I'm getting some pushback on the Drudge Retort to how I presented the Itamar attack story:
In the West Bank settlement of Itamar, five members of an Israeli family were killed Friday night by an intruder who broke into their home and stabbed them to death. The suspect stabbed the mother, father and children aged 11, three and three months old. Two children, aged 2 and 4, were not harmed in the attack. The attacker has not been caught.
The media is calling the attacker a terrorist. I read six stories on the incident last night and none of them contained a single bit of evidence to back up this claim. They all simply assume that it must be terrorism and quote people making the same assumption.
I know this heinous crime is likely to be terrorism, but the media should not jump to conclusions and report something that is likely as if it is certain. This is particularly true when a story has immediate and explosive political ramifications.
But since I wrestled with this decision for a while, I'd like to hear other opinions.
It seems to me that the difference between a normal crime and a terrorist act lies in the intention of the perpetrator. At this time this no evidence to label it terrorism.
2 dicks jumped the wall around the settlement, busted into a house, stabbed to death the mother and father then stabbed to death an 11 year old, a 3 year old and a 3 month old.
They were more than likely Palestinians (or else they wouldn't have had to jump the fence) and they were probably pissed about the Israeli settlement and wanted to commit an attack so heinous that they would make them think twice about living there... that's terrorism! Granted they haven't caught the guy(s) yet, but come on... its terrorism.
To quote True Romance, "If I'm wrong I'll f-----g apologize," but I doubt I'll have to and it seems like there is some very deliberate ignoring of what the situation is really going to be.
I'll go back to the Retort now...
As Adam said, in order to call a criminal a terrorist you must know something about the attacker's intent. Since the Israeli authorities have not presented any evidence of intent, there's no basis yet for calling it terrorism.
A lot of crimes look different when first reported than when all the facts are in. The Tucson shooting was widely considered a right-wing political attack on a Democratic Congresswoman in the immediate aftermath, but suspect Jared Loughner appears to be a mentally deranged person who wasn't motivated by partisan politics.
I agree with you, Rogers. Jumping to unverified conclusions can be dangerous, even if they may be correct a large percentage of the time. The few times they're wrong cause unnecessary damage. Shame on the media for doing so, just to sell copy.
"They were more than likely ... they were probably ... its terrorism." ~ Rob_The_You_Know_What
And, to quote Cheech Marin: "You may have a point there. You should wear a hat so that no-body notices."
"The Tucson shooting was widely considered a right-wing political attack on a Democratic Congresswoman in the immediate aftermath, but suspect Jared Loughner appears to be a mentally deranged person who wasn't motivated by partisan politics.
# 3 | ROGERS CADENHEAD"
It was widely considered by Democrats and liberals to be a right-wing political attack...
You guys were wrong then and I'd bet a mortgage payment you're wrong now. Something tells me you wouldn't even take the bet because you know smart money is on this being a Palestinian Muslim killing Israeli settlers to try and scare them into changing their policies with a horrific act of murder... the very definition of terrorism.
You guys were wrong then and I'd bet a mortgage payment you're wrong now.
My first comment on the Tucson shooting was that it could just be a crazy person.
A least one source thinks this is a disgruntled Asian worker. Has anyone else looked into this? Could this be like OK City- that Arabs did it- oops- our bad...