6 ms·

I have, maybe naively, always believed that the U.S. operates at a level of secrecy and complexity where dozens of terrorist attacks are thwarted every year, an

by alehul 6y ago

I have, maybe naively, always believed that the U.S. operates at a level of secrecy and complexity where dozens of terrorist attacks are thwarted every year, and that this surveillance plays a hand in it (but to admit that would hinder its effectiveness). Is it really possible we only have <5 terror plots against our country in a given year, considering the population of our country, the amount of ideological extremism domestically and internationally, and the States' interventionism? Maybe it is possible, in which case the U.S. has been very successful at convincing my generation it's a larger issue than it really is (I was a toddler when 9/11 happened, so it's all I know).

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
If you subscribe to a definition of "terrorist attack" that includes "someone with political beliefs I don't like possessing a handgun in violation of the law" then sure, dozens per year thwarted sounds about right.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  There is still a lot of unrest in Portland and Seattle, but Federal police (US Marshals, FBI, BORTAC, et. al.) have used regular old police work (cameras, under cover anarchists, wiretaps with warrants) to arrest a ton of these people when the city prosecutors simply wouldn't do a damn thing or catch and release them. Now many of these people are facing federal crimes. You can get some serious years for swinging a sledge hammer at a US Marshal, as what happened at the Federal Courthouse in Portland. (Remember, three of those Feds are now blind in at least one eye from the green lasers?) But the Anarchists/Antifa types that are burning down Portland are also being thrown together with the McCloskeys who were arrested for having guns out, while on their lawn, after people broke into their gated community. Or Jake Gardner, who the DA ruled as acting in self defense, with a full video clearly showing him acting in self defense after both he and his father were attached. We're starting to see real terrorists conflated with what are clearly political prisoners from local officials.
  - cjwhite 6y ago
    MORE FOX NEWS PLEASE
  - macintux 6y ago
    You’re not going to garner much sympathy for the McCloskeys. One vital rule of gun handling is to never point it at something until you’re ready to shoot, and she pointed it at people with her finger on the trigger.
    - UncleEntity 6y ago
      > One vital rule of gun handling is to never point it at something until you’re ready to shoot... Not so much, never point a gun at something unless you're willing to shoot -- a double barrel shotgun has a lot of power to make someone rethink their life choices when pointed at them without having to actually shoot.
      - snypher 6y ago
        This is a hero fantasy, and allows you to be legally killed by pretty much anyone. Don't do this.
      - bigbubba 6y ago
        There are numerous formulations of this rule. The one used by the US Marines is 'Never point the weapon at anything you do not INTEND to shoot.' In this formulation of the rule, pointing a gun with the intent to threaten isn't valid, since an intention to threaten is not an intention to shoot.
        InitialLastName 6y ago
        My preferred formulation is "Never point a gun towards anything you don't mean to destroy". Including things within a reasonable solid angle of your target.
        UncleEntity 6y ago
- usrusr 6y ago
  If you take that definition and follow its logical implications to the extreme, you'll find that you can prevent a lot of terrorism by just legalizing handgun possession. Well.. ever heard of a country called United States of America?
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  'Politically-motivated violence waged against civilians in violation of the law' (excluding situations of organized war) is the most likely the least controversial definition of terrorism. I'm curious why you appear to imply this definition of terrorism is unsuitable.
  - pirocks 6y ago
    Not OP, but probably because the patriot act was passed in the aftermath of 9/11 when the understood meaning of terrorist attack was 9/11 scale not a dozen people max.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Politically-motivated violence waged in violation of the law' (excluding situations of organized war) is the most likely the least controversial definition of terrorism. It is not, nor is it even compatible with the protoypical example from which the term terrorist derives, since the original Terror and the Terrorists who executed it operated entirely within and through the power of the State. Non-state terrorism is a more recent extension of the definition. Nor does it even capture the mechanism of intended effect which defines terrorism (the whole part that motivates the reference to "terror".) Britannica and, somewhat surprisingly, WordNet have probably the best general definitions I can quickly locate, "calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective" and "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear".
mattashii 6y ago
> Is it really possible we only have <5 terror plots against our country in a given year Last time I checked, the USA didn't need terror plots 'against the country'; they have enough problems with "deranged individuals" shooting at schools, events, protests, etc. Why would you label those who could be your child, parent or neighbor, and disagree violently with those who have a different opinion than yours, as terrorists against the country? /s
- fakedang 6y ago
  Unless they have a long beard and are of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent though. /s
Proziam 6y ago
> Is it really possible we only have <5 terror plots against our country in a given year That depends on your definition. If you're talking about organized 9/11 style attacks, absolutely. It's hard to bring plans like that together no matter how strong your convictions. If you're talking "random mentally ill person unleashes devastation on a group of US citizens" then no, there's certainly far more. That said, situations like that are best handled by local authorities. The Stoneman Douglas High School shooting is a prime example of that because as the story unraveled it became clear that the shooter had a history that was well known to the local police (and FBI if I recall?).
thelean12 6y ago
I'm not sure I believe the whole "oh the CIA and FBI stop a ton of stuff and they just don't tell us" thing. The FBI made a huge deal about them stopping the plot to kidnap the Michigan governor and take over their capital building. Why would they hide other stuff?
greyhair 6y ago
If you count domestic terror, for example, the recent conspiracy to kidnap a Governor (or possibly two). That should count.

