America in grave danger from terrorists? The numbers tell a different story

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.

- 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.

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.