U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



PVS
April 27th, 2005 6:03 pm
U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism/
State Dept. Will Not Put Data in Report

By Susan B. Glasser / Washington Post

The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.

Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.

Terrorist incidents in Iraq also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198, or nine times the previous year's total -- a sensitive subset of the tally, given the Bush administration's assertion that the situation there had stabilized significantly after the U.S. handover of political authority to an interim Iraqi government last summer.

The State Department announced last week that it was breaking with tradition in withholding the statistics on terrorist attacks from its congressionally mandated annual report. Critics said the move was designed to shield the government from questions about the success of its effort to combat terrorism by eliminating what amounted to the only year-to-year benchmark of progress.

Although the State Department said the data would still be made public by the new National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which prepares the information, officials at the center said no decision to publish the statistics has been made.

The controversy comes a year after the State Department retracted its annual terrorism report and admitted that its initial version vastly understated the number of incidents. That became an election-year issue, as Democrats said the Bush administration tried to inflate its success in curbing global terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"Last year was bad. This year is worse. They are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally, we're losing," said Larry C. Johnson, a former senior State Department counterterrorism official, who first revealed the decision not to publish the data.

After a week of complaints from Congress, top aides from the State Department and the NCTC were dispatched to the Hill on Monday for a private briefing. There they acknowledged for the first time the increase in terrorist incidents, calling it a "dramatic uptick," according to participants and a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.).

The administration aides sought to explain the rise in attacks as the result of more inclusive methodology in counting incidents, which they argued made year-to-year comparisons "increasingly problematic," sources said.

In his letter urging Rice to release the data, Waxman said that "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."

Both Republican and Democratic aides at the meeting criticized what a GOP attendee called the "absurd" explanation offered by the State Department's acting counterterrorism chief, Karen Aguilar, that the statistics are not relevant to the required report on trends in global terrorism. "It's absurd to issue a report without statistics," said the aide, who is not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. "This is a self-inflicted wound by the State Department."

Aguilar, according to Hill aides, told them that Rice decided to withhold the statistics on the recommendation of her counselor, Philip D. Zelikow. He was executive director of the Sept. 11 commission that investigated the terrorist attacks on the United States.

The terrorism statistics provided to the congressional aides were not classified but were stamped "for official use only." Last week, State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher said the government would publish "all the facts," but at Monday's session Aguilar told the staff members that even if the NCTC decided not to release the data, the State Department would not reconsider and publicly do so itself.

A State Department spokesman said last night that he is confident the data will be officially released. He said the government is committed to "providing the public all the information it needs to have an informed debate on this issue."

Under the standards used by the government, "significant" terrorist attacks are defined as those that cause civilian casualties or fatalities or substantial damage to property. Attacks on uniformed military personnel such as the large number of U.S. troops stationed in Iraq are not included.

The data provided to the congressional aides also showed terrorist attacks doubling over the previous year in Afghanistan, to 27 significant incidents, and in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, where attacks rose to about 45, from 19 the year before. Also occurring last year were such deadly attacks as the seizure of a school in Beslan, Russia, by Chechen militants that resulted in at least 330 dead, and the Madrid train bombings that left nearly 200 dead.

The State Department did not disclose to the aides the overall number of those killed in incidents last year. Johnson said his count shows it was well over 1,000.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hilights for those with a.d.d.:

-The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year...

-Terrorist incidents in Iraq also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198, or nine times the previous year's total

-The State Department announced last week that it was breaking with tradition in withholding the statistics on terrorist attacks from its congressionally mandated annual report.

-The controversy comes a year after the State Department retracted its annual terrorism report and admitted that its initial version vastly understated the number of incidents. (election year...surprise surprise)

-Last week, State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher said the government would publish "all the facts," but at Monday's session Aguilar told the staff members that even if the NCTC decided not to release the data, the State Department would not reconsider and publicly do so itself.

