How Many Terrorists Are There: Not As Many As You Might Think

from the and-even-if-we-count-generously dept

Fri, May 30th 2014 12:51pm — Becky Akers

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

56 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Jacob H, 30 May 2014 @ 12:55pm

...
"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"

Man, I really prefer Jeff Foxworthy's older stuff, this is just desperate...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 12:59pm

I'd say the estimates here are grossly inaccurate, after all, if you believe the government's excus- I mean statements, there's at least 300+ million 'potential terrorists' in one country alone!

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 thread ]
Whoever, 30 May 2014 @ 1:07pm

Zero terrorists interested in blowing up planes
A 15-year old boy recently went over a fence to get into the air-side of San Jose airport and then smuggled himself onto a plane.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 1:12pm

But that of course is why the FBI recruits their own terrorists to bust.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AricTheRed (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 1:14pm

The way things are going now...
The way things are going now .gov will create the greatest terrorst force on the planet, one that will be even larger than DHS, FBI, CIA, USCG, USAF, USMC, US Army, USN, State/County and Local police, and the TSA put together.

We The People.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich Kulawiec, 30 May 2014 @ 1:24pm

Bravo, and remember to fear the furniture.
1) Great piece of research and writing. Well-done.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 1:25pm

But....
The terrorists are needed to sucker the already stupid American electorate into losing their liberty.

Like most Americans now think... Terrorists are now a secondary threat to our own government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 1:31pm

Re: But....
No they aren't. Our government ARE the terrorists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 1:33pm

It doesn't matter how many terrorists there are. The point is there will always be terrorists. They'll never go away. There's no surrender, no negotiations or peace treaties, no final victory, no need to ever end the gravy train of war. In fact, the more you fight terrorism, the more likely it is that you'll just create more terrorists to fight. I suspect we'll be at war against terror for the rest of my life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 1:42pm

Re: Re: But....
Isn't that kinda what my post said?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 1:44pm

Re:
That is the whole point. Look at history, people in charge have ALWAYS used fear of a foreign enemy to extract liberty and obedience from their subjects.

A classic but effective ploy because people are just that stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 1:45pm

k12 schools are more dangerous
There is a better chance I would get knifed in a k12 school here in the states than that I would ever come across a terrorist.

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 thread ]
Jay (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 1:45pm

Dammit!
So you mean to tell me that we have overwhelming force to go after gnats?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 1:48pm

Re:
Maybe, but at some point they may find a new bogeyman to declare "war" on to justify their actions. They got this when they found out how profitable it was fighting fascism. So once that was no longer sellable, they turned it into a dire fight against Communism which they were able to milk for well over 40 years. Then drugs became the new bogeyman. Now that that is tired, it's terrorism. It's not a matter of whether the terrorists still exist or not. Fascists, Communists, and Drugs all still exist. They didn't go away. It's just that the people don't jump the same way anymore when the government yells "Boo!" Terrorism is quickly becoming the same thing and I'm sure they are looking as we speak for the the next bogeyman that will rekindle the effect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LAB (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 1:49pm

Number of terrorist in 9/11= 19, number of deaths= 2,977, Number of non fatal injuries= 6,000, property damage $10 billion.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 1:55pm

Just a few more countries to "liberate" and you will get your one million terrorists.
>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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 2:09pm

For a little perspective:
'Number of terrorist in 9/11= 19, number of deaths= 2,977, Number of non fatal injuries= 6,000, property damage $10 billion.'

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 thread ]
AricTheRed (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 2:34pm

Re: For a little perspective:
I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FACTS!!! I'VE ALREADY MADE UP MY MIND!

And It's Terrorists! We need to kill 'em all no matter what the cost!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LAB (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 2:43pm

Re: For a little perspective:
I fail to see why a list of items not caused by the willful actions of others would bring perspective on terrorism. But if you would like to argue more money should be spent combating them, I do not disagree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 2:54pm

Re: Re: For a little perspective:
The point is in the scope of things to worry about, your chance of dying as the result of a terrorist attack is quite low, especially compared to such things. Yet we let terrorism scare us to the point that we allowed many of the basic principles on which our country was founded on to be subverted via an irrational fear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 3:06pm

Re: Re: For a little perspective:
What I'm trying to point out is that comparatively, terrorism doesn't even come close to a major threat, so treating it as though it's this world-class problem, and needs to have everything possible done to combat it, when other, more serious threats get much less funding and attention, seems like both massive overkill, and handing victory of the perpetrators of terrorism, by being overly influenced by it.

