51–60 of 67 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on the terrorist. Some organizations want to bring about the end of western influence in the middle east, some are delusional and think they will rule the world.
We started this mess. Recall that we were told that after we get rid of Saddam, that Iraq will become a shinning example for the rest of the ME, and the world. That the guy was such a bad guy that the world will be a far better place without him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's a valid comparison. Not making a statement on the Sandy Hook suit's merit, but clearly the San Bernardino couple didn't shoot up the place with tweets and wall posts.
Not a valid comparison? It's the exact comparison. What about suing the truck manufacturers when that terrorist ran over a bunch of people, or Boeing for 9/11, etc. Just because they are a manufacturer of firearms doesnt excuse them from this ideology.
Terrorism seeks to change our way of life... That sounds like the "they attacked us because of our freedom". No, pal. Terrorists are pissed off because of what your govt is doing overseas. They're really not interested in your way of life or your freedom.
So the Charlie Hebdo attack was in response to the editors and their... what taking oil from somewhere??
Terrorism seeks to change our way of life... That sounds like the "they attacked us because of our freedom". No, pal. Terrorists are pissed off because of what your govt is doing overseas. They're really not interested in your way of life or your freedom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's a valid comparison. Not making a statement on the Sandy Hook suit's merit, but clearly the San Bernardino couple didn't shoot up the place with tweets and wall posts.
Not a valid comparison? It's the exact comparison. What about suing the truck manufacturers when that terrorist ran over a bunch of people, or Boeing for 9/11, etc. Just because they are a manufacturer of firearms doesnt excuse them from this ideology.
Unless you think an AR15 is specifically designed for killing exotic animals.
These companies want to position themselves as the new media, the gatekeepers of "truth" so to speak. That's why they are pushing "Fake News" and moderating it, classifying it etc. It is basically a strategy to fill the void left by the older mass media companies, which are seen as failing an unable to manufacture consent effectively. So in a way they are signaling "Come to us now, we'll advertise your stuff and mark you competitors ideas as fake". It's a good move really. From a business standpoint, can't blame them there.
I am trying to conduct a mental experiment and imagine what would happen if say CNN gave al-Baghdadi a few minutes here and there to express his views. Or letting the local KKK chapter air their ideas once in a while. Many would agree CNN then might be complicit in inciting violence for example and would share a bit of responsibility. So if these other companies what to play "gatekeepers of truth" game they should also be responsible too?
Wow, horrifying. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt for such a tradgedy and the emotional stress and grief it causes; but this is illogical, dangerous and counterproductive. Terrorism seeks to change our way of life and sueing a company for providing a platform for[0] free speech (which those companies actually already curtail) will not only cause problems to this already slippery slope, but simply displace…
Do you think corporations have the right to free speech? Do you think they ought to?
Wow, horrifying. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt for such a tradgedy and the emotional stress and grief it causes; but this is illogical, dangerous and counterproductive. Terrorism seeks to change our way of life and sueing a company for providing a platform for[0] free speech (which those companies actually already curtail) will not only cause problems to this already slippery slope, but simply displace…
If it's the deaths of your family that pay for a whole planet's free speech, you deserve to be compensated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a valid comparison? It's the exact comparison. What about suing the truck manufacturers when that terrorist ran over a bunch of people, or Boeing for 9/11, etc. Just because they are a manufacturer of firearms doesnt excuse them from this ideology.
A tweet isn't designed to kill someone. A truck isn't designed to kill someone. Unless you think an AR15 is specifically designed for killing exotic animals.