How Many Terrorists Are There: Not As Many As You Might Think
from the and-even-if-we-count-generously dept
Terrorism is a deadly, ever-present menace from which Americans should spare no expense or effort in protecting themselves. Or so our rulers claim.For example, Rep. Mike Rogers warns, "The threat from Al Qaeda-linked terrorists is continuously evolving as they seek new safe havens from which to recruit, train and conduct operations against Americans and our interests.... terrorists tell us they want to strike American and other Western targets." And John Pistole at the TSA excuses his agency's sexual assaults of passengers by incoherently intoning, "The reason we are doing these types of pat downs and using the advanced imagery technology is trying to take the latest intelligence and how we know al Qaeda and affiliates want to hurt us, they want to bring down whether it is passenger air craft or cargo aircraft."
It would seem that terrorism runs rampant, as the Feds remind us with each new infringement of our freedom. Which means there must be millions of terrorists out there, right?
Nope. The same government that spends trillions of our dollars and sacrifices our few remaining rights fighting terrorists also publishes a census of sorts on them – though apparently the Feds don't read it. Country Reports on Terrorism appears annually courtesy of the US Department of State. And each year, it explodes the myth that jihadists lurk on every airport's concourse. In fact, bureaucrats at just one of the agencies supposedly battling them, the Department of Homeland Security, far outnumber them.
Naturally, the enemy is too busy plotting America's destruction to fill out questionnaires, so the Reports relies on educated guesses: statements such as "membership is estimated in the low hundreds" and "core membership is believed to be fewer than 100" abound. And of the 51 "Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) ... designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)" that the Reports surveys, the "Strength" of 15 remains flatly "unknown."
Nonetheless, adding these figures together should yield a rough idea of how many foes scheme to blow us sky-high.
While crunching numbers, we'll give the Feds something they never give us: the benefit of the doubt. We'll take the higher figure each time we encounter a range ("Reports of Jundallah membership vary from 500 to 2,000" counts as 2000, for instance). And we'll interpret "several," "few" or "low" as 5, so that "several thousand" or "membership in the low thousands" becomes 5000. Finally, we'll double our tally to cover those 15 "unknowns" and their no doubt huge enrollments.
So how many participants in "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" worldwide menace America's "national security?" How many threaten us so badly that our rulers insist on suspending much of the Bill of Rights to counteract the danger?
Try 184,000.
Yep, just 184,000. Even big, bad "Al-Qa'ida (AQ)" and its three affiliates ("Al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula"; "Al-Qa'ida in Iraq"; and "Al-Qa'ida in the Islamic Maghreb") boast only 4000 bad guys combined. (The main Al-Qa'ida's "strength" is "impossible to estimate," but the Reports admits that its "core has been seriously degraded" following "the death or arrest of dozens of mid- and senior-level AQ operatives." "Dozens," not "hundreds." Hmmm.)
And remember, 184,000 is a ridiculously inflated figure – both because of our generous accounting and also because governments often expand a word's meaning well beyond the dictionary's. You may recall the Feds' contending with straight faces in 2004 that if "a little old lady in Switzerland gave money to a charity for an Afghan orphanage, and the money was passed to al Qaeda," she met the definition of "enemy combatant." Five years later, a federal Fusion Center decreed that "if you're an anti-abortion activist, or if you display political paraphernalia supporting a third-party candidate or [Ron Paul], if you possess subversive literature, you very well might be a member of a domestic paramilitary group." No telling how many confused Swiss grandmothers and readers of Techdirt's subversive articles cluster among those 184,000.
That number grows even more absurd when we compare it with the aforementioned Homeland Security's 240,000 Warriors on Terror. Meanwhile, something like 780,000 cops stalk us nationwide, whose duties also encompass tilting at terrorism's windmill. And that's to say nothing of the scores of other bureaucracies at the national, state, and local levels hunting these same 184,000 guerrillas as well as an additional 1,368,137 troops from the armed forces [click on "Rank/Grade - current month"].
Nor do American armies, bureaucratic or literal, battle alone. Britain, Europe and assorted allies aim at that grotesquely outnumbered 184,000, too.
It gets worse. Country Reports also lists "Location/Area of Operation" for our 51 groups. Surprisingly, most of them harbor extremely modest ambitions, especially for folks who hate our freedom (or what's left of it): they're far more interested in their own backyards than ours. For example, the Abu Sayyaf Group "operates primarily in the provinces of the Sulu Archipelago, namely Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi. The group also operates on the Zamboanga Peninsula." And though American politicians suspect it of hoping to overthrow the Great Satan, it instead "claims to promote an independent Islamic state in western Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago."
Ditto for the Continuity Irish Republican Army ("Location/Area of Operation: Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic"); the Haqqani Network ("...active along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and across much of southeastern Afghanistan"); Lashkar i Jhangvi ("...active primarily in Punjab, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Karachi, and Baluchistan"); and even the National Liberation Army ("Mostly in the rural and mountainous areas of northern, northeastern, and southwestern Colombia, as well as the border regions with Venezuela"). In fact, despite the State Department's insistence that "the organization's terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States" for inclusion in the Reports, it's incredibly difficult to see how most of these associations pose any peril whatever to the US.
It's even harder – some would say impossible – to understand how protecting ourselves from these distant dissidents requires forfeiting even one of our rights, let alone the wholesale evisceration of freedom the Security State demands.
Becky Akers is a free-lance writer and historian who has published two novels, Halestorm and Abducting Arnold. Both are set during the American Revolution, when terrorists overthrew the world's most powerful empire.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: al qaeda, terrorists, threats
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
...
Man, I really prefer Jeff Foxworthy's older stuff, this is just desperate...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With those kinds of numbers, of course they've got to shred the rights of the people left and right, they've got over 300 million people to protect from those 300 million potential threats!
300 million!
Terrorists!
Be afraid!
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zero terrorists interested in blowing up planes
If any terrorists were interested in blowing up planes, they could have got air-side at San Jose airport just like the boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And they complain about AQ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The way things are going now...
We The People.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The way things are going now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bravo, and remember to fear the furniture.
2) Remember: Americans Are as Likely to Be Killed by Their Own Furniture as by Terrorism We can never be too vigilant in the War on Upholstery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But....
Like most Americans now think... Terrorists are now a secondary threat to our own government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But....
And yes, by the definition that the US uses, our own government is a terrorist organization. They regularly use fear to complete public opinion and policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A classic but effective ploy because people are just that stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
k12 schools are more dangerous
Our president and his NSA, CIA, ETC... are a bunch of self serving a-holes looking for a paycheck. If they really were there to protect us, they themselves would be the first ones they attacked for the amount of damage their terrorist actions have done to our country and others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dammit!
184,000 people is more than the people in Guam.
All we have to do is protect Guam from being a hole for terrorism and we win.
What a waste of 10 years!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Though I disagree with many governmental policies associated with national security, I would very much like to hear the author's definition of "the wholesale evisceration of freedom." In addition, if one could better define the "Security State" in which we live, I would better be able to grasp the author's argument. Because there aren't many terrorists we should....? Is the argument, there are less terrorist today than there where before? I would think the number would be about the same. I suppose labeling elected officials as "our rulers" is a bit more telling.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For a little perspective:
Number of deaths for leading causes of death(2010):
-Heart disease: 597,689
-Cancer: 574,743
-Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
-Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
-Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
-Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
-Diabetes: 69,071
-Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
-Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
-Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
Terrorism kills a lot of people in a short amount of time, but long term, there are countless threats that massively overshadow terrorism as a cause of death.
Also, if the idea is to protect/save as many lives as possible, just imagine how many lives could have been saved had the money spent towards 'fighting terrorism' been applied to R&D and improved services for the threats listed above. We're talking billions upon billions of dollars, each year, for a 'fight' that is essentially unending, think of how much good even some of that money could do if applied to help deal with and manage other, greater, threats.
Source:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For a little perspective:
And It's Terrorists! We need to kill 'em all no matter what the cost!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For a little perspective:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For a little perspective:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For a little perspective:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For a little perspective:
Remember, the goal of terrorism is not to kill people, it's to cause them to panic, to be in fear, and change their behavior because of it. By that metric, the idea that it's acceptable to sacrifice rights, and spend billions 'just in case', is doing nothing more than playing right into the terrorists' hands, and doing their work for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: For a little perspective:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For a little perspective:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For a little perspective:
You fail to see why spending billions of dollars trying to save a statistically minute number of lives is a stupid idea compared to spending that money in ways that could save tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives, maybe millions if the benefits could spread around the globe. You fail as a human being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: For a little perspective:
Really. When someone disagrees with you, I hope this is not your go to response.
Let's address world hunger or the lack fresh water for many people on this planet or the fact that many people around the world live in countries that do not grant them the most basic of human rights. Of course there are other issues to. My point is that the metric to measure how important terrorism is has nothing to do the number of terrorists identified in a report, released to the public, by the state department. My figures demonstrated that very few people(19) caused the death or injury to 8,977 people and $10 billion dollars in damage. In addition, those things listed (heart disease, Cancer, etc...)have nothing to do with stopping a person who, for religious reasons,is willing to blow up a plane or a building. The number of terrorist has very little to do with if there should be airport screenings by the TSA. Those screenings also prevent people domestically from boarding planes with weapons and explosives.
"That number grows even more absurd when we compare it with the aforementioned Homeland Security's 240,000 Warriors on Terror."
