![]() Turkish, Pakistani and Afghan leaders sign a pact to fight terrorism |
On Monday evening, the State Department released its annual Country Reports on Terrorism showing a number of interesting findings, including steep declines in terrorist attacks and murders in many regions of the globe. That has not been the lede story in America's liberal media, however. Instead, they've chosen to focus their attentions on how terrorism has increased in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
That's not entirely unjustified. Both of those countries have significant amounts of American troops in them (although I doubt that the left-wing French or German press, say, is covering this any differently). What has been unacceptable, however, is the American press's complete ignoring of the rest of the State Department's numbers.
Instead of saying that terrorism has increased markedly in Iraq (the truth), the media are extrapolating beyond that to claim that, as Reuters puts it, "U.S. sees sharp rise in global terrorism deaths."
Once you get past the lede of these Reuters and Associated Press pieces, you'll discover the small detail that the increase in terrorism was almost entirely due to Iraq. Nowhere in either piece do you learn the fact that aside from the Middle East (which does not include Afghanistan according to State), the number of terrorist attacks worldwide is down from a year ago by over 300 incidents. The number of deaths from terrorism was only up 14 percent.
In other words, the Bush administration's idea that making Iraq the "central front in the war on terror" seems to be working. According to the State report, terrorism in South Asia is down by 10 percent from a year ago. In Europe, it's down 18 percent. In Central and South America, terrorism-related deaths are down 54 percent.
These aren't the kinds of facts you'll hear on the evening news or read in your local newspaper. But they're all in the report. I crunched the numbers (click here for OpenDocument data file, requires free OpenOffice suite) based on the raw data provided by State Department's National Counterterrorism Center.
Sadly, most Americans will never know these facts. I guess they're what you might call inconvenient truths.
N.B. Get your own numbers to crunch at the NCTC's Worldwide Incidents Tracking System here.
(Thanks to commenter MrShy for story idea.)
Update 11:45. Paul Mirengoff adds: "To the extent that the State Department numbers militate in favor of a particular course of action for 2007, that course is to continue prosecuting the Bush administration's overall strategy against global terrorism, but to develop new ways to take on the terrorists in Iraq. This is what the administration has decided to do."
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.






















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"(Thanks to commenter
May 1, 2007 - 03:26 ET by MrShy"(Thanks to commenter MrShy for story idea.)"
They like me.... they reeeeeally like me!!!
- Sally Field (Mr. Shy) at the Oscars (NB.com) :p
Thanks Matthew, for spotting my post and for the credit! :) (I'm tickled pink, as I'm a newbie here...) and wow, I did indeed post a follow-up on how it seemed that many regions/continents were indeed quieter terror-attack wise in the past 2-3 years or so... from just my own reflecting, as, of course, the MSM just beats the daily drum on how we are "less safe now"... and now to see these numbers... wow.... thx again for the in-depth research on the state dept data!
and NO, we will not hold our breath to even see this reported on the 58th or 59th minute of, oh, let's say, The Situation Room...
aaaggghhhhh!!!! .... and no
May 1, 2007 - 03:41 ET by MrShyaaaggghhhhh!!!! ....
and now I have to hear some nitwit woman's voice on MSNBC in the background (my tv in the bedroom) report that same report about the "25% Increase in Terrorist Attacks"... (yes, I have MSNBC on cuz I wanted to see spit-mouth Chris Matthews ramble on about Tenet) and even though they DO mention that "50% are attributable to Iraq" it's sort of like the damage has already been done..... AND THEY KNOW THIS !!! (it makes me sick) .... what they SHOULD do is then counter with the State Dept numbers on all the key countries/regions... no luck there.
That vague, and false, perception of "increased terrorism worldwide" has now been established... the MSM is so psychologically manipulative.... I can't stand it !!
A clear example of how the MS
May 1, 2007 - 08:04 ET by rimskyA clear example of how the MSM consciously chooses to slant their stories so that the impression is made with the reader, in this case, that there has been no progress in the WOT. This piece could just as easily have been presented with a very upbeat and positive view, stating the FACTS that terror incidents have actually gone down, and that the President's efforts to focus the WOT in Iraq are succeeding.
