Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism

[Coyote]

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?

How about to support the OP's original claim, you show us 'the media'

announcing that this was surely not terrorism: anything but.

And be sure to provide us with enough examples in the media to justify the OP's making it a broadbased generalization.

Take your time.

"...you show us 'the media.' "

By the use of the 'us,' you have identified yourself as one of the following:
1) a newspaper editor

2) royalty

3) an individual with a tapeworm

Since I doubt you are 1) or 2), my best wishes on improved health.

Yesterday's O'Reilly Factor showed a montage of seven or eight of the MSM anchors and talking heads laying the blame on everything but Islamo-fascist terrorism.

Sorry you missed it.

Bill O'Reilly is an entertainer, hardly a reputable source of accurate information - he cherry-picks his speakers in order to promote his pre-determined agenda.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Was the Virginia Tech shooter a terrorist? Did the media call his act terrorism? Why?
Which of the shooters left behind a lenghty political "manifesto"?
Are all murders commited by Muslims "terrorism"?

Most importantly, did the man's actions fit the defition of terrorism under U.S., Texas, or Military criminal code?
THOSE are the questions that must be satisfied BEFORE you start whining about what the big bad ol' "MSM" said or didn't say.

In other words, don't jump to conclusions about shit, exactly as the President had suggested not to.

Well, imho individuals are free to jump when and where they choose spurred by whatever clandestine motives they choose. Diarrhea of the mouth - happens all the time and (imho) no harm no foul.

But I would consider it a big mistake if someone in the public limelight who holds a position of respect, were to spit out a bunch of speculative crap that could promote unrealistic fear or panic.

So far, I don't that has happened as folks in these positions typically have the intelligence and integrity to respect their position and their public responsibilities.

 

[Coyote]

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?

Of course that is not the "position of the OP."

You have tried to use a definition without proper consideration of context.

It is the times we are living in and the numerous terroristic acts of the past decade or so that give context for the act.

The majority of the public see the terroristic act for what it is, and the OP lays out a method that explains why the MSM, which is also responsible for the positive coverage that Barack Obama has gotten ( "It's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg.) will not comment on it as such.

It isn't leftist propaganda to insist on adequate facts before insisting it is "terrorism" nor is it leftist propaganda to try to stick to a legal definition of "terrorism". Stating that "the majority of the public see the terroristic act for what it is" doesn't make it true. In fact, it's a logical fallacy - appeal to popularity.

The OP plays fast and loose with people's fears doesn't it? It's opinion without much fact peppered with linguistic red flags. The OP is also notable for it's contempt of "We should wait until ‘all the evidence is in’…". Anyone recall the bruhaha over Obama's infamous foot-in-the-mouth about "police acting stupidly" in the Prof. Gates situation? Yet, those same vociferous critics want to rush to the charge of "terrorism" before all the facts are in. Fortunately - unlike rightwing punditry - the military is keeping quiet about it while gathering information in order to build a case.

Whether it is terrorism (which thus far doesn't seem to fit the legal criteria) or a nut with a chip on his shoulder (and given his allegations about being mistreated for being muslim and his psychiatric history this seems possible) it represents a substantial issue for the military to deal with: how do you identify people who might erupt like this and how do you get rid of them before they do?

Given the facts we know so far - what makes Hassan different than the VA Tech shooter? Would you call both terrorism? Terrorism involves intimidating people to achieve a particular goal and in order to do that, the goal has to be known so the terrorism can be attributed to it. What was Hassan's goal? Did he state any?

What is interesting is that the main reason implied by those calling it terrorism is that Hassan was Muslim and extreme in his beliefs. That alone isn't enough to fit the criteria of "terrorism".

 

[Yukon]

Allah Akbar.......................this is the war-cry of every Muslim. ALLAH AKBAR !

 

[nodoginnafight]

Allah Akbar.......................this is the war-cry of every Muslim. ALLAH AKBAR !

And if a muslim commits murder - it's terrorism ?

 

[Yukon]

Muslimsis synonomous with murder and terrorism

 

[nodoginnafight]

Muslimsis synonomous with murder and terrorism

You are certainly entitled to hold and express that opinion.

