The great liberal denial: Ft Hood not a terror attack.

[MrMannn]

Why are liberals bound and determined NOT to call the Ft Hood incident a terror attack?
Obama is out there saying "lets not jump to conclusions."
Some liberal talking head said, "we have no idea of his motives."
"He was upset at being deployed." like mass murder is natural outlet for hurt feelings.
Every single liberal board I lurk at argues with anyone that this is not terror.
(Even our shadow board)

This is an across the board denial.
1) YES. The guy was a muslim. That IS a pertinent fact in this case.
2) He was a US soldier who publicly justified suicide attacks against US soldiers.
3) He shouted "Allahu Akbar!" just before he started shooting.
4) He deliberately targeted people who could not shoot back, like a typical cowardly jihadist.


What is so important for liberals to fight the idea that an obvious terror attack is not a terror attack?

Seriously, what else should we call this? Sudden Jihad Syndrome?

[Anddra]

I think you are right, MrMannn. They are trying desperately hard to cling on to their illusions.

[BrideOfChrist]

I agree. #3 says it all for me....

The guy was handing out Korans that morning and giving away his furniture, wasn't he?

Premeditated. Terrorist.

But if he was a self-proclaimed Christian, those same libs defending him would be hyperventilating, ready to put him before a firing squad without a trial.

Compare threads on those other boards with Dr Tiller and the Ft Hood incident. I read 'em...with the Dr Tiller incident, Christians are terrorists (those threads were spewing venom and hatred like you wouldn't believe). With the Ft Hood incident...poor guy, he just didn't want to ship out to Iraq and this was his release.

Liberals are strange.

[peaceseeker]

They are deluded. Plain and simple, they drank the kool-aid and it courses through their veins like Versed day after day.

[WaitingPatiently]

Not deluded at all....diabolical! These people don't want the American Public to see that their engagement and making nice with the radicals isn't working....they don't want people to understand THEY ARE FAILING! They came into power screaming how they are better for us and how they are going to change us for the good........the good.........thats DOUBLE DIGIT UNEMPOLYMENT (anyone remember Obama's pledge that it wouldn't get above 8% if we hurried and passed the stimulas bill?)...the fall of the U.S Dollar (as they print more and more worthless pieces of paper to cover their greed and corruption...the transparent Government we were supposed to have.......the lack of influence peddlers there was supposed to be.....the lack of an Iranian bomb they were going to assure....and the promise to keep America safe from terror plots in the US...THEY FAILED and continue to FAIL........

Remember this in 2010 and 2012....and don't let them cloud this issues...the TRUE issues.....THEY FAILED and....THEY LIED! PERIOD!

God Bless and Protect You All

[icebear]

yeah, its pretty bad...

[Scaredycat]

These people seem bent on further polarizing our country. We're angry and we're fed up at being told that we're crazy and don't see what is Clear and Plain for all to see!

[tekton]

I bet in the end the "official" cause will be he did it because he was a psychiatrist overwhelmed by all the stories of returning soldiers. They will say it had nothing to do with his being a muslim terrorist.

[RecordKeeper]

Ahh, Political correctness gone way to far once more.

Why are muslims in our armed forces in the first place?

[Glory in print]

The real reason is because the radical liberals, and the radical muslims have the same master (satan), Satan doesen't often fight himself...He only wants to fight Christians and Jews.

[futurehope]

It is possible that there are a number of different motivations for this person to have done what he did:

1 - Didn't like shipping out
2 - Felt "picked upon" as a Muslim by other soldiers
3 - Felt isolated and unable to really connect with anyone
4 - Believed fully in the Koran and became more fundamentalist
5 - Was suicidal anyway, IOW had mental problems
6 - Figured that "taking down" a few others along with himself was more "heroic" than just taking his own life
7 - Wanted "out", especially of the army, and no one cared what he wanted

In any event, it was a "terrorist" attack. They called Timothy McVeigh's attack a "terrorist attack". What is the definition anyway? Is the definition based on motivation, or on methods?

