Video: Fort Hood massacre not considered a terrorist attack?

posted at 2:41 pm on October 19, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Help me understand this.  Nidal Hasan has been held for almost three years after shouting “Allahu akbar!” and opening fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, killing 14 and wounding several others.  Almost immediately, evidence arose that Hasan had been in contact with the late and unlamented al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki to discuss the legitimacy of conducting jihad within the American military, a scandal that prompted questions about why the military hadn’t intervened prior to the massacre.  Most people assumed that was enough to consider the massacre a terrorist attack, including me.

Apparently not, however, according to Stars and Stripes.  The Obama administration has thus far refused to consider the November 2009 mass murder a terrorist attack, choosing instead to call it — I kid you not — “workplace violence.” The victims and families of those murdered by Hasan want that changed ASAP:

Victims of the Fort Hood shooting are rallying in a grassroots effort to get the rampage classified as an act of terrorism.

A coalition of 160 victims and family members released a video Thursday detailing what happened at the Texas military base on Nov. 5, 2009, and why they believe it was a terror attack.

In “The Truth About Fort Hood,” victims give testimonials about their experience and express their frustration at the government calling the incident “workplace violence.”

They point out that the accused shooter, Maj. Nidal Hasan, consulted by email with top al-Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki about whether an attack against American soldiers was justified to “protect our brothers.” Until his death in an airstrike in 2011, Yemen-based Awlaki was considered one of the United States’ top enemies.

The shooting for Hasan “was his jihad,” Staff Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot five times that day, said in the video.

Here’s the video, and it’s heartbreaking:

I’m not sure what possible purpose there is in refusing to call this what it obviously was, which was a lot more than “workplace violence.”  Unlike the Benghazi attack, which took place more than three and a half years into Obama’s term of office, Fort Hood took place relatively early.  Also unlike the Benghazi attack, it would be impossible to hang responsibility for the lack of security on Obama or his administration; Hasan was symptomatically a problem before Obama took office.  The political damage of admitting this to have been a terrorist attack would have been negligible at the time, and probably would be negligible now if not for Benghazi.

Whatever the reason, calling this an example of violence in the workplace is absurdity on an Orwellian scale.  To wait three years to provide official clarity on this terrorist attack is not just wrong, but petty beyond belief.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I know (pornography) terrorism when I see it.

birdwatcher on October 19, 2012 at 2:44 PM

I’m not sure what possible purpose there is in refusing to call this what it obviously was, which was a lot more than “workplace violence.”

The narrative cannot be undermined. Ever.

Gatsu on October 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Unfortunately it’s par for this course.

Flange on October 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM

I know a crooked president when I see one.

birdwatcher on October 19, 2012 at 2:46 PM

MAJ Hassan’s trial is still awaiting numerous injunctions and delays, currently awaiting an appeals ruling due to his current judge demanding he be forcibly shaved, as he has grown a beard since being taken into custody. He believes that it will condemn him to hell if he dies without a beard.

That it would add in reasonable doubt for his identification at trial can’t hurt either.

So which will happen first: His trial actually happening, or it being called an act of terrorism?

Sgt Steve on October 19, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Attention Romney. Take note.

pat on October 19, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Political Correctness is Cultural Suicide. Also, Gen Dempsey is the biggest crock,,,he has his nose so far up Jugears butt it isn’t funny.

retiredeagle on October 19, 2012 at 2:47 PM

I’m not sure what possible purpose there is in refusing to call this what it obviously was, which was a lot more than “workplace violence.”

The same purpose in blaming the Benghazi attack on a youtube video. The boy king can’t let folks know he has failed at keeping Americans safe during his reign. Plus, calling it what it was might offend the Muslims.

Flora Duh on October 19, 2012 at 2:48 PM

The same purpose in blaming the Benghazi attack on a youtube video. The boy king can’t let folks know he has failed at keeping Americans safe during his reign. Plus, calling it what it was might offend the Muslims.

