If it’s intentional then it’s terrorism… Something lost on liberals and their media voice.
Webster Dictionary Definition:
the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal
When one thinks of the word, many words come to mind in addition to the forensic definition above. Isn’t bullying a form of terrorism?
Perhaps they’re using the “political goal” as their baseline but terror comes in many forms. Any time there’s a violent act designed to frighten or alter the way one lives their life then it’s terror! Isn’t the physical coercion belong in this definition in some way?
If yesterday’s multiple events weren’t terrorism, what are they?
One would think the fact they were willful and intentional, this would also constitute the label of terrorism – and terror is not isolated to one group. This is against society on a whole, so how is that not a “political goal?”
It’s interesting that politicians and the media are so hard pressed to identify the obvious when what we see and the fright people feel is real and concrete. They seem to be living in some vacuum and relay it as if that wishful thinking or politically correct answer is truth and fact.
When does the Media become responsible for this misinformation? How long will it take for yesterday’s events to be labeled appropriately? Will it ever be?
The population is not as ignorant as the moral elite tend to believe. We do see things and draw our own inferences, yet they continue to propagate propaganda without conscience.
Unlike 9/11, we’ve now seen way too many of these events in our culture, so it’s foolish for leaders and the media to believe we buy all the fancy mouth work to tell us these events are non-event and nothing to see here moments. There’s too many coincidences to be coincidence. Acting as if we are anything but logical, the lies continue even when they are exposed dead to rights.
Logical leaning folks don’t generally have a problem connecting dots – but we do expect facts to be relayed through press conferences, not rushes to judgment. Where did the line between the two become blurred?
Shouldn’t we demand more facts than fiction from those responsible to give us the truth?