My suspician is the "people in the know" (you know, the ones smarter than we are), don't want us to focus our animosity towards Muslims because they are trying to have a "peaceful" relationship with them. (A lot of prayer will be needed for this to be successful.)

They think they must not let anyone get too upset about this "lone" gunman, because we all need to work together, and get along, and forgive each other in the name of peace. They are trying to de-escalate a war started by a President they did not like. They are desperately (with their heads in the sand), trying to undo the "damage" to world relationships done by our former President, and that means keeping us peons calmed down and unresponsive to aggression.

Actually, in the name of world peace, don't you all "see" that we must ignore the radical wing of Islam?

In my opinion, these attitudes and delusions are all playing into what is supposed to eventually happen, and that is a push towards a one-world government. Lord Jesus, you are the only one I trust for everlasting peace.
Come quickly! In Jesus' Name I Pray.

[Seemomgonuts]

Go to image 28 if you want to scream and/or throw something. See if you can spot what I am referring to.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local-bea...-69319852.html

[Anddra]

"friendly fire"!!! What???!!!

[jb777]

"friendly fire"!!! What???!!!

Exactly! Even though this guy is in the Army, you cannot reasonable consider it friendly fire...friendly fire happens on accident and this was clearly premeditated. Plus, let's not forget that this guy by all accounts was very vocal about his views on Muslims and how his Islamic faith came first over the military and anything else. He let it be known that he disagreed deeply with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Friendly fire my foot!

[Seemomgonuts]

"friendly fire"!!! What???!!!

As Glenn Beck said.....blood nearly shot out my eyes. These people in the media are delusional at best.

[Emily Ruth]

It is clear that our true enemies have taken over this country. In their minds, Christian patriots are the enemies and since it was not a Christian patriot who pulled the trigger - it was not terrorism but merely an individual acting on (insert excuse here).

[RuntheRace]

To me it doesn't matter what his motives were- whether suicide bomber for Allah or antiwar protest or something else. It is still a terrorist act.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.


it was a violent act used to intimidate and coerce. So to me there is no debate on whether it is considered a terrorist act. The only thing to me open for debate is did this man committ this act on behalf of one of the larger terrorist organizations or did he act on his own

[futurehope]

"friendly fire"!!! What???!!!

Maybe I'm wrong, but I took the comment that "they haven't ruled out friendly fire" to mean that in addition to the obvious gunman, there might have been shots fired by the military police to try and stop the rampage, and that they may have hurt people by accident. IOW, there was so much shooting going on that they will have to figure out who shot who.

[ShowUsTheFather]

Why are liberals bound and determined NOT to call the Ft Hood incident a terror attack?
Obama is out there saying "lets not jump to conclusions."
Some liberal talking head said, "we have no idea of his motives."
"He was upset at being deployed." like mass murder is natural outlet for hurt feelings.
Every single liberal board I lurk at argues with anyone that this is not terror.
(Even our shadow board)

This is an across the board denial.
1) YES. The guy was a muslim. That IS a pertinent fact in this case.
2) He was a US soldier who publicly justified suicide attacks against US soldiers.
3) He shouted "Allahu Akbar!" just before he started shooting.
4) He deliberately targeted people who could not shoot back, like a typical cowardly jihadist.


What is so important for liberals to fight the idea that an obvious terror attack is not a terror attack?

Seriously, what else should we call this? Sudden Jihad Syndrome?

It is because the Great Leftist Agenda is moral relevancy.

If all violence can be justified, then they can control people, kill off "undesirables", and babies, and at the end of the day Christ via born-again Christians.

There is no "end game" here. They have never been satisifed in history nor will they ever be.

There are only two reasons Christians and otherwise decent conservatives are not included in their "welcoming." We want them to stop, and Christ.

[God'sGirl]

Let's not forget the pearls of wisdom from Janet Napolitano back in March/April of this year and her infamous DHS memo. They have made it clear who they consider a threat.