California Attack Has US Rethinking Strategy On Homegrown Terror (nytimes.com)

JoeyRox writes: The recent terror attack in California reflects "an evolution of the terrorist threat that Mr. Obama and federal officials have long dreaded: homegrown, self-radicalized individuals operating undetected before striking one of many soft targets that can never be fully protected in a country as sprawling as the United States." With this new type of terror risk, authorities may begin relying more heavily on citizens reporting suspicious behavior of others. The attack is also expected to renew the debate over privacy versus security for software encryption. President Obama will be addressing the nation tonight to discuss the attack.

Comments

Homegrown? Come on

[Anonymous Coward]

If Obama attempts to label this as a "homegrown" terrorist, it truly conveys that he has NO grip on the situation at all, and is only looking to monopolize on the situation to further his agenda and gain political favors and to further "his legacy". Make no mistake this man was a American born citizen, however his wife was of Saudi Arabia and has just as much to do with the attack as anyone else and was done in collaboration with terrorist contacts he had external to this country. Yes there are domestic elements to it, but to go about it and treat it solely as a "domestic" incident would be stupid.

Re:Homegrown? Come on

[amiga3D]

Your argument is badly flawed. I have almost nothing to fear from foreign terrorists. The true threat is my own countrymen and always has been. I'm much, much more likely to be shot stopping at a local convenience store than by any terrorist home grown or not. I avoid areas around town that are known to be "combat zones" and when I travel to Atlanta I always pack heat but really I have virtually no fear. My most likely means of demise will be either cancer or heart disease just like most Americans. Cancer due to the exposure to chromium and other substances in my job in the aviation industry and heart disease because I eat too fucking much. Terrorists make for good TV but if anyone stops to think about it they'll realize that they're just an annoyance.

How many people were killed?

[Bruce66423]

This latest one was little more than a bad weekend in Chicago. Given that Chicago can't be controlled, the belief that a far more diffuse threat can be seriously challenged is the security state looking for a funding rise. Let's just be grateful that they've stayed low tech so far.

So, ponder this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dec 2nd, 2 baddies kill 14 people in CA = CNN says "assault weapons" for 12 straight hours.

Oct 3rd, An AC-130 gunship and crew of 13 rain 211 shells on a hospital in for nearly an hour killing 63 patients and international volunteer doctors = CNN barely mentioned it, and somehow failed to categorize the gunship loaded with 211 shells an "assault weapon"

Why didn't the pres address the nation over this one?

Re:So, ponder this...

[benjfowler]

The military is a broadsword, not a scalpel.

Military-scale violence cannot be done in half-measures -- one should only draw one's sword if he's going to use it, and then one is committed, forget all bullshit so-called "rules" -- fight to win and utterly crush and humiliate the enemy. In this sense, laws of war are counterproductive; it lowers the threshold of organised violence way too far, and we end up with a long list of pointless scuffles and police actions, and with a lot of the backwards parts of the world just hating us.

(Laws of war were invented by fucking-idiot country gentlemen in 1945, when we had just come out of a no-holds-barred mechanized, industrialized war, and it was disciplined Western armies fighting disciplined Western armies. The fact is, many of the people we fight, fight like animals, and they do not fight Marquis of Queensbury Rules...) These men were not men of vision -- they were fools who just like Versailles, sowed the seeds of future conflict.

If I were president of the world, we would have not gone into Iraq or even Afghanistan, but I certainly would have had IS cut to pieces, if they existed. Thanks to 9/11, we have the perverse situation where the Americans invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, riled up the Muslim world; yet we now can't act decisively against the biggest bunch of fascists since the Nazis.

*facepalm*

I think we have something to learn from the Russians in this sense. They understand these aspects of using organised violence way better than the West does. I would be comparing notes with them -- they have good experience of losing, then winning spectacularly against Islamist opponents.

If you're going to have blood on your hands -- it'd better be for a damned good reason. I wish our so-called leaders would think way harder before resorting to force. There IS a time and place for force (human nature being the way it is), but it's getting used way too often.

Re:So we're not going to over-react this time, rig

[quintessencesluglord]

I see you missed the part about the Moroccan restaurant being firebombed. Somehow that wasn't labeled terrorism.

And so does your victim-blaming narrative fit there too?

Let's not forget that ISIL is a very, very recent development. I wonder if anyone can point to any recent events in that part of the world?

