Please do,although you have done that before and weaseled your way back in.

I doubt many people come here looking for a forum to post in.

Sure they do, every time they want to ask about connect.

They should turn Connect into a dating service for gamers.

I'd be all over it.

Terrorism is just one aspect of 4GW (4th generation warfare). We're in an era of crossed borders, false flags and asymmetric conflicts. The bean counters and bureaucrats have it all worked out down to the penny. We get blown up in a bomb attack, some insurance agent somewhere makes another .024% return. Some (non crisis) actor gets another action movie role, and another politician gets his appropriations bill passed. It sounds cynical, but that's because we're all being lead by the short hairs by very cynical people.

To oppose is to maintain.

It may be used as propaganda to encourage, but it may also be used as propaganda by real racist people to promote violence as well. Also, anyone being misinformed with propaganda needn't view only a particular attack, especially if they're being misled by a another manipulative person. They'll find a way to inspire them anyway. Also, I don't think a mere report of facts can be called glorification, and even then, I feel it would be better to negatively report on it and provide information rather than with-hold info and fear someone will get off to it.

@wpegg
This will seem naive, but I think they should just report the truth. But aside from that, no reporters are glorifying attacks, and the people who do do it do it freely on social media, probably in languages we don't understand. I also think people should be able to find the information if they want to. In hindsight, it would've been better to post about this after I learned about more details concerning exactly what amount of info their planning to with-hold.

But the reporters are glorifying the attacks, you just aren't reading it that way because you're a well meaning rational person. Yours and my horror is an ISIS victory, a report saying the community is devastated is a report saying ISIS is strong and capable. We read what is written as a condemnation of the attacks, because they're barbaric and we condemn such behaviour. Those being radicalised, or that are beginning to support ISIS, are seeing their side winning.

Look, even if the English news or whatever local news don't report it, extremist will report it anyway with even more heroic favor. And it is easy to spread the news through Internet

Hiding the news will only let the extremist take advantage of the situation to report it in their favor instead of allowing a more balance view. And they can even make up false report to rile the population even more.
"XXX killings is made by immigrant, but the government try to cover up and say it is the local people."

Then they can dial back on the tone, and not on the facts. Or consider the two sides here; if they can get so much from a neutral news report, everything may have to be censored for them not to see any glorification. Consider all the other things, like veteran memorial days and tweets by victim's family members. They're so out there they'll associate everything they see with their ideology. At some point, trying to not let these fundamentalists feel happy may be just a bad trade considering what inconveniences the normal people will be put through trying to do it.

By and by the Guardian is just hosting a live debate to the very topic of media and terrorism:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/live/2016/jul/28/how-should-the-media-cover-terror-attacks-live-debate

I don't disagree (even in my original comment). On their own these media outlets won't make a difference. Especially in a social media infused world. But I can accept that they want to make a moral stand point. All papers have house rules on ethics.

Dialing back the tone and the facts are just about the same thing. The majority of the tone of a report is in the facts they report. All reports are selective simply because there are too many potentially relevant facts, and the reporter has to select the ones that are most useful to the reader.

I agree in dialing back the tone. I'm certainly not suggesting that the news shouldn't report it has happened at all, but at the moment the reports I see are unduly focussed on facts that aren't really relevant to the majority of people. When the police announced the name of one of the recent attackers, the BBC ran a full headline piece on just that fact, with a picture of his photo id alongside. There was no real benefit to that piece, it was solely focussed on reporting the identity of a terrorist (and in my opinion so that the press could keep reporting on the events despite having no more information). Victims can be given that information without the need for giving the attacker such coverage.

It is not about glorification of the perpetrators, do not buy that narrative. In my opinion they are stopping to report those details because our governments know that people in Europe are on the edge.

It is about maintaining the civil order, because eventually one of those attacks will push citizens over the edge and when most of the people have the impression that the state is not able to protect them anymore or maintain a status quo they will take matters in their own hands and there will be civil unrest.

Do you think those passed hate speech laws in Germany are there to protect the 15 year old schoolgirl from Facebook harassment from her ex-boyfriend? Or to protect minority groups from being verbally attacked through written words by some right wing nut? That is how they are sold. Those laws are in place to squash uncontrollable exponential systemic escalations of dissenting opinions in social media or other online media which are likely to happen after such incidents we saw in the last weeks.

First they've put duct tape on our mouths, now they cover our eyes and ears.

"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength."

Since Godwin has already been invoked, more than half of 1940s Germany would indicate that they weren't in favor of concentration camps or blitzkrieging the rest of the world, and we all know where that led. As a very smart lady called Brigitte Gabriel once said, the peaceful majority is irrelevant ( http://bit.ly/1ZdWfo8 ). Especially when a radical minority manages to assert itself or use the majority as cover or leverage. Heh. Hedging your bets and exempting Bosnia from agency in one sentence. Nice. You say "progressive" like it's the gold standard to evaluate religions and their impact on societies. That's a bit of a tone-deaf case you're making, when the main issue is one religion whose adherents are slaughtering each other as they have been doing for centuries, and now are slaughtering Westerners as well. In this day and age. Time and again. Chiefly because of the type of moral relativism and virtue-signalling equivalences you're espousing.

11 people have been killed in attacks on abortion clinics in the United States since 1993. Seven murders occurred in the 90s. People who say they will vote for Trump will also get harassed daily, occasionally assaulted, maybe even short at.

This isn't even a fat tail. It's an absolute statistical nothing that only makes you look silly when trying to draw some sort of comparison on any level, let alone attempt to draw some sort of equivalence between "right-wing fundies" and Islamic terrorism. Shame on you. I'm with you on mental health care, but toxic femininity is a much bigger issue for those young men.