Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism

[SFC Ollie]

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.

How can so much ignorance get wrapped so tightly in one post?

"islamofascism" is an ignorant term.

It is not "terrorism" when uniformed soldiers are attacked.

The "british" press? Your inability to track a story doesn't translate to "conspiracy theory proven!"

My "call" is you're another super ******* ignorant Nationalist that doesn't know the first ******* thing about geo-politics so you use Ft Hood to spout shit about obama.

You mean when the bomb planted in the IG Farban Building went off 10 minutes after I had left that compound that it wasn't terrorism , Because everyone knows that 90% of the IG Farban Building is Military and normally "In Uniform"

And it wasn't terrorism when the Baader-Meinhoff attacked our artillery base in Germany with small arms fire either? I wonder what you call it?

And then it must not have been terrorism when the marine barracks in beruit was bombed either.

Give it up jerk, you know nothing.

 

[CurveLight]

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.

How can so much ignorance get wrapped so tightly in one post?

"islamofascism" is an ignorant term.

It is not "terrorism" when uniformed soldiers are attacked.

The "british" press? Your inability to track a story doesn't translate to "conspiracy theory proven!"

My "call" is you're another super ******* ignorant Nationalist that doesn't know the first ******* thing about geo-politics so you use Ft Hood to spout shit about obama.

You mean when the bomb planted in the IG Farban Building went off 10 minutes after I had left that compound that it wasn't terrorism , Because everyone knows that 90% of the IG Farban Building is Military and normally "In Uniform"

And it wasn't terrorism when the Baader-Meinhoff attacked our artillery base in Germany with small arms fire either? I wonder what you call it?

And then it must not have been terrorism when the marine barracks in beruit was bombed either.

Give it up jerk, you know nothing.

A uniformed soldier attacked uniform soldiers. Let's look at the definition of terrorism:


the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ...
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I'm a jerk but at least I learn about an issue before talking about it. You should try it so you won't embarrass yourself again....like when you claimed Iraq never had a Constitution or elections prior to our invasion.

 

[SFC Ollie]

How can so much ignorance get wrapped so tightly in one post?

"islamofascism" is an ignorant term.

It is not "terrorism" when uniformed soldiers are attacked.

The "british" press? Your inability to track a story doesn't translate to "conspiracy theory proven!"

My "call" is you're another super ******* ignorant Nationalist that doesn't know the first ******* thing about geo-politics so you use Ft Hood to spout shit about obama.

You mean when the bomb planted in the IG Farban Building went off 10 minutes after I had left that compound that it wasn't terrorism , Because everyone knows that 90% of the IG Farban Building is Military and normally "In Uniform"

And it wasn't terrorism when the Baader-Meinhoff attacked our artillery base in Germany with small arms fire either? I wonder what you call it?

And then it must not have been terrorism when the marine barracks in beruit was bombed either.

Give it up jerk, you know nothing.

A uniformed soldier attacked uniform soldiers. Let's look at the definition of terrorism:


the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ...
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I'm a jerk but at least I learn about an issue before talking about it. You should try it so you won't embarrass yourself again....like when you claimed Iraq never had a Constitution or elections prior to our invasion.

LOL Yes they had elections, LOL Saddam or death your choice.

And you are more than a jerk if you believe that terrorism can only be conducted against civilians. Tell that to the families of those Marines that died in Beirut. Or tell that to the Families of the dead troops at Ft hood, or the survivors. They were unarmed and helpless against an attack (yes by one posing as our own) by a Muslim who had a personal business card calling himself a Soldier of Allah. This was a terrorist attack And you can shove your definition where the sun don't shine for all I care.

 

[Intense]

You mean when the bomb planted in the IG Farban Building went off 10 minutes after I had left that compound that it wasn't terrorism , Because everyone knows that 90% of the IG Farban Building is Military and normally "In Uniform"

And it wasn't terrorism when the Baader-Meinhoff attacked our artillery base in Germany with small arms fire either? I wonder what you call it?

And then it must not have been terrorism when the marine barracks in beruit was bombed either.

Give it up jerk, you know nothing.

A uniformed soldier attacked uniform soldiers. Let's look at the definition of terrorism:


the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ...
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I'm a jerk but at least I learn about an issue before talking about it. You should try it so you won't embarrass yourself again....like when you claimed Iraq never had a Constitution or elections prior to our invasion.