But that would be admitting B
May 1, 2007 - 08:22 ET by dscottBut that would be admitting Bush was correct all along. Can't have that, the MSM editors would sooner take cyanide than to face that their entire spin campaign flopped in regards to supporting the terrorists. I believe even Kalb has acknowledged there tacit support of terrorism.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Yes, for now. However, if
May 1, 2007 - 08:59 ET by WolfremYes, for now. However, if (Heaven forbid) a liberal democrat wins the White House in '08 they will shift gears. All of the bad stuff we hear now will be gone and all of the good stuff we don't hear now will be all that is reported. Think back to 2000 to 2003. It was all the good and what Clinton said was the gospel truth. Up to 2003 democrats continued with the WMD's but President Bush was bashed for 9/11. After 2003 MSM ignores their own reporting history and shifted their focus on the negativity and blame game. No retractions, apologies, nor corrections. The attitude shown is that we, the unwashed masses, have the attention span of 5 seconds and can't remember what the reported yesterday. And I do not see any trends of them changing anytime soon.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana
Nauseating
May 1, 2007 - 09:20 ET by JimboYou are spot on with the idea of short memories in this country, as long as it pertains to liberals. We will be hearing of the “mismanagement” by the Bush administration for years to come. Regardless if the Democrats take the White house in ’08 or some other point in the future, they will somehow link any shortcoming to the Bush administration.
By contrast, for example, if anyone in the Bush administration even insinuates that the seeds of 9/11 were sown in the Clinton Administration, it is akin to committing heresy. How many people remember Whitewater? Travelgate? Theft of Federal Property when leaving the Whitehouse? Lying under oath? Etc. Etc…. When these things are raised the liberals get red faced and tell us to forget it and move on. The double standard is literally nauseating.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
All we need to do is remind
May 1, 2007 - 10:32 ET by MC RoveAll we need to do is remind them that at least we're not fighting them here at home, right?
who cares if attacks are up in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's to be expected! In fact, it's why we're over there at all in the first place - to take the fight to THEM!!
So those attacks in the middle east just shouldn't count, at all. they're a completely different category. on the one hand, there's terrorism that we're trying to prevent - that's DOWN. But on the other hand, in Iraq, and Afghanistan, there's terrorism we WANT, and that's UP, which is good, cause how else are we gonna know who the terrorists are! They have to show their faces to blow up a market - and hopefully they'll all just blow themselves up!
Isn't it expected?
May 1, 2007 - 10:43 ET by JimboConsidering these attacks are the only way the terrorists can wage war on us, isn’t it logical to think (since we are at war) that these attacks would increase? Isn’t this akin to saying on December 7th, 1941 that the Japanese navy had expended significantly more ordinance than it did just one day ago??
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
yes, every post here just
May 1, 2007 - 15:38 ET by MrShyYes, every post here just adds more layers of logic to combat what a horribly misleading -- and WRONG -- statistic that "25% increase of worldwide terrorism" is !!! The terrorism in the ME (Afgan & Iraq) is the battle we're fighting, so that's fighting/war.... yes, granted, it's killing civilians as well.... but all wars involve civilians (uh-duh) and to add the "terrorist" figures from the theaters of war, would be like saying that in 1942, "Worldwide Deaths Rose 200%" (okay, just throwing out numbers, but making a WWII analogy, obviously....) It's really amazing.... over 50% of that 26% increase is BOGUS!!
Btw, this is all an effort by the MSM to insist that we're NOT at war.... even to suggest that Iraq is not a war, but rather a mistake.... so... we'll include those numbers.
Also, the MSM could have, and should have -- since 2003, with all the heinous suicide bombings/"terrorism" -- reported all of this for what it is, with a whole different and more clear angle.... which is, exposing what a ruthless, dark-ages enemy we're dealing with.... and YES, Bush is indeed sucking in all of these killers into their region, to keep it out of western/civilized countries.
Except...
May 1, 2007 - 08:50 ET by Jimbo“Terrorism is down everywhere….”
Except in the halls of the New York Times.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Double standard of the MSM
May 1, 2007 - 09:23 ET by c5thenNotice how the attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan are never called terrorist attacks by the MSM when they occur? They are always called "insurgent attacks". But they have no problem in classifiying them as terrorism when reporting on a story of "world wide" terrorism.
excellent point c5. The oth
May 1, 2007 - 12:09 ET by Dee Bunkexcellent point c5. The other thing that should be mentioned is that the highest % rise was in Africa which has nothing to do with the U.S. The dems want us to go there and fight. What's with that?
Wow, c5then..... great catc
May 1, 2007 - 15:42 ET by MrShyWow, c5then.... and DeeBunk, too, you're both right!
and yeah, didn't even think of the whole hipocracy of insugents vs. terrorism aspect.... it's just layer after layer from these people....
On this May Day this followin
May 1, 2007 - 09:43 ET by ucOn this May Day this following comment may better have fit with Castro stories than story of policies that are working that Clinton didn't pursue. >>>
Everyone: Hillary needs your help >> she is having difficulty this day with some vital decisions >> she cannot decide what colors or cloth to specify as appropriate for her new hoped for extra-legal, extra-constitutional, cabinet usurping position of "Ambassador to the World" {also possibly to be changed just to "King of the World"}. >> She also is in need of your help to design "King Blythe's" crown and shoes. >> She seems set on changing his name back to "Blythe" just to help him finally overcome some remaining issues in his childhood. >> She really needs your help this morning and also between 2pm and 3pm est today >> this all means so much to her. >> she remains open to sash ideas but isn't asking for much help there.
