Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism

[saveliberty]

The media needs to get past this defend Obama at all costs view. I frankly do not see how it is the President's role to review the mental condition of every soldier. It doesn't sound like he was made aware of Col. Hasan as a threat ever.

By denying it as terror, it slows the efforts to define new policies and procedures which can help this from happening again. An isolated incident mentality may lead to another attack. I would like to see Obama push for these changes. Proactive management please.

The media denied it was a terrorist event, because Obama asked them to look at it that way. Now that position is a problem. Here is the criticism that Mr. Obama owns.

 

[G.T.]

The media needs to get past this defend Obama at all costs view. I frankly do not see how it is the President's role to review the mental condition of every soldier. It doesn't sound like he was made aware of Col. Hasan as a threat ever.

By denying it as terror, it slows the efforts to define new policies and procedures which can help this from happening again. An isolated incident mentality may lead to another attack. I would like to see Obama push for these changes. Proactive management please.

The media denied it was a terrorist event, because Obama asked them to look at it that way. Now that position is a problem. Here is the criticism that Mr. Obama owns.

I don't know that you'd take different measures to prevent this from happening in the future based on what it's labeled as, is my only thing with this post.

The Media, like you and I, don't have enough information to label it as such. I also think that it was "wise words" to say to wait for all of the evidence, in order to draw conclusions.

 

[G.T.]

All of this has been covered in this thread.

Have you read it completely, or do you arrive in the middle of a film and demand that it be started over for you?

I haven't seen a post justifying it as a criticism on Obama, or a post on how you can determine what to label this as, without all of the evidence.

Much like your movie analogy: do you watch 1/2 a movie, and then go write a synopsis for it?

 

[Oldandtired]

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.

If he strapped a bomb to his chest and screamed allah akbar and killed 13 people in Israel, would you say he is a distrubed man or a terrorist?

Curious....without any proof other than the obvious, the 9-11 atacks were referred to by ALL as terrorist attacks...within 2 hours of the attacks.

Why is this any different?

 

[manu1959]

The media needs to get past this defend Obama at all costs view. I frankly do not see how it is the President's role to review the mental condition of every soldier. It doesn't sound like he was made aware of Col. Hasan as a threat ever.

By denying it as terror, it slows the efforts to define new policies and procedures which can help this from happening again. An isolated incident mentality may lead to another attack. I would like to see Obama push for these changes. Proactive management please.

The media denied it was a terrorist event, because Obama asked them to look at it that way. Now that position is a problem. Here is the criticism that Mr. Obama owns.

I don't know that you'd take different measures to prevent this from happening in the future based on what it's labeled as, is my only thing with this post.

The Media, like you and I, don't have enough information to label it as such. I also think that it was "wise words" to say to wait for all of the evidence, in order to draw conclusions.

he is in charge he gets the blame......end of discussion.....a military man shoot and killed and wounded other military personel ....shoot him at dawn for treason....

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Well, in My mind, the only reason that the SR-MSM does not call this an act of terrorism is due to the fact that the Republicans can then point out that this is the first terrorist on American soil since 9/11.

They could rightly claim that Bush kept us safe and Obama, one year in, has not.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Damn...here you are using big words again....I took that 10 minute online IQ test and while I refuse to divulge the results it indicates itty bitty words and a dictionary would be wise...

Ok....

Seriously then. I had not heard "syncretic" before thus looked it up. I'm assuming you are meaning it in the sense of "...tendency for a language to reduce its use of inflections"?

When I read an opinion piece there are certain ways of saying things and the use of certain words or terms that tend to be both inflammatory and sloppy and they raise redflags in my mind like hackles on my neck (for example the tendancy to throw around terms like Islamofascist).

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.

True...but, opinions can be either well supported or....moon battie. Not all opinions are equal.

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?

Opinions given as a declarative or offering a "theory" (such as "... a theory that helps us explain all of the administration and MSM proclamations that...") can indeed by parried by rules of logic and factual evidence. How else can opinions be properly defended, expounded upon or dismantled? If you provide an opinion, be prepared to defend it and defend it with facts....or some approximation thereof

Let's assume you have merely misunderstood.

