[black bear theory]

Worldwide terror attacks top 10,000

WASHINGTON (AP) — Terror attacks and kidnappings worldwide exceeded 10,000 for the first time last year, propelled in part by a surge in Iraq, according to government figures to be released soon.
Officials cautioned against reading too much into the overall total. The government last year adopted a new definition of terrorism and changed its system of counting global attacks, devoting more energy to finding reports of violence against civilians.
Yet the numbers are a striking reminder that violence around the globe has dramatically increased in the more than four years of the war on terror.
In 2004, the National Counterterrorism Center, the government’s new hub for monitoring terrorism, counted 3,192 terror attacks — including more than 28,000 people wounded, killed or kidnapped.
The 2005 tally will exceed 10,000 attacks and kidnappings, according to a federal official familiar with the center’s work on the subject. The official spoke Friday on condition of anonymity because the numbers had not yet been officially released.

the gov't changed the way it tallied terrorist attacks in 2004. even so, 2004, by the old ruler had 3x the number of attacks than 2003. by the newer standards, 2005 is still 3x more than 2004.

is the WoT curbing terrrorism, a conclusion not supported by the numbers? or is the WoT actually diminishing terrorism? fifty percent of these attacks are attributed to iraq, though that does not count attacks against coalition soldiers (since they are, by definition, combatants).

[abe]

Show us the numbers of worldwide terrorist incidents from 1991 til 2001, a ten year period of time when we followed the policy of ignoring terrorism.

Let's see...we do NOTHING and terrorism increases. We do SOMETHING and terrorism increases.

And you believe we should go back to doing nothing. Or do you propose we just stroke ourselves off pretending to address the issue so that when the inevitable happened we could say, "at least we were trying?"

All you are seeing is the evidence that the problem was widespread and deeply seated.

If you go quail hunting and your dog flushes dozens of quail are you the kind of person who would believe it was the DOG that made the field so well populated with birds???

Silly people, the dog just forced them out into the open.

There is no way they were going to stay quiet and peaceful forever.

YOU DON'T WIN A WAR ON YOUR OWN TERRITORY!

Al Qaeda knows this. President Bush knows this. The conservative posters here know this.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by abe

Show us the numbers of worldwide terrorist incidents from 1991 til 2001, a ten year period of time when we followed the policy of ignoring terrorism.

Let's see...we do NOTHING and terrorism increases. We do SOMETHING and terrorism increases.

And you believe we should go back to doing nothing. Or do you propose we just stroke ourselves off pretending to address the issue so that when the inevitable happened we could say, "at least we were trying?"

All you are seeing is the evidence that the problem was widespread and deeply seated.

If you go quail hunting and your dog flushes dozens of quail are you the kind of person who would believe it was the DOG that made the field so well populated with birds???:

Operations in Iraq are not "flushing out" terrorists. Terrorists are traveling to Iraq to get a chance to attack U.S. forces and carry out a holy war. The same thing happened in Bosnia, except in Bosnia cultural differences between Arab jihadists and Bosnian Muslims meant that the latter mostly considered the former a complete joke, and a deep-seated jihadist movement never sunk in.

[Dakar]

Iraq is all part of some elaborate rope-a-dope on the terrorists.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by abe

Show us the numbers of worldwide terrorist incidents from 1991 til 2001, a ten year period of time when we followed the policy of ignoring terrorism.

I have no idea of its origins, and make no claims as to its validity, but a prof threw this graph up during a class presentation that briefly touched on terrorism. Again, the subject was not this guy's speciality, and he didn't give a citation, so I'm just gonna throw this up here and let you guys run with it.



greg

[abe]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I have no idea of its origins, and make no claims as to its validity, but a prof threw this graph up during a class presentation that briefly touched on terrorism. Again, the subject was not this guy's speciality, and he didn't give a citation, so I'm just gonna throw this up here and let you guys run with it.



Patterns of Global Terrorism -2001
Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism
May 21, 2002

Total International Terrorist Attacks, 1981-2001

Click here for notes and data presented in chart below.

