Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism

[Intense]

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.

No Offense, but why would I want to even Google them? I have zero interest in them. Don't credit them in any way, that includes Site Hits.

 

[Intense]

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.

Catch-22!!!

 

[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.

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.

You just don't get it. I don't believe that the reasons you have given me are why you are so convinced that we just have to call this a terrorist act. My problem is that I don't believe your motive at all.

 

[oreo]

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.

It's because they do not want to lose all those Muslim extremists viewers in those caves.

It's no secret that Al Queda watches American news networks more than most Americans do---

 

[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.

You just don't get it. I don't believe that the reasons you have given me are why you are so convinced that we just have to call this a terrorist act. My problem is that I don't believe your motive at all.

I've read many of Your Post's and am on both sides of them, some good thought, around the board. It's not important that You believe Me or agree, but That You follow Your own Conscience. It will be Your Rescue, if You let it.

 

[Rinata]

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.

You just don't get it. I don't believe that the reasons you have given me are why you are so convinced that we just have to call this a terrorist act. My problem is that I don't believe your motive at all.

I've read many of Your Post's and am on both sides of them, some good thought, around the board. It's not important that You believe Me or agree, but That You follow Your own Conscience. It will be Your Rescue, if You let it.

I have always tried to follow my conscience and I'm doing so now.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

You are truly a fool.

It seems that everyone but you realized immediately that this was what it was. Nor is it necessary to point out that, like the MSM, you are attached at the hip to this worthless, inept administration that, unlike the former administration, advanced policies that could not keep America safe.

Clearly, the chickens have come home to roost, and the fools keep yammering " For the fifth time, did ALL the chickens come home to roost?"

But your yammering is efficacious, in that it gives me the opportunity to support my position by posting the following:

"First, the recognition of this atrocity as a terrorist attack means that Obama has to take personal responsibility for the failings of his Administration to “connect the dots” to prevent this attack. The same folks who insisted Bush should have done something prior to the September 11th attacks will have a hard time defending the Obama Administration when it’s clear there were red lights flashing indicating that Hasan was a problem. It happened on Obama’s watch. If they can say it’s not a terrorist attack they can escape responsibility for failing to prevent it.

There is also a political dimension to the denial. Evan Thomas, the Editor of Newsweek gave away the game as he reacted to the news that Hasan was a Muslim:

“I cringe that he’s a Muslim. I mean, because it just inflames all the fears. I think he’s probably just a nut case but, with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going.”

•Networks Decide Attack Wasn’t Terror: 85 percent of the broadcast stories didn’t mention the word “terror.” ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news referenced terrorism connections to the Fort Hood attack just seven times in 48 reports.
•ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama’s Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called “Islamic extremist views,” all three networks mentioned terrorism.
•Alleged Attacker’s Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so. "
The Baltimore Reporter


"PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack "
PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack


"Why Was the “News” Media So Reticent to Call Fort Hood Shooting a “Terrorist” Attack?"
Why Was the “News” Media So Reticent to Call Fort Hood Shooting a “Terrorist” Attack?


"•ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama's Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called "Islamic extremist views," all three networks mentioned terrorism.
•Alleged Attacker's Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so."
PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack | NewsBusters.org


"However, how did the mainstream media cover this, besides not even calling it by its proper name? MSNBC’s Chris Matthews defends Hasan’s attempt to contact al Qaeda by asking, “That’s not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it?” CBS host Bob Schieffer asked Congressman Ike Skelton, “Do you think this is a sign that the military is simply overextended?” CNN’s Betty Nguyen asked, “Are the Ft. Hood shootings the action of someone who might have suffered from post-traumatic syndrome?” But Hasan was never deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. ABC’s Diane Sawyer and ABC’s senior foreign affairs correspondent, Martha Raddatz, wishes the Muslim shooter’s “name was Smith,” although that would make little difference because it’s not his name that directed his murderous actions, but his faith. The New York Times warns Muslims of persecution (yet the Times never protected other religious groups like Christians), and Newsweek blames the military first."
Fort Hood: the Military, the Media, Political Correctness, and Nidal Malik Hasan | The National Scene


"Fort Hood Massacre: Most news stories don't even mention the words "terror" or "possible terror" attack?"
Fort Hood Massacre: Most news stories don't even mention the words "terror" or "possible terror" attack? - Yahoo! Answers

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You are truly a fool.