LOL Yes they had elections, LOL Saddam or death your choice.

And you are more than a jerk if you believe that terrorism can only be conducted against civilians. Tell that to the families of those Marines that died in Beirut. Or tell that to the Families of the dead troops at Ft hood, or the survivors. They were unarmed and helpless against an attack (yes by one posing as our own) by a Muslim who had a personal business card calling himself a Soldier of Allah. This was a terrorist attack And you can shove your definition where the sun don't shine for all I care.

They act like Rules Of Engagement Only apply to Us. We can't do anything right, and the Enemy can't do anything wrong.

 

[saveliberty]

How can so much ignorance get wrapped so tightly in one post?

"islamofascism" is an ignorant term.

It is not "terrorism" when uniformed soldiers are attacked.

The "british" press? Your inability to track a story doesn't translate to "conspiracy theory proven!"

My "call" is you're another super ******* ignorant Nationalist that doesn't know the first ******* thing about geo-politics so you use Ft Hood to spout shit about obama.

You mean when the bomb planted in the IG Farban Building went off 10 minutes after I had left that compound that it wasn't terrorism , Because everyone knows that 90% of the IG Farban Building is Military and normally "In Uniform"

And it wasn't terrorism when the Baader-Meinhoff attacked our artillery base in Germany with small arms fire either? I wonder what you call it?

And then it must not have been terrorism when the marine barracks in beruit was bombed either.

Give it up jerk, you know nothing.

A uniformed soldier attacked uniform soldiers. Let's look at the definition of terrorism:


the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ...
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I'm a jerk but at least I learn about an issue before talking about it. You should try it so you won't embarrass yourself again....like when you claimed Iraq never had a Constitution or elections prior to our invasion.

I think you have to broaden the definition or update it if you will. This is not a war as there are not distinct fronts, uniformed soldiers on each side or specifically held terriorties. You have gorilla warfare, but again, there are still more defined sides. This type of war would still fall more precisely under the rules of war.

This reminds me more of the IRA. A group at war with civilians, police and the military. Do you care to define them as a nonterrorist group. No one else in the world has tried.

You also seem to conveniently forget that some of the dead at Fort Hood were civilians. Police and military were killed too. Indentical to the IRA.

 

[Zander]

 

[CurveLight]

Dp

 

[Annie]

A uniformed soldier attacked uniform soldiers. Let's look at the definition of terrorism:


the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ...
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I'm a jerk but at least I learn about an issue before talking about it. You should try it so you won't embarrass yourself again....like when you claimed Iraq never had a Constitution or elections prior to our invasion.

LOL Yes they had elections, LOL Saddam or death your choice.

And you are more than a jerk if you believe that terrorism can only be conducted against civilians. Tell that to the families of those Marines that died in Beirut. Or tell that to the Families of the dead troops at Ft hood, or the survivors. They were unarmed and helpless against an attack (yes by one posing as our own) by a Muslim who had a personal business card calling himself a Soldier of Allah. This was a terrorist attack And you can shove your definition where the sun don't shine for all I care.

Hmmm....the Constitution and elections were around long before saddam was even born. Hasan had a personal business card calling himself a Soldier of Allah? Got a link or is this filed under Ollie's Follies?

Unlike you I am consistent, decently informed, and definitely not subject to being silenced through emotional blackmail. Your camp is full of ignorance and hypocrisy so take your pontificating and pack it up in a nice neat apple pie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/15hasan.html

November 15, 2009
Investigators Study Tangle of Clues on Fort Hood Suspect

By SCOTT SHANE and JAMES DAO
WASHINGTON — When Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan took his two handguns and headed for Fort Hood on Nov. 5, he left behind in his spartan apartment his new business cards. Now they are one more clue for investigators of the 13 killings he is charged with, hinting at the road not taken.

On the cards, ordered over the Internet after Major Hasan was transferred to the sprawling Texas base in July, the 39-year-old psychiatrist omitted the rank he had achieved in the Army he had served for most of his adult life. Instead, he included the cryptic abbreviation “SoA,” apparently “Servant of Allah” or “Soldier of Allah,” perhaps marking a symbolic shift of allegiance from his military profession to his increasingly consuming faith....

 

[CurveLight]

You mean when the bomb planted in the IG Farban Building went off 10 minutes after I had left that compound that it wasn't terrorism , Because everyone knows that 90% of the IG Farban Building is Military and normally "In Uniform"

And it wasn't terrorism when the Baader-Meinhoff attacked our artillery base in Germany with small arms fire either? I wonder what you call it?

And then it must not have been terrorism when the marine barracks in beruit was bombed either.

Give it up jerk, you know nothing.

A uniformed soldier attacked uniform soldiers. Let's look at the definition of terrorism:


the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ...
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I'm a jerk but at least I learn about an issue before talking about it. You should try it so you won't embarrass yourself again....like when you claimed Iraq never had a Constitution or elections prior to our invasion.

LOL Yes they had elections, LOL Saddam or death your choice.

And you are more than a jerk if you believe that terrorism can only be conducted against civilians. Tell that to the families of those Marines that died in Beirut. Or tell that to the Families of the dead troops at Ft hood, or the survivors. They were unarmed and helpless against an attack (yes by one posing as our own) by a Muslim who had a personal business card calling himself a Soldier of Allah. This was a terrorist attack And you can shove your definition where the sun don't shine for all I care.

Hmmm....the Constitution and elections were around long before saddam was even born. You constantly soak up fear like a sponge being dropped in the ocean of propaganda designed to keep you so ******* afraid you cannot think for yourself and willing turn your autonomy over to outfits like cnn and fox news. Having SoA on his card does not mean he murdered because of Islam. But that is way way way beyond the depths of what you are capable of comprehending. Your bloodlust will not be quenched in this lifetime until you can step outside all of this fear based bullshit and try to look at the world through a lens of integrity.

 

[CurveLight]

LOL Yes they had elections, LOL Saddam or death your choice.

And you are more than a jerk if you believe that terrorism can only be conducted against civilians. Tell that to the families of those Marines that died in Beirut. Or tell that to the Families of the dead troops at Ft hood, or the survivors. They were unarmed and helpless against an attack (yes by one posing as our own) by a Muslim who had a personal business card calling himself a Soldier of Allah. This was a terrorist attack And you can shove your definition where the sun don't shine for all I care.

Hmmm....the Constitution and elections were around long before saddam was even born. Hasan had a personal business card calling himself a Soldier of Allah? Got a link or is this filed under Ollie's Follies?

Unlike you I am consistent, decently informed, and definitely not subject to being silenced through emotional blackmail. Your camp is full of ignorance and hypocrisy so take your pontificating and pack it up in a nice neat apple pie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/15hasan.html

November 15, 2009
Investigators Study Tangle of Clues on Fort Hood Suspect

By SCOTT SHANE and JAMES DAO
WASHINGTON — When Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan took his two handguns and headed for Fort Hood on Nov. 5, he left behind in his spartan apartment his new business cards. Now they are one more clue for investigators of the 13 killings he is charged with, hinting at the road not taken.

On the cards, ordered over the Internet after Major Hasan was transferred to the sprawling Texas base in July, the 39-year-old psychiatrist omitted the rank he had achieved in the Army he had served for most of his adult life. Instead, he included the cryptic abbreviation “SoA,” apparently “Servant of Allah” or “Soldier of Allah,” perhaps marking a symbolic shift of allegiance from his military profession to his increasingly consuming faith....

Yeah I got that info but thanks for the link.....was looking it up while you were posting this. Ollie's post made it sound like he left a calling card openly saying he did it for islam. My beef is people will use this to deride islam even more and continue to ignore our own actions. We have been killing so many people over the last decade it is impossible to blame islam and be honest.

 

[Annie]

Hmmm....the Constitution and elections were around long before saddam was even born. Hasan had a personal business card calling himself a Soldier of Allah? Got a link or is this filed under Ollie's Follies?

Unlike you I am consistent, decently informed, and definitely not subject to being silenced through emotional blackmail. Your camp is full of ignorance and hypocrisy so take your pontificating and pack it up in a nice neat apple pie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/15hasan.html

November 15, 2009
Investigators Study Tangle of Clues on Fort Hood Suspect

By SCOTT SHANE and JAMES DAO
WASHINGTON — When Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan took his two handguns and headed for Fort Hood on Nov. 5, he left behind in his spartan apartment his new business cards. Now they are one more clue for investigators of the 13 killings he is charged with, hinting at the road not taken.

On the cards, ordered over the Internet after Major Hasan was transferred to the sprawling Texas base in July, the 39-year-old psychiatrist omitted the rank he had achieved in the Army he had served for most of his adult life. Instead, he included the cryptic abbreviation “SoA,” apparently “Servant of Allah” or “Soldier of Allah,” perhaps marking a symbolic shift of allegiance from his military profession to his increasingly consuming faith....

Yeah I got that info but thanks for the link.....was looking it up while you were posting this. Ollie's post made it sound like he left a calling card openly saying he did it for islam. My beef is people will use this to deride islam even more and continue to ignore our own actions. We have been killing so many people over the last decade it is impossible to blame islam and be honest.

How terribly simple your pov is and wrong.

 

[midcan5]

It really doesn't matter what you call him or name him, what matters is what follows from your naming. Criticizing Islam because it has its nuts and crazies hasn't helped much so far. It is actually a return to the middle ages and the religious wars and conflicts. If you don't believe as I do I kill you. Seems we progressed nada.

So consider Timothy McVeigh or even more pertinent Eric Robert Rudolph, how many here had the same discussion over their religion? (Catholics, as I was raised.) Were they both Christian fascist terrorists as both shared the same anti American government ideology that seems today to be growing again as it did when Clinton was elected. At least the rhetoric is growing. Or were they isolated nutcases influenced by beliefs not shared by the majority of Americans. How many raised all the hyperbole over the holocaust shooter? Seems somewhere in the background hypocrisy always hides its ugly head.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Terrorism?

Yes.

Organized terrorism? Eh, I think the jury is still out, but leaning towards "no".

 

[CurveLight]

You mean when the bomb planted in the IG Farban Building went off 10 minutes after I had left that compound that it wasn't terrorism , Because everyone knows that 90% of the IG Farban Building is Military and normally "In Uniform"

And it wasn't terrorism when the Baader-Meinhoff attacked our artillery base in Germany with small arms fire either? I wonder what you call it?

And then it must not have been terrorism when the marine barracks in beruit was bombed either.

Give it up jerk, you know nothing.

A uniformed soldier attacked uniform soldiers. Let's look at the definition of terrorism:


the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ...
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I'm a jerk but at least I learn about an issue before talking about it. You should try it so you won't embarrass yourself again....like when you claimed Iraq never had a Constitution or elections prior to our invasion.

I think you have to broaden the definition or update it if you will. This is not a war as there are not distinct fronts, uniformed soldiers on each side or specifically held terriorties. You have gorilla warfare, but again, there are still more defined sides. This type of war would still fall more precisely under the rules of war.

This reminds me more of the IRA. A group at war with civilians, police and the military. Do you care to define them as a nonterrorist group. No one else in the world has tried.

You also seem to conveniently forget that some of the dead at Fort Hood were civilians. Police and military were killed too. Indentical to the IRA.

Rules of war? Are you kidding? With our kidnapping and secret prisons who the **** are we to talk about rules of war? Police are not civilians. This was an attack by a uniformed soldier traitor against other soldiers on a military base. The pro war crowd, even in all of its constant lying is forever saying we attack "military targets" so here is someone who did the exact same thing so you want to label it as "terrorism" but when we do it you want to call it "war."

 

[CurveLight]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/15hasan.html

Yeah I got that info but thanks for the link.....was looking it up while you were posting this. Ollie's post made it sound like he left a calling card openly saying he did it for islam. My beef is people will use this to deride islam even more and continue to ignore our own actions. We have been killing so many people over the last decade it is impossible to blame islam and be honest.

How terribly simple your pov is and wrong.

How can I respond to such an iron clad explanation of why my pov is wrong?

 

[CurveLight]

Terrorism?

Yes.

Organized terrorism? Eh, I think the jury is still out, but leaning towards "no".

The only ones involved were active duty soldiers so that means everything our military does is terrorism. I also find it disconcerting that on the largest military base in the US it wasn't prepared to defend itself and had to rely on local cops to stop the attack. Now hush your self righteous cries and listen why I say that: just like we didn't close our borders after 9E this helps show why the WOT is a myth. We are using that phrase to justify our imperialism.

 

[Diuretic]

The claim is that the media and the White House have the following propostions:

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...

Since this has been put forward by PC and there is no supporting evidence to suggest that these four propositions are being held by the media and the White House then I don't know if they can be said to me made out.

Now, PC claims that in reality the following propositions are valid:

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.

1.An assumption is made that the defendant in this matter is a terrorist.
2.The British press provided evidence of the defendant's antecedents
3.The Army and possibly other agencies ignored the information they had about the defendant's antecedents because they were worried about being perceived as racist.

I can accept 2 but I find it difficult to accept 1 and 3.

Dick Morris is introduced and the following propositions are put:


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

I assume – and of course I'll stand corrected – that this is a blanket condemnation of Obama's foreign policy position towards Muslim nations and his insistence on the rule of law. Number 4 is a bit confusing, I assume that somehow Obama is being accused of promoting apathy among citizens (in which case 911 calls should drop off dramatically).


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.

Of course one would expect people who voted for the Republican candidate to say that. What a surprise.

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.

Now I understand.

I've been reading this thread and continually asking myself, “why is it so important to define these actions as being 'terrorism'?” I thought it might have been something to do with the law but I can see it plainly now that it's simple politics.

If the defendant is indicted for murder and not charged with offences related to terrorism then the public view of the incident will be along the lines of “lone religious nutter goes off and murders a bunch of work colleagues” (point here – I am not trivialising the events).

From that will be, “well then we can't blame Obama.”

But if the terrorism angle can be made to stick, particularly if actual charges are brought against the defendant, then Obama is in the hot seat because the public view may well be, “Obama is soft on terrorism.”

The tactic now is, if the defendant is not charged with offences relating to terrorism or sedition or treason or other politico-criminal offences, then the meme will be, “they didn't charge him with terrorism so as to protect Obama.”

Now I get it.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Terrorism?

Yes.

Organized terrorism? Eh, I think the jury is still out, but leaning towards "no".

The only ones involved were active duty soldiers so that means everything our military does is terrorism. I also find it disconcerting that on the largest military base in the US it wasn't prepared to defend itself and had to rely on local cops to stop the attack. Now hush your self righteous cries and listen why I say that: just like we didn't close our borders after 9E this helps show why the WOT is a myth. We are using that phrase to justify our imperialism.

Ahhh, no.

Legal Dictionary



Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
2 : violent and intimidating gang activity terrorism> —ter·ror·ist /-ist/ adj or noun —ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=89/897a452d6c2929adf8b50f088e189c47

The military is not engaged in illegal activity. Hasan was (allegedly).

 

[driveby]

Terrorism?

Yes.

Organized terrorism? Eh, I think the jury is still out, but leaning towards "no".

The only ones involved were active duty soldiers so that means everything our military does is terrorism. I also find it disconcerting that on the largest military base in the US it wasn't prepared to defend itself and had to rely on local cops to stop the attack. Now hush your self righteous cries and listen why I say that: just like we didn't close our borders after 9E this helps show why the WOT is a myth. We are using that phrase to justify our imperialism.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHOQAT0-Mk]YouTube - The Waterboy - Don't Smoke Crack[/ame]

 

[CurveLight]

Terrorism?

Yes.

Organized terrorism? Eh, I think the jury is still out, but leaning towards "no".

The only ones involved were active duty soldiers so that means everything our military does is terrorism. I also find it disconcerting that on the largest military base in the US it wasn't prepared to defend itself and had to rely on local cops to stop the attack. Now hush your self righteous cries and listen why I say that: just like we didn't close our borders after 9E this helps show why the WOT is a myth. We are using that phrase to justify our imperialism.

Ahhh, no.

Legal Dictionary



Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
2 : violent and intimidating gang activity terrorism> —ter·ror·ist /-ist/ adj or noun —ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=89/897a452d6c2929adf8b50f088e189c47

The military is not engaged in illegal activity. Hasan was (allegedly).

It's been well known our military has been engaged in illegal activity for quite a while and we also have the clear evidence it is politically motivated. In hasan's murder we don't know yet if it was politically motivated.

It's also interesting to see how the definition of terrorism gets changed and adjusted as we continue our imperialism. It's being done in a way that anyone who fights our imperialism is deemed a "terrorist" and ignorant and prideful americans are all too happy to have a scapegoat cause God forbid we hold ourselves to the same standards we want others to follow.