On the threat of far-right extremism in the US

by Guest Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:43 pm

From an op-ed piece in Monday’s Roanoke (Virginia) Times:

Last month, federal agents in Maryland arrested a United States Coast Guard officer and said he was plotting to assassinate Democratic members of Congress, prominent television journalists and others. The officer, Lt. Christopher Hasson, apparently inspired by a right-wing Norwegian terrorist who slaughtered 77 people in 2011, stockpiled firearms and ammunition and researched locations around Washington to launch his attacks, according to investigators. Fortunately, the F.B.I. arrested him before he could act.

When news came of Hasson’s arrest, Trump– who has no problems expressing the fiercest outrage at Democrats and even Republicans who oppose him– could only bring himself to call it “a shame” and a “very sad thing.” We don’t have to guess the difference in his reaction if, say, a Muslim had been arrested for plotting to assassinate Republicans.

This frightening case is just one of several recent reminders that white supremacy and far-right extremism are among the greatest domestic-security threats facing the United States.

In 2017, hate crimes, generally defined as criminal acts motivated by the victim’s race, ethnicity, religion, or gender, increased by about 17 percent nationally, to 7,175 from 6,121 (the number of police agencies reporting crimes also rose, by about 6 percent); in my state, Virginia, they were up by nearly 50 percent, to 202 from 137.

Killings committed by individuals and groups associated with far-right extremist groups have risen significantly. Seventy-one percent of the 387 “extremist related fatalities in the United States” from 2008 to 2017 were committed by members of far-right and white-supremacist groups, according the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism. Islamic extremists were responsible for 26 percent.

The rising scourge of domestic hate has been underscored by particularly heinous acts in the past few years. In 2015, an avowed white supremacist murdered nine black congregants at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Last year in Kentucky, a white man with a history of making racist remarks was charged with shooting and killing two African-Americans in their 60s at a grocery store after trying to enter a nearby black church. Several months ago, an assailant shouting anti-Semitic slurs stormed the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh with a semiautomatic rifle and murdered 11 people.

Virginia, too, has experienced extremist violence. In August 2017, several hundred people — mainly young white men heavily influenced by white-nationalist propaganda — converged on Charlottesville, ostensibly to protest the possible removal of Confederate monuments from public parks. Among other odious acts, these “Unite the Right” protesters marched with lighted torches on the campus of the University of Virginia. They chanted “Jews will not replace us!” before attacking a small group of students and counter-protesters at the base of a statue of Thomas Jefferson.

The following day, some of these Unite the Right enthusiasts attacked and injured counter-protesters in Charlottesville. Their violence culminated when a white supremacist from Ohio drove his car into a crowd of people, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer and injuring about 30 others.

You may recall that Trump remarked afterwards— to the disgust of even many Republicans– that there “were very fine people on both sides.”

In 2009, Congress took an important step in arming federal investigators to deal with hate crimes by passing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This law makes it possible to prosecute as hate crimes violent acts committed against victims because of their race, color, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity or disability. The law provides stringent maximum penalties, including life imprisonment, if someone is killed during a hate crime.

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act was approved by Congress and signed by then-President Obama despite the opposition of most Republicans in the House and Senate.
But the author of the op-ed believes the current law doesn’t go far enough.

Given these limitations, elected officials should consider providing law enforcement with additional tools. At the federal level, this could include a domestic-terrorism statute that would allow for the terrorism prosecution of people who commit acts of violence, threats and other criminal activities aimed at intimidating or coercing civilians.

The Trump administration has proposed no such law. After the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre in October, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee called on the Republican chair to hold an emergency hearing on white supremacist- and antisemitic-inspired violence in the US. No such hearing was ever scheduled. One of the many good things about Democrats reclaiming a majority in the House in the 2018 elections is that perhaps such a hearing will finally be held.

What makes this op-ed remarkable is that it was written by Thomas Cullen, US Attorney for the Western District of Virginia, who was nominated to that position by Trump in 2018, and who has no apparent political motive for exaggerating the threat posed by far-right extremism.

http://hurryupharry.org/2019/03/05/on-the-threat-of-far-right-extremism-in-the-us/

by Maddog Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:44 am

Here's how it works. Trump and most Reps are going to use fear of Muslim and foreign terrorists to motivate their base.

Dems will use fear of domestic terrorists, especially white males to motivate their base.

In reality, more Americans will die in horse back accidents than from either kind or terrorist.

But it's hard to politicize fear of horses. So they go back to what works.

by Guest Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:28 am

Maddog wrote:Here's how it works. Trump and most Reps are going to use fear of Muslim and foreign terrorists to motivate their base.

Dems will use fear of domestic terrorists, especially white males to motivate their base.

In reality, more Americans will die in horse back accidents than from either kind or terrorist.

