Why are certain people afraid to call Hasan a terrorist?

[dtmfs]

is this even debatable? I've noticed 2 shows on MSNBC have been jumping on Fox news for calling this guy a terrorist. Maddow at least tried having a debate about it. problem is she wasent making any sense considering a certain segment she aired last year. tonight she showed a montage of clips of Fox of course calling him a terrorist, and how wrong that is.

But just last year she lead off her show with a story about anti abortion terrorists after george tiller was killed. so by her logic scott roeder is definitley a terrorist, yet this guy who had ties with al queda's not? tonight she was careful and didn't call roeder or the other anti abortion activists who commited murder terrorists, she was real careful about it, instead she and a lawyer debated whether or not hasan should be labled as a terrorist or simply a mass murderer who snapped. MSNBC has a big set of balls talking shit about Fox news, they're everybit as bad, biased and hypocritical.

faith or race shouldn't be an issue.

Mcveigh and nichols= terrorists
scott roeder=terrorist
Malik Hasan= terrorist

How hard is this shit to figure out?

[thejuggernaut]

is this even debatable? I've noticed 2 shows on MSNBC have been jumping on Fox news for calling this guy a terrorist. Maddow at least tried having a debate about it. problem is she wasent making any sense considering a certain segment she aired last year. tonight she showed a montage of clips of Fox of course calling him a terrorist, and how wrong that is.

But just last year she lead off her show with a story about anti abortion terrorists after george tiller was killed. so by her logic scott roeder is definitley a terrorist, yet this guy who had ties with al queda's not? tonight she was careful and didn't call roeder or the other anti abortion activists who commited murder terrorists, she was real careful about it, instead she and a lawyer debated whether or not hasan should be labled as a terrorist or simply a mass murderer who snapped. MSNBC has a big set of balls talking shit about Fox news, they're everybit as bad, biased and hypocritical.

faith or race shouldn't be an issue.

Mcveigh and nichols= terrorists
scott roeder=terrorist
Malik Hasan= terrorist

How hard is this shit to figure out?

Because the North American left trip over themselves to lick the boots of the muslim community because they're under the insane delusion that if the hardcore practitioners see how highly they think of themselves, they'll end their mandate for elimination.

In other words, if you just give the bully your lunch money, they'll stop picking on you.

Besides, who gives a flying fuck what that twat has to say about anything - she can't can't even settle on a gender, for christ's sake.

[dtmfs]

[
Because the North American left trip over themselves to lick the boots of the muslim community because they're under the insane delusion that if the hardcore practitioners see how highly they think of themselves, they'll end their mandate for elimination.

In other words, if you just give the bully your lunch money, they'll stop picking on you.

Besides, who gives a flying fuck what that twat has to say about anything - she can't can't even settle on a gender, for christ's sake.

I'm not surprised by the hypocrisy, I watch channels on both sides basically for entertainment purposes, this story just struck me as something that theres no need to argue about, especially since more details have poured in. Everyone knows o'reilly can be a jackass but they were calling him out for calling hasan a terrorist, and those fuckers tried pinning tillers murder on o'reilly and fox news.


I know these hosts are smart(most of them), but they seem to lack common sense, and honestly hate the other side so much they'll do or say anything to discredit them, even to the point of coming off as completley brain dead.

[thejuggernaut]

[
Because the North American left trip over themselves to lick the boots of the muslim community because they're under the insane delusion that if the hardcore practitioners see how highly they think of themselves, they'll end their mandate for elimination.

In other words, if you just give the bully your lunch money, they'll stop picking on you.

Besides, who gives a flying fuck what that twat has to say about anything - she can't can't even settle on a gender, for christ's sake.

I'm not surprised by the hypocrisy, I watch channels on both sides basically for entertainment purposes, this story just struck me as something that theres no need to argue about, especially since more details have poured in. Everyone knows o'reilly can be a jackass but they were calling him out for calling hasan a terrorist, and those fuckers tried pinning tillers murder on o'reilly and fox news.


