How did you get modded up for equating global warming and a rape hoax?
Possibly the evidence of a lack of evidence.
On the one hand, as you say, the terrorist grunt supply is heavily drawn from frustrated young men(inconveniently, lots of prime recruiting grounds have demographics that skew fairly young, so there are lots of them), with limited economic prospects, often compounded by a culture where you probably aren't getting laid unless you've achieved enough economic stability to get married. The miscellaneous 'insurgents' who raise hell when you attempt to occupy their home sand trap; but lack international ambitions and/or capabilities are mostly these guys. Some of the lower-skill terrorists proper are as well(particularly for the Israelis, since Gaza's festering-prison-slum atmosphere provides an endless supply of the angry and hopeless; and you don't even need to buy them plane tickets to have them go do a 'martyrdom operation'.
On the other hand, a lot of terrorist leadership, and high-skill recruits(if you want to blow stuff up, it sure helps to have some real engineers and chemists around), are not driven by economic desperation. Bin Laden himself was basically a trust-fund fundamentalist, and a lot of the more influential and logistically important figures are people with decent university degrees, often in marketable subjects, who are financially stable; but alienated by some aspect of the injustice of the world, or disaffected by secularism or the wrong sort of religious practice, exactly which one varying by person.
They come in both flavors.
They are a nasty bunch, treat civilian casualties as a feature not a bug, etc.; but they don't have nearly the resources or the direct combat assets; much less specialized infrastructure that must either be carefully hidden or sited in an area where you are the de-facto government, to do 'mass murder'.
They do terrorism: that tends to include a good deal of violence; but calibrated with an eye to maximum psychological impact, attacks on culturally salient targets, that sort of thing. In terms of straight body count, they rank well below more-or-less-strictly-business drug cartels, and even a fair percentage of the 21st century bush wars in countries that aren't interesting enough to even attract a few foreign correspondents; much less the sort of stuff that made the 20th century so notorious.
The numbers get a bit fuzzy because of the various more-and-less-actually-connected 'franchise' operators, some of which were actually collaborators to some reasonably close degree, some of which were little more than unrelated thugs with a taste for trademark infringement; but Al-Qaeda's body count just isn't that big. It's well weighted for psychological punch, lots of Americans in important buildings, fewer peasant conscripts in ethniclashistan; but in absolute numbers? Chickenshit. ISIS and Boko Haram are almost certainly well ahead; and let's not even talk about how quickly the professionals working for established nation states can stack up bodies...
"Killing those Cobra motherfuckers!"
But things like the Rolling Stone UVA rape hoax, global warming, GamerGate, &c have blown the lid off what a bunch of cheap hucksters the Grievance Industrial Complex are.
Go back to hell and stay there, creeps.
Let's just keep it simple: the entire story about a spontaneous demonstration and a mob angry about some video on YouTube was completely fabricated. They knew it wasn't true, and that's been obvious since the day it happened. Today's email dump makes it even more clear.
If you've found an email that substantiates any of this it would be news to everybody.
Purposeful, deliberate lying about the death of an ambassador and other Americans, all in the name of tamping down some prospectively unpleasant buzz that wouldn't resonate with the "Al Qeda is on the run!" narrative.
Even if this were true, even if you could establish intentional, premeditated lying, it's not illegal, nor am I sure it's in violation of any statute or guideline, unethical, or even just plain morally wrong. It was clearly established that everyone's talking points were based on reported intelligence at the time. That was over a year ago.
We've gone from "Hillary ordered SPECOPS to stand down!" to "We have an email (which I won't cite) where they weren't talking about Innocence of Muslims..." It's all just so dopey, even the Republicans in congress probably don't wanna keep investigating but they can't let it go because of all the dweebs at home passing around creepy conspiracy emails about Vince Foster. Boehner probably gave the job to Trey Goudy specifically to get him out of his hair and hopefully make some kind of career-ending overreach.
1. Getting elected senator from a state that is overwhelming democrat is an accomplish, really? What did she accomplish AS the carpet bag senator?
Note that she had to get around the entire Cuomo machine to do this. I don't know, go to a state that's overwhelmingly Republican and get yourself elected senator, just being from the right party isn't worth much.
2. Her being Sec of State was payback for supporting Obama's election.What did she accomplish AS Secretary of state besides getting an ambassador killed?
Note that she had to run neck-and-neck with him basically to the convention in order to get to that point, she won 48% of the Democratic popular vote and dozens of states, including New York, Florida and California. I don't know what you mean by "ambassador killed," Issa spent years on the Benghazi committee and got nowhere, he eventually quit and the Speaker had to establish a new select committee just to keep the faux outrage in the news. Stop reading your grandpa's emails.
3. Successful attorney of child rapists
John Adams: successful attorney of murderous british soldiers. Are you really suggesting that we should hold lawyers in any way accountable for the crimes of their clients? Do some people not deserve lawyers? Or do they only deserve bad ones?
