I don't think there's any question as to whether or not mainstream media outlets across the Western world have been capitilizing on the "War on Terror" for decades, but one that has remained unanswered is how effective have the Western world's anti-terrorist measures been?
There are some measures, like TSA in America, that appear to be more focused around the illusion of security than actually preventing acts of terrorism. But what about some of the surveillance efforts conducted by intelligence organizations within the Five Eyes?
Maybe this merely a display of my own ignorance, but I don't understand why the efficacy of surveillance measures (both domestic and non-domestic) isn't discussed more often. If governments were more open about all the terrorist attacks they were able to prevent ahead of time, maybe the general public wouldn't have such a negative opinion of them when one terrorist slips through the cracks.
Another question I would like to ask what HN thinks, or perhaps if it is known or statistically reported some where.
What's the risk of death or injury in the Middle East or in any theater of action at the hands of the West? Both from unintended collateral damage or from negligence/mistakes (e.g. drone attacks or similar)? How does that compare to the risks that the West face from terrorists?
There was an element of truth to the narrative projected by media at specific events such as the terrorist attacks in London (15/9) and New York (11/9). But largely, the narrative we're accepting as truth doesn't hold merit.
The amount of exposure we receive for death or injury on a day to day basis across the West is not an accurate reflection of the danger or risk of being injured or hurt my terrorist fringe elements. Your husband, brother or other male member is a bigger threat to your health when comparing domestic and sexual violence with terrorism.
I don't know if I'd put this down to the success of our anti-terrorist programs (even if it was which in probability is likely, no such credit would ever be sought and this is obviously by design).
Or whether we as a region (i.e The West) have always overstated risks associated to terrorism because of the potential for financial gain from fear mongering by the media?
I've been holding my breath ever since 9/11 and the anthrax attacks that followed shortly thereafter, dreading more attacks on that scale or larger. Not to jinx us, but surprisingly they haven't.
It's like the existing terrorists aren't smart enough to think of such attacks, aren't skilled enough to execute them, or aren't interested and are content with relatively minor (though still very tragic and media attention-grabbing) attacks.
It could also be that the agencies charged with keeping us safe are actually doing a good job at preventing those larger scale attacks, which makes sense for attacks like the 9/11 ones, which required a lot of coordination and cooperation between the participants and are therefore vulnerable to being spied upon and/or infiltrated, but not so much for other "lone-wolf" sort of attacks, many of which really don't require much skill and no cooperation or coordination with anyone else.
So I'm not sure how to explain not seeing any large-scale attacks by lone-wolves or even small terrorist cells except as lack of interest or knowledge on the part of the terrorists.
Actually I think it's the focus on large scale attacks that keeps us safe. From a psychological perspective, a series of seemingly random small scale attacks drawn out over several months would be far more devastating and fear inducing than one big attack (baring use of a chemical or nuclear weapon). Imagine a mass shooting every week in various locations (a mall, a hospital, a sporting event, a rural location). People would be afraid to go outside even though the overall damage and risk to them at a population level would be relatively minimal.
Why don't people do this? My guess is because it's not sexy. People want to participate in a high profile huge attack, not a small random shooting which by itself doesn't do much.
Large scale attacks are inherently watched for, planned for, and guarded against. Small scale attacks are almost impossible to guard against and stop.
My theory is in general criminals are dumb. I think most people realize that, long term, crime didn't pay. Smart people realize it is easier to make and keep money if they make it legally.
Similarly smart people realize that being a terrorist didn't really pay either. Unless they are a psycopath, being a terrorist doesn't get them anywhere.
It is fortunate because we aren't really ready for a criminal Mastermind.
I don't know what to take away from this. What is the different story? That there's nothing to fear... because the West's terrorist prevention efforts work? Terrorists don't really care about the West? The West is not very vulnerable? It's all about location? I can interpret the author's data in different ways.
I'm interested in also seeing the data on attempts and credible threats.
While this is definitely a personal opinion, my takeaway is that the image of terrorism that is commonly painted on the nightly news in the US is vastly different from what terrorism is in the rest of the world.
Reading this article made me reflect on my understanding on the goals of counter-terrorist measures of the United States and how they (somewhat hypocritically) revolve entirely around a consequentialist point of view.
Maybe I have my tin foil hat a little to snug on my head, but I can't seem to find a way in which the mentality of the U.S. government's perception of "terrorism" has evolved from the days of COINTELPRO. To the US government, the only difference between MLK and Kim Jong Un is that only one of those was a threat to the state in 60's while the other is a threat now.
While I'm admittedly not really well versed in stoicism, I believe that an individual's oikeiôsis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oikei%C3%B4sis) of something or someone else is the guiding factor of how they act or behave towards something. However, is it really fair to hold people to the same standard as a government?
It's an interesting thing to plot, but these numbers need more context.
Deaths per person (ok, that number is always exactly 1, but hopefully you know what I mean...) seems like it would be a much more useful number to see, for example.
Another stats comparison that is made quite often in the UK is deaths due to the past two decades of Islamic terrorism versus deaths due to terrorism in Northern Ireland.
Due to a deliberate blind spot , mass shootings like the one that just killed 27+ people in Texas aren't counted as terrorism. If they were America would appear much more at risk.
There are 102 automobile fatalities in the US every day.[1]
1600 cancer deaths in the US every day.[2]
I could go on with other fatality statistics, but I think you get the picture. Death by terrorism is a very very tiny (though tragic) minority of deaths in the US compared to death by other causes.
Yet can you imagine major US papers (never mind virtually every paper around the world) having front-page headlines like "27 PEOPLE DIED OF CANCER IN THE US TODAY"?