I know these hosts are smart(most of them), but they seem to lack common sense, and honestly hate the other side so much they'll do or say anything to discredit them, even to the point of coming off as completley brain dead.

The sad reality is, even a brainless moron like Hannity sees it for what it is.

However, I suppose the expression "even a broken clock is right twice a day" is applicable to Captain Asbestos McBarmix.

[thejuggernaut]

Don't get me wrong, the members of the media have a responsibility to not incite panic via knee jerk reactions, so they should wait until more facts are known before making any declarations.

With that, there is absolutely no doubt this was an act of terror and to watch some of these abject failures try to call it anything but is just sickening.

[nikkiq]

I think this article makes a good point...
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/w ... og-189389/

If Bill O'Reilly and his ilk prove anything, it is that murderous hardliners exist on both sides of the fence. Hate filled people are not limited to one religion or one country. Unfortunately, in the USA and Iraq and Afghanistan, the moderates who would much rather have a nice lunch than launch drones to kill people from half a world away, or who would much rather enjoy the beautiful terrain of the Middle East than die in an IED attack have been marginalized by the much louder, much more violent extremists in whose ears the drums of war and death beat so loudly that no reason can be heard.

There is a reason why Barack Obama did not call the incident a terrorist attack, and it is because it does nobody any good to do so. There is nothing to be gained from inciting more fear, more anger and more violence. The hands of the US and Iraq and Afghanistan are bathed in the blood of their best, brightest and bravest and it is time to start washing them clean, not to continue to cycle of death and hatred that is bleeding coffers and hearts dry.

I am also suspicious that someone, somewhere allowed this to happen in order to play on the public's fear of Muslims and help gain support for the "War on Terror".

[drloveschild]

I think this article makes a good point...
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/w ... og-189389/

If Bill O'Reilly and his ilk prove anything, it is that murderous hardliners exist on both sides of the fence. Hate filled people are not limited to one religion or one country. Unfortunately, in the USA and Iraq and Afghanistan, the moderates who would much rather have a nice lunch than launch drones to kill people from half a world away, or who would much rather enjoy the beautiful terrain of the Middle East than die in an IED attack have been marginalized by the much louder, much more violent extremists in whose ears the drums of war and death beat so loudly that no reason can be heard.

There is a reason why Barack Obama did not call the incident a terrorist attack, and it is because it does nobody any good to do so. There is nothing to be gained from inciting more fear, more anger and more violence. The hands of the US and Iraq and Afghanistan are bathed in the blood of their best, brightest and bravest and it is time to start washing them clean, not to continue to cycle of death and hatred that is bleeding coffers and hearts dry.

I am also suspicious that someone, somewhere allowed this to happen in order to play on the public's fear of Muslims and help gain support for the "War on Terror".

Here is the bottom line. If this act or any other is associated in anyway to any terrorist group/affiliation or what have you...if the man, men, women, child or whomever was ever part of a terrorist group and acted out violently....I personally want to know and my philosophy is that you call it what it is. You do not "hide" it to avoid negative press. This is the extreme opposite of the fear tactics people hate. Hiding it is lying and being untrust worthy. As well as very insulting. Again...similar to a this health care plan, it is a new direction but definatley not better as far as having no negative effects. Being in the dark about something is not better. As far as fear tactings or rosey colored glasses, stop pulling it one way or the other. Tell us the facts without leaning one way. That is true journalism.

So if an administration or media is willing to avoid any negative statements because it might generate fear,anger or support something you are against. Are you actually being told the truth about other things? You are still being spoon fed, you just like this flavor better. Problem still exists and hiding it will not end it. If this was affiliated with anything terrorist....people who hate us still exist and eventually the Boom will get louder (for whatever reason) until you cannot ignore it. Which is what progressively happened until 9/11. Being aware and informed is not bad. Maybe bad for people who want your vote or money....but not your safety. Which do you truely value?

