Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: 5 US urban counties lead 'Terror Hot Spots' list, but rural areas not exempt

  1. #1
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    5 US urban counties lead 'Terror Hot Spots' list, but rural areas not exempt

    Quote Originally Posted by Excerpt
    The largest number of events clustered around major cities:
    • Manhattan, New York (343 attacks)
    • Los Angeles County, Calif. (156 attacks)
    • Miami-Dade County, Fla. (103 attacks)
    • San Francisco County, Calif. (99 attacks)
    • Washington, D.C. (79 attacks).


    While large, urban counties such as Manhattan and Los Angeles have remained hot spots of terrorist activities across decades, the START researchers discovered that smaller, more rural counties such as Maricopa County, Ariz. - which includes Phoenix - have emerged as hot spots in recent years as domestic terrorism there has increased.

    The START researchers found that 65 of the nation's 3,143 counties were "hot spots" of terrorism.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-...hot-rural.html

    http://start.umd.edu/start/publicati...STerrorism.pdf 36 pages 1 MB

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Don't have time to read the details at the moment...

    Quick question: how do they quantify "attacks"? What constitutes an "attack"?

  3. #3
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    "Attack" (220 instances) not defined

    Terrorism
    The definition of terrorism used by the GTD is: the threatened or actual use of illegal force, directed against civilian targets, by non-state actors, in order to attain a political, economic, religious or social goal, through fear, coercion or intimidation.3 It is important to note that the classification of an event as terrorism depends as much on threats as the actual use of violence. For example, instances in which individuals seize an aircraft and threaten to blow it up unless their demands are met are defined as terrorist events. Note also that by specifying the threatened or actual use of force the definition of terrorism used by the GTD excludes hoaxes.

  4. #4
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Terrorism
    The definition of terrorism used by the GTD is: the threatened or actual use of illegal force, directed against civilian targets, by non-state actors, in order to attain a political, economic, religious or social goal, through fear, coercion or intimidation.3 It is important to note that the classification of an event as terrorism depends as much on threats as the actual use of violence. For example, instances in which individuals seize an aircraft and threaten to blow it up unless their demands are met are defined as terrorist events. Note also that by specifying the threatened or actual use of force the definition of terrorism used by the GTD excludes hoaxes.
    That's rather strange (excluding hoaxes) because it would seem to me that the hoaxes could conceivably do as much damage as a threatened or real attack simply by causing the expenditure of resources. Feed the system enough hoaxes, and remember the police and fire pretty much have to treat the hoax as real, and you will wear down the personnel and wear out the equipment. Then, when the terrorists actually do something, the police and fire, being tired, will get careless and be subject to many more casualties.

    I would have to include even the hoaxes in that definition.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Right, let's further expand the definition of terrorists and terrorism, because expanding it to include vets totally was not enough!

  6. #6

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Veterans are no more likely to go berserk than your average citizen. If you examine the perps involved in the last thirty years of massacres here in the U.S., the "veteran" tag is nearly non-existent.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Veterans are no more likely to go berserk than your average citizen. If you examine the perps involved in the last thirty years of massacres here in the U.S., the "veteran" tag is nearly non-existent.
    Tell that to the FBI, not the choir.

  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Don't have time to read the details at the moment...

    Quick question: how do they quantify "attacks"? What constitutes an "attack"?
    Good question. After 911 I know of a state worker that tried to poison his boss and it was recorded as a terrorist attack. In the good old days it would have just been attempted murder. I suspect most of these "attacks" are anything but terrorist related.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  10. #10
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    I know there were several enviro-terrorist attacks here in WA in the 70's and 80's. Example: Jordan River area of Skagit County, a group of "friends of the earth" set fire to a logging outfit on private land that was (they thought) was too close the the Glacier Peak wilderness. The fire they started in the logging outfits equipment ended up going way up into the wilderness. This happened in the 70's. Or the envro-terrorist burning of the "Street of Dreams" in Woodenville. (2008) Didn't see either of these listed?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897
    Notice that all five are in places where guns are shunned and/or limited...
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •