The General Terrorist Rampage Thread

[Sebastian]

I don't really have a problem with that as long as the issue isn't buried along with the identity. In other words, if we're not going to allow links/claims of responsibility to ISIS to be mentioned so as not to "encourage" anyone, that's basically a cover-up. But for individual people, their names..sure.

The only problem is that a lot of times, the release of the name to the public leads to a lot more leads and evidence. If people don't know who it was, they won't know if they know any relevant information.



I know that already happens on occasion, and I'm fine with that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I wonder, because what leads? These guys are mostly loners who want to kill as many people as possible. They usually have a philosophy, but it turns out most of the time there is nothing to find out. Bought their guns legally and that's it.

That may be true of the John Hinckley types, but it may be much less true for those who are banging an ideological drum. There may be accomplices, or some other information that comes to light that is useful.

For example, one of these guys went to a gun store that refused to sell to him because he was suspicious, and they then called the cops, who did nothing. Now, that kind of information is useful to know because it gives us ideas of things we should change. But if the name/picture isn't released, discoverable information may not ever be learned.

 

[Cavatt]

This is already noticeably the trend with mass killers in the US. I remember columbine getting weeks of airplay straight.. I couldn't even tell you the movie theater Batman guys name.

The one that really stood out to me was Virginia tech guy. I will always remember him in his selfies with the guns crossed over his chest. It was supposed to show how crazy or delusional he was, but I just think some people thought he looked bad ass.

 

[LennoxLewis]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.alja...2419200.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

One rocket causes minor damage, Israels response is to shoot over 30 rockets and target already weak water supplies. Democracy at work!

 

[LennoxLewis]

Double

 

[Zog]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.alja...2419200.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

One rocket causes minor damage, Israels response is to shoot over 30 rockets and target already weak water supplies. Democracy at work!

Where does it say they targeted water supplies? Or is this common knowledge that Israel always targets the Gaza water supply and I'm just out of the loop?

 

[LennoxLewis]

Where does it say they targeted water supplies? Or is this common knowledge that Israel always targets the Gaza water supply and I'm just out of the loop?

Some witnesses are reporting that they targeted water supplies. Hasn't been reported by outlets I've read though.

 

[LennoxLewis]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.hind...gxI_amp.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

Some articles coming up about the water situation, but nothing from major media. I'm sure they are getting their narrative straight. Thank goodness for social media.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.hind...gxI_amp.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

Some articles coming up about the water situation, but nothing from major media. I'm sure they are getting their narrative straight. Thank goodness for social media.

Right, because nobody on social media has an agenda, and everything on social media is true.

 

[LennoxLewis]

Right, because nobody on social media has an agenda, and everything on social media is true.

Who said anything about it being on social media meaning it's true? All forms of media has some sort of agenda, and we know what the American media agenda is when it comes to Israel. Social media allows people to speak on anything and let's others know about situations as well when it is being shown on TV or presented in articles.

And why am I not surprised that you responded with that snarky remark.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Who said anything about it being on social media meaning it's true? All forms of media has some sort of agenda, and we know what the American media agenda is when it comes to Israel. Social media allows people to speak on anything and let's others know about situations as well when it is being shown on TV or presented in articles.

And why am I not surprised that you responded with that snarky remark.

When I read this statement....

Some articles coming up about the water situation, but nothing from major media. I'm sure they are getting their narrative straight.

.....I thought you were implying that the major media was going to lie in favor of Israel. My inference may have been wrong, but then you just doubled down in this post with "and we all know what the American media agenda is when it comes to Israel." You then said....

Thank goodness for social media....

...which led me to infer that you were saying social media is more reliable than the Israel-biased American media. If you are not saying that social media is more reliable than American media when it comes to Israel, then I retract my comment.

But if that is what you were implying, I don't.

 

[gourimoko]

.....I thought you were implying that the major media was going to lie in favor of Israel. My inference may have been wrong, but then you just doubled down in this post with "and we all know what the American media agenda is when it comes to Israel." You then said....

There is no media bias in favor of Israel in the United States?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

There is no media bias in favor of Israel in the United States?

There is media bias both in favor and against Israel, but at least major media outlets are called out/challenged on specific stories because their public profile is large enough to gather attention. And if you read enough of the major media, you'll get both sides.

Social media -- that's how you got your law degree, wasn't it? Reading tweets?

 

[gourimoko]

There is media bias both in favor and against Israel, but at least major media outlets are called out/challenged on specific stories because their public profile is large enough to gather attention. And if you read enough of the major media, you'll get both sides.

Which seems to be exactly what @LennoxLewis was doing....

Social media -- that's how you got your law degree, wasn't it? Reading tweets?

Funny, I'm pretty sure I said "I'm not an expert" ...you missed that part too, huh? Man.. you should see somebody about your diminishing attention span, that could be serious. Or was it just that you got hot and bothered when I pointed out that "neither are you."

But wait.. this is coming from the guy who claimed to be a fucking legit "historian" as well, so, who knows...

 

[LennoxLewis]

QTip, they either lie or add spin(you can pick) to whatever they want to convey, which is almost always Israel is the victim and they have the right to defend themselves. The mainstream media speaks "in the now", instead of looking at the conflict as a whole.
They call people in Gaza and Palestine terrorists and people who cant live peacefully with others, but its the Israelis that continue to build illegal settlements. Its the Israelis who discriminate Palestinians when it comes to criminal vs military law. Its the Israelis who continue to bomb Gaza disproportionately, despite having one of the better military capabilities in the world, but has the US on speed dial when they need it, along with the aid they receive. That is my problem with mainstream media and its why I continue to look for social media, because I can choose to look at both sides.

So I would say social media is better, because I dont like watching something and be told what to believe. Id rather just get the news. Like @gourimoko mentioned, all I did was challenge their coverage, and lack of it. And when they do cover it, they put some spin on it. The only times it seems where they try to be fair, is when they get called out for it, which is wrong.