk]

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.

I'd agree to that.

 

[California Girl]

so now what ??? send him to Gitmo???

Nah, just shoot the SOB. Or would that be a waste of resources?

if he goes in front of a liberal judge case dismissed

Not if it's a military court.

 

[nodoginnafight]

You can try to ignore the definition and proclaim "I am right" until you are blue in the face. THAT doesn't make you correct in labeling this an act of terrorism either.

I haven't made any proclamations or affixed any labels. Please find where I did and quote it for us all.

YOU however, are.

I think I used the incorrect term - when I said "YOU" can try to ......
I meant it in the sense that "ONE can try to"
I didn't intend to refer to you personally about that point. I intended to refer to your post when I pointed out that the METHOD is not what defines the act as a terrorist but the TARGET defines it (or fails to define it) as a terrorist act.

My most humble apologies for not making that more clear and for besmirching your character with my muddy post.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Nah, just shoot the SOB. Or would that be a waste of resources?

if he goes in front of a liberal judge case dismissed

Not if it's a military court.

and what would happen if it was a liberal judge on a military court?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I don't think this guy can expect any form of leniency from ANY American.

 

[PoliticalChic]

so now what ??? send him to Gitmo???

Nah, just shoot the SOB. Or would that be a waste of resources?

He is an American citizen and deserves his day in court.

If found guilty.

I would support the death sentence.

There hasn't been a military execution since 1961, though five men sit on the military's death row at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.
When President George W. Bush signed Ronald Gray's execution order in July 2008, it was the first time a president had done so in 51 years.
In 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower approved the execution of John Bennett, an Army private convicted of raping and attempting to kill an 11-year-old Austrian girl; Bennett was hanged in 1961.
Federal civilian executions also are rare:

Three men, including Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, have been killed by lethal injection in federal cases since 2001.
Death penalties carried out by states are more common -- Tuesday night's execution of John Allen Muhammad in the Washington, D.C., sniper case was Virginia's second of the year.
Experts in the military justice system said the decision to prosecute Hasan in military court appears clear cut: The shootings took place on an Army base. The suspect is an Army officer and all but one of those killed also were officers or enlisted personnel. The other person who was killed worked at Fort Hood.

Authorities would have had more reason to take the case to federal court if they had found evidence Hasan acted with the support or training of a terrorist group, but investigators believe he acted alone, without outside direction.

Source: Mark Sherman, "Death penalty rare, executions rarer in military," Associated Press/Yahoo.com, November 11, 2009.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

You can try to ignore the definition and proclaim "I am right" until you are blue in the face. THAT doesn't make you correct in labeling this an act of terrorism either.

I haven't made any proclamations or affixed any labels. Please find where I did and quote it for us all.

YOU however, are.

I think I used the incorrect term - when I said "YOU" can try to ......
I meant it in the sense that "ONE can try to"
I didn't intend to reffer to you personally about that point. I intended to refer to your posts when I pointed out that the METHOD is not what defines the act as a terrorist but the TARGET defines it (or fails to define it) as a terrorist act.

My most humble apologies for not making that more clear.

The problem becomes, if we are to use the very strict definition, it's hard to call any act an act of terrorism.

The jury is still out on whether it was or wasn't. And I am withholding my own judgement until all the facts are in. I won't call it terrorism, nor will I call it not, and nor will I under any circumstances at all be blaming the President no matter what else we find out. Even though Hassan himself reportedly told people he waited to see if Obama pulled the troops out, then when it was apparent he wasn't going to do so, became more incensed.

And this is the crux of the issue -- it's becoming apparent that whether news reporters, networks or pundits call this terrorism or not depends on their political worldview. And that's probably true of internet message board posters and bloggers as well.

Hell, even if the dude SAYS it was, and this is backed by the finding of a manifesto saying it was, and if it's proven that he was told to do so, encouraged to do so, or even influenced to do so by AQ, the Taliban, Hamas or any other terrorist organization, there will still be some people denying it was a terrorist act. We have to accept that reality.

And that's what you're seeing me do here. I'm pretty non-partisan, therefore politics isn't my motivation here. My motivation is answers. The facts. The truth.

And we don't have those yet.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Had it been a suicide bomb instead of guns, would there be any debate over whether it was a terrorist act?

Nope there would still be no debate - it STILL would not be an act of terrorism. It doesn't fit the definition because of the targets - the METHOD doesn't mean squat in terms of defining it as an act of terrorism.

