Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Global Terrorism up 25% in 2006. Iraq's sectarian warfare fueled a sharp increase in global terrorism, the U.S. State Department reported Monday.

OH!....NOW the Bush Administration figures it out....way to connect the dots 4 years too late.

*sigh*

This stupid war.. it's completely useless.

Well, apparently, its done well to increase our gross global terrorism output. 13

That and the Bush Administration has done nothing to better protect the US from a terrorist attack, and yet they claim that the "terrorists win" if anyone dare supports the opposition. Never mind that the Homeland Security appropriations a couple years ago were primarily pork given to, among other things, a petting zoo and a roller rink. Never mind that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda actually wanted Bush to stay in office last election, and yet the Republicans successfully painted Kerry as the chosen candidate of terrorists.

Remind me why the GOP is still functioning?

How exactly do they quantify "terrorism" into a single percentage?

Number of attacks? Number killed? Weapons trafficking? Money laundering? Does the recent Virginia Tech shooting count?

Oh yeah, blame it on Bush. 31

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
How exactly do they quantify "terrorism" into a single percentage?

Number of attacks? Number killed? Weapons trafficking? Money laundering? Does the recent Virginia Tech shooting count? The VA Tech shooting would fall under domestic terrorism.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Remind me why the GOP is still functioning?

Uneducated Americans.

Originally posted by Alliance
Uneducated Americans. sadyes

Can someone remind me again..how many terrorist attacks there has been in the US since the war?

And how many terrorist attacks have there been worldwide? Oh wait! According to the State Department, it's increased 25%! And a nice slice of that is because of Iraq, a problem we caused! Plus there's the fact that Republicans, the so-called "National Security" party, oppose implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, recommendations that would better protect us from possible terrorist threats!

Riddle me that, redneck 131

Originally posted by Strangelove
And how many terrorist attacks have there been worldwide? Oh wait! According to the State Department, it's increased 25%! And a nice slice of that is because of Iraq, a problem we caused! Plus there's the fact that Republicans, the so-called "National Security" party, oppose implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, recommendations that would better protect us from possible terrorist threats!

Riddle me that, redneck 131


Originally posted by KidRock
Can someone remind me again..how many terrorist attacks there has been in the US since the war?

Still waiting.

What's the point of rhetorical questions? Just say what you gotta say

Global terrorism is up, yes.


But isnt it funny that the US, which is the one in this war, hasnt been attacked? Maybe the other countries should join up and start fighting against terrorism..it has worked for the United States so far.

Originally posted by KidRock
Can someone remind me again..how many terrorist attacks there has been in the US since the war?

I have a magic rock that keeps tigers away. You don't see any tigers around, so it must be working.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I have a magic rock that keeps tigers away. You don't see any tigers around, so it must be working.

Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

Originally posted by BackFire
Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I have a magic rock that keeps tigers away. You don't see any tigers around, so it must be working. awesome

Originally posted by Strangelove
awesome
The Simpsons has gotten crappier as of late.

Really, though, the question to ask is: is there evidence that the Department of Homeland Security has prevented terrorist attacks on the United States? (And, no, school shootings don't count.)

Originally posted by FeceMan
The Simpsons has gotten crappier as of late.

Really, though, the question to ask is: is there evidence that the Department of Homeland Security has prevented terrorist attacks on the United States? (And, no, school shootings don't count.) I never watch the Simpsons srug

And no, there is no evidence that the DOHS has prevented potential terrorist threats, nor is there evidence that any such threats have been planned. Terrorist cells in the Middle East seem to be content with killing U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan

Gawd damnit. Damnit USA, did what you did to Japan. FRICKIN NUKE IRAQ. KILL EVERYONE THERE. They'll be no problems, cept for few riots, but everything will be alright.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I never watch the Simpsons srug

And no, there is no evidence that the DOHS has prevented potential terrorist threats, nor is there evidence that any such threats have been planned. Terrorist cells in the Middle East seem to be content with killing U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan

Except for the fact that there hasnt been a terrorist attack in the US since the war of course..

Originally posted by KidRock
Except for the fact that there hasnt been a terrorist attack in the US since the war of course..
That's saying that correlation equals causation, which is not necessarily true.

EDIT: Also, even if there were terrorist attacks on the United States, it wouldn't necessarily mean that the DHS wasn't doing their job. It might just mean that terrorism attempts had increased.

Originally posted by KidRock
Except for the fact that there hasnt been a terrorist attack in the US since the war of course..

How long did it take Al-Queda to hit us again between the first WTC bombing and September 11th?

Geez, you act like there should be a terrorist attack every day. So much for your BS.

(and seeing as Global terrorism has increased, the chance of there being anothe rattack, despite US security efforts increases). Nothing about the situation has improved. Try thinking.

What are you talking about, Alliance? 655,000 Iraqis dead = 655,000 fewer terrorists.

Originally posted by Alliance
How long did it take Al-Queda to hit us again between the first WTC bombing and September 11th?

Geez, you act like there should be a terrorist attack every day. So much for your BS.

(and seeing as Global terrorism has increased, the chance of there being anothe rattack, despite US security efforts increases). Nothing about the situation has improved. Try thinking.

You= sitting there making accusations and throwing out more bullshit.

Me= stating the fact that there still hasnt been a terrorist attack since the war began. And if, as all those morons say, the war has increased terrorism why hasnt there been an attack yet?

http://www.streettech.com/storypics/usbNukeButton.jpg

PRESS IT BUSH! KILL IRAQ!!!!

Originally posted by KidRock
Except for the fact that there hasnt been a terrorist attack in the US since the war of course.. And how does the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11 mean that any terrorist attacks have been prevented?

Come back when you're logical 131

Originally posted by KidRock
You= sitting there making accusations and throwing out more bullshit.

Me= stating the fact that there still hasnt been a terrorist attack since the war began. And if, as all those morons say, the war has increased terrorism why hasnt there been an attack yet?

Which means nothing...

When was the last terrorist attack in the US before 9/11?

There was no war in that time and still no terrorism, not fighting against terrorists seems to have worked.

Also, both England and Spain fought in Iraq and both have been attacked, not to mention that 3346 United States soldiers have been killed in Iraq so far, that's more then 9/11 killed. Americans are still dying because of Terrorism, something that did not need to happen.

Anyone remember the argument for the Iraq war? It was Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) not terrorism. They were never linked to begin with.

Hell, according to the government there are more "terrorist cells" here than in Iraq.

Originally posted by chithappens
Anyone remember the argument for the Iraq war? It was Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) not terrorism. They were never linked to begin with.

Hell, according to the government there are more "terrorist cells" here than in Iraq.

True, Al Qaeda had no links to Iraq , in fact Osama and Saddam were not really what you would call friends...

Originally posted by Fishy
Which means nothing...

When was the last terrorist attack in the US before 9/11?



WTC February 26, 1993

Write down that date on your notes.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
How exactly do they quantify "terrorism" into a single percentage?

Number of attacks? Number killed? Weapons trafficking? Money laundering?Does anyone know this? I'd look but I can't be assed...

Originally posted by KidRock
You= sitting there making accusations and throwing out more bullshit.

Me= stating the fact that there still hasnt been a terrorist attack since the war began. And if, as all those morons say, the war has increased terrorism why hasnt there been an attack yet?

Because there are RARELY attacks in the US and there is little or no historical basis on which to judge the frequencey of attacks.


UNder your perverted logic, Bill Clinton did a superb job of defendind the US from terrorists, because there were no attacks after he changed policies after the 1993 bombings. WOOO! Clinton teh Defender of Terrorism!

Come back when you're logical 13

Originally posted by Alliance
Because there are RARELY attacks in the US and there is little or no historical basis on which to judge the frequencey of attacks.


UNder your perverted logic, Bill Clinton did a superb job of defendind the US from terrorists, because there were no attacks after he changed policies after the 1993 bombings. WOOO! Clinton teh Defender of Terrorism!

Come back when you're logical 13

I am discussing the wars going on. The wars have prevented terrorism in the United States since these wars have began. Until there is another terrorist attack in the US then the war is doing what it was suppose to do, combat terrorism.

*waits for another witty 12 year old insult followed by smiley face*

In the same way that the VA Tech guy blew 32 some bullets; same way if I decided to drive a truck bomb into a mall and jump out and not say a word; if a terrorist felt the urge to do something similar, they could do it. These are one man suicide missions, not militias. There is no real way to stop/predict that.

Same reason why it is hard to stop the militant groups in Iraq.