It seems that everyone but you realized immediately that this was what it was. Nor is it necessary to point out that, like the MSM, you are attached at the hip to this worthless, inept administration that, unlike the former administration, advanced policies that could not keep America safe.

Clearly, the chickens have come home to roost, and the fools keep yammering " For the fifth time, did ALL the chickens come home to roost?"

But your yammering is efficacious, in that it gives me the opportunity to support my position by posting the following:

"First, the recognition of this atrocity as a terrorist attack means that Obama has to take personal responsibility for the failings of his Administration to “connect the dots” to prevent this attack. The same folks who insisted Bush should have done something prior to the September 11th attacks will have a hard time defending the Obama Administration when it’s clear there were red lights flashing indicating that Hasan was a problem. It happened on Obama’s watch. If they can say it’s not a terrorist attack they can escape responsibility for failing to prevent it.

There is also a political dimension to the denial. Evan Thomas, the Editor of Newsweek gave away the game as he reacted to the news that Hasan was a Muslim:

“I cringe that he’s a Muslim. I mean, because it just inflames all the fears. I think he’s probably just a nut case but, with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going.”

•Networks Decide Attack Wasn’t Terror: 85 percent of the broadcast stories didn’t mention the word “terror.” ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news referenced terrorism connections to the Fort Hood attack just seven times in 48 reports.
•ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama’s Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called “Islamic extremist views,” all three networks mentioned terrorism.
•Alleged Attacker’s Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so. "
The Baltimore Reporter


"PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack "
PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack


"Why Was the “News” Media So Reticent to Call Fort Hood Shooting a “Terrorist” Attack?"
Why Was the “News” Media So Reticent to Call Fort Hood Shooting a “Terrorist” Attack?


"•ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama's Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called "Islamic extremist views," all three networks mentioned terrorism.
•Alleged Attacker's Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so."
PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack | NewsBusters.org


"However, how did the mainstream media cover this, besides not even calling it by its proper name? MSNBC’s Chris Matthews defends Hasan’s attempt to contact al Qaeda by asking, “That’s not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it?” CBS host Bob Schieffer asked Congressman Ike Skelton, “Do you think this is a sign that the military is simply overextended?” CNN’s Betty Nguyen asked, “Are the Ft. Hood shootings the action of someone who might have suffered from post-traumatic syndrome?” But Hasan was never deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. ABC’s Diane Sawyer and ABC’s senior foreign affairs correspondent, Martha Raddatz, wishes the Muslim shooter’s “name was Smith,” although that would make little difference because it’s not his name that directed his murderous actions, but his faith. The New York Times warns Muslims of persecution (yet the Times never protected other religious groups like Christians), and Newsweek blames the military first."
Fort Hood: the Military, the Media, Political Correctness, and Nidal Malik Hasan | The National Scene


"Fort Hood Massacre: Most news stories don't even mention the words "terror" or "possible terror" attack?"
Fort Hood Massacre: Most news stories don't even mention the words "terror" or "possible terror" attack? - Yahoo! Answers

Is there an outright denial in there?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

You are truly a fool.

It seems that everyone but you realized immediately that this was what it was. Nor is it necessary to point out that, like the MSM, you are attached at the hip to this worthless, inept administration that, unlike the former administration, advanced policies that could not keep America safe.

Clearly, the chickens have come home to roost, and the fools keep yammering " For the fifth time, did ALL the chickens come home to roost?"

But your yammering is efficacious, in that it gives me the opportunity to support my position by posting the following:

"First, the recognition of this atrocity as a terrorist attack means that Obama has to take personal responsibility for the failings of his Administration to “connect the dots” to prevent this attack. The same folks who insisted Bush should have done something prior to the September 11th attacks will have a hard time defending the Obama Administration when it’s clear there were red lights flashing indicating that Hasan was a problem. It happened on Obama’s watch. If they can say it’s not a terrorist attack they can escape responsibility for failing to prevent it.

There is also a political dimension to the denial. Evan Thomas, the Editor of Newsweek gave away the game as he reacted to the news that Hasan was a Muslim:

“I cringe that he’s a Muslim. I mean, because it just inflames all the fears. I think he’s probably just a nut case but, with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going.”

