Agreed. An important part to this is transparency of the members working on this as well. Almost every fact-checker I've read up on has a conflict of interest on many of the "facts" they're checking.
I have never seen a piece complaining about the usage in "insurgent" vs. "rebel" when the news speaks of foreign affairs, but that is a perfect example of newspeak.
Instead, we speak of newspeak because the new president doesn't like "politically correct" speech.
Most people associate female/male with sexual organs. You can see this any many metaphors (e.g. google "female electrical outlet" and "male electrical outlet").
An option: Stop immigration from places that are prone to terrorist attacks happening and then you won't have to give up nearly as much privacy in the name of fighting terror at home.
And of course most deaths from terrorism in the US are from "mass shooters", who tend to be self-radicalised US nationals with fringe political beliefs.
> The 9/11 hijackers were mostly on tourist visas from a place with almost no history of terror attacks:
Your source (correctly) says they were mostly from Saudi Arabia, which has a rather extensive history over several decades of terrorist attacks (both attacks in Saudi Arabia, and attackers outside of Saudi Arabia by Saudi nationals and/or with Saudi sponsors.) There is no sense in which Saudi Arabia is (or could be fairly described in 2001 as) "a place with almost no history of terror attacks."
Your source (correctly) says they were mostly from Saudi Arabia, which has a rather extensive history over several decades of terrorist attacks
That's a detail that doesn't matter. What matters is that we open the doors to men who have high risk of radicalization and ties to rich Saudis, bigot.
What's your point? That not all terrorists are from abroad? We know that. Why is it necessary to bring in people who have high risks of radicalizing? Homegrown terror isn't a reason to stop trying altogether.
