Their objectivity is selective.  They hide behind it when the truth doesn't fit their narrative.  Then they jump to conclusions when it suits them.

I would probably agree with you there, I just wouldn't go around claiming it was radical islam related as a standard the same reason I wouldn't go around claiming that a police shooting was racially motivated just because of the race of the cop/suspect. NY times is probably guilty of not following such a standard though.

              ARKANSAS                   ARKANSAS                   ARKANSAS                 ARKANSAS           

Unfortunately, Governor Hutchinson's authority extends only to his state's National Guard.

being objective is one thing, but its pretty hard to not even MENTION that radical islam might have been involved considering he was Muslim, had just made a recent middle east visit, and shot up a military recruiting center of all places.

sure, it POSSIBLE it could have been another motive, but acting like the obvious explanation is somehow just as much a distant possibility as everything else IS part of the NY times bias.

no idea of the motive, huh?
3 days before, he attends a rally protesting the release of a guy who wanted to bomb a muslim community
2 days before, he makes his only 2 blog posts ever, quoting the koran and other other islamic ideologies
then shoots up 2 military offices
nope, no clear motive

Huzzah to Arkansas NG!!! Maybe an IST is in order...

Huzzah to Arkansas NG!!! Maybe an IST is in order...

Let's see how soon the rest of the patriot states fall in line.

Not holding my breath waiting for New York and California!

             OKLAHOMA                   OKLAHOMA                   OKLAHOMA         

no idea of the motive, huh?
3 days before, he attends a rally protesting the release of a guy who wanted to bomb a muslim community
2 days before, he makes his only 2 blog posts ever, quoting the koran and other other islamic ideologies
then shoots up 2 military offices
nope, no clear motive

I am not talking motive but an actual substantial link to another group to show he wasn't a lone gunman.

I am not talking motive but an actual substantial link to another group to show he wasn't a lone gunman.

You must not be paying attention.  How large was the "group" the Boston Marathon Bombers belonged to?

The threat today is radicalized INDIVIDUALS willing to carry out attacks on a small scale and hurt, kill, and terrorize as many as they can.

You should watch the Charles Bronson movie, "Telefon."  It might enlighten you to the danger posed by threats of 1 or 2 people being directed by a common cause or entity.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep,   
But I have promises to keep,   
And miles to go before I sleep,   
And miles to go before I sleep.

Sailor in Chattanooga shooting has died, death toll now 5
(not counting the terrorist)

The Navy says that the sailor who was shot Thursday in an attack at a military support center in Chattanooga, Tenn. has died.

The sailor was one of three people injured when a gunman opened fire, killing four Marines.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/18/sailor-in-chattanooga-shooting-has-died-death-toll-now-5/


 

Heaven forbid they try to be objective... Sure we can go around thinking it was radical islam related because of his name and the targets but good reporting should be neutral until more facts arrive. You think a prosecutor could win a court case off such weak circumstantial evidence?

I am not a betting man, but I would be willing to bet that even after it comes out that Radical Islam is the reason behind this that the NY Times will still not admit this was the reason for it.

  to OK and AR (how appropriate)

The jihadi lone wolf threats are not exactly a new thing.
We have been talking about arming service members locally for a pretty long time, eh?

clearly the sign itself is bullet proof, in fact the sign itself probably deflected a few projectiles without leaving a mark, now that is true effectiveness. 

Were flags at half mast today? 

You must not be paying attention.  How large was the "group" the Boston Marathon Bombers belonged to?

The threat today is radicalized INDIVIDUALS willing to carry out attacks on a small scale and hurt, kill, and terrorize as many as they can.

You should watch the Charles Bronson movie, "Telefon."  It might enlighten you to the danger posed by threats of 1 or 2 people being directed by a common cause or entity.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep,   
But I have promises to keep,   
And miles to go before I sleep,   
And miles to go before I sleep.

You suggested that Obama was using the phrase "lone gunman" to downplay  a link to radical islam. Now you say these "individuals." Was he a lone gunman or not? If he acted on his own volition then he is a lone gunman whether or not radical islam is what inspired him.  Obama's referring to him as a lone gunman is not an attempt to downplay a link to radical islam, that is just a weak sauce attack against Obama.

