Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism

[LibocalypseNow]

The opposite of the Truth is a Lie. So here's a hint for ya...Today's Obama-Run Mainstream Media is not telling the Truth. You do the Math on that.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

I guess that means it's gonna take at least five .......

 

[kwc57]

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.

You obviously have not read the entire thread. As I said earlier, words have meaning and they matter. We don't get to redefine them to fit our agenda. The word terrorism gets thrown around far too much just like the word hero. So much so that people no longer understand it's true meaning. 9/11 was a classic example of an act of terrorism. It was an act of violence against a civilian poulation for the purpose of creating fear and intimidation for political purposes. The shithole/nutcase Hasan is a mass murderer who massacred his fellow soldiers which isn't all that different from the Columbine shitholes/nutcases. They terrified people, but the definition of terrorism goes beyond just terrifying people.

 

[L.K.Eder]

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?

whining pearlclutchers, in your case.

 

[Yukon]

The opposite of the Truth is a Lie. So here's a hint for ya...Today's Obama-Run Mainstream Media is not telling the Truth. You do the Math on that.

....close but not on-the-button. The opposite of truth is Conservative...aka GOP.

 

[Rinata]

I just don't understand why calling this a terrorist attack is so important to some people. There was one AMERICAN shooter. But because he is a muslim, it's looked upon as a chance to pin the deed on Obama. If this had happened under GWB, I guarantee that the question would never even have been raised about what to call this tragedy.

And then the right wing figures it might as well go ahead and blame all American muslims. Did you know that Debbie Schlussel, for example, urged readers to think of the shooter "whenever you hear about how Muslims serve their country in the U.S. military."

Maybe we should just round them up and put them in camps like we did the Japanese during the second world war. That worked out really well.

It doesn't matter what this shooting is called. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

 

[Intense]

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?

I still see the DC Snipers as Terrorist. There was a Gas tank Depot on Staten Island that blew up soon after 911. Quirky shit around the country. Eyes open Mouth shut.

 

[Intense]

The opposite of the Truth is a Lie. So here's a hint for ya...Today's Obama-Run Mainstream Media is not telling the Truth. You do the Math on that.

....close but not on-the-button. The opposite of truth is Conservative...aka GOP.

Yukon, I thought Canada was the 51st State already. What is holding You Girls up? Urine Test? I.Q. tests are really low I hear. What is that thing on your ... Oh I'm sorry .. That was your face... forgive me.

 

[AllieBaba]

I just don't understand why calling this a terrorist attack is so important to some people. There was one AMERICAN shooter. But because he is a muslim, it's looked upon as a chance to pin the deed on Obama. If this had happened under GWB, I guarantee that the question would never even have been raised about what to call this tragedy.

And then the right wing figures it might as well go ahead and blame all American muslims. Did you know that Debbie Schlussel, for example, urged readers to think of the shooter "whenever you hear about how Muslims serve their country in the U.S. military."

Maybe we should just round them up and put them in camps like we did the Japanese during the second world war. That worked out really well.

It doesn't matter what this shooting is called. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Yes. And that rose is terrorism. Jihad.

He wasn't just a Muslim. He was a Muslim who loudly protested the war against jihadists. He was a Muslim who refused to fight against fellow muslims. He was a muslim who sought out advice from a virulent anti-American Imam, and who loudly proclaimed that those who die to further jihad should not be called suicide bombers but HEROES.

Why the reluctance on the side of the left to call this rose a ******* rose? A daisy it ain't.

The reason it's important is because if you continue to refuse to connect the dots, we will continue to have these assholes targeting us at our most vulnerable. Because the assholes in the FBI and Army were so ******* concerned they'd be accused of being biased against this pig, despite the fact that they KNEW he was a danger and a jihadist, 13 people are dead and dozens more wounded. Our enemies are laughing at us and at our soldiers. They are re-energizing their attacks against us, particuarly given the fact that Obama has made it perfectly clear he doesn't give a shit how many of our people are killed in Afghanistan. Or anywhere, as far as that goes.

That's why it's important to ******* identify these pricks and take them out. Do you also think we should call horses goats, and people monkeys? Why is it so important? Are you ******* high? It's important because we can't protect ourselves and our loved ones if we aren't willing to identify and deal with the very real threat. If you refuse to identify it, you can't deal with it, and you leave people unprotected and give free rein to these nutbags who already think we're retarded because we pretend they don't exist.

 

[Intense]

I just don't understand why calling this a terrorist attack is so important to some people. There was one AMERICAN shooter. But because he is a muslim, it's looked upon as a chance to pin the deed on Obama. If this had happened under GWB, I guarantee that the question would never even have been raised about what to call this tragedy.

And then the right wing figures it might as well go ahead and blame all American muslims. Did you know that Debbie Schlussel, for example, urged readers to think of the shooter "whenever you hear about how Muslims serve their country in the U.S. military."

Maybe we should just round them up and put them in camps like we did the Japanese during the second world war. That worked out really well.