In the United States of America people have the right of willful ignorance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Based on what?? You and the other right wing nuts on here are always making statements about what your fellow citizens know, think, support, like, and dislike. I think you should knock it off unless you're willing to provide a reliable source, which you never do.

Ah, it's the return of the Ike Snopes of the Message Board!

I wish I could say glad to see you, but I rather like dealing with a higher level debater.

And once again you have established yourself as the bottom rung on the ladder.

But- never let it be said that I don't try to help out my fellow board members:
Here, write this down-
"The most commonly prescribed medication used to treat ADHD is Ritalin (the generic form is called methylphenidate), although other stimulant medications are also used including Adderall, Dexedrine, and Cylert. Available evidence suggests that stimulants work by correcting a biochemical condition in the brain that interferes with attention and impulse control."

Now, to dispense with your bogus "You and the other right wing nuts on here are always making statements about what your fellow citizens know, think, support, like, and dislike. I think you should knock it off unless you're willing to provide a reliable source, which you never do..."

I understand your short-term-memory deprivation, but the 'reliable source' is the Rasmussen Poll that I provided in post #24 of this thread.

And the 60% referenced in the poll would explain my statement that the 'majority' agree about the Ft. Hood massacre being terrorism.

Would you like to apologize?

And as for not providing documentation, not only have I just re-identified you as a dolt, but I defy you to find any of my posts requiring documentation where I have not done so.
Otherwise you, in addition to being intellect-challenged, would be self-identified as a prevaricator.

So, will you be retrating and apologizing, or merely remain the lying fool and cow-worshiper?

Your call.

The fact that there's a "poll" over what to call this shit is dispicable, TBH. Really pathetic.

The poll is not 'what to call [it].'

A poll merely asks what the American public currently calls it.

Is it that most disagree with what seems to be your perspective that bothers you?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Anyone recall the bruhaha over Obama's infamous foot-in-the-mouth about "police acting stupidly" in the Prof. Gates situation? Yet, those same vociferous critics want to rush to the charge of "terrorism" before all the facts are in.

And concoct conspiracy theories to account for why others refuse to jump along with them.

HUGE POST! Excellent points. Points that will probably be ignored by the jumpers. No matter - the fact that they avoid it like the plague is a sure sign that they are red-faced over their inability to answer it.

Touché

 

[California Girl]

Was the Virginia Tech shooter a terrorist? Did the media call his act terrorism? Why?
Which of the shooters left behind a lenghty political "manifesto"?
Are all murders commited by Muslims "terrorism"?

Most importantly, did the man's actions fit the defition of terrorism under U.S., Texas, or Military criminal code?
THOSE are the questions that must be satisfied BEFORE you start whining about what the big bad ol' "MSM" said or didn't say.

In other words, don't jump to conclusions about shit, exactly as the President had suggested not to.

GT, please don't do that. I almost spit my coffee on my keyboard.

Are you seriously telling us that we should follow the example of POTUS..... the guy who, recently, demonstrated his complete inability not to jump to conclusions over the ProfessorGate affair? Where he expressly told the country that he 'didn't have all the facts' and then told us that the police made a mistake? Seriously....

If Obama teachs us anything it is this. 'A fool and his vote are soon parted.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

I was reading Faulkner when you were crying to your mom about your poopie pants.

Now that you have established your expertise re: Faulkner, possibly you would like to comment on my analysis of you Obama-supporters having the same attractions to our 44th President, as the less-than-perspicacious Ike Snopes has to Elsie the Cow.

And, you and Ike, with the same degree of deliberation.

All I want to see is a meaningful list of those media outlets who outright DENIED that the killer was a terrorist.
That would refute my observation that this thread is nothing more than a typical rightwing strawman ploy.

So?

"...those media outlets who outright DENIED..." This is nothing but an underhanded but transparent attempt to change the direction of the argument.

I understand that you are, in the words of the MSM re: John 'I served in VietNam' Kerry, nuance-challenged. You probably fail to not that my OP stated that the MSM refused to use the reference to terrorism, rather than "outright DENIED" same.