Flora Duh on October 19, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Thank you for saving me typing time..
Nailed it.

bazil9 on October 19, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Shameful

cmsinaz on October 19, 2012 at 2:50 PM

I thought it was already established that this was just a man-caused disaster.

Move along, people … there’s nothing to see, here.

OhEssYouCowboys on October 19, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Sgt Steve on October 19, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Court rules Fort Hood shooting suspect Nidal Hasan must shave beard

Flora Duh on October 19, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Thank YOU ED for posting this! This whole thing just makes me sick this rop type murderer terrorist isn’t going to trial yet and that bho/big sis/holder/etc won’t call it what it is, A TERRORIST ATTACK ON FT HOOD, AMERICAN HOMLAND!

The families of those killed and wounded deserve better than having bho as cic dealing with this! I just pray to God Mitt is elected, he will not have this thing happen when is cic!
L

letget on October 19, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Possibly one of Obama’s most disgusting performances ever, giving shoutouts and ‘taking care of business’ before even acknowledging the horrific attack. But to not call it a terrorist attack and for the watch lap dog media to not denounce him for it will always be a stain on both the Obama administration and the MSM.

CitizenEgg on October 19, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

~ Barrack Hussein 0bama

0bama waving his muslem faith right in front of our noses.

Rebar on October 19, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Obama falls apart before our eyes. Terrorism is a distraction to him.

thebrokenrattle on October 19, 2012 at 2:54 PM

So 2 successful attacks on US soil under this president

Yeah we’re doing ok
/

cmsinaz on October 19, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Compare the proclamation of a hate crime when it’s against blacks and gays, with less evidence.

Paul-Cincy on October 19, 2012 at 2:54 PM

We can’t call this terrorism because Obama has abolished terrorism.

That’s also why the Benghazi attack wasn’t/isn’t/wasn’t/isn’t terrorism.

natasha333 on October 19, 2012 at 2:54 PM

So which will happen first: His trial actually happening, or it being called an act of terrorism?

Sgt Steve on October 19, 2012 at 2:46 PM

It will most likely be declared a terrorist attack on Monday, if not before. 0bama wouldn’t want Romney to politicize this at the debate you know.

cozmo on October 19, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Flora Duh on October 19, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Fair enough. Thanks for the update. When I went on leave this week, it was still in appeals. At the snail’s pace his trial is moving, I thought for certain it would take longer than that.

Sgt Steve on October 19, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Come on, Ed. This was just a bump in the road and acts of terror happen all the time. Are you SURE there wasn’t some kind of protest that happened just before this? Have you looked into the possiblity that there was a video out just prior that maybe angered Mr. Hasan?

I really, REALLY wish I was just kidding and not using their own words…

UnderstandingisPower on October 19, 2012 at 2:56 PM

I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

~ Barrack Hussein 0bama

Rebar on October 19, 2012 at 2:52 PM

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
@the UN 14 days after the violent murders. ~ Barrack Hussein 0bama

It was not Optimal.. ~ Barrack Hussein 0bama

bazil9 on October 19, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Actually Obama has always referred to this as a terrorist attack, but you’re right that he also considers it workplace violence.
/crowley

Gingotts on October 19, 2012 at 2:57 PM

There is also the fact of the Jihadi slogan on his business cards and the powerpoint slideshow he made. This was a terrorist attack.

Ed, what about the attack on the Little Rock recruiting station in 2009? IMHO, that was also a terrorist act.

The narrative cannot be undermined. Ever.

Gatsu on October 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM

And the narrative is that “There have been no terrorist attacks on my watch.” – Obama

dogsoldier on October 19, 2012 at 2:57 PM

The White House is just scouring YouTube for videos posted Jan. – Oct. 2009 to blame.

Left Coast Right Mind on October 19, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Ideology trumps everything in the Ass-Clown party.

Strike Hornet on October 19, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Obama is a typical dime-a-dozen liberal. It’s politically correct to believe that anything against Islam is based on nothing more than white bigotry.

When my dad was in WWII and Army Military Police, any jackwad who opened fire on soldiers would be gunned down soon as the MPs got there even if he was out of ammo.

In other words, “Oops!”

Liam on October 19, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I’m stunned Ed didn’t know this workplace violence scandal already. Maybe #Obamnesia is contagious?
More detail on their ineligibility for Purple Hearts – BO administration threatened veto of defense authorization bill for numerous pathetic reasons, among them being:

No. 26 on the list of veto-worthy offenses is objection to awarding Purple Hearts to the victims of the Fort Hood and Little Rock shootings.

If that isn’t sufficient to get your blood boiling, read the rest of the list.

Buy Danish on October 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Fort Hood massacre was not optimal. 0

bazil9 on October 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM

This administration was loathe to call Benghazi a terrorist attack. Why would this be any different?

Bitter Clinger on October 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Let’s not jump to conclusions. This is a very complicated matter, unlike the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting which could be analyzed with fault assigned instantly.

a capella on October 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM

I thought for certain it would take longer than that.

Sgt Steve on October 19, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I’ve been wondering this myself and think the delay may be, if not intentional by the prosecution, they are going along with it. It could be pressure from the political PC types at the top of the chain of command, and they are pretty sure of friendlier commanders next year.

cozmo on October 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Well the sheep are certainly conditioned, clamoring for everything to be labeled a terrorist attack. The State couldn’t be happier.

Dante on October 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM

“The victims at Fort Hood acted Stupidly”
Barky

Strike Hornet on October 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Allahu Akbar means “I demand two-ply toilet paper in the men’s room” in Arabic, silly.

Haven’t you ever read a collective bargaining agreement from the ME?

Resist We Much on October 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM

And the narrative is that “There have been no terrorist attacks on my watch.” – Obama

dogsoldier on October 19, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Ding ding ding!

Well.

Except all those tea party ones.

Gatsu on October 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM

In the Spring of this year, US Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley was condemned by the Joints Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and relieved of teaching duties at Joint Forces Staff College for teaching a course judged to be offensive to Islam.

The course he taught, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism, was an elective course that Lt. Col. Dooley’s superiors judged as presenting Islam in a negative way. His superiors were persuaded to come to this conclusion after receiving an October 2011 letter in which 57 Muslim organizations claimed to be offended by the course.

Rebar on October 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Even the CIA won’t call them terrorist…”militants”

State Department calls them “attackers”

I blame Big Sis.

d1carter on October 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Brings back another famous Sheppard Smith’s bungling reporting.

He didn’t want to give the name Nidal Hasan to the viewing public, to be fair and balanced.

Even though other report and witness emerge reporting the Aloha Ackbar shouting.

Sir Napsalot on October 19, 2012 at 3:02 PM

I’m not sure what possible purpose there is in refusing to call this what it obviously was, which was a lot more than “workplace violence.”

Come on, Ed, you’re better than this. They don’t want to call it “terrorism” because Obama and de facto President Valerie Jarrett will not under any circumstances equate the actions of any Muslim with terrorism.
We have to stop being afraid to say it. Barack Obama wants to protect the image and reputation of Muslims. Heaven forbid we should actually associate terrorist acts with Islamic extremism.

Did you not hear what he said about the prophet Mohammed at the U.N. in September?

Right Mover on October 19, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Flora Duh on October 19, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Fair enough. Thanks for the update. When I went on leave this week, it was still in appeals. At the snail’s pace his trial is moving, I thought for certain it would take longer than that.

Sgt Steve on October 19, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Maybe they’re dragging it on waiting for someone with a clue to take over so this can be appropriately and properly taken care of.

Perhaps revisit this in February 2013 if there’s a new administration?

kim roy on October 19, 2012 at 3:02 PM

If that isn’t sufficient to get your blood boiling, read the rest of the list.

Buy Danish on October 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Wow, that’s just wrong. On the other hand I think they have to declare Texas a combat zone to make that kind of award and the optics of that might be bad.

What are the current rules on that? Any active duty or recently separated people with an answer?

dogsoldier on October 19, 2012 at 3:02 PM

So 2 successful attacks on US soil under this president

Yeah we’re doing ok
/

cmsinaz on October 19, 2012 at 2:54 PM

There would have been THREE if the underwear bomber didn’t screw up.

