> Active and believable threats directed at the US

American police kill more Americans than do terrorists. I'd call that an active and believable threat:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police...

https://www.newsweek.com/how-many-americans-do-cops-kill-eac...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/series/counted-us-police...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerome-karabel/police-killing...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/police-violence-us-cops-killed-...

So when will the war on police start?

Total or innocents?

The guilty are citizens (and people) too, you know. Inalienable rights and all?

I don't remember Iraq having quite such a problem with its territorial integrity before the US invaded, disbanded its army, and allowed its munitions dumps to be looted by anyone with a truck.

The June 2016 incident, the "Pulse" nightclub mass shooting, is a good case in point. The person involved wasn't "sent" to the US, he was a US-born national living in the US who'd never visited the middle East. He seems to have been radicalised by speech in the same way that other mass shooters were.

>He seems to have been radicalised by speech in the same way that other mass shooters were.

During his calls to 911 he said directly that the US bombing campaigns in the Middle East led to his mass shooting. He seems to be a direct example of how backwards US policy is.

Those are like 1 incident per year. So the US spends billions in conflicts to prevent a handful of such incidents, which could even be considered relatively minor compared to the regular mass shootings in the US? Is it even preventing them or creating them when it's killing so many indiscriminately with drone strikes over there?

Could that money not be spent better elsewhere to prevent other types of deaths? I think the U.S. and American politicians accept increases in budgets to the military so easily, that they don't even think about whether or not those resources are used effectively anymore.

You spent thousands to be treated for cancer, despite only having one tumor a year? Clearly you should be spending that money on a gym membership instead...

It's hard to wage terrorist activities when you're fighting a literal multi-sided war.

All the problems now faced by the US were created by the US. By continuing without acknowledging this there will no doubt be more similar future problems.

Especially when some sides of it have received your money and weapons....

Plus there's the issue of how many terrorist attacks there would be if there was indeed no response.

We all know the answer to that one: we'd all be living under "amateur" Taliban, Mafias and worse anywhere near any large city, with constant public executions for "sacrilege" and for "competing" with the Mafia, and for ... There would be no international (or generally non-private) flights, and so on.

Your examples all occurred after we suspended individual liberties and spent untold fortunes and lives to stop it. Would you conclude that to be a successful strategy?

How many Americans were harmed? How many innocent people got killed or injured by American response to those events?

What about the innocent people freed by the American response to those events? Or do Iraq citizens being raped and murdered not count? Do we include the tally for terrorist events in the UK, France and other allies as well?

"Oh hey, yeah, sorry that a terrorist group armed someone to shoot up a gay nightclub, we feel real bad about that, but we need at least a hundred more people killed before we can do anything."

That's also a good question. So, do we have any rough estimates?

> we need at least a hundred more people killed before we can do anything.

That's the usual response to white mass shooters in the US, yes. Especially in response to discussions of gun control.