Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism

[Dr Grump]

Taken in by a first rate speaker, but third rate politician and leader? Enamored by form, and unaware of substance?

For a start, there wasn't much choice was there? Either you got somebody who would carry on where Bush left off, or you got Barry. That was it.

As for the above part of your post, if you voted for Bush twice, all I can say is, Pot meet Kettle...(although Bush was a third rate speaker, politician and leader...

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm not yet a subscriber to the "Islamo-Terrorist" theory. Nor will I at any point be blaming the President for the massacre. I blame the alleged shooter. The "alleged" shooter because, no matter what else happens, he is innocent until proven guilty and has the same rights no matter what he's accused of doing.

All of that said, I want to see a full Congressional investigation, a complete accounting of who knew what, when and what they did/didn't do about it and why. I want this guy's activities investigated and brought out into the open.

Until then, I draw no conclusions.

For once, I wholeheartedly agree with you except that I'd like to see a Pentagon investigation first, then a congressional investigation if needed. The latter would then have even more information and potential witnesses on which to base conclusions and recommendations to prevent any further acts of extremism of this kind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL It's funny how you end your spin and propaganda with "it's your call" when you had already prepped your counter insult and attack if the reader didn't agree with your spin. oh and since you went there when were "red flags" discovered and who buried them??

The sad thing is that you are trying to spin this that the administration and media are out to "shield" the president while you are apparently out to blame him based on your spin from dick morris when you have presented no factual evidence to support your OPINIONS.

Wow, you are quick!

In no time at all you read the post, analyzed the language, put two and two together...and almost figured out what I said!

Did you miss "... a theory that helps us explain all of the administration and MSM proclamations that..."?

Next time bust out that dust covered Collegiate Dictionary and check out the meaning of 'theory."
See, it's a theory, one which connects many of the events in recent days, 'theory'- that's why "It's your call." Duh.

Now, here is another of your problems: "when were "red flags" discovered and who buried them?"

An understanding of this OP requires that one that one was immersed in the series of events, and followed the myriad posts outlining the statements of fellow students in medical school about outburst by the Major, the FBI's admission that they knew he tried to contact Al Qaeda, his PowerPoint presentation about Islam, Muslims, and the military, etc.

See, these are 'Red Flags.'

"...you are trying to spin this that the administration and media are out to "shield" the president..."
Wrong. I am clearly stating a persuasive theory, and if you had the intellect, you would parry my thrust by outlining a counter-theory that would connect the dots, i.e. all of the MSM coming up with the same concept, as an alternative.

Instead, you are reduced to something along the lines of 'you meany, you just don't like the President..."

So, you blew it. Today could have been your annual 'smart day.'

So that's the best excuse that you have to offer for trying to blame obama for this massacre?? Oh and another funny thing is that in all of your spin based response I don't see an answer to the question that I asked concerning your "theory" based accusation. Instead you present spin and BS avoiding substantiating YOUR own claims by hiding behind what you claim has been discussed in other threads. I wonder why??

Fact is that you presented an unsubstantiated OPINION based on the OPINIONS of dick morris and calling it a theory as you try to spin this and blame obama doesn't make it valid. If you were as smart as you pretend to be you would have known that already.

I suggest you post in your native language.

1. I have not suggested that President Obama is responsible for this horrendous act.

2. I am suggesting that the milieu he has put forward, the anti-Bush attitude toward terrorism is a factor in not acting swiftly in the pursuit of terrorism and terrorists.

3. "unsubstantiated OPINION..." I demand a definition. In English, please.

4. Try to make it like this: theory-: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

5. "...substantiating YOUR own claims ..." To which claims are you referring?

6. Assuming that you are male, to what features or aspects of the Obama regime do you attribute your man-crush?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 live, 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?

Hey, Shakespeare, how about you just show us all 'the media' that proclaimed this was surely not terrorism?

 

[HUGGY]

so now what ??? send him to Gitmo???

Nah, just shoot the SOB. Or would that be a waste of resources?

if he goes in front of a liberal judge case dismissed

You don't really work with a full deck do you sport?

It wasn't liberals that sent you into war and messed up yor mind so bad. It was you.

You could have gotten a deferment just like your big war(monger) heros Bush and Cheney.

 

[MaggieMae]

The guy is a Jihadi.

No idea why many media outlits and president Barry won't say so.

I think it's pretty clear what he thinks the guy is.

At Ft. Hood ceremony: "It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Taken in by a first rate speaker, but third rate politician and leader? Enamored by form, and unaware of substance?

For a start, there wasn't much choice was there? Either you got somebody who would carry on where Bush left off, or you got Barry. That was it.

As for the above part of your post, if you voted for Bush twice, all I can say is, Pot meet Kettle...(although Bush was a third rate speaker, politician and leader...

Spot on.

I admit that I found little choice, as I am conservative.

I belive that you are incorrect, and ultimately - even though most historians are liberal, President Bush, and his attempts to bring freedom and democracy to enslaved people, will be rated far higher than President Obama.

 

[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?

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.

"...you show us 'the media.' "

By the use of the 'us,' you have identified yourself as one of the following:
1) a newspaper editor

2) royalty

3) an individual with a tapeworm

Since I doubt you are 1) or 2), my best wishes on improved health.

Yesterday's O'Reilly Factor showed a montage of seven or eight of the MSM anchors and talking heads laying the blame on everything but Islamo-fascist terrorism.

Sorry you missed it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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 live, 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?