•Networks Decide Attack Wasn’t Terror: 85 percent of the broadcast stories didn’t mention the word “terror.” ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news referenced terrorism connections to the Fort Hood attack just seven times in 48 reports.
•ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama’s Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called “Islamic extremist views,” all three networks mentioned terrorism.
•Alleged Attacker’s Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so. "
The Baltimore Reporter


"PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack "
PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack


"Why Was the “News” Media So Reticent to Call Fort Hood Shooting a “Terrorist” Attack?"
Why Was the “News” Media So Reticent to Call Fort Hood Shooting a “Terrorist” Attack?


"•ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama's Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called "Islamic extremist views," all three networks mentioned terrorism.
•Alleged Attacker's Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so."
PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack | NewsBusters.org


"However, how did the mainstream media cover this, besides not even calling it by its proper name? MSNBC’s Chris Matthews defends Hasan’s attempt to contact al Qaeda by asking, “That’s not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it?” CBS host Bob Schieffer asked Congressman Ike Skelton, “Do you think this is a sign that the military is simply overextended?” CNN’s Betty Nguyen asked, “Are the Ft. Hood shootings the action of someone who might have suffered from post-traumatic syndrome?” But Hasan was never deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. ABC’s Diane Sawyer and ABC’s senior foreign affairs correspondent, Martha Raddatz, wishes the Muslim shooter’s “name was Smith,” although that would make little difference because it’s not his name that directed his murderous actions, but his faith. The New York Times warns Muslims of persecution (yet the Times never protected other religious groups like Christians), and Newsweek blames the military first."
Fort Hood: the Military, the Media, Political Correctness, and Nidal Malik Hasan | The National Scene


"Fort Hood Massacre: Most news stories don't even mention the words "terror" or "possible terror" attack?"
Fort Hood Massacre: Most news stories don't even mention the words "terror" or "possible terror" attack? - Yahoo! Answers

Is there an outright denial in there?

This is the operative portion of the OP:

"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..."

It seems that my posts have established the case, except of those who fulfill the proverb

"“There are none so blind as those, that will not see”

 

[NYcarbineer]

The prosecutors in the military aren't calling this terrorism. They are charging him with premeditated murder, under the UCMJ. The UCMJ doesn't even have provisions for prosecuting terrorism as terrorism.

So if the MILITARY ITSELF doesn't consider this a terrorism act, why do you geniuses think the media should be running around calling it a terrorist act? Isn't the media supposed to REPORT what IS?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are truly a fool.

It seems that everyone but you realized immediately that this was what it was. Nor is it necessary to point out that, like the MSM, you are attached at the hip to this worthless, inept administration that, unlike the former administration, advanced policies that could not keep America safe.

Clearly, the chickens have come home to roost, and the fools keep yammering " For the fifth time, did ALL the chickens come home to roost?"

But your yammering is efficacious, in that it gives me the opportunity to support my position by posting the following:

"First, the recognition of this atrocity as a terrorist attack means that Obama has to take personal responsibility for the failings of his Administration to “connect the dots” to prevent this attack. The same folks who insisted Bush should have done something prior to the September 11th attacks will have a hard time defending the Obama Administration when it’s clear there were red lights flashing indicating that Hasan was a problem. It happened on Obama’s watch. If they can say it’s not a terrorist attack they can escape responsibility for failing to prevent it.

There is also a political dimension to the denial. Evan Thomas, the Editor of Newsweek gave away the game as he reacted to the news that Hasan was a Muslim:

“I cringe that he’s a Muslim. I mean, because it just inflames all the fears. I think he’s probably just a nut case but, with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going.”

•Networks Decide Attack Wasn’t Terror: 85 percent of the broadcast stories didn’t mention the word “terror.” ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news referenced terrorism connections to the Fort Hood attack just seven times in 48 reports.
•ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama’s Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called “Islamic extremist views,” all three networks mentioned terrorism.
•Alleged Attacker’s Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so. "
The Baltimore Reporter


"PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack "
PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack


"Why Was the “News” Media So Reticent to Call Fort Hood Shooting a “Terrorist” Attack?"
Why Was the “News” Media So Reticent to Call Fort Hood Shooting a “Terrorist” Attack?