[nikkiq]

I don't disagree with that. I just think the article made a good point and might go some way to explain why some are hesitant to label this guy a terrorist. Me? I don't know... maybe he is a terrorist, maybe he just freaked the fuck out... we'll have to wait and see as more info emerges I guess.

[tin00can]

Here is the bottom line. If this act or any other is associated in anyway to any terrorist group/affiliation or what have you...if the man, men, women, child or whomever was ever part of a terrorist group and acted out violently....I personally want to know and my philosophy is that you call it what it is. You do not "hide" it to avoid negative press. This is the extreme opposite of the fear tactics people hate. Hiding it is lying and being untrust worthy. As well as very insulting. Again...similar to a this health care plan, it is a new direction but definatley not better as far as having no negative effects. Being in the dark about something is not better. As far as fear tactings or rosey colored glasses, stop pulling it one way or the other. Tell us the facts without leaning one way. That is true journalism.

So if an administration or media is willing to avoid any negative statements because it might generate fear,anger or support something you are against. Are you actually being told the truth about other things? You are still being spoon fed, you just like this flavor better. Problem still exists and hiding it will not end it. If this was affiliated with anything terrorist....people who hate us still exist and eventually the Boom will get louder (for whatever reason) until you cannot ignore it. Which is what progressively happened until 9/11. Being aware and informed is not bad. Maybe bad for people who want your vote or money....but not your safety. Which do you truely value?

1. What would be the exact opposite of "fear tactics?" The government is using calm tactics! Beware!

2. While I agree this is a terror attack, why is it so important for the president to label it that? Can't you figure it out on your own? More importantly, don't you realize what happens in the military - who desperately need arabic translators right now - if you have the president going cowboy about this? Fuck, they already hate muslims enough, now it's going to be ten times worse. But hey, fuck it, the president needs to come out RIGHT AWAY and call this a terrorist attack! To hell with the consequences!

3. What exactly is the president "hiding" or "lying" about here? While it was indeed a terror attack, it was also an isolated incident perpetrated by a lone nutjob.

4. What information is being hidden? I've followed this story on a fairly basic level so far and I already know more about this guy than I do about all of my cousins combined. Seriously. What the fuck is being hidden?

5. I do agree that the press, at this point, shouldn't be dancing around whether to call him a terrorist, but once again - what does that gain? Fox News loves it all the way to the bank, they can point out how the other networks are pussyfooting around the issue. Again, what is gained by calling him a terrorist?

[fatbass]

Besides, who gives a flying fuck what that twat has to say about anything - she can't can't even settle on a gender, for christ's sake.

I have never seen Maddow and Hannity together in the same room. Coincidence?

[dtmfs]

I don't disagree with that. I just think the article made a good point and might go some way to explain why some are hesitant to label this guy a terrorist. Me? I don't know... maybe he is a terrorist, maybe he just freaked the fuck out... we'll have to wait and see as more info emerges I guess.

I agree, there are good points in the article, the last thing i'd want to see is obama's detractors pointing their fingers and saying, "the ft hood terrorist attack happened on your watch". of course it pales in comparison to 9/11 and OK city. I just find it kind of funny that the cooks on MSNBC plastered the words "terrorism" and "terrorist" all over the roeder story and they have a huge problem with Fox news calling hasan a terrorist. I agree with what tinoocan said as well, I don't think Obama needs to go up to the podium and give a speech about how we're under attack. most of us know there are some radicals of virtually every religion in the country, and it's been that way a long time. I just want to point out there have been plenty of idiots from the right in this as well making some pretty stupid statements about "all" muslims.

[Crazy Levi]

I don't see why it really matters, but I'll bite.

"Terrorist" conjours up a specific thing: An organized attack by a Muslim terror cell on a civilillian population or target with the specific goal of killing civillians.

That is why 9/11 scared the shit out of the civillian public in a way that Bill Ayers (remember him LOL) or even Timothy McVeigh didn't.