"King Blythe" ???
Freedom???
Iraq and Afghanistan accou
May 1, 2007 - 10:01 ET by ding7777Iraq and Afghanistan account for about 50% of the increase. The remaining 50% increase is outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, the report does not list any 2006 state-sponsered terrorirsts acts of North Korea - per the February 2007 Framework agreement.
"In other words, the B
May 1, 2007 - 10:22 ET by MightyMouth"In other words, the Bush administration's idea that making Iraq the "central front in the war on terror" seems to be working..."
RIF.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Bingo
May 1, 2007 - 16:29 ET by Mr. BishopYou have it exactly correct MM -- it is working. When you force an enemy to focus his war on a specific front, you force them to concentrate all their energies on that front. If you do not have this front, the enemy is free to move about and strike as thye please, and as they see fit. If there was no Afghanistan and Iraq, there would only be everywhere else in the world for them to fight against.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
no worry
May 1, 2007 - 10:32 ET by iveseenitallNot to worry. Once Hillary is elected, the world will be set aright. All social injustices will disappear, no more homelessness, free healthcare for everyone ( including illegal aliens),world-wide terrorism will be a thing of the past, women will have equal pay, all the Don Imuses and Rush Limbaughs of the world will be jailed, Bill Clinton will lead the U.N. to world peace. And, oh yes, Osama will be found and we'll be out of the Middle East forever. All those who can pay $100/ gallon for gas will have a car and a warm garage to put it in. These and many other wonders of paradise are just a few votes away. Aaah, I can't wait.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
At least that’s what the MS
May 1, 2007 - 10:38 ET by JimboAt least that’s what the MSM will be reporting! Of course, reality has little to do with it!
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Ding and most of the rest cam
May 1, 2007 - 12:31 ET by Dee BunkDing and most of the rest came from Africa which had a 90% increase and has nothing to do with Bin Laden or the U.S. What do you think would happen if the statistics were compared to 1994 when major genocide was going on in Rwanda?
Africa is the western side
May 1, 2007 - 16:04 ET by dabalAfrica is the western side of the Caliphate. It is one of the central battlefronts for the expansion of the Ummah. It's Islam versus EVERYONE.
We aren't at war with "terrorism". Islam is in a state of war against us. We are merely fighting their P.R. machine in Iraq and their economic mainstay (heroin) in Afghanistan...but we're not seeing the big picture here.
Until they are wiped off the globe, it will never end. Global Terrorism will go down 99% when the last muslim is killed, guaranteed.
These freaks took Algeria from the french by literally charging their machine guns and dying by the thousands.
A simple question
May 1, 2007 - 16:22 ET by mandrake"These freaks took Algeria from the french by literally charging their machine guns and dying by the thousands. "
A simple question, what were the French doing in Algeria with machine guns in the first place? I'm not a big fan of colonialism.
dabal - I hope you are a libe
May 1, 2007 - 16:30 ET by Dee Bunkdabal - I hope you are a liberal trying to pretend to be a conservative because most of us do not think like you. What you are saying sounds like something Hitler would say. There is not a problem with the race or the religion, there is a problem with their leaders. Many Muslims live peacefully in all parts of the world.
I don't know how you can say Algeria belongs to the French. Just because they had control over it at one time doesn't mean it was theirs. All land was gained by war and if you lose the war you lose the land. That's how it is unless you want to start another one.
I said no such thing. I wa
May 1, 2007 - 17:46 ET by dabalI said no such thing. I was not attempting to advocate colonialism.
If you think Islam's venom is restricted to their leaders, you are woefully ignorant of Islam. My grandfather was in Oran when the revolt began, and was one of the soldiers who was ordered to stand there and mow down muslims until he ran out of ammunition. I know what I'm talking about, even if you don't realize it.
Imagine what you could convince people to do if they are willing to WALK CALMLY INTO MACHINE GUN FIRE. You missed my point entirely. You will never take the "extremist" out of an extremist religion. They regard their Koran as the literal word of God, infallible. In the text, they are instructed to kill or subdue ALL NON-MUSLIMS, and make them pay the jizya or die. It is more akin to Mafia than religion. I'm trying to illustrate that there can be no compromise with Islam, and the terrorism will continue as long as they fail to reform their religion.
Don't compare me to Hitler, he was a socialist, for God's sake.
There is no Muslim "race". Do not attempt to label me or pretend to understand my thinking, you don't know me, and you certainly have no insight into my mind. Hell, you can't even read my words, much less, my mind.
Hrm...
May 1, 2007 - 17:52 ET by Mr. BishopIslam is no more comparable to the mafia, then the Catholic church is. You do not blame Islam for the acts of the insane that follow it, you blame the insane responsible. With the mafia (most particularly the Italian mafia), they are devout Catholics. Yet, it is the failings of the mafia family that is to blame, not the Catholic church.
