4 ms·

Real foreign terrorists are rare. American terrorists, while plenty, are undesired as media objects so they don't have the scaremongering effect of foreigners.

by joesmo 10y ago

Real foreign terrorists are rare. American terrorists, while plenty, are undesired as media objects so they don't have the scaremongering effect of foreigners. Solution: make up fake foreign-looking terrorists and sell them to the American people to scare them. It works wonders! Solution 2: Take domestic terrorists and pretend they're foreign (see San Bernardino). Americans are too stupid to know the difference. Also works wonders.

partiallypro 10y ago
I don't buy your logic, the terror "busts" rarely make a the news more than just a passing mention these days. So I doubt it has much psychological effect on the public. Also very few, outside of maybe conservative talk radio, said the San Bernardino shooters were "foreign." The line was always "home grown terror with possible ties to (or inspired by) ISIS." Pretty much everyone I've seen recognizes the risk of terror is far greater among people already living inside the U.S. (or Europe), "sleepers" or otherwise, usually first or second generation immigrants. In terms of "far right" terror groups, that's a different story entirely, and usually those groups are vocal in their communities (making them easier to track;) with the exception of "lone wolves," which are harder to track because they usually don't have international connections or travel records (or domestic ties to groups) that would raise flags.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  Sleepers are agents specifically embedded with future actions in mind. There's no such thing as a second-generation sleeper agent - that's called a citizen. And if you have teenagers, ask yourself how likely they'll follow in your crufty old plans. Sleeper agents are movie-plots. Essentially, if you're thinking about security and you recognize yourself thinking any terms you've heard on CNN ("Lone wolf", "sleeper", "radicalized", etc) you're doing it wrong. Those are silly TV terms and are usually after-the-fact descriptives, not warning signs. (ie, you only catch one guy with no leads to others, so the media labels him a Lone Wolf. That's useless wrt finding him in the first place.)
  - partiallypro 10y ago
    I never said they'd get their instructions from their parents. My point is that first or second generation immigrants often feel neglected by the society they live in and are interested in the culture their parents/grandparents lived in. So they revert, or visit those places and become radicalized, usually with absolutely no support from the parent because that's what they were trying to escape. Then the cell will "activate" them, again, this has no barring on their parents. There is one common aspect to most "lone wolves" and other types of terrorists is that they don't feel like they belong in their current society. The rest of your argument is a bit of a straw man to what I was actually stating; however if you think disaffected youth aren't "radicalized" (because they feel they finally belong to something), you're wrong. And it's not just a TV term, the FBI and the rest of the alphabet soup agencies use these terms, so I don't really see your point.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      If they weren't planted, they aren't sleepers. You're spending more time shoehorning people into TV-word boxes than you are in understanding them. I've seen this before - people fighting to justify calling someone a Lone Wolf despite their having outside assistance. Why? Because it sounds dangerous. It's a trial and judgement all in one. "There, I labelled Osama as 'crazy', I've done my part." Maybe after the fact you can sort people by how radical they seem (it's a subjective measure), or how much outside support they had, but it's a worthless thing to think about beforehand, and anyone who does it is absolutely disconnected from making anything more secure. > And it's not just a TV term, the FBI and the rest of the alphabet soup agencies use these terms, so I don't really see your point. The FBI is dangerously worthless in this regard. If they say something and someone on TV latches onto it you can be assured that it's wrongheaded. To the degree that their profiling could actually be useful, it has to ignore epithets. (Yes, you hate terrorists, you're a good citizen, I get that. But stop insulting them long enough to actually study their actions.) Real security doesn't involve labeling people, it involves looking for flaws in defenses, etc.

by joesmo 10y ago

partiallypro 10y ago

I don't buy your logic, the terror "busts" rarely make a the news more than just a passing mention these days. So I doubt it has much psychological effect on the public. Also very few, outside of maybe conservative talk radio, said the San Bernardino shooters were "foreign." The line was always "home grown terror with possible ties to (or inspired by) ISIS." Pretty much everyone I've seen recognizes the risk of terror is far greater among people already living inside the U.S. (or Europe), "sleepers" or otherwise, usually first or second generation immigrants. In terms of "far right" terror groups, that's a different story entirely, and usually those groups are vocal in their communities (making them easier to track;) with the exception of "lone wolves," which are harder to track because they usually don't have international connections or travel records (or domestic ties to groups) that would raise flags.

EdHominem 10y ago
Sleepers are agents specifically embedded with future actions in mind. There's no such thing as a second-generation sleeper agent - that's called a citizen. And if you have teenagers, ask yourself how likely they'll follow in your crufty old plans. Sleeper agents are movie-plots. Essentially, if you're thinking about security and you recognize yourself thinking any terms you've heard on CNN ("Lone wolf", "sleeper", "radicalized", etc) you're doing it wrong. Those are silly TV terms and are usually after-the-fact descriptives, not warning signs. (ie, you only catch one guy with no leads to others, so the media labels him a Lone Wolf. That's useless wrt finding him in the first place.)
- partiallypro 10y ago
  I never said they'd get their instructions from their parents. My point is that first or second generation immigrants often feel neglected by the society they live in and are interested in the culture their parents/grandparents lived in. So they revert, or visit those places and become radicalized, usually with absolutely no support from the parent because that's what they were trying to escape. Then the cell will "activate" them, again, this has no barring on their parents. There is one common aspect to most "lone wolves" and other types of terrorists is that they don't feel like they belong in their current society. The rest of your argument is a bit of a straw man to what I was actually stating; however if you think disaffected youth aren't "radicalized" (because they feel they finally belong to something), you're wrong. And it's not just a TV term, the FBI and the rest of the alphabet soup agencies use these terms, so I don't really see your point.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    If they weren't planted, they aren't sleepers. You're spending more time shoehorning people into TV-word boxes than you are in understanding them. I've seen this before - people fighting to justify calling someone a Lone Wolf despite their having outside assistance. Why? Because it sounds dangerous. It's a trial and judgement all in one. "There, I labelled Osama as 'crazy', I've done my part." Maybe after the fact you can sort people by how radical they seem (it's a subjective measure), or how much outside support they had, but it's a worthless thing to think about beforehand, and anyone who does it is absolutely disconnected from making anything more secure. > And it's not just a TV term, the FBI and the rest of the alphabet soup agencies use these terms, so I don't really see your point. The FBI is dangerously worthless in this regard. If they say something and someone on TV latches onto it you can be assured that it's wrongheaded. To the degree that their profiling could actually be useful, it has to ignore epithets. (Yes, you hate terrorists, you're a good citizen, I get that. But stop insulting them long enough to actually study their actions.) Real security doesn't involve labeling people, it involves looking for flaws in defenses, etc.