Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism

[GHook93]

What if a white separatist went on a shooting rampage at a military base?

Do you think the media and the Army would say, "Hey, let's not jump to any conclusions here. This guy was just a little crazy. Diversity means including everyone, even white separatists."

Nope we would jump all over you white SUPREMACISTS! The media wouldn't hesitate to call that spade a spade!



But then again you would probably blame that distortion on the Jews!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Anyone else notice the well worn rightwing propaganda tactic of the OP?

...i.e., the false premise that 'the media' is denying this was terrorism?

Classic rightwing ploy, fabricate a premise that they want to believe is the case, and then attack it.

Just because you lack the perception to see the veracity of the OP doesn't mean that it isn't true.

And I note "the well worn left-wing propaganda tactic of the" dolt who could not come up with an actual flaw in the OP.

To refute the OP, how about listing the MSM anchors, talking heads, etc. who propounded how this was "terrorism, clear and evident..."

Is that the sound of crickets?

So the position of the OP is that the media should call it terrorism even though the act doesn't fit the definition?

Not any of 'em.

None.

And by coincidence the same MSM folks supported candidate Obama.

Don't see the connection? I thought not.

That would be "Liberal Libretto",

Rule 6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’

 

[HUGGY]

Most of the MSM is not real news. It has merely become the Obama-Run Media at this point. It's all about the White House Talking Points for them. They just do what they're told at this point. If their Hopey Changey declares that "PTSD" was the cause than that's exactly what it was. You really do have go around the corrupt Liberal dominated MSM for real information. They can no longer be trusted. Just look for alternative media sources for information and think for yourself. If you do those two things,you will get honest news and information.

Finally you make sense...I recommend Mike Malloy


mikemalloy.com

 

[G.T.]

Why does anyone give a **** what it's labeled? The act doesn't change once we label it a certain way. He did what he did, and people are dead because of it.

Who the **** cares what we call it. There's more Muslim Jihadists out there being brainwashed than ever before, and if avoiding jumping to the conclusion this is "terrorism" simply because he was a Muslim would in-turn create less of those people, so be it. Seriously. I actually give a **** about the people I know right now in Afghanistan. Do you care? More than you care about a gotcha on the media or President?

Why the **** does Dick Morris' opinion matter on anything?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Just because you lack the perception to see the veracity of the OP doesn't mean that it isn't true.

And I note "the well worn left-wing propaganda tactic of the" dolt who could not come up with an actual flaw in the OP.

To refute the OP, how about listing the MSM anchors, talking heads, etc. who propounded how this was "terrorism, clear and evident..."

Is that the sound of crickets?

So the position of the OP is that the media should call it terrorism even though the act doesn't fit the definition?

Not any of 'em.

None.

And by coincidence the same MSM folks supported candidate Obama.

Don't see the connection? I thought not.

That would be "Liberal Libretto",

Rule 6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’

So NONE of the media (the same media that "supported" Obama) are calling this an act of terrorism ......

Hmmmm......

Since the act doesn't qualify as an act of terrorism under the definition - then I'd say at least this once - they are doing it right.

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
U.S. Law Definition of Terrorism

 

[Rinata]

Had it been a suicide bomb instead of guns, would there be any debate over whether it was a terrorist act?

Nope there would still be no debate - it STILL would not be an act of terrorism. It doesn't fit the definition because of the targets - the METHOD doesn't mean squat in terms of defining it as an act of terrorism.

You can try to ignore the definition and proclaim "I am right" until you are blue in the face. THAT doesn't make you correct in labeling this an act of terrorism either.

What the guy did (allegedy) was a deplorable, reprehensible act that (IMHO) deserves the most severe punishment we can dish out.

But it wasn't an act of terrorism - even if the guy turns out to be a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, that doesn't change the definition. THIS was not an act of terrorism.

