Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism

[obama2ndterm]

Just another nut< (like those postal workers) going off at work. Mental illness does not equate terrorism!

 

[Xenophon]

Just another nut< (like those postal workers) going off at work. Mental illness does not equate terrorism!

How many 'postal workers' shout 'Allah Akbar' while killing people and give speeches at medical symposiums that say that unless you are a Muslim you are going to hell, after your head is chopped off and hot lead poured down your throat.

The lengths some of you are going to to excuse terrorism is astounding.

 

[oreo]

It's the political "correctness" of this country that has gotten us into this mess. We see it at the airport everyday. Haul the 90 year old black, white, asian women over to the counter to wand her while she has her grandchildren waiting & Hey let that asian looking guy in his 30-40's walk through with no problems what-so-ever.

In this case they even promoted the guy to Major---freakin unbelievable!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

So then, the attacks on our armed services cannot be acts of terrorism? Not the Cole? Not Khobar Towers? Not any attack on our armed forces that didn't also involve mass murder of civilians?

See the problem yet?

Yes, I see what you are struggling with

BY DEFINITION - if the target is a military target (and if the weapon is not civilians) then the act (though it may be deplorable) doesn't fit the definition of terrorism. The U.S. has accidentially killed civilians while attacking legitimate military targets before - that didn't make US terrorists in your eyes does it?

See the problem yet?

You're having a hard time with this narrow definition stuff.

 

[oreo]

Just another nut< (like those postal workers) going off at work. Mental illness does not equate terrorism!

Da--Da--Duh--dittohead--were those postal workers communicating with radical--extremist muslims also--& giving speeches on what they thought--which is also an indication of what they may do---

BTW--your man is toast already--no way he gets a second term--

 

[Charles Stucker]

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 ******.

Au contraire - I recommended a nice Court Martial followed by execution.
To be finished before Thanksgiving.
Just shooting him leaves out a step.
Though then we could be finished by 10 minutes after dawn tomorrow.

 

[KittenKoder]

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 ******.

Au contraire - I recommended a nice Court Martial followed by execution.
To be finished before Thanksgiving.
Just shooting him leaves out a step.
Though then we could be finished by 10 minutes after dawn tomorrow.

I already included your view. ... and I agree with it.

 

[California Girl]

Just another nut< (like those postal workers) going off at work. Mental illness does not equate terrorism!

His 'business cards' give a clue with the 'SoA(SWT) thing - Soldier of Allah.

On the subject of his 'business cards', anyone else notice the spelling mistake on them? What a fucken loser -the guy couldn't even proofread his business cards.

Execute the SOB ASAP.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Ah, it's the return of the Ike Snopes of the Message Board!

I wish I could say glad to see you, but I rather like dealing with a higher level debater.

And once again you have established yourself as the bottom rung on the ladder.

But- never let it be said that I don't try to help out my fellow board members:
Here, write this down-
"The most commonly prescribed medication used to treat ADHD is Ritalin (the generic form is called methylphenidate), although other stimulant medications are also used including Adderall, Dexedrine, and Cylert. Available evidence suggests that stimulants work by correcting a biochemical condition in the brain that interferes with attention and impulse control."

Now, to dispense with your bogus "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..."

I understand your short-term-memory deprivation, but the 'reliable source' is the Rasmussen Poll that I provided in post #24 of this thread.

And the 60% referenced in the poll would explain my statement that the 'majority' agree about the Ft. Hood massacre being terrorism.

Would you like to apologize?

And as for not providing documentation, not only have I just re-identified you as a dolt, but I defy you to find any of my posts requiring documentation where I have not done so.
Otherwise you, in addition to being intellect-challenged, would be self-identified as a prevaricator.

So, will you be retracting and apologizing, or merely remain the lying fool and cow-worshiper?

Your call.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Ah, it's the return of the Ike Snopes of the Message Board!

I wish I could say glad to see you, but I rather like dealing with a higher level debater.

And once again you have established yourself as the bottom rung on the ladder.

But- never let it be said that I don't try to help out my fellow board members:
Here, write this down-
"The most commonly prescribed medication used to treat ADHD is Ritalin (the generic form is called methylphenidate), although other stimulant medications are also used including Adderall, Dexedrine, and Cylert. Available evidence suggests that stimulants work by correcting a biochemical condition in the brain that interferes with attention and impulse control."

Now, to dispense with your bogus "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..."

I understand your short-term-memory deprivation, but the 'reliable source' is the Rasmussen Poll that I provided in post #24 of this thread.

And the 60% referenced in the poll would explain my statement that the 'majority' agree about the Ft. Hood massacre being terrorism.

Would you like to apologize?

And as for not providing documentation, not only have I just re-identified you as a dolt, but I defy you to find any of my posts requiring documentation where I have not done so.
Otherwise you, in addition to being intellect-challenged, would be self-identified as a prevaricator.

