Do you think the media is covering the Ft. Hood case fairly?

I think they are trying very hard to describe this as anything but an instance of terrorism by a naturalized Muslim citizen of the U.S.. If this were done by a southern white male with a confederate flag on his pickup truck shouting ';The South will Rise Again'; this would have been labeled White supremacism in two seconds. Why do we avoid calling this at least an 'individual act' of islamic terrorism????





Separately - I would be interested to hear if any Islamic Americans would condemn this act? I sometimes find the silence to be deafening.Do you think the media is covering the Ft. Hood case fairly?
If he was a southern guy with a confederate flag, whether he even had a weapon or not the media would have preferred he end up dead. Look at how political correctness affects us everyday.





Larry Johnson the Chiefs running back spits on one woman, throws a drink on another woman and miss a game or two..but he says the word ';FAG'; and he's out of the league. Now in the politically correct world he should be exonerated because he was ';profiled';..it's interesting to see the pecking order of ';protected minorities'; and how this whole concept is totally FOCKED UP.Do you think the media is covering the Ft. Hood case fairly?
Oh well. We haven't quite caught up to that Islamic Nation we call England. They won't even mention the M word or the I word. When they have Islamic terrorists bombing their cities they just call them the ';Brit bombers';, of course they could not offend any Muslims by inferring that Islam may not be the religion of peace.


Obviously, this guy was frustrated. He was going to paradise to get laid, he was ready for his virgins and the only way he could get them was to kill infidels-and the definition of an infidel is any one who is not a Muslim.
Yup. The Attacker was an American Citizen. Born %26amp; raised in THIS Country. The Media is being only fair- by reporting the Facts as they get Them. There are Disgruntled employees in EVERY profession. And the Attacker was unhappy with His. In THIS case, He's the military's ';baby';- and so the Military will ';take care of Him';. What MORE do You WANT, Hm ??! :o
Yes I think they are, he was just a man who couldn't handle the pressure of going to war simple as that
Personally I dont think we should be as concerned about the media as we should be concerned how much truth those Government officals are reporting to the media.





It doesnt matter if the guy was a Middle Eastern American or not, the act remains the same. However I personally think he was probably someone who has religious ties with the Muslim Community who had a hard time with the country he's immigrated to and become a citizen of, declaring war on his natural country all in the name of Oil, but creating at the same time, though somewhat subltly a war about religious freedom.





If it was all about the war it would be one thing, but we as Americans have created it to be a war with several facets involved.


As far as the oil, we dont have any business in that country over their natural resources ANYWAYS. If they want to sell it to us, fine, if not we should learn to use what we have in our country before going to war in a nother country over theirs and what they got.





As far as How they worship and what religion they are, thats their business. American has many religions in it, many religions which are extreme and different compared to the next. I dont have the right to tell someone who doesnt believe in God he or she is wrong any more than I have the right to tell someone who doesnt believe Jesus is God that they are wrong.


In reference to an individual act of terroism, you have to account and record all of the situations and circumstances involved before you can count such as an individual act of terriosm.


Not everything is black and white no matter how much we want it to be so.


Not all factors leading up to such an act of violance can all be attributed to the same causes.





I also think that some people may not be comfortable calling it an act of terroism beacause when you think about it we've done the same thing with this so called war on terroism.


We've said one thing an done another. We've called it a war on terroism and fought about religious freedom, natural resources and whether a nations religion is what we approve of or not.


That nations religion should be hashed out by those people. I uderstand all about helping a country do right by the the people, but some choices arent for us to make. And we only cause problems by offering our help.


When our help isnt wanted nor warranted. We want to reshape a country so that they are basically a Little America, and for as much as we have we dont have a whole lot. Sometimes its better to l eave things along and roll with the punches instead of trying to change the course of things.
I have to believe so. BTW, it turns out the shooter is natural-born. As for if it were done by a southern white male with a Confederate flag as you described, the key would have been: Was he in the service? If he was in the service (as this shooter was), he would be treated someone who snapped. If not in the service, then and only then would he be labeled as a supremacist.





If this Muslim killer were not in the service, he would have been treated a lot differently. The key is: Army officer (or enlisted/NCO) or not? That is what determines the treatment given. It's different if a service(wo)man shoots fellow service(wo)men as opposed to a civilian murdering a service(wo)man.





Why it's not terrorism is because it does not appear to be an act that is intimidating a government or population into granting demands. As such, calling it an individual act of Islamic terrorism is factually incorrect if the dictionary definition is to be followed.





As for Islamic Americans condemning the act, the media doesn't want to hear any of it. If someone says it, it will not make the air. Protests condemning the attack will not get news coverage. It's not for lack of trying that their condemnation falls on deaf ears.