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

Thanks once again, Whiteflame! I will now rebut Con’s case.HISTORY OF HARMBy The NumbersCon begins by citing a study that more foreign attacks occurred between 2001 and 2009 than did domestic attacks. He explains that, as FTOs seem to have attacked more in the past, they are likely to attack more in the present and future. I have four responses to this. (1) As I showed in my previous round, USMGs experienced explosive growth in number and membership beginning in 2008. Therefore, much of Con’s data comes from a period where USMGs were not major operators in the domestic scene. [1] Con’s data is out of date.(2) There is a sort of logical error in assuming that just because things happened in the past that they will continue to occur in the future. I might spend all afternoon on my porch Mon. through Wed., but then go in on Tues. Con needs to show not just that a pattern exists, but that a pattern is apt to continue unperturbed.(3) We can’t solely base our assessments on frequency. I would again invoke the example of the bomb vs. the knife-wielding maniac to expound on this. And “gravity” is also not a great predictor for threat assessment, as frequency can outweigh that. There is a holistic judgment that needs to be made, and focusing on cold stats often doesn’t give us a good means of making that judgment, because we miss out on other, less tangible things. (4) USMGs have a very real capacity to inflict harm. I will show that they are well-armed, organized, and aggressive. “Analysts say that the capacity for a terrorist attack by militant right-wingers is very real and has the potential to be as deadly as any foreign jihadist attack.” [12] Next Con talks about the fear factor, whereby terrorists incite fear in a population, using fear as a weapon. Con also discusses how terrorist prefer to attack business and diplomatic targets. I have five responses here. (1) USMGs target the exact same kinds of things FTOs do: businesses, government officials, government buildings, etc. [13](2) USMGs willingness to hit smaller targets and not just big targets (though they do like big targets too) may allow them to fly under the radar as Con agrees they do, but this anonymity makes them more dangerous. After 9/11 the whole country united and rallied together against the threat of FTOs. Since that time, our society has been laser focused on eradicating FTOs, and we’ve often succeeded in disrupting FTO operations. By going unnoticed, USMGs can engage or incite violent activities without suffering the same kind of retaliation as Al-Qaeda; this gives USMGs a freer hand to operate. This actually turns Con’s argument.(3) Right-wing extremist groups like USMGs are historically willing to engage in the 9/11 style mega-attacks that Con says are so grave because of their ability to inspire fear. “The rise in extremist groups was ‘a cause for grave concern’ given their propensity to use violence during their heyday in the 90s, most notably with the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people… [S]upport for such groups were increasingly populist and that ‘signs of growing radicalisation are everywhere.’” [14] Prior to 9/11, the Oklahoma City Bombing was the deadliest attack on American soil ever. [15](4) FTO attacks on diplomats are actually in decline. [20] (5) This is a redherring on Con’s part. Fear does necessarily indicate an actual threat to national security. Remember, national security is about the physical integrity of a nation, not how the people feel about being in the nation. . Next, Con discusses the media coverage (how is this a threat to our security?) given to FTOs. I have two responses. (1) The fact that right-wing groups, including USMGs, are willing to engage in high-profile attacks as evidenced historically means that they have the potential to garner the same kind of media attention.(2) Right-wing media spreads fear in a different way, promoting conspiracy theories that fuel the anti-government feelings that keep USMGs alive and well. People are coming to fear their own government, and that fear is bolstering the influence of USMGs. [14] USMGs themselves also fuel extremism through their own propaganda. [2, 4] Con then goes on to posit that FTOs spur hate violence in the U.S. In fact, many USMGs are hate-based and apt to engage in hate violence. [2, 5] So, this is non-unique. As for Con’s claim that international terrorism doesn’t incite domestic terrorism, his own arguments about hate-violence defeat him. I am sure the Islamophobia resulting from 9/11 didn’t harm Neo-Nazi or Skinhead recruitment efforts. Gravity of AttacksCon states that from 2001-2009 