Higher incidences of terrorism linked to Iraq war (1 Viewer)

[conconcon123]

A greater number of terrorist incidences have been pointed out by the State Department and linked to the situation in Iraq, among the other fronts of the self-contradictory War on "Terr"

Check it out at their website

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/c17689.htm

I'll admit that I'm no terrorism expert, nor do I have much military knowledge, but it seems that a war on terrorism is not working very well if terrorist acts are actually rising as a direct result of the attempts to suppress them. That's just my assumption, and I don't want to do anything that might send the wrong message to our growing list of enemies.

 

[KCConservative]

A greater number of terrorist incidences have been pointed out by the State Department and linked to the situation in Iraq, among the other fronts of the self-contradictory War on "Terr"

Check it out at their website

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/c17689.htm

I'll admit that I'm no terrorism expert, nor do I have much military knowledge, but it seems that a war on terrorism is not working very well if terrorist acts are actually rising as a direct result of the attempts to suppress them. That's just my assumption, and I don't want to do anything that might send the wrong message to our growing list of enemies.

Just the opposite and exactly as the defense department predicted months ago. As the terrorists see their advantages slipping and their cause failing, their evil deeds may accelerate from desparation, but it signals the beginning of their end.

 

[conconcon123]

Well, whatever is going on, the "beginning of the end" better be the end soon. Over 14,000 died as a result of the over 11,000 attacks in 2005, compared with approx. 3000 attacks killing nearly 2000 people in 2004 and 200 attacks killing over 600 in 2003. The LA Times recently did a story on it (the new report). I hope that you and they (the Defense Department) are right, because these kinds of numbers do not reflect the mission very well.

 

[PeteEU]

They also expanded the definition of what a terror attack is.. so the number can not really be compared to previous years.

 

[conconcon123]

I'm kind of skeptical about that though. They did say that they made a few changes, but mostly those were involved with the agency the report received its information from, which really isn't a change they made, but the intelligence community made. They said they changed the name of the report so as to distinguish it from similar terrorism reports before 2005, but their definitions of terrorism don't seem too different. In fact, they don't seem different at all.

This is from the 2005 Country Reports on Terrorism, the most recent report.

"Section 2656f(d) of Title 22 of the United States Code defines certain key terms used in
Section 2656(a) as follows:
(d)…
(1) the term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the
territory of more than one country;
(2) the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence
perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or
clandestine agents; and
(3) the term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or which has
significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism" (CRT 9).

Compared to the definitions used in the previous reports, this one from the 2003 Patterns of Global Terrorism:

"No one defi nition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. For the
purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the defi nition of terrorism
contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute
contains the following defi nitions:
The term terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence
perpetrated against noncombatant1 targets by subnational groups or
clandestine agents, usually intended to infl uence an audience.
The term international terrorism means terrorism involving citizens or the
territory of more than one country.
The term terrorist group means any group practicing, or that has signifi cant
subgroups that practice, international terrorism.
The US Government has employed this defi nition of terrorism for statistical
and analytical purposes since 1983" (PGT 12).

Actually, looking at it now, they both use the same source for their definitions of terrorism. I admit I'm wrong about one thing, as far as I can tell. I'm not so sure anywhere in the most recent report that they specifically linked the rise in number of global terrosist events with the rise of such events in Iraq, but the numbers in Iraq certainly do contribute significantly to the overall total.

 

[Iriemon]

Just the opposite and exactly as the defense department predicted months ago. As the terrorists see their advantages slipping and their cause failing, their evil deeds may accelerate from desparation, but it signals the beginning of their end.

We've been hearing that for 2 1/2 years now.

Death throes, anyone?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Just the opposite and exactly as the defense department predicted months ago. As the terrorists see their advantages slipping and their cause failing, their evil deeds may accelerate from desparation, but it signals the beginning of their end.

How many "turning points" are we going to have in the war on terror and in Iraq? Seems to me we have done quite a few circles by now.

Anyway, its hard to say whether worldwide terrorism is up or down because the State Department changed its methodology this year so comparing it to any previous year, especially by claiming thats its getting worse, its an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Just the opposite and exactly as the defense department predicted months ago. As the terrorists see their advantages slipping and their cause failing, their evil deeds may accelerate from desparation, but it signals the beginning of their end.

