no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

How Real is the Threat of Terrorism?

September 29th, 2009

According to the DHS, the threat level is “High” or “Orange”.  In dozens of domestic and international flights since, I have never seen a security level of “Yellow”.  “Orange” is the new “Normal”.  It has been this way, occasionally higher, for more than eight years.

How real is this threat?

Some people cling to the notion that liberty must be sacrificed to obtain security. They claim, for example, that the government must be doing an awesome job protecting us, because there have been no domestic terror attacks since September 11, 2001. But we have no idea really how many plans they’ve successfully thwarted, so we have no frame of reference by which to calculate the government’s success rate.

If the government was constantly thwarting plans to terrorize the country, we’d know by their constant and shameless self-promotion. So I surmise that, except for a small number of higher-profile cases, this front has been relatively quiet.

If the domestic terror threat were real, there would be death and destruction to prove it. There are literally thousands of extremely soft (extremely vulnerable) targets like movie theaters, shopping malls, etc. There is practically nothing that can be done to secure most of these “soft” targets, and yet there have been no attacks whatsoever! Consider: at any of these targets, an attack need not be coordinated, or even very-well planned in advance, and it would be very easy to cause a tremendous amount of death and destruction, at negligible expense and with negligible training, so long as the perpetrators were prepared to martyr themselves.

The threat is not real.

I have no way of really proving this other than inference, but based on the observation that there have been exactly zero successful domestic terror attacks in the last eight years, I submit that there simply aren’t that many radical terrorists, and that the threat is mere propaganda used to instill a sense of fear and obedience into the general public.

Comments

13 Comments

RSS
  • ZJS says on: September 29, 2009 at 5:25 pm

     

    To do any damage to soft targets, you wouldn't even need to be a martyr. As long as you chose a place you have no connection too, how would they ever find you?

  • Don says on: September 30, 2009 at 12:34 am

     

    Suppose you're at a party and you walk right up and slap a dood in his face.
    The threat level has risen a little.
    Then you go slap someone else in their face.
    It rises.
    You keep doing that over and over and the threat level rises ever higher.
    THAT is what the gov'ts terrorist threat level is an indication of the level of threat the US gov't perpetrates around the globe.
    It doesn't equate to the amount of threat TO the US but rather the amount of threat coming FROM the US, which will be high until the collapse.

    I read one time that an entity would have to be insane to threaten the US.
    1) The US is the only gov't that has used nuclear weapons offensively.
    2) The US is basically an island, once you're here you're stuck, you can't escape.
    3) There are a LOT of weapons in the US that are owned by people not afraid to use them.
    The only people capable of attacking the US are either insane or suicidal so that narrows the market down considerably.
    There's a reason the US gov't attacks people in far off lands, and that is because its too difficult for those people to come way over here and retaliate. Sort of like a "don't shit where you eat" philosophy. If the US attacked Canada or Mexico there would be a chance of instant retaliation, and the politicians know it, so they don't fuck with them people like they do those in distant lands.

    FWIW, I pay little mind to what happens in foreign countries for the risk of them harming me is microscopic, however the risk of gov't drones harming me is astronomical, so I basically live in the woods under the radar sweep, well armed and supplied.

  • John says on: September 30, 2009 at 3:25 am

     

    "If the government was constantly thwarting plans to terrorize the country, we’d know by their constant and shameless self-promotion. So I surmise that, except for a small number of higher-profile cases, this front has been relatively quiet."

    Well, maybe, but I always figured they kept just about everything just about as secret as they could, so that (potential) terrorists knew very little about their operations, their awareness, their capabilities, etc.

    Maybe my watching of "The X-Files" and the "Bourne" movies and such has inflated my impression of the competence and efficiency of the FBI and CIA. No one else in our entire federal system of governments can do anything right, after all.

  • Brad says on: September 30, 2009 at 3:57 pm

     

    I'm scared all the time. As a matter of fact I just shit myself because I looked at the orange sitting on my desk and it reminded we were at terror level orange. Now I just pissed my pants.

  • Dan Z says on: September 30, 2009 at 11:07 pm

     

    The threat of terror isnt real, if the threat of terror were real we would see all sorts of attacks on soft targets. Malls, sporting events etc, no one is securing those and even when I get the pat down at Ford Field they dont ever check your back. Imagine a coordianated bomb attack in a place like the Big House during a U of M game? Not only would the initial blasts cause damage, but the panic and following stampeded would make it even worse and it would more than likel yhappen on live TV a huge coup for a terrorist. As for america being an island and terrorists not being able to get off of it, I dont think that is very much of a concern to them, the concern is making shit happen.

    • Don says on: October 1, 2009 at 1:38 pm

       

      @Dan Z: As for america being an island and terrorists not being able to get off of it, I dont think that is very much of a concern to them, the concern is making shit happen.
      ++++++++++++++++++
      Which brings us right back to where I said this: The only people capable of attacking the US are either insane or suicidal

    • nothirdsolution says on: October 2, 2009 at 3:02 am

       

      I'm not even talking about something like a bomb attack; that's sophisticated, takes careful planning and supplies, etc.

      One dude with an automatic rifle at the shopping mall: how many people can he take out before anyone even blinks? What about two or three dudes with rifles?

      This may sound callous, but it's fish in a motherfucking barrel. It is no miracle that these things haven't happened (although it seems that way to some). Fortunately for the rest of us, there just aren't very many people inclined towards that much evil.

      • Don says on: October 2, 2009 at 1:53 pm

         

        Any sort of firearm is an attention getter and goads any wannabe hero's into potential action.

        But, a person could walk right down the main corridor in any mall in the US with their 28oz waffle headed Estwing framing hammer in its holster and nobody would think anything of it.

        Walk into say the Gap, cleave a few skallz, move on to the next boutique, repeat, over and over. A convenient shop rag would wipe the obvious evidence off the weapon and no one would be the wiser.

        On a good day I bet 100 people could be subjected to that kind of terrorism and the perp would never be found.

        Also, an Estwing has no serial number and can be thrown in any dumpster.
        The lower the technology, the better the success.

  • gilliganscorner says on: October 1, 2009 at 11:24 am

     

    Well….technically there has been an attack since 9/11 – the post 9/11 anthrax attacks…remember those? They were in the headlines for about 3-6 weeks after New York, just long enough to scares the people and galvanize/dupe them into supporting the war. But then, it just miraculously stopped.

    But there is no way it could be a government job, could it? Could it?

    You might want to read up on the story of "Bruce Edward Ivins". It's a sad one….and spooky. People an call me a conspiracy theorist as long as I get to call them a coincidence theorist.

  • signalfire says on: October 4, 2009 at 6:32 am

     

    I find it easier to believe that elements inside the US political system carried out 9-11 than a 'bunch of ragheads who live in caves'.. What else could POSSIBLY explain the Pentagon, the most heavily guarded military installation in the history of the world, an organization whose power would have made the Roman Empire green with envy, leaving themselves wide open to an attack they had over an hour's warning of ? And how do you get two 110 story buildings to turn into dust in mid air after fires lasting on a hour or so? Do trees turn to sawdust as you yell 'Timber'??? All this F'ing government is good for is scaring it's inhabitants and killing people who have the audacity to be sitting on OUR oil.. under THEIR land. And Afghanistan? It's all about the opium and the money that is laundered through Wall Street. Read 'Crossing the Rubicon' and get a clue, guys. The terror alert is a joke. Bush was out of the loop and a useful idiot, but Cheney with his 'the american way of life is nonnegotiable' knew exactly what was going on… And the anthrax threats; funny how they traced the stuff back to an american lab and things got real quiet…. except for finding some poor schmuck and hounding him until he either offed himself or was suicided to close the books on the investigation. We have war criminals in every layer of our government and they are getting off scott free. And Obama is starting to look like a variation on Bring-it-On, Transmitter under his Jacket at the Debates, Bacon-for-Brains Bush. End the Wars Barry, or you're a war criminal too!

  • thomas says on: October 4, 2009 at 1:37 pm

     

    here ya' go….911 and much more…major global announcements & events very soon…

    http://www.paoweb.com/sn092606.htm

  • lukeNC says on: October 5, 2009 at 1:13 am

     

    I think you guys make great points here. I wonder, does the sniper attacks in the DC area count as a terror attack? I notice that that is nearly forgetten. Even still, its still a crime.

    • nothirdsolution says on: October 5, 2009 at 12:23 pm

       

      It's certainly an "act of terrorism" per se, but not any moreso than any ordinary serial killer. That said, it's not the type of terrorism with which the U.S. is allegedly at war. But your question underscores my point: look at the amount of fear that the D.C. sniper was able to create, with practically zero resources and no coordination.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics