Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism

[drsmith1072]

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.

so your response to criticism is to attack any who do not accept the opinions that you present in the OP?

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.

what is there to refute? You present an unsubstantited opinion based on the opinion of dick morris as you try to blame obama while calling your OPINION a theory as if that makes it valid.

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

So you can't PROVE your claims made in the OP but demand that it be proven wrong? I thought you had to prove your claims and not the other way around?? Oh that's right you were only presenting a "THEORY" and therefore don't have to substantiate it. LOL

Is that the sound of crickets?

Do you often hear crickets when you make a fool of yourself or is jiminy cricket on your shoulder screaming at you telling you how a big of a mistake you are making as you ignore him?

 

[drsmith1072]

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?

Apparently the right wants to label it a terroist attack so they can attack an blame obama for allowing a terrorist attack to happen on his watch. That seems to be the gist of their argument anyway.

 

[drsmith1072]

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 terrorism by a muslim extremist. They just don't want to call it that because it happened on Obama's watch.

Can you imagine if Bush were still President, oh my God, what they would be saying about this incident would peal your skin off. It's the old double standard, one for libs and a totally different one for moderates and conservative Republicans.

LOL Can you also imagine what the same people attacking obama right now would be saying if this had happened on W's watch?? You know, those who are more than likely the same people claiming W kept America safe for eight years despite the fact that our embassies overseas were attacked. However, embassies only count as America when a democrat is president or at least that is the way it was for righties when clinton was president.

 

[drsmith1072]

Possibly. It may fit the definition. I would add Religious Motive, or include that under Political.

Did the Administration and It's Policies obstruct the realization that this man was a Threat?
We need more free flow of information.

You do realize that he was being watched under the previous admin and it's policies don't you? I'd be careful casting that stone as it appears there would be plenty of blame to go around.

Blame is secondary to fixing the problem.

and yet the OP is all about blaming obama.

 

[kwc57]

A lot of silly bastards are again making the rounds in this thread i see.

Maj Jihadi committed an act of TERRORISM, no matter how much you want it not to be:

•S: (n) terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)

WordNet Search - 3.0

So can we stop the Clintonain bullshit of trying to say what 'is' is?

Back the truck up.

Did he attack civilians or military?

What was his proclaimed goal?

 

[kwc57]

The Media denies it was Terrorism because that's what their White House Talking Points ordered them to say. My God,why can't more people understand that this White House controls most of the MSM? His lackeys are actually out there openly boasting about this all the time. Unfortunately most of the MSM only reports what they are ordered to report at this point. It's getting harder and harder to find credible news sources. Just assume you're being lied to by the MSM and you really will have a better chance of seeing the truth. If most of the MSM is claiming that it wasn't Terrorism,then just go ahead and assume it was. They are mere White House Talking Point parrots at this point. Pretty sad stuff.

You've made your point......repreatedly.......no need to.......

View attachment 8688​

 

[drsmith1072]

OMG, you guys want to hang something on him so badly!!! It's really pathetic.

nope....just pointing some things....really no differnt than you not wanting him to be responsible for anything.......

there is the he can only do wrong crowd.....and the he can do no worng crowd....

then there is the waht is he doing and why is he doing that crowd....

how about this....name a mistake he has made.....or soemthing he is doing that you disagree with....

Although I do have criticisms, this is the last place I would voice them. And this crap about libs thinking Obama is perfect, is just more crap. That's what Bush supporters did, and then projected that onto us.

And I'll keep repeating this until you people get it. At least we gave Bush a chance. We did not make the first months of his presidency a nightmare. And the left totally supported him after the terrorist attack on 9/11.

Why don't you answer something?? If 9/11 had happened on Obama's watch, would he have gotten the same support from the right?? Hell no!!! And I firmly believe that.

I don't know what it was like on here but on the msnbc boards righties were blaming and attacking obama right after the election despite the fact that he wouldn't take office until Jan 20 2009.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

Utter nonsense.

Maybe the media is just following the dictates of the rightwing earlier this year when it insisted we not jump to conclusions that the killing of the abortion doctor was terrorism.

Document or retract.

why bother, according to you they can just call whatever they say a "theory" and therefore they don't have to substantiate or document anything. After all that is what you did with the OP.

 

[drsmith1072]

A lot of silly bastards are again making the rounds in this thread i see.

Maj Jihadi committed an act of TERRORISM, no matter how much you want it not to be:

•S: (n) terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)

WordNet Search - 3.0

So can we stop the Clintonain bullshit of trying to say what 'is' is?

How would you define "calculated use of violence" and what were his goals "politically or religious or idealogical"?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Utter nonsense.

Maybe the media is just following the dictates of the rightwing earlier this year when it insisted we not jump to conclusions that the killing of the abortion doctor was terrorism.

Document or retract.

why bother, according to you they can just call whatever they say a "theory" and therefore they don't have to substantiate or document anything. After all that is what you did with the OP.