In past years, serious violence by Palestinians against other Palestinians in the occupied territories was included in the database of worldwide international terrorist incidents because Palestinians are considered stateless people. This resulted in such incidents being treated differently from intraethnic violence in other parts of the world. In 1989, as a result of further review of the nature of intra-Palestinian violence, such violence stopped being included in the US Government’s statistical database on international terrorism. The figures shown above for the years 1984 through 1988 have been revised to exclude intra-Palestinian violence, thus making the database consistent.

Investigations into terrorist incidents sometimes yield evidence that necessitates a change in the information previously held true (such as whether the incident fits the definition of international terrorism, which group or state sponsor was responsible, or the number of victims killed or injured). As as result of these adjustments, the statistics given in this report may vary slightly from numbers cited in previous reports. Click to see the same values in table format.

2001


greg

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:...&client=safari

[abe]

When asked about the reported increase in attacks generally, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday that the methodology had changed so there was no common baseline. “Technically, you could say that there might be a larger number of incidents from one year to another, but it’s comparing apples and oranges,” he said.

The 2005 numbers were first reported by Knight-Ridder. They are expected to be formally released within the next two weeks in a broader report from the State Department, called the Country Reports on Terrorism.

Federal officials attributed the increase in the tally to three factors:
— The increase in terror incidents in Iraq as the insurgency tried to disrupt elections and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other Sunni Muslim fighters attacked Iraqi Shiites.

— More resources devoted to finding attacks documented by non-governmental organizations, the news media, Web sites and other sources.

In 2004, about 10 people at the counterterrorism center spent two months tallying the attacks. Last year, about 15 people spent roughly nine months on the work. That meant the center’s analysts were able to do a more robust job of counting thousands of people kidnapped in Nepal, for instance.

— A new, broader definition of terrorism adopted last year, before the release of the 2004 numbers, included all “premeditated violence directed against noncombatants for political purposes.”

The previous definition focused on international terrorism and required that the terrorists victimize at least one citizen of another country. This definition would exclude from the count much of the sectarian violence in Iraq. Also, only attacks resulting in more than $10,000 damage or serious injuries were counted.

The counterterrorism center’s Web site and various government officials have stressed that counting attacks is more art than science. For instance, on the morning of Aug. 17, 2005, there were 350 small bomb attacks in Bangladesh. The counterterrorism center considers that one attack.

Tallying Iraq alone is complicated. Attacks against U.S. military personnel there are not included because U.S. forces are considered combatants. Those assaults, instead, are monitored by the Defense Department.

Last year, terrorism statistics became an issue when critics accused the Bush administration of understating the increase in global terrorism. Counterterrorism officials blamed human error and a definition of terrorism that had not been updated since the 1980s.

Following the dispute, the counterterrorism center sought to establish a public, searchable database of attacks, starting with attacks from 2004, to allow private researchers access to the unclassified information.

Last year, the center’s interim director, John Brennan, called the new counting system and the public database “the most comprehensive U.S. effort to date to track terrorist incidents worldwide.”

From BBT's cited link

[black bear theory]

these are the state dept stats http://www.cdi.org/program/document....e=../index.cfm

since they changed how things are tabulated, comparison between the present and the past is difficult, but even in the one transition year, it shows three-fold increase.

sure there is more scrutiny for terrorism acts, but what do you expect. you don't launch a war on terror and decide not to gauge it's effectiveness.

[tie]

Originally Posted by abe

And you believe we should go back to doing nothing.

Nobody believes we should do nothing. A lot of people believe we should have caught Bin Laden, instead of attacking Iraq for its nonexistent WMD. The war on terror was vastly more important than whatever reason we attacked Iraq for (I'm not sure, is today's explanation that we were trying to free the Iraqi people?), and we should have concentrated on it. (On the other hand, obviously attacking Afghanistan was completely necessary.) Right now, we're creating more terrorists in Iraq, and the numbers are showing it.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by tie

Nobody believes we should do nothing. A lot of people believe we should have caught Bin Laden, instead of attacking Iraq for its nonexistent WMD. The war on terror was vastly more important than whatever reason we attacked Iraq for (I'm not sure, is today's explanation that we were trying to free the Iraqi people?), and we should have concentrated on it. (On the other hand, obviously attacking Afghanistan was completely necessary.) Right now, we're creating more terrorists in Iraq, and the numbers are showing it.

