[KVB]

Originally <a href='http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/showthread.php?p=24914661'>posted</a> on 12/03/2015:

KVB.... those that choose to radicalize have standing orders to commit homicidal acts from those said groups you infer, nothing need be specific for the lone wolves or their accomplices to perpetrate what those groups themselves would consider terrorism. They care not if it's at the workplace or the local stadium, those semantics/logistics mean nothing (nor if they gave the direct order); as long as a component involves an overall sympathy for the religious cause/mandate.

Indeed, investigating authorities have made it clear they don't consider "workplace violence" and "terrorism" to always be (by definition) mutually exclusive; it's one of the reasons both concepts are still in play.

Many reasonable people can put forth the notion that Fort Hood, say, was both... regardless if Obama and others refused to label it as such or not.

Agreed. My post pretty much refers to what it takes to get an act labeled terrorism by the mass media. They seem to reserve the term for more coordinated, pre planned attacks by organized well known groups as opposed to lone sympathizers. On a national level they likely won't acknowledge "standing orders" as a credible threat using the excuse that it is not specific.

In court and with law enforcement it's a whole different ballgame but there seems to be special care as to what gets labeled what when it comes to the news script.

I don't see how Fort Hood is anything but an act of war. It was an attack on a military installation...troops were being deployed to a war zone from there.