Right Mover on October 19, 2012 at 3:03 PM

on Saturday afternoons, I go in the Oval Office, pretend I’m going to work, and then I switch on ‘Homeland.’

~Barack Obama

Marine Sergeant Nicholas Brody returns home eight years after going missing in Iraq. Carrie Mathison, a driven CIA officer, suspects he might be plotting an attack on America.

Christien on October 19, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I wonder if Candy has the transcript of Dear Leader’s speech on the Fort Hood work place violence incident..?

d1carter on October 19, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Obama, announced his faith on George Stephanopolis’ TV show. Stephanopolis quickly corrected Obama to make that anouncement Christian. Obama declared himself a Muslim. He once stated he would side with the Muslims. He cannot bring himself to state they are wrong.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on October 19, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I have been railing about this entire fiasco for years, every time the news reports a delay in the trial for one bogus reason after another. Not only are we spending time/money on prosecuting an obviously guilty outcome, but we paid for a whole lot of health care for this guy.

The terrorists win when we act like candy-a**es because we are too afraid of offending Muslims. He is in the military, he needs to be shaved, have the trial which will find him guilty, and then immediately sentenced/put to death.

TX_HCG on October 19, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Well the sheep are certainly conditioned, clamoring for everything to be labeled a terrorist attack. The State couldn’t be happier.

Dante on October 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Your point? Spit it out, man. It wasn’t a terrorist attack and only blind followers would consider it to be one? That what you’re saying?

a capella on October 19, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Dante on October 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Your tin foil hat’s askew…again.

kingsjester on October 19, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Well the sheep are certainly conditioned, clamoring for everything to be labeled a terrorist attack. The State couldn’t be happier.

Dante on October 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM

You truly are despicable.

Bitter Clinger on October 19, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Dante on October 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Really?

You want to stick with that?

You went from goofy birther ABR nutball that mangles the constitution, to full on stupid scumbag with delusions of intelligence.

cozmo on October 19, 2012 at 3:06 PM

There are no words to describe the evil running our country. This is indeed heartbreaking.

The truth cannot be help down for long. It will surface..

katy on October 19, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Those “The Truth About Fort Hood” folks acted stupidly. – Dear Leader

Knott Buyinit on October 19, 2012 at 3:06 PM

…come on….you know the Ft. Hood Massacre was just another “bump in the road”…..

What do you expect from an administration that states the “Taliban are not our enemy”…..

Baxter Greene on October 19, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Well the sheep are certainly conditioned, clamoring for everything to be labeled a terrorist attack. The State couldn’t be happier.

Dante on October 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM

You just called the Ft. Hood victims’ families “sheep” for demanding this be labeled a terrorist attack, rather than “workplace violence.”

Ed, please do the needful.

Christien on October 19, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Well, the PC crowd in the UK now refers to the Nazi’s as “those angry german chaps”, so it isn’t surprising that the Euro-Socialists wannabes here that call themselves “progressives” follow suit in their quest to “fundamentally change America” by referring to Islamic Radicals as “misguided yoots” or “gang-bangers” …

“Words matter! I WON!”
~Barky

Strike Hornet on October 19, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Well the sheep are certainly conditioned, clamoring for everything to be labeled a terrorist attack. The State couldn’t be happier.

Dante on October 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM

He was a Muslim, he shouted “Allahu akbar!” and opened fire on American military personnel.
And you’re questioning whether it should be called a terrorist attack? I know, I’m supposed to know better than to engage in moronic leftist trolls like yourself, but I’m waiving that rule in this case.
Anybody who believes this to have been anything other than terrorism is a deluded imbecile of the first order.

Right Mover on October 19, 2012 at 3:08 PM

His superiors were persuaded to come to this conclusion after receiving an October 2011 letter in which 57 Muslim organizations claimed to be offended by the course.

Rebar on October 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Just the mere fact that we have 57 Muslim organizations is appalling. Americans will never learn the difference between being tolerant and lackadaisical.

