Relative to what? We have no idea how much terrorism there would be without the FBI.

We also have no idea how much terrorism we have due to the FBI, ala CONINTELPRO.

Sure. But a lack of concrete, precise information doesn't mean we can throw up our hands and just call them equivalent, either. The FBI disrupts quite a bit of terror activity, and quite a bit more never materializes because the FBI exists. They've certainly engaged in their fair share of abuses over the years, but I don't think you can seriously argue we'd be better off without them.

Um. Yes I can. It's in the same vein as letting a few guilty people go free to ensure that less innocent people get sent to prison.

I'd rather still have Matin Luther King around than to have whatever the FBI claims to have disrupted.

The FBI didn't kill MLK, though. If you eliminated the FBI, you woulnd't get MLK back. But you would have a few hundred more serious terror attacks in the US history, probably a decent number of them against minorities.

> The FBI didn't kill MLK, though.

We know they tried to do so at least once while maintaining deniability.

Do you have any evidence of this claim besides press-releases from the US government?

I envy your confidence.

Well, we do know that more people have died to white supremacy since 9/11 than died on 9/11. Not to mention people forget Oklahoma City rather quickly....

The last few cases that come to mind (Breivik, Tarrant) are from lone wolves that had radical ideas but were not affiliated with any group.

It must be very difficult to catch (unless you want a surveillance society where everyone is suspect).

Even in cases where it's planned and announced it's difficult to stop (Al Qaeda did announce they would assassinate Charb, editor in chief of Charlie Hebdo, and despite police protection they managed to do so).