Global War on Terror 8 - Winter is Coming

[unofan]

I'm sure I'm missing the basis for this, but since I am, I'll just say that I am.

Especially in the last two years, there has been a dramatic increase in attacks in the US attributed directly to Islamic extremists resulting in death and/or injury. Here's some numbers for two 6 year periods in the US:

2002-2008-- 12 terror attacks; (2 attributed to Islamic extremists) 19 thwarted attacks with 68 arrested. 74 killed, 64 injured.

2010-2016-- 42 terror attacks; (19 attributed to Islamic extremists) 10 thwarted attacks with 14 arrested. 214 killed, 592 injured.


A given individuals chances of being killed or injured in a terrorist attack are so small as to be totally insignificant, but at the same time, I certainly wouldn't say we couldn't hope to do better.

I like how you conveniently leave out 2001. I wonder why...

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Global War on Terror 8 - Winter is Coming

I like how you conveniently leave out 2001. I wonder why...

Because prior to 9/11 the "War on Terror" did not exist in it's present form at all. There wasn't a Dept. of Homeland Security, massive funding, or most all of the various tools developed and made available since then to combat terrorism. Wouldn't you agree the world or at the very least, the western world, changed dramatically in focus post 9/11?

 

[Rover]

Re: Global War on Terror 8 - Winter is Coming

Because prior to 9/11 the "War on Terror" did not exist in it's present form at all. There wasn't a Dept. of Homeland Security, massive funding, or most all of the various tools developed and made available since then to combat terrorism. Wouldn't you agree the world or at the very least, the western world, changed dramatically in focus post 9/11?

This is pretty deceptive. Prior to 9/11 the US was hunting Bin Laden and his organization. If you want to differentiate AQ type terrorism from the Beirut stuff in the 80's okay that's a bit of a different animal, but the current battle against terrorism didn't begin in 9/11/01. That's cherry picking the starting point.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Global War on Terror 8 - Winter is Coming

This is pretty deceptive. Prior to 9/11 the US was hunting Bin Laden and his organization.

... on their field.

Since then the battlefield has changed to include ConUS (all of NorAm?).

 

[Rover]

Re: Global War on Terror 8 - Winter is Coming

... on their field.

Since then the battlefield has changed to include ConUS (all of NorAm?).

Didn't AQ terrorists try to blow up LAX on Y2K?

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Global War on Terror 8 - Winter is Coming

This is pretty deceptive. Prior to 9/11 the US was hunting Bin Laden and his organization. If you want to differentiate AQ type terrorism from the Beirut stuff in the 80's okay that's a bit of a different animal, but the current battle against terrorism didn't begin in 9/11/01. That's cherry picking the starting point.

It's not deceptive at all. True that it didn't just start on 9/11, and I wasn't trying to claim so, but the resources committed prior to 9/11 and post 9/11 are massively different. I'm not sure how you can possibly argue otherwise. Post 9/11 we set up DHS with a 16 billion budget. (The budget was 70 billion in 2012.) Prior there was no such thing. Prior to 9/11 the FBI had 35 Joint Terrorism Task Forces in the US. Post 9/11 there were over 100. Prior the CIA tracked Bin Laden, and post, he was hunted by Delta Force, British SAS, and Navy Seal teams everywhere. Prior we couldn't even get the Sudan or the Saudi's to cooperate in extradition. Post there were no countries in the world where AQ could hide. ("either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists") Prior he was the subject of talks with the Taliban in an effort to get them to extradite him. After, we invaded Afghanistan to take him. (Very unfortunately failing to get him at Tora Bora.) And post 9/11 the AUMF gave the President massive powers to conduct war on terror. There is no comparison between the resources committed and available, or the international cooperation in force in 2010 vs. 2000. The conditions are completely different.

Didn't AQ terrorists try to blow up LAX on Y2K?

A terrorist was captured crossing the border from Canada with a trunk full of explosives. He eventually confessed to the FBI to planning to plant them at LAX, yes.