The Department of homeland Security was created in 2002 and includes 22 different governmental agencies including the Coast Guard, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs service. To say that they are all battling terror is just inaccurate. It ignores the fact that many of the agencies and employees existed before 9/11 and were placed in a DHS as part of a re-organizational effort. Some belonged to the Department of Transportation, the Dept of the Treasury and the Dept of Agriculture to name a few. The Coast guard alone has over 89,000 members.
"sacrifices our few remaining rights fighting terrorists."
Few remaining rights? Please explain all the rights we have lost?
"And that's to say nothing of the scores of other bureaucracies at the national, state, and local levels hunting these same 184,000 guerrillas as well as an additional 1,368,137 troops from the armed forces."
I hope this is not meant to imply entire purpose of the military is to find terrorist.
JMT, did we read the same article? Do you agree with all of the facts and figures stated in this piece? Do my thoughts really make me "fail as a human being?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: For a little perspective:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For a little perspective:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Believing this 19 highjackers thing is too hilarious to sustain for me, gonna have to leave the desktop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
>conduct operations against Americans and our interests
how dare they fight back against those who murder their families? Yes, be surprised. They hate the US because democracy, freedom and whatever else is the hip thing these days...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Article is disingenuous
Mike dismisses them with a handwave because they operate on small islands in the Philippines, but there is a LOT of American time and money spent on that group negotiating the return of kidnapped Americans and cooperation with foreign governments compared to many others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Article is disingenuous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Article is disingenuous
Case in point, characterizing their goal as wanting an Islamic govt. on their little plot of land instead of their actual STATED goal, creating a new caliphate-led theocracy as a FIRST STEP, is disingenuous in the extreme.
For all my war-weary fellow Americans who want it all to not be true and for their to be no danger, man up and get ready, because there sure is an ideological war to be fought, and it will come to our shores once more, so you might as well be prepared for it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Article is disingenuous
The reality is much more than there are certain hardcore fighters, that much is clear. But there is also the much larger problem of sympathizers, supporters, those who give aid, housing, arms, transport, and money towards the cause. They may not jihad you ass in the k-mart parking lot, but they are certainly part of the problem.
It's another case of an article that tries to hard to hit a target and instead fails by showing how poorly the facts are considered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Article is disingenuous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Article is disingenuous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call me paranoid, but I am not sure anymore that these people, if they were in danger of losing power, wouldn't let someone "slip" through the net just to refresh peoples memories of the boogeyman.
I am aware it sounds like a bad movie, but this is how little I think of them now. Not all of them are bad, but those who aren't, are locked down by those who are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good post
Part of the success of 9/11 was the incompetence of the FBI, CIA, and Immigration in properly following up leads and warnings. As long imbeciles run these agencies the terrorists will always have a chance for success. The problem with the current security theater is it is refighting the last war not the current war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excellent article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coulda told you that
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10063/20111005-0029/www.antisf.com.au/the-stories/a-public-touch-u p.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what, you might be a terrorist, saying no to something with no choice, guess what....terrorist.......the only real option given, with any semblence of artificial freedom, is yes, and unwavering support, honest support not required, just the impression of support amongst your peers, the biggest pressure of them all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That makes 6.5 million dollar per terrorist.
We should have seen some return on investment by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Robert
That Islamists, like Nazis are/were few in number has no bearing on their influence; it is the Gov'ts duty to protect citizens and yes, some liberties will be infringed, to some degree.
The alternative is chaos, open season for lunatics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hahahahah just no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
americo is number juan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terrorism? What Terrorism?
According to this article and the bulk of comments...NOTHING!!
Since terrorism is no threat at all, terrorists should be ignored.
No security is needed AT ALL, according to this stupidity.
Give them free access to airports, all means of public transport,
weaponry, open borders, no passports, etc, etc.
Great Idea! We can save so much expense and have no limit on our freedoms. DO YOU SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THIS SHITE???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Update
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The goal of salafists is to kill everyone and bring about armageddon. It's not a bad idea to be vigilant whatever their numbers since they inspire nutjobs to come forward and kill like in the Orlando nightclub.
Not to mention bringing down the twin towers. So it's not a completely ridiculous concept and not so for the Yazidis and others being killed in a genocide.
We don't have to be nuts ourselves and when the govt takes steps to preclude terrorism isn't often a boondoggle and hard to keep up with the new terrorists that we've armed and sent to do some regime change somewhere. Hopefully the new administration will insist that we don't try to do Nation Building as that has failed miserably as well as my lost elation when I realized that the Arab Spring was just an opening for more crazies with weaponry to take over from the ousted dictators.
http://www.vocativ.com/299951/year-of-terror-2016-has-seen-a-terror-attack-almost-every-da y/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]