Terrorism on the rise?

[welsh]

Yep, looks like more terrorist attacks than before.

Why? Hmmmmm.....

I think George Bush might have more luck trying to find Waldo than finding Osama Bin Laden.

And get this, they aren't going to tell us in the future if we're winning or losing.

I think some of the non-Americans have pointed out before how sometimes news must come from outside.

What ever happened to an honest, transparent government responsible to the people?

World Terror Attacks Tripled in 2004 by U.S. Count

By Arshad Mohammed

Note to rabid republicans- the author of this article is probably muslim. (in otherwords this is the point you scream "Lieing infidel dog! I'm glad we're bombing, or will bomb, the shit out of your countries!!)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. count of major world terrorist attacks more than tripled in 2004, a rise that may revive debate on whether the Bush administration is winning the war on terrorism, congressional aides said on Tuesday.

Hmmm..
More terrorists this year than last...
more last year than the year before......

Looks like we're losing the war.
Maybe because this president can't seem to keep his eye on the ball, or perhaps his cocaine adled, alcohol damaged brain can't think past his narrow interests?

Ok, some of you might say, "Welsh, that's not fair. You're not being objective with W."
And you're right.

The number of "significant" international terrorist attacks rose to about 650 last year from about 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides briefed on the numbers by State Department and intelligence officials on Monday.

The aides were told the surge partly reflected an increased tally of violence in India and Pakistan related to the Himalayan region of Kashmir, which both countries claim, and the devotion of more manpower to the U.S. monitoring effort, which resulted in more attacks being counted overall.

Maybe because the definition of terrorism is still unclear.

The State Department last year initially released erroneous figures that understated the attacks and casualties in 2003 and used the figures to argue that the Bush administration was prevailing in the war on terrorism.

It later said the number of people killed and injured in 2003 was more than double its original count and said "significant" terrorist attacks -- those that kill or seriously injure someone, cause more than $10,000 in damage or attempt to do either of those things -- rose to a 20-year high of 175.

$10,000 in damage to property? What? SO if you spray paint a car of some republican party flunky with the words "Crooked Politicans Rot in Hell" does that make you a terrorist?

The State Department last week unleashed a new debate about the numbers by saying it would no longer release them in its annual terrorism report but that the newly created National Counterterrorism Center that compiles the data would do so.

Wait a minute- they are not going to release the data and thereby keep the public in the dark?

Next year, "Are we winning the war on terror?"
Answer- "Got me, the State Department is not saying."

= deal with growing problem by sweeping it under the table and making sure the public is left clueless.
Democracy at work!

A spokesman for the CIA, which is handling media inquiries for the NCTC, last week said no decisions had been made although other officials expected the data to be made public.

Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), a California Democrat, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday asking her to release the data, which include only international attacks and exclude violence that is classified as purely domestic.

"The large increases in terrorist attacks reported in 2004 may undermine administration claims of success in the war on terror, but political inconvenience has never been a legitimate basis for withholding facts from the American people," Waxman said in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters.

Nice to see someone still makes sense.

So let's say the US decides not to make this news public. Yet this information might be available through the internet from other sources.

News Flash- "France says Terrorism on the Rise, War against Terrorism ineffectual. Rumsfeld says 'French are Pussies.'"

BETTER TALLY RESPONSIBLE

Former intelligence official Larry Johnson last week first disclosed the 2004 increase in his Web log, saying the 2004 numbers would rise at least 655 from about 172 in 2003.

Incidently, they fucked up the count last year too.

Waxman's letter said that of the about 650 significant attacks last year, about 300 reflected violence in India and Pakistan, leaving some 350 attacks elsewhere in the world -- double the total 2003 count.

He suggested this reflected enhanced U.S. efforts to monitor media reports of violence, thereby leading to the identification of "many more attacks in India and Pakistan related to Kashmir." He also said congressional aides were told of about 198 attacks in Iraq in 2004, up from 22 in 2003.

Congressional aides said about 10 full-time employees worked on the 2004 count, up from about three in past years, and that this produced a more complete count.

Ten guys counting terrorist attacks? Doesn't that seem a bit high? Does that include the 18 year old 34-22-33 nympho that gives blow jobs to aging Congressmen?

"What it effectively means is that the Bush administration and the CIA haven't been putting the staff resources necessary and have missed (two thirds) of the world's terrorist incidents," said a Democratic congressional aide. "How can you have an effective counterterrorism policy from that?"

Somewhere in a hole in the ground, somewhere unknown to the CIA and the Pentagon, Osama must be laughing.

A Republican congressional aide said it would be unfair of Democrats to claim terrorism was getting worse under the Bush administration, stressing that the 2004 and 2003 numbers were not counted in the same way and hence were not comparable.

"That is a conclusion that cannot be drawn because we have no baseline and certainly last year's revised numbers offer no accurate baseline of the universe of terrorist incidents," he said. "Without that you cannot reach an accurate conclusion."

= We don't like your numbers so we won't agree with them.

Well, Christian Republicans, at least you kept the homosexuals from marrying and turning you gay. Isn't that Fabulous.

