TT2 Expert Final: U.S. militia groups pose a greater threat to our national security than do FTOs

Thanks, Whiteflame! I'll defend my case (though in a slightly different order from Con’s rebuttal.)PRELIMINARIESCon dropped that “Historic trends…are not necessary reflective of the security situation as it stands today.” Extend this point. It's important because Con’s evidence primarily focuses on historical trends, yet these may not reflect the present situation. Con must explain why his trends are apt to continue if those trends are to have weight in today’s debate. Yet, Con’s own source shows that, historically, FTO attacks are declining, whereas homegrown terrorism, such as domestic terror groups, is waxing. [21] So even the historical trends don’t align in his favor.About the relationship between USMGs and domestic terrorists, I only meant to say the former fell under the umbrella of the latter. Finally, regarding the bomb example, the example itself may be imprecise, but what I really wanted to emphasize was: “what is the greater threat should not be assessed merely through the frequency of attacks...Additionally, potential harms can still pose greater threats than actual harms. Therefore, there needs to be a holistic judgment.”PROLIFERATION OF USMGsCon suggests that the number of groups isn’t problematic. Yet, there are not just more groups, but they're more active (from relatively no activity to high levels of activity) and have a greater geographical reach. [12] Taken together, this is problematic, as these groups now have a greater network of support, are increasing their activities, and can potentially carry out attacks in more areas.Then Con suggests USMGs will be more likely to engage in infighting. Con cites no evidence to support this claim, and I'd argue that the Bundy Ranch example [8] stands contrary to Con’s claim. In that case, many USMGs of various stripes banded together in support of Bundy, displaying unity. Even if Con were to somehow show that infighting occurs more in USMGs, this point is totally non-unique. Infighting occurs among FTOs all the time. Take the example of Islamic State (IS) and Al Qaeda; the former split from Al Qaeda and is now also fighting Al Qaeda forces in the Levant. [22] Yet, despite this infighting, Con cites IS as a major threat. Thus, (1) There is no evidence to suggest USMGs commonly engage in infighting, and (2) FTOs do commonly in-fight. Using Con’s own logic, surely USMGs are more dangerous because they have less infighting.SCM + POTENTIAL DANGERCon claims that the SCM doesn’t have a violent agenda, yet its membership does engage in violence and many of its members advocate for anarchistic violence [4, 23, 31]; many USMGs also engage in or incite racist violence [30]. Con then suggests that only a small percentage of SCM adherents commit violence, yet as the movement expands (as it is currently doing with alacrity) that percentage is representing an increasingly large amount of people--that's concerning.Con then says the size of USMGs and the SCM isn't relevant, whereas the membership of FTOs is. This certainly seems hypocritical, as both espouse militant belief sets. Let’s also draw distinction between attacks on U.S. troops and threats to national security. Threats to the way to protect national security, e.g. a military, are different than a threat to the apparatus protecting national security. The latter is an attack to the homeland and it interests whereas the former is an attack to the way the homeland is secured. There has to be a distinction between war and terrorism--shooting a soldier in a war zone isn’t the same as terrorism.It's important to point out that FTOs aren’t very good at attacking the U.S. From 2011-2014, the deadliest FTO-motivated attack on U.S. soil has killed just 3 people. [24] This death toll does not seem significantly higher than anything USMGs or their supporters, such as the Millers, have been able to effect. Moreover, the U.S. is getting much better at thwarting FTOs and FTO-motivated attacks, halting at least 50 such assaults (and possibly many more about which the public is unaware). [25] “The fact that the United States has not suffered a large-scale attack since 9/11 speaks to the country’s counterterrorism successes.” [25] This source is specifically focused on jihadi terrorist efforts, underscoring how the U.S. is becoming more efficient at combating FTO efforts to attack the homeland. Even Con’s own source [21] agrees that the historical trend is that fewer FTO attacks against the U.S. are taking place, whereas, the Department of Homeland Security “suggested a resurgence of radical right-wing activity was under way.” [32]Much of Con’s impacts come from a potential massive attack on the U.S.