I could not agree more.

Although it is possible that with globalisation, more terrorism could have happen as well, without the attack of Afghanistan. But that would be speculation, because globalisation could have meant more crooked deals with crooked leaders, and probably more peace, paradoxically...

[Kevin]

Raise your hands if you think terrorism would settle down if the US pulled out of everything and stopped supporting Israel.

Ok

Now Raise your hands if you think it would just encourage these guys, because they would see it as a sign from Allah, and just make them worse.

http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by tie

Nobody believes we should do nothing. A lot of people believe we should have caught Bin Laden, instead of attacking Iraq for its nonexistent WMD. The war on terror was vastly more important than whatever reason we attacked Iraq for (I'm not sure, is today's explanation that we were trying to free the Iraqi people?), and we should have concentrated on it. (On the other hand, obviously attacking Afghanistan was completely necessary.) Right now, we're creating more terrorists in Iraq, and the numbers are showing it.

You know, I would like to see Bin Laden captured/killed as much as anyone, but doing so would not help curb terrorism in the least. Some say it may even embolden Al Qaeda even more, I personally wouldn't know.

Harping on the capture of Bin Laden is a just another item to use against Bush. That fact that he's still evaded capture doesn't necessarily denote incompetence or indifference on the part of this administration or anyone else involved. If he had been captured right after 9/11, Bush would still have pursued the Iraqi agenda and the terror attacks would still be going on and the Bush opponents would still grace us with their demagogic babbling.

I think the effort in Iraq comes down to two questions:

1. Do you think that IF Iraq were to become a stable republic on the road toward a more liberal society that this cold be a very good thing for the ME?

2. If you answer yes to the above then is the pain of the transition worth it?

If you can honestly answer yes to both of these questions then the mistakes of the past become far less relevant, and the results begin to take precedence.

I believe that in general, people's discomfort or disgust with a situation like the iraq war may be the result of excessive magnification. What I mean is: if we were to shrink down and become a part of an ecosystem like the human body we would see all kinds of "wars" going on and we, being the righteous, judgmental people that we are, would eventually seek to take sides, and either try to stop the conflicts that are going on or destroy the side we have chosen to oppose…but in the human body that would be fatal.

What I'm saying is that maybe, as bad as these things look to us in our intimate view of them, maybe these things are simply a necessary part of a healthy world. We as humans have been fighting brutal wars since as far back as historical accounts can be found and yet, the population still grows (too quickly at that), technology still advances, freedom is still spreading and becoming a right instead of a privilege for the few, economic conditions on the whole continue to get better, and yes, wars are MORE humane than they ever were. The free, advanced nations in the world would not even dream of repeating a massive civilian slaughter like that of Hiroshima. (yes, I REALLY believe this)

Your perception of the world IS your world. You may continue to see everything as going to hell in a hand-basket, but don't cling to that idea too much. Even in the bad times the world is getting better.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Raise your hands if you think terrorism would settle down if the US pulled out of everything and stopped supporting Israel.

Ok

Now Raise your hands if you think it would just encourage these guys, because they would see it as a sign from Allah, and just make them worse.

http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

Raise your hands if you reject Kevin's false dichotomy.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Helmling

Raise your hands if you reject Kevin's false dichotomy.

sorry that's the best i can do.

and he's the one always posting that dilbert cartoon. sheesh.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Helmling

Raise your hands if you reject Kevin's false dichotomy.

What's false about it?

Originally Posted by Kevin
Raise your hands if you think terrorism would settle down if the US pulled out of everything and stopped supporting Israel.

This would not stop terrorism.

Ok

Now Raise your hands if you think it would just encourage these guys, because they would see it as a sign from Allah, and just make them worse.

It has happened before that good events are seen as a sign of divine encouragement.

He's asking two separate questions. Each one has validity.