It's preposterous. So is the completely disproportionate and hysterical coverage a relatively minuscule number of terrorism-related deaths get.
The homicide rate is much higher than the random mass shooter homicide rate.
So most proposed regulation of firearms wouldn't make us a whole lot safer, because it wouldn't address people getting angry and getting their licensed pistol.
(the point being that addressing mass random homicides won't actually make us a whole lot safer...)
[+] [-] DoritoChef|8 years ago|reply
There are some measures, like TSA in America, that appear to be more focused around the illusion of security than actually preventing acts of terrorism. But what about some of the surveillance efforts conducted by intelligence organizations within the Five Eyes?
Maybe this merely a display of my own ignorance, but I don't understand why the efficacy of surveillance measures (both domestic and non-domestic) isn't discussed more often. If governments were more open about all the terrorist attacks they were able to prevent ahead of time, maybe the general public wouldn't have such a negative opinion of them when one terrorist slips through the cracks.
This paper (https://www.cepol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/26-reinhard-...) has some interesting insights into the matter. While admittedly a slightly biased source, this ProPublica article also has some interesting things to say about mass surveillance (https://www.propublica.org/article/whats-the-evidence-mass-s...)
[+] [-] pjc50|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FuckOffNeemo|8 years ago|reply
What's the risk of death or injury in the Middle East or in any theater of action at the hands of the West? Both from unintended collateral damage or from negligence/mistakes (e.g. drone attacks or similar)? How does that compare to the risks that the West face from terrorists?
There was an element of truth to the narrative projected by media at specific events such as the terrorist attacks in London (15/9) and New York (11/9). But largely, the narrative we're accepting as truth doesn't hold merit.
The amount of exposure we receive for death or injury on a day to day basis across the West is not an accurate reflection of the danger or risk of being injured or hurt my terrorist fringe elements. Your husband, brother or other male member is a bigger threat to your health when comparing domestic and sexual violence with terrorism.
I don't know if I'd put this down to the success of our anti-terrorist programs (even if it was which in probability is likely, no such credit would ever be sought and this is obviously by design).
Or whether we as a region (i.e The West) have always overstated risks associated to terrorism because of the potential for financial gain from fear mongering by the media?
[+] [-] pmoriarty|8 years ago|reply
It's like the existing terrorists aren't smart enough to think of such attacks, aren't skilled enough to execute them, or aren't interested and are content with relatively minor (though still very tragic and media attention-grabbing) attacks.
It could also be that the agencies charged with keeping us safe are actually doing a good job at preventing those larger scale attacks, which makes sense for attacks like the 9/11 ones, which required a lot of coordination and cooperation between the participants and are therefore vulnerable to being spied upon and/or infiltrated, but not so much for other "lone-wolf" sort of attacks, many of which really don't require much skill and no cooperation or coordination with anyone else.
So I'm not sure how to explain not seeing any large-scale attacks by lone-wolves or even small terrorist cells except as lack of interest or knowledge on the part of the terrorists.
[+] [-] Thriptic|8 years ago|reply
Why don't people do this? My guess is because it's not sexy. People want to participate in a high profile huge attack, not a small random shooting which by itself doesn't do much.
Large scale attacks are inherently watched for, planned for, and guarded against. Small scale attacks are almost impossible to guard against and stop.
[+] [-] chrismcb|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] partycoder|8 years ago|reply
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
The most recent stuff you may be more familiar with.
[+] [-] jonnybgood|8 years ago|reply
I'm interested in also seeing the data on attempts and credible threats.
[+] [-] DoritoChef|8 years ago|reply
Reading this article made me reflect on my understanding on the goals of counter-terrorist measures of the United States and how they (somewhat hypocritically) revolve entirely around a consequentialist point of view.
Maybe I have my tin foil hat a little to snug on my head, but I can't seem to find a way in which the mentality of the U.S. government's perception of "terrorism" has evolved from the days of COINTELPRO. To the US government, the only difference between MLK and Kim Jong Un is that only one of those was a threat to the state in 60's while the other is a threat now.
While I'm admittedly not really well versed in stoicism, I believe that an individual's oikeiôsis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oikei%C3%B4sis) of something or someone else is the guiding factor of how they act or behave towards something. However, is it really fair to hold people to the same standard as a government?
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] GlennS|8 years ago|reply
Deaths per person (ok, that number is always exactly 1, but hopefully you know what I mean...) seems like it would be a much more useful number to see, for example.
Another stats comparison that is made quite often in the UK is deaths due to the past two decades of Islamic terrorism versus deaths due to terrorism in Northern Ireland.
[+] [-] pjc50|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmoriarty|8 years ago|reply
1600 cancer deaths in the US every day.[2]
I could go on with other fatality statistics, but I think you get the picture. Death by terrorism is a very very tiny (though tragic) minority of deaths in the US compared to death by other causes.
Yet can you imagine major US papers (never mind virtually every paper around the world) having front-page headlines like "27 PEOPLE DIED OF CANCER IN THE US TODAY"?
It's preposterous. So is the completely disproportionate and hysterical coverage a relatively minuscule number of terrorism-related deaths get.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
[2] - https://www.inquisitr.com/2697153/cancer-surpasses-heart-dis...
[+] [-] maxerickson|8 years ago|reply
So most proposed regulation of firearms wouldn't make us a whole lot safer, because it wouldn't address people getting angry and getting their licensed pistol.
(the point being that addressing mass random homicides won't actually make us a whole lot safer...)
[+] [-] Thriptic|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mooneater|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] norikki|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]