I don't understand the MSM's denial of reality. They simply cannot call a terrorist attack a terrorist attack. Well, that's not 100% true. They can call it a terrorist attack when it has little political consequence here. For instance, CNN had this a week ago:
Police: Dozens dead in Pakistan explosion. The article included this snippet:
The attack on the capital of the North West Frontier Province was the deadliest terrorist attack on Pakistan since the October 2007 attack on a homecoming rally for former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
So 35 people die in Pakistan and even CNN calls it a terrorist attack. But then there was the Fort Hood murder of 13 servicemen. I searched through all the CNN articles I could find and the word "terrorist" does not appear in any of them. Even though
the shooter yelled "Allahu Akbar!" as he was shooting our soldiers. A short time after the shooting, another bombing in Pakistan killed 12 people. Most in the MSM called it a terrorist act. Except for CNN. Here's their article:
Pakistan suicide bombing kills mayor, 11 others. The closest the article comes is calling it a suicide bombing, which is by definition a terrorist act. But it got me thinking - why would CNN not call it a terrorist act outright `when it called the bombing last week one? Could it be for the simple purpose of not having the word "terrorist" out there because of the Fort Hood shooting? Why the squeamishness in calling a terrorist act a terrorist act???
Posts
3 comments:
The MSM has been in spin mode on the Fort Hood thing, as has Obama. I wrote about it myself today. It is sickening to me.
I make no bones about calling MAJ Hasan a domestic Jihadist. In fact, I'm rather perturbed by news reports calling him the "alleged" shooter. I know he's not convicted yet, but there's no doubt in anybody's mind that he's the triggerman.
It doesn't seem to matter that he was yelling "Allahu Ahkbar" as he was killing people either.
Post a Comment