2014 May 17 Saturday
Rising Global Terrorist Death Toll?
Governments no longer fight each other very much. But these numbers by former NSA chief General Keith Alexander indie political violence is growing.
The number of terrorist attacks in 2012ódo you know how many there were globally?
Six thousand seven hundred and seventy-one. Over ten thousand people killed. In 2013, it would grow to over ten thousand terrorist attacks and over twenty thousand people killed.
At the 20,000 per year death toll rate it would take nearly 100 years to equal the death toll of the battle for Stalingrad in World War II. It would only take about 15 to 55 years to equal the death toll from Julius Caesar's pacification of Gaul.
Keith Alexander thinks we are at greater risk of terrorist attack if we do not use lots of computers to process through communications to discover terrorist plots.
What I would like to know: Will terrorist attacks become more deadly in the future? Will they even become more deadly in Western countries?
What I'd also like to know: is there some level of terrorist attacks at which the American government would become a lot more choosy over who it lets into the country? What is that level? Will we reach it some day?
By Randall Parker at 2014 May 17 08:45 PM
It would help matters a lot of there were definitions of "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" that was mutually exclusive since the connotation of "terrorist" clearly excludes "freedom fighter".
But then, of course, we already use the word "fighter" during interrogations of suspected "terrorists" as in "Are you a fighter? Answer or we'll waterboard you."
See, what people don't get is that connotation laden words aren't really words at all -- they're pheromones of the hive mind. Funny how that works.
If you include the US government as a rogue, terrorist state, as you should, the death toll is much higher.
> Will terrorist attacks become even more deadly in Western countries?
If a group wants to be more effective, they'll have their attacks conceived of and designed by Western converts to their cause. The unsubtle SOP of al Qaeda et all seems to be "Try to kill lotsa infidels spectacularly." The shelves at Barnes & Noble include dozens of thriller novels where the evildoers execute plans with much greater impact.
> Is there some level of terrorist attacks at which the American government would become a lot more choosy over who it lets into the country?
No. The West's self-hating and elite-enlists-bottom-against-the-middle immigration policies have already created dozens of communities with animus against the host society, and sympathy for violent redress. Sensible "stop digging" advice is already countered by point-and-sputter, "But, they're Americans, too!" and "Restriction wouldn't help, since we are facing home-grown terrorism."
" 1) Governments no longer fight each other very much.
2) Will terrorist attacks become more deadly in the future?
3) Will they even become more deadly in Western countries?
4) What I'd also like to know: is there some level of terrorist attacks at which the American government would become a lot more choosy over who it lets into the country? What is that level? Will we reach it some day?"
1) Governments still fight each other by more indirect means, by encouraging terrorism as a more diffuse form of guerrilla warfare: various foreign governments are already funding terrorist organizations, most notably Persian Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, if resource wars escalate in the future, it is possible that rival superpowers might aggressively fund terrorist organizations in order to weaken the US and EU in anticipation of a big war.
2) Terrorist attacks will almost certainly become more deadly in the future because powerful weapons are becoming more available. It is a certainty that very toxic chemicals and bacteria will become available to terrorists who will be able to paralyze population centers in America and Europe. Even .50 caliber sniper rifles are becoming quite available to terrorists who can accurately shoot a politician from 3,000 feet away, and from that range it is impossible to prevent such an assassination if the terrorists are not afraid of getting caught.
3) But the more relevant question is this: will terrorists have a good reason to attempt more deadly attacks in the US and EU, and if so, what will they gain from such actions? Let's note carefully that the 9/11/2011 attack and the destruction of the World Trade Center was obviously a trap to force the US to fight costly and ruinous wars in remote countries like Afganistan, Iraq, etc., and this trap worked very successfully, in such a way that the Jihadi terrorists attained their goal of weakening the American influence in the Middle East. Based on this logic, I would assume that since the US is pulling out of Afghanistan, it is likely that there will be more deadly terrorist attack aimed at forcing the US back into more guerrilla wars in the Middle East, which will bankrupt the US.
4) Even the EU is already becoming more choosy about immigration. For instance, Denmark already has made immigration very restrictive, and here is a detailed article that describes the new laws:
Separately, many conservative parties are gaining ground in Europe, and next week the 2014 European Parliament Elections will take place, where it is expected that the far-right parties will gain more popularity:
The US already has a fairly restrictive immigration policy, and only about 0.8 % of the US population is Muslim (this figure includes the African American Muslims). The 9/11 attack was carried out by foreign visitors who were not immigrants. Such terrorists can infiltrate the US even without student visas, by using the Mexican border. In fact, it was reported in the media that Al Qaeda terrorists studied Spanish in order to pretend that they are Hispanic Mexicans in the United States. So a new dimension of the future "immigration reform" would involve tracking the tens of millions of illegal aliens who are lurking around without documentation.
"At the 20,000 per year death toll rate it would take nearly 100 years to equal the death toll of the battle for Stalingrad in World War II. It would only take about 15 to 55 years to equal the death toll from Julius Caesar's pacification of Gaul."
Well, we're a lot more now. I mean today you can fit in a stadium all the population of Rome during Julius Caesar's times. The World Trade Center alone could hold thousands in a very small land area. The subway trains in NY can hold thousands at rush hour. An every-day traffic jam in L.A. now has far more people than in the capitals of the greatest empires ever had.
So, if there's really such a thing as "international terrorism", which I doubt, it's a good idea to stay away from big cities and big crowds. That's all. There are of course tornados, earhquakes and lightning bolts in small villages, but just like "terrorism", no big deal. Furthermore, although there's crime, accidents, civil wars and stupid neanderthal policemen, the greatest killers of humans are not other humans, but mosquitos, bacteria, virus, high fructose, nicotin and fat.
Don't lose any sleep over "terrorist attacks"
"No. The West's self-hating and elite-enlists-bottom-against-the-middle immigration policies have already created dozens of communities with animus against the host society, and sympathy for violent redress."
This is ridiculous, the Western elite has many, many problems but any sort of "self-hatred" isn't one of them. They certainly seem to hate you, me, and most of ethnically Christian America but they absolutely don't hate themselves or other people in the elite class.
Let me take the liberty of rewording what he meant to say: "No. The West's middle, indoctrinated to self-hatred by the elites, join with the elites and the bottom in genocide by manufactured-consent against the middle. This process, already nearly a half-century along, has already created dozens of communities with animus against the host society, and sympathy for violent redress."
"[I]s there some level of terrorist attacks at which the American government would become a lot more choosy over who it lets into the country? What is that level? Will we reach it some day?"
We will reach it when the terrorists manage to kill large numbers of congressmen and/or billionaires. So long as it's poor working schmucks at a marathon, or even the somewhat richer working schmucks in the World Trade Center, the answer is "No way in hell."
Immigration from unfriendly countries is a useful tool to justify the Surveillance State: "We have to spy on all of you, or the terrorists we CHOSE to let in from countries that hate us will kill you!"
George W. Bush may have been an idiot, but post-9/11 he was masterful at distracting people from the problem of government's failure to secure our borders.
Hey soon we're going to have mandatory surveillance INSIDE YOUR HOUSES, with the pretext of declaring "war against family violence" or "war against child abuse". Just wait a couple more decades, maybe less.
Of course if you refuse, arguing your right to privacy, they will be ready to call you all sorts of names like "criminal", "terrorist", "enemy of the satate", that your've something to hide.
Check it out,
By the time domestic surveillance in the US reaches such dimensions, the rival superpowers will be far worse: recently 6 Iranians who posted a video at YouTube were arrested. Their crime: the music was accompanied with a video which included Iranian women dancing without the head scarf that is mandatory. The following article contains the video, please view it and tell me what kind of terrible obscene crime this is:
In many other countries, there will ultimately there will be national intranets that will replace the internet, where only the websites that are approved by these governments will be available. This kind of information monopoly will give their government total mind control. This kind of information monopoly will make totalitarian governments even more powerful because public opinion will be under their control.
I know you don't like posts without much substance to them, but I laughed my ass off at the "indie" remark.
Don't call us terrorists.
We're indie statesmen.