...."the media" in the United States is hardly "compliant". That might have worked back in ancient times when there were only 3 TV networks. Not now, with a whole bunch of other networks. Not to mention all the Internet news sources....
....When Islamists manage to kill people in this country, we do hear about it. When the govt stops them before they can do it, we also hear about that....
....While we need to remain extremely vigilant to the Islamist terrorist threat, we can also count ourselves very lucky that it's mostly in places other than the United States. And by a significant margin, most of those killed by Muslims are . . . OTHER MUSLIMS.
So which is it, better to be lucky or the need to remain extremely vigilant? Isn't it more difficult to claim there is a need for anything, when there is an intentional effort to downplay it? Aren't the comments that you downplay just efforts to be vigilant?
We 'discuss' policy of a small group from which a challenger will arise to oppose the current President. What reason was given by the dnc for the network 'news' agency that was selected to 'host' the debates? Are you saying that internet searches are the equivalent of your reasoning decisions? Is it looking like dominant search and social media, 'news' sources, are increasingly facing legal scrutiny for bias?
Just for curiousity, why are 'they' Muslims to you and not Americans? Is that particular group given an exemption from the 'separation of state' war against Christian religion? Does the intel quantify how much money is raised by Muslims in America that ends up funding overseas terrorism and military operations against US troops? Do we need to be extremely vigilant, or do we throw that in for the appearance of wisdom and balance?