Originally posted by KidRock
I am discussing the wars going on. The wars have prevented terrorism in the United States since these wars have began. Until there is another terrorist attack in the US then the war is doing what it was suppose to do, combat terrorism.

*waits for another witty 12 year old insult followed by smiley face*

Bill Clinton his policy did not destroy a nation put a country into a huge debt and have more then 3000 American soldiers killed, what he did was obviously far more effective.

Besides global terrorism in that time was a lot lower, and neither England nor Spain were attacked by Al Qaeda during that particular moment in time, unlike during the Iraq war when both were.

Ergo the war is not working at all. Besides Al Qaeda had no ties to Iraq, they weren't in Iraq they weren't doing anything with Iraqis they hated Saddam Hussein. If anything they would have worked against him instead of with him and they didn't even do that.

Originally posted by KidRock
I am discussing the wars going on. The wars have prevented terrorism in the United States since these wars have began. Until there is another terrorist attack in the US then the war is doing what it was suppose to do, combat terrorism.

*waits for another witty 12 year old insult followed by smiley face*

Least I'm not ACTUALLY a 12 year old.

Lets examine your claims.

1. "The wars have prevented terrorism in the United States since these wars have began"

First, correlation doesn't mean causation.

Secondly, wars have prevented terrorism in the US since the wars have began? That means that magically when a war starts, there is no more domestic terrorism? Its a closed logical loop and a self-reinforcing statement based on nothing beside your own personal pig-headedness.

There HAVE been domestic terror attempts, as pointed out by the administration, but none have been successfully carried you. So clearly, the threat of domestic terrorism has not been removed by war.

2. If we ignore your hypocrisies and falsely assume what you say is correct (war prevents terrorism) then that means that when we are not at war, there is no terrorism..which is clearly historically false.

The topics are disjoint.

3. Britain was at war in Iraq...as was Spain, and BOTH nations had domestic terror attacks while they were at war. How is the US so radically different that your magical little conjecture applies to the US but not to the UK or Spain?

Basically you fail on all three levels. Your argument fails logically. YOur argument fails to describe the current situation. Your argument fails to describe past situations. Suck it up and move on.

Maybe you can go to Iraq and die and take the place of the good people who are over there fighting? It'd be better for the nation.

And here's your smilie: usaflag

i AGREE

to what?

EVERYTHING shock

firefirefireph

Originally posted by KidRock
Except for the fact that there hasnt been a terrorist attack in the US since the war of course..

Originally posted by Fishy
3346 United States soldiers have been killed in Iraq so far, that's more then 9/11 killed.

No need for a terrorist attack on US when they can kill as many of them as the US keeps sending..

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Does anyone know this? I'd look but I can't be assed...

I remember reading somthing by Noam Chomsky directly following 9-11 (yes, thats right, I was reading Chomsky). Along with all the normal rhetoric, he did get into a lot of these classifications.

Generally, you are right. There is no clear distinction between terrorist violence and state violence, or acts of war, or any of those things. I'm sure if you had enough statisticians privy to enough data they could come up with whatever they wanted.

Basically, without sounding to far on the left, American policy classifies "terrorism" as pretty much whatever is expedient to classify as terrorism.

Originally posted by inimalist
Basically, without sounding to far on the left, American policy classifies "terrorism" as pretty much whatever is expedient to classify as terrorism.

Academically, thats wrong. Most scholars I've read have drawn a line between "terrorism" and groups like Al-Queda. Hizbollah is a terrorist organization, I happen to think that terrorism is almost a legitimate tactic.

Al-Queda type crap isn't actually terrorism, its something larger, I've heard the word "superterrorism" because its main goals seem to be fear, but without the nationalist agenda that defines actual terrorism.

Kidrock, maybe you can explain HOW the war in Iraq has prevented these terrorists attacks on domestic soil?

Can you do that? Can you even begin to? Or would you just like to puke up the same Bill O'Reilly school of foreign policy, one liner, sound bite crap?

You want to say that there have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11, but you can't explain why? Even Bill O'Reilly could come up with something. But, I assume you'll exercise your usual M.O. and just silently back out of the thread having stated your empty right wing propoganda, while all the time not even saying anything to back it up. Even though Jackie is wrong about everythinig, at least she tries to back up her arguments, as flawed and indefensible as they are.