by alehul 6y ago

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

If you subscribe to a definition of "terrorist attack" that includes "someone with political beliefs I don't like possessing a handgun in violation of the law" then sure, dozens per year thwarted sounds about right.

djsumdog 6y ago
There is still a lot of unrest in Portland and Seattle, but Federal police (US Marshals, FBI, BORTAC, et. al.) have used regular old police work (cameras, under cover anarchists, wiretaps with warrants) to arrest a ton of these people when the city prosecutors simply wouldn't do a damn thing or catch and release them. Now many of these people are facing federal crimes. You can get some serious years for swinging a sledge hammer at a US Marshal, as what happened at the Federal Courthouse in Portland. (Remember, three of those Feds are now blind in at least one eye from the green lasers?) But the Anarchists/Antifa types that are burning down Portland are also being thrown together with the McCloskeys who were arrested for having guns out, while on their lawn, after people broke into their gated community. Or Jake Gardner, who the DA ruled as acting in self defense, with a full video clearly showing him acting in self defense after both he and his father were attached. We're starting to see real terrorists conflated with what are clearly political prisoners from local officials.
- cjwhite 6y ago
  MORE FOX NEWS PLEASE
- macintux 6y ago
  You’re not going to garner much sympathy for the McCloskeys. One vital rule of gun handling is to never point it at something until you’re ready to shoot, and she pointed it at people with her finger on the trigger.
  - UncleEntity 6y ago
    > One vital rule of gun handling is to never point it at something until you’re ready to shoot... Not so much, never point a gun at something unless you're willing to shoot -- a double barrel shotgun has a lot of power to make someone rethink their life choices when pointed at them without having to actually shoot.
    - snypher 6y ago
      This is a hero fantasy, and allows you to be legally killed by pretty much anyone. Don't do this.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      There are numerous formulations of this rule. The one used by the US Marines is 'Never point the weapon at anything you do not INTEND to shoot.' In this formulation of the rule, pointing a gun with the intent to threaten isn't valid, since an intention to threaten is not an intention to shoot.
      - InitialLastName 6y ago
        My preferred formulation is "Never point a gun towards anything you don't mean to destroy". Including things within a reasonable solid angle of your target.
      - UncleEntity 6y ago
usrusr 6y ago
If you take that definition and follow its logical implications to the extreme, you'll find that you can prevent a lot of terrorism by just legalizing handgun possession. Well.. ever heard of a country called United States of America?
bleepblorp 6y ago
'Politically-motivated violence waged against civilians in violation of the law' (excluding situations of organized war) is the most likely the least controversial definition of terrorism. I'm curious why you appear to imply this definition of terrorism is unsuitable.
- pirocks 6y ago
  Not OP, but probably because the patriot act was passed in the aftermath of 9/11 when the understood meaning of terrorist attack was 9/11 scale not a dozen people max.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Politically-motivated violence waged in violation of the law' (excluding situations of organized war) is the most likely the least controversial definition of terrorism. It is not, nor is it even compatible with the protoypical example from which the term terrorist derives, since the original Terror and the Terrorists who executed it operated entirely within and through the power of the State. Non-state terrorism is a more recent extension of the definition. Nor does it even capture the mechanism of intended effect which defines terrorism (the whole part that motivates the reference to "terror".) Britannica and, somewhat surprisingly, WordNet have probably the best general definitions I can quickly locate, "calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective" and "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear".

mattashii 6y ago

> Is it really possible we only have <5 terror plots against our country in a given year Last time I checked, the USA didn't need terror plots 'against the country'; they have enough problems with "deranged individuals" shooting at schools, events, protests, etc. Why would you label those who could be your child, parent or neighbor, and disagree violently with those who have a different opinion than yours, as terrorists against the country? /s

fakedang 6y ago
Unless they have a long beard and are of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent though. /s

Proziam 6y ago

> Is it really possible we only have <5 terror plots against our country in a given year That depends on your definition. If you're talking about organized 9/11 style attacks, absolutely. It's hard to bring plans like that together no matter how strong your convictions. If you're talking "random mentally ill person unleashes devastation on a group of US citizens" then no, there's certainly far more. That said, situations like that are best handled by local authorities. The Stoneman Douglas High School shooting is a prime example of that because as the story unraveled it became clear that the shooter had a history that was well known to the local police (and FBI if I recall?).

thelean12 6y ago

I'm not sure I believe the whole "oh the CIA and FBI stop a ton of stuff and they just don't tell us" thing. The FBI made a huge deal about them stopping the plot to kidnap the Michigan governor and take over their capital building. Why would they hide other stuff?

greyhair 6y ago

If you count domestic terror, for example, the recent conspiracy to kidnap a Governor (or possibly two). That should count.