Are the terrorists primarily Muslim? Yes, there is no doubt about that. However, by that philosophy, most serial killers and most terrorists are males. Does that mean that we should kill off all males as a result of the striking statistics of terrorism and serial killers? No, we should not, and neither should we kill all Muslims because they are primarly the terrorists in existance.
The problem is with the abuses of the Islamic religion, not Islam itself. There are those who would use the teachings of Islam to rally as the source of their cause, as there were many that did the same with Christianity, many centuries ago. That is what you have to strike out at -- not the religions, but the psychos that take that religion and turn it into a violent perversion of what it means.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Thanks Mr. Bishop - I'm gla
May 1, 2007 - 18:49 ET by Dee BunkThanks Mr. Bishop - I'm glad you responded while I was away. That is a good example with the Mafia. Another one would be the Japanese with Kamikaze pilots. The Japanese culture (because of their leaders) made it an honor to die in a suicide mission for the government. Japan is a friendly country now and doesn't produce suicide kamikaze pilots today.
Simply astonishing. Accordi
May 1, 2007 - 10:26 ET by Dave HighSimply astonishing. According to the AP’s coverage of the State Department’s annual terrorism survey, there were 3,185 more terrorist attacks this year than last, an increase of a mind-blowing 28.5%, with most of the increases taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Those strikes claimed a total of 20,498 lives, 13,340 of them in Iraq – up by 5,800 –, or 40.2 percent, over last year, it said.” (snip) “Afghanistan had 749 strikes in 2006, a 50 percent rise over 2005, according to the report. However, it also detailed a surge in Africa, where 420 attacks – compared with 253 in 2005 – were counted last year ...”
Yet Mathew Sheffield sees a silver lining in this utterly grim report:
“Once you get past the lede of these Reuters and Associated Press pieces, you'll discover the small detail that the increase in terrorism was almost entirely due to Iraq.”
Wrong, Mathew. You overlooked Afganistan and Africa.
“Nowhere in either piece do you learn the fact that aside from the Middle East (which does not include Afghanistan according to State), the number of terrorist attacks worldwide is down from a year ago by over 300 incidents.”
Huh? Worldwide terror attacks are UP BY 3,185, not down by 300! Get your facts straight!!
“The number of deaths from terrorism was only up 14 percent.”
Wrong again, Mathew. The deaths from terrorism os up by 40.2 percent since last year.
So, ‘splain this to me again, Mathew. How has Bush’s war on terror reduced terrorism worldwide? How do you see a silver lining in his failed efforts with terrorism creating a surge of terroristic acts over 28% in one single year with the death toll up over 40%? Jeesh. Strikes me you need some book learnin’ in statistics, either that or a crash course in ethics in journalism.
Regards, Dave High
I can't Wait
May 1, 2007 - 10:31 ET by JimboI can't wait for Matt's response!
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Matt
May 1, 2007 - 10:44 ET by iveseenitallYeah, Matt. How dare you imply that we should be fighting terrorism and winning in some places. We've lost! Just ask Harry Reid and Dave High. It appears as though you're actually supporting America's efforts. Get your journalistic priorites straight, will 'ya.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
How can Iraq and Afghanistan
May 1, 2007 - 11:10 ET by Roger the ShrubberHow can Iraq and Afghanistan even be in the same category as terrorists? After all, it's a civil war in iraq, and the Taliban are merely rebels, not terrorists, right?
After devoting a lot of energy in trying to convince the American public that Iraq is in the midst of civil war, how can my "progressive" comrades now claim these to be acts of terrorism? Just wondering.
Roger the Shrubber - it's the
May 1, 2007 - 12:27 ET by ding7777Roger the Shrubber - it's the Bush Administration who is claiming that the noncombatant acts are terrorists and for a self-serving reason.
Even though using the Iraqi insurgent numbers as terrorists acts inflates the Iraqs numbers, it statistically deflates the percentage of other worldwide terrorist increases.
The Geneva Convention define
May 1, 2007 - 12:32 ET by Dan The Man 2The Geneva Convention defines these people as terrorist.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
I just wanted to make sure of
May 1, 2007 - 14:12 ET by Roger the ShrubberI just wanted to make sure of that. It explains why our "progressive" comrades here are skipping today's "Fidel Rocks" afternoon mixer down at Party Headquarters to come here to "debunk" the stats. Those poor souls in Iraq and Afghanistan are freedom fighters, dammit.
Power to the Proletariat!
Be Happy
May 1, 2007 - 14:19 ET by AgnosticThe liberals could be counting American military actions as terrorist attacks.
Never thought of that. Perhap
May 1, 2007 - 14:25 ET by Roger the ShrubberNever thought of that. Perhaps we should be adding employees of Halliburton working in Iraq to the number of terrorists estimated operating there, too?
