Are We Spending Entirely Too Much Money on Counter-Terrorism?

I don't know exactly how much of counterterrorism funds go to which aspects of counter-terrorism. I would like the priority to be on intelligence gathering, charitable works, publicizing those charitable works, and continue with the progress we've made in areas like bomb detection and all of that. I think first and foremost intelligence gathering should be the top priority.

 

We have to stop looking at lone wolves as terrorists. They are mentally unstable people carrying out mass murder.

 

The media is just as guilty in playing on the terrorism storyline

 

Again, "death" is not the only measure. There's also fear and economic repercussions and what not. But regardless, the # of hijackings not really relevant to my point there - the discussion was in the context of whether terrorism was an issue prior to 9/11. It was. It took many forms - embassy bombings and hijackings are just two examples. Others would include things like the Pan Am bombing or kidnappings or any number of other forms of terrorism. The difference was simply that they mostly happened abroad so we didn't feel it the same way we felt 9/11.

To pretend it was our post-9/11 policies that are the entire cause of our terrorist problem is ridiculous.

 

Lone wolves are probably the greatest threat and most difficult to stop. Mental health is certainly a huge issue, as I would bet my weight in gold that the Times Square driver had mental health issues exacerbated by drugs and alcohol.

 

The issue is you're not going to stop them with counter terrorism cause they're not terrorists

I don't understand random FBI spokesman getting on television after one of these attacks saying the suspect (s) communicated with no one so there was nothing we could really do so we are gonna try harder

Loosely translated we're just gonna throw more money at the problem

It's a local law enforcement issue

 

There is an inherent problem here in that different nations that are NATO member states will have different motives.

Country A won't let you bomb Country Z with terrorists because they are working on a pipeline deal with that group but Country B won't let you bomb a terrorist in Country Y because they are working on a deal with a warlord there. We already have to pay off the governments in the Middle East to let us operate there, now you want us to pay off the European countries for the right to pay off the Middle Eastern country?

We are an ocean away from Europe. While we have a LOT of common interests, they are not perfectly aligned and as long as our international interests, be it economic or security, are not the exact same we can't give up security/intelligence to a foreign body and neither can they.

 

I'll agree with you there.

 

This country has a history of mass murder. We Texans have had our share of super infamous mass murders

I think once shootings like the Orlando night club happen, the waste happens trying link that guy to terrorism.

If that shooting happened twenty five years ago terrorism wouldn't be a topic.

 

25 years ago, people weren't doing those types of things in the name of terrorist organizations. At least not in this country.

 

My gripe with counterterrorism is that we never focus on the counter-propaganda. ISIS has done a remarkable job in their propaganda efforts to utilize digital media and social networks to spread their ideology and spur recruitment. Where is the counter to that? Simply banning or blacklisted their propaganda is not enough. We have to develop our own response and rebuttal. For a such a media-centric society, we have failed to utilize our greatest asset. This is a war of ideology and has to be fought accordingly.

 

They're not connected to these organizations. They are angry people using something to justify their need to kill

If there were no ISIS it would just be something else

 

They are people inspired to act by those organizations, it's not like they were going to kill people no matter what and that they were looking for an excuse, it's that they were people convinced to kill people by those groups.

At least when we're talking about religion based terrorists such as the Orlando shooter or the San Bernardino shooter. For the most part they aren't just unstable people who were looking for an excuse to kill people.....and that's the problem.

 

Spending money on trying to link Orlando killer to ISIS is a road to nowhere

There is no goal. It brings you no closer to ISIS officials. It brings no more logic and reason to the murder

These people aren't connected

That doesn't mean we shouldn't make efforts to remove that stuff from the internet.

 

Umm, the guy in Orlando certainly fits in the unstable category. It's very likely he killed out of hatred of his own homosexual feelings and used terrorism as a BS excuse.

 

That was a narrative that was very popular when the attack initially happened, but it's very likely a false narrative. It's a lot more likely that the guy wasn't actually homosexual, just that he cased the place he was planning on attacking.

 

There was no money spent trying to link the Orlando killer to ISIS, he made the link himself when he told people he was carrying out the attack on the behalf of ISIS. The problem is that when you allow organizations like ISIS to exist, they'll be able to recruit and inspire terrorists across the globe. That's why they have to be exterminated.

 

Who said anything about not fighting ISIS.

That's two different subjects

The Orlando guy never met anyone from ISIS. That's the point. Ivestigating ISIS in this murder goes nowhere
It's not gonna lead you to anyone from ISIS

 

Sure, because we all know those who loathe homosexuals (typically far right Christians) are out there shooting up gay night clubs. Contrary to the religion that exclusively rejects homosexuality to the points where they execute them in their own religious countries. Its just a coincidence he was Muslim, right? You do understand it was his religious belief to hate homosexuals that drove him to do this.

This was an act of religious extremism. Religious extremists use terrorism as a tool. Terrorism is one of the results of religious extremism.

You are correct. Religious extremism does not automatically equate to terrorism and terrorism does not automatically equate to religious extremism.
I dont understand why you are so adamant about disassociating Islam from religious extremism and terrorism. There is a strong correlation between the two. I dont understand why you are so quick to defend a religion that is so contrary to your beliefs. Is this because our previous administration convinced you that its the conservatives fault for the middle easts barbaric behavior?

 

How much do we currently spend on cybercrime? I have no idea.