Bill O' Reilly has decided it is an act of terrorism. And he is one of the people that the right wing adores. His opinion becomes theirs. They certainly never use critical thinking skills to come to any conclusions.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Do you really want a more simple answer to this question? Ok i'll give it to ya...The Media has denied it was Terrorism because that's what their White House Talking Points ordered them to say. Make no mistake about it,most of the MSM is now controlled by this White House. In fact they even openly boast about this all the time. Real Journalism is now officially dead in this country. It really is the Obama-Run MSM at this point. Don't expect any truth from them. You would actually be much better off relying on foreign media sources for real information about our nation. It is sad but it is what it is in the end.

 

[Coyote]

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

It appears that he is a nut, with a bit of history to support that.

2. We should wait until ‘all the evidence is in’…

Isn't that usually a good idea?

3. Better we take a pass on identifying Major Hasan’s motivations than risk losing ‘diversity’

......better wait until all the info is in rather than risk encouraging more nuts to either retaliate or copycat.

4. It's all those right-wingers...

And your response, I'm sure, is....it's all those leftists....

Here is the real skinny’

Your skinny is soymilk. .

1. Anyone who hasn’t lived in a distant cave for the last decade knows that this was an act of Islamo-fascist terrorism

Perhaps. But that doesn't rule out mental illness.

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.

True. But in addition many of those red flags pointed to mental illness as well. It's a fine line between anti-muslim racism and legitimate concern and the army is also not well equipt to deal with that sort of mental illness. There is a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment and misconceptions targeted at perfectly innocent people including Muslims in the military.

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

Point 1 needed to be done, though it will take some time. It was a stain on our country.
Giving prisoners minimal basic rights (as under the Geneva conventions) is not "making nice".
Point 3 - if by that you mean stop torture - it needed to be done.
Point 4 - is Morris suggesting a return to the tactics of the McCarthy era?

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 do you define terrorism?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Had it been a suicide bomb instead of guns, would there be any debate over whether it was a terrorist act?

Nope there would still be no debate - it STILL would not be an act of terrorism. It doesn't fit the definition because of the targets - the METHOD doesn't mean squat in terms of defining it as an act of terrorism.

You can try to ignore the definition and proclaim "I am right" until you are blue in the face. THAT doesn't make you correct in labeling this an act of terrorism either.

What the guy did (allegedy) was a deplorable, reprehensible act that (IMHO) deserves the most severe punishment we can dish out.

But it wasn't an act of terrorism - even if the guy turns out to be a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, that doesn't change the definition. THIS was not an act of terrorism.

Bill O' Reilly has decided it is an act of terrorism. And he is one of the people that the right wing adores. His opinion becomes theirs. They certainly never use critical thinking skills to come to any conclusions.

People choose to use words incorrectly every day - for a bunch of different reasons.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Does the man's act fit THIS definition?

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

U.S. Law Definition of Terrorism


Just plugging up yours ears and shouting nanny-nanny-boo-boo doesn't change the definition. And honestly, some of you folks who I have previously held in high regard doing just that, is very disappointing.

I have to wonder why?

Why would anyone insist on ignoring the definition? Your posts seem to make your agenda clear - the fact that you'll toss aside fact so easily in an effort to promote your agenda doesn't enhance credibility.

 

[manu1959]

Does the man's act fit THIS definition?

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

U.S. Law Definition of Terrorism


Just plugging up yours ears and shouting nanny-nanny-boo-boo doesn't change the definition. And honestly, some of you folks who I have previously held in high regard doing just that, is very disappointing.

I have to wonder why?

Why would anyone insist on ignoring the definition? Your posts seem to make your agenda clear - the fact that you'll toss aside fact so easily in an effort to promote your agenda doesn't enhance credibility.

so what word would you use.....

 

[kwc57]

Does the man's act fit THIS definition?

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

U.S. Law Definition of Terrorism


Just plugging up yours ears and shouting nanny-nanny-boo-boo doesn't change the definition. And honestly, some of you folks who I have previously held in high regard doing just that, is very disappointing.

I have to wonder why?