Wind Devil
May 1, 2007 - 14:28 ET by AgnosticOnly if they have access to the infamous "weather machine" to make bring the sandstorms in from the desert.
Ding - help Me!
May 1, 2007 - 12:32 ET by JimboDing – help me understand your point of view -
If a “person” is a citizen of another country, let's say Syria or Saudi Arabia, and travels to Baghdad, then straps himself with explosives, and detonates it in close proximity to US troops, killing the troops and himself in the process, not wearing the uniform of any country, doing so in the name of Allah and the promise of virgins, what is that “person” called?
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Jimbo - the report only dea
May 1, 2007 - 12:51 ET by ding7777Jimbo - the report only deals with attacks against noncombatants.
Ding -
May 1, 2007 - 12:55 ET by JimboDing - thanks.
Can you answer my question now?
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
ding, I know you won't be hap
May 1, 2007 - 17:17 ET by Unsaneding, I know you won't be happy until the government is spoon-feeding you three times a day and coddling you the whole time, but terrorist acts are, by nature, directed at noncombatants. Why? Because they can't hack it on the field of battle, as much as you cannot hack it in the realm of ideas.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
What the???
May 1, 2007 - 17:37 ET by Mr. BishopOkay... you seem to be throwing some terms around, in which you do not know what they mean.
Noncombatants are civilians that are not involved -- people not involved in combat. Hence the word, "noncombatants". Why you would state the Bush Administration is claiming noncombatant acts are terrorist.... blah blah blah, is beyond me. They would not make such a statement, since "noncombatant acts" are acts of non-aggression by their very nature, as such, nothing remotely close to terrorist acts.
The "insurgency" in Iraq, is primarily terrorists from other countries, and are terrorist acts. Their actions are designed to install a sense of fear and terror, into the minds of the populous, and that is their only function. Your statements make no sense, whatsoever. It's as if you responded for the sake of responding, and simply copied what you read on another website onto here.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Harry Reid call Iraq a "
May 1, 2007 - 18:10 ET by Roger the ShrubberHarry Reid call Iraq a "civil war" for his self-serving purposes. The difference is, the President is correct, while Senator Reid has the future of the Democrat(ic) party at stake, since they have now put all their chips in, gambling on the defeat of the USA. Congrads, Chachi! You are definitely a Liberal, rewarding failure like you do.
Dave simply didn't read the
May 1, 2007 - 13:30 ET by Matthew SheffieldDave simply didn't read the data file.
He's relying on the AP summary instead of the actual government data which I provided as proof of my calculations.
The numbers show my point is correct.
Dave probably hasn't come
May 2, 2007 - 09:04 ET by MightyMouthDave probably hasn't come back to this thread because he is having a hard time extracting his foot from his mouth.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
So you agree
May 1, 2007 - 11:04 ET by c5thenThat the attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan are indeed terrorist attacks. Thanks for clearing that up.
So then when Harry Reid says that we already lost in Iraq, that means that he is giving up the fight against terrorists, right? So does that mean that if the Democrats gain the Whitehouse in 2008, they will offer to negotiate terms of surrender with OBL?
High Dave ....HEY, I got a st
May 1, 2007 - 12:41 ET by JayTeeHigh Dave ....HEY, I got a stat for ya baby........Take the Afghanistan stats and the other Terror Stats, and compare them to 15,000 murders in the US.
I hear on the News.....
Violence continues in Detroit Iraq...
Baltimore Bagdad is fast becoming a Gated Community walled in City
Man Killed by Knife IED in McDonalds Bagdad
Father Terrorist kills four children in Baltimore Bagdad
I guess it all how you see the Stats and Names ? ?
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Dave - 100% decrease from 20
May 1, 2007 - 12:51 ET by Dee BunkDave - 100% decrease from 2001. I'm not going to look into the actual numbers - I don't really care and don't have the time. I can tell right off the bat that you and Mathew are talking about different things so rather than lecture him on book learnin you might want to improve your own.
The most important statistic is the number of American civilians killed by terrorist attacks in the U.S. 2000-2001 100% increase up by about 3,000. 2001-2006 100% decrease down by about 3,000. And you can even add the attacks in every single year in between and come up with the same difference. 2001 approx 3,000 deaths 2002+2003+2004+2005+2006= 0 deaths.
I don't have the time, but as I mentioned above I'd be curious to know what the increase is from 1994 world wide to 2006 world wide. That would be an interesting number.
Write-on Dee
May 1, 2007 - 16:28 ET by acumenWrite-on Dee.
And to complete that thought - Tens of thousands of terrorists killed post 911, most before they are able to kill just one civilian (thanks to Bush's offensive tact), vs. what....maybe a hundred terrorists killed tops pre 911, with most of those killed by blowing themselves up while targeting their thousands of civilian victims (due to a defensive posture).
Why is that a problem for you al Dave? Seriously, what's your problem? You act like you want the terrorists to keep on doing their grisly thing. It either has to be that or demediacrat Bush derangement syndrome. Come clean al Dave, which is it?