-Attacks on uniformed military personnel such as the large number of U.S. troops stationed in Iraq are not included. (as a terrorist attack)

-The data provided to the congressional aides also showed terrorist attacks doubling over the previous year in Afghanistan, to 27 significant incidents, and in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank,The data provided to the congressional aides also showed terrorist attacks doubling over the previous year in Afghanistan, to 27 significant incidents, and in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank...

Fishy
Of course they increased...

Doing the things that makes terrorist hate you won't really lower the amount of terrorists.

Why they refuse to release data like this is beyond me however. Well its not i wouldn't have expected anything else from those guys. But thats just insane

KharmaDog
No suprise, but i can't wait to see people come in here, deny the above information, and then defend Bush's actions and results.

botankus
Alright, I'm here to deny the information!





Do I have to read the article to do that?

finti
and the surprise here is?................................................ laughing out loud sorry I just had to

PVS

Echuu
laughing good stuff pvs

finti
how do you get the copyright sign?

PVS
on a mac its option-g
i dont know about on a PC.
if you find out let me know

finti
it doesnt have the option, guess mac is so paranoid about copyright they added it to the function buttonsbig grin

Fishy

finti
nope, not on the keyboard at work

Linkalicious
but what's important is that America isn't getting attack at home...

duh!!!!

Tex
What is it that Bush would say on terrorism: "A safer world, a safer America"?

KharmaDog
Originally posted by Linkalicious
but what's important is that America isn't getting attack at home...

duh!!!!

So long as the rest of the world is being attacked (including americans abroad) and not the mainland U.S. who cares right?

The U.S. will be attacked again, but not right away. Also the attempts and successes of terrorism in america has escalated each time. Kinda makes you wonder what they're gonna do next eh?

Tex
nuke nukenuke

Fishy
Originally posted by Linkalicious
but what's important is that America isn't getting attack at home...

duh!!!!

For how long?

smoker4
Yeah i think its only a matter of time before either the U.S gets another attack or Great Britain gets one sad

WindDancer
As long as Extremists exists Terrorism will exist. There really is no way to stop them.

KidRock
things have to get worse before they get better.

PVS
every cloud has a silver lining

wherever you go, there you are

close cover before striking

smoker4
Always take the weather with you smokin'

KharmaDog
Originally posted by KidRock
things have to get worse before they get better.

Why do they have to get worse? Why can they just not get better? And is there some purpose in MAKING them worse?

KidRock
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Why do they have to get worse? Why can they just not get better? And is there some purpose in MAKING them worse?

To take out the Taliban in Afgahanistan it was going to get worse since soldiers would be killed and civilians in afgahnistan would get killed. But in the end a stable government came out and no more public beheadings in front of the elementry schools in afgstan. So it got worse for a while but its getting better.

PVS
terrorism in afghanistan is on the rise (doubled in the past year).
women there are still being stoned to death, terrorists are all over and there numbers are growing, and now afghanistan is the top heroine producer in the world, which is great news if you're a junkie.

btw, you DO realise we supported the taliban before 9/11 correct? in fact, before they took over the u.s. aided in overthrowing a democratically elected government. but thats just superficial info i guess.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by PVS
hilights for those with a.d.d.:

You should have put that at the beginning! I read the whole damn thing before I got to that part!

This seems like the status quo for the current administration. It also goes a long way towards proving that this administration's foreign policy continues to be an extended middle finger.

manny321
Remember people just because the US has not been attacked for 3 and half years, it won't be attacked again. They could be easily siting in northwest Pakistan (no government control there) and planning to attack the US.
Terrorism will NEVER NEVER be eliminated if you start bombing everyone and everything. You will create more terrorists. The US should be careful of not killing civilians because many terrorists develop from that. Its not going to stop, not in our lifetime.

Darth Jello
Well maybe we should change our foreign policy so we don't promote terrorism by destablizing half of the world and keeping it enslaved so we can have nice overpriced tennis shoes and cheap labor.

manny321
the thing is that Terrorism is here to stay in way or another if we stick with this foreign policy of sorts. If you think otherwise stop watching FOX news please!!

