Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism

[Rinata]

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

OMG, you guys want to hang something on him so badly!!! It's really pathetic.

 

[manu1959]

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

OMG, you guys want to hang something on him so badly!!! It's really pathetic.

nope....just pointing some things....really no differnt than you not wanting him to be responsible for anything.......

there is the he can only do wrong crowd.....and the he can do no worng crowd....

then there is the waht is he doing and why is he doing that crowd....

how about this....name a mistake he has made.....or soemthing he is doing that you disagree with....

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm convinced he should be shot in his face, preferably in public.

As a general rule I don't advocate the death penalty - but in this case, it wouldn't bother me a bit.

 

[manu1959]

I consider The D.C. Snipers Terrorist. How about You?

Don't know....what is the difference between a terrorist and a serial killer or mass murderer?

What if the person is psychotic?

why they kill and who they kill.....

why did the dude target unarmed american military.....

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I consider The D.C. Snipers Terrorist. How about You?

Don't know....what is the difference between a terrorist and a serial killer or mass murderer?

What if the person is psychotic?

Not too much after the Patriot Act redefined domestic terrorism.

 

[xotoxi]

Here's my take:

The guy is a muslim. He killed a bunch of people.

Whether his killing of a bunch of people was specifically linked to his muslimness, or more specifically to an organized terrorist group, remains to be seen.

Regardless, his actions do not make me feel that we need to ban all muslims from the military. I also think that we should be racially profiling muslims or any specific group.

On the otherhand, we also need to be a bit more vigilant and encourage reporting any activity that is considered suspicious, which apparently was not done in this situation in the name of being "politically correct" and "promoting diversity". Not reporting and investigating concerning activity of an individual is "politically stupid".

When it comes to the military, each and every person in the military should have a full background check and should have intermittent monitoring while they are enlisted. I don't support monitoring civilians, however the military is a captive audience and all of the people in the military should be the best of the best.

 

[Charles Stucker]

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

Officer in the military = Court Martial
A Court Martial can give capital punishment.
This should be open and shut, the case could be decided and the execution carried out before Thanksgiving.

But to be fair, he was just a poor Islamic worshiper trying to do his best for his faith. Why should we martyr him?
Right, because he's just another disgrace to the uniform.

 

[Rinata]

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.

Bill O' Reilly has decided it is an act of terrorism. And he is one of the people that the right wing adores. His opinion becomes theirs. They certainly never use critical thinking skills to come to any conclusions.

People choose to use words incorrectly every day - for a bunch of different reasons.

Isn't that the truth!!! Bill O' Reilly has decided this was terrorism and that's that!!! He's been at it all week.

He spent an entire segment trying to force Sally Quinn to call it a terrorist act. She would not do it, and said it was complicated. Then at the very end of the segment Billy finally got her to say it was a terrorist act. But it looked like she was just trying to shut him up.

Ralph Nader was also on his show to discuss his new book. Bill asked Nader about the Fort Hood shooting, he wanted to know if Nader would call it terrorism. Nader said he will not call it a terrorist act, he called it a massacre, and said he will let the military decide what it is. Then Nader told O'Reilly he was not invited on to talk about terrorism. O'Reilly would not let it go, and kept talking about the Fort Hood shooting, even though Nader said he was not invited on to talk about it. Bill said Nader was dodging the issue, then repeated that statement 2 or 3 times trying to force Nader to answer him, and Nader got a little mad. Then he brought up how O'Reilly was wrong about Iraq, and that led to thousands of innocent people getting killed, so Bill admitted he was wrong and changed the subject real fast, then he told Nader to go ahead and talk about his book.

Damn!!! He is relentless. What a jerk. No wonder Keith Olbermann calls him Billo The Clown.

But the stupidest thing he said was to Alan Colmes. When Holmes questioned him about whether or not his opinion that it was terrorism is correct, Bill said that he CAN decide it was terrorism because he has the highest rated show. What????

 

[Coyote]

Here's my take:

The guy is a muslim. He killed a bunch of people.

Whether his killing of a bunch of people was specifically linked to his muslimness, or more specifically to an organized terrorist group, remains to be seen.

Regardless, his actions do not make me feel that we need to ban all muslims from the military. I also think that we should be racially profiling muslims or any specific group.

On the otherhand, we also need to be a bit more vigilant and encourage reporting any activity that is considered suspicious, which apparently was not done in this situation in the name of being "politically correct" and "promoting diversity". Not reporting and investigating concerning activity of an individual is "politically stupid".

When it comes to the military, each and every person in the military should have a full background check and should have intermittent monitoring while they are enlisted. I don't support monitoring civilians, however the military is a captive audience and all of the people in the military should be the best of the best.

I agree. I think there also needs to be a speedier process to release them from service if there are serious mental illness issues.

 

[Rinata]

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

OMG, you guys want to hang something on him so badly!!! It's really pathetic.

nope....just pointing some things....really no differnt than you not wanting him to be responsible for anything.......

there is the he can only do wrong crowd.....and the he can do no worng crowd....

then there is the waht is he doing and why is he doing that crowd....

how about this....name a mistake he has made.....or soemthing he is doing that you disagree with....

Although I do have criticisms, this is the last place I would voice them. And this crap about libs thinking Obama is perfect, is just more crap. That's what Bush supporters did, and then projected that onto us.

And I'll keep repeating this until you people get it. At least we gave Bush a chance. We did not make the first months of his presidency a nightmare. And the left totally supported him after the terrorist attack on 9/11.

Why don't you answer something?? If 9/11 had happened on Obama's watch, would he have gotten the same support from the right?? Hell no!!! And I firmly believe that.

 

[Coyote]

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

OMG, you guys want to hang something on him so badly!!! It's really pathetic.

It really is pathetic - all the more since doesn't solve the problem of why they couldn't get rid of this guy when they first had concerns about him.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Document or retract.

 

[Intense]

OMG, you guys want to hang something on him so badly!!! It's really pathetic.

nope....just pointing some things....really no differnt than you not wanting him to be responsible for anything.......

there is the he can only do wrong crowd.....and the he can do no worng crowd....

then there is the waht is he doing and why is he doing that crowd....

how about this....name a mistake he has made.....or soemthing he is doing that you disagree with....

Although I do have criticisms, this is the last place I would voice them. And this crap about libs thinking Obama is perfect, is just more crap. That's what Bush supporters did, and then projected that onto us.

And I'll keep repeating this until you people get it. At least we gave Bush a chance. We did not make the first months of his presidency a nightmare. And the left totally supported him after the terrorist attack on 9/11.

Why don't you answer something?? If 9/11 had happened on Obama's watch, would he have gotten the same support from the right?? Hell no!!! And I firmly believe that.

Most on the Left refused to recognize Him as President. 9/11 gave Him a short lived time out.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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!

You have shown not to recognize that MSM does not include talk radio.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The Media denies it was Terrorism because that's what their White House Talking Points ordered them to say. My God,why can't more people understand that this White House controls most of the MSM? His lackeys are actually out there openly boasting about this all the time. Unfortunately most of the MSM only reports what they are ordered to report at this point. It's getting harder and harder to find credible news sources. Just assume you're being lied to by the MSM and you really will have a better chance of seeing the truth. If most of the MSM is claiming that it wasn't Terrorism,then just go ahead and assume it was. They are mere White House Talking Point parrots at this point. Pretty sad stuff.

 

[Intense]

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

OMG, you guys want to hang something on him so badly!!! It's really pathetic.

It really is pathetic - all the more since doesn't solve the problem of why they couldn't get rid of this guy when they first had concerns about him.

I'd just like to see Him spend as much energy on making decisions as He does on avoiding them. We are set up for another 3 years of Him Voting Present? How about putting out some Fires, without Bankrupting Us.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.'

So that's the best excuse that you have to offer for trying to blame obama for this massacre?? Oh and another funny thing is that in all of your spin based response I don't see an answer to the question that I asked concerning your "theory" based accusation. Instead you present spin and BS avoiding substantiating YOUR own claims by hiding behind what you claim has been discussed in other threads. I wonder why??

Fact is that you presented an unsubstantiated OPINION based on the OPINIONS of dick morris and calling it a theory as you try to spin this and blame obama doesn't make it valid. If you were as smart as you pretend to be you would have known that already.

 

[Coyote]

I consider The D.C. Snipers Terrorist. How about You?

Don't know....what is the difference between a terrorist and a serial killer or mass murderer?

What if the person is psychotic?

Not too much after the Patriot Act redefined domestic terrorism.

What bothers me about labeling anything "terrorism" is that it is a very loose definition often made for the political convenience - even more so after the Patriot Act redefined it.

Based on that definition (as the ACLU interprets it):
A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

Anything could be regarded as terrorism...whether it's a solitary lunatic with a chip on his shoulder, such as the VA Tech shooter or the Unibomber or an extremist member of activist group such as the killer of Dr. Tiller or an animal rights group destroying research facilities or even groups egaged in civil disobedience.

But, by labeling this guy an "anti-Islamic extremist terrorist" they are might be missing the boat by not addressing mental illness as the primary motivation and finding a way to identify it as well as extremism and finding away to cut through red tape to get it out of the military with out making it an attack on a faith.

 

[Coyote]

OMG, you guys want to hang something on him so badly!!! It's really pathetic.

It really is pathetic - all the more since doesn't solve the problem of why they couldn't get rid of this guy when they first had concerns about him.

I'd just like to see Him spend as much energy on making decisions as He does on avoiding them. We are set up for another 3 years of Him Voting Present? How about putting out some Fires, without Bankrupting Us.

I don't think he's avoiding decisions so much as weighing them. There's a very real lesson to be learned from Vietnam here and the fact that the elections did not produce a legitimate government raises serious concerns about our mission there and what it should be.

I was from the beginning supportive of the mission in Afghanistan (though not Iraq) and of the concept of "nation building" but now, I really don't know....and for the first time I'm thinking maybe we should limit the mission to rooting out Al Queda. Corruption in a culture like Afghanistan is so engrained it's the way things get done. We're not going to get rid of it by walking in and saying "you've got to get rid of it". I think there's a certain arrogance and naivety in that. As a country Afghanistan is going to have to decide what it wants and we will have to let them without propping up one side or the other. I think we should just plan on making it hard for Al Queda and other extremist terrorist groups to set up a base and leave it at that.

Hell if I know....I've been rethinking Afghanistan without coming up with any real decision except - no foreigner has ever conquored Afghanistan or controlled with any form of central government.

 

[Xenophon]

A lot of silly bastards are again making the rounds in this thread i see.

Maj Jihadi committed an act of TERRORISM, no matter how much you want it not to be:

•S: (n) terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)

WordNet Search - 3.0

So can we stop the Clintonain bullshit of trying to say what 'is' is?