Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism

[Oldandtired]

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.

Wow....that is a spin to the nth degree.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Can you cite the cases of the 'MSM' proclaiming that it was NOT Islamic terrorism?

 

[Oldandtired]

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.

Can you cite the cases of the 'MSM' proclaiming that it was NOT Islamic terrorism?

145 MSM reports on the incident and only 28 of them mentioned anything about muslim or islam...and 14 of those references mentioned in a positive light of Islam.

It is not what is said, but how it is said and the spirit of how it is said.

One can say "I love you" and it can be properly taken as "I do not love you"

I.E....."I love you and your evil way you make me feel like a piece of shit"

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The MSM really is pretty easy to figure out once you've heard enough of their Bull Chit over many years. The MSM is now the Obama-Run Media. There are a few exceptions out there though. It's up to you to find them. "This wasn't an act of Islamic Terrorism and the Recession is over and everything is just great." Yes just believe the opposite of their spin and you will then see real truth. So far my simple rules of interpreting the Obama-Run Media spin has proven to be pretty accurate. Just take em with a grain of salt and buck their White House spin. It works for me anyway.

 

[kwc57]

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.

Hello? Anthrax!

 

[Oldandtired]

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.

Hello? Anthrax!

Terrorism from a non Muslim radical....terrorism, yes. But so was the DC sniper.

Different topic...different issue....different ideology...different enemy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

What is the basis for your inordinate fear that President Obama share the criticism with those whose job it was to protect the nation by focusing on the 'red flags?'

Are you denying that the political landscape has changed since the Bush Administration in terms of attention to, specifically, Islamo-fascist threats?

Are you not seeing that the threat hovering over career FBI and CIA, etc., is due to the attitues of the Obama-Holder Axis?

ACLU has pictures of interrogators, Obama releases interrogation info, Holder threatens CIA investigations, Pelosi says CIA lied to her...

What is the effect that these measures have on our safety, and how are they related to the Ft. Hood massacre.

While you may claim not to see the connection, the MSM sees it, and that is the point of the OP.

Think hard.

There's always aspirin.

 

[kwc57]

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.

Hello? Anthrax!

Terrorism from a non Muslim radical....terrorism, yes. But so was the DC sniper.

Different topic...different issue....different ideology...different enemy.

So let me get this straight...........the only terrorism that qualifies is Radical Islamic terrorism? Move the goal post much?

 

[G.T.]

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.

What is the basis for your inordinate fear that President Obama share the criticism with those whose job it was to protect the nation by focusing on the 'red flags?'

Are you denying that the political landscape has changed since the Bush Administration in terms of attention to, specifically, Islamo-fascist threats?

Are you not seeing that the threat hovering over career FBI and CIA, etc., is due to the attitues of the Obama-Holder Axis?

ACLU has pictures of interrogators, Obama releases interrogation info, Holder threatens CIA investigations, Pelosi says CIA lied to her...

What is the effect that these measures have on our safety, and how are they related to the Ft. Hood massacre.

While you may claim not to see the connection, the MSM sees it, and that is the point of the OP.

Think hard.

There's always aspirin.

More political bias swaying your judgement. This man's "red flags" started popping up under the former Administration, not this one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

What is the basis for your inordinate fear that President Obama share the criticism with those whose job it was to protect the nation by focusing on the 'red flags?'

Are you denying that the political landscape has changed since the Bush Administration in terms of attention to, specifically, Islamo-fascist threats?

Are you not seeing that the threat hovering over career FBI and CIA, etc., is due to the attitues of the Obama-Holder Axis?

ACLU has pictures of interrogators, Obama releases interrogation info, Holder threatens CIA investigations, Pelosi says CIA lied to her...

What is the effect that these measures have on our safety, and how are they related to the Ft. Hood massacre.

While you may claim not to see the connection, the MSM sees it, and that is the point of the OP.

Think hard.

There's always aspirin.

The OP has no point because it's based on fiction.

Try the question for the fourth time.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Just like when the MSM reports that their President has "Saved" thousands of jobs. You should simply think the opposite of that B.S. and you will then have the truth. When they report the Unemployment number at 10.2% you should just assume that number to be bogus and double that number to more like 20%. So you can still find the truth in spite of the Obama-Run MSM's lies. Just follow my simple rules of interpreting the Obama-Run MSM spin and you should be ok. Good luck.

 

[Oldandtired]

Hello? Anthrax!

Terrorism from a non Muslim radical....terrorism, yes. But so was the DC sniper.

Different topic...different issue....different ideology...different enemy.

So let me get this straight...........the only terrorism that qualifies is Radical Islamic terrorism? Move the goal post much?

No....I am saying it is a different enemy.....

Why must you simply spin and not engage in an honest denate?

I know why....you have nothing of value to add...so simply spin what is said so you can have some sort of response.