 

[John Uskglass]

Welsh, who is this adressed to? Me? I think I'm the most active Christian, and was a die hard Republican until recently.

If not me, then who? Why post this?

 

[Brother None]

A Republican congressional aide said it would be unfair of Democrats to claim terrorism was getting worse under the Bush administration, stressing that the 2004 and 2003 numbers were not counted in the same way and hence were not comparable.

"That is a conclusion that cannot be drawn because we have no baseline and certainly last year's revised numbers offer no accurate baseline of the universe of terrorist incidents," he said. "Without that you cannot reach an accurate conclusion."

Uhm, that seems to be a pretty fair point to me. Every now and again the Dutch police force reforms its way of counting bike thefts or whatever and every now and again the numbers explode because of that. Means exactly dick-shit, though.

More accurate counting and monitoring is more accurate fighting, one might say.

It later said the number of people killed and injured in 2003 was more than double its original count and said "significant" terrorist attacks -- those that kill or seriously injure someone, cause more than $10,000 in damage or attempt to do either of those things -- rose to a 20-year high of 175.

$10,000 is a little low, but do keep in mind there's a difference between terrorism and vandalism. Spray-painting a car is just the latter

 

[welsh]

Welsh, who is this adressed to? Me? I think I'm the most active Christian, and was a die hard Republican until recently.

If not me, then who? Why post this?

No, John, it was not directed to you.

I am not sure if you are the most active Christian, and as for your political leanings... well there's still hope we can turn you from the Dark Side.

Besides, you're too sensitive for a Republican.

 

[mettalhed]

"The large increases in terrorist attacks reported in 2004 may undermine administration claims of success in the war on terror, but political inconvenience has never been a legitimate basis for withholding facts from the American people," Waxman said

AMEN!!!

Quote:
The State Department last week unleashed a new debate about the numbers by saying it would no longer release them in its annual terrorism report but that the newly created National Counterterrorism Center that compiles the data would do so.


Wait a minute- they are not going to release the data and thereby keep the public in the dark?

Next year, "Are we winning the war on terror?"
Answer- "Got me, the State Department is not saying."

= deal with growing problem by sweeping it under the table and making sure the public is left clueless.
Democracy at work!

Seems to be happening more and more now days. Avoid the problem and leave the public clueless, it's this kind of attitude that will cause America to suffer as a nation. I can only hope this kind of thing will change in the future.

Maybe because this president can't seem to keep his eye on the ball, or perhaps his cocaine adled, alcohol damaged brain can't think past his narrow interests?

Again, amen.

Ok, some of you might say, "Welsh, that's not fair. You're not being objective with W."

I'm not being objective with him either, but then i don't think his actions deserve me being objective either. I supported ole Bush in the beginning, but have come to regret that decision. And have also come to the conclusion that he's a money grubbing jackass.

Osama must be laughing.

Must be, and probably has been for awhile.

News Flash- "France says Terrorism on the Rise, War against Terrorism ineffectual. Rumsfeld says 'French are Pussies.'"

Hilarious! And what's bad is... i can see him actually saying that.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

It's all fine and dandy until someone detonates a briefcase nuke in Washington.
Man, I'll be laughing my ass off that day.

 

[MrMarcus]

It's all fine and dandy until someone detonates a briefcase nuke in Washington.
Man, I'll be laughing my ass off that day.

Sure, give them an excuse to fully turn America into a police state.

 

[Ashmo]

Heheheh. Yeah, because it isn't yet. Rrrright.

 

[Saint_Cadian]

Oy, another Repub Vs. Demo.

Well honestly, i can't see the war getting any better when the democrats victimize the terroists. Do you remember good ol' Kerry and his want to give Iran plutonium to see if they make a bomb or not? or his need to practically implement a draft when the military generals have already siad time and again that we don't need one.

What about the Democrats constantly pointing out that France doesn't want to join us because they think its wrong when in reality, France doesn't want to join us because they are mostly likely selling weapons and supplies to these Terrorist groups.

Of course we can also see just how much Democrats want to get rid of terrorism by them actually trying to actively stop the republicans from doing anything while our country is at war on a global scale.

I can practically say just as bad about the repubs too, but i think you guys got that down.

Then there is the whole thing about the american public begining to completely forget about our war against terrorism. It was a record though. People actually cared about the rest of the world for about 9 months before going back to thinking about themselves.

About the US being a police state/Fascist country....haha..get me to be a president and then you'll actually come to like the democracy we have now.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Do you remember good ol' Kerry and his want to give Iran plutonium to see if they make a bomb or not?

France doesn't want to join us because they are mostly likely selling weapons and supplies to these Terrorist groups.

I can practically say just as bad about the repubs too, but i think you guys got that down.

get me to be a president and then you'll actually come to like the democracy we have now.

Buddy, are you sure you are American? And fully literate?

 

[Ashmo]

France doesn't want to join us because they are mostly likely selling weapons and supplies to these Terrorist groups.