It doesn't matter what this shooting is called. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

I believe that it is important to be accurate, truthful, concise. There is a problem with Islam. Extreme Islam results in Totalitarian Rule and Mass Murder. The more You deny that, the more You delude Yourself and Your Followers. There were aspects of Judaism, even Christianity, abandoned long ago, because of the hurt done to others. It is a Process that is ongoing. Islam too, needs to recognize this, and Transcend. Your actions obstruct the realization, recognition, and redirection needed for reconciliation. You give cover, aid, and comfort, to those that would harm the unsuspecting. Many of Us see this, and can only at best pity You. You have no credibility with Us, that must be earned, and you do all the wrong things. It's more than Political, It's a False Ideology You follow, even the Muslims see this and find it amusing.

God First in All Things Through Conscience.

There are Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and Others that touch on this. It is an Individual Experience, not a Group Experience, it is neither Bought, Sold, or Traded.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

This is exactly what I originally pointed out. Classic rightwing propaganda. Start with a false premise, that WE are expected to defend, despite it being false, and then attack those who won't defend it.

Fifth time: Show us where the MSM has outright denied that this is terrorism. That was your claim.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

I think it's all terrorism now to the right unless it's committed by the right. Example: anti-abortion bombings/killings.

 

[Intense]

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?

I think it's all terrorism now to the right unless it's committed by the right. Example: anti-abortion bombings/killings.

I'm Pro Life. I consider Anti Abortion Bombings Terror.

Political Games are being played, best to face up to it. It's part of what the think tanks do.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

I think it's all terrorism now to the right unless it's committed by the right. Example: anti-abortion bombings/killings.

I'm Pro Life. I consider Anti Abortion Bombings Terror.

Political Games are being played, best to face up to it. It's part of what the think tanks do.

Tell me, would Democrats disarming our military be 'anti-life'?

"Among President Bill Clinton's (D-Ark.) first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases:

• In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the United States for personal protection.

• For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.

Because of President Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division. That's why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's rampage, says the Times.
Everyone wants to keep people safe -- and no one denies President Clinton's good intentions. The problem is that law-abiding good citizens, not criminals, are the ones who obey those laws. Bans end up disarming potential victims and not criminals. Rather than making places safe for victims, we unintentionally make them safe for the criminal -- or in this case, the terrorist, says the Times.

Source: Editorial, "End Clinton-era Military Base Gun Ban," Washington Times, November 11, 2009.
For text:
EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban - Washington Times

 

[Hellokitty]

The MSM denies it was an act of terrorism because they don't want to justify the war in Afghanistan as being as war we must win.
I found it very disturbing that many in the media seemed to be more upset about the shooter being Muslim then they were about the massacre.

 

[AllieBaba]

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?

I think it's all terrorism now to the right unless it's committed by the right. Example: anti-abortion bombings/killings.

Do we have imams calling for the killing of abortion clinic doctors, and promising to support their families if they die in the attempt? Do we preach that those who kill Muslims and abortion clinic doctors will attain Paradise when they do so?

Nope, we don't. Hence the difference. We decry the murder of abortion clinic doctors, and the wanton slaughter of innocents. We don't put the shout out for wife beating, cafe and train bombing, or offer money to those who will step up to the plate.

That's a difference you brain dead apologists, who want SO BADLY to believe and convince others that mainstream (or even fundamentalist) American Christians are just as bad as Jihadists, can't seem to fit into yoru tiny pea brains.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

I think it's all terrorism now to the right unless it's committed by the right. Example: anti-abortion bombings/killings.

Do we have imams calling for the killing of abortion clinic doctors, and promising to support their families if they die in the attempt? Do we preach that those who kill Muslims and abortion clinic doctors will attain Paradise when they do so?

Nope, we don't. Hence the difference. We decry the murder of abortion clinic doctors, and the wanton slaughter of innocents. We don't put the shout out for wife beating, cafe and train bombing, or offer money to those who will step up to the plate.

That's a difference you brain dead apologists, who want SO BADLY to believe and convince others that mainstream (or even fundamentalist) American Christians are just as bad as Jihadists, can't seem to fit into yoru tiny pea brains.

I am not going to link to rightwing anti-abortion hate sites, but I suggest you do some research.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

I think it's all terrorism now to the right unless it's committed by the right. Example: anti-abortion bombings/killings.

I'm Pro Life. I consider Anti Abortion Bombings Terror.

Political Games are being played, best to face up to it. It's part of what the think tanks do.

As shown just below, you will not get unanimous support for that opinion from your conservative colleagues.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For all of you who are having fainting spells over not calling this TERRORISM, shouldn't you be taking it up with THE ARMY??

They're the ones who are definitively NOT treating this as TERRORISM. Go rag on our military on this if you need to rag on someone.

 

[saveliberty]

I think it's all terrorism now to the right unless it's committed by the right. Example: anti-abortion bombings/killings.

I'm Pro Life. I consider Anti Abortion Bombings Terror.

Political Games are being played, best to face up to it. It's part of what the think tanks do.

As shown just below, you will not get unanimous support for that opinion from your conservative colleagues.

I agree with Intense. The purpose of an abortion clinic bombing is to create fear of coming to the building and for those who work there.