The "why bother" is because it will provide the method to determine whether you are a thoughtful proponent of another perspective,, or a drooled-chin sycophant of the left whose intent is to argufy rather than clarify.

 

[PoliticalChic]

again its politics. Osama does not want the term "terrorists attack" used. it reflect on him.

That is the reason for the OP.

 

[drsmith1072]

Document or retract.

why bother, according to you they can just call whatever they say a "theory" and therefore they don't have to substantiate or document anything. After all that is what you did with the OP.

The "why bother" is because it will provide the method to determine whether you are a thoughtful proponent of another perspective,, or a drooled-chin sycophant of the left whose intent is to argufy rather than clarify.

it's funny how you chime in on this with spin but ignore everything else that has been posted to call you out for your BS. LOL

You demand proof but provide none, I merely called you out for your hypocrisy and for holding you to your own standard you attack me.
You presented an OPINION, have been asked for substance, failed to provide any and then you demand proof from others. Did you document anything that you said in the OP?? NOPE!
So that would make you, according to your own standard, a drooled-chin sycophant of the RIGHT whose intent is to argufy rather than clarify. LOL

 

[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?

Of course that is not the "position of the OP."

You have tried to use a definition without proper consideration of context.

It is the times we are living in and the numerous terroristic acts of the past decade or so that give context for the act.

The majority of the public see the terroristic act for what it is, and the OP lays out a method that explains why the MSM, which is also responsible for the positive coverage that Barack Obama has gotten ( "It's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg.) will not comment on it as such.

 

[drsmith1072]

again its politics. Osama does not want the term "terrorists attack" used. it reflect on him.

That is the reason for the OP.

So do you admit that you are applying it because you want it to reflect on him?? After all you brought in the opinion of dick morris to try and blame obama for this incident so it's only natural to believe that is your intent. If that is not the case could you clarify your intent?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bottomline--he is a traitor.

Why haven't we shoot this guy yet?

aren't traitors shot at dawn.....what is taking so long....

Chalk it up to the feminization of America.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

\

What a total and complete bunch of crap.

I'm filled with sadness whenever I see a post under your name, as it is consistently insipid.

I have yet to see you bring facts, documentation, or actual thought to this marketplace of ideas.

I hope it is due to lack of time, or even lack of effort.

Alas, I fear it is lack of cerebral cortex.

I picture you as that poor child whose hand had to be directed by the teacher, just so you could print your name.

And that was in high school!

 

[manu1959]

again its politics. Osama does not want the term "terrorists attack" used. it reflect on him.

That is the reason for the OP.

So do you admit that you are applying it because you want it to reflect on him?? After all you brought in the opinion of dick morris to try and blame obama for this incident so it's only natural to believe that is your intent. If that is not the case could you clarify your intent?

obama's watch...obama's fault.....just trying to be consistant pres to pres....

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Possibly. It may fit the definition. I would add Religious Motive, or include that under Political.

Did the Administration and It's Policies obstruct the realization that this man was a Threat?
We need more free flow of information.

You do realize that he was being watched under the previous admin and it's policies don't you? I'd be careful casting that stone as it appears there would be plenty of blame to go around.

You just don't get it.

Political correctness is not the sole province of Democrats, or Republicans.

Both have used this offshoot of identity politics, and it is wrong in both.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

How about to support the OP's original claim, you show us 'the media'

announcing that this was surely not terrorism: anything but.

And be sure to provide us with enough examples in the media to justify the OP's making it a broadbased generalization.

Take your time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

again its politics. Osama does not want the term "terrorists attack" used. it reflect on him.

OMG, you guys want to hang something on him so badly!!! It's really pathetic.

Did you ever view the special relationship between close friends and say to yourself “For the life of me, I can’t see what blank sees in blank…”(Insert names of he and she, or she and he, or he and he or…whatever).

Being a thinking individual, I often have the same wonderment with respect to board members who are President Obama’s abettors, such as this poster and the 'thank you-er.'
Why are they so????

Taken in by a first rate speaker, but third rate politician and leader?

Enamored by form, and unaware of substance?

Hate Bush so much that it blinds them?

Perhaps all of the above, or…

… as I rubbed my chin, deep in thought, an insight from my reading of William Faulkner’s The Hamlet.

The character who explains the Obama supporters is Ike Snopes, one so enthralled by the love of his life, that he arose early in the morn to sneak down to the pond to watch her as she bathes!

He could think of no other! Desired this beauty day and night!

And this is the kind of inexplicable love we see in our USMB-Ike Snopes’!
And now I understand.

But if you recall The Hamlet, and realize that the object of Ike’s affection is , shall we say, of the bovine persuasion.
Faulkner wrote of a feeble minded member of the Snopes family with carnal inclinations towards livestock!

And, for those board members who require the USAToday version of posts, I’m saying that one can only understand the Obama supporters if one can understand Ike Snopes and his cow-thing.

Or, do you have some other explanation?