The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

ThurmanHart — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:33:49 -0000

Serious. I&#39m being obtuse? Seriously. I understand fully well why someone might suspect terrorism. Everyone who spoke about it yesterday mentioned terrorism. It would be incomprehensible not to think about terrorism.

But this site led with a title claiming terrorism. Yes, I know - "possible." Every responsible reporter said, "Nothing can be ruled out, not even terrorism." This site leads with the idea it is terrorism. See - one way includes terrorism but urges caution because it isn&#39t known. The other way heightens fear and urges people to be afraid. It&#39s known as fear-mongering. I know you understand this, because I&#39ve read enough of your writing to know you do.

But I&#39m being obtuse? It is irresponsible to leave that title. Even Fox News knows when to issue a retraction.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

Polimom — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:23:37 -0000

ThurmanHart, are you being deliberately obtuse? Seriously. Reports of several shooters, implying a coordinated event. On an Army base that deploys soldiers to two wars. And you ask why somebody might suspect possible terrorism?

Jeesum!

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

ThurmanHart — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:19:13 -0000

Oh, hey, the "possible" thing. Well, it was "possible" that the Russians had invaded us, too. Why not put that in the title? The only thing that was known was that an attack had occurred, and the responsible way to report it would have been to say "an attack has occurred." Why immediately go after terrorism? Why tag it as war? Oh, "possible." Yeah. Well, not to worry then.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

ThurmanHart — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:15:33 -0000

So sorry that insisting on honesty, facts, and good reporting is "wearing out the rug." Publishing things comes along with a tiny bit of responsibility. Unfortunately, that seems to have been missed by a few people.

I&#39ll give it a rest right after the families of the dead get over their soldiers being killed. Sorry if that is inconvenient.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

Polimom — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:09:22 -0000

ThurmanHart, you&#39re kind of wearing out the rug on this. The first reports on the story, if you&#39ll look back at yesterday, were of several shooters. At one point, we were told that two were in custody and one was dead. I think the title was precisely right, given the early reporting, right down to the "possible" -- which you seem to be consistently overlooking.

It was written at a point in time, with the current information, on a breaking story. Give it a rest already.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

ThurmanHart — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:02:33 -0000

The problem is over-sensationalizing things. It&#39s very clear that this was the act of one very mentally disturbed individual. The writer was irresponsible to hype this as being connected with war or with terrorism.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

CStanley — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:07:11 -0000

Thanks...you too, Polimom.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

ThurmanHart — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:33:49 -0000

Serious. I'm being obtuse? Seriously. I understand fully well why someone might suspect terrorism. Everyone who spoke about it yesterday mentioned terrorism. It would be incomprehensible not to think about terrorism.

But this site led with a title claiming terrorism. Yes, I know - "possible." Every responsible reporter said, "Nothing can be ruled out, not even terrorism." This site leads with the idea it is terrorism. See - one way includes terrorism but urges caution because it isn't known. The other way heightens fear and urges people to be afraid. It's known as fear-mongering. I know you understand this, because I've read enough of your writing to know you do.

But I'm being obtuse? It is irresponsible to leave that title. Even Fox News knows when to issue a retraction.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

Polimom — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:23:37 -0000

Jeesum!

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

ThurmanHart — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:19:13 -0000

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

ThurmanHart — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:15:33 -0000

I'll give it a rest right after the families of the dead get over their soldiers being killed. Sorry if that is inconvenient.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

Polimom — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:09:22 -0000

ThurmanHart, you're kind of wearing out the rug on this. The first reports on the story, if you'll look back at yesterday, were of several shooters. At one point, we were told that two were in custody and one was dead. I think the title was precisely right, given the early reporting, right down to the "possible" -- which you seem to be consistently overlooking.

It was written at a point in time, with the current information, on a breaking story. Give it a rest already.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

ThurmanHart — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:02:33 -0000

The problem is over-sensationalizing things. It's very clear that this was the act of one very mentally disturbed individual. The writer was irresponsible to hype this as being connected with war or with terrorism.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

Polimom — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:55:58 -0000

Glad to see you CStanley. Really.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

DLS — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:45:40 -0000

"what the hell can possibly be next after Ft. Hood???"

Another smaller event and place like the one in Arkansas some time ago? Don&#39t people recall that?

[sigh]

Here, people:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/0...

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

CStanley — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:08 -0000

How do you define terrorism? Your comment about this not being part of any war is puzzling because reliable reports are that this shooter was at least in part motivated by his objection to the Iraq and Afghan wars. It&#39s also not clear to me why a definition of terrorism would necessarily be related to a &#39war&#39- isn&#39t it true that instances like the shooting of abortionist Tiller are considered domestic terrorism? Or the Oklahoma City bombing?

I understand the concern that we not overstate this as the type of terrorism that is organized, state sponsored, or more coercive in nature. But I don&#39t understand the overblown criticism of those who would use the word terrorism to describe it either.

Overgeneralizing is the problem. In the abortionist killing, there was legitimate concern expressed that the killer held an ideological belief that his action was heroic because he would prevent fetal deaths by killing Dr. Tiller- but anyone who overgeneralized to think that this was a widely held belief among abortion opponents, or that this idea would be sanctioned by most Christian groups, was wrong to do so. In the current instance, there&#39s emerging evidence that the killer may have believed that he was acting heroically by killing soldiers who would be sent to kill Muslims- and again, we can and should acknowledge that a minority of people might believe that even while we take care not to paint most or all Muslims with that broad brush.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

CStanley — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:27:15 -0000

Actually that&#39s not accurate. The regulations on a military base for carrying weapons is quite similar to a college campus, and the soldiers are not walking around armed. The &#39soldiers&#39 who shot and wounded Hasan were first responders- basically law enforcement officials assigned to security patrol.

I don&#39t know that the argument of allowing people to be armed in either situation holds water- but the fact is that in both situations the majority of the victims and potential victims were in the exact same situation, having had no choice but to be unarmed and to rely on security officials to protect them against the attack.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

ThurmanHart — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:58:47 -0000

Only a hate-filled moron or an ignoramus who has not kept up with the story at all would say something like that, Vince. Which one are you?

There is no terrorist connection. It is not part of any war. By the very definition of the word, the title is both irresponsible and playing on fears. At the very least, the title should be changed. It is shameful to continue to hawk fear and hatred in a time of horror and sadness.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

CStanley — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:07:11 -0000

Thanks...you too, Polimom.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

Father_Time — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:49:47 -0000

Why whatever do you mean?

I made a perfectly resonable analogy. Considering the ever increasing violence we witness.

rhetoric?

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

D. E.Rodriguez — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:59:20 -0000

"I mean….what the hell can possibly be next after Ft. Hood???"

Perhaps some reflection, more civil debate, less rhetoric. and less demonizing...by all sides?

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

Polimom — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:55:58 -0000

Glad to see you CStanley. Really.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

DLS — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:45:40 -0000

"what the hell can possibly be next after Ft. Hood???"

Another smaller event and place like the one in Arkansas some time ago? Don't people recall that?

[sigh]

Here, people:

http://www.nydailynews.com/...

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

CStanley — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:36:08 -0000

I understand the concern that we not overstate this as the type of terrorism that is organized, state sponsored, or more coercive in nature. But I don't understand the overblown criticism of those who would use the word terrorism to describe it either.

Overgeneralizing is the problem. In the abortionist killing, there was legitimate concern expressed that the killer held an ideological belief that his action was heroic because he would prevent fetal deaths by killing Dr. Tiller- but anyone who overgeneralized to think that this was a widely held belief among abortion opponents, or that this idea would be sanctioned by most Christian groups, was wrong to do so. In the current instance, there's emerging evidence that the killer may have believed that he was acting heroically by killing soldiers who would be sent to kill Muslims- and again, we can and should acknowledge that a minority of people might believe that even while we take care not to paint most or all Muslims with that broad brush.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

CStanley — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:27:15 -0000

Actually that's not accurate. The regulations on a military base for carrying weapons is quite similar to a college campus, and the soldiers are not walking around armed. The 'soldiers' who shot and wounded Hasan were first responders- basically law enforcement officials assigned to security patrol.

I don't know that the argument of allowing people to be armed in either situation holds water- but the fact is that in both situations the majority of the victims and potential victims were in the exact same situation, having had no choice but to be unarmed and to rely on security officials to protect them against the attack.