Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism

[saveliberty]

This may damage Mr. Nobel's chances of achieving world peace. Remember, in government it is the cover up that burns you, not the crime. Who knew what when?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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.

Many think this guys act conforms to an act of terrorism based on numerous examples around the world that have taken place over 50 years.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

So by your definition the 4 hijackers who attacked the Pentagon on 9/11 were justified in attacking the Pentagon because it was a "legitimate military target" and shouldn't be considered terrorists?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anyone else notice the well worn rightwing propaganda tactic of the OP?

...i.e., the false premise that 'the media' is denying this was terrorism?

Classic rightwing ploy, fabricate a premise that they want to believe is the case, and then attack it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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?

Yes, I see what you are struggling with

BY DEFINITION - if the target is a military target (and if the weapon is not civilians) then the act (though it may be deplorable) doesn't fit the definition of terrorism. The U.S. has accidentially killed civilians while attacking legitimate military targets before - that didn't make US terrorists in your eyes does it?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

So the truck bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon wasn't an act of terrorism?

 

[nodoginnafight]

So by your definition the 4 hijackers who attacked the Pentagon on 9/11 were justified in attacking the Pentagon because it was a "legitimate military target" and shouldn't be considered terrorists?

You asked me the same question on the other thread and I answered it there - but I'll repeat it here.

What qualified the attack on the Pentagon as an act of terrorism is that the weapon they used was a plane load of civilians.

 

[namvet]

again its politics. Osama does not want the term "terrorists attack" used. it reflect on him.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Anyone else notice the well worn rightwing propaganda tactic of the OP?

...i.e., the false premise that 'the media' is denying this was terrorism?

Classic rightwing ploy, fabricate a premise that they want to believe is the case, and then attack it.

Just because you lack the perception to see the veracity of the OP doesn't mean that it isn't true.

And I note "the well worn left-wing propaganda tactic of the" dolt who could not come up with an actual flaw in the OP.

To refute the OP, how about listing the MSM anchors, talking heads, etc. who propounded how this was "terrorism, clear and evident..."

Is that the sound of crickets?

 

[nodoginnafight]

So the truck bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon wasn't an act of terrorism?

Did the attack target civilians or use civilians as weapons? If it did and if all the other defining characteristics were in place, then yes, it was an act of terrorism.

If the elements that define terrorism were not all present, then no it doesn't fit the definition of terrorism. Might fit the definoition of a heinous crime, or an act of war, or any other number of other bad things that should provoke a harsh response.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Anyone else notice the well worn rightwing propaganda tactic of the OP?

...i.e., the false premise that 'the media' is denying this was terrorism?

Classic rightwing ploy, fabricate a premise that they want to believe is the case, and then attack it.

Just because you lack the perception to see the veracity of the OP doesn't mean that it isn't true.

And I note "the well worn left-wing propaganda tactic of the" dolt who could not come up with an actual flaw in the OP.

To refute the OP, how about listing the MSM anchors, talking heads, etc. who propounded how this was "terrorism, clear and evident..."

Is that the sound of crickets?

So the position of the OP is that the media should call it terrorism even though the act doesn't fit the definition?

 

[Intense]

So by your definition the 4 hijackers who attacked the Pentagon on 9/11 were justified in attacking the Pentagon because it was a "legitimate military target" and shouldn't be considered terrorists?

You asked me the same question on the other thread and I answered it there - but I'll repeat it here.

What qualified the attack on the Pentagon as an act of terrorism is that the weapon they used was a plane load of civilians.

So the Target does not make it Terrorist?
The choice of weapon was what qualified it?
Was it a Crime? Was it an Act of War?
Was the Attack in compliance with the Geneva Convention, or would it have been, if a different weapon was used?
If it was an act of War, Who is at War with us? What is This War called?
What are the terms of Victory and Surrender?

 

[manu1959]

Bottomline--he is a traitor.

Why haven't we shoot this guy yet?

aren't traitors shot at dawn.....what is taking so long....

 

[Intense]

Anyone else notice the well worn rightwing propaganda tactic of the OP?

...i.e., the false premise that 'the media' is denying this was terrorism?

Classic rightwing ploy, fabricate a premise that they want to believe is the case, and then attack it.

Just because you lack the perception to see the veracity of the OP doesn't mean that it isn't true.

And I note "the well worn left-wing propaganda tactic of the" dolt who could not come up with an actual flaw in the OP.

To refute the OP, how about listing the MSM anchors, talking heads, etc. who propounded how this was "terrorism, clear and evident..."

Is that the sound of crickets?

So the position of the OP is that the media should call it terrorism even though the act doesn't fit the definition?

So by That Reasoning... We have no President?????

 

[nodoginnafight]

So by your definition the 4 hijackers who attacked the Pentagon on 9/11 were justified in attacking the Pentagon because it was a "legitimate military target" and shouldn't be considered terrorists?

You asked me the same question on the other thread and I answered it there - but I'll repeat it here.

What qualified the attack on the Pentagon as an act of terrorism is that the weapon they used was a plane load of civilians.

So the Target does not make it Terrorist?
The choice of weapon was what qualified it?
Was it a Crime? Was it an Act of War?
Was the Attack in compliance with the Geneva Convention, or would it have been, if a different weapon was used?
If it was an act of War, Who is at War with us? What is This War called?
What are the terms of Victory and Surrender?

In this case - using civilians as the weapon does qualify it as an act of terrorism imho.

"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

You ask plenty of good questions - none of them have any effect on what does and what does not conform to the legal definition of terrorism - but they are good questions.

 

[HUGGY]

Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism


Political chickletts you are one goofy broad. I heard Limbaugh say it was terrorism and if anything he represents 90% of talk radio. AKA THE MEDIA YA dumb twat!

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Most of the MSM is not real news. It has merely become the Obama-Run Media at this point. It's all about the White House Talking Points for them. They just do what they're told at this point. If their Hopey Changey declares that "PTSD" was the cause than that's exactly what it was. You really do have go around the corrupt Liberal dominated MSM for real information. They can no longer be trusted. Just look for alternative media sources for information and think for yourself. If you do those two things,you will get honest news and information.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The reason I draw the distiction and contend that it is an important distiction is because I think the word terrorist and terrorism is often being substituted for "person or action I disagree with."

Not EVERY despicable and deplorable act is an act of terrorism.

If media outlets are noting that this act doesn't conform to the definition of terrorism then - in that at least - they are correct.

 

[manu1959]

Anyone else notice the well worn rightwing propaganda tactic of the OP?

...i.e., the false premise that 'the media' is denying this was terrorism?

Classic rightwing ploy, fabricate a premise that they want to believe is the case, and then attack it.

Just because you lack the perception to see the veracity of the OP doesn't mean that it isn't true.

And I note "the well worn left-wing propaganda tactic of the" dolt who could not come up with an actual flaw in the OP.

To refute the OP, how about listing the MSM anchors, talking heads, etc. who propounded how this was "terrorism, clear and evident..."

Is that the sound of crickets?

So the position of the OP is that the media should call it terrorism even though the act doesn't fit the definition?

so what word would you use to describe a military man of the same political and religoius leanings as the group the us is at war with shouting the battle cry of the enemy and opening fire and killing us soliders..........

 

[Rinata]

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.

\

What a total and complete bunch of crap.