I wish I could believe you, but I believed that last year when they were in their last throes. Or the year before that... remember Mission Accomplished?

The truth is that unless the ideology they follow is on the decline, this war will never end.

 

[Stinger]

Well, whatever is going on, the "beginning of the end" better be the end soon. Over 14,000 died as a result of the over 11,000 attacks in 2005, compared with approx. 3000 attacks killing nearly 2000 people in 2004 and 200 attacks killing over 600 in 2003. The LA Times recently did a story on it (the new report). I hope that you and they (the Defense Department) are right, because these kinds of numbers do not reflect the mission very well.

OK then let's just give up and let them have the world.

 

[Stinger]

How many "turning points" are we going to have in the war on terror and in Iraq? Seems to me we have done quite a few circles by now.

And your plan is what exactly?

 

[Iriemon]

OK then let's just give up and let them have the world.

How about if we just let them have their world.

 

[KidRocks]

Just the opposite and exactly as the defense department predicted months ago. As the terrorists see their advantages slipping and their cause failing, their evil deeds may accelerate from desparation, but it signals the beginning of their end.

That analogy is so laughable it's pathetic, or, it's so pathetic it's laughable, take your pick.

Rove probably came up with that lame cop-out for the consumption of the dittohead supporters.

That's just like saying that the more of our troops that are killed by the insurgents the more successful we are on the battlefield.

The insurgents must be laughing their fool heads off everytime our leaders in Washington DC come up with that doozie.

How stupid do they think we are?

 

[MSgt]

We've been hearing that for 2 1/2 years now.

Death throes, anyone?

You are going to hear it for much longer. There is no magic wand to wave against Radical Islam. It is not the product of one country. It is the product of an entire civilization. It is destroying and wrecking lives in north Africa, south Europe, the Middle East, and in sporadic places in Asia. "Iraq" will not be the "end all be all" of this effort.

The attacks in Jordan and Bali and many other places are not signs of strength. Just like in Iraq, they have resorted to sloven assassinations of civillians (their own people also) out of desperation. They merely wish to show the masses that they are still to be feared.

We've discussed this before. Why do you insist on pretending that you don't know any better?

 

[MSgt]

How about if we just let them have their world.

And what is "their" world? Does this mean that they will not be in our world? Does this mean that they can continue to spread into Europe? The Middle East is no more "their" world then Europe is for whites, Africa is for blacks, and Asia is for Asians. This is the 21st century. Their passed down traditions of racism, bigotry, and religious persecution is not acceptable, especially when leaning on these type sentiments to cast violence on progressive societies. Because it is not acceptable in prospering regions of the earth, they are failing. As cultures lean towards the unrestrictive models of free societies, there will be an internal strife and radicalism of people that are clinging to the past. There is no "their" world. "Their" world is changing and they don't like it.

 

[Iriemon]

You are going to hear it for much longer. There is no magic wand to wave against Radical Islam. It is not the product of one country. It is the product of an entire civilization. It is destroying and wrecking lives in north Africa, south Europe, the Middle East, and in sporadic places in Asia. "Iraq" will not be the "end all be all" of this effort.

The attacks in Jordan and Bali and many other places are not signs of strength. Just like in Iraq, they have resorted to sloven assassinations of civillians (their own people also) out of desperation. They merely wish to show the masses that they are still to be feared.

We've discussed this before. Why do you insist on pretending that you don't know any better?

1. The fact that the war in Iraq will last for years or decades just shows that making statement about how the opposition is in their "last throes" is false.

2. We have discussed it before. We disagree on the best course of action to reduce the risk of terrorists attacks.

 

[Iriemon]

And what is "their" world? Does this mean that they will not be in our world? Does this mean that they can continue to spread into Europe? The Middle East is no more "their" world then Europe is for whites, Africa is for blacks, and Asia is for Asians. This is the 21st century. Their passed down traditions of racism, bigotry, and religious persecution is not acceptable, especially when leaning on these type sentiments to cast violence on progressive societies. Because it is not acceptable in prospering regions of the earth, they are failing. As cultures lean towards the unrestrictive models of free societies, there will be an internal strife and radicalism of people that are clinging to the past. There is no "their" world. "Their" world is changing and they don't like it.

The ME is not "our" world, no matter how much we think it is unfair that all our oil is under "their" lands.