Liberal media are hypocrites in characterizing threats against U.S.
There was an interesting juxtaposition of viewpoints regarding Nidal Malik Hasan and the Fort Hood massacre in the Post-Dispatch editorial page Sunday. The manner in which Charles Krauthammer addressed the issue compared to the direction taken by Leonard Pitts clearly illustrated the hypocrisy some in the liberal media choose to characterize the threats facing the United States.
Krauthammer took to task those who have chosen to simply write this tragedy off as “Secondary Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder” by providing specific example after example as to why that diagnosis is suspect from the standpoints that a) it doesn’t fit the typical behavioral pattern and b) there is overwhelming evidence which point to this a likely act of terrorism.
Pitts, on the other hand, provided a litany of possible causes for Hasan’s actions suggesting that “as of this writing, we know next to nothing of why he did it”. He then went on to cite, by name, a number of Muslim Americans who died in service of our country. I believe his point was that those who speculate that Hasan engaged in a terrorist act are somehow then by extension besmirching the good names of those Muslim Americans he cited. However, none of the people named by Pitts were in contact with Al Qaeda, accused of proselytizing others in the Muslim faith, or under investigation by government agencies for suspicious behavior. And certainly none of them killed fellow soldiers while uttering a jihadist battle cry.
And therein is the hypocrisy. Pitts admonishes those who are bold enough to believe Hasan may have had terrorist motivation by suggesting that they lump all Muslim Americans together in the same bucket. But Pitts himself also lumps into one bucket those who, based on the evidence thus far, suggest that terrorism may well have been…likely was…the driving force behind Hasan’s horrific actions.
God bless those brave and selfless Muslim Americans who died in the service of this country. But terrorism is terrorism regardless of race, creed or color. Let’s not be afraid to call it what it is.
Frederick Zarf
Wentzville
Amen Fred
Know what ? NOBODY knows YET. Either could be right. But BOTH appeared in this newspaper. Which one would you leave out and why ?
–Exactly the same sentiment I shared with Pitts in his comments section when the piece came out, which he quickly took down.
–You must be a racist like me…even though I’m half-black, therefore by liberal definition, can’t be racist.
The bastard was a terrorist plain and simple. A spade is a spade, so call it like it is.
The lame stream media would rathter call seniors protesting socialist health care, a mob.
Finding the answer to this question is the purpose of the various upcoming investigations, isn’t it? Only a fool would proclaim to know the answer without any evidence or facts.
I’m not sure, magnum, but I think lunar just called you a fool. And you’d be a fool to disagree.
Terrorism is violence in pursuit of a political goal. What was Hasan’s goal? As far as I know, he shouted no demands while he was shooting not did he make any video or audio recording threatening more violence if the US Army did or didn’t do something.
No. This was just plain ol’, everyday, run-of-the-mill, American mass murder. This was just a red-blooded, American boy with a gun and gripe. Instead of over-analyzing we ought to be thanking heaven for the Second Amendment which gives each and every American the right to die in fusillade of bullets, writhing in agony in a pool of his own blood.
my idiot and lunar nutjob
When a RAGHEAD Muslim yells “Allahu Akbar!” before opening up with a hand gun killing 13 and wounding 30, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know what a terrorist is.
When a RAGHEAD Muslim e-mails al-Qaeda more than 20 times, it doen’t take a brain surgeon to know what a terrorist is.
When the liberal ass lame stream media continues to try and be politically correct, and not call a spade a spade, when being politically correct was one of the reasons this was allowed to happen, it doesn’t take a grade schooler to know what a terrorist is.
You politically correct ass wipe liberals just keep your blinders on concerning terrorism, just as your doing with “Your Messiah”.
There are fools and then there are damn fools. Liberals are damn fools with a mental condition.
Definitions of Terrorism
From Amy Zalman, Ph.D., former About.com Guide
See More About:u.s. counterterrorism policyinternational terrorismhistory of terrorism5 of 8Prev NextDefinition of Terrorism under U.S. Law
United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism embedded in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)
(d) Definitions
As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.
Mags–
Are the Muslims who have faught and died in our military services Ragheads , too … or just certain ones?
If you don’t think ALL of them are, do you think the Raghead comment toward heros & warriors is acceptible ?
HK
Look how I used the term RAGHEAD.
RAGHEAD = Muslim terrorist