Last week's attack was a lone lunatic, and it wasn't an attack on civillians.

You can call it what you want, but I would venture to guess that the majority of Americans don't consider it a "terrorist attack." Even though the guy might have had contact with "terrorists" this is not likely an "organized hit," which is what people are thinking of when politicians talk terrorism.

It's most likely exactly what it looks like - a single lunatic, working alone, who snapped and killed a bunch of soldiers. The Muslim angle is certainly unique, and likely has something to do with his motives, but as a whole it doesn't look to me like this is any different than any number of other mass shootings by a single loony we see several times a year.

Arguing about whether or not it's a "terrorist attack" seems silly, petty, useless, and meaningless to me. It's just an attempt by the usual suspects to politicize this horrible event and somehow drag the current political schism in our country into the discussion, as if we don't have enough of that going on everwhere else.

[dtmfs]

I don't see why it really matters, but I'll bite.

"Terrorist" conjours up a specific thing: An organized attack by a Muslim terror cell on a civilillian population or target with the specific goal of killing civillians.

That is why 9/11 scared the shit out of the civillian public in a way that Bill Ayers (remember him LOL) or even Timothy McVeigh didn't.

Last week's attack was a lone lunatic, and it wasn't an attack on civillians.

You can call it what you want, but I would venture to guess that the majority of Americans don't consider it a "terrorist attack." Even though the guy might have had contact with "terrorists" this is not likely an "organized hit," which is what people are thinking of when politicians talk terrorism.

It's most likely exactly what it looks like - a single lunatic, working alone, who snapped and killed a bunch of soldiers. The Muslim angle is certainly unique, and likely has something to do with his motives, but as a whole it doesn't look to me like this is any different than any number of other mass shootings by a single loony we see several times a year.

Arguing about whether or not it's a "terrorist attack" seems silly, petty, useless, and meaningless to me. It's just an attempt by the usual suspects to politicize this horrible event and somehow drag the current political schism in our country into the discussion, as if we don't have enough of that going on everwhere else.

very good points, I think the guy is a terrorist by definition as was roeder seeing how there were political and religious reasons behind their actions, at the same time when people hear terrost attack they immidiatley think of something on a larger scale, and some lose it and run out and buy a gun.

I remember the day of 9/11 i was living in a small town in iowa and this farmer came in a convienience and said "i'm loading up my guns" and i'm thinking, WTF are you gonna do you're 65 years old and live in the middle of nowhere, bin laden couldn't find stuart, iowa on a map if he tried, just buy your redman chew and tend to your crops. that's not a dig at farmers I respect the hell out of them, just saying, that shit def caused people to panic. I never did, I knew i had no reason to, I like most people was just drained emotionally by the whole thing.

[vlad]

What Crazy Levi said...especially the civilian part. Hasan should be tried, and convicted and punished for senselessly murdering soldiers and one civilian on a military base.

And the title is interesting...."afraid"? Disagreement with a loaded term is not the same as being "afraid". Just saying.

[thejuggernaut]

Soldiers disarmed due to policies made by mentally ill crooks are effectively civilians.

Since these MILITARY people on a MILITARY base cannot carry their sidearms, I would have to say they aren't feeling very safe right about now.

Sure sounds like terror to me.

[Crazy Levi]

Soldiers disarmed due to policies made by mentally ill crooks are effectively civilians.

Since these MILITARY people on a MILITARY base cannot carry their sidearms, I would have to say they aren't feeling very safe right about now.

Sure sounds like terror to me.

Who cares? What's the difference? Does Texas get more federal money or something if they are victims of a "terrorist" attack?

Call it a terrorist attack then, knock yourself out. I'll call it a super happy fun attack cause I think that has a nice ring to it.

[thejuggernaut]

Soldiers disarmed due to policies made by mentally ill crooks are effectively civilians.

Since these MILITARY people on a MILITARY base cannot carry their sidearms, I would have to say they aren't feeling very safe right about now.