Let's start from the beginning and make NO assumptions. That way no one will be dissapointed....

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.

You're going too far too fast in your review. Who are "all"? Keep in mind....news organizations are held to a higher standard of accountability than talk show hosts who have the legal right to lie in the name of giving an "opinion"....right?

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

This is starting to sound sinister. Are you suggesting a vast leftwing media-run conspiracy to subvert truth?

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

Point 3 is weak. You are assuming that the media, rather than acting like a loosely organized murder of crows each with an eye out for a juicy exclusive hinting at scandal that he can cache for himself...is instead a smoothly run and well controlled pack of hounds. You underestimate the prevelance of tabloid taint in today's media.

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

Indeed....despite the bizarre coincidence of an Islamic nutcase with a history of psychiatric problems going postal....I'm inclined to agree. Correlation does not equal causation.

5. I am not naive.

This is my thesis.

Care to comment?

When are you serving the pizza?

 

[G.T.]

he is in charge he gets the blame......end of discussion.....a military man shoot and killed and wounded other military personel ....shoot him at dawn for treason....

Those rules don't apply to me, sorry. I don't blame Bush for 9/11. I don't blame Obama for this attack. I think it's unjustified blame. Anybody can leave their home right now and Mass-Murder, Terrorize, etc. and then blaming "whoever's in charge" would sound nice but wouldn't be right, just IMO.

I say shoot this man in his face, in public, regarding proper punishment though.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The MSM no longer has any real credibility. Most of the MSM has become the Obama-Run Media at this point. They simply receive their White House Talking Points and do what they're told. We have witnessed the death of credible Journalism under this President. There are credible Media Outlets out there but they are getting harder and harder to find. At this point it would be wise to just take what most of the MSM is reporting and then believe the opposite. For instance,if most of the MSM is saying this wasn't Terrorism then just go ahead and assume that it was. Just go the opposite of what they're claiming and you will most likely see the truth. This is very sad but it is what it is in the end.

 

[Coyote]

The MSM no longer has any real credibility. Most of the MSM has become the Obama-Run Media at this point.

What is MSM..... If MSM is what the majority of people watch and if the claim is true that Fox has the most listeners then Fox is MSM and ......Obama runs Fox.....and.....


you're full of sheepshit

They simply receive their White House Talking Points and do what they're told. We have witnessed the death of credible Journalism under this President.

You off on your history - go back a decade to see the true and ongoing demise of credible journalism.

There are credible Media Outlets out there but they are getting harder and harder to find.

Despite popular opinion, WND and PrisonPlanet are not credible Media Outlets.

At this point it would be wise to just take what most of the MSM is reporting and then believe the opposite. For instance,if most of the MSM is saying this wasn't Terrorism then just go ahead and assume that it was. Just go the opposite of what they're claiming and you will most likely see the truth. This is very sad but it is what it is in the end.

If I hit rewind will you just keep saying the same stuff over and over....or does that happen anyway

 

[Oldandtired]

he is in charge he gets the blame......end of discussion.....a military man shoot and killed and wounded other military personel ....shoot him at dawn for treason....

Those rules don't apply to me, sorry. I don't blame Bush for 9/11. I don't blame Obama for this attack. I think it's unjustified blame. Anybody can leave their home right now and Mass-Murder, Terrorize, etc. and then blaming "whoever's in charge" would sound nice but wouldn't be right, just IMO.

I say shoot this man in his face, in public, regarding proper punishment though.

I do not necessarily disagree with what you say.

However, for years we have been hearing that Bush is not reponsible for our not getting attacked....as we would not have been attacked anyway.

And now.....9 months in, a major multi terrorist big city attack was averted and one was unfortunately not averted at Fort Hood.

Obamas fault? Maybe not. Bush responsible for NO attacks on his watch since 9-11? Looking likely.

Maybe strong rhetoric IS a deterrant....and weak rhetoric opens the floodgates?

Possible you know.

