Two problems: your first sentence is ipse dixit and pure opinion. Quantify that and you'll have a point.
Second, and there are two problems within this, if you think that bullshit link makes the point, it doesn't -- it's focused on CNN's interpretation of a story (as terrorism)... which is not news. The event is the news, and CNN did cover that. News organizations, if that's what they are, have no business putting their own interpretations on the news. That's in no way "honest".
The second problem is that the theory is wrong anyway -- the Boston bombing cannot be described as terrorism. Terrorism carries a message. That's its whole point. When an abortion doctor is murdered, when a World Trade Center or Pentagon is hit, when a government building is blown up, that's a clear message. When bombs go off at a city marathon, the message is --- what? "Walk, don't run"?
The purpose of terrorism isn't cut and dried, but I can say without a doubt it is meant to cause terror.
I think plenty there were terrified.
Of course they were but that's not what we mean by terrorism as a geopolitical term. Which is what your Hotair (irony noted) link wanted them to call it.
I mean, a building on fire or a tornado can cause terror too but we don't call it "terrorism". And I have no doubt the children and staff at Sandy Hook a year ago were terrified; doesn't make Adam Lanza a terrorist.
The purpose makes all the difference but the end result is the same.
I can tell you've had this discussion before. The brothers that set off those bombs were Muslims and they were doing it for political reasons, regardless what you claim.
BTW, weren't we talking about Beck and Fox being opinion rather than news? Nonsense. I see more opinion on MSNBC and CNN every day than I do on Fox. (CNN and MSNBC censor too much for them not to have slanted coverage) The reason I know is because I watch them all. Perhaps most of your feelings of Fox are drawn from opinion from their detractors rather than their actual coverage.
Last edited: