
America in grave danger from terrorists? The numbers tell a different story - YeGoblynQueenne
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2017/nov/05/america-terrorism-risk-global-data-new-york
======
DoritoChef
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.

This paper
([https://www.cepol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/26-reinhard-...](https://www.cepol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/26-reinhard-
kreissl.pdf)) 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...](https://www.propublica.org/article/whats-the-evidence-mass-
surveillance-works-not-much))

~~~
pjc50
The U.K. regularly jails people for planning terrorism - but it receives very
little publicity. I couldn't name any.

~~~
DoritoChef
Thank you for sharing! I did some quick Googling and found this BBC article
that seems to back up what you're saying
([http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39176110](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39176110)).
I really do wonder why they wouldn't talk more about it? I think it would be a
fair compromise to say "hey we stopped X amount of terrorist attacks, but we
can't tell you everything about how we stopped them because that's
classified."

------
FuckOffNeemo
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?

------
pmoriarty
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.

~~~
Thriptic
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.

------
partycoder
If you want to be opinionated about the middle east first read these articles:

\-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt)

\-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement)

\-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration)

\-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)

\-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone)

The most recent stuff you may be more familiar with.

------
jonnybgood
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.

~~~
DoritoChef
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](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?

~~~
pmoriarty
_" 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."_

I'm not seeing the analogy. Did MLK have some secret stash of nuclear weapons
I'm not aware of? Was he threatening to attack the US or its allies with them?

------
GlennS
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.

------
pjc50
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.

~~~
maxerickson
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...)

~~~
dogma1138
If you remove gang related violence the homicide rates are not that high.

2/3rds of deaths due to firearms are suicides this ratio is even higher when
you adjust for the accidental discharge which is quite often used when there
is no suicide note or a clinical history.

Mass shootings are indeed a drop in the ocean as far as gun related deaths go
in the US.

~~~
maxerickson
This is written with an obvious POV but cites the BJS in claiming that gang
related violence is not behind a majority of homicides in the US:

[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-
have-a-...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-
problem_b_5071639.html)

I live in a region with a real low rate and most of the cases in the news
involve people that know each other. I've thought about trying to gather a
profile of each incident, working back through time, to try to get a picture
of the statistics rather than just relying on my impression. Of course, on top
of being a fair amount of work, there are also issues with what sorts of
information is ethical to consolidate like that (and especially, names of
accused; my driving interest is the relationship statistics, so that is a core
issue).

------
mooneater
Daily resolution makes these graphs very hard to read. Aggregating weekwise
would make it much clearer.