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 thread ]
PRMan, 30 May 2014 @ 3:22pm

Article is disingenuous
The Abu Sayyaf Group has probably kidnapped more Americans than almost any other group on this list. Meaning, they have committed more actual violence to US citizens than most.

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 thread ]
CK20XX (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 3:37pm

Re: Article is disingenuous
You're missing the point. The point is that the world is not overrun with Abu Sayyaf Groups, so there's no point in panicking and restricting basic freedoms just because people like them exist. In fact, if the country wasn't panicking, we'd probably be able to deal with terrorist groups like that more effectively and have the respect of the world again on top of that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mason Wheeler (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 3:40pm

Re: Re: For a little perspective:
Have a look at that list again, and check out how many of them (particularly the ones at the top) are indeed "caused by the willful acts of others," specifically by pollution, adulteration of food and water supplies, producing and heavily advertising unhealthy food, unhealthy drinks, tobacco products, poorly-tested or fraudulent pharmaceuticals, etc. Those top causes of death aren't things that "just happen to people" any more than terrorism is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 3:42pm

I just can't trust these politicians and agencies anymore. They have lied and lied again to get it their way. They have tortured, killed innocents without remorse and probably worse.
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 thread ]
JMT (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 4:28pm

Re: Re: For a little perspective:
"I fail to see why a list of items not caused by the willful actions of others would bring perspective on terrorism."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 4:44pm

Re: Re: Re: For a little perspective:
I wonder how many of those 38,364 people committed suicide because of the War on Terror? I've seen several stories on Techdirt about what the US government does to the aforementioned confused grandmothers; they get kidnapped and subjected to psychological torture to make them confess to whatever fictitious crime they happen to need a patsy for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
madasahatter (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 5:15pm

Good post
Many terrorists are only peripherally interested in an attack on the US because their political goals are local. Another issue is most terrorist groups are only effective if they can keep a tightly knit cadre that is difficult ot penetrate. This puts an effective upper limit on the size fo the group. If you get to large, you can not always properly vet new members and most governments will attack the group if it gets too large.

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 thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 6:59pm

Re: Article is disingenuous
While this isn't Mike writing this article, I'll thank you for this comment. I actually have a TON of problems with this article, but the section on Abu Sayyaf is downright insane.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 6:59pm

Since NSA spied on that nasty woman who terrorized the entire population, I ask: has anybody filed an FOIA request for their Rosa Parks' files yet? Any links?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 7:32pm

Seems to me we are the terrorists now, at least our "elected" representatives in D.C. are. We should be concerned about the threat from within, Bin Laden was a stroll in the park compared to these people. Nero is playing, Rome is burning. Constitutional convention anyone, or don't you all have the stones or the stomach for it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 8:15pm

Re: Re: Re: For a little perspective:
"You fail as a human being."

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 thread ]
LAB (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 8:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: For a little perspective:
I wrote the above. For some reason it has me as an AC.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2014 @ 9:25pm

Excellent article
Thank you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whatever, 30 May 2014 @ 11:31pm

Re: Re: Article is disingenuous
My problem with the article is that it tries to create a black and white is a terrorist / is not a terrorist classification when that isn't the reality in the field.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2014 @ 1:53am

Re: Re: Article is disingenuous
I'm more worried about the theocracy that the idiots and assholes in the US are trying to impose on the rest of us. Unfortunately some of these primitive savages actually hold seats in Congress, which scares the hell out of me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2014 @ 6:13am

Re: The way things are going now...
uh.... "will"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2014 @ 7:14am

Re:
And about 8-9 of those "terrorists" aren't even dead, well weren't dead as of sept 12 2001, some were Saudi Airlines pilots and some people who had their passports stolen in the 90's.

Believing this 19 highjackers thing is too hilarious to sustain for me, gonna have to leave the desktop.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2014 @ 7:17am

Re:
Haven't you heard ? Since there was no reason to attack Iran and that their nuclear research for electricity is monitored 24/7 and that Israel has 200 nukes at least anyway so why be scared of them and how Russia kept warning Bush and Mrs Clinton not to attack Iran, you're suddenly cool with Iran and you just bypassed the bullshit by declaring Russia the real enemy again!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2014 @ 10:40am

Re:
So you're asserting that those 184,000 terrorists will manage to pull off another 9,684 9/11s for a total of 28,829,268 deaths as opposed to 92,000 Boston marathon bombings for a total of 276,000 deaths or 184,000 underwear bombings for a grand total of zero deaths?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wesley Parish, 31 May 2014 @ 11:38pm

Coulda told you that
People have been making such comments for ages now:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10063/20111005-0029/www.antisf.com.au/the-stories/a-public-touch-u p.html
It wasn't their fault, as he himself had pointed out to an over-inquisitive reporter in a phone interview just a few minutes ago � it was hardly their fault that terrorists had developed ever more effective means of camouflaging themselves, and so the inspections had to become ever more intrusive. One did not expect women to be so fanatical that they would replace their saline and silicone inserts with plastic explosives. But someone had written a short story about such a thing happening, and it had been made into a movie, so they were doing their duty in protecting the public by...damn, he was going to have to put that reporter on the no-fly list, wasn't he! Obnoxious little puppy, he should've been drowned at birth!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2014 @ 4:40am

With secret interpretation, anyones a terrorist, if you threaten their hold, guess
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2014 @ 4:57am

Wikipedia's War_on_Terror article gives a spending of 1.2 trillion in 2011.

That makes 6.5 million dollar per terrorist.

We should have seen some return on investment by now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Howard (profile), 2 Jun 2014 @ 3:47am

Re:
Which makes the FBI a terrorist organization (they recruit terrorists ffs!), and the USG a terrorist funding government. This, and drone strikes.

And they complain about AQ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 2 Jun 2014 @ 8:03am

Re: Re:
Conspiracists will remind you that fighting communism was highly profitable right up until a year or two before 9/11. Fighting terrorism has prevented us from completely dismantling our military.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert, 3 Sep 2014 @ 11:07am

In 1924, less than 3% of Germans were Nazis. And yet since that 3% was sufficiently corrupted by Hitler's "People's Religion" as it was immorally and ruthlessly laid out in Mein Kampf, that 3% came to oppress the entire nation and led the world into a war that killed 50 million people
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hannah, 29 Oct 2014 @ 1:57pm

hahahahah just no.
Is this person on drugs?.... hahahahahahahahahhaha im dead what the heck just go to bed. Don't make yourself look worse hahahahaha I CANT STOP LAUGHING AT THE STUPIDITY!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
aledeen, 3 Dec 2014 @ 10:12am

americo is number juan
terorism
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jimjfox, 7 May 2015 @ 4:40am

Terrorism? What Terrorism?
SO-- what should be done?
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 thread ]
jimjfox, 7 May 2015 @ 4:49am

Re: Robert
Yes, indeed. Because security services are imperfect, make mistakes [hello, they're run by HUmANS] then we can ignore terror?
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 thread ]
Shaky, 26 Aug 2015 @ 9:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Article is disingenuous
i wonder why some muslims symphatize with them, hmmm. cant be because of all the hundreds of thousands of civilian lives lost thanks to the US? you do realize that those innocent people had mothers, fathers brothers, sisters, uncles and cousins which loved them with just as much passions as you or i love our loved ones. try to put youself in theyr shoe, maybe then one day you will understand this war is just tragic. i dont know about you, but if this happened to me, i would spend the rest of my life trying to avenge theyr death. i would be filled with so much hate because of this unjust.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rachel, 14 Nov 2015 @ 8:58pm

Update
Hi and many thanks for this excellent article. Any chance your sources have been updated and you're aware of the current stats, including ISIS in them? I'd love to know them and you seem to have the know-how for where to find the stats. Thank you so much, I really appreciate this article.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LOL, 6 Aug 2016 @ 3:01pm

Re: Re: For a little perspective:
FACEPALM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not Dead Yet (profile), 17 Nov 2016 @ 6:38am

The point is to be angry at the government and not angry about the dissolving of people in acid, the beheadings and the chainsawing. The drowning, burning alive and more.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2017 @ 5:56am

Re: For a little perspective:
How do you think cancer or heart disease would do if we stopped watching them and putting money into them? Do you think they would get worse or better? Same logic applies to terrorism. Is it the best way to spend our money? Maybe not. But do you want to watch family or friends be blown up in a public place at age 30...or maybe die of cancer at 70?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2018 @ 12:08pm

....no
[ link to this | view in thread ]