But it's hard to politicize fear of horses. So they go back to what works.

Or you are actually mistaken in your beliefs

I am sure its of small comfort for potential victims of terrorism to know, whilst living in cities. Never ever riding a horse. That you think they have more chance of dying whilst on horseback.

No threat should ever be dismissed as badly as you do

by Guest Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:33 am

Oh and only around 15 people die each year from hose riding accidents

Not even close to the number of fatalities ove the last couple of decades with terrorism

Did you mean attacks by animals, insects stings etc by any chance?

That would have been more accurate

by Maddog Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:52 am

Thor wrote:Oh and only around 15 people die each year from hose riding accidents

Not even close to the number of fatalities ove the last couple of decades with terrorism

Did you mean attacks by animals, insects stings etc by any chance?

That would have been more accurate

I read about 20. How many Americans have been killed by terrorism during the past say 10 years?

by Guest Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:57 am

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:Oh and only around 15 people die each year from hose riding accidents

Not even close to the number of fatalities ove the last couple of decades with terrorism

Did you mean attacks by animals, insects stings etc by any chance?

That would have been more accurate

I read about 20. How many Americans have been killed by terrorism during the past say 10 years?

More than that, but again your reasoning is warped

The chances of someone in a city of dying from a horse accident are basically zero. As most come from actual riding the horse itself

Where as the chances of dying to a terrorist attack, will be significantly higher, than that.

You do realise that?

I mean if you are never going to come even face to face with a horse in most of your daily life, then is a red herring you are presenting.

The point here, is about potential risk of which there is a potential risk from the Far right with terrorism in the US

When people make these comparrisons. They are not properly using risk analysis, for the potential risk of a terrorist attack itself. Its why we have threat levels from low to imminent. Based on the potential risk, of an attack happenning, much of which is based on intelligence work. So the view to compare to other factors, is a poor way of analysis, for the potential risk of terrorism itself

With an imminent threat level. It means what it says on the tin. Where over the last few years our security services have thwarted 12 terrorist attacks since 2017. This does not include the terrorist attacks, that were not thwarted. So you cannot base this off the number of fatalities or injuries from previous attacks. Its based on the potential risk of an attack. Where clearly in the UK, the risk is very high of such an attack. Imagine if those attacks were successful, as some others actually were?

You ignore this at your peril

by veya_victaous Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:25 am

Although the inverse is also true too.. if you spend all your time out in the country with horses you're far less likely to die in a terrorist attack
On the threat of far-right extremism in the US 3893789544

On the threat of far-right extremism in the US 3893789544

by Maddog Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:38 pm

veya_victaous wrote:Although the inverse is also true too.. if you spend all your time out in the country with horses you're far less likely to die in a terrorist attack

Exactly. And I wasn't splitting people into groups but taking the nation as a whole.

Also, people in the city ride horses and folks that live out in the country go to large events in the city.

But my point is that terrorism is divided into left and right, foreign and domestic and both sides use it for political expediency and overstate the real risks to the public to garner support.

Fear works. Trump uses it all the time. It's why is supporters want the wall so bad. People are convinced that we are being overrun by an invading army of criminals.

by Guest Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:50 pm

Maddog wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:Although the inverse is also true too.. if you spend all your time out in the country with horses you're far less likely to die in a terrorist attack
Exactly. And I wasn't splitting people into groups but taking the nation as a whole.

Also, people in the city ride horses and folks that live out in the country go to large events in the city.

But my point is that terrorism is divided into left and right, foreign and domestic and both sides use it for political expediency and overstate the real risks to the public to garner support.

Fear works. Trump uses it all the time. It's why is supporters want the wall so bad. People are convinced that we are being overrun by an invading army of criminals.

Actually the point is you simple dont understand risk analysis

The reality is a present threat to the nation through

Hence the view to go off what possible might kill people whether naturally or unnaturally, fails to understand the potential of risk

For example a person of 20 years of age, is far les like to be killed by cancer or a heart attack and this is reflected in life insurance policies. Though looking at terroris and its threat levels is not based on the invidual but the threat to the state itself.

Again only people living in certain parts of the US are at a higher risk of becoming victims of severe weath systems, like Tornadoes and others will never even likley become a risk factor with them

Where as anyone can be a potential target to terrorism in the US, though more so with cities

Hence they look at the nation being a target to possible attacks. Which is often based on sound intelligence

Hence again going off previous successful terrorist attacks. Also fails to go off the full potential damage of successfully thwarted terrorist attacks. Just because something ends up being thwarted, you cannot be reliant this will always happens. Its the same with Israel's Iron Dome. Just because it is succesful in bringing many rockets down, it does not bring them all down. Which is why its needed by the IDF to target rocket sites.