 

[Oldandtired]

The MSM no longer has any real credibility. Most of the MSM has become the Obama-Run Media at this point.

What is MSM..... If MSM is what the majority of people watch and if the claim is true that Fox has the most listeners then Fox is MSM and ......Obama runs Fox.....and.....


you're full of sheepshit

They simply receive their White House Talking Points and do what they're told. We have witnessed the death of credible Journalism under this President.

You off on your history - go back a decade to see the true and ongoing demise of credible journalism.

There are credible Media Outlets out there but they are getting harder and harder to find.

Despite popular opinion, WND and PrisonPlanet are not credible Media Outlets.

At this point it would be wise to just take what most of the MSM is reporting and then believe the opposite. For instance,if most of the MSM is saying this wasn't Terrorism then just go ahead and assume that it was. Just go the opposite of what they're claiming and you will most likely see the truth. This is very sad but it is what it is in the end.

If I hit rewind will you just keep saying the same stuff over and over....or does that happen anyway

SPin Coyote.

MSM refers to the 3 major networks...always has and always will.

 

[G.T.]

he is in charge he gets the blame......end of discussion.....a military man shoot and killed and wounded other military personel ....shoot him at dawn for treason....

Those rules don't apply to me, sorry. I don't blame Bush for 9/11. I don't blame Obama for this attack. I think it's unjustified blame. Anybody can leave their home right now and Mass-Murder, Terrorize, etc. and then blaming "whoever's in charge" would sound nice but wouldn't be right, just IMO.

I say shoot this man in his face, in public, regarding proper punishment though.

I do not necessarily disagree with what you say.

However, for years we have been hearing that Bush is not reponsible for our not getting attacked....as we would not have been attacked anyway.

And now.....9 months in, a major multi terrorist big city attack was averted and one was unfortunately not averted at Fort Hood.

Obamas fault? Maybe not. Bush responsible for NO attacks on his watch since 9-11? Looking likely.

Maybe strong rhetoric IS a deterrant....and weak rhetoric opens the floodgates?

Possible you know.

Naw, I don't think something as simple as how "tough" you decipher our Pres. is, personally, is a deciding factor for one to go on a *suicidal* shooting spree. That doesn't marry with my logic but I respect your opinion, good sir.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Just take what the Obama-Run MSM says with a grain of salt. Just believe the opposite of what they report and that is where you will most likely find the truth. If they're saying it wasn't Islamic Terrorism then you can bet it was. Just take my advice on interpreting the MSM's Bull Chit and you should be ok. Now they're saying the Recession is over and everything is just great. So how should you interpret that one? Just try my advice and you'll know the truth on that too. Real Journalism died the day this President took office.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Pretty funny - lot of blather but STILL NO explaination as to how this act fits the legal defition of terrorism and STILL NO explaination for why it was wrong for Obama to jump to a conclusion in one case and to NOT jump to a conclusion in another one.

Lot of attempted diversion - lot of mean-spirited empty whining - lot of big words used with little demonstrated comprehension as to what they mean - but STILL NO real explainations.

 

[Coyote]

The MSM no longer has any real credibility. Most of the MSM has become the Obama-Run Media at this point.

What is MSM..... If MSM is what the majority of people watch and if the claim is true that Fox has the most listeners then Fox is MSM and ......Obama runs Fox.....and.....


you're full of sheepshit




You off on your history - go back a decade to see the true and ongoing demise of credible journalism.



Despite popular opinion, WND and PrisonPlanet are not credible Media Outlets.

At this point it would be wise to just take what most of the MSM is reporting and then believe the opposite. For instance,if most of the MSM is saying this wasn't Terrorism then just go ahead and assume that it was. Just go the opposite of what they're claiming and you will most likely see the truth. This is very sad but it is what it is in the end.

If I hit rewind will you just keep saying the same stuff over and over....or does that happen anyway

SPin Coyote.

MSM refers to the 3 major networks...always has and always will.

Why? If many other sources (like Cable) fit the definition of MSM....well - if it quacks like a duck...and walks like a duck....it ain't no frog.

Unfortunately I am heading out shortly to go to a stockdog trial with my dog to see if he will gather the sheep or bust the sheep (while giving me his sheepshit-ain't-I-having-fun grin) - at best it will be test of ovine faith and canine work ethic.

 

[Oldandtired]

Those rules don't apply to me, sorry. I don't blame Bush for 9/11. I don't blame Obama for this attack. I think it's unjustified blame. Anybody can leave their home right now and Mass-Murder, Terrorize, etc. and then blaming "whoever's in charge" would sound nice but wouldn't be right, just IMO.

I say shoot this man in his face, in public, regarding proper punishment though.

I do not necessarily disagree with what you say.

However, for years we have been hearing that Bush is not reponsible for our not getting attacked....as we would not have been attacked anyway.

And now.....9 months in, a major multi terrorist big city attack was averted and one was unfortunately not averted at Fort Hood.

Obamas fault? Maybe not. Bush responsible for NO attacks on his watch since 9-11? Looking likely.

Maybe strong rhetoric IS a deterrant....and weak rhetoric opens the floodgates?

Possible you know.

Naw, I don't think something as simple as how "tough" you decipher our Pres. is, personally, is a deciding factor for one to go on a *suicidal* shooting spree. That doesn't marry with my logic but I respect your opinion, good sir.

ANd I respect yours...and pray yours is correct.

 

[Oldandtired]

What is MSM..... If MSM is what the majority of people watch and if the claim is true that Fox has the most listeners then Fox is MSM and ......Obama runs Fox.....and.....


you're full of sheepshit




You off on your history - go back a decade to see the true and ongoing demise of credible journalism.



Despite popular opinion, WND and PrisonPlanet are not credible Media Outlets.



If I hit rewind will you just keep saying the same stuff over and over....or does that happen anyway

SPin Coyote.

MSM refers to the 3 major networks...always has and always will.

Why? If many other sources (like Cable) fit the definition of MSM....well - if it quacks like a duck...and walks like a duck....it ain't no frog.

Unfortunately I am heading out shortly to go to a stockdog trial with my dog to see if he will gather the sheep or bust the sheep (while giving me his sheepshit-ain't-I-having-fun grin) - at best it will be test of ovine faith and canine work ethic.

As for MSM....just saying what it is....for good or bad...MSM refers to the big 3

Have fun out there!

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
"...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.

Well, let me AGAIN quote YOU from you original post:

"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."

So why don't you explain to me the difference between 'announcing this was surely not terrorism' and 'outright denying it was terrorism'.

This should be entertaining.

Oh, not to mention the small matter of your thread title, which claims that the media DENIES it was terrorism...

To announce:
1.To make known publicly.
2.To proclaim the presence or arrival of: announce a caller.
3.To provide an indication of beforehand; foretell: The invention of the microchip announced a new generation of computers.

Surely even you understand that proclaiming the motivation was stress, insanity, etc. etc. was an attempt to hide the real motive.

I'll ask for the 3rd time.

Which media outlets DENIED, outright, that it was terrorism, as was your claim?

Which media outlets ANNOUNCED that it was SURELY not terrorism?

Provide the quotes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
"...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.

Well, let me AGAIN quote YOU from you original post:

"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."

So why don't you explain to me the difference between 'announcing this was surely not terrorism' and 'outright denying it was terrorism'.

This should be entertaining.

Oh, not to mention the small matter of your thread title, which claims that the media DENIES it was terrorism...

To announce:
1.To make known publicly.
2.To proclaim the presence or arrival of: announce a caller.
3.To provide an indication of beforehand; foretell: The invention of the microchip announced a new generation of computers.

Surely even you understand that proclaiming the motivation was stress, insanity, etc. etc. was an attempt to hide the real motive.

So you've decided to go with

they announced it as surely terrorism (your original claim) by NOT announcing that it was surely terrorism? lol, good one.

Which reinforces my point that this is a strawman argument, i.e., an argument against something that was NOT said because it's an easier argument than to argue against what WAS said.

Classic rightwing propaganda.