posted at 2/13/2013 3:00 PM EST
In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
It sounds almost like the reason you insist on labeling it a "terrorist attack" is that you recognize that there is no logical reason why, if this person should be rewarded with unnamed "federal benefits," then all good samaritans who save lives should.
Why does the decision to call it a "terrorist attack" as opposed to "mass shooting," "workplace violence," or "multiple murder" make her actions any more or less heroic?
It doesn't, does it? The facts matter. Bullets fly, and she takes some of them while stopping the shooter.
Wherever those facts inhere, should the federal government provide unnamed "benefits" t othe person stopping the shooter?
In fact, why restrict it to bullets? Why not have the federal government provide "benefits" to anyone who puts themselves in danger to try to save lives?
Why should whether or not we choose to term the taking of a life "terror" matter?
The FACT that it happened on a military base duiring the USA's known war against terror and she was injured trying to save our soldiers lives makes it much different than anything you've tried to compare it with!
It should be called a terrorist attack because that is exactly what it was! It wasnt a disgruntled employee wanting to hurt his company. It was a extremist sympathizer wanting to hurt the USA by killing our serv ice men and women!
I understand the prosecutors wanting to plea basically to insure an easier conviction but, that does not make it right!