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

The reason you investigate is to make sure there are no ties, it's not something you can say at the beginning. If you find that there are ties, or you discover how the person became radicalized, that's highly valuable information when you are trying to prevent future attacks.

Hell that kind of investigation needs to be done even if it's not an ISIS related incident. I would want a similar investigation done on terrorists like Dylan Roof. If we could pinpoint his radicalization to a certain group or source, we would have a better idea of potential terrorists to look out for.

It's just the kind of work that has to be done when you want to prevent these kinds of things rather than merely respond to them once they happen.

 

I don't think it's that simple though. Counter-terrorism helps prevent making explosives whether in a group or not, keeps track of firearm purchases (obviously not perfect), and monitors your browsing (obviously a tough subject).

 

With TRILLION dollar deficits, it is hard to argue we are not spending enough on terrorism. We are spending too much on EVERYTHING. We need to spend EVERY single dollar more effectively.

 

Thank you, BTG. That's my entire point. EVERY case should be treated equally. Any act of terrorism or mass murder should be treated equally.

That's where SpaceGhost is so wrong. He thinks I'm trying to be PC and avoiding tying it in with Islam. Nope. You go after the group of people responsible. Why should the fact that they do it in the name of a religion make a difference?? I don't care if someone blows up a building in the name of Allah, Mohammed, God, Yahweh, or Kylie Minogue- every single act of terrorism should be investigated equally - and if there is a tie-in with a group such as ISIS, of course you hunt them down and destroy them.

But you don't use terrorism to justify your desire to rid the world of a religion- which is never going to happen. So, it's a pointless exercise in futility, anyway.