You suggested that Obama was using the phrase "lone gunman" to downplay  a link to radical islam. Now you say these "individuals." Was he a lone gunman or not? If he acted on his own volition then he is a lone gunman whether or not radical islam is what inspired him.  Obama's referring to him as a lone gunman is not an attempt to downplay a link to radical islam, that is just a weak sauce attack against Obama.

Are you really going to parse my word-choices as if I don't know what I'm saying?

Individual = person = shooter = terrorist

Are you trolling me, or are you really that desperate for an argument you're grasping at "it depends on what the definition of "is" is?"

You suggested that Obama was using the phrase "lone gunman" to downplay  a link to radical islam. Now you say these "individuals." Was he a lone gunman or not? If he acted on his own volition then he is a lone gunman whether or not radical islam is what inspired him.  Obama's referring to him as a lone gunman is not an attempt to downplay a link to radical islam, that is just a weak sauce attack against Obama.

It isn't a matter of what Obama called the shooter, but more what he did not call him.

Obama downplays every act of violence by anyone who based on their name and heritage is in all likelihood a Muslim.  He has made statements in the past about refraining from using these incidents to blame the entire Muslim community.  He makes that his point as opposed to naming the REAL enemy who caused the deaths:  RADICAL ISLAM.  He and his media and administration are trying to control the narrative. 

If this had been a white guy with apparent racist views, do you really believe he would refrain from taking advantage of that and calling the US a racist country --- again?

The fact that this took place in a black church obviously also raises questions about a dark part of our history. This is not the
first time that black churches have been attacked. And we know that hatred across races and faiths pose a particular threat to
our democracy and our ideals.

http://www.wistv.com/story/29353444/transcript-of-president-obamas-remarks-on-charleston-shooting

It isn't a matter of what Obama called the shooter, but more what he did not call him.

Obama downplays every act of violence by anyone who based on their name and heritage is in all likelihood a Muslim.  He has made statements in the past about refraining from using these incidents to blame the entire Muslim community.  He makes that his point as opposed to naming the REAL enemy who caused the deaths:  RADICAL ISLAM.  He and his media and administration are trying to control the narrative. 

If this had been a white guy with apparent racist views, do you really believe he would refrain from taking advantage of that and calling the US a racist country --- again?

http://www.wistv.com/story/29353444/transcript-of-president-obamas-remarks-on-charleston-shooting

exactly
pretty much the minute the charleston shooting happened, he was playing up the hate crime/racism/attacking a church thing

this time it was "lone gunman" and "the motive is unknown at this time"

It isn't a matter of what Obama called the shooter, but more what he did not call him.

Obama downplays every act of violence by anyone who based on their name and heritage is in all likelihood a Muslim.  He has made statements in the past about refraining from using these incidents to blame the entire Muslim community.  He makes that his point as opposed to naming the REAL enemy who caused the deaths:  RADICAL ISLAM.  He and his media and administration are trying to control the narrative. 

If this had been a white guy with apparent racist views, do you really believe he would refrain from taking advantage of that and calling the US a racist country --- again?

I try not to assume motives and don't like cheap shots even if it is someone I am opposed to.

Just keep in mind that the president is the face of the nation and has a certain amount of power/responsibility to keep things balanced. I am sure with all his security briefings he knows the threats radical islam presents but we still want to keep order. The last thing we want is for americans to get into some crowd frenzy and start attacking muslims or arabs out of anger or fear. It doesn't necessarily have to be that he is a secret muslim or he just wants to cater to muslims. Whats wrong with him saying separating radical muslims and the rest of the muslim population? We all know radical islam is dangerous but sometimes people are stupid and need to be reminded not all muslims around us are bad.

Now sure he seems guilty of pouring gas on the fire in other situations but I don't think the choice of the phrase lone gunman was trying to minimize radical islam.

exactly
pretty much the minute the charleston shooting happened, he was playing up the hate crime/racism/attacking a church thing

this time it was "lone gunman" and "the motive is unknown at this time"

she's hot