Why would anyone insist on ignoring the definition? Your posts seem to make your agenda clear - the fact that you'll toss aside fact so easily in an effort to promote your agenda doesn't enhance credibility.

You are correct. Words have meaning and for real honest communication to occur, it is important that people have a mutual understanding of the meaning of a word. To say that someone who is hiking along a trail and falls to their death was murdered is incorrect. They are just as dead as if they had been murdered, but their death wasn't because of the act of murder. Terrorism has a definition, but it has been so bastardized by people just like the word hero has that people constantly misuse it.

If the shooter was a Baptist named John Smith, would people be calling it an act of terrorism?

Was Patrick (going postal) Sherrill a terrorist? At the time he was considered a mass murderer?

http://www.enidnews.com/opinion/local_story_232005852.html?keyword=topstory

 

[Zander]

He is guilty of treason, espionage, and terrorism. He will be tried, convicted, and executed. I'd like to see him dipped in pigs blood, then wrapped in a dead pig carcass, before being buried under a massive pile of heavily used feminine napkins. He is a scumbag terrorist traitor. **** him.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Honest question:

What's the difference between the Fort Hood Shooter, and the guy who shot the Abortion Doctor at a church?

It seems with the first shooter the Right is eager to label him as a terrorist. With the second shooter, the Right was quick to call the guy a nut. Seems to me that both cases are pretty similar.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Does the man's act fit THIS definition?

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

U.S. Law Definition of Terrorism


Just plugging up yours ears and shouting nanny-nanny-boo-boo doesn't change the definition. And honestly, some of you folks who I have previously held in high regard doing just that, is very disappointing.

I have to wonder why?

Why would anyone insist on ignoring the definition? Your posts seem to make your agenda clear - the fact that you'll toss aside fact so easily in an effort to promote your agenda doesn't enhance credibility.

so what word would you use.....

murderer; dead-man-walking; hell fuel; I personally believe they all fit.

 

[nodoginnafight]

What's the difference between the Fort Hood Shooter, and the guy who shot the Abortion Doctor at a church?

One fits this definition
One does not

"(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"

U.S. Law Definition of Terrorism

 

[nodoginnafight]

The media in general has dropped the ball on many occassions and is certsainly far from perfect.
But I would contend that failing to apply an incorrect term in this case is NOT one of their shortcomings.

 

[manu1959]

Does the man's act fit THIS definition?

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

U.S. Law Definition of Terrorism


Just plugging up yours ears and shouting nanny-nanny-boo-boo doesn't change the definition. And honestly, some of you folks who I have previously held in high regard doing just that, is very disappointing.

I have to wonder why?

Why would anyone insist on ignoring the definition? Your posts seem to make your agenda clear - the fact that you'll toss aside fact so easily in an effort to promote your agenda doesn't enhance credibility.

so what word would you use.....

murderer; dead-man-walking; hell fuel; I personally believe they all fit.

so one military man shoots and kills 13 other military personel and wounds 30....all unarmed....murder that's it....next you will be telling me he should get a light sentance because he was teased for being muslim...

 

[PatekPhilippe]

What's the difference between the Fort Hood Shooter, and the guy who shot the Abortion Doctor at a church?

One fits this definition
One does not

"(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"

U.S. Law Definition of Terrorism

That definition is outdated.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

What's the difference between the Fort Hood Shooter, and the guy who shot the Abortion Doctor at a church?

One fits this definition
One does not

"(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"

U.S. Law Definition of Terrorism

How was the church shooting not:
1. Premeditated
2. Politically motivated

The doctor was certainly a non-combatant. It seems the only quibble is the connection of the Abortion Doc shooter to Abortion groups vs the Fort Hood Shooter's connection to Al-Queda.

Still seems kinda similar.

For the record, I think there's hyporcrisy on both sides here. The Left was quick to call the abortion shooting a terrorist attack, but has been slow to call out the Fort Hood shooting as a terrorist attack, and the Right vice versa. It seems both either are or are not.