- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Of course, and the islamic jihad massacre at Fort Hood was generic “workplace violence”, and the beltway sniper islamic jihad attacks were “random acts of violence” (by muslims, for islam), and the jihad shooting at the recruiting office in Arkansas wasn’t terrorism (except that it was), and the would be Times Square islamic jihad terror bombing had nothing to do with islam, and the ISLAMIC STATE is not comprised 100% of muslims who are waging jihad for islam, and “islam is a religion of peace”, and I’m the Queen of Ireland.
Turns out, if you look into the details, he actually never said it was an act of terrorism. There was about the whys and wherefores after his statement, and the mincing of the difference between the words “terror” and “terrorism” went on for quite some time.
Now, the Treasury Department has given its imprint on the perspective as well. And they haven’t “certified” it as an “act of terrorism,” either.
The context is the , which was passed just after the 9/11 attacks. It’s a federally-administered and underwritten insurance program for terrorism-caused damage, designed to be relatively inexpensive but to compensate policy owners in the event of a disaster.
Twenty-two Boston-based companies carried that insurance and for pay-out purposes, the attacks have not…
View original post 242 more words