And your point is? What does this have to do with FOX News? Help us out here, dude.
grasping at straws here, i’d guess the Faux News crowd is crowing about how “the first terror attack on US soil since 2001” happened on a Democratic President’s watch.
like i said, drawing that **completely **out of thin air.
The Fox News liars keep talking about Fort Hood being the first terror attack on US soil since 9/11.
And let’s not forget their bullshit about Bush preventing any more terror attacks on US soil after 9/11.
I hope every person on Fox News gets raped by diseased bobcats.
So a guy on a murder rampage = terrorist attack now?
Which terrorist organization is claiming credit?
What political aims was this “terror attack” supposed to accomplish?
Bonus question: does Fox news know what a terrorist is?
By this definition, there was also a pretty big terrorist attack at Virginia Tech.
of course they do. it’s a three-part analysis:
Q1: is the person from the middle east? of middle eastern extraction? does he look like someone from the middle east?
check. proceed to question 2.
Q2: would calling this a “terrorist” act make Democrats look bad? Conversely, would calling this person a “terrorist” help out Republican policies?
check. proceed to question 3.
Q3: did the perpetrator of the incident like country music, NASCAR, or anything else that our viewers identify with?
person is a terrorist. q.e.d.
Watch it, Sparky. I like those things and I think Faux News are a bunch of fargin’ iceholes.
Well, you know, the VT shooter didn’t look like an American to the Faux News demographic. rolls eyes.
Must have been a turrist attack.
Or the LA Fitness shooting in Pittsburgh – after all, the guy was raging about his “hatred for women.”
Or even the murder of Dr. Tiller.
fox viewers are a subset of nascar and country music -philes, that’s all i can say about that
LAX attack was terrorism because the shooter intended to coerce the US’s Palestinian policy.
What was Hassan’s intent? We don’t know yet.
But we do know the Fox News liars need a hot bobcat injection.
Was a the shooting at the Jewish center in Seattle terrorism?
How do we define terrorism, versus hate crime, versus losing your fucking marbles?
I suspect something very close to what Rumor_Watkins wrote is pinned up next to the monitor of every computer at Fox News.
There’s no wrong time to say “Fuck you, Fox News”, really.
Don’t we have an omnibus “Fox News is Full of Dicks” thread now?
Well, you got me there.
Naveed Afzal Haq tried to get the US to withdraw from Iraq as part of his attack. He may have also been trying to change the US’s and Israel’s (among others) Middle East policies.
So, it appears to have been terrorism. Completely ineffective terrorism.
The anthrax mailings don’t count?
I think there are two kinds of terrorist attacks: those who do it coordinated with a group (obviously Al Qaeda, but there are others, and not always religious… ELF and FALN come to mind). And those loners who do so, while motivated by terroristic goals, who are not connected or acting under the orders of any coordinated terror organization.
It’s pretty clear to me, and I think most people, that this guy fall within the 2nd category; he was supposedly yelling Allah Akbar while he was shooting, and beforehand he supposedly had been emailing the crazy Falls Church imam who skipped the US for Yemen.
So it’s pretty clear that this was in fact a terror attack, by that measure. The one in 2002 would also qualify I suppose, but since it didn’t kill any Americans, maybe it gets downplayed?
Heck, the anonymous mailing of white powder in envelopes counts, and that’s become a bigger fad than hijacking a plane to Cuba in the late 60’s.
It’s gotten so big that it hardly makes headlines anymore, but people are still terrorized:
This might not have been such a big, continuing problem if Bush had bothered to catch the perpetrator of the original attacks.
From the cite offered by the OP:
What did the FBI decide?