 

[Rover]

Re: Global War on Terror 8 - Winter is Coming

When an effort receives a surge in resources is not the same as when the effort began. Significant resources were put into capturing or killing Bin Laden and crew before 9/11. My angle while not disagreeing with you is any assessment of the current terror environment should begin with when this particular branch of terrorists began targeting US interests. Maybe the USS Cole? So, I'd be curious what the incident toll was from say 1996-2001 as well.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Global War on Terror 8 - Winter is Coming

I kind of see it both ways. I think it's fair to say that the present day GWOT didn't really start until 9/11. There was a global war on terror, but it's lowercase. That's sort of the distinction I'm stuck on. This is an interesting way to look at it:

Global War on Terror circa October 2001:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...&action=history&year=2001&month=10&tagfilter=

Global War on Terror circa October 2002:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_on_Terror&oldid=396823

Global War on Terror circa October(ish) 2016:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror

Maybe that's a distinction without a difference, but whatever.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Global War on Terror 8 - Winter is Coming

I kind of see it both ways. I think it's fair to say that the present day GWOT didn't really start until 9/11. There was a global war on terror, but it's lowercase. That's sort of the distinction I'm stuck on.

You are not the only one. The Irish Republican Army swore off terrorist attacks after 9/11/01. Many people think there is a direct linkage: after such an atrocity, they could no longer justify what they had been doing previously.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Global War on Terror 8 - Winter is Coming

Didn't AQ terrorists try to blow up LAX on Y2K?

The first NYC WTC attack in 1993 - the truck bomb that failed to do much damage.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Global War on Terror 8 - Winter is Coming

On the flip side, to say that the terrorists pre-9/11 are the same as they were today is insane. They've evolved as much as we have in our response to them. So I guess that's where the comparison between the two eras falls apart for me because we're dealing with a completely different enemy. And part of that blame goes to Bush because he decided to upset the power balance withing the Middle East. This led to a nearly complete destabilization of an entire region which in turn led us to where we are today. Without Iraq, I don't know if there would be an ISIS. It's hard to know with 100% certainty.

 

[Rover]

Re: Global War on Terror 8 - Winter is Coming

The first NYC WTC attack in 1993 - the truck bomb that failed to do much damage.

Yes a good point. I'd go back at least that far.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Global War on Terror 8 - Winter is Coming

2002-2008-- 12 terror attacks; (2 attributed to Islamic extremists) 19 thwarted attacks with 68 arrested. 74 killed, 64 injured.

2010-2016-- 42 terror attacks; (19 attributed to Islamic extremists) 10 thwarted attacks with 14 arrested. 214 killed, 592 injured.

Source?

I located this which reports 152 terrorist acts domestically between 2001- 2007 while there were only 104 between 2008 - 2014. In fact per this source the peak was 62 attacks in 1995 and 52 in 1999 both far, far more than any year since 2008.

Additionally:

Per this since 9/11 foreign-inspired terrorism has claimed about two dozen lives in the United States (I believe this is as of 2011). Which is monumentally dwarfed by the results world-wide including 32k deaths world-wide in 2014 alone.

Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks in America between 1980 and 2005.

White Americans Are The Biggest Terror Threat In The United States

Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11

According to this there have been no more deaths attributed to Islamic-backed attacks from 2009-present than there were between 2002-2009.


So has there been a pivot to argue we are less safe based upon homegrown threats and that's why we need Trump? And if so why would you make that argument? Has Hillary demonstrated herself to be anything less than a hawk?

Those questions though are all rhetorical because what the Trump-backed right is attempting to argue to legitimize him is not supported by facts, but apparently they have become one with their feelings after having none for 30 years. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Global War on Terror 8 - Winter is Coming

Terror attacks only account if they involve us...because otherwise we ignore them anyways

Lets not forget the definition of a terror attack has changed as well. The stabbing in St. Cloud prior to 9/11 almost certainly would not have been deemed "an overt act of terror". Terrorism existed back then it just wasnt always defined as such. Just like now, if someone isnt say something about Allah when it happens conveniently the term is used way less.

 

[burd]

Re: Global War on Terror 8 - Winter is Coming

I'm sure I'm missing the basis for this, but since I am, I'll just say that I am.

Especially in the last two years, there has been a dramatic increase in attacks in the US attributed directly to Islamic extremists resulting in death and/or injury. Here's some numbers for two 6 year periods in the US:

2002-2008-- 12 terror attacks; (2 attributed to Islamic extremists) 19 thwarted attacks with 68 arrested. 74 killed, 64 injured.

2010-2016-- 42 terror attacks; (19 attributed to Islamic extremists) 10 thwarted attacks with 14 arrested. 214 killed, 592 injured.


A given individuals chances of being killed or injured in a terrorist attack are so small as to be totally insignificant, but at the same time, I certainly wouldn't say we couldn't hope to do better.

Source?

I located this which reports 152 terrorist acts domestically between 2001- 2007 while there were only 104 between 2008 - 2014. In fact per this source the peak was 62 attacks in 1995 and 52 in 1999 both far, far more than any year since 2008.

Additionally:

Per this since 9/11 foreign-inspired terrorism has claimed about two dozen lives in the United States (I believe this is as of 2011). Which is monumentally dwarfed by the results world-wide including 32k deaths world-wide in 2014 alone.

Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks in America between 1980 and 2005.

White Americans Are The Biggest Terror Threat In The United States

Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11

According to this there have been no more deaths attributed to Islamic-backed attacks from 2009-present than there were between 2002-2009.


So has there been a pivot to argue we are less safe based upon homegrown threats and that's why we need Trump? And if so why would you make that argument? Has Hillary demonstrated herself to be anything less than a hawk?

Those questions though are all rhetorical because what the Trump-backed right is attempting to argue to legitimize him is not supported by facts, but apparently they have become one with their feelings after having none for 30 years. Thanks but no thanks.

Good points, Slap. It's not about threats of harm. It's about threats of harm by people who belong to another tribe. That is the cave man fear factor the right is using to manipulate its base.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Global War on Terror 8 - Winter is Coming

Didn't AQ terrorists try to blow up LAX on Y2K?

WTC 1993 would be a better ask. But see W McB's earlier response.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Global War on Terror 8 - Winter is Coming

Thank you Mr. Slap for your response. I hope you have had a good off-season.

Source?

I'll get to that.

I located this which reports 152 terrorist acts domestically between 2001- 2007 while there were only 104 between 2008 - 2014. In fact per this source the peak was 62 attacks in 1995 and 52 in 1999 both far, far more than any year since 2008.

Unfortunately I can't see where these statistics come from. Or really any of it without paying $50 apparently. One thing I can say is that it seems clear that what constitutes a "terror attack" varies a good deal between sources. I do note that various claims in source articles go back and forth between counting "deaths" and "attacks", some depending on which makes the particular point better it seems. I don't know, maybe this is the most accurate source in the world but I can't tell at all. Sorry.

Additionally:

Per this since 9/11 foreign-inspired terrorism has claimed about two dozen lives in the United States (I believe this is as of 2011). Which is monumentally dwarfed by the results world-wide including 32k deaths world-wide in 2014 alone.
I believe this is exactly what I was saying: That we had fewer attacks and deaths and injuries due to terrorism then, than we have had in the last six years. This keeping in mind 2010-11 were years of particularly bad luck for terrorists with nine bombing attacks failed or uncovered, including a car bomb in Times Square, a bomb attack on the Washington subway, a plot to mail bomb inbound Airliners from Yemen, and a bombing attack on a Manhattan Synagogue.

If in fact there were 32k deaths worldwide attributed to terrorists in 2014, it is a significant problem, isn't it?

Here's an interesting quote from the end of this article: The U.S. is supporting the most extreme and violent types of Muslims. Indeed, the U.S. has waived the prohibitions of arming terrorist groups in order to topple the Syrian government … even though the head of the Syrian rebels has called for Al Qaeda to carry out new attacks on America.
Indeed – as counter-intuitive as it may sound- stupid government policy may be more dangerous than terrorism.




Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks in America between 1980 and 2005.

This is a 2013 article quoting data prior to 2005 which also goes to the point I suggested, doesn't it? Granted, I assume it's not 90% of all casualties, but six of one, half dozen of the other I suppose.


White Americans Are The Biggest Terror Threat In The United States

This one is interesting. It relies on this NY Times article which relies on this New America Foundation count. At the time of the article I guess the white guys were ahead of the Islamic extremists. Of course they've fallen way behind now, but I don't suppose the Times is going to write a new headline. I'll look around. New America's data doesn't seem to jibe with the others at all in terms of what it includes or excludes.
As an aside I'd note that New America is headed by a former Clinton State Department hire. I'm not saying that's suspicious, (I'm really not) but just noting how often you run into these think tank things staffed with people connected to the Clintons, and how often they are then quoted in media. Oh and it turns out the State department gave New America over a million in funding. Another crazy coincidence!

Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11

Oh... Well... it turns out this is the article I just linked to above as the basis for the preceding article you cite. Kind of double-dipping there, Mr. Slap. Nevertheless, here's the main point it makes: "Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims"

But as I mentioned above, this isn't true today. In fact twice as many people have been killed by radical Muslims now. It seems we were supposed to be alarmed by all those on the right running around killing TWICE as many people as muslim radicals were when this was written. It follows that now that the muslim radicals have not only surpassed, but doubled the the high bar total of the crazed Trump supporters in the killing department, there might be some similar article by these same guys making that point. As promised I looked but I can't seem to find it.



According to this there have been no more deaths attributed to Islamic-backed attacks from 2009-present than there were between 2002-2009.

This source so closely mirrors the numbers I posted that I surmise it was indeed the original source of my own post. Imagine that?
But anyway, is death count the official measure then? What about the 264 wounded in Boston? The 53 wounded in Orlando or the 29 in New York? And if death totals are the measure that counts most, then assuredly the nearly 3000 at the WTC and 3500 killed in Afghanistan put the radical Islamists way ahead without us even having to bring any Iraq controversy into the equation.

But again, that's just picking whichever measure seems to fit an argument. There have been more terror attacks in general and more attacks carried out in the last six years than in the preceding years, including more by muslim radicals. Why get caught up in how successful theses jack bags actually are in killing and maiming? It was pure luck that saved people in New Jersey. If that scumbag was as competent as the Boston bombers there would have been plenty of death and maiming to go around. Boston had two bombs, this ******* had eight.

So has there been a pivot to argue we are less safe based upon homegrown threats and that's why we need Trump? And if so why would you make that argument? Has Hillary demonstrated herself to be anything less than a hawk?

Those questions though are all rhetorical because what the Trump-backed right is attempting to argue to legitimize him is not supported by facts, but apparently they have become one with their feelings after having none for 30 years. Thanks but no thanks.

It's kind of funny to me now but before you replied I was going to post something to the effect that this of all things should be a nonpartisan issue. Seems not. If the "you" you use there is meant to be general, fine, but if not, I didn't make that argument. No doubt Mrs. Clinton is a good deal more hawkish than the President, despite her mistakes, or regrets, or however she chooses to phrase it this week.

Beyond that I agree 100% that I have no reason at all to be worried about being a victim of a terror attack. But that is not because given the chance there isn't some radical right now in the US that wouldn't be extremely happy to kill me. (I mean besides gopherfans.) Somebody is going to get killed, and while it may be as Bloomberg has said, less "likely than getting hit by lightning" for me or anybody reading this, I don't go standing in fields during lightning storms and I hope no one else does either. (I know two people who have been hit.)

As I live in the lightning capitol of the world, and even though the cost is quite a bit, we have developed a system of lightning detectors and installed them and and alarm systems all over the place, especially at schools, and parks, and athletic fields, even though the chances are still minuscule of being hit without them. Anybody can make all the political hay they want want out of the issue, I'm more interested in what is an effective way to prevent people from getting struck.

Also, your hockey team stinks.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Global War on Terror 8 - Winter is Coming

I don't go standing in fields during lightning storms and I hope no one else does either.

I carry a one-iron on cloudy days. Why? Not even God can hit a one-iron.

 

[joecct]

I carry a one-iron on cloudy days. Why? Not even God can hit a one-iron.

Doesn't matter if you're well grounded.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Global War on Terror 8 - Winter is Coming

Doesn't matter if you're well grounded.

I've never understood this, and I've had it explained to me a trillion times. The damage comes from electricity flowing through me, right? But grounding is connecting me to something that connects to ground, right? So doesn't that make the electricity want to run through me to reach ground?

I understand wanting to be insulated to isolate me from the electricity. But I don't understand grounding. Please try to explain this to me in a way I can grasp. Warning: apparently this is not as easy as it should be.

E&M is a subject I simply cannot wrap my head around, and believe me with a EE dad I tried for decades not to feel like a complete disappointment. Everything else in physics is a breeze, but when you star throwing out amperes and wattage I have a .8 p* IQ.

* palin -- the SI metric unit for intelligence. 1 palin is defined as the intellectual capacity of a standard Møøse at 0 degrees Celsius.