Archivarix on October 19, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Video: Fort Hood massacre not considered a terrorist attack?

To wait three years to provide official clarity on this terrorist attack is not just wrong, but petty beyond belief.

looks like you answered your own question

Dr. Demento on October 19, 2012 at 3:08 PM

not just wrong, but petty beyond belief

That pretty much describes the Obama administration to a T.

jnelchef on October 19, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Well the sheep are certainly conditioned, clamoring for everything to be labeled a terrorist attack. The State couldn’t be happier.

Dante on October 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Statements like that are precisely why normal, mentally-sound people disdain liberals.

Liam on October 19, 2012 at 3:10 PM

This must come up in the last debate and Romney must hammer Obama on it.

1. Obama an his didn’t want to call anything “terrorism”. It didn’t go along with his idiotic Arab ‘Spring’, bowing and “leading from behind”.

2. It deprives the families from benefits.

3. It deprives the victims form certain honors.

It is a national travesty and shame.

Schadenfreude on October 19, 2012 at 3:10 PM

To think that Obama mumbled “acts of terror” tangentially in the Rose Garden and then tried to argue that he called Benghazi terrorism, and now Ft Hood ISN’T terrorism is beyond the pale.

ted c on October 19, 2012 at 3:11 PM

So why exactly did Hussein kill Awlaki ?

burrata on October 19, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Doesn’t the Pentagon’s report on the incident fail to mention Islam?

MayBee on October 19, 2012 at 3:15 PM

If they don’t want to call it terrorism, they should call it treason.

agmartin on October 19, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Hmmm my comments are not getting posted. In Moderation? Sorry for double submittal…

dogsoldier on October 19, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Only in the psychotic little world of the Ideologues, does Ft.Hood qualify as work place violence, when the Murderer was screaming, “Yahoo SnackBar” while shooting unarmed American Troops! The Ideology of the Messiah will not allow for reality to trump his Ideology and carefully crafted little world, that allows the Failure-in-chief to stay in power. I can’t blame the victim’s families for the RAGE they feel over the Obama Regime, playing politics with the memory of the Murder of their loved ones!
Update on:How to take on the Obama Enemy media & Win: http://paratisiusa.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-those-who-should-know.html?spref=tw

God Bless America!

paratisi on October 19, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Well the sheep are certainly conditioned, clamoring for everything to be labeled a terrorist attack. The State couldn’t be happier.

Dante on October 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Didn’t watch the video before opening your piehole did ya? Nah, it makes you sound so much more enlightened just to ignore what the victims and families of those who lost loved ones said and launch right into one of your Paulbot rants against Hot Air commenters.

Flora Duh on October 19, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Your point? Spit it out, man. It wasn’t a terrorist attack and only blind followers would consider it to be one? That what you’re saying?

a capella on October 19, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Good job.

Dante on October 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Rebar on October 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM

I pray that Team Romney is aware of this and has a plan to stop this madness…

Seven Percent Solution on October 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM

There would have been THREE if the underwear bomber didn’t screw up.

Right Mover on October 19, 2012 at 3:03 PM

There were three and if my post gets out of moderation, I provide a link.

June 1 2009, Little Rock Recruiting station.

dogsoldier on October 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Well the sheep are certainly conditioned, clamoring for everything to be labeled a terrorist attack. The State couldn’t be happier.

Dante on October 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Dante, why don’t you define a terrorist attack for us?

What distinguishes, legally, a terrorist attack from, say, a mass shooting or a spree killing?

Resist We Much on October 19, 2012 at 3:21 PM

He was a Muslim, he shouted “Allahu akbar!” and opened fire on American military personnel.
And you’re questioning whether it should be called a terrorist attack? I know, I’m supposed to know better than to engage in moronic leftist trolls like yourself, but I’m waiving that rule in this case.
Anybody who believes this to have been anything other than terrorism is a deluded imbecile of the first order.

Right Mover on October 19, 2012 at 3:08 PM

No, I’m not questioning that at all, but thank you for making my point.