So let's correct your post to "...those media outlets who tried to shield President Obama's Administration by suggesting all sorts of motivations for the massacre other than terrorism..."

And that would be all of the broadcast anchors, and their allies on the cable shows.

And what will you do then?

What is the sub rosa in your post, that you will then genuflect, and kiss the hems of my garment?

No, I read your post as just one more feeble, diaphanous attempt to stem the avalance of criticism that you feel rolling down on you.

But should you distrust my word, that the O'Reilly Show presented that [although there has never been any indication that I speak aught but the truth], ask your friend Rinata, who has commented extensively on her (his?) viewing of the O'Reilly Show.


Then grovel.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Was the Virginia Tech shooter a terrorist? Did the media call his act terrorism? Why?
Which of the shooters left behind a lenghty political "manifesto"?
Are all murders commited by Muslims "terrorism"?

Most importantly, did the man's actions fit the defition of terrorism under U.S., Texas, or Military criminal code?
THOSE are the questions that must be satisfied BEFORE you start whining about what the big bad ol' "MSM" said or didn't say.

In other words, don't jump to conclusions about shit, exactly as the President had suggested not to.

GT, please don't do that. I almost spit my coffee on my keyboard.

Are you seriously telling us that we should follow the example of POTUS..... the guy who, recently, demonstrated his complete inability not to jump to conclusions over the ProfessorGate affair? Where he expressly told the country that he 'didn't have all the facts' and then told us that the police made a mistake? Seriously....

If Obama teachs us anything it is this. 'A fool and his vote are soon parted.'

Anyone recall the bruhaha over Obama's infamous foot-in-the-mouth about "police acting stupidly" in the Prof. Gates situation? Yet, those same vociferous critics want to rush to the charge of "terrorism" before all the facts are in. Fortunately - unlike rightwing punditry - the military is keeping quiet about it while gathering information in order to build a case.

please do try to keep up

 

[nodoginnafight]

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

Of course that is not the "position of the OP."

You have tried to use a definition without proper consideration of context.

It is the times we are living in and the numerous terroristic acts of the past decade or so that give context for the act.

The majority of the public see the terroristic act for what it is, and the OP lays out a method that explains why the MSM, which is also responsible for the positive coverage that Barack Obama has gotten ( "It's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg.) will not comment on it as such.

It isn't leftist propaganda to insist on adequate facts before insisting it is "terrorism" nor is it leftist propaganda to try to stick to a legal definition of "terrorism". Stating that "the majority of the public see the terroristic act for what it is" doesn't make it true. In fact, it's a logical fallacy - appeal to popularity.

The OP plays fast and loose with people's fears doesn't it? It's opinion without much fact peppered with linguistic red flags. The OP is also notable for it's contempt of "We should wait until ‘all the evidence is in’…". Anyone recall the bruhaha over Obama's infamous foot-in-the-mouth about "police acting stupidly" in the Prof. Gates situation? Yet, those same vociferous critics want to rush to the charge of "terrorism" before all the facts are in. Fortunately - unlike rightwing punditry - the military is keeping quiet about it while gathering information in order to build a case.

Whether it is terrorism (which thus far doesn't seem to fit the legal criteria) or a nut with a chip on his shoulder (and given his allegations about being mistreated for being muslim and his psychiatric history this seems possible) it represents a substantial issue for the military to deal with: how do you identify people who might erupt like this and how do you get rid of them before they do?

Given the facts we know so far - what makes Hassan different than the VA Tech shooter? Would you call both terrorism? Terrorism involves intimidating people to achieve a particular goal and in order to do that, the goal has to be known so the terrorism can be attributed to it. What was Hassan's goal? Did he state any?

What is interesting is that the main reason implied by those calling it terrorism is that Hassan was Muslim and extreme in his beliefs. That alone isn't enough to fit the criteria of "terrorism".

The absolute avoidance of these terrific points is DEAFENING!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Coyote]

Was the Virginia Tech shooter a terrorist? Did the media call his act terrorism? Why?
Which of the shooters left behind a lenghty political "manifesto"?
Are all murders commited by Muslims "terrorism"?

Most importantly, did the man's actions fit the defition of terrorism under U.S., Texas, or Military criminal code?
THOSE are the questions that must be satisfied BEFORE you start whining about what the big bad ol' "MSM" said or didn't say.

In other words, don't jump to conclusions about shit, exactly as the President had suggested not to.

GT, please don't do that. I almost spit my coffee on my keyboard.

Are you seriously telling us that we should follow the example of POTUS..... the guy who, recently, demonstrated his complete inability not to jump to conclusions over the ProfessorGate affair? Where he expressly told the country that he 'didn't have all the facts' and then told us that the police made a mistake? Seriously....

If Obama teachs us anything it is this. 'A fool and his vote are soon parted.'

Perhaps Obama learned from that gaffe. It certainly sounds like it. I prefer a president who is willing to learn from error rather than obstinantly stay the course. It also sounds like those on the right are unwilling to give him any credit for learning.

It almost seems nonsensical the way they are so eager to ding everything and anything about Obama rather than look at it logically. Not much different then the way the right were towards Bush.

Sad commentary on the bitter and dishonest partisanship in American politics.

 

[G.T.]

The poll is not 'what to call [it].'

A poll merely asks what the American public currently calls it.

Is it that most disagree with what seems to be your perspective that bothers you?

Where would that disagreement lie? I don't call it terrorism or not terrorism, I'm a realist and reality says: we don't know all of the facts.

It's also inane to me, I don't feel some incessant need to place a label on it. I do think that it's a sensitive issue and should be handled as such, because I have loved ones in harm's way and if we call it Terrorism simply because a "Muslim murdered," and that stereotyping subsequently emboldens more violence, then that's a shame from all angles. I think the President handled it properly.

 

[G.T.]

GT, please don't do that. I almost spit my coffee on my keyboard.

Are you seriously telling us that we should follow the example of POTUS..... the guy who, recently, demonstrated his complete inability not to jump to conclusions over the ProfessorGate affair? Where he expressly told the country that he 'didn't have all the facts' and then told us that the police made a mistake? Seriously....

If Obama teachs us anything it is this. 'A fool and his vote are soon parted.'

In this case, yes. In all cases, no. You have adult judgement hopefully for when to follow certain examples.

 

[Coyote]

Of course that is not the "position of the OP."

You have tried to use a definition without proper consideration of context.

It is the times we are living in and the numerous terroristic acts of the past decade or so that give context for the act.

The majority of the public see the terroristic act for what it is, and the OP lays out a method that explains why the MSM, which is also responsible for the positive coverage that Barack Obama has gotten ( "It's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg.) will not comment on it as such.

It isn't leftist propaganda to insist on adequate facts before insisting it is "terrorism" nor is it leftist propaganda to try to stick to a legal definition of "terrorism". Stating that "the majority of the public see the terroristic act for what it is" doesn't make it true. In fact, it's a logical fallacy - appeal to popularity.

The OP plays fast and loose with people's fears doesn't it? It's opinion without much fact peppered with linguistic red flags. The OP is also notable for it's contempt of "We should wait until ‘all the evidence is in’…". Anyone recall the bruhaha over Obama's infamous foot-in-the-mouth about "police acting stupidly" in the Prof. Gates situation? Yet, those same vociferous critics want to rush to the charge of "terrorism" before all the facts are in. Fortunately - unlike rightwing punditry - the military is keeping quiet about it while gathering information in order to build a case.

Whether it is terrorism (which thus far doesn't seem to fit the legal criteria) or a nut with a chip on his shoulder (and given his allegations about being mistreated for being muslim and his psychiatric history this seems possible) it represents a substantial issue for the military to deal with: how do you identify people who might erupt like this and how do you get rid of them before they do?

Given the facts we know so far - what makes Hassan different than the VA Tech shooter? Would you call both terrorism? Terrorism involves intimidating people to achieve a particular goal and in order to do that, the goal has to be known so the terrorism can be attributed to it. What was Hassan's goal? Did he state any?