So, will you be retrating and apologizing, or merely remain the lying fool and cow-worshiper?

Your call.

The fact that there's a "poll" over what to call this shit is dispicable, TBH. Really pathetic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Now that you have established your expertise re: Faulkner, possibly you would like to comment on my analysis of you Obama-supporters having the same attractions to our 44th President, as the less-than-perspicacious Ike Snopes has to Elsie the Cow.

And, you and Ike, with the same degree of deliberation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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???

I'm beginning to feel badly, as though I'm taking advantage of you- perhaps I should restrict myself to words of two or fewer syllables.

And as for "Where did you get these questions from??? " if you are suggesting that I don't write my own 'questions,' it is more proof of the old saying "We can only judge others by ourselves."

Have someone explain that to you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Now that you have established your expertise re: Faulkner, possibly you would like to comment on my analysis of you Obama-supporters having the same attractions to our 44th President, as the less-than-perspicacious Ike Snopes has to Elsie the Cow.

And, you and Ike, with the same degree of deliberation.

All I want to see is a meaningful list of those media outlets who outright DENIED that the killer was a terrorist.
That would refute my observation that this thread is nothing more than a typical rightwing strawman ploy.

So?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Name the media outlets who declared he was not a terrorist.

 

[G.T.]

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

Now that you have established your expertise re: Faulkner, possibly you would like to comment on my analysis of you Obama-supporters having the same attractions to our 44th President, as the less-than-perspicacious Ike Snopes has to Elsie the Cow.

And, you and Ike, with the same degree of deliberation.

All I want to see is a meaningful list of those media outlets who outright DENIED that the killer was a terrorist.
That would refute my observation that this thread is nothing more than a typical rightwing strawman ploy.

So?

Of course it's a ******* strawman.

If you've got Family in harm's way right now, or friends even, you can surely see why the President might ask to wait for facts to come in before jumping to conclusions.

Or......should he have been a dolt and said "Muslim! = Terrorist!" and emboldened more Muslims in the fight against said Family members and Friends?

He just yesterday ordered an investigation into what we knew and when. Good on him. The level headed approach to anything is "teh embarrassin!"

 

[Rinata]

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???

I'm beginning to feel badly, as though I'm taking advantage of you- perhaps I should restrict myself to words of two or fewer syllables.

And as for "Where did you get these questions from??? " if you are suggesting that I don't write my own 'questions,' it is more proof of the old saying "We can only judge others by ourselves."

Have someone explain that to you.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Your "mean girl" speeches are boring me. Coupled with the picture you chose, I have decided that you really are an immature little twit. A mature woman would never use that picture or rely mostly on insults to communicate. If you don't have anything of substance to say, I'm going to have to put you on ignore.

 

[nodoginnafight]

What a bunch of tripe.
Let's just be perfectly clear on some facts:
1)The act clearly does not fit the definition that the State Department is required by law to use in identifying terrorism.
2) The act MAY fit the legal definition under the U.S. Criminal Code if the following criteria can be proven: activities that involve violent&#8230; or life-threatening acts&#8230; that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and&#8230; appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping&#8230;."

3) The perp's religious affiliation is NOT a criteria
4) The perp's nationality or race is NOT a criteria

5) If folks could replace petty and vulgar condescention with intelligent debate and discussion of the PERTINENT CRITERIA, their arguments and positions will gain a lot more serious consideration.

Now, would anyone care to comment on the media's alleged reluctance to assume that all of the REAL criteria for labeling an incident as terrorism have been met in this particular case?

 

[G.T.]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Your "mean girl" speeches are boring me. Coupled with the picture you chose, I have decided that you really are an immature little twit. A mature woman would never use that picture or rely mostly on insults to communicate. If you don't have anything of substance to say, I'm going to have to put you on ignore.

Easy on the picture . In all seriousness, short of a cartoons I never got why people post their avatars as someone else's physique.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Was the Virginia Tech shooter a terrorist? Did the media call his act terrorism? Why?
Which of the shooters left behind a lenghty political "manifesto"?
Are all murders commited by Muslims "terrorism"?

Most importantly, did the man's actions fit the definition of terrorism under U.S., Texas, or Military criminal code?
THOSE are the questions that must be satisfied BEFORE you start whining about what the big bad ol' "MSM" said or didn't say.

 

[G.T.]

Was the Virginia Tech shooter a terrorist? Did the media call his act terrorism? Why?
Which of the shooters left behind a lenghty political "manifesto"?
Are all murders commited by Muslims "terrorism"?

Most importantly, did the man's actions fit the defition of terrorism under U.S., Texas, or Military criminal code?
THOSE are the questions that must be satisfied BEFORE you start whining about what the big bad ol' "MSM" said or didn't say.

In other words, don't jump to conclusions about shit, exactly as the President had suggested not to.