"•ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama's Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called "Islamic extremist views," all three networks mentioned terrorism.
•Alleged Attacker's Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so."
PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack | NewsBusters.org


"However, how did the mainstream media cover this, besides not even calling it by its proper name? MSNBC’s Chris Matthews defends Hasan’s attempt to contact al Qaeda by asking, “That’s not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it?” CBS host Bob Schieffer asked Congressman Ike Skelton, “Do you think this is a sign that the military is simply overextended?” CNN’s Betty Nguyen asked, “Are the Ft. Hood shootings the action of someone who might have suffered from post-traumatic syndrome?” But Hasan was never deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. ABC’s Diane Sawyer and ABC’s senior foreign affairs correspondent, Martha Raddatz, wishes the Muslim shooter’s “name was Smith,” although that would make little difference because it’s not his name that directed his murderous actions, but his faith. The New York Times warns Muslims of persecution (yet the Times never protected other religious groups like Christians), and Newsweek blames the military first."
Fort Hood: the Military, the Media, Political Correctness, and Nidal Malik Hasan | The National Scene


"Fort Hood Massacre: Most news stories don't even mention the words "terror" or "possible terror" attack?"
Fort Hood Massacre: Most news stories don't even mention the words "terror" or "possible terror" attack? - Yahoo! Answers

Is there an outright denial in there?

This is the operative portion of the OP:

"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..."

It seems that my posts have established the case, except of those who fulfill the proverb

"“There are none so blind as those, that will not see”

I happened this morning to stumble across this random quote in the bowels of the internet:

We have now endured...5 days without a terrorist act on our soil. The previous record, held by President George Bush was 2,978. -

...just in case anyone out there hadn't already divined the real motive behind the rightwing zeal to label this terrorism...

Pol - i - tics.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is there an outright denial in there?

This is the operative portion of the OP:

"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..."

It seems that my posts have established the case, except of those who fulfill the proverb

"“There are none so blind as those, that will not see”

I happened this morning to stumble across this random quote in the bowels of the internet:

We have now endured...5 days without a terrorist act on our soil. The previous record, held by President George Bush was 2,978. -

...just in case anyone out there hadn't already divined the real motive behind the rightwing zeal to label this terrorism...

Pol - i - tics.

And we have a winner in the category of unintentional humor!

Thanks for helping to explin why the MSM and Obamunists don't want the massacre linked to terrorism.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, why isn't the right calling this an act of war? Since I hear that being thrown around now repeatedly to describe what the guys being brought to NYC did...

 

[Intense]

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.

It's because they do not want to lose all those Muslim extremists viewers in those caves.

It's no secret that Al Queda watches American news networks more than most Americans do---

View attachment 8697

That explains Who's watching PMSNBC!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, why isn't the right calling this an act of war? Since I hear that being thrown around now repeatedly to describe what the guys being brought to NYC did...

So, how come you're changing the subject?

I guess you see the evidence piling up, huh?

 

[Intense]

You just don't get it. I don't believe that the reasons you have given me are why you are so convinced that we just have to call this a terrorist act. My problem is that I don't believe your motive at all.

I've read many of Your Post's and am on both sides of them, some good thought, around the board. It's not important that You believe Me or agree, but That You follow Your own Conscience. It will be Your Rescue, if You let it.

I have always tried to follow my conscience and I'm doing so now.

Good!!!

 

[Intense]

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.

You are truly a fool.

It seems that everyone but you realized immediately that this was what it was. Nor is it necessary to point out that, like the MSM, you are attached at the hip to this worthless, inept administration that, unlike the former administration, advanced policies that could not keep America safe.

Clearly, the chickens have come home to roost, and the fools keep yammering " For the fifth time, did ALL the chickens come home to roost?"

But your yammering is efficacious, in that it gives me the opportunity to support my position by posting the following:

"First, the recognition of this atrocity as a terrorist attack means that Obama has to take personal responsibility for the failings of his Administration to “connect the dots” to prevent this attack. The same folks who insisted Bush should have done something prior to the September 11th attacks will have a hard time defending the Obama Administration when it’s clear there were red lights flashing indicating that Hasan was a problem. It happened on Obama’s watch. If they can say it’s not a terrorist attack they can escape responsibility for failing to prevent it.

There is also a political dimension to the denial. Evan Thomas, the Editor of Newsweek gave away the game as he reacted to the news that Hasan was a Muslim:

“I cringe that he’s a Muslim. I mean, because it just inflames all the fears. I think he’s probably just a nut case but, with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going.”