What is interesting is that the main reason implied by those calling it terrorism is that Hassan was Muslim and extreme in his beliefs. That alone isn't enough to fit the criteria of "terrorism".

The absolute avoidance of these terrific points is DEAFENING!!!!!!!!!!!!

Crickets chirping...?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Jump to a conclusion - get criticized.
Avoid jumping to a conclusion - get criticized by the SAME PEOPLE.

Pretty much sums it up. You jumped on a hypocritical bandwagon chic and you got burned.

Better luck next time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Of course that is not the "position of the OP."

You have tried to use a definition without proper consideration of context.

It is the times we are living in and the numerous terroristic acts of the past decade or so that give context for the act.

The majority of the public see the terroristic act for what it is, and the OP lays out a method that explains why the MSM, which is also responsible for the positive coverage that Barack Obama has gotten ( "It's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg.) will not comment on it as such.

It isn't leftist propaganda to insist on adequate facts before insisting it is "terrorism" nor is it leftist propaganda to try to stick to a legal definition of "terrorism". Stating that "the majority of the public see the terroristic act for what it is" doesn't make it true. In fact, it's a logical fallacy - appeal to popularity.

The OP plays fast and loose with people's fears doesn't it? It's opinion without much fact peppered with linguistic red flags. The OP is also notable for it's contempt of "We should wait until ‘all the evidence is in’…". Anyone recall the bruhaha over Obama's infamous foot-in-the-mouth about "police acting stupidly" in the Prof. Gates situation? Yet, those same vociferous critics want to rush to the charge of "terrorism" before all the facts are in. Fortunately - unlike rightwing punditry - the military is keeping quiet about it while gathering information in order to build a case.

Whether it is terrorism (which thus far doesn't seem to fit the legal criteria) or a nut with a chip on his shoulder (and given his allegations about being mistreated for being muslim and his psychiatric history this seems possible) it represents a substantial issue for the military to deal with: how do you identify people who might erupt like this and how do you get rid of them before they do?

Given the facts we know so far - what makes Hassan different than the VA Tech shooter? Would you call both terrorism? Terrorism involves intimidating people to achieve a particular goal and in order to do that, the goal has to be known so the terrorism can be attributed to it. What was Hassan's goal? Did he state any?

What is interesting is that the main reason implied by those calling it terrorism is that Hassan was Muslim and extreme in his beliefs. That alone isn't enough to fit the criteria of "terrorism".

I kinda' like the tone and tenor of your post.

But, you are conflating things that should not be conflated. In short your post is syncretic in that you are demanding a far more stringent basis for 'opinion' than is required.

An opinion is a belief that cannot be proved with evidence. It is a subjective statement and may be the result of an emotion or an interpretation of facts; people may draw opposing opinions from the same facts.

If I were to suggest that you were being devious, I would see your argument as an attempt to parry my 'theory' using parliamentary rules. Such rules are in no way related to expressions of opinon. Clear?

Let's assume you have merely misunderstood.

To review:
1. The MSM, who still think they can determine total analysis of events, ignoring the impact of the internet and talk radio, all just happen to pose explantions for Major Hasan's massacre as the results of him being a 'nut,' or the result of some imaginary combat-related stress.

2. The same MSM folks were the ones who gave overwhelming support to the candidacy of the pretender who we now call POTUS.

3. Continued support requires shielding President Obama from any taint that would fall on him if this attack were to be labeled 'terror-related.'

4. Explanations base on 'coincidence' are often the last bastion of the naive.

5. I am not naive.

This is my thesis.

Care to comment?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Jump to a conclusion - get criticized.
Avoid jumping to a conclusion - get criticized by the SAME PEOPLE.

Pretty much sums it up. You jumped on a hypocritical bandwagon chic and you got burned.

Better luck next time.

Neurotics build castles in the sky.

Psychotics live in 'em.

Psychiatrists collect the rent.


How's your decorating comin' along?


Every day more and more are admitting the provenance of the massacre.

Even Sally Quinn had to admit it was a form of terrorism. And check out the cover story in Time Magazine.

The only ones left are you and Hiroo Onoda( go ahead, google it).