I gave up that fight a long time ago. 
Notice I said “trying”. I’m not really having much success
I don’t know why there is such hate for Fox News. By propping up the dumbest of the conservatives and doing a piss-poor job of presenting moderate conservative themes, they helped propel a number of Dems into office.
I am a conservative (economically) and more liberal on social issues, and Fox isn’t helping the Republican Party one bit.
Each side has buffoons (Dems have Hollywood), who are better off swept under the rug, or shunned completely, and you Dems get to watch the Republican Party be defined, and redefined, by Fox… all to the detriment of the Republican Party.
You should applaud their presence.
It contributes to the polarization of American society. You think it’s healthy that nearly half the population isn’t sure if the President is Kenyan or not?
Indeed, the late John Muhammad certainly qualified as a terrorist in the views of many conservatives. And ironically, some of them complained that the Obama administration was too slow to label him a terrorist:
April 19 2009 blog post:
Presumably you mean the Bush administration, since Obama would not take office for some years after the sniperings.
From the OP’s link
No group, no effort to affect political change = no terrorism. Same goes for the DC sniper. Same for Hassan.
You didn’t get the memo? History started on January 20, 2009.
http://www.credoaction.com/comics/TMW2009-11-11colorlowres.jpg
I thought the Fort Hood shooter was shouting “Admiral Akbar” which proves that he was actually part of the Rebel Alliance?
[hijack]
My wife once called out Groucho Marx’s name while we were making love.
Do I win the Awkward Award yet? 
[/hijack]
No, I do not mean the Bush administration (as you might have gathered from the “April 19 2009” date on my cite link, even if you didn’t read the linked cite itself).
The source I linked to was complaining because Obama’s DHS head Janet Napolitano did not describe John Muhammad as a terrorist.
However, my previous post did make the mistake of accidentally including my link to a Daniel Pipes article within the text I quoted from the other linked cite. Sorry about that, and I’d be grateful if a mod could fix it (I didn’t notice it till past the edit window).
The DC sniper? Declared a terrorist by the Virginia Supreme Court.
What good reason was that, again?
It wasn’t just him yelling out, it was his contacts with the imam, his email comms to terrorist organizations, he was “belligerent, defensive and argumentative in his frequent discussions of his Muslim faith” (as MSNBC says), and his superiors had questioned his sympathies to the Army, thinking that he was more aligned with Muslims fighting US troops.
Again, it’s not set in stone, but the evidence that it was connected to jihad (again, read my earlier post: as a loner, not necessarily a coordinated member of Al Qaeda) is pretty damn strong. Denying it, perhaps as an administration apologist, does nothing to advance the dialogue.
I didn’t read it at all. I simply assumed that since Muhammad had been arrested and charged years before Obama took office that it didn’t matter whether or not he wants to call him a terrorist. Why would it?
It certainly wouldn’t to me. But it has apparently mattered a good deal to many conservative pundits that John Muhammad’s crimes should be classified as “terrorist attacks”, and possibly “jihadist” as well.
But now that Fox News sees a chance to identify the Fort Hood shootings as “the first domestic terror attack since 9/11”, thereby implying that the current administration is failing to protect Americans from terror attacks as well as its predecessor did, it seems that they conveniently forget all about conservative insistence on calling the Beltway sniper a terrorist.
[Groucho Marx]Well, it could’ve been woise, friend. She could’ve called out your name while making love to me.[/GM]
Right, and by that definition, it’s not clear that the Ft. Hood shootings rise to the level of terrorism. The shooting meets criteria A and C, but I don’t think it satisfies any of the conditions of B.
We really need to stop defining terrorism down. Not all mass killings are terrorism. Not all religiously motivated killings are terrorism. Not even all religiously motivated mass killings are terrorism.
Please note that, contrary to the statement from Chessic Sense, neither a group affiliation nor an effort to affect politcal change is required.
It’s not clear whether CS was speaking from a legal or philosophical standpoint. A motive of effecting political change is pretty much a requirement of terrorism outside of the Federal government’s definition of it.