Originally posted by Alliance
Academically, thats wrong. Most scholars I've read have drawn a line between "terrorism" and groups like Al-Queda. Hizbollah is a terrorist organization, I happen to think that terrorism is almost a legitimate tactic.

Al-Queda type crap isn't actually terrorism, its something larger, I've heard the word "superterrorism" because its main goals seem to be fear, but without the nationalist agenda that defines actual terrorism.

Thats true, there are certainly academic ways of describing it that are much better than what the government does. I guess I am assuming this 25% is a government statistic, or something being used in politics and that vein.

I'd put Al Queda under "Jihadi" group. Sure, terrorism is a tactic, but their motivations are the same as the Turks who sacked Vienna 500 years ago (and were conveniently routed on Sept 11th. Coincidence? not at all )

I don't know, "terrorism" is such a bad word. Asymmetrical military campaign, 4th generation battlefield (man I love terms I hardly know the usage of), and other things are much better for academics to use to discuss the matter. The term just carries to much emotion to be all that useful

Originally posted by inimalist


I don't know, "terrorism" is such a bad word. Asymmetrical military campaign, 4th generation battlefield (man I love terms I hardly know the usage of), and other things are much better for academics to use to discuss the matter. The term just carries to much emotion to be all that useful

Thought I was the only one who thought so.

Originally posted by chithappens
Thought I was the only one who thought so.



buzz words bother me.

All in all though, a word like terrorism does nothing but try to dumb down really complex situations

Why are they fighting us in Iraq, terrorism, what about in Columbia, narco-terrorism, PETA releases some monkeys, eco-terrorism.

now, if the best way of describing all of these events is by the fear created in their wake, we are screwed.

Originally posted by inimalist


buzz words bother me.

All in all though, a word like terrorism does nothing but try to dumb down really complex situations

Why are they fighting us in Iraq, terrorism, what about in Columbia, narco-terrorism, PETA releases some monkeys, eco-terrorism.

now, if the best way of describing all of these events is by the fear created in their wake, we are screwed.

Funny enough that is exactly how I see it. It is all about getting people to feel they need to be protected which is working thus far. Scary that people trust the government before their own common sense (although that assumes that have a certain amount of knowledge and yeah so I either recant that last sentence or just please take it with a grain of salt).

EDIT: double post

Originally posted by chithappens
Funny enough that is exactly how I see it. It is all about getting people to feel they need to be protected which is working thus far. Scary that people trust the government before their own common sense (although that assumes that have a certain amount of knowledge and yeah so I either recant that last sentence or just please take it with a grain of salt).

absolutely. I will never understand why people put so much faith in the government. They want it to be this overbearing father figure that just makes all the tough decisions for them. Which is terrible. I forget who said it, but "people should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of the people". Not entirely applicable, but it does speak toward the loss of personal accountability at the expense of an overarching state.

My biggest problem with the term "terrorism" (Not being American I haven't had to personally deal with the politicizing of terrorism into a campaign issue) is that it is the catch-all label for people that are ideologically opposed to the government. Thus, any subversive action by an extremist group is just blanket labeled as "terrorism".

My biggest fear is that this will grow into domestic accusations, where members of communist or anarchist groups who demonstrate against capitalist organizations like the WTO or whatever will get this label. That, to me, would spark another McCarthy era in the states. I guess I also feel obligated to say that I am a firm supporter of the WTO and the people who try to firebomb their buildings. The former for simple pragmatic reasons, the latter for overwhelming emotional justification.

I refuse to watch the news. Sometimes ingorance is bliss.

Originally posted by Devil King
Kidrock, maybe you can explain HOW the war in Iraq has prevented these terrorists attacks on domestic soil?

Can you do that? Can you even begin to?

Terrorists that plan against America arent arrested or deported or sent to trial when they are in Iraq..they are free to do as they choose.

The US invades Iraq, the terrorists now cannot just stay there, they must be on the run or they are getting killed..which stops terrorism.

Next.

Originally posted by KidRock
Terrorists that plan against America arent arrested or deported or sent to trial when they are in Iraq..they are free to do as they choose.

The US invades Iraq, the terrorists now cannot just stay there, they must be on the run or they are getting killed..which stops terrorism.

Next.

And they can't camp elsewhere in other parts of the world or pull a "24" on us why?

Originally posted by KidRock
Terrorists that plan against America arent arrested or deported or sent to trial when they are in Iraq..they are free to do as they choose.

