Why does the administration consider the French slaughter terrorism?

How can it be an act of terrorism while the Ft Hood slaughter was not?

Part of being a leftist is proving to other leftists that you can believe things that are contrary to reality.

It's cute when they do it in chorus straight from obama.

Actually, the determination of terrorism for FT Hood is changing by an act of Congress overriding the Muslim Obama

Better question: Why are the designations so important?

Compensation for the families of the DEAD and awarding of combat medals (purple hearts) as well.

That's enough right there.

It's quite overdue

The Fr Hood shooter was a Muslim making his attack according to the laws of jihad,

KarlRove wrote:Compensation for the families of the DEAD and awarding of combat medals (purple hearts) as well.

A potentially valid argument.

How does the military define 'terrorist attack'?

Jeez dude really? He wasnt brave enough to attack while serving in Iraq around armed troops. He was a gutless coward who attacked when folks were stateside and unarmed.

KarlRove wrote:Jeez dude really? He wasnt brave enough to attack while serving in Iraq around armed troops. He was a gutless coward who attacked when folks were stateside and unarmed.

If there is some procedure for awarding benefits based upon the classification of an event that results in the death of soldiers - such as a terrorist attack - I'm assuming that there must be some objective definition of the term.

Is there? If so, what is it?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fort-hood-victims-set-to-receive-purple-hearts-combat-status/article/2556950

This right here is sickening and Obama should be held accountable for denying benefits:

Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 32 in the assault on the army post in Killeen, Texas. Survivors, many who suffered from multiple bullet wounds, have spent the past five years trying to rehabilitate their bodies and rebuild their lives. Many have had to pay tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills out of pocket and the new benefits provided through legislation would be a windfall for them.

gatorfan wrote:How can it be an act of terrorism while the Ft Hood slaughter was not?

It was terribly difficult for White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest to utter the word terrorist today but he finally got it out.

Semi-retired President Obama refuses to admit that he is voluntarily losing the war on terror. Remember, President Obama has declared that al Qaeda is on its heels and that ISIS is the Junior Varsity of terrorism.

President Obama's remarks today were less emphatic than when he discusses his golf game. A limp noodle.

WHY is President Obama afraid to call this a radical Islamic terrorist attack?

Secretary of Homeland Security, Jay Johnson, has stated that "we don't know what the nature is of the attack at this point, but we are considering whether we will advise other media organizations".

WHY is Homeland Security afraid to call this a radical Islamic terrorist attack?

Why for instance, don't you rightist refer to the murder of Dr. George Tiller as Christian terrorism? And what about Eric Rudolph’s bombing of the Centennial Olympic Park? Or the bombings of Planned Parenthood offices? Or the murder of 77 children in Norway by radical Christian Anders Breivik? Or the Tea Party terrorists who murdered two police officers in Las Vegas?
Why is that?

boards of FL wrote:

KarlRove wrote:Jeez dude really? He wasnt brave enough to attack while serving in Iraq around armed troops. He was a gutless coward who attacked when folks were stateside and unarmed.

If there is some procedure for awarding benefits based upon the classification of an event that results in the death of soldiers - such as a terrorist attack - I'm assuming that there must be some objective definition of the term.

Is there?  If so, what is it?

Well? Anyone? I thought this was a hot button issue for republicans.

I'll let you R's and D's argue over your insignificant differences. This is the official definition. The lack of identification of the Ft Hood slaughter as a terrorist event is significant to survivors, many of whom have been abandoned by this administration to fend for themselves. Like many veterans.

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).

Well? Anyone? I thought this was a hot button issue for republicans.


They get nervous when talking about Christian terrorists, who now have got one of their own in House leadership. McVeigh and his like have been doing domestic terrorism since the first black folk were lynched by white mobs, yet where a legitimate work place melt down....a person goes postal, because the man was a Muslim, they want to call that terrorism, yet they turn their backs on the victims of domestic terrorism since the Civil War. It is a double standard. Where is the federal compensation for Christian terrorism. The goal of terrorism is to send a message for a cause, please show where a military officer who was piszed over his treatment and a transfer becomes a terrorist by proclamation. Compare the same to the Fort Dix terrorist plot where six radical Muslims were stopped from a terrorist attack on the base.

The only reason obama hadn't labeled this terrorism is the desire to control the public narrative... purely political.

Hell... obama even killed the designated terrorist citizen that radicalized the muslin extremist ft.hood terrorist.

Now please show with your definition how the disgruntled officer was a terrorist. Sorry, this is just more of the same. Completely ignore the active christian terrorist who are trying to influence who will be put into a house leadership position......threatening folks......and nothing, this terrorism continues to kill folks as we speak........yet if this officer was a Christian KKK member who started killing black military personnel.....do you think for a moment it would be classified as a terrorist event......not a chance, yet a work place melt down becomes a terrorist attack because of the religion of the person melting down..........we need to fight Christian terrorism well before we worry about Muslim terrorism three thousand miles away, or manufacturing a terrorist event. Please show any written or verbal communication where this officer was trying to terrorize to send a message.....

2seaoat wrote:Well? Anyone? I thought this was a hot button issue for republicans.


They get nervous when talking about Christian terrorists, who now have got one of their own in House leadership. McVeigh and his like have been doing domestic terrorism since the first black folk were lynched by white mobs, yet where a legitimate work place melt down....a person goes postal, because the man was a Muslim, they want to call that terrorism, yet they turn their backs on the victims of domestic terrorism since the Civil War. It is a double standard. Where is the federal compensation for Christian terrorism. The goal of terrorism is to send a message for a cause, please show where a military officer who was piszed over his treatment and a transfer becomes a terrorist by proclamation. Compare the same to the Fort Dix terrorist plot where six radical Muslims were stopped from a terrorist attack on the base.

How do you know McVeigh was a Christian? Did McVeigh yell "praise God" when the truck blew up in front of the federal building?

McVeigh frequently quoted and alluded to the novel The Turner Diaries;

The Turner Diaries is a novel written in 1978 by William Luther Pierce (former leader of the white nationalist organization National Alliance) under the pseudonym "Andrew Macdonald".[1] The Turner Diaries depicts a violent revolution in the United States which leads to the overthrow of the United States federal government, nuclear war, and, ultimately, to a race war leading to the extermination of all groups deemed by the author as impure

Mcveigh was probably an agnostic who before his death reconnected with his Christian upbringing, but it was his adherence to The National Alliance which was a white nationalist, anti-semitic and white separatist political organization which started as a church group. These Christian terrorist organizations based upon the KKK and neo nazi affiliations fueled his terrorism, and continue to fuel terrorism in America today. Since 1865 these terrorist have probably killed more Americans, and certainly terrorized huge segments of our population where they continue their evil and now have their representatives in the highest offices of the Republican Party.

2seaoat wrote:McVeigh frequently quoted and alluded to the novel The Turner Diaries;

The Turner Diaries is a novel written in 1978 by William Luther Pierce (former leader of the white nationalist organization National Alliance) under the pseudonym "Andrew Macdonald".[1] The Turner Diaries depicts a violent revolution in the United States which leads to the overthrow of the United States federal government, nuclear war, and, ultimately, to a race war leading to the extermination of all groups deemed by the author as impure

Mcveigh was probably an agnostic who before his death reconnected with his Christian upbringing, but it was his adherence to The National Alliance which was a white nationalist, anti-semitic and white separatist political organization which  started as a church group.  These Christian terrorist organizations based upon the KKK and neo nazi affiliations fueled his terrorism, and continue to fuel terrorism in America today.  Since 1865 these terrorist have probably killed more Americans, and certainly terrorized huge segments of our population where they continue their evil and now have their representatives in the highest offices of the Republican Party.

"Probably", you used that term several times - whatever you do don't deal with facts. The legal definition I provided (and you ignored as usual) is pretty clear. We don't have to specify why the Ft Hood freak is a terrorist - according to Obama he is not; you should explain why this administration considers the French slaughter an act of terrorism though. If you had simply answered the question asked at the start of this thread you could have spared us all of your faux self-righteousness and laughable finger pointing at someone not involved in this matter (Scalise) a Catholic who gave one speech to EURO 12 years ago but who, in your weak mind, should be considered a murderous, hate-filled, war-mongering child rapist and sheet head for that speech.

BTW, the 2004 race for Louisiana's 1st Congressional District included Democrat Roy Armstrong, an ex-Ku Klux Klan leader and spokesman for (David) Duke. I know that you are secretly ashamed he lost.

Kind of sucks to belong to either party doesn't it since they both seem to have their share of misguided people.......

http://www.cp24.com/world/experts-cite-legal-reasons-why-fort-hood-shooter-not-charged-with-terrorism-1.1405727

Sal wrote:http://www.cp24.com/world/experts-cite-legal-reasons-why-fort-hood-shooter-not-charged-with-terrorism-1.1405727

OK, I can buy the legal argument and can understand the legal limitations of the UCMJ while still wondering why (after looking at your linked article) "the National Counterterrorism Center and State Department both counted the incident among terror attacks that year".

What would it cost the government to then administratively call it what it would be called if the freak had shot up a civilian facility off base (you know, like the Paris terrorists)? The wounded victims from Ft Hood and the families of the dead might then have a somewhat normal life.

The government spends more on bottled water for FEMA that it throws away when expired then it would cost to take of those people.

PkrBum wrote:The only reason obama hadn't labeled this terrorism is the desire to control the public narrative... purely political.

Hell... obama even killed the designated terrorist citizen that radicalized the muslin extremist ft.hood terrorist.

That is just a bunch of talking points...