Or do you really want me to believe that for over 200 years Islamic people have had little beef with the US, but over the course of the last 30 have developed a hard-on of epic proportions.

And it was just out of nowhere, and not reactionary to US foreign policy.

Really?

As I said, just a rehash of discussions after 9/11. Thank you for playing your part.

Re: I like how they lie and call this homegrown

[sumdumass]

It's not the visit to Saudi Arabia that concerns me. Its all the spying that turned out to be useless. The same happened with the Boston bombers who were warned about by Russia and found that members of a mosque they went to warned the FBI.

It seems that the spying is only harassing honest citizens who not only do nothing wrong but aren't even realistically suspected of doing anything terrorist related.

Re:My prediction....

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever happened to, "Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself"?

I don't want to trade liberty for security. Am I in the minority here with my wanting to have my civil liberties?

Re:Who is this person who claims to speak for the

[Zontar The Mindless]

Quotation marks = "I'm quoting someone else".

URLs = "Here's where I got this info".

Submission != "Plagiarism".

You're welcome.

Re:I like how they lie and call this homegrown

[fustakrakich]

The government, through Saudi Arabia, is an ISIS supporter. And then, after ISIS, you will hear about ISIS 2.0, or is it Al Qaeda 3.0? Either way, the war is coming home to roost.

You didn't notice the problem?

[s.petry]

Before I point out the problem let me point out what happened the day of the San Bernardino shooting. Within 30 seconds of the shooting, there was reporting on _every_ major new station that this was a 2nd amendment problem. Within 5 minutes, they had blamed conservatives (especially those dirty Libertarians who are despised by the Government and Media) for the shooting, and claimed that encryption needed back doors for Government snooping. The lie about the Paris terrorist attack being planned over encrypted channels was repeated several dozen times.

For 4 hours I listened to the puppet media claim that Guns were the problem and that _more_ gun control was necessary, and those libertarians and conservatives were a danger to the world.

Not one time in the 4 hours was it mentioned that California has THE strongest gun regulations in the country. Chicago was not mentioned either, which is a "gun free" city and county but has an incredibly high rate of gun violence sporting over 10 shootings a day (and over 1 dead per day) in a place where guns have been banned. At least for the citizens that abide by the law.

Within an hour of the Police finding and killing the 2 shooters we had their names. We also knew that his wife was Pakistani and the interesting circumstances for them meeting. We knew that she dropped their 6month off at a relative's house, an a few hours later knew that they had homemade weapons, links to at least one Jihadist terrorist group from Facebook posts, and attempted to wipe their hard drives.

For TWO MORE DAYS Politicians and Puppet media (*NBC*, *FOX*, *ABC*, NPR, *CNN*) claimed that the problem was home grown libertarians who owned guns, and facts were ignored to support that narrative. If the word "Muslim" was mentioned it was followed up immediately with Libertarians and/or how we lack gun laws.

So you post a number as if it has special meaning, and ignore the wise words of Mark Twain. "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics." You also ignore that the source of that number is a Reddit group! Do you also believe every post on Slashdot and Facebook, if it looks official? Why can we not find that same information from the FBI?

Well, that would be due to the fact that the number is bullshit. According to the FBI there have been 21 mass shootings this year, not 355. A longer term study performed by that same Law enforcement agency shows that the trend has been declining, not rising. The Narrative you post works because "shooting" is intentionally conflated to appeal to the emotions and make it appear that these are all San Bernardino like events.

Damage of any kind to _innocent_ people is wrong, but remember that crime is not a one way street. Crime does not stop magically when guns are banned, and if you somehow hold such a delusion you can look at the UK and Australia for both long term and short term crime trends with unarmed citizens. Banning guns does one thing. It removes people's ability to defend themselves, making them completely dependent on the Government for defense.

For the citizens to be able to defend themselves we accept a certain level of risk. The Rights of the people to defend themselves is in the Constitution very intentionally. Nobody stops _you_ from defending yourself or throwing your life to the Government. You currently can not legally demand that others do the same, and hopefully you never will.

Re:Because the shooter was an American?

[Mr. Slippery]

The vast majority of casualties in 2015 (about 400) come from ordinary "I just felt like it" shootings.

No, they mostly came from "ordinary" criminal violence, largely gang-related. Shootingtracker.com is a source of noise: there have not been hundreds of mass shootings this year, unless you re-define the term.