There are some measures, like TSA in America, that appear to be more focused around the illusion of security than actually preventing acts of terrorism. But what about some of the surveillance efforts conducted by intelligence organizations within the Five Eyes?

Maybe this merely a display of my own ignorance, but I don't understand why the efficacy of surveillance measures (both domestic and non-domestic) isn't discussed more often. If governments were more open about all the terrorist attacks they were able to prevent ahead of time, maybe the general public wouldn't have such a negative opinion of them when one terrorist slips through the cracks.

This paper (https://www.cepol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/26-reinhard-...) has some interesting insights into the matter. While admittedly a slightly biased source, this ProPublica article also has some interesting things to say about mass surveillance (https://www.propublica.org/article/whats-the-evidence-mass-s...)

What's the risk of death or injury in the Middle East or in any theater of action at the hands of the West? Both from unintended collateral damage or from negligence/mistakes (e.g. drone attacks or similar)? How does that compare to the risks that the West face from terrorists?

There was an element of truth to the narrative projected by media at specific events such as the terrorist attacks in London (15/9) and New York (11/9). But largely, the narrative we're accepting as truth doesn't hold merit.

The amount of exposure we receive for death or injury on a day to day basis across the West is not an accurate reflection of the danger or risk of being injured or hurt my terrorist fringe elements. Your husband, brother or other male member is a bigger threat to your health when comparing domestic and sexual violence with terrorism.

I don't know if I'd put this down to the success of our anti-terrorist programs (even if it was which in probability is likely, no such credit would ever be sought and this is obviously by design).

Or whether we as a region (i.e The West) have always overstated risks associated to terrorism because of the potential for financial gain from fear mongering by the media?

It's like the existing terrorists aren't smart enough to think of such attacks, aren't skilled enough to execute them, or aren't interested and are content with relatively minor (though still very tragic and media attention-grabbing) attacks.

It could also be that the agencies charged with keeping us safe are actually doing a good job at preventing those larger scale attacks, which makes sense for attacks like the 9/11 ones, which required a lot of coordination and cooperation between the participants and are therefore vulnerable to being spied upon and/or infiltrated, but not so much for other "lone-wolf" sort of attacks, many of which really don't require much skill and no cooperation or coordination with anyone else.

So I'm not sure how to explain not seeing any large-scale attacks by lone-wolves or even small terrorist cells except as lack of interest or knowledge on the part of the terrorists.

Why don't people do this? My guess is because it's not sexy. People want to participate in a high profile huge attack, not a small random shooting which by itself doesn't do much.

Large scale attacks are inherently watched for, planned for, and guarded against. Small scale attacks are almost impossible to guard against and stop.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

The most recent stuff you may be more familiar with.

I'm interested in also seeing the data on attempts and credible threats.

Reading this article made me reflect on my understanding on the goals of counter-terrorist measures of the United States and how they (somewhat hypocritically) revolve entirely around a consequentialist point of view.

Maybe I have my tin foil hat a little to snug on my head, but I can't seem to find a way in which the mentality of the U.S. government's perception of "terrorism" has evolved from the days of COINTELPRO. To the US government, the only difference between MLK and Kim Jong Un is that only one of those was a threat to the state in 60's while the other is a threat now.

While I'm admittedly not really well versed in stoicism, I believe that an individual's oikeiôsis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oikei%C3%B4sis) of something or someone else is the guiding factor of how they act or behave towards something. However, is it really fair to hold people to the same standard as a government?

I'm not seeing the analogy. Did MLK have some secret stash of nuclear weapons I'm not aware of? Was he threatening to attack the US or its allies with them?

Deaths per person (ok, that number is always exactly 1, but hopefully you know what I mean...) seems like it would be a much more useful number to see, for example.

Another stats comparison that is made quite often in the UK is deaths due to the past two decades of Islamic terrorism versus deaths due to terrorism in Northern Ireland.

1600 cancer deaths in the US every day.[2]

I could go on with other fatality statistics, but I think you get the picture. Death by terrorism is a very very tiny (though tragic) minority of deaths in the US compared to death by other causes.

Yet can you imagine major US papers (never mind virtually every paper around the world) having front-page headlines like "27 PEOPLE DIED OF CANCER IN THE US TODAY"?

It's preposterous. So is the completely disproportionate and hysterical coverage a relatively minuscule number of terrorism-related deaths get.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...

[2] - https://www.inquisitr.com/2697153/cancer-surpasses-heart-dis...

So most proposed regulation of firearms wouldn't make us a whole lot safer, because it wouldn't address people getting angry and getting their licensed pistol.

(the point being that addressing mass random homicides won't actually make us a whole lot safer...)

2/3rds of deaths due to firearms are suicides this ratio is even higher when you adjust for the accidental discharge which is quite often used when there is no suicide note or a clinical history.

Mass shootings are indeed a drop in the ocean as far as gun related deaths go in the US.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-...

I live in a region with a real low rate and most of the cases in the news involve people that know each other. I've thought about trying to gather a profile of each incident, working back through time, to try to get a picture of the statistics rather than just relying on my impression. Of course, on top of being a fair amount of work, there are also issues with what sorts of information is ethical to consolidate like that (and especially, names of accused; my driving interest is the relationship statistics, so that is a core issue).

The US military has killed orders of magnitude more people for political reasons (such as getting rid of Saddam Hussein, "liberating" various countries, preventing the spread of Communism, or "bringing democracy") than all the acts traditionally designated as "terrorism" put together. Does that make the US military a terrorist organization?

A nation state attacking civilians in another country is either war or a police action depending on context.

So the same action is called by different names depending on who does it? Quite the double standard.

Exactly. "Terrorism" is just a label to describe the parties involved, not a value judgement. A death is a death whether it's from guerilla warfare, a mass shooting, terrorism, an accident, or a full scale war.