ELI5: Why cant we just stop media outlets from covering terrorism? Wouldn't that effectively make it pointless?

As long as we're fighting against them (which we should) and as long as we allow refugees into Europe and America (which we should) they will continue to carry out these attacks. They [believe they] have to. It's a sign of desperation, like a dog backed into a corner lashing out. It's [in their belief and in reality to some extent] their most effective recruitment technique. Every time someone leaves Syria or Iraq, they lose power; every time Americans and Europeans support Muslims in the fight against ISIS, they lose power; every time we recognize these attacks are carried out by a group of psychotic ideologues and don't hold the entire Muslim world responsible, they lose power. The opposite is true: every refugee we reject and send back, they gain power; every person that adopts Islamophobic ideologies and want to fight against Muslims en masse and not this one specific group, they gain power; every time we accuse the whole Muslim world of terrorist attacks and terrorism, they gain power. This creates a huge dilemma: if we accept refugees we push them to carry out more attacks and put more lives at risk, but if we reject refugees we empower them ("Look the Americans and Europeans don't want you, they don't like you, they hate you, they're liars... We will protect you!") and put the lives of the refugees at risk (for trying to leave). I don't have an answer to "how do we prevent terrorist attacks in Europe?" ... The only solution I can see is a mass mobilization of world powers (especially Arab and Middle Eastern powers) against this single enemy - WWII style, with the exception being ISIS really has no allies, even al-Qaeda hates them, whereas the Nazis did have allies.

/r/explainlikeimfive Thread Parent