Sure sounds like terror to me.

Who cares? What's the difference? Does Texas get more federal money or something if they are victims of a "terrorist" attack?

Call it a terrorist attack then, knock yourself out. I'll call it a super happy fun attack cause I think that has a nice ring to it.

I am sure there is nobody who cares, especially the families of those murdered.

[drloveschild]

I don't disagree with that. I just think the article made a good point and might go some way to explain why some are hesitant to label this guy a terrorist. Me? I don't know... maybe he is a terrorist, maybe he just freaked the fuck out... we'll have to wait and see as more info emerges I guess.

Nikkiq....sorry if that came off as I was disagreeing with you personally...I was just adding my two cents about any situation that may arise that met the above criteria...and IF POSSIBLY an administration or media was purposely holding back by not giving you all the information or the opposite , blowing out of proportion. Both ways are dangerous.

[Crazy Levi]

I am sure there is nobody who cares, especially the families of those murdered.

I'm quite sure that "the familes of those murdered" have much more important things on thier mind than what a bunch of idiots in the news and on a message board are calling this tragic event.

You seriously think any of them give a shit about this non-issue? Are you insane?

Why do YOU care? Why is it so important for you that this is officially labeled a "terrorist attack?"

I'm dying to hear the logic on this.

[thejuggernaut]

I am sure there is nobody who cares, especially the families of those murdered.

I'm quite sure that "the familes of those murdered" have much more important things on thier mind than what a bunch of idiots in the news and on a message board are calling this tragic event.

You seriously think any of them give a shit about this non-issue? Are you insane?

Why do YOU care? Why is it so important for you that this is officially labeled a "terrorist attack?"

I'm dying to hear the logic on this.

Probably for some of the same reasons you flip your shit about 911 "truthers".

Except I don't whine about smelling charred flesh and wish death on those who don't see it my way.

[Crazy Levi]

[quote="thejuggernaut'']

Probably for some of the same reasons you flip your shit about 911 "truthers".

Except I don't whine about smelling charred flesh and wish death on those who don't see it my way.[/quote]

I have no idea what that answer means. You want it called a "terrorist act" because I don't like people who make up ridiculous theories about 9/11?

Errrr....huh?

[thejuggernaut]

I am sure there is nobody who cares, especially the families of those murdered.

I'm quite sure that "the familes of those murdered" have much more important things on thier mind than what a bunch of idiots in the news and on a message board are calling this tragic event.

Half of the media is hard at work painting the gunman as mentally ill.

If there's a trial, that has the potential to play a part, so I am quite certain the families will be most upset if a trial takes place and some greaseball lawyer gets him off the hook on account of being "mentally ill"

But hey, I am sure they'll be indifferent if no justice is delivered.

[Crazy Levi]

I am sure there is nobody who cares, especially the families of those murdered.

I'm quite sure that "the familes of those murdered" have much more important things on thier mind than what a bunch of idiots in the news and on a message board are calling this tragic event.

Half of the media is hard at work painting the gunman as mentally ill.

If there's a trial, that has the potential to play a part, so I am quite certain the families will be most upset if a trial takes place and some greaseball lawyer gets him off the hook on account of being "mentally ill"

But hey, I am sure they'll be indifferent if no justice is delivered.

Well that's a real answer. I guess it even makes sense.

I think the fact that he killed 13 people is probably enough to convict him. It would probably a big mistake for prosecutors to put their eggs in the "terrorist basket," as it seems like it would probably be a lot harder to prove that it was some terrorist plot than it would be that he was just a disgruntled soldier who killed a bunch of people.

I think I'll stick with my original idea that the "families" probably don't care about this made up shitstorm however. But hey, ask them and get back to me. I'm sure they'd enjoy having their grief pimped out on some message board to back up some Fox News bullet point.

[Crazy Levi]

I'll take your word for it that you think its somehow important that everyone starts calling this a "terrorist attack" because somehow that will make it harder for Hasan's lawyers to mount an insanity defense, as ridiculous as that seems to me.