Terrorist killed up by 300%!
May 1, 2007 - 16:45 ET by Dee BunkTerrorist killed up by 300%! Great point acumen. Who knows what the actual % is and who cares? It's obvious that it's up exponentially. There are more apprehended or killed by the U.S. in 1 year than in the entire 8 yrs of Clinton.
The report stated specifica
May 1, 2007 - 12:30 ET by JDWThe report stated specifically that the longer we fight, the better our outcome. So obviously the shorter our combat period, the lesser our opportunities.
Which party wants to cut and run and what do they expect as a result?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Children:take seats and be si
May 1, 2007 - 17:02 ET by PKChildren:
take seats and be silent!!!
has any one of you happened to think that we have these "insurgents" precisely where we want them.
they are setting off their bombs in a foriegn country, not on garden grove boulavard in orange county, calefornia United States of America,
they are shooting, bombing etc. etc. etc soldiers, sailors, airforce and marines. young american citizens who are in the prime of life and therefore much more able and willing to conduct extreme attitude adjustments on the unhappy types. Young american citizens whose sense of duty, honor and courage far outstrips their opponents.
these ssa&m are equiped with "stuff" that gives them a really good chance in any exchange of ideas and attitude with these fanatics. they can in actuality perform extreme attitude adjustment therapy anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours.
if one of the ssa&m happen to fall on the field he/she stands a very good chance of living to tell the tale. (if the current advesary is so superior in religeon and science why don't we see any of thier extreme wounded returning to society.)
so:
we picked a place where a festered rectum was killing off large percentages of the population just because he felt like it. was torturing large percentages of the population for very strange reasons. had a police system set up that paid the staff according to arrest and conviction irregardless of guilt or innocence. was assasinating people in foriegn countrys for excercising freedom of speech. was imprisioning children for the beliefs of their parents (and in the process added to the english language the term "Childrens Prison") and, in the process extremely encouraging the children to spy on the parents.
(Any one asking for links to this stuff simply needs to check the evening news for the last six years.)
what George Bush is doing is in actuality ambushing the terrorists.
he has set up a situation where the suicidal fanatics transport themselves to a remote place in the world, announce their presence by shooting at our people,(so that by our idiotic rules of engagement we are allowed to shoot them) thereby managing to commit suicide so that they may not fight again another day, ensure that the vast majority of thier group is young, inexperienced, and dumb. etc. etc. etc.
take ten , smoke if you got em.
c
PK, I was thinking the same
May 1, 2007 - 17:07 ET by MightyMouthPK, I was thinking the same thing, just this morning.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
The argument that Bush has ma
May 1, 2007 - 18:34 ET by dangirmusThe argument that Bush has made Iraq the central front in the "war on terror" is ridiculous. Give me some concrete evidence that a war half a world away is somehow affecting the actions of Argentinian and Peruvian bombers, and then we'll talk. We will never defeat terrorism, a tactic used by the crazed and homicidal, by sheer force of arms. All this war has done is increase unrest in the Middle East and hatred of the U.S. in the Muslim world. Last time I checked, that wasn't cause for celebration.
And what happened before that
May 1, 2007 - 19:09 ET by Dan The Man 2And what happened before that time? We were not liked by the same people and continually attacked and the Muslim radicals were still threats. We are not the cause of the unrest and hatred, teh propaganda spread by the mullahs of the radicals are.
The war is just a manifestation of the hatred that was there before. Peopel will blame anything and everything for their troubles.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
You're right in the war being
May 1, 2007 - 23:26 ET by dangirmusYou're right in the war being a manifestation, but it is an unecessary one. It all comes down to why we are hated in the Middle East, and that is because of our overt presence over there. Bin Laden didn't begin his radical jihad on our country until he heard of the unholy feet of our solidiers touching the sacred sand of Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, in his own words. Now, common sense would dictate that adding more troops and more permanent American influence to the region would do nothing to alleviate the problem, and would in fact enhance it. This is the fatal mistake of Bush and the neo-cons.
No...
May 1, 2007 - 23:32 ET by Mr. BishopYou've obviously not paid any attention, to any terrorist act, throughout history. You give a terrorist what he wants, through his terrorist acts, then you will get more terrorism. Other then that... it is not up to bin Laden to decide who is allowed in Saudi Arabia -- it is for the government of that country to make that decision. Our staging area of Saudi Arabia in the first Gulf war, was to remove from Kuwait, Saddam Hussein's presence. Now, if you want to take what bin Laden says as the gospel truth of his motivation, then it would stand to reason that bin Laden would not only have supported us for kicking Hussein out of Kuwait, but that he would have supported us for removing Hussein from power -- since bin Laden reportedly hated everything that Hussein stood for.
