Blackout: Major French media outlets stop publishing names or photos of Islamic terrorists

Major French media outlets will try a new strategy to curb terrorism in Europe: a news blackout of names and photos of attackers.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/27/major-french-media-outlets-stop-publishing-names-p/




Unbelievable...!


The twisted leftie logic strikes again!!!

Why do you think this has happened then Tommy?

well, the excuse will be to "starve them of teh oxygen of publicity
the reality will be to protect their "circle of aquaintences"

the next will be a clampdown on reporting the actual incident....

I know the excuse - I asked why they'd done it.

You got it Vic...

Yeah, I don't think these guys are seeking publicity. Besides, the incidents will still be reported, and presumably the media will still report on whether extremists were involved, so it seems like a useless gesture.

Yeah... don't print the names of the attackers after the event... that will stop them doing it before the event...


Mental twisted logic!!!

Ben Reilly wrote:Yeah, I don't think these guys are seeking publicity. Besides, the incidents will still be reported, and presumably the media will still report on whether extremists were involved, so it seems like a useless gesture.

Although you are already suggesting otherwise...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Yeah, I don't think these guys are seeking publicity. Besides, the incidents will still be reported, and presumably the media will still report on whether extremists were involved, so it seems like a useless gesture.

Although you are already suggesting otherwise...

Actually in this case he is not

He states a presumption and ends with a disposition.
One that is final, where he emphatically states that its useless to do.
It is useless when its only one nation
The fact is France is one nation and other nations will print their names, hence why the self defeating aspect of this, unless you have universal aggreement to not give them air time.
That is the point he is making.

The reality is terrorists do want recognition and starving them off this. Is actually important, when its based on talking about them. Providing their name will be etched into history.If all the media presented their stories as if those who committed these attrocities were insignificant and we were defiant on that. Then they are starved of the one apsect that drives them towards such an evil act.

Notoriety

You can report everything about the event, including the religion and ethnicty of where they came, but why give them what they want.

Being made famous for all the wrong reasons. Its the one thing that could actually destroy Islamism itself. Political islam itself. The unification of the media to being united against this threat. Where they dont deny the root cause, look to defend the innocent Muslims by not comparing the two. With most of all starving the terroroists of what they based on fear want most of all. People to revere them.
Without their name in history, they are simple, insignificant and forgotten in time.

Waffle...

Tommy Monk wrote:Waffle...

Translation of Tommys inability to comprehend my reply and inability to counter

You think they're going for notoriety, or for those 72 virgins?

Ben Reilly wrote:You think they're going for notoriety, or for those 72 virgins?

I would have thought bagging 72 virgins was notoriety Ben?
As it requires a persobal sacrifice to obtain them.

Are you finally starting to see the point on attention here for extremist terrorists brainwashed into believing that to murder to them is actually righteous and that they want to emulate or supercede him by notoriety.
It is really about fame and how those seeking fame. Knowing they will never obtain that, unless they reprogram the game.

So its always notoreity they are going for

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:You think they're going for notoriety, or for those 72 virgins?

I would have thought bagging 72 virgins was notoriety Ben?
As it requires a persobal sacrifice to obtain them.

Are you finally starting to see the point on attention here for extremist terrorists brainwashed into believing that to murder to them is actually righteous and that they want to emulate or supercede him by notoriety.
It is really about fame and how those seeking fame. Knowing they will never obtain that, unless they reprogram the game.

So its always notoreity they are going for

I think they believe they're fighting for God, simple as that. They're fanatics who follow a violent strain of their religion, and I doubt they want to be famous.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


I would have thought bagging 72 virgins was notoriety Ben?
As it requires a persobal sacrifice to obtain them.

Are you finally starting to see the point on attention here for extremist terrorists brainwashed into believing that to murder to them is actually righteous and that they want to emulate or supercede him by notoriety.
It is really about fame and how those seeking fame. Knowing they will never obtain that, unless they reprogram the game.

So its always notoreity they are going for

I think they believe they're fighting for God, simple as that. They're fanatics who follow a violent strain of their religion, and I doubt they want to be famous.

Yes they do believe they are fighting for god Ben, but also many glorify any such attack

Again just look to Israel toi see how thy glorify any such murder

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


I would have thought bagging 72 virgins was notoriety Ben?
As it requires a persobal sacrifice to obtain them.

Are you finally starting to see the point on attention here for extremist terrorists brainwashed into believing that to murder to them is actually righteous and that they want to emulate or supercede him by notoriety.
It is really about fame and how those seeking fame. Knowing they will never obtain that, unless they reprogram the game.

So its always notoreity they are going for

I think they believe they're fighting for God, simple as that. They're fanatics who follow a violent strain of their religion, and I doubt they want to be famous.

Yes they do believe they are fighting for god Ben, but also many glorify any such attack

Again just look to Israel toi see how thy glorify any such murder

I can see your point -- they probably do think they'll be remembered as heroes, at least.

Imagine if we (all over the world) made heroes out of people who

* Cured a child of cancer
* Donated $1 million to the poor
* Invented a life-changing medication
* Brokered peace between enemies

Instead of people who

* Kicked the game-winning goal
* Won a singing contest
* Starred in a blockbuster movie
* etc.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


Yes they do believe they are fighting for god Ben, but also many glorify any such attack

Again just look to Israel toi see how thy glorify any such murder

I can see your point -- they probably do think they'll be remembered as heroes, at least.

Imagine if we (all over the world) made heroes out of people who

* Cured a child of cancer
* Donated $1 million to the poor
* Invented a life-changing medication
* Brokered peace between enemies

Instead of people who

* Kicked the game-winning goal
* Won a singing contest
* Starred in a blockbuster movie
* etc.

We do make heroes out of all the above Ben
Some very well justified. Others more so for self esteem
But to make a hero out of someone who's motive and intent is to murder?
And then people glorify this?
Then again you have to look at why people even would.
That is the easy part to understand, its religious aspect again that is at fault again

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


Yes they do believe they are fighting for god Ben, but also many glorify any such attack

Again just look to Israel toi see how thy glorify any such murder

I can see your point -- they probably do think they'll be remembered as heroes, at least.

Imagine if we (all over the world) made heroes out of people who

* Cured a child of cancer
* Donated $1 million to the poor
* Invented a life-changing medication
* Brokered peace between enemies

Instead of people who

* Kicked the game-winning goal
* Won a singing contest
* Starred in a blockbuster movie
* etc.

We do make heroes out of all the above Ben
Some very well justified. Others more so for self esteem
But to make a hero out of someone who's motive and intent is to murder?
And then people glorify this?
Then again you have to look at why people even would.
That is the easy part to understand, its religious aspect again that is at fault again

Do you realize you communicate in a very condescending, annoying fashion much of the time?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


We do make heroes out of all the above Ben
Some very well justified. Others more so for self esteem
But to make a hero out of someone who's motive and intent is to murder?
And then people glorify this?
Then again you have to look at why people even would.
That is the easy part to understand, its religious aspect again that is at fault again

Do you realize you communicate in a very condescending, annoying fashion much of the time?

So you are an expert on communication now by reading something to clarify and then judge me being condscending?
Thanks
I never intended to be or meant to be, but its good to know that is how you read something and deflect from the very points i was making.
The fault lies within yourself if you haver been over sensitive to my previous comment to think that.

Remember debate the points not the poster, you just failed at that

I cannot even believe someone green you for such a poor accusation as well

So now I have clarified i was not or even attempting to condescend you Ben, will you apologise?

I gave him a green because it is true, you do sometimes and it puts my back up.

eddie wrote:I gave him a green because it is true, you do sometimes and it puts my back up.

I'm not sure you were being condescending then, though.

Then you are judging me as well not based on my points but a perceived perception you have of me instead Eddie.

So how can something be true, if I say I was not being condscending?

Sometimes I am deliberately condscending and will freely admit this.

So what you and Ben are doing is without even bothering to actually read my reply, judging me off times when I have been.

Its a really piss poor excuse that deflects from the debate

I will add one further thing

Ben would never stereotype a Muslim or someone African American, so why is he sterotyping me?
And with prejudice?

Didge wrote:I will add one further thing

Ben would never stereotype a Muslim or someone African American, so why is he sterotyping me?
And with prejudice?

But we all stereotype certain people, Didge. Can't you understand that? Prejudice is a basic part of the human psyche, did you not know that?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:I will add one further thing

Ben would never stereotype a Muslim or someone African American, so why is he sterotyping me?
And with prejudice?

But we all stereotype certain people, Didge. Can't you understand that? Prejudice is a basic part of the human psyche, did you not know that?

Prejudice is only learnt Ben, its not something we are born with and please do not throw up the study where RW people are slightly more prejudice as left. As all that shows is that again prejudice is taught and based off beliefs.
Your answer was very telling based on another thread, it was emotive based on how I have been sometimes to you. To again be prejudiced against me and make a poor accusation. I would admit if i was condscending. It was a piss poor deflection to my points as we are now talking about each other.
I was not being condscending and yet you again you hide behind humour, when it was your emotions that swayed your poor answer.

I may have faults Ben, but I never deny that I have them