In my opinion however, for most, its just a game being played with a goal of politicising this tragedy and somehow trying to make President Obama look bad. That's all this kind of shit ever is in 2009.

As for the act itself? My opinion is that it's pretty silly to call this "terrorism," as in 2009 this is simply not what people are thinking of when they use this word.

[thejuggernaut]

Half of the media is hard at work painting the gunman as mentally ill.

If there's a trial, that has the potential to play a part, so I am quite certain the families will be most upset if a trial takes place and some greaseball lawyer gets him off the hook on account of being "mentally ill"

But hey, I am sure they'll be indifferent if no justice is delivered.

Well that's a real answer. I guess it even makes sense.

I think the fact that he killed 13 people is probably enough to convict him. It would probably a big mistake for prosecutors to put their eggs in the "terrorist basket," as it seems like it would probably be a lot harder to prove that it was some terrorist plot than it would be that he was just a disgruntled soldier who killed a bunch of people.

I think I'll stick with my original idea that the "families" probably don't care about this made up shitstorm however. But hey, ask them and get back to me. I'm sure they'd enjoy having their grief pimped out on some message board to back up some Fox News bullet point.

Agreed on the Fox news part. But if the other outlets are already portraying him as a victim who was mentally ill, SOMEONE has to paint the other picture, sensationalist as it may be. There has to be an opposing spectrum if something in the middle is to be attained.

While he most likely will be convicted, it's not inconceivable that a North American legal system might let him off if the "he was picked on.........he was mentally ill........" card gets played enough.

A double murderer walked free because an investigating officer used the N word once, and his lawyers fattened him up so a glove would not fit his hand.

Stranger things have happened in the north american legal system.

[drloveschild]

1. What would be the exact opposite of "fear tactics?" The government is using calm tactics! Beware!

2. While I agree this is a terror attack, why is it so important for the president to label it that? Can't you figure it out on your own? More importantly, don't you realize what happens in the military - who desperately need arabic translators right now - if you have the president going cowboy about this? Fuck, they already hate muslims enough, now it's going to be ten times worse. But hey, fuck it, the president needs to come out RIGHT AWAY and call this a terrorist attack! To hell with the consequences!

3. What exactly is the president "hiding" or "lying" about here? While it was indeed a terror attack, it was also an isolated incident perpetrated by a lone nutjob.

4. What information is being hidden? I've followed this story on a fairly basic level so far and I already know more about this guy than I do about all of my cousins combined. Seriously. What the fuck is being hidden?

5. I do agree that the press, at this point, shouldn't be dancing around whether to call him a terrorist, but once again - what does that gain? Fox News loves it all the way to the bank, they can point out how the other networks are pussyfooting around the issue. Again, what is gained by calling him a terrorist?

1. The opposite I was refering to was that instead of over inflating an issue to scare you....they down play a situation and do not give you all of the information/facts. I like your term..."calm tactics" you should coin it.

2. I didn't ask for a label...I asked to be given all the information unbiasedly. I can figure it out for myself but do not purposely leave parts of the story out because it makes either someone else look good or them bad. What would you call political party controlled media? Don't play that..."if we react it will make it worse" card. That never works. I am also not in anyway shape or form asking the President to delclare something... without facts. Some Democrats for a long time wanted America to believe terrorism is not a problem. Made up by the right wing to keep fear over the land. So now you know the opposite... should they hide it when it happens? If that is what is you are insinuating... No thanks. All I want is honesty in journalism, and in a political party who in turn influences what we watch on television (news?).

3. I implied that IF an administration OR Media either blew it out of proportion or did not give all the information in an attemp to under play what actually happened it would be wrong. I also stated that if you hold back the info to get a desired result of public opinion...that is the same as lying. They would be attempting to manipulate your decision. Whomever was doing it would be wrong.