Dante on October 19, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Please, Romney, nail this on Obama. I’ve been soooooo outraged over this and because of it have lost a lot of trust in the upper eschelons at the Pentagon. This is scary. The generals are protecting the enemy. I used to be such an admirer of General Petraus. Now, he’s apparently in league with Obama to subvert this country and hand us over to the Islamists.

Remember the 3 SEALS Obama and the military prosecuted for supposedly giving a terrorist who had beheaded five American contractors a bloody nose? Remember Obama’s first proposal for the military? That wounded warriors pay for their own rehabilitation?

Portia46 on October 19, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Simple explanation: Obama has been doing his best to tell his foreign Muslim campaign donors that he is true to his “I will stand with the Muslims should the political wind shifts” (or something to that effect).

I don’t know why American Americans could not and would not fathom that this is one foreigner (not in literal sense for I am not a birther and do believe his parents are both Americans — Davis and Stanley) who’s in ruling seat of US, symbolic though his seat may be.

In other parts of the world, including the Muslim part, his sort would have met the squat.

vnohara on October 19, 2012 at 3:23 PM

It’s all very simple when the President is a Muslim and he directs the msm and military not to use the word terrorist. He supposedly wrote a book and stated in that book if we come to aggression with the Muslims he will take the Muslim side. We have video of him saying the most beautiful sound in the world is the call to prayer in the Muslim faith. His past is sealed yet he questions others about their past. In a few weeks we can cure this on November 6th but what I’m afraid of is the pardon he will grant to that murderer before he leaves office.

mixplix on October 19, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Obama’s entire foreign policy and security are in flames.

May they burn the perpetrators, sizzling good.

Schadenfreude on October 19, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Hussein has no idea what jihad is
/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoFcZLB9oJ4

burrata on October 19, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Resist We Much on October 19, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Um, its easy and has been defined for centuries. Any one who is familiar with the founding of this country would know that.

Any one knowledgeable with the US constitution and the papers that preceeded it would know that.

Little dante claims to be expert at both yet fails so miserably…again.

That’s dante for you. So nutball that even the Paulians disdain him.

That’s why he spews his hateful ignorance every chance he gets. Then runs away.

cozmo on October 19, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Good job.

Dante on October 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Will you be responding to this?

Dante, why don’t you define a terrorist attack for us?

What distinguishes, legally, a terrorist attack from, say, a mass shooting or a spree killing?

Resist We Much on October 19, 2012 at 3:21 PM

a capella on October 19, 2012 at 3:25 PM

There would have been THREE if the underwear bomber didn’t screw up our system of using Danish filmmakers to extinguish aflame terrorists, who are wearing underwear bombs in commercial passenger planes above major metropolitan areas, hadn’t worked.

Right Mover on October 19, 2012 at 3:03 PM

FIFY. :-)

Resist We Much on October 19, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Good point right move

cmsinaz on October 19, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Dante, why don’t you define a terrorist attack for us?

What distinguishes, legally, a terrorist attack from, say, a mass shooting or a spree killing?

Resist We Much on October 19, 2012 at 3:21 PM

You mean you don’t know? Thank you for proving my point.

/Dante

Left Coast Right Mind on October 19, 2012 at 3:26 PM

What distinguishes, legally, a terrorist attack from, say, a mass shooting or a spree killing?

Resist We Much on October 19, 2012 at 3:21 PM

If I’m mocking the State, then why would I place any stock in their definitions? They’re the ones who, for example, get to call murdered innocents “combatants” if they were within a strike/kill zone. They’re the ones calling liberty lovers terrorists for having campaign stickers or 10th Amendment stickers on their cars. I couldn’t care less what the State’s “legal” defintion is for anything. This was an attack that took place on a military installation by a member of the military.