4. On HRC's commodities trading
... It is pretty obvious that Hillary had something better than luck. She had well-placed friends who wanted her to have $100,000. The likelihood of such a return on such an investment was close to lottery odds, twenty-four chances in a million.44 This was in a decade in which no speculator made more than $400 profit a day with one contract of cattle futures. Yet Hillary managed to make $5,300 a day. Such a return would have required her holding thirteen contracts, involving 232 tons of beef with a value of $280,000.
In other words, you got nothing.
0. MAKE A CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE PROBLEM-DOMAIN THAT YOUR PROGRAM WILL REPRESENT AND WORK ON.
Jot down a circles-and-arrows model (diagram) of the types of entities that exist (and are important as far as your program will be concerned) in your problem domain. The circles, with an entity-type-name written in each, represent the important different kinds of objects/entities in your domain. The arrows, which you may refer to later when defining attributes or functions that work on the entity types, summarize the important relationships you have noticed between the different kinds of entities in your problem-domain. Look around for groups of entity-types in your domain model which are really just different subtypes of a common kind of general entity type in your domain. Create a named circle for the general type of entity, drawing it above the group of more specific subtype entity-type circles, and join the general-entity-type circle, to each of the entity-subtype circles separately, with a different kind/colour of arrow than you used to represent relationships between one kind of entity and a completely different kind in your domain model diagram.
1. TURN THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE DOMAIN INTO A STRUCT-BASED DATA MODEL
Organize data (variable) definitions in the program you are writing into "struct" definitions, where each kind of struct has a set of attributes that together represent the essential properties of some kind of entity in your problem domain.
(And, for advanced credit, create an additional named struct-type to represent the properties of some kind of abstract record-keeping entity-type you are concocting as part of your "solution" domain. A "solution" domain model is an extension of your model of the problem domain, where you are adding abstractions (new variables) into your problem domain to create a computer model of the solution to whatever problem you've been asked to program a solution for in the problem domain. Some of those solution-domain entity types may not have occurred to you when you first looked around at the external "outside of the program" problem-domain to create your struct-definition-based data model of the problem domain entity types.)
2. NAME YOUR DATA TYPES AFTER THE PRECISE NAMES OF DOMAIN ENTITY TYPES
Use the common (but precise) name of each kind of domain entity as the type-name of the corresponding struct definition.
3. METHODS - are functions/procedures specifically applicable to the attributes of a single struct type.
For each type of struct you have defined, define the interface signature of, and code for the implemention of, a set of functions which access the attributes of, set the attribute values of, or compute some function of the attributes of a single type of struct.
Object-oriented languages let you create a struct-type which is meant to represent a specific subtype of domain entity, whenever you have already created a struct-type (and its functions) to represent the common attributes shared by several subtypes of entity. That is, you have already created an abstract supertype struct definition to represent general properties of a general category of domain entity, now you want to add attributes (or specific values of attributes) that describe how different subtypes of the general entity differ from each other.
In an object oriented programming language, the subtype of struct can be created so that its definition references (mentions) the supertype struct type by name.
Then any in-memory instance of that subtype struct inherits all the attributes and applicable functions of the supertype struct definition. Then you add more, specific attributes, attribute value settings, and function interfaces or function implementations to the new subtype of struct you are creating.
5. PROGRAM WITH YOUR DOMAIN-ENTITY-MODELLING STRUCTS AND THEIR STRUCT-TYPE-SPECIFIC FUNCTION-SETS
To represent as program data the state of the problem-domain or the values from your programmatic manipulations of it or calculations about it, allocate in-memory instances of the appropriate struct types, and set or read their attribute values. To access or manipulate attribute values of a struct instance (also called an object), use ONLY the functions you defined to apply to that type of struct. Do not access or assign to the struct attributes without going through one of the functions you defined. This discipline has several benefits, including allowing you to safely modify some details of each struct type's representation or state-maintenance logic without having to modify external program sections that refer to or set the attributes of the struct.
Some advantages of all this are:
A. The complexity of your program, as a representation of your problem domain, will be minimized by directly modelling, one-to-one, the obvious entity types that occur in that domain, as opposed to just creating a large set of individual, ungrouped variables to represent individual attributes of things in the domain.
B. Provided you do not go crazy creating super-abstract, impenetrable-to-understand supertype struct types, the creation of supertype struct types and supertype function definitions further reduces the complexity of your program, by representing common properties of, and general manipulations of the domain (model) only once in the program. Lack of repeated similar data-representations and code sections leads to a smaller program, and assists in program incremental development or maintenance, because it prevents error-prone and program-complicating partial-modifications where some but not all of the similar data definitions and code sections are modified.
C. The set of functions grouped to be applicable to each type of domain entity form a modular, loosely coupled program structure.
D. By restricting access to the domain model and modification of it to predefined and grouped functions only, you create a program that is easier and less risky to modify, Program modifications generally have fewer cascading dependent modifications and fewer dangerously randomly located sets of co-dependent modifications.