4. You conveniently forgot to read the word "IF" in my last post.

5. I am not interested in a gain or loss....I am interested in truth in journalism. Don't avoid the facts that is all.

[thejuggernaut]

I'll take your word for it that you think its somehow important that everyone starts calling this a "terrorist attack" because somehow that will make it harder for Hasan's lawyers to mount an insanity defense, as ridiculous as that seems to me.

In my opinion however, for most, its just a game being played with a goal of politicising this tragedy and somehow trying to make President Obama look bad. That's all this kind of shit ever is in 2009.

As for the act itself? My opinion is that it's pretty silly to call this "terrorism," as in 2009 this is simply not what people are thinking of when they use this word.

Trials have been influenced by the media. That's just a fact.

And I am not blaming Obama for this - he had absolutely nothing at all to do with this, and he should be the LAST one to make knee jerk reactionary comments. A lesson he learned from Cambridge, I would hope.

The last thing any country needs of their leader pulling a "with us or against us" and "bring it on" type of stunt and getting a bunch of louts riled up and lynching anything that has brown skin.

My problem is with the so called journalists.

[Crazy Levi]

I haven't been watching the news, so I guess I missed the part where the liberal media is painting this guy as a victim of mental illness and deserves to spend the rest of his days living in some cushy asylum.

You do realize this is going to court martial right? Stranger things have happened? I don't think so...if this guy gets off I'll vote for Sarah Palin in 2012.

By the way...this kind of shit never sticks anyway. It's not a "terrorist attack" as we know them today, and it's never gonna stick.

I remember about 10 years ago the New York Post (Fox News' print arm) decided, with much fanfare, that they were from now on calling all "suicide attacks" in israel "Homocide Bombings," cause that's what they are, right? They had a bunch of editorials about how the liberals want to kowtow to the terrorists by emphasizing the "sacrifice" of the bomber himself, and not the dastardly act of "homocide" that is being committed.

Whatever. They stuck with it for a few weeks and then dropped it quietly, with substantially less fanfare, and then just started calling them suicide bombings again. Like everyone else. Cause that's what they are.

For some reason this whole silly debate reminds me of that.

And while I understand that YOU aren't hung up on this because you want to make Obama look bad, I can't help but think that's the only reason anyone like Fox news would care about it. It's 2009. That's what they do.

[drloveschild]

I'll take your word for it that you think its somehow important that everyone starts calling this a "terrorist attack" because somehow that will make it harder for Hasan's lawyers to mount an insanity defense, as ridiculous as that seems to me.

In my opinion however, for most, its just a game being played with a goal of politicising this tragedy and somehow trying to make President Obama look bad. That's all this kind of shit ever is in 2009.

As for the act itself? My opinion is that it's pretty silly to call this "terrorism," as in 2009 this is simply not what people are thinking of when they use this word.

Trials have been influenced by the media. That's just a fact.

And I am not blaming Obama for this - he had absolutely nothing at all to do with this, and he should be the LAST one to make knee jerk reactionary comments. A lesson he learned from Cambridge, I would hope.

The last thing any country needs of their leader pulling a "with us or against us" and "bring it on" type of stunt and getting a bunch of louts riled up and lynching anything that has brown skin.

My problem is with the so called journalists.

Yep. And it is undeniable there are influences on different channels. I want an unbiased news cast.

[dtmfs]

And while I understand that YOU aren't hung up on this because you want to make Obama look bad, I can't help but think that's the only reason anyone like Fox news would care about it. It's 2009. That's what they do.

I think alot of people have made some great points in this thread, it's nearly impossible to pick just one person to agree with.

in all honesty I made the thread just after seeing the grief MSNBC was giving aFox about it, just months after throwing the word around about anti abortionist killers, just seemed damned hypocritical to me.

and Vlad I really didn't put too much thought in the title, I aint in their shoes, maybe i should've used a different word than afraid.

and I think Obama handled the whole thing perfectly, the memorials etc, hell even fox news was raving about him there for awhile.