Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Among the reasons that bombings like in Boston have been rare since 9/11 is that all that Patriot Act stuff might actually work   (cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Peter Bergen, Najibullah Zazi, Boston, car bomb, Joint Terrorism Task Force, New America Foundation, Oklahoma City Bombing, Eric Rudolph  
•       •       •

2452 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Apr 2013 at 12:10 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



207 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-16 11:40:52 AM  
*Sigh*

I'm sure cutting off the hands of everyone you suspect of being a thief "works" too. But we don't do that, because that would be illegal and uncivilized.
 
2013-04-16 11:42:05 AM  
And the reason they were rare before 9/11 was?
 
2013-04-16 11:42:12 AM  
My face didn't even need my nose.  I'm glad I cut it off.
 
2013-04-16 11:44:03 AM  
No, it's because the threat of terrorism is largely overblown.  9/11 was an anomaly.  This, well we don't know who and why yet.

The scary truth is that any idiot can make a bomb.  I could make one within a week capable of at least this much destruction.  I doubt very highly that I could get away with it, but I certainly could do it.  I won't, though, because I'm not batshiat crazy and I can't really conceive of a situation where I would need a bomb for any defensive measures.  But I could.  So could just about anyone else who posts in this thread, if they had their hearts set on it.  That's the scary reality.
 
2013-04-16 11:46:07 AM  
Unfortunately, we don't have a hypothetical second America to test this assertion. For all we know we would be just as safe without the Patriot Act.
 
2013-04-16 11:48:33 AM  
Of the 380 extremists indicted for acts of political violence or for conspiring to carry out such attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, 81 were able to obtain explosives or the components necessary to build a bomb, according to a count by the New America Foundation.

That's an interesting list.

The pool of non-jihadists is overwhelmingly made up of rightwing extremists: 80 percent, followed by animal and environmental activists at 15 percent.

But don't you dare write a report warning of right-wing extremism!!!
 
2013-04-16 11:49:29 AM  

GAT_00: And the reason they were rare before 9/11 was?


They weren't that rare. Atlanta '96, WTC '93, Oklahoma City '95...
 
2013-04-16 11:50:16 AM  
 
2013-04-16 11:52:39 AM  
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
 
2013-04-16 11:56:09 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Of the 380 extremists indicted for acts of political violence or for conspiring to carry out such attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, 81 were able to obtain explosives or the components necessary to build a bomb, according to a count by the New America Foundation.

That's an interesting list.

The pool of non-jihadists is overwhelmingly made up of rightwing extremists: 80 percent, followed by animal and environmental activists at 15 percent.

But don't you dare write a report warning of right-wing extremism!!!


I'm sure the spin is.... "The government isn't spending enough time looking for foreign terrorists, instead they are harassing honest hard-working patriots!"
 
2013-04-16 11:57:01 AM  

Diogenes: Post hoc ergo propter hoc


You don't think that increased security, post 9/11, has any correlation to the decade-long decrease in successful terrorist attacks?
 
2013-04-16 11:58:14 AM  
No, it's the tiger rock
 
2013-04-16 11:59:26 AM  

dletter: Lionel Mandrake: Of the 380 extremists indicted for acts of political violence or for conspiring to carry out such attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, 81 were able to obtain explosives or the components necessary to build a bomb, according to a count by the New America Foundation.

That's an interesting list.

The pool of non-jihadists is overwhelmingly made up of rightwing extremists: 80 percent, followed by animal and environmental activists at 15 percent.

But don't you dare write a report warning of right-wing extremism!!!

I'm sure the spin is.... "The government isn't spending enough time looking for foreign terrorists, instead they are harassing honest hard-working patriots!"


The number I quoted are from the "non-jihadist" section.  The majority of terrorist attacks are considered "jihadist."

So the spin would have to be more like "0bama has ordered the FBI to concentrate on conservatives and lay off teh libruls!!  Like BILL AYERS!!1!"
 
2013-04-16 12:02:52 PM  
So the lack of terrorism before 9/11 is because we didn't have the Patriot Act?  Is that how causality works?
 
2013-04-16 12:02:59 PM  

Captain Dan: You don't think that increased security, post 9/11, has any correlation to the decade-long decrease in successful terrorist attacks?


Maybe. But what about the Beltway snipers,  Fort Hood, Aurora CO, Newtown, CT....etc?
 