more died of domestic terrorism than FTO attacks. Firstly, I already discussed how any stats from that timeframe are out of date, but, secondly, I have some contrary evidence from 2001-2014, which states, “According to a count by the New America Foundation, right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11. By contrast, terrorists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11.” [15] Consider also that USMGs are fully capable of launching major assaults and are extremely well armed. [13] To quote another source, “Some of these groups have been stockpiling weapons and ordnance of all types since the 80’s. Past plots to kill countless thousands by attacking a chemical plant in Texas and the manufacture of a ‘cyanide bomb’ that had the potential to kill every person in a crowded shopping mall proves that right-wing militants take a backseat to no one when it comes to terrorism and dream vividly of death on an apocalyptic scale.” [12] In fact, “There were more firearms possessed by the…Hutaree militia than by all 200 Muslim extremists arrested in the U.S. since 9/11.” [12]GOING FORWARDCon observes that FTOs have a global pool of recruits. However, FTOs are based outside of the U.S., and our distance gives us some security. We can screen our boarders carefully to preempt many types of FTO-motivated or -organized attacks, though of course not all. Con even suggests that USMGs’ proximity helps us to monitor their activities, but this is offset by their privacy rights as U.S. citizens. Legally, they cannot be surveilled as we would do with an FTO.Con also claims that USMGs influence government less. Yet, recently, CPAC, an important conservative gathering, was supported in part by the “Oath Keepers, a patriot outfit formed last year that suggests…the government has secret plans to declare martial law and intern patriotic Americans in concentration camps.” [14] Furthermore, prominent TV personalities and news groups are propagating the ideas of the Patriot movement that has spawned these USMGs. [14] The Tea-Party movement has also taken up causes of the patriot movement, [14] and right-wing extremist have sought an attained meetings with important government officials. [16]Then Con lists a variety of means by which the U.S. can directly and violently combat FTOs, and explains how these fuel terror’s flames. He claims FTOs are harder to address than USMGs because of these limited options, but that isn’t accurate, since there are more options (financial restrictions, diplomacy, etc) than those in our toolkit. Moreover, Con never explains why FTOs are really harder to deal with. The U.S. government tried to arrest, in a mundane legal proceeding, Cliven Bundy’s cattle, and federal agents were met with massive, armed opposition. Given the nature of the militant, anti-government USMGs, they will oppose any attempt by the government to disrupt their activities.Finally, Con discusses WMDs/NBCs as regards FTOs. I have three responses: (1) NBCs are difficult for FTOs to attain and use. “Getting large quantities [of chemical weapons] and weaponizing them for mass casualties is difficult, and only nation states have succeeded in doing so.” [17] The same is true for biological weapons. [17] In fact, instances of NBCs attacks by non-state actors have shown that such actors are unable to deploy them more effectively than bombs.” [18](2) In the U.S., right-wing groups likes USMGs are more likely to acquire NBCs than FTOs as evidenced historically. “Moreover, since 9/11 none of the more than 200 individuals indicted or convicted in the United States of some act of jihadist terrorism have acquired or used chemical or biological weapons or their precursor materials, while 13 individuals motivated by right wing extremist ideology…used or acquired such weapons or their precursors.” [15](3) USMGs are already heavily armed, and likely have more weapons and more lethal weapons stockpiled within the borders of the U.S. than FTOs. That means that USMGs could likely inflict greater damage in a given confrontation. I would just like to conclude by noting that experts place USMGs at least on par with FTOs in terms of the threat the risk they pose and potential to inflict harm they have. [19] Let's also, given the subject of this debate, take a moment to honor all those who died 13 years ago today, on 9/11. We'll never forget.SOURCES1 - http://usnews.nbcnews.com...12 - http://www.digitaljournal.com...13 - http://www.fbi.gov...14 - http://www.theguardian.com...15 - http://www.cnn.com...16 - http://www.thedailybeast.com...17 - http://www.gpo.gov...18 - http://en.wikipedia.org...19 - http://www.cnn.com...20 - http://www.motherjones.com...