However, that is only if you take bin Laden at his word -- which I do not. Bin Laden does not like non-muslims. He uses the islamic faith as an excuse to attack those around the world. Anyone who believes that terrorist attacks against the US is because of us being in Saudi Arabia, is just plain wrong.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Mr BisThis person has not any
May 1, 2007 - 23:34 ET byMr Bis
This person has not any idea of history period wwDFTTsay?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, my litmous test for President. BT(adapted)
I think you missed my point .
May 1, 2007 - 23:52 ET by dangirmusI think you missed my point . . . I'm not saying in any way that all terrorist attacks against the US have been because of our presence in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, nor that we should appease terrorists in an effort to rid ourselves of their evils. But there is a right way to go about it, and a wrong way to go about it. Dubya's got it all wrong. Interventionism is the incubator of terrorism, and attempting to insert Jeffersonian democracy in the Middle East against the will of its people amounts to exactly that: pure interventionism. And to just simply say that "bin Laden does not like non-muslims" and leave it at that is terribly naive. We are not hated for our principles, we are hated for our policies.
No it's not
May 2, 2007 - 00:06 ET by Mr. BishopBin Laden doesn't care about us being in Saudi Arabia... he only cares about one thing: Islam, and those who are not Islamic. This is proven over and over again with his terror organization attacking the likes of France, Spain, Bali -- none of those areas have a presence in Saudi Arabia, yet he chooses to attack them. Why? It has to do with the non-muslim factor. Saudi Arabia is an excuse.
Secondly -- to say that "Dubya's got it all wrong..." is erroneous in its entirety. In Iraq, Hussein had multiple opportunities to come clean on WMDs. The UN said, "Come clean or else..." He didn't come clean, he got the "or else". Anything that bin Laden's organization does, in response to this, is based upon his hatred of the US -- and nothing more. Removal of Hussein had nothing to do with Saudi Arabia, yet bin Laden fights now against what? His organization's specific mission in Iraq, as specified by Zarqawi before he died, is to incite a civil war between Sunni and Shiite... what is the point behind it? Are they saying that the people of Iraq are not allowed to choose their own government, and select non-muslim radicals to lead them? That is the only conclusion that can be reached by Al Qaeda attacking at this time.
Finally... I have showed you were bin Laden does not like non-muslims, by mentioning France, Spain and Bali -- instead of simply suggesting, "Well, that's not true..." and calling me naive, why don't you actually prove it wrong. To prove it wrong, you have to show me actions of bin Laden, that did not have to do with his Islamic faith, and his twisted view of it. However, this cannot be done, since every action taken by bin Laden, from his time as a Mujahideen fighter in Afghanistan circa 1980's, has been done in the name of Allah and Islam. To prove he's not simply a non-muslim hater -- you have to show me one action, one death, one murder, that he is responsible for, that had absolutely nothing to do with Islam. You do that, and you might have the beginnings of a case.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Once again, you fail to see t
May 2, 2007 - 15:29 ET by dangirmusOnce again, you fail to see the big picture. Of course bin Laden hates non-Muslims, but looking at it as simply unwarranted hatred is ignorant. It is essential to know your enemy. As I mentioned before, the nation of Islam does not hate us because of our principles, they hate us because of our policies. They hate what they view as our degenerate, secular culture, and they believe that we are propagating this culture onto them by involving ourselves in their affairs. They hate our one-sided support of Israel, and they hate the fact that we attacked a prostrate Arab nation, a nation which had no chance of defending itself, on false pretenses with no thought to historical context. To the militant Muslims, we are an invading force, and they are defending their homeland with honor.
You mention that we had to take Hussein down because he ignored UN resolutions. But so what? Israel has been ignoring UN resolutions since its inception, and has gotten hardly more than a slap on the wrist. The bottom line is Hussein was not a threat, with or without weapons of mass destruction. Did we not deter the Soviet Union for the better part of a century when they were in possession of thousands of WMDs? Why could the same not be done for Hussein's Iraq if he possessed one or two nuclear weapons (assuming that he was anywhere close to developing one)? His regime was essentially secular fascist, and he knew that if he made any kind of move at all that could be construed as aggressive anywhere in the world, he and his country would be destroyed in a heartbeat. Deterrence would have worked.
In any case, the whole idea of democracy for the Middle East is ridiculous. Even if we somehow did accomplish our "goal" in the area of a one-man, one-vote system for all citizens, how would this help? One of the main tenets of Islam is Shariah, a code of law derived from the Koran that says there is no separation between mosque and state. And since theocracies are the last thing we want in the Middle East right now, giving Middle Easterns the vote, quite frankly, makes no sense. Take Pakistan, a nuclear nation, for example. The majority of its population hates Bush, hates America, and loves bin Laden. No good can come from a one-man, one-vote system in that country.
Lastly, I hate the term "war on terror". A war on terror is a war that can't be won. Terror is a tactic. Declaring a war on terror makes about as much sense as France declaring war on the blitzkrieg instead of Nazi Germany in World War II. The major enemy of our time needs to be called out on what it really is: militant Islam. No politician should be afraid to say that.