The reality is you simple are not understanding risk analysis based on an actual terrorist threat and are looking at the threat to the individual and not the state itself.

by Maddog Wed Mar 06, 2019 4:11 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Exactly. And I wasn't splitting people into groups but taking the nation as a whole.

Also, people in the city ride horses and folks that live out in the country go to large events in the city.

But my point is that terrorism is divided into left and right, foreign and domestic and both sides use it for political expediency and overstate the real risks to the public to garner support.

Fear works. Trump uses it all the time. It's why is supporters want the wall so bad. People are convinced that we are being overrun by an invading army of criminals.

Actually the point is you simple dont understand risk analysis

The reality is a present threat to the nation through

Hence the view to go off what possible might kill people whether naturally or unnaturally, fails to understand the potential of risk

For example a person of 20 years of age, is far les like to be killed by cancer or a heart attack and this is reflected in life insurance policies. Though looking at terroris and its threat levels is not based on the invidual but the threat to the state itself.

Again only people living in certain parts of the US are at a higher risk of becoming victims of severe weath systems, like Tornadoes and others will never even likley become a risk factor with them

Where as anyone can be a potential target to terrorism in the US, though more so with cities

Hence they look at the nation being a target to possible attacks. Which is often based on sound intelligence

Hence again going off previous successful terrorist attacks. Also fails to go off the full potential damage of successfully thwarted terrorist attacks. Just because something ends up being thwarted, you cannot be reliant this will always happens. Its the same with Israel's Iron Dome. Just because it is succesful in bringing many rockets down, it does not bring them all down. Which is why its needed by the IDF to target rocket sites.

The reality is you simple are not understanding risk analysis based on an actual terrorist threat and are looking at the threat to the individual and not the state itself.

Im still not afraid of terrorism.
Or guns.
Or immigrants.
Or corporations.
Or insurance companies.

And I understand risk analysis and think only a dick would suggest otherwise based on my comments.

Perhaps you simply dont understand what being a dick is?

Rolling Eyes

by Guest Wed Mar 06, 2019 4:18 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

Actually the point is you simple dont understand risk analysis

The reality is a present threat to the nation through

Hence the view to go off what possible might kill people whether naturally or unnaturally, fails to understand the potential of risk

For example a person of 20 years of age, is far les like to be killed by cancer or a heart attack and this is reflected in life insurance policies. Though looking at terroris and its threat levels is not based on the invidual but the threat to the state itself.

Again only people living in certain parts of the US are at a higher risk of becoming victims of severe weath systems, like Tornadoes and others will never even likley become a risk factor with them

Where as anyone can be a potential target to terrorism in the US, though more so with cities

Hence they look at the nation being a target to possible attacks. Which is often based on sound intelligence

Hence again going off previous successful terrorist attacks. Also fails to go off the full potential damage of successfully thwarted terrorist attacks. Just because something ends up being thwarted, you cannot be reliant this will always happens. Its the same with Israel's Iron Dome. Just because it is succesful in bringing many rockets down, it does not bring them all down. Which is why its needed by the IDF to target rocket sites.

The reality is you simple are not understanding risk analysis based on an actual terrorist threat and are looking at the threat to the individual and not the state itself.

Im still not afraid of terrorism.
Or guns.
Or immigrants.
Or corporations.
Or insurance companies.

And I understand risk analysis and think only a dick would suggest otherwise based on my comments.

Perhaps you simply dont understand what being a dick is?

Who is telling you to be afraid of terrorism?

Nobody, the point is showing the growing rise of domestic terrorism, which should not be ignored away lightly. As you seem to think this is about politics

If you were told to stay indoors, due to a severe weather warning. Would you heed that warning or place yourself in harms way?

Nobody here is telling you to stay indoords based on the growing threat

So as much as you resort to immature replies. Its very important to tackle a growing problem of Far Right Terrorism. To minimise that risk.

Or have you not grasped that important point in regards to tackling terrorism?

Where if we did not try to minimise the risk, then you would see countless succesful terrorist attacks. Hence you are not grasping the importance and concern of the growing threat of Far Right terrorism.

Like I say. Your view, simple cannot comprehend the risk and you clearly do not understand based on your immature replies. Due to again you failing to understand this is based on risk analysis to the nation with terrorism.

So maybe the real problem here, is how you interpret terrorist threats

by Maddog Wed Mar 06, 2019 4:36 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Im still not afraid of terrorism.
Or guns.
Or immigrants.
Or corporations.
Or insurance companies.

And I understand risk analysis and think only a dick would suggest otherwise based on my comments.

Perhaps you simply dont understand what being a dick is?

Who is telling you to be afraid of terrorism?

Nobody, the point is showing the growing rise of domestic terrorism, which should not be ignored away lightly. As you seem to think this is about politics

If you were told to stay indoors, due to a severe weather warning. Would you heed that warning or place yourself in harms way?

Nobody here is telling you to stay indoords based on the growing threat

So as much as you resort to immature replies. Its very important to tackle a growing problem of Far Right Terrorism. To minimise that risk.

Or have you not grasped that important point in regards to tackling terrorism?

Like I say. Your view, simple cannot comprehend the risk and you clearly do not understand based on your immature replies. Due to again you failing to understand this is based on risk analysis to the nation with terrorism.

So maybe the real problem here, is how you interpret terrorist threats

Its important to understand risk, and not let fear manipulate you.

It's called perspective. Let's say my risk goes from one in ten million to one in a million. My risk has increased ten times. But it's still infinitesimal.

And no, I dont stay indoors during tornado warnings.

And my responses will reflect someone being condescending towards me. Dont set that tone and we will be fine.

by Guest Wed Mar 06, 2019 4:41 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

Who is telling you to be afraid of terrorism?

Nobody, the point is showing the growing rise of domestic terrorism, which should not be ignored away lightly. As you seem to think this is about politics

If you were told to stay indoors, due to a severe weather warning. Would you heed that warning or place yourself in harms way?

Nobody here is telling you to stay indoords based on the growing threat

So as much as you resort to immature replies. Its very important to tackle a growing problem of Far Right Terrorism. To minimise that risk.

Or have you not grasped that important point in regards to tackling terrorism?

Like I say. Your view, simple cannot comprehend the risk and you clearly do not understand based on your immature replies. Due to again you failing to understand this is based on risk analysis to the nation with terrorism.

So maybe the real problem here, is how you interpret terrorist threats
Its important to understand risk, and not let fear manipulate you.

It's called perspective. Let's say my risk goes from one in ten million to one in a million. My risk has increased ten times. But it's still infinitesimal.

And no, I dont stay indoors during tornado warnings.

And my responses will reflect someone being condescending towards me. Dont set that tone and we will be fine.

Still not grasping it and again not going off an understanding of a terrorist threat levels. Is not abount inducing fear, but to understand the growing threat and use methods to minimise that threat

So why are you not able to see the perspective?

Here in the Uk, we have lived under the threat of terrorism for decades from the IRA and islamic terrorism. More so in places like London and yet nobody is in fear to go outside. They carry on with their daily lives, but also become more vigilant to said terrorism. By report something suspicious to the Police.

I was not being condscending and you resorted to abuse. Showing it was you annoyed more so at me pointing out the flaws in your reponse

The reality is this, which again you seem to fail to grasp

If there is a rise in level of threats. Its to make people more vigilant, not more scared. The reality is, this also helps the Police and security services thwart more terrorist attacks. To minimise the risk.

So you need to learn to take some criticism of your views

by Maddog Wed Mar 06, 2019 4:49 pm

There is a slight rise in far right terrorism in the US.

I agree with that statement.

I also know that politicians will exploit and exaggerate that risk, unless they come from the right and then they will ignore it. Like Trump is doing.

by Guest Wed Mar 06, 2019 4:53 pm

Maddog wrote:There is a slight rise in far right terrorism in the US.

I agree with that statement.

I also know that politicians will exploit and exaggerate that risk, unless they come from the right and then they will ignore it. Like Trump is doing.

Okay so your view is that some politicians will exploit this and I understand that is also a problem

Does that mean, we should then ignore the threat or take it seriously and look to minimise the threat Maddog?

If you think people are exploiting this for political gain. Then call them out over this and you will have my backing.

by Maddog Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:26 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:There is a slight rise in far right terrorism in the US.

I agree with that statement.

I also know that politicians will exploit and exaggerate that risk, unless they come from the right and then they will ignore it. Like Trump is doing.

Okay so your view is that some politicians will exploit this and I understand that is also a problem

Does that mean, we should then ignore the threat or take it seriously and look to minimise the threat Maddog?

If you think people are exploiting this for political gain. Then call them out over this and you will have my backing.

This had been my point since the first post. That and the threat is still minimal in terms of all the threats we face as humans.

You seemed to be suggesting that Trump was ignoring the right wing threats. I simply stated that that's how it works. He's only going to drone on and exaggerate about foreign threats because that's what his base wants to hear.

by Guest Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:35 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

Okay so your view is that some politicians will exploit this and I understand that is also a problem

Does that mean, we should then ignore the threat or take it seriously and look to minimise the threat Maddog?

If you think people are exploiting this for political gain. Then call them out over this and you will have my backing.

This had been my point since the first post. That and the threat is still minimal in terms of all the threats we face as humans.

You seemed to be suggesting that Trump was ignoring the right wing threats. I simply stated that that's how it works. He's only going to drone on and exaggerate about foreign threats because that's what his base wants to hear.

Come again?