Hey, Shakespeare, how about you just show us all 'the media' that proclaimed this was surely not terrorism?

Did I hit a sore spot re: your literacy?

And, see post #148 for a more complete answer.

 

[Rinata]

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.

Most on the Left refused to recognize Him as President. 9/11 gave Him a short lived time out.

I think you're referring to the mess in Florida and how the supreme court resolved the question of who won the lection. Yes, that's true. We were not happy. But I think acceptance took over and we at least gave him a chance. Even more so after 9/11. But after he insisted we had to go to Iraq, it was all over.

 

[Rinata]

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.

Based on what?? You and the other right wing nuts on here are always making statements about what your fellow citizens know, think, support, like, and dislike. I think you should knock it off unless you're willing to provide a reliable source, which you never do.

 

[Rinata]

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!

Listen, sweetie. I'm so sorry you wasted your time. Your opinion of me is of absolutely no importance. And the funny part is, that it describes YOU to a tee. What a dumb broad you are. But thanks for the laugh.

 

[Rinata]

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?

You are trying very hard to come across as intelligent and insightful. But you're not. You sound very immature and you're starting to bore me.

 

[Rinata]

Wow, you are quick!

In no time at all you read the post, analyzed the language, put two and two together...and almost figured out what I said!

Did you miss "... a theory that helps us explain all of the administration and MSM proclamations that..."?

Next time bust out that dust covered Collegiate Dictionary and check out the meaning of 'theory."
See, it's a theory, one which connects many of the events in recent days, 'theory'- that's why "It's your call." Duh.

Now, here is another of your problems: "when were "red flags" discovered and who buried them?"

An understanding of this OP requires that one that one was immersed in the series of events, and followed the myriad posts outlining the statements of fellow students in medical school about outburst by the Major, the FBI's admission that they knew he tried to contact Al Qaeda, his PowerPoint presentation about Islam, Muslims, and the military, etc.

See, these are 'Red Flags.'

"...you are trying to spin this that the administration and media are out to "shield" the president..."
Wrong. I am clearly stating a persuasive theory, and if you had the intellect, you would parry my thrust by outlining a counter-theory that would connect the dots, i.e. all of the MSM coming up with the same concept, as an alternative.

Instead, you are reduced to something along the lines of 'you meany, you just don't like the President..."

So, you blew it. Today could have been your annual 'smart day.'

So that's the best excuse that you have to offer for trying to blame obama for this massacre?? Oh and another funny thing is that in all of your spin based response I don't see an answer to the question that I asked concerning your "theory" based accusation. Instead you present spin and BS avoiding substantiating YOUR own claims by hiding behind what you claim has been discussed in other threads. I wonder why??

Fact is that you presented an unsubstantiated OPINION based on the OPINIONS of dick morris and calling it a theory as you try to spin this and blame obama doesn't make it valid. If you were as smart as you pretend to be you would have known that already.

I suggest you post in your native language.

1. I have not suggested that President Obama is responsible for this horrendous act.

2. I am suggesting that the milieu he has put forward, the anti-Bush attitude toward terrorism is a factor in not acting swiftly in the pursuit of terrorism and terrorists.

3. "unsubstantiated OPINION..." I demand a definition. In English, please.

4. Try to make it like this: theory-: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

5. "...substantiating YOUR own claims ..." To which claims are you referring?

6. Assuming that you are male, to what features or aspects of the Obama regime do you attribute your man-crush?

There you go again trying to sound like a great big girl. Where did you get these questions from???

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

"...you show us 'the media.' "

By the use of the 'us,' you have identified yourself as one of the following:
1) a newspaper editor

2) royalty

3) an individual with a tapeworm

Since I doubt you are 1) or 2), my best wishes on improved health.

Yesterday's O'Reilly Factor showed a montage of seven or eight of the MSM anchors and talking heads laying the blame on everything but Islamo-fascist terrorism.

Sorry you missed it.

So that's a long way of saying you have nothing to back up your claim that 'the media' declared that it wasn't terrorism?

Nice job.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 live, 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?

Hey, Shakespeare, how about you just show us all 'the media' that proclaimed this was surely not terrorism?

Did I hit a sore spot re: your literacy?

And, see post #148 for a more complete answer.

I was reading Faulkner when you were crying to your mom about your poopie pants.

 

[Xenophon]

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.

I win that bet, three people told me I ended the nonsense, I insisted someone would still try to split hairs.

Did he attack civilians or military?

The definition of 'military' means armed soldiers in the field of battle.

Do you seriously believe a base filled with unarmed people qualifies?

Better check the the silly bastard handbook before answering.

What was his proclaimed goal?

To kill infidels, the army charged him with PREMEDITATED murder.

BTW, he was passing business cards saying 'soldier of allah' on them.

 

[Xenophon]

The guy is a Jihadi.

No idea why many media outlits and president Barry won't say so.

I think it's pretty clear what he thinks the guy is.

At Ft. Hood ceremony: "It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next."

Yet Barry still won't call him what he is, a terrorist.

Perhaps Major Jihadi feared having his head cut off and burning lead being poured down his neck if he didn't kill him some infidels.

 

[Xenophon]

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"?

Go split hairs somewhere else Junior, you bore me.

 

[KittenKoder]

The question everyone should ask themselves and honestly answer is:

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

Likely not, and they'd still blame guns on one side, and blame foreigners on the other ... it's one huge mess when the answer is so simple that most posters in this thread actually posted it: Just shoot the ******.