[abe]

Originally Posted by tie

Nobody believes we should do nothing. A lot of people believe we should have caught Bin Laden, instead of attacking Iraq for its nonexistent WMD. The war on terror was vastly more important than whatever reason we attacked Iraq for (I'm not sure, is today's explanation that we were trying to free the Iraqi people?), and we should have concentrated on it. (On the other hand, obviously attacking Afghanistan was completely necessary.) Right now, we're creating more terrorists in Iraq, and the numbers are showing it.

And all the terrorists who were being created and trained and moving into place and all the terrorist networks and methods and sources of financing would have been able to quietly continue their preparations until the time when they were ready to move on the US in strength.

In a way, 9/11 was an al Qaeda miscalculation.

Based on the previous 10 years or more of evidence that the US would cut and run after suffering a nose bleed such as had happened in Somalia (Blackhawk Down), the USS Cole (we did nothing) the Embassy bombings (we did nothing), the 1993 WTC bombing, (we convicted the blind Sheikh) and others, OBL likely thought that by bloodying our nose on 9/11 that we would cower in fear, as many of us now wish to do in Iraq, and stay out of their way while they went about their campaign to terrorize the world until when they had conquered most of the world the USA would have a much more difficult fight to oppose radical Islamic forces of conquest.

George W. Bush STOPPED their plans of an easier conquest and is in the process of pushing them back.

The peace you imagined existing was a deceptive one.

You just don't know it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Helmling

Raise your hands if you reject Kevin's false dichotomy.

What was contradictory about it?

I've posted that many times. Lots of accusations, and ad-hominem silliness. But not one person has been able to debunk it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

What if...we spent $200 billion on helping them?

It's a crazy thought, I know. I know. I'm just throwing it out there. I'm just saying, with one side saying "ONLY TEH WAR WILL STOP TERRORISM" and the other side going "OMG YOUR KILLING INNOCENTS AND MAKING TEH TERRORISM," you know, something about "help" would be appropriate in there. Somewhere.

greg


Now Playing: Blind Melon – St. Andrew's Fall

[abe]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

What if...we spent $200 billion on helping them?

It's a crazy thought, I know. I know. I'm just throwing it out there. I'm just saying, with one side saying "ONLY TEH WAR WILL STOP TERRORISM" and the other side going "OMG YOUR KILLING INNOCENTS AND MAKING TEH TERRORISM," you know, something about "help" would be appropriate in there. Somewhere.

greg


Now Playing: Blind Melon – St. Andrew's Fall

Come on. You know there were BILLIONS earmarked to help but the need for security ate up much of that $$ and some of it is still just waiting to be used. Waiting until it is safe enough to proceed with the projects.

That's what the insurgents are doing. They are intentionally preventing progress.

They don't want there to be a democratic government. They don't want the Americans to have anything to do with Iraq. And if they could get the Americans to leave then they could create another Iran.

Another Islamic nation like Iran! One that is bent on confrontation, exporting terrorism and committed to achieving Islamic world dominance and Sharia law over EVERY nation.

And we have our hands full with ONE Iran!

And Americans are balking at continuing the war in Iraq even though the worst of it has already been overcome.

Just think how difficult it would be if GWB hadn't confronted the challenge when he did?!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

You misunderstand me. I meant transfering the billions that have been spent on the full-scale invasion into research and help programs to try and eliminate the source of the terrorist problem.

I know this may astound you, but I for one feel that the response you advocate towards terrorism – "we will fight you and kill you all until there are no terrorists left" – doesn't seem to be very logical given small things like, you know, the definition of terrorism and all that.

greg

[abe]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

You misunderstand me. I meant transfering the billions that have been spent on the full-scale invasion into research and help programs to try and eliminate the source of the terrorist problem.

I know this may astound you, but I for one feel that the response you advocate towards terrorism – "we will fight you and kill you all until there are no terrorists left" – doesn't seem to be very logical given small things like, you know, the definition of terrorism and all that.

greg

Why do I even try anymore to get my point or

ANY POINT across to people who don't even understand

what they are reading???