Yeah, like every other major weapons manufacturing country. INCLUDING the US.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Exectly. The US supplied weapons to pretty much everybody they went to war with in the last 50 or so years.

 

[Bradylama]

Couldn't an increase in terror attacks be a sign that we're winning the war on terror? A cornered animal doesn't stay still, after all.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

If you were winning the war on terrorism, that would mean that there would be less terrorists, hence less terrorism.
You are not, and there isn't.

Besides, terrorists always behave like cornered animals.

 

[Brother None]

If you were winning the war on terrorism, that would mean that there would be less terrorists, hence less terrorism.
You are not, and there isn't.

That's a weak counter-argument and actually, Brady is right.

Nobody ever said the purpose of the declaration of war on terror was to immediately start decreasing the number of terrorist attacks. That would be like Churchill saying "I'm declaring war on Nazi Germany*, so you can now expect the bombings on London to decrease!"

It's not about a cornered animal, though, Brady is not right in that sense either. However, the fact that war is declared is there. If you combine the fact that they're now counting and monitoring more efficiently as well as the fact that terrorism, especially from islamic corners, has been on the increase since before 9/11, it's not THAT odd that numbers would be up.

It's not, like Brady implied, a sign of succes. It's not a sign that they feel cornered. But it's barely a sign of the opposite either. Bush himself said it'd be a long haul war, which precludes immediately diminishing of attacks

* it always comes back to the Nazis

 

[Murdoch]

If Republicans want to prove that terrorism isn't in fact increasing all they have to do is apply the new accounting methodology retroactively. Or use the old accounting method with the current data. But so far they have one neither (afaik) so perhaps the data is sound.

And I also read about this in the Economist, and they made no mention of a changing of methodology, which they always do (in my experience), so I'm taking the numbers at face value.

 

[Ashmo]

I hope they didn't expect a single terrorist to be seriously worried about the US declaring war on terrorism.

That's no less of a propagandistic claim than declaring "war" on software "piracy" or drugs.

It's been said before and I'll say it again: you can't declare war on terrorism. Terrorism isn't a country and it isn't a nation. You can't "invade" terrorism and you can't bomb it to stoneage.

Terrorism is a social phenomenon and won't ever disappear. You can suppress it with a careful mix of armed intervention, peacekeeping and social politics.

By treating it as a war you only ignore the true causes and make the problem worse.

Osama Bin Laden isn't Hitler. He's a leader of one of many autonomous and mostly independant terorist cells and as such he is replacable. He also serves as an idol, but that's only because he gets all the media attention that tries to villify him and thus plays in the hands of him and those who support his cause and ideology.

The youngest generations of terrorists have been conditioned into believing in real religious motivations for their actions. Of course they are dangerous, but so is anyone that has been brainwashed appropriately.

The real problem aren't the terrorists that act out of an ideology they got brainwashed into. Brainwashing requires proper organisation and only proves a risk if it happens on a scale that is large enough (African child soldiers pop into my mind there).

The real problem are those who become terrorists because they are WILLING to lose their lives for a desperate cause.

In a way this is similar to how the Nazi party rose to power: the populace was desperate and the Nazis offered a chance to gain back the wealth and power the Germans lost in the Great World War (WW1).

The Jews became an easy scape goat, just like American imperialism nowadays -- it's even the same claim:
Jews/Americans own everything and Jews/Americans are rich while you are poor, so they are sinister and evil while you are lawful and good, and because that's unfair you have to join us to change this.

World War 2 had less to do with this than one might think. World War 2 wasn't a means the populace thought about when they made Hitler their dictator in spe. World War 2 is only the exaggeration of the fanatic "war" on Bolschevism and Judaism.

But let's get back to the terrorists who "chose" to become what they are.

Every terrorist organisation or cell thereof has a motivation. That motivation isn't always based on a desperate situation -- greed can be quite a motivation for some, others have more complex reasons to project all their hate at some group or another (although this tends to be caused by a more natural form of the "conditioning" I described before -- some neo-nazis were raised as such and some just joined the neo-nazis because all their friend were such already or simply because they were bullied by Turkish or black kids a lot and the neos seemed the right choice).
However especially in countries like Iraq it oftenly is.

Counter-propaganda and hunting down the offenders can only get you so far. If your methods feel too radical (treating any civlian as a potential terrorist, risking the lives of civilians by strictly enforcing border control regulations, etc) or if you disrespect their cultural or religious believes (treating bedrooms like any other room during an appartment raid, entering mosques without support of the locals, etc), you can easily turn your benevolent actions into propaganda that doesn't even need any comment or manipulation in order to be used against you.

Counter-terrorism isn't a massive all-out war, it's a careful campaign of surgical strikes and diplomacy.

PS: God is this a long and incoherent rant. Sheesh.

 

[TorontoReign]

Going to war against terrorists is like nuking a anthill.'nuff said.

 

[Ashmo]

Going to war against terrorists is like nuking a anthill.'nuff said.

Like nuking one ant hill, to be specific.

 

[Bradylama]

Aren't surgical strikes and diplomacy precisely what we're attempting?

Are you just making a semantical argument over declaring war?