2013-04-16 12:03:15 PM  

BunkoSquad: No, it's the tiger rock


Of course.  How silly of me.  To think that anti-terrorism efforts might be correlated with a decrease in terrorism - that's as ridiculous as tiger rock.

/clearly needs a new "misuse of logical fallacy" rock
 
2013-04-16 12:03:54 PM  

Diogenes: Post hoc ergo propter hoc


Lisa, I want to...

BunkoSquad: No, it's the tiger rock


Well, at least it's keeping comments about the Bear Patrol away
 
2013-04-16 12:04:40 PM  

Captain Dan: Diogenes: Post hoc ergo propter hoc

You don't think that increased security, post 9/11, has any correlation to the decade-long decrease in successful terrorist attacks?


I'm not denying the possibility.  But strictly speaking it is a logical fallacy.  You could just as easily argue that the wars disrupted the networks so badly they couldn't pull off another attack - which has nothing to do with the Patriot Act itself.

Us regular old citizens are not privy to the data to say precisely whether the Act is responsible.
 
2013-04-16 12:05:19 PM  

GAT_00: And the reason they were rare before 9/11 was?


They weren't really rare before 9/11, but you didn't hear about them until the public got so panicked about terrorism that the MSM could cater to them about it.

It was pretty common for some home-grown religious or milita idiot or drug gangbanger to blow up something with a car or pipe bomb. In fact, if you google it, there were hundreds of cases that never approached the level of exposure that the Oklahoma City or Olympic Park bombing did. Of course, they never got the kill count either.

Remember the Unibomber, for example? Or the dozens of Abortion clinics blown to hell and back?
 
2013-04-16 12:05:51 PM  

vernonFL: GAT_00: And the reason they were rare before 9/11 was?

They weren't that rare. Atlanta '96, WTC '93, Oklahoma City '95...


You forgot this guy
evilmonito.com
 
2013-04-16 12:07:35 PM  

vernonFL: Captain Dan: You don't think that increased security, post 9/11, has any correlation to the decade-long decrease in successful terrorist attacks?

Maybe. But what about the Beltway snipers,  Fort Hood, Aurora CO, Newtown, CT....etc?


Terrorism isn't ever going away, but it has become much less sophisticated over the past decade.  Instead of highly coordinated, sophisticated plots (which were relatively more common before 2002), most acts of terror now take the form of lone actors with crude and unsophisticated means.  Security provisions have made massive attacks much more difficult to execute.
 
2013-04-16 12:07:53 PM  

Captain Dan: Diogenes: Post hoc ergo propter hoc

You don't think that increased security, post 9/11, has any correlation to the decade-long decrease in successful terrorist attacks?


I'd argue it has a lot more to do with the increased availability of funding for awareness and operations training, and the development of effective incident management modalities for both Weeners and post-event investigation that has contributed to it. Remember, before 9/11, most people were not aware that secondary devices were being planted to kill first responders, or that you were more likely to have home-grown radicals of the non-mooslem sort blowing things up than you were to see a  car bomb full of propane tanks blow up in times square.

Unfortunately, these things are a lot more common than people think. West Memphis, in 2011, for example - which no one outside of the local area heard about - where an ARkansas State Medical Board official was blown up by a disgruntled doctor who had just lost his DEA/Narcotics Prescribing number thanks to the medical board.
 
2013-04-16 12:11:59 PM  
Worked pretty well yesterday.
 
2013-04-16 12:12:48 PM  

hardinparamedic: but you didn't hear about them until the public got so panicked about terrorism that the MSM could cater to them about it.


This really does make no sense you know.  A bombing in the US just wasn't news until Republicans started trying to scare people 24/7?  Really?
 
2013-04-16 12:14:10 PM  

Diogenes: I'm not denying the possibility.  But strictly speaking it is a logical fallacy.  You could just as easily argue that the wars disrupted the networks so badly they couldn't pull off another attack - which has nothing to do with the Patriot Act itself.


I don't know the degree of correlation: maybe it's low, maybe it's high.  It seems highly unlikely that the correlation is zero, however.  Theoretically there's a clear causal connection, and in practice, there have been documented cases of newly implemented security provisions stopping attacks.

That's why it's not a logical fallacy.  The "post hoc" fallacy applies to causally unconnected events that are linked only by chronology.  However, anti-terrorism efforts and terrorism are not causally unconnected.  They're highly connected.  "Post Hoc" doesn't apply.
 
2013-04-16 12:16:05 PM  
Nope.avi
 
2013-04-16 12:19:22 PM  

vernonFL: GAT_00: And the reason they were rare before 9/11 was?

They weren't that rare. Atlanta '96, WTC '93, Oklahoma City '95...


Interesting that Atlanta and Oklahoma City were homegrown.  If they are the reason for the Patriot Act why do I have to go through all that BS when I fly?  None of those three even involved aircraft.
 
2013-04-16 12:20:05 PM  
the Tragedy is that Terrorism works in a Nation of fearful, ignorant, and easily led Americans.


the Fear generated will cause the Police State to tighten its controls even more, reducing the other 99.9% of American citizen's rights and freedoms even more.

the acts of a very few will determin the Rights and Freedoms of the very Many.

and that is really sad.  but, it'll serve the purposes of the Terrorists and those of the the Rich and Powerful who own/control the security apparatus in a Police State.

the worst thing  you can do to a Terrorist is to go about your business as usual.  that really deflates their motives and their egos.

we should go about our business as usual, although we should keep our eyes and ears open.  anything more will result in a Police State that will eventually be turned on all Americans.

now you know!!
 
2013-04-16 12:20:07 PM  

GAT_00: This really does make no sense you know.  A bombing in the US just wasn't news until Republicans started trying to scare people 24/7?  Really?


Really? Manipulation of public policy and sentiment through manipulation of the media makes no sense to you? You're not that disingenuous, GAT, and I know you remember Iraq and the pre-war media campaigns..

At any rate, before 9/11, the fact someone in Kalamazoo blew up a post office box with a pipe bomb, or tried to mail a bomb to the local police chief was not national news material. Someone in Santa Fe, California didn't hear about it on CNN or Fox.

After 9/11, any time some idiot tried to blow up a pipe bomb anywhere, it made national news. Look at what happened in 2007 in Boston, for crying out loud. Before 9/11, that failboat would have sailed locally, and nothing more outside of internet circles.
 
2013-04-16 12:20:23 PM  

Captain Dan: You don't think that increased security, post 9/11, has any correlation to the decade-long decrease in successful terrorist attacks?


Mass shootings are not terrorist attacks?

And anyone who gets around to reading the 'patriot' or 'hero' acts will find very little in them has been implemented or used, so far. I'm not even sure if the TSA nonsense is backed up by them. What they represent is a big hammer of an absolute police state, just waiting to fall.
 
2013-04-16 12:20:35 PM  
Do we need to borrow another $7 Trillion to keep it "working."
 
2013-04-16 12:21:46 PM  

vernonFL: GAT_00: And the reason they were rare before 9/11 was?

They weren't that rare. Atlanta '96, WTC '93, Oklahoma City '95...


Not sure if serious.
 
2013-04-16 12:21:53 PM  

advex101: None of those three even involved aircraft.


Because the largest loss of life in US history from a Terror attack involved an aircraft - something very few people thought about (Before 9/11, airplanes were either hijacked and flown to a country without extridition, or were blown up by bombs. Not used as cruise missiles).

Even after that, you had people trying to blow them up with shoes, or some other shiat.

Really, idiots are the reasons we can't have nice things.
 
2013-04-16 12:22:04 PM  
Dang it Subby. Please learn how to spell.

'p a t r i o t . a c t'

Is spelled: "Martial law"

/But thanks for trying anyways.
//Heres a cookie from Fark.
///And a couple of cookies from third parties.
 
2013-04-16 12:22:29 PM  

nekom: But I could. So could just about anyone else who posts in this thread, if they had their hearts set on it. That's the scary reality.


What is scary is not that I agree with this, it is that I am regularly amazed that most of y'all can tie your shoes but I am certain most fakers could build a bomb.
 
2013-04-16 12:22:52 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: Mass shootings are not terrorist attacks?


There's a difference between an agent acting as a member of a terrorist group or ideologically motivated, and a spree-killer who just wants body count. One, indeed, is terrorism. The other is just good old fashioned ultraviolence.
 
2013-04-16 12:24:28 PM  

sheep snorter: p a t r i o t . a c t'

Is spelled: "Martial law"


denver.mylittlefacewhen.com

No, the two are nothing similar in the least, you idiot.
 
2013-04-16 12:25:01 PM  

BunkoSquad: No, it's the tiger rock


Came for the tiger rock.
 
2013-04-16 12:25:19 PM  

BunkoSquad: No, it's the tiger rock


Actually, I think one thing not enough people are talking about is the lack of bombings in rocky areas. The Grand Canyon, Mt Rushmore, that statue of Rocky in Philadelphia... these are all famous American landmarks and none of them have suffered a bombing attack. I posit that it is their very rockiness that repels terrorist attack. We could do well to install large rocks, or statues of Rocky, throughout the land. It would be more effective and cost us less in treasure and liberty than DHS and the PATRIOT Act.
 
2013-04-16 12:25:25 PM  
I like how the article and the headline have nothing to do with each other.
 
2013-04-16 12:26:41 PM  
The article doesn't say that at all. It never mentions the Patriot Act. It says, among other things, that since 9/11 and Oklahoma City, people have been more aware of terrorism, so store owners are more likely to report unusual purchases, and people are more likely to report someone for suspicious activity.
 
2013-04-16 12:26:50 PM  
Anyone with an afternoon on their hands, an internet connection, and an open Walgreens down the street could build a bomb strong enough to take out a few floors of an office building if they were so inclined. Maybe America as a culture is just more inclined to biatch on the internet than commit mass murder against its own citizens. For all of our problems, we have it pretty good.
 
2013-04-16 12:27:33 PM  

Captain Dan: Diogenes: Post hoc ergo propter hoc

You don't think that increased security, post 9/11, has any correlation to the decade-long decrease in successful terrorist attacks?


Steven Levitt needs to writte a follow-up.

I'd guess that the War on Terror is about as effective on stopping terrorism as the War on Drugs was at stopping crime.

That is to say, it probably doesn't hurt,, but it also probably isn't worth the cost, socially or financially.
 
2013-04-16 12:27:58 PM  

hardinparamedic: There's a difference between an agent acting as a member of a terrorist group or ideologically motivated, and a spree-killer who just wants body count. One, indeed, is terrorism. The other is just good old fashioned ultraviolence.


Well, that's one thing the patriot act cleared up.

What is a "terrorist activity?"
Under the Patriot Act, terrorist activities include:

• threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other vehicles.
• threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected" persons, such as government officials
• any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or substantial property damage rather than for "mere personal monetary gain"
 
2013-04-16 12:28:14 PM  
also a Hint: when a Nation such as ours tends to feed everything to the Wealthy/big business/Owners while ignoring the other 95% of American Citizens, you tend to have more domestic, home grown Terrorist attacks.

True Democracy reduces domestic Terrorism.  course, we don't have a true Representative Democratic Republic.   we have the rich and big business buying out our Legislators to get what they want.  the hell with the other 95% of Americans.  this is a great recipe for growing domestic terrorists.


now you know!!
 
2013-04-16 12:28:16 PM  
Wait, wait, hold on.

I was told that the reason we don't have ANY terror attacks is because of things like the patriot act and the TSA, and now it's, "Well, they're really rare, at least!"

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-16 12:28:57 PM  

vernonFL: GAT_00: And the reason they were rare before 9/11 was?

They weren't that rare. Atlanta '96, WTC '93, Oklahoma City '95...


Thanks Clinton.
 
2013-04-16 12:30:10 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: • any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or substantial property damage rather than for "mere personal monetary gain"


That effectively makes kids taking batting practice with local mailboxes terrorists.
 
2013-04-16 12:30:29 PM  

hardinparamedic: J. Frank Parnell: Mass shootings are not terrorist attacks?

There's a difference between an agent acting as a member of a terrorist group or ideologically motivated, and a spree-killer who just wants body count. One, indeed, is terrorism. The other is just good old fashioned ultraviolence.


Was that lone agent trying to use fear to coerice people in order to further his ideology?
 
2013-04-16 12:30:55 PM  

thurstonxhowell: BunkoSquad: No, it's the tiger rock

Actually, I think one thing not enough people are talking about is the lack of bombings in rocky areas. The Grand Canyon, Mt Rushmore, that statue of Rocky in Philadelphia... these are all famous American landmarks and none of them have suffered a bombing attack. I posit that it is their very rockiness that repels terrorist attack. We could do well to install large rocks, or statues of Rocky, throughout the land. It would be more effective and cost us less in treasure and liberty than DHS and the PATRIOT Act.


We should have just started building everything from Nokia 3310s.
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
Displayed 50 of 207 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report