Would it be fair to say that
May 2, 2007 - 15:35 ET by Clear thinkerWould it be fair to say that you would accept a war on terror after your family has been killed by terrorists?
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Nope. Way to stay classy,
May 2, 2007 - 15:39 ET by dangirmusNope. Way to stay classy, by the way.
I hope your family knows, for
May 2, 2007 - 15:44 ET by Clear thinkerI hope your family knows, for their own sake.
You sir are more than a little naive.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
May 2, 2007 - 15:39 ET by dangirmus"They hate what they v
May 2, 2007 - 15:37 ET by MightyMouth"They hate what they view as our degenerate, secular culture, and they
believe that we are propagating this culture onto them by involving
ourselves in their affairs"
Bollocks!! THEY involved us in their affairs by attacking us first on and before 9-11. Something that most of the muslim populace applauded.
You are nothing less than an anti-semite (perhaps in denial). Your post proves it.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Sure, however
May 2, 2007 - 15:40 ET by Mr. BishopYou bring up Israel, as some sort of justification of why we should have left Hussein alone? Have you not ever paid attention to the history of Israel? Since their creation, they have been under attack from just about every muslim nation in existance in the Middle East. The resolutions against them, were written in an effort to disarm them, and nothing more. In addition to this -- you never really seemed to pay attention to the fact that the US usually vetoes all resolutions dealing with disarming Israel. Those are the resolutions Hussein was ignoring for 12 years -- resolutions telling him to disarm. That is why he was removed from power.
For you to insist that a country should not be allowed to determine their own fate, is just ludicrous. I don't care if the entire country, or most of, or some of, Pakistan hates the United States. That is not my problem, nor is it the problem of anyone else. You cannot make everyone happy in this world, so there is no point in trying to do so. However, if Pakistan were allowed to truly vote in a system wherein they could determine their own future, then good for them, that is their right. It is not right for anyone to live under a murderous thug like Hussein, and even less right for people live in fear for their entire life of a man who doesn't like you because you're an American. For a person to have to live like that, who does not distinguish between military and civilian, but considers us all the same equal targets -- that is just asinine, and for you to defend him by saying it's our fault because we're in Saudi Arabia, at the invitation of the government of the same country, just shows me how little I should respect your opinion on this matter.
Finally, you can sit in your seemingly racial and religious hatred, all you want. It doesn't change the original fact I responded to, and that is that bin Laden uses Islam as an excuse to kill those he doesn't like. Our presence in Saudi Arabia was an excuse... nothing more. Your mentioning of the "nation of Islam" is BS in its entirety. There is no "nation of Islam", and any muslim that does not like us, doesn't for our culture, and mostly our support of Israel -- who the muslims consider their mortal enemies. According to your logic, we should simply abandon Israel to their fate in the Middle East, close up shop around the world, and sit back and let the enemy come to us, on our doorsteps, when they have built up enough strength to take us out.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
I'm not at all defending Osam
May 2, 2007 - 17:15 ET by dangirmusI'm not at all defending Osama bin Laden, as you insinuated. I just think we need to take a long, hard look at why we are hated, and what is the cause of all the violence against us. And the fact remains, nearly every survey of Arab and Islamic peoples reveals that they greatly resent American domination in the Middle East and our one-sided support of Israel. That is fact. They believe that all we want is domination over their land, their way of life. Instead of invading Iraq, after 9/11 our plan should have been to carefully and succinctly narrow the conflict, isolating bin Laden and al-Qaeda from every Arab center of power (just as we did in Afghanistan, when we had worldwide support). Instead, when we invaded Iraq, we proved bin Laden right in the eyes of anti-American Islamists. We gave that monster the war he wanted, and played right into his hand by uniting pro-bin Laden Muslims against us the world over.
Look, this is not an easy argument and you make some good points. In an ideal world, every country should be able to define its own fate. It is a noble cause to try and defend freedom around the globe, but at what price? The cost of intervention is terrorism. And if Bush and his cabinet are to be taken at their words, they are suggesting a world in which every hostile action deemed to be terrorism is reciprocated by a US retaliation. But we cannot be the world's policeman. In the end, how people rule themselves is their own business. We cannot dictate to 160 other nations what type of government they should have; only endless meddling and violence can come from it.
However...
May 2, 2007 - 00:17 ET by Mr. BishopHowever, contrary to all things that we are discussing below, and above, I have to compliment you on one facet of the War on Terror -- you see it as a war on Terrorism... not a war against bin Laden.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Talk is cheep, the idea is th
May 1, 2007 - 19:30 ET by upcountrywaterTalk is cheep, the idea is that we separate these terroists from their funding so that they have no money to buy bombs guns etc. Seams to me that is what is happening, hence LESS ATTACKS world wide.