 

[Article 15]

Just like when the MSM reports that their President has "Saved" thousands of jobs. You should simply think the opposite of that B.S. and you will then have the truth. When they report the Unemployment number at 10.2% you should just assume that number to be bogus and double that number to more like 20%. So you can still find the truth in spite of the Obama-Run MSM's lies. Just follow my simple rules of interpreting the Obama-Run MSM spin and you should be ok. Good luck.

You post the same 3 or 4 posts over and over and over and over again.

 

[Luissa]

Just like when the MSM reports that their President has "Saved" thousands of jobs. You should simply think the opposite of that B.S. and you will then have the truth. When they report the Unemployment number at 10.2% you should just assume that number to be bogus and double that number to more like 20%. So you can still find the truth in spite of the Obama-Run MSM's lies. Just follow my simple rules of interpreting the Obama-Run MSM spin and you should be ok. Good luck.

You post the same 3 or 4 posts over and over and over and over again.

When you have nothing to go on, you have to keep repeating the little you know.

 

[Oldandtired]

Just like when the MSM reports that their President has "Saved" thousands of jobs. You should simply think the opposite of that B.S. and you will then have the truth. When they report the Unemployment number at 10.2% you should just assume that number to be bogus and double that number to more like 20%. So you can still find the truth in spite of the Obama-Run MSM's lies. Just follow my simple rules of interpreting the Obama-Run MSM spin and you should be ok. Good luck.

You post the same 3 or 4 posts over and over and over and over again.

When you have nothing to go on, you have to keep repeating the little you know.

Or...

When one has convictions about something, he or she feels the need to articulate it as often as possible.

Why are we consatntly ridiculing those that exercise their right to free speech?

What are we becoming?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

What is the basis for your inordinate fear that President Obama share the criticism with those whose job it was to protect the nation by focusing on the 'red flags?'

Are you denying that the political landscape has changed since the Bush Administration in terms of attention to, specifically, Islamo-fascist threats?

Are you not seeing that the threat hovering over career FBI and CIA, etc., is due to the attitues of the Obama-Holder Axis?

ACLU has pictures of interrogators, Obama releases interrogation info, Holder threatens CIA investigations, Pelosi says CIA lied to her...

What is the effect that these measures have on our safety, and how are they related to the Ft. Hood massacre.

While you may claim not to see the connection, the MSM sees it, and that is the point of the OP.

Think hard.

There's always aspirin.

The OP has no point because it's based on fiction.

Try the question for the fourth time.

I guess you're afraid to deal with the larger question.

 

[Article 15]

You post the same 3 or 4 posts over and over and over and over again.

When you have nothing to go on, you have to keep repeating the little you know.

Or...

When one has convictions about something, he or she feels the need to articulate it as often as possible.

Why are we consatntly ridiculing those that exercise their right to free speech?

What are we becoming?

Untwist your panties, dude, and stop ridiculing me for exercising my free speech right to ridicule broken records disguising themselves as Internet posters.

 

[Oldandtired]

When you have nothing to go on, you have to keep repeating the little you know.

Or...

When one has convictions about something, he or she feels the need to articulate it as often as possible.

Why are we consatntly ridiculing those that exercise their right to free speech?

What are we becoming?

Untwist your panties, dude, and stop ridiculing me for exercising my free speech right to ridicule broken records disguising themselves as Internet posters.

Yo...back off...I started my post with the word "or"...and n no way did I ridicule you...I asked why we must ridicule those that exercise their right to free speech.

I did not realize you were so soft. I apologize. I will be mnore tender with you in the future.

May not hurt to toughen up just a bit....it is a hard world out there.

Just some friendly advice....dude.

 

[Article 15]

Or...

When one has convictions about something, he or she feels the need to articulate it as often as possible.

Why are we consatntly ridiculing those that exercise their right to free speech?

What are we becoming?

Untwist your panties, dude, and stop ridiculing me for exercising my free speech right to ridicule broken records disguising themselves as Internet posters.

Yo...back off...I started my post with the word "or"...and n no way did I ridicule you...I asked why we must ridicule those that exercise their right to free speech.

I did not realize you were so soft. I apologize. I will be mnore tender with you in the future.

May not hurt to toughen up just a bit....it is a hard world out there.

Just some friendly advice....dude.

lol ... half my post was a joke

 

[Oldandtired]

Untwist your panties, dude, and stop ridiculing me for exercising my free speech right to ridicule broken records disguising themselves as Internet posters.

Yo...back off...I started my post with the word "or"...and n no way did I ridicule you...I asked why we must ridicule those that exercise their right to free speech.

I did not realize you were so soft. I apologize. I will be mnore tender with you in the future.

May not hurt to toughen up just a bit....it is a hard world out there.

Just some friendly advice....dude.

lol ... half my post was a joke

LMAO....all of mine was