--not only is this unlikely given the U.S.’s ability to counter FTOs, but also, regarding Al Qaeda’s affiliates, “Rand Beers, the acting secretary of Homeland Security, said it appeared those groups would focus their operations on targets overseas, not in the [U.S.].” [26] USMGs, however, are concerned with the U.S. government, and are going to be focusing on attacks within our territory. So, when Con says that radicalism is growing everywhere, we should be more concerned about radicalism at home, because unlike the foreign variant, homegrown radicalism is more apt to be aimed at us vice some other target. So, Con's incorrect to say that FTOs are far more destructive.Con claims that FTOs are better armed--this is something I addressed last round, citing how well-armed USMGs were and how unlikely it would be for FTOs to attain functional NBC weapons. To add to this latter claim, I would note that terrorists lack the wherewithal to actually weaponize a nuclear device, and that attempting to do so would be a long process that would leave them open to detection by authorities. [27] It would also require high levels of expertise that would be hard for FTOs to obtain. [27] In fact, there’s “no credible evidence that any terrorist group has ever succeeded in obtaining…the necessary…quantities of weapons grade plutonium, required to make a nuclear weapon.” [28] Con then suggests that online training is “insufficient for producing trained terrorists with sufficient expertise to prevent them from killing themselves accidentally.” Con commits a bare assertion fallacy here. Also, a simple Bing search reveals many training websites that can inform you about everything from gun-care and -use to surviving in the wild with minimal supplies. And, what militias can’t show you, other sites certain can.Finally, Con drops my card that shows that USMGs have been emboldened since the Bundy incident; this is important because it means that USMGs will be more apt to engage in violence now than before.PROXIMITYCon drops that FTOs are apt to go big. Extend this. Since no major attacks have occurred since 9/11, we must conclude that FTOs are failing to successfully carry out attacks. Regarding lone wolves, Con points out that this is non-unique, and suggests that an inability to detect lone wolves does not make them more dangerous. Regarding the latter point, if an attacker cannot be identified, how can he be preemptively stopped? “With the exception of the attacks on the World Trade Center, experts say the major terrorists attacks in the United States have been perpetrated by deranged individuals who were sympathetic to a larger cause.” [29] Observe that Con never disagrees that lone wolves are harder to track either; extend this. As to the former point, sure FTOs may also have lone wolves but the NSA can and does intercept and review sans warrant all communication between Americans with foreign terror ties. There is also no prohibition on what the NSA and CIA can do to observe non-Americans, who may have ties with or be lone wolves. That isn't the case with strictly domestic lone wolves; they'll be even harder to identify, and as such, pose a greater threat.Again, having caches of weapons within the borders of the U.S., a complex organizational network, and hundreds of members all within the U.S. make USMGs a bigger threat than FTOs, which don’t have these advantages.USMGs + LAW ENFORCEMENTThe SPLC monitors USMGs, but it does not necessarily report on each individual USMG, so the FBI cannot always use their reports as grounds for monitoring. Additionally, even when the FBI monitors a USMG, it is handicapped because U.S. citizens still have due process protections that most FTO members simply don’t have. For instance, a USMG may be extremist, but that in itself isn’t illegal; probable cause must be shown before wire taps, search warrants, or arrests can be made. By the time that threshold is met, it may be too late to stop an attack. Since no such threshold exists with most FTO members, it is easier to respond to threats posed by those groups. Also, arrests will antagonize USMGs, leading to more confrontations.SOURCES21 - http://www.heritage.org...22 - http://www.cnn.com...23 - http://archive.adl.org...24 - http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...25 - http://www.heritage.org...26 - http://www.latimes.com...27 - http://www.isis-online.org...28 - http://en.wikipedia.org...29 - http://www.csmonitor.com...30 - http://fas.org...31 - http://thedailybanter.com...32 - http://truth-out.org...HOUSEKEEPINGLast round, [2, 5] and [2, 4] should've been [12, 15] and [12, 14], respectively.