A lot of things are factual...I recently read an estimated 85 000 people a year get killed by poisonous snakes.
Does that mean I should start talking about the threat posed by snakes on a thread clearly dedicated to discussion of Islamic terrorism? You're just engaging in typical whataboutery...neither original nor enlightening.

Didn't know the whole debate here was simply here to entertain Morolf, sorry but I don't care if you're entertained. Deal with it.

It's not about my entertainment, it's about staying on topic. This thread is about Islamist terrorism (and maybe other spectacular cases of mass killings like the "Aryan" Munich shooter) in Europe...not about Christian fundies killing abortionists somewhere in the USA (which isn't a terribly common occurrence anyway).

It wasn't just faces though, didn't they say names as well? Why conceal the identity of those people?
Besides, it still seems to me as suppression of information. Aren't people entitled to know who killed their loved ones and friends? The arguments against seem largely in favor of protecting the attackers, which is important to do until they're proven guilty, but also seems like something that can be manipulated by politicians on both sides.

As long as they still report about the background/motives of the terrorists I don't see what possible conspiracy theories it would produce. I am firmly on the pro side.
Especially with regard to the danger of "lone wolf" attacks from mentally unstable individuals like those in Germany, that lie somewhere between terror attack, amok run or extended suicide, I think it would be very beneficial not to parade them through the frontpage news for days.

Nothing what the media will do has by itself an impact on the amount of upcoming attacks. Not sure why you include that as a possible argument?

There's suppression of information, and there's broad publication of it. There's no indication that anybody is suppressing information, simply that some organisations have decided that the information won't be thrown in front of you. Those affected may wish to know some names, I'm not sure the benefit, but that information is not restricted. However there's no reason to broadcast IS victories, just acknowledge the loss.

Are you high?

People who provide abortions get harassed DAILY. Being killed is an actual job risk for clinics in the southern states.

AFAIK right-wing fundies are one of the most highly armed groups in the US right now outside of organized crime, and also the most willing to use their weapons. They were the ones behind several terrorist attacks, and only dropped off of the news because 9/11 shifted the national focus and demanded everyone become more patriotic. They're ramping up again and modernizing now.

Next time you want to dismiss an issue in another country you should sit down and think about whether you actually know anything about it.

Definitely agree, especially for the lone wolf attacks.

In the US, mass shooters are often doing it because they don't feel like they get enough recognition (especially true for men with low self esteem and mental issues, we need to do something about toxic masculinity and mental health care to really fix this). They want to go out in a blaze of news coverage so everyone can see how 'powerful' they really are and not have to deal with their real issues like low self-esteem. This reasoning is even laid out in a lot of shooter manifestos.

Denying them pictures and extensive news coverage is one way to try and dis-incentivize mass shootings for this type of person.

Care to give me numbers how many people have been killed in anti-abortion violence in the US in the last 10, 15 years?
I know there was an attack last year in which a lone gunman killed several people...but ahem, it's not that common a occurrence, is it?
Anyway, I don't really care what happens in America's benighted Bible belt...if you want to talk about that, please start your own thread!

Because it was the arguments mentioned in The French-speaking articles I linked in my response to Mnemon. Not my own pro/anti arguments thus, just some quick translation.

Lesson I learned today: always include links even if 95% of the forum can't read it :o)

That's much more difficult given the internet though. I've watched videos by that isla vista killer Eliot Rodger (that incel misogynist), and recently by the Baton Rouge cop killer ("Convos with Cosmo"...bizarre). And those videos will probably be floating around on the net forever, giving their creators a certain kind of celebrity unattainable by traditional media.

If you don't care, then you shouldn't have brought it up. You're the one who started making stupid statements about it, I just corrected you.

Abortion clinics are harassed violently on a regular basis, and yes, people die or are injured. This doesn't get into the news much for various cultural and political reasons which basically boil down to a lot of people feeling like they deserve it, especially in the areas where it happens most often, and also clinics being shuttered by bogus laws passed in southern states (the laws are being struck down by higher courts, but that takes some time), so there are many fewer targets than there used to be. In some places abortion clinics or OB/Gyn offices that perform procedures are hidden like domestic violence shelters, have bullet proof glass, etc.

Mass shootings are a weekly occurrence in America, either lone-wolf types with self esteem and mental issues, or right-wing fundie reasons.

If you want exact numbers, go use Google. I'm here to talk politics, not wipe your nose and feed you facts.
True, but it's not the same as mass news coverage.

Also, trying to keep the copycat effect from getting any stronger is very valuable, enough so that I think it's worth trying regardless. Mass shootings weren't an issue for a long time, then Columbine happened and was all over the news and unstable/angry people started seeing this as an outlet. Trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle is hard, but it's one thing to try. Hopefully coupled with better gun licenses and mental healthcare systems to catch people when they try and teach them better ways to express being upset.

Because, as mentioned above the argument of the papers - and they have some support from relevant researchers, I think - that being mentioned by name and identity is what elevates the deeds of these people to a status of martyrdom. That is - the information can be used not just to inform but also to validate and support further recruitment in the: See, if you do this, then they will finally take notice of you and our cause type narration.

You see the same with people running amok or serial killers of even people committing suicide. Too much details, especially regarding the identity of the person, does have a noticeable effect and can inspire people to become copycats. Mad as it is, it's a feature of how the human mind works.

And as above - what does knowing the names of now likely dead terrorist does in practical terms for your safety or your knowledge about the case?

Here in Germany it is generally the common thing that Papers are quite careful about identity. No one suspected of a crime for example is identified by full name. I know this is different in the UK - and tangible to this argument of course. Other than - I am no less informed about the aspects of a news event if only name and picture of person responsible is withheld.

So you don't have numbers for anti-abortion killings...I thought so. And I didn't bring this up, I merely reacted to Pimpmonkey's (what a stupid name btw) whataboutery.

Regarding spree killings: I agree with you, the media's behaviour after Columbine was deplorable. They turned Klebold and Harris into celebrities...they even were on the cover of TIME magazine. This certainly was a major factor in mass shootings becoming an attractive option for mentally unstable young men.

Could be worse I guess, I could have chosen "morolf".

Also I didn't bring it up either, someone said christian terrorism doesn't exist. I proved that it did.

Anyway you lost your own credibility when you had to resort to name calling.

Interesting. Seems every religious group has its black sheep who are just in for the hate and need a flag to wave after it.