I made no view on any Politician or Trump

So lets be fair. You actually tried to down play the threat based off what you saw as valid comparrisons. Which I then thought was poorly concieved and then reasoned as to why.

A terrorist threat to a nation not been minimal with the likes of the US and Britain for example in decades. The risk of possible harm to an individual is minimal and is based on pot luck where they might end up being at the time of an attack. Again you are confusing two different risk values. Where there is a high risk of a terrorist attack, whether domestically or foreign in the US.

The current level for example in the UK for Interntational terrorism is Severe.
The threat from Northern Ireland is Moderate to the Uk but is likely to increase based off the last couple of days
The actual level in Northern Ireland is Severe

Here is the levels:

LOW means an attack is unlikely.
MODERATE means an attack is possible, but not likely
SUBSTANTIAL means an attack is a strong possibility
SEVERE means an attack is highly likely
CRITICAL means an attack is expected imminently

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/threat-levels

So to claim the threat is minimal is incorrect.

by Ben Reilly Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:44 pm

Speaking as an American Democrat, I haven't once voted out of fear of white men carrying out domestic terrorism. Unless you're implying that Republicans wouldn't punish them, I don't see a reason for that to be a motivating factor.

Democrats campaign emphasizing making life more fair for the average American, who earns less than $70,000 a year and is having more and more trouble getting by even as as the economy surges.

by Original Quill Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:51 pm

Ben wrote:I haven't once voted out of fear of white men carrying out domestic terrorism. Unless you're implying that Republicans wouldn't punish them, I don't see a reason for that to be a motivating factor.

Well...but, that's pretty much what the Republican Party has turned into. Just an extension of the Trump organized crime family, spreading out a protective shield.

by Guest Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:03 pm

Maddog wrote:Here's how it works. Trump and most Reps are going to use fear of Muslim and foreign terrorists to motivate their base.

Dems will use fear of domestic terrorists, especially white males to motivate their base.

In reality, more Americans will die in horse back accidents than from either kind or terrorist.

But it's hard to politicize fear of horses. So they go back to what works.

Unless the Muslims pull another 9/11.

That result in a shit load of Americans dying, not only in the towers but in the wars that followed and have changed the way of life of millions across the western world.

Or a marauding attack like in France, maurading attacks increasing the chances of the average Joe within that area.

Not sure how many horses can cause multiple deaths in a oner or change an entire way of life of an advanced civilization.

by Maddog Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:24 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Maddog wrote:Here's how it works. Trump and most Reps are going to use fear of Muslim and foreign terrorists to motivate their base.

Dems will use fear of domestic terrorists, especially white males to motivate their base.

In reality, more Americans will die in horse back accidents than from either kind or terrorist.

But it's hard to politicize fear of horses. So they go back to what works.

Unless the Muslims pull another 9/11.

That result in a shit load of Americans dying, not only in the towers but in the wars that followed and have changed the way of life of millions across the western world.

Or a marauding attack like in France, maurading attacks increasing the chances of the average Joe within that area.

Not sure how many horses can cause multiple deaths in a oner or change an entire way of life of an advanced civilization.

I'm sure we will have another Muslim terrorist attack and something like OK City. It's the price of living in a free society.

Sometimes the bastards get through.

A prison is a very secure place, yet somehow drugs find their way in. Murder and rapes occur. So I see little value in living in prison like conditions where everything we do is scrutinized by our "guards".

by Guest Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:28 pm

Maddog wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Unless the Muslims pull another 9/11.

That result in a shit load of Americans dying, not only in the towers but in the wars that followed and have changed the way of life of millions across the western world.

Or a marauding attack like in France, maurading attacks increasing the chances of the average Joe within that area.

Not sure how many horses can cause multiple deaths in a oner or change an entire way of life of an advanced civilization.

I'm sure we will have another Muslim terrorist attack and something like OK City. It's the price of living in a free society.

Sometimes the bastards get through.

A prison is a very secure place, yet somehow drugs find their way in. Murder and rapes occur. So I see little value in living in prison like conditions where everything we do is scrutinized by our "guards".

You are not grasping his point are you mate

Where as a school shooting may see maybe 20-30 deaths and its based around and centred on the school

A terrorism attack is centered on causing a maximum carnage outcome, to induce terror

We can look at he very worst scenarios

For example, a suicide bomber having access to a nuke, dirty bomb or chemical weapon

What would be the fatality rate based on that reality?

Again this is why you ae not actually factoring potential risk and i am simple providing worse case scenarios.

The reality is though based on a risk of an attack, as a threat

by Maddog Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:29 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I'm sure we will have another Muslim terrorist attack and something like OK City. It's the price of living in a free society.

Sometimes the bastards get through.

A prison is a very secure place, yet somehow drugs find their way in. Murder and rapes occur. So I see little value in living in prison like conditions where everything we do is scrutinized by our "guards".

You are not grasping his point are you mate

Where as a school shooting may see maybe 20-30 deaths and its based around and centred on the school

A terrorism attack is centered on causing a maximum carnage outcome, to induce terror

We can look at he very worst scenarios

For example, a suicide bomber having access to a nuke, dirty bomb or chemical weapon

What would be the fatality rate based on that reality?

Again this is why you ae not actually factoring potential risk and i am simple providing worse case scenarios.

The reality is though based on a risk of an attack

I get the point.

Do you know what the point of terrorism is?

by Guest Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:34 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

You are not grasping his point are you mate

Where as a school shooting may see maybe 20-30 deaths and its based around and centred on the school

A terrorism attack is centered on causing a maximum carnage outcome, to induce terror

We can look at he very worst scenarios

For example, a suicide bomber having access to a nuke, dirty bomb or chemical weapon

What would be the fatality rate based on that reality?

Again this is why you ae not actually factoring potential risk and i am simple providing worse case scenarios.

The reality is though based on a risk of an attack

I get the point.

Do you know what the point of terrorism is?

Yes

To use terror to instill a fear in people

Its certainly never worked in the UK, that has suffered decades of terrorist attacks

Its why people rally around and say they will not bow down to terror

Its why the terrorists have never achieved their goal in the UK, whether they have been political or religious

They have got on with their lives but also become more vigilant to terrorist threats

Its why the way to defeat terrorism is by not bowing down to this and also taking the threats seriously

by Maddog Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:40 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I get the point.

Do you know what the point of terrorism is?

Yes

To use terror to instill a fear in people

Its certainly never worked in the UK, that has suffered decades of terrorist attacks

Its why people rally around and say they will not bow down to terror

Its why the terrorists have never achieved their goal in the UK, whether they have been political or religious

They have got on with their lives but also become more vigilant to terrorist threats

Its why the way to defeat terrorism is by not bowing down to this and also taking the threats seriously

What does taking a threat seriously mean?

by Guest Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:45 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

Yes

To use terror to instill a fear in people

Its certainly never worked in the UK, that has suffered decades of terrorist attacks

Its why people rally around and say they will not bow down to terror

Its why the terrorists have never achieved their goal in the UK, whether they have been political or religious

They have got on with their lives but also become more vigilant to terrorist threats

Its why the way to defeat terrorism is by not bowing down to this and also taking the threats seriously

What does taking a threat seriously mean?

Well for example we now live under a severe threat level

That means its highly likely to happen and based on actual attacks and even more that have been thwarted over the last couple of years. That has seen countless convictions

Its also based on sound intelligence

So taking a threat seriously is based on a number of factors

The potential risk, of this happening

Based off this around actual intelligence

Based off the number of poterntial extremist terrorists

So why would you not take that seriously when we have thwarted and stopped countless terrorist attempts that go into double figures over a couple of years? Let alone the ones that succedeed.

If you had intelligence that someone intended to shoot countless school children, based off thier extreme beliefs. Would you take that threat seriously and investigate or ignore?

by Maddog Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:12 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:

What does taking a threat seriously mean?

Well for example we now live under a severe threat level

That means its highly likely to happen and based on actual attacks and even more that have been thwarted over the last couple of years. That has seen countless convictions

Its also based on sound intelligence

So taking a threat seriously is based on a number of factors

The potential risk, of this happening

Based off this around actual intelligence

Based off the number of poterntial extremist terrorists

So why would you not take that seriously when we have thwarted and stopped countless terrorist attempts that go into double figures over a couple of years? Let alone the ones that succedeed.

If you had intelligence that someone intended to shoot countless school children, based off thier extreme beliefs. Would you take that threat seriously and investigate or ignore?

I would take evidence of any potential crime seriously.

That's different than saying even under an elevated terrorist threat, you are still extremely safe.

by Guest Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:18 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

Well for example we now live under a severe threat level

That means its highly likely to happen and based on actual attacks and even more that have been thwarted over the last couple of years. That has seen countless convictions

Its also based on sound intelligence

So taking a threat seriously is based on a number of factors

The potential risk, of this happening

Based off this around actual intelligence

Based off the number of poterntial extremist terrorists

So why would you not take that seriously when we have thwarted and stopped countless terrorist attempts that go into double figures over a couple of years? Let alone the ones that succedeed.

If you had intelligence that someone intended to shoot countless school children, based off thier extreme beliefs. Would you take that threat seriously and investigate or ignore?

I would take evidence of any potential crime seriously.

That's different than saying even under an elevated terrorist threat, you are still extremely safe.

But nobody is safe based under a potential threat, are they?

Again its based on minimising that risk

You do understand that mate?

by Maddog Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:20 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I would take evidence of any potential crime seriously.

That's different than saying even under an elevated terrorist threat, you are still extremely safe.

But nobody is safe based under a potential threat, are they?

Again its based on minimising that risk

You do understand that mate?

If my odds of death go from one in ten million, to one in a million, am I still relatively safe?

by Guest Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:36 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

But nobody is safe based under a potential threat, are they?

Again its based on minimising that risk

You do understand that mate?

If my odds of death go from one in ten million, to one in a million, am I still relatively safe?

Have you added into this the element of luck?

You could sadly find out tomorrow, based on you never knowing you have a heart and lung condition

A friend had this when she turned 18. Its called pulmonary hypertension and at the age of 20. She has had a double lung transplant

Odds is simple based on time, knowlegde and potential risk

Your odds go up and down based on the situation you find yourself in

One thing that stays fairly constant in the last few decades, is the level of terrorist threat in the US and the UK

by veya_victaous Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:47 am

But the threat level words are arbitrary for example

Our terrorist one versus our fire one
On the threat of far-right extremism in the US Retrievemedia

On the threat of far-right extremism in the US Retrievemedia

On the threat of far-right extremism in the US Kb60PGd

by veya_victaous Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:51 am

the problem is you have to have something to base it on, if you compare the UK threat level to Syria it is very low

Out fire one is based on 'European exceptions'...

by Guest Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:11 am

veya_victaous wrote:the problem is you have to have something to base it on, if you compare the UK threat level to Syria it is very low

Out fire one is based on 'European exceptions'...

Again that is a really poor way of doing this, where in fact that country has been at war.

All you could really say is the threat in Syria is Iminnet, when the Uk is severe. Thus there is already a distinction. Where each country will have their own unique situation. For example the chances of an IRA attack in Syria, is zero. In Northern Ireland, the level is severe. In Britain it is moderate. In both the Islamic terrorism threat is severe. Hence you need to factor many things, based on the actual threat to each area.

This is based on the threat level for this country. In this case either the US or Britain based on sound intelligence. Based on information of known threats. By known terororist groups. So the threat levels is already based on something. The threat to this country. Which has been at severe for sometime. Its why again you cannot possible go off a fatality count. But the potential casualty rate. Which in many cases such terrorist acts, have the potential to cause huge carnage. Its why threats are not based off casulaty rates in previous attacks. As they are all generally different in their methods. Its based on the pontential threat to the country itself.

We know that such attacks can be from as minimal casulty rates like stabbings to the worst case sceanrio, of a dirty bomb, chemcial weapon or the worst a nuke terrorist attack. Its like I say over the last couple of years there has been terrorist attacks and a large number thwarted. Hence the threat is taken seriously and rightly so, which is why we are generally very successful in thwarting attacks. Due to the Uk taking the threat rightly serious. If we did not, then its more likely all those attacks would have succeeded and would give licience for more to attempt doing so.

by veya_victaous Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:57 am

Thor wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:the problem is you have to have something to base it on, if you compare the UK threat level to Syria it is very low

Out fire one is based on 'European exceptions'...

Again that is a really poor way of doing this, where in fact that country has been at war.

All you could really say is the threat in Syria is Iminnet, when the Uk is severe. Thus there is already a distinction. Where each country will have their own unique situation. For example the chances of an IRA attack in Syria, is zero. In Northern Ireland, the level is severe. In Britain it is moderate. In both the Islamic terrorism threat is severe. Hence you need to factor many things, based on the actual threat to each area.

This is based on the threat level for this country. In this case either the US or Britain based on sound intelligence. Based on information of known threats. By known terororist groups. So the threat levels is already based on something. The threat to this country. Which has been at severe for sometime. Its why again you cannot possible go off a fatality count. But the potential casualty rate. Which in many cases such terrorist acts, have the potential to cause huge carnage. Its why threats are not based off casulaty rates in previous attacks. As they are all generally different in their methods. Its based on the pontential threat to the country itself.

We know that such attacks can be from as minimal casulty rates like stabbings to the worst case sceanrio, of a dirty bomb, chemcial weapon or the worst a nuke terrorist attack. Its like I say over the last couple of years there has been terrorist attacks and a large number thwarted. Hence the threat is taken seriously and rightly so, which is why we are generally very successful in thwarting attacks. Due to the Uk taking the threat rightly serious. If we did not, then its more likely all those attacks would have succeeded and would give licience for more to attempt doing so.

What percentage is serve? Suspect

by veya_victaous Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:59 am

the problem with the UK system is it seems that 0.5% to 95% chance is all rated serve

by Guest Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:01 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Thor wrote:

Again that is a really poor way of doing this, where in fact that country has been at war.

All you could really say is the threat in Syria is Iminnet, when the Uk is severe. Thus there is already a distinction. Where each country will have their own unique situation. For example the chances of an IRA attack in Syria, is zero. In Northern Ireland, the level is severe. In Britain it is moderate. In both the Islamic terrorism threat is severe. Hence you need to factor many things, based on the actual threat to each area.

This is based on the threat level for this country. In this case either the US or Britain based on sound intelligence. Based on information of known threats. By known terororist groups. So the threat levels is already based on something. The threat to this country. Which has been at severe for sometime. Its why again you cannot possible go off a fatality count. But the potential casualty rate. Which in many cases such terrorist acts, have the potential to cause huge carnage. Its why threats are not based off casulaty rates in previous attacks. As they are all generally different in their methods. Its based on the pontential threat to the country itself.

We know that such attacks can be from as minimal casulty rates like stabbings to the worst case sceanrio, of a dirty bomb, chemcial weapon or the worst a nuke terrorist attack. Its like I say over the last couple of years there has been terrorist attacks and a large number thwarted. Hence the threat is taken seriously and rightly so, which is why we are generally very successful in thwarting attacks. Due to the Uk taking the threat rightly serious. If we did not, then its more likely all those attacks would have succeeded and would give licience for more to attempt doing so.

What percentage is serve?

LOW means an attack is unlikely.
MODERATE means an attack is possible, but not likely
SUBSTANTIAL means an attack is a strong possibility
SEVERE means an attack is highly likely
CRITICAL means an attack is expected imminently

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/threat-levels

by veya_victaous Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:02 pm

and by my fire chart exceptions 'Serve' is most of summer tongue

we still have extreme and catastrophic to go, no need to be too worried Razz

by Guest Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:03 pm

veya_victaous wrote:the problem with the UK system is it seems that 0.5% to 95% chance is all rated serve

Seems?

Based on the number of attacks and thwarted attacks in the last couple of years, the chances have been is clearly in the 90%

by Guest Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:06 pm

veya_victaous wrote:and by my fire chart exceptions 'Serve' is most of summer

we still have extreme and catastrophic to go, no need to be too worried

That is because such natural disasters, have different levels of potential damage.

Hence why you have the category of castastrophic

There is already going to be said forest fires each year thus the potential for them is 100%. In other words iminent

Hence your forest fire levels, is based differently on the pontential possible harm caused

Big difference and hence your confusion here

Terrorism is based on a potential threat

Your system of forest fires is based on potential harm

by veya_victaous Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:07 pm

Thor wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Thor wrote:

Again that is a really poor way of doing this, where in fact that country has been at war.

All you could really say is the threat in Syria is Iminnet, when the Uk is severe. Thus there is already a distinction. Where each country will have their own unique situation. For example the chances of an IRA attack in Syria, is zero. In Northern Ireland, the level is severe. In Britain it is moderate. In both the Islamic terrorism threat is severe. Hence you need to factor many things, based on the actual threat to each area.

This is based on the threat level for this country. In this case either the US or Britain based on sound intelligence. Based on information of known threats. By known terororist groups. So the threat levels is already based on something. The threat to this country. Which has been at severe for sometime. Its why again you cannot possible go off a fatality count. But the potential casualty rate. Which in many cases such terrorist acts, have the potential to cause huge carnage. Its why threats are not based off casulaty rates in previous attacks. As they are all generally different in their methods. Its based on the pontential threat to the country itself.

We know that such attacks can be from as minimal casulty rates like stabbings to the worst case sceanrio, of a dirty bomb, chemcial weapon or the worst a nuke terrorist attack. Its like I say over the last couple of years there has been terrorist attacks and a large number thwarted. Hence the threat is taken seriously and rightly so, which is why we are generally very successful in thwarting attacks. Due to the Uk taking the threat rightly serious. If we did not, then its more likely all those attacks would have succeeded and would give licience for more to attempt doing so.

What percentage is serve?

LOW means an attack is unlikely.
MODERATE means an attack is possible, but not likely
SUBSTANTIAL means an attack is a strong possibility
SEVERE means an attack is highly likely
CRITICAL means an attack is expected imminently

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/threat-levels

In terms that can actually be used to calculate risk in a universally applicable function (a.k.a scientific logic)
like a numeric percentage, fraction... even in the bookies format gambling odds is fine Wink

by Guest Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:09 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Thor wrote:

LOW means an attack is unlikely.
MODERATE means an attack is possible, but not likely
SUBSTANTIAL means an attack is a strong possibility
SEVERE means an attack is highly likely
CRITICAL means an attack is expected imminently

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/threat-levels

In terms that can actually be used to calculate risk in a universally applicable function (a.k.a scientific logic)
like a numeric percentage, fraction... even in the bookies format gambling odds is fine

Well there has been over a dozen attacks thwarted in the last 18 months, let alone attacks that succeded

So they very much used mathematics based on the odds, based on the known number of suspect terrorists they are monitoring, through intelligence

In this case it easily falls into around 90%

by Sponsored content