Obama nor the media can make up their minds

It appears we can use the term *terrorism* as it suits us.
The massacre at Ft Hood Texas was NOT an act of terrorism, but merely domestic unrest(Violence)..while this current incident in Colorado is an open case of terrorism(domestic or otherwise). If Obama claims the gunman Terrorized the citizens in the theater..would not that make the gunman a terrorist? Then what did the shooter in Texas do to his victims? Simply stress them out? Foolishness..he terrorized them...thus he was a terrorist.

The redefiner-n-chief is at it again.

How tragic...on many levels.

Rob Wiederrich said:

It appears we can use the term *terrorism* as it suits us.
The massacre at Ft Hood Texas was NOT an act of terrorism, but merely domestic unrest(Violence)..while this current incident in Colorado is an open case of terrorism(domestic or otherwise). If Obama claims the gunman Terrorized the citizens in the theater..would not that make the gunman a terrorist? Then what did the shooter in Texas do to his victims? Simply stress them out? Foolishness..he terrorized them...thus he was a terrorist.

The redefiner-n-chief is at it again.

How tragic...on many levels.

Yes, it is tragic on many levels. Not the least of which is your patently offensive politicization of the murder of 12 people only hours after it took place. Way to go, Eob, you're right up there with ABC news claiming a Tea Party member did it.

Rob Wiederrich said:

It appears we can use the term *terrorism* as it suits us.
The massacre at Ft Hood Texas was NOT an act of terrorism, but merely domestic unrest(Violence)..while this current incident in Colorado is an open case of terrorism(domestic or otherwise). If Obama claims the gunman Terrorized the citizens in the theater..would not that make the gunman a terrorist? Then what did the shooter in Texas do to his victims? Simply stress them out? Foolishness..he terrorized them...thus he was a terrorist.

The redefiner-n-chief is at it again.

How tragic...on many levels.

Terrorism has historically referred to acts of violence committed against civilian populations for a political or military purpose because the provocateurs do not have the resources to engage the military face-to-face and hoped that by striking terror in the population, the government would give in. The IRA is an example. They did, however, target military personnel and facilities but could only inflict minor damage. It's the motivation and not the act, IMO. The Fort Hood soldier had a political agenda but attacked a military installation. I wouldn't call him a terrorist - he was simply a traitor to his country. This Colorado bozo was probably not a terrorist but a disenfranchised, frustrated man who took it out on innocent civilians. Unless they uncover a political motive, of course. That's my definition.

Jim J