A handy guide for the next terrorist attack in the U.S.

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Some interesting perspective from researchers at National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), showing that most everything you thought about terrorism is exactly wrong:

1. We’re all equally at risk: FALSE Unless you live in a deep blue city, your risk is very low. Nearly 30% of all attacks took place in just 5 counties; Manhattan County, NY (n = 343; 13.1%), followed by Los Angeles County, CA (n = 156; 6.0%), Miami-Dade County, FL (n = 103; 3.9%), San Francisco County, CA (n = 99; 3.8%), and Washington DC (79; 3.0%). The pattern holds even if limiting only to fatal attacks; San Francisco County had the largest number of fatal attacks (n = 22; 9.9%), followed by Manhattan County (n = 15; 6.8%), Los Angeles County (n = 12; 5.4%), Miami-Dade County (n = 10; 4.5%) and Washington DC (n = 8; 3.6%).

2. Islamic fundamentalists are the biggest terrorism concern: FALSE Religiously motivated terrorism is far and away the least common type. Terrorism committed by extremist left wingers (the most common motivation) is 26 times more prevalent than religiously-motivated terror. Guessing right-wing motivation for a terrorist attack is almost always wrong as well, as terrorism by those with extreme right-wing motivations is six times less prevalent than terrorism committed by any of the highest categories of left-wing, ethno-national/separatist, or single-issue motivations.

3.Poverty, racism, and other socio-economic factors are key drivers in terrorism: FALSE Specifically, densely populated areas, areas with a higher proportion of foreign-born residents, a higher proportion of recently foreign-born residents, a higher proportion of non-citizen foreign-born residents, and areas characterized by a higher degree of language diversity are more likely to experience terrorist attacks and ordinary crime. Similarly, residentially stable counties and those with a higher proportion of non-Hispanic white residents are less likely to experience both terrorist attacks and ordinary crime.

4. Private citizens and particularly abortion providers are especially targeted by terrorism: FALSE Businesses are the most frequent targets, followed by Government (General) which doesn’t even include military, police, diplomats, and others who get their own categories and represent the 5th, 6th, and 8th spots. Private Citizens/Property and Abortion-related are a relatively distant third and fourth place, occurring at about one fourth to fifth the rate of businesses depending on timeframe examined.

5. Al Qaeda is the biggest terrorist threat: FALSE Animal rights organizations are by far the most active terror groups currently; with Earth/Animal Liberation Fronts having launched 84 attacks since 2011 compared to 4 for Al Qaeda.


For those needing the tl;dr - Terrorism in the United States is by far most commonly committed in a blue urban area, by someone with extreme left-wing motivations, belonging to an animal rights organization, and against a target that’s a private business.
 
Last edited:

Jimzz

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2012
4,399
190
106
Haha they consider painting a building or attaching a sign a terrorist attack. Whondering how they got so many "terrorist threat"s toward Animal rights organizations.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
Subscribed, this has potential to be a hilarious thread.

On the subject if terrorists wanted to really scare the shit out of people they would start blowing themselves up in Walmarts and McDonald's waiting lines in the middle of nowhere towns.
 

Olikan

Platinum Member
Sep 23, 2011
2,023
275
126
LOL... i thought i was going to see things like....

-don't use bombs.... they aren't that efective as people say, use guns
-kill one person per month... never at the same city
-travel ALOT
-stop beeing dumb :p


well, i have to say... paiting a wall as terrorism is alot funnier
 

Slick5150

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2001
8,760
3
81
This could be the stupidest thread based off the stupidest "study" in the history of stupid.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I glanced through the study. This email chain you got it from picked parts of it without context. If you look at the # of left winged attacks they do indeed outnumber the right winged attacks. But the email chain doesnt mention that from the study it notes most of the left winged attacks happened in the 1970s while right winged attacks happened in the 90s. And that the total amount of attacks since 1970 have completely bottomed out. And attacks from left or right wing seem to reside close to typical ideological homes of these camps. Lefties attack in NY and CA. Righties in TX, MS, OK, and NC. Holy crap these terrorists are too lazy to go bomb their enemies!

One thing you can take from this paper is we are fighting a war on terror at a time when there is nearly no terror within our borders compared to the 1970s. Almost like it is a charade to scare us into giving up liberties and funding police + military boondoggles.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Heh I too am terrified by ALF's non-violent ways. Mental images of rattle spray-can defaced cosmetics labs haunt me every time I take mass transit.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
why does no one have the strength to stand up to these left-wing San Francisco terrorists?

airstrike.jpg
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Sigh.... we have greatly overused the label "terrorism" since 9/11. I'm sorry but people who damage property with no intent to harm people at all should not be considered terrorists. We already have other crimes on the books and words to call them like arsons and vandals. Anything to keep the ole "you should be scared shitless of terrorism" thing going I guess....
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
I glanced through the study. This email chain you got it from picked parts of it without context. If you look at the # of left winged attacks they do indeed outnumber the right winged attacks. But the email chain doesnt mention that from the study it notes most of the left winged attacks happened in the 1970s while right winged attacks happened in the 90s. And that the total amount of attacks since 1970 have completely bottomed out. And attacks from left or right wing seem to reside close to typical ideological homes of these camps. Lefties attack in NY and CA. Righties in TX, MS, OK, and NC. Holy crap these terrorists are too lazy to go bomb their enemies!

One thing you can take from this paper is we are fighting a war on terror at a time when there is nearly no terror within our borders compared to the 1970s. Almost like it is a charade to scare us into giving up liberties and funding police + military boondoggles.

Domestically left wing terrorism is down but I'm not sure about globally and I'm not betting the farm. If I remember the particular article I'll link.
 

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,741
1,030
126
But the extreme Left Wing Terrorist mostly involves public nudity and fur?

Note: This is worse than death for many fear mongers!
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Domestically left wing terrorism is down but I'm not sure about globally and I'm not betting the farm. If I remember the particular article I'll link.

Globally I have no idea. I am just addressing the study this chain email was based on.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
If you actually look at the data here, it's pretty much meaningless, and the conclusions drawn highly misleading.

First of all, the two reports don't agree with each other on some pretty important facts -- like what they are counting and when they claim to have observed events.

Second, you need to look at the dates when the various events occurred -- they are not distributed evenly.

Third, you need to consider the motivations behind the actions, and who was targeted. The vast majority of the instances documented were for specific reasons, and not the sort of terrorism that affects random people of the sort experienced on 9/11 and last Monday.

All in all, just more propaganda for the easily swayed.

ETA: If you want an example of just how useless these studies are, click the second one and look at Table 9. There you will find these stats:

Total attacks between 2001-2011: 97.
Total deaths from attacks: 2,998.

Of those 97, 1 was 9/11, responsible for 2,996 deaths. The other two deaths were by right-wing "minutemen" types. All of the "ELF" type groups combined? Zero.
 
Last edited:

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Does it really matter what private criminals are doing when our own rulers wage war on us and are not held accountable?

I feel sorry for everyone, including myself, if they would trust Hillary Clinton to save them from Al-Qaida without being 10x worse.

Hillary Clinton, Bush, and Reagan waged a (drug) war against the United States which is treason. Hillary Clinton should be on trial for that.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,242
14,242
136
Charles, good points all around. This one leaves me curious:

Total attacks between 2001-2011: 97.
Total deaths from attacks: 2,998.

Of those 97, 1 was 9/11, responsible for 2,996 deaths. The other two deaths were by right-wing "minutemen" types. All of the "ELF" type groups combined? Zero.

If only 2 people died in terrorist attacks apart from 911, then what about, for example, the Fort Hood shooter? My guess is he isn't being labelled a terrorist according to the methodology of this particular study.

The point being that no conclusions can be drawn about any study of "terrorism" until the definitions are well understood.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,774
0
76
Two houses firing cannons at each other, but the same man is holding the torch and lights the flint for both sides. So how is one any better than the other in reality?

Will the world ever figure it out? This forum is supposedly filled with intelligent men, free thinkers, and all I read here is Fox v CNN. It's shocking how well their controls are working, still holding through all of this turmoil.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I glanced through the study. This email chain you got it from picked parts of it without context. If you look at the # of left winged attacks they do indeed outnumber the right winged attacks. But the email chain doesnt mention that from the study it notes most of the left winged attacks happened in the 1970s while right winged attacks happened in the 90s. And that the total amount of attacks since 1970 have completely bottomed out. And attacks from left or right wing seem to reside close to typical ideological homes of these camps. Lefties attack in NY and CA. Righties in TX, MS, OK, and NC. Holy crap these terrorists are too lazy to go bomb their enemies!

One thing you can take from this paper is we are fighting a war on terror at a time when there is nearly no terror within our borders compared to the 1970s. Almost like it is a charade to scare us into giving up liberties and funding police + military boondoggles.

Globally I have no idea. I am just addressing the study this chain email was based on.

No chain email, this was my original commentary based upon the links provided in the OP; in these it appears the data is sourced from the Dept of Homeland Security and the analysis is from the University of Maryland. The definition of what constitutes a terrorist attack can be found here if you care to look rather than speculating about it including spray painting vandalism. For those too lazy to do even that, here are the coding types used to describe incident types:

Attack Type Hierarchy:
1 = Assassination
2 = Hijacking
3 = Kidnapping
4 = Barricade Incident
5 = Bombing/Explosion
6 = Unknown
7 = Armed Assault
8 = Unarmed Assault
9 = Facility/Infrastructure Attack
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Charles, good points all around. This one leaves me curious:



If only 2 people died in terrorist attacks apart from 911, then what about, for example, the Fort Hood shooter? My guess is he isn't being labelled a terrorist according to the methodology of this particular study.

The point being that no conclusions can be drawn about any study of "terrorism" until the definitions are well understood.

Wasn't the Fort Hood shooting declared to not be an act of terrorism? Might be remembering wrong.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,351
1,860
126
100% of terrorism ends in deaths or dismemberment. If it doesn't kill or seriously hurt anybody, it's not terrorism, it's simply "property damage".