Dante on October 19, 2012 at 3:27 PM

I need a little input from any of the military veterans that post here. Some of the victim’s family members have been posting about the ‘workplace violence’ classification on twitter for a while now. One of their arguments is that classifying this as workplace violence instead of something combat-related changess the benefits paid out to the families of the victims. Can someone here elaborate on the different levels of benefits that soldiers (or their families) can receive for being injured/killed and how those benefits are decided? Thank you.

joejm65 on October 19, 2012 at 3:27 PM

When you stop calling things as they are, they do not stop being as they are… too bad the Left never learns this and prefers to lie so that their agenda is moved forward. An agenda built on lies shall not stand because those doing the things as they are will not stop it until they are finished with you and your agenda. Brutal barbarians do not stop being such no matter how much you call them civilized, until they are at the gates and act barbarically towards you… then you may have wished you called them as they were and didn’t deny reality.

The Left will be the end of civilization by this process.

You can’t fix stupid, but you can vote it out of office.

ajacksonian on October 19, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Speaking exclusively to MailOnline today, Pat Smith, whose son Sean died in the raid, said: ‘It was a disrespectful thing to say and I don’t think it’s right.

‘How can you say somebody being killed is not very optimal? I don’t think the President has the right idea of the English language.’

Speaking from her home in San Diego, Mrs Smith, 72, continued: ‘It’s insensitive to say my son is not very optimal – he is also very dead. I’ve not been “optimal” since he died and the past few weeks have been pure hell.

‘I am still waiting for the truth to come out and I still want to know the truth. I’m finally starting to get some answers but I won’t give up.

‘There’s a lot of stupid things that have been said about my son and what happened and this is another one of them.’

Christien on October 19, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Shave, Try, Shoot, Shovel.

mojo on October 19, 2012 at 3:28 PM

cozmo on October 19, 2012 at 3:25 PM

You don’t even need to look at the COTUS. There is something that is even simpler than that and applied in English common law cases prior to the founding of the US. It is a basic element of criminal law. Let’s see if Dante can figure it out.

Resist We Much on October 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Dante on October 19, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Your knowledge is very limited. You assume that mens rea is something that “The State” defined recently. It isn’t.

Resist We Much on October 19, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Well the sheep are certainly conditioned, clamoring for everything to be labeled a terrorist attack. The State couldn’t be happier.

Dante on October 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM

You mean those sheep who said Sarah Palin shot Gabby Gifford? (or was personally responsible for sending the shooter out to do his job?)

Portia46 on October 19, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Don’t you know he called it terrorism the day after it happened…You guys aren’t paying attention. blah blah blah

tomas on October 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM

I bet if I yelled “Jesus saves” and then shot 20 Muslims they would call it an act of terrorism.

Sven on October 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM

I couldn’t care less what the State’s “legal” defintion is for anything. This was an attack that took place on a military installation by a member of the military.

Dante on October 19, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Hmm, let’s see what one of your fellow Paulbots had to say about it.

This guy was an Islamic extremist.

But the real Lie here is that the media are spinning the story to say that he was afraid to be deployed.

The truth is that he vehemently disagreed with the wars which are killing hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

But the MSM wants to spin it that he was afraid to deploy, baloney.

That ranks right up there with “they hate us for our freedoms”.

If given a chance I would shoot this guy right between the eyes.

A lot of good kids died that day.

Flora Duh on October 19, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Your knowledge is very limited. You assume that mens rea is something that “The State” defined recently. It isn’t.

Resist We Much on October 19, 2012 at 3:30 PM

You are assuming I made an assumption. I didn’t say anything that indicated that at all.

Dante on October 19, 2012 at 3:32 PM

You don’t even need to look at the COTUS.
Resist We Much on October 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Yes, but dante is a self proclaimed constitutional scholar. I used something he claims to know intimately. And there have been books written about the founding fathers and terrorism.

dante knows the constitution like mullahs in Iran know the Koran…twisted, with additional helpings of crap.

cozmo on October 19, 2012 at 3:33 PM

And we still welcome muslims into the military.

I’m not convinced America wants to survive.

Dan_Yul on October 19, 2012 at 3:33 PM

I bet if I yelled “Jesus saves” and then shot 20 Muslims they would call it an act of terrorism.

Sven on October 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Hell, that would launch WW4.

dogsoldier on October 19, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3