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by smacintush

You know, I would like to see Bin Laden captured/killed as much as anyone, but doing so would not help curb terrorism in the least. Some say it may even embolden Al Qaeda even more, I personally wouldn't know.

Harping on the capture of Bin Laden is a just another item to use against Bush. That fact that he's still evaded capture doesn't necessarily denote incompetence or indifference on the part of this administration or anyone else involved. If he had been captured right after 9/11, Bush would still have pursued the Iraqi agenda and the terror attacks would still be going on and the Bush opponents would still grace us with their demagogic babbling.

I think the effort in Iraq comes down to two questions:

1. Do you think that IF Iraq were to become a stable republic on the road toward a more liberal society that this cold be a very good thing for the ME?

2. If you answer yes to the above then is the pain of the transition worth it?

If you can honestly answer yes to both of these questions then the mistakes of the past become far less relevant, and the results begin to take precedence.

I believe that in general, people's discomfort or disgust with a situation like the iraq war may be the result of excessive magnification. What I mean is: if we were to shrink down and become a part of an ecosystem like the human body we would see all kinds of "wars" going on and we, being the righteous, judgmental people that we are, would eventually seek to take sides, and either try to stop the conflicts that are going on or destroy the side we have chosen to oppose…but in the human body that would be fatal.

What I'm saying is that maybe, as bad as these things look to us in our intimate view of them, maybe these things are simply a necessary part of a healthy world. We as humans have been fighting brutal wars since as far back as historical accounts can be found and yet, the population still grows (too quickly at that), technology still advances, freedom is still spreading and becoming a right instead of a privilege for the few, economic conditions on the whole continue to get better, and yes, wars are MORE humane than they ever were. The free, advanced nations in the world would not even dream of repeating a massive civilian slaughter like that of Hiroshima. (yes, I REALLY believe this)

Your perception of the world IS your world. You may continue to see everything as going to hell in a hand-basket, but don't cling to that idea too much. Even in the bad times the world is getting better.

So if that effect would be true by capturing bin Laden, what about Saddam Hussein?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

We are in a thread about terrorism attacks. Thus far I haven't seen any evidence to support the idea that a "war against terrorism" will somehow curb it – terrorism is, after all, the result of people being so weak that they have no viable alternatives to combat.

You have clearly stated in this thread that without USA intervention the terrorists would have eventually "conquered the whole world." I find this statement hilarious, and so full of insanity that I honestly feel you may have some paranoia problems.

Al-Qaeda conquering the world? Hyuck.

greg

[Moderator]

Without the WoT the right wing would be out of business in this country...so like or not...neo conservatives quietly applaud the figure. The more fear the better.

[abe]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

We are in a thread about terrorism attacks. Thus far I haven't seen any evidence to support the idea that a "war against terrorism" will somehow curb it – terrorism is, after all, the result of people being so weak that they have no viable alternatives to combat.

You have clearly stated in this thread that without USA intervention the terrorists would have eventually "conquered the whole world." I find this statement hilarious, and so full of insanity that I honestly feel you may have some paranoia problems.

Al-Qaeda conquering the world? Hyuck.

greg

Looks like they've found SOMEONE to be their unwitting tool. Hyuck.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by abe

Looks like they've found SOMEONE to be their unwitting tool. Hyuck.

That's specious reasoning...

[abe]

Originally Posted by sek929

That's specious reasoning...

I'm just pissed at his failure to interpret correctly and his taking advantage of my bonhomie. So, I figure I'd relax my usual boundaries and sense of discipline and self control a bit.

But there IS a kernel of truth there.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Interpret what correctly?? And what is "correctly?" As far as I can tell, anything that does not follow the path of conservative, Christian right-wing views is not "correct" in your view.

greg

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

So if that effect would be true by capturing bin Laden, what about Saddam Hussein?

Well, I don't know. Hussein was different because catching him was politically desirable for securing the support of the Iraqis who lived under him.

Nevertheless, I ask you, do YOU think that Hussein's follower's loyalty is anywhere NEAR that of Bin Laden's? I certainly don't. I don't think the Baathists REALLY care all that much about Hussein himself. They are interested in returning to rule without him.