You can try to ignore the definition and proclaim "I am right" until you are blue in the face. THAT doesn't make you correct in labeling this an act of terrorism either.

What the guy did (allegedy) was a deplorable, reprehensible act that (IMHO) deserves the most severe punishment we can dish out.

But it wasn't an act of terrorism - even if the guy turns out to be a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, that doesn't change the definition. THIS was not an act of terrorism.

So....what terrorist group did Tim McVeigh belong to?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Nah, just shoot the SOB. Or would that be a waste of resources?

He is an American citizen and deserves his day in court.

If found guilty.

I would support the death sentence.

There hasn't been a military execution since 1961, though five men sit on the military's death row at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.
When President George W. Bush signed Ronald Gray's execution order in July 2008, it was the first time a president had done so in 51 years.
In 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower approved the execution of John Bennett, an Army private convicted of raping and attempting to kill an 11-year-old Austrian girl; Bennett was hanged in 1961.
Federal civilian executions also are rare:

Three men, including Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, have been killed by lethal injection in federal cases since 2001.
Death penalties carried out by states are more common -- Tuesday night's execution of John Allen Muhammad in the Washington, D.C., sniper case was Virginia's second of the year.
Experts in the military justice system said the decision to prosecute Hasan in military court appears clear cut: The shootings took place on an Army base. The suspect is an Army officer and all but one of those killed also were officers or enlisted personnel. The other person who was killed worked at Fort Hood.

Authorities would have had more reason to take the case to federal court if they had found evidence Hasan acted with the support or training of a terrorist group, but investigators believe he acted alone, without outside direction.

Source: Mark Sherman, "Death penalty rare, executions rarer in military," Associated Press/Yahoo.com, November 11, 2009.

This is one of those rare cases in which even I could support a death sentence and actually carrying out that sentence.

Good points about the differences between what he might expect in a civilian court (especially in Texas where they are not too bashful about carrying out a death sentence) and a military court.

BTW - on a personal note - I know many here disagree with me about whether or not the term "terrorism" is appropriate in this case. But not a single one of you tried to twist my position into me having sympathy for this (alleged) scumbag.

That kind of thing happens a lot on these boards and I really appreciate you all not going there. Thanks.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Had it been a suicide bomb instead of guns, would there be any debate over whether it was a terrorist act?

Nope there would still be no debate - it STILL would not be an act of terrorism. It doesn't fit the definition because of the targets - the METHOD doesn't mean squat in terms of defining it as an act of terrorism.

You can try to ignore the definition and proclaim "I am right" until you are blue in the face. THAT doesn't make you correct in labeling this an act of terrorism either.

What the guy did (allegedy) was a deplorable, reprehensible act that (IMHO) deserves the most severe punishment we can dish out.

But it wasn't an act of terrorism - even if the guy turns out to be a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, that doesn't change the definition. THIS was not an act of terrorism.

So....what terrorist group did Tim McVeigh belong to?

An act of terrorism doesn't require that the person belong to ANY organization. A lone wolf CAN be a terrorist if the act(s) he commits conform to the definition of terrorism.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Today's MSM can only be referred to as the Obama-Run Media at this point. They simply receive their White House Talking Points and do what they're told. No wonder he refers to Fox News as "Not real News",they're the only ones in the MSM who actually question this Administration's actions. So they have to try and discredit them for this. Most of the Media just keeps spinning that this cretin simply had PTSD and had absolutely nothing to do with Islamic Terrorism. Fortunately most are not buying that B.S. and that has to anger this President. In my opinion it's actually most of the MSM that no longer has any credibility and Fox News may be the only Media Outlet left with at least some credibility. Hey just my take anyway.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The problem becomes, if we are to use the very strict definition, it's hard to call any act an act of terrorism.

The jury is still out on whether it was or wasn't. And I am withholding my own judgement until all the facts are in.

Well about the only facts that could come in that would qualify this as an act of terrorism would be if we found out that he killed a lot of civilians before he got to the base.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The problem becomes, if we are to use the very strict definition, it's hard to call any act an act of terrorism.

The jury is still out on whether it was or wasn't. And I am withholding my own judgement until all the facts are in.

Well about the only facts that could come in that would qualify this as an act of terrorism would be if we found out that he killed a lot of civilians before he got to the base.

Really?

So then, the attacks on our armed services cannot be acts of terrorism? Not the Cole? Not Khobar Towers? Not any attack on our armed forces that didn't also involve mass murder of civilians?

See the problem yet?