•Networks Decide Attack Wasn’t Terror: 85 percent of the broadcast stories didn’t mention the word “terror.” ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news referenced terrorism connections to the Fort Hood attack just seven times in 48 reports.
•ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama’s Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called “Islamic extremist views,” all three networks mentioned terrorism.
•Alleged Attacker’s Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so. "
The Baltimore Reporter


"PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack "
PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack


"Why Was the “News” Media So Reticent to Call Fort Hood Shooting a “Terrorist” Attack?"
Why Was the “News” Media So Reticent to Call Fort Hood Shooting a “Terrorist” Attack?


"•ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama's Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called "Islamic extremist views," all three networks mentioned terrorism.
•Alleged Attacker's Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so."
PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack | NewsBusters.org


"However, how did the mainstream media cover this, besides not even calling it by its proper name? MSNBC’s Chris Matthews defends Hasan’s attempt to contact al Qaeda by asking, “That’s not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it?” CBS host Bob Schieffer asked Congressman Ike Skelton, “Do you think this is a sign that the military is simply overextended?” CNN’s Betty Nguyen asked, “Are the Ft. Hood shootings the action of someone who might have suffered from post-traumatic syndrome?” But Hasan was never deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. ABC’s Diane Sawyer and ABC’s senior foreign affairs correspondent, Martha Raddatz, wishes the Muslim shooter’s “name was Smith,” although that would make little difference because it’s not his name that directed his murderous actions, but his faith. The New York Times warns Muslims of persecution (yet the Times never protected other religious groups like Christians), and Newsweek blames the military first."
Fort Hood: the Military, the Media, Political Correctness, and Nidal Malik Hasan | The National Scene


"Fort Hood Massacre: Most news stories don't even mention the words "terror" or "possible terror" attack?"
Fort Hood Massacre: Most news stories don't even mention the words "terror" or "possible terror" attack? - Yahoo! Answers

Is there an outright denial in there?

There are all over this Thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is the operative portion of the OP:

"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..."

It seems that my posts have established the case, except of those who fulfill the proverb

"“There are none so blind as those, that will not see”

I happened this morning to stumble across this random quote in the bowels of the internet:

We have now endured...5 days without a terrorist act on our soil. The previous record, held by President George Bush was 2,978. -

...just in case anyone out there hadn't already divined the real motive behind the rightwing zeal to label this terrorism...

Pol - i - tics.

And we have a winner in the category of unintentional humor!

Thanks for helping to explin why the MSM and Obamunists don't want the massacre linked to terrorism.

According to rightwing fav religionofpeace.com there were 23 Muslim terrorist acts since 9/11 on Bush's watch:

List of Islamic Terror Attacks in America

 

[Intense]

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.

You are truly a fool.

It seems that everyone but you realized immediately that this was what it was. Nor is it necessary to point out that, like the MSM, you are attached at the hip to this worthless, inept administration that, unlike the former administration, advanced policies that could not keep America safe.

Clearly, the chickens have come home to roost, and the fools keep yammering " For the fifth time, did ALL the chickens come home to roost?"

But your yammering is efficacious, in that it gives me the opportunity to support my position by posting the following:

"First, the recognition of this atrocity as a terrorist attack means that Obama has to take personal responsibility for the failings of his Administration to “connect the dots” to prevent this attack. The same folks who insisted Bush should have done something prior to the September 11th attacks will have a hard time defending the Obama Administration when it’s clear there were red lights flashing indicating that Hasan was a problem. It happened on Obama’s watch. If they can say it’s not a terrorist attack they can escape responsibility for failing to prevent it.

There is also a political dimension to the denial. Evan Thomas, the Editor of Newsweek gave away the game as he reacted to the news that Hasan was a Muslim:

“I cringe that he’s a Muslim. I mean, because it just inflames all the fears. I think he’s probably just a nut case but, with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going.”

•Networks Decide Attack Wasn’t Terror: 85 percent of the broadcast stories didn’t mention the word “terror.” ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news referenced terrorism connections to the Fort Hood attack just seven times in 48 reports.
•ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama’s Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called “Islamic extremist views,” all three networks mentioned terrorism.
•Alleged Attacker’s Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so. "
The Baltimore Reporter


"PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack "
PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack


"Why Was the “News” Media So Reticent to Call Fort Hood Shooting a “Terrorist” Attack?"
Why Was the “News” Media So Reticent to Call Fort Hood Shooting a “Terrorist” Attack?