RedAlertv2
Im just waiting for Kid Rock to make another stupid comment supporting Bush. Should be any minute now....

PVS
please dont encourage him no

what really pisses me off is how bush and company declare that
because of THEM we have not fallen under another terrorist attack.
what idiots tend to forget is the 10 year span between the first failed
attack and the second successful attack on the WTC. just another
case of the rooster taking credit for the sunrise. and i suppose when
we do get attacked it will be all the fault of the democrats, for whatever
excuse they can pull out of their asses.

Fishy
Of course it will be, we all know that democrats are the root of all evil in the world...

Seriously even if the US its foreign policy would completly change, even if they did stop the things that many consider illegal or inmorale terrorism would not stop. It would just stop against the US, other country's would still feel the price. In a way other country's should be happy with the US its foreign policy no matter how much it sucks they will be the one to pay the price instead of them stick out tongue

Darth Jello
i'm still not sure if 9/11 was a terrorist attack or a MILITARY attack from one of the members of the Saudi royal family. If the terrorist were from any other country, the headlines would read SAUDI ARABIA ATTACKS US, not TERRORISTS ATTACK US

Fishy
It was organised by Osama however, and officially the Saudi royal family has thrown him out of the family. So officially it can't be there attack.

KidRock
Originally posted by manny321
Remember people just because the US has not been attacked for 3 and half years, it won't be attacked again. They could be easily siting in northwest Pakistan (no government control there) and planning to attack the US.
Terrorism will NEVER NEVER be eliminated if you start bombing everyone and everything. You will create more terrorists. The US should be careful of not killing civilians because many terrorists develop from that. Its not going to stop, not in our lifetime.


So you think we should just stop hunting terrorists all together? Good idea, lets just let all terrorists attack us while they know we wont pursue them.

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
Im just waiting for Kid Rock to make another stupid comment supporting Bush. Should be any minute now....

Who are you again?

PVS
Originally posted by Fishy
It was organised by Osama however, and officially the Saudi royal family has thrown him out of the family. So officially it can't be there attack.

let us not forget that any ties between the saudis and al quaida were deleted from the official sept.11 report.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by KidRock
So you think we should just stop hunting terrorists all together? Good idea, lets just let all terrorists attack us while they know we wont pursue them.

Like Osama Bin Laden? Unless he was hiding in a hole with Sadam, I don't think we've spent a whole lot of time looking for him in the first place.

Afro Cheese
Flying a commercial plane packed with civilians into a building is not a military attack.

Fishy
why not? Because the method was not approved of?

the allies bombed entire city's to the ground killing thousands of civilians to win against Nazi Germany, not to mention what happened in Japan. Its just not the kind of warfare you like

Afro Cheese
It's not even using military equipment or weapons... hijacking a plane and blowing it up is the epitome of terrorism.

PVS
but when they committed terrorist acts against the soviets, trained by our c.i.a., they were 'freedom fighters'.

'hunting the terrorists' my ass

what fuels terrorism is not only anger, but $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
the source of the $$$$$$$$$$ was saudi arabia. that is what was blacked out
of the report and that is why it will happen again. 'hatred of freedom' doesnt pay off the families of hijackers...

Fishy
Its only terrorism because no country officialy send it. The Allies used civilian airplanes to bomb Germany too, just converted them. They used passager ships to transport troops and weapons. They used civilian vehicles too. The difference here is that no country supported the attack (officially)

PVS
right 'officially'

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/PVS/BUSH_1.jpg

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Fishy
Its only terrorism because no country officialy send it. The Allies used civilian airplanes to bomb Germany too, just converted them. They used passager ships to transport troops and weapons. They used civilian vehicles too. The difference here is that no country supported the attack (officially) Did they use those vehicles with civilians on them and blow themselves up purposely? If so, that was terrorism too.

manny321
a perfect couple, how romantic!!!!

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.