"•ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama's Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called "Islamic extremist views," all three networks mentioned terrorism.
•Alleged Attacker's Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so."
PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack | NewsBusters.org


"However, how did the mainstream media cover this, besides not even calling it by its proper name? MSNBC’s Chris Matthews defends Hasan’s attempt to contact al Qaeda by asking, “That’s not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it?” CBS host Bob Schieffer asked Congressman Ike Skelton, “Do you think this is a sign that the military is simply overextended?” CNN’s Betty Nguyen asked, “Are the Ft. Hood shootings the action of someone who might have suffered from post-traumatic syndrome?” But Hasan was never deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. ABC’s Diane Sawyer and ABC’s senior foreign affairs correspondent, Martha Raddatz, wishes the Muslim shooter’s “name was Smith,” although that would make little difference because it’s not his name that directed his murderous actions, but his faith. The New York Times warns Muslims of persecution (yet the Times never protected other religious groups like Christians), and Newsweek blames the military first."
Fort Hood: the Military, the Media, Political Correctness, and Nidal Malik Hasan | The National Scene


"Fort Hood Massacre: Most news stories don't even mention the words "terror" or "possible terror" attack?"
Fort Hood Massacre: Most news stories don't even mention the words "terror" or "possible terror" attack? - Yahoo! Answers

Is there an outright denial in there?

Only Yours!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are truly a fool.

It seems that everyone but you realized immediately that this was what it was. Nor is it necessary to point out that, like the MSM, you are attached at the hip to this worthless, inept administration that, unlike the former administration, advanced policies that could not keep America safe.

Clearly, the chickens have come home to roost, and the fools keep yammering " For the fifth time, did ALL the chickens come home to roost?"

But your yammering is efficacious, in that it gives me the opportunity to support my position by posting the following:

"First, the recognition of this atrocity as a terrorist attack means that Obama has to take personal responsibility for the failings of his Administration to “connect the dots” to prevent this attack. The same folks who insisted Bush should have done something prior to the September 11th attacks will have a hard time defending the Obama Administration when it’s clear there were red lights flashing indicating that Hasan was a problem. It happened on Obama’s watch. If they can say it’s not a terrorist attack they can escape responsibility for failing to prevent it.

There is also a political dimension to the denial. Evan Thomas, the Editor of Newsweek gave away the game as he reacted to the news that Hasan was a Muslim:

“I cringe that he’s a Muslim. I mean, because it just inflames all the fears. I think he’s probably just a nut case but, with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going.”

•Networks Decide Attack Wasn’t Terror: 85 percent of the broadcast stories didn’t mention the word “terror.” ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news referenced terrorism connections to the Fort Hood attack just seven times in 48 reports.
•ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama’s Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called “Islamic extremist views,” all three networks mentioned terrorism.
•Alleged Attacker’s Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so. "
The Baltimore Reporter


"PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack "
PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack


"Why Was the “News” Media So Reticent to Call Fort Hood Shooting a “Terrorist” Attack?"
Why Was the “News” Media So Reticent to Call Fort Hood Shooting a “Terrorist” Attack?


"•ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama's Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called "Islamic extremist views," all three networks mentioned terrorism.
•Alleged Attacker's Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so."
PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack | NewsBusters.org


"However, how did the mainstream media cover this, besides not even calling it by its proper name? MSNBC’s Chris Matthews defends Hasan’s attempt to contact al Qaeda by asking, “That’s not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it?” CBS host Bob Schieffer asked Congressman Ike Skelton, “Do you think this is a sign that the military is simply overextended?” CNN’s Betty Nguyen asked, “Are the Ft. Hood shootings the action of someone who might have suffered from post-traumatic syndrome?” But Hasan was never deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. ABC’s Diane Sawyer and ABC’s senior foreign affairs correspondent, Martha Raddatz, wishes the Muslim shooter’s “name was Smith,” although that would make little difference because it’s not his name that directed his murderous actions, but his faith. The New York Times warns Muslims of persecution (yet the Times never protected other religious groups like Christians), and Newsweek blames the military first."
Fort Hood: the Military, the Media, Political Correctness, and Nidal Malik Hasan | The National Scene


"Fort Hood Massacre: Most news stories don't even mention the words "terror" or "possible terror" attack?"
Fort Hood Massacre: Most news stories don't even mention the words "terror" or "possible terror" attack? - Yahoo! Answers

Is there an outright denial in there?

There are all over this Thread.

This is an internet forum, not the news division of an MSM outlet.