The US invades Iraq, the terrorists now cannot just stay there, they must be on the run or they are getting killed..which stops terrorism.

Next.

Really

There are no terrorist in Iraq? (btw the terrorists seem to be staying)

Also, what about terrorists elsewhere...Saddam executed terrorists, there likely weren't that many there. Most terrorists wer enot in Iraq, certainly not the super-terrorists that attacked the US.Originally posted by inimalist
absolutely. I will never understand why people put so much faith in the government. They want it to be this overbearing father figure that just makes all the tough decisions for them. Which is terrible. I forget who said it, but "people should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of the people". Not entirely applicable, but it does speak toward the loss of personal accountability at the expense of an overarching state.
Its sad that you can so effectively analyze terrorism, but can't apply the same interest in government. Government is very useful and doesn't act at all like the overbearing father figure. Government is the manifistation of communal responsibility. If people actually understood government and participated in it, people would feel a greater element of personal accountability. I'd say that people with your opinon is the reason why government can cause lapses in personal responsibility.
Originally posted by inimalist
My biggest problem with the term "terrorism" (Not being American I haven't had to personally deal with the politicizing of terrorism into a campaign issue) is that it is the catch-all label for people that are ideologically opposed to the government. Thus, any subversive action by an extremist group is just blanket labeled as "terrorism".
Honestly, in the US, terrorism has dropped off the map. in '01 and '02 even into '04 it was everywhere, but since Bush got re-elected, all of our focus has been on Iraq. Terrorism barely even exists outside of Iraq anymore.

The "subversive" word you're looking for in the US is not terrorism, its "un-American." Even that one is still getting tossed around.

Originally posted by Alliance
Its sad that you can so effectively analyze terrorism, but can't apply the same interest in government. Government is very useful and doesn't act at all like the overbearing father figure. Government is the manifistation of communal responsibility. If people actually understood government and participated in it, people would feel a greater element of personal accountability. I'd say that people with your opinon is the reason why government can cause lapses in personal responsibility.


haha, I'm really not as much of an extremist as I like to pretend I am

I'd vote if there was a party in Canada that wasn't just a form of soft socialism

Originally posted by Alliance
Honestly, in the US, terrorism has dropped off the map. in '01 and '02 even into '04 it was everywhere, but since Bush got re-elected, all of our focus has been on Iraq. Terrorism barely even exists outside of Iraq anymore.

The "subversive" word you're looking for in the US is not terrorism, its "un-American." Even that one is still getting tossed around.

you don't say

thats good news to say the least

Unfortunately, there's not much good news as long as Bush is in office.

well, yes, I guess that's true.

Nov 08 is it that he is gone?

Yup.

Originally posted by KidRock
Terrorists that plan against America arent arrested or deported or sent to trial when they are in Iraq..they are free to do as they choose.

The US invades Iraq, the terrorists now cannot just stay there, they must be on the run or they are getting killed..which stops terrorism.

Next.

Funny though that more then 3300 troops died in Iraq so far, that's more then on 9/11... Terrorists have no reason to commit terrorists attacks on against Americans in America, killing Americans in Iraq is far more effective and the second the US retreats from Iraq they will proclaim victory in Iraq and become even more powerful and loved in other country's then they already are. The only thing that this entire was has done is kill Americans in Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's and make the US even more hated in the world and terrorist groups even more popular in large area's of the Middle East and even Europe and the US...

The world is not safer because of the war in Iraq... Far from it.

why is it surprising that terrorist attacks are up?...surely its to be expected when you declare war on someone that they are going to fight back...action/reaction

Originally posted by Alliance
Really

There are no terrorist in Iraq? (btw the terrorists seem to be staying)

Also, what about terrorists elsewhere...Saddam executed terrorists, there likely weren't that many there. Most terrorists wer enot in Iraq, certainly not the super-terrorists that attacked the US.


When you start reading what I say and not making random stuff up, I will start making you look dumb again.

Originally posted by Alliance
Global Terrorism up 25% in 2006. Iraq's sectarian warfare fueled a sharp increase in global terrorism, the U.S. State Department reported Monday.

OH!....NOW the Bush Administration figures it out....way to connect the dots 4 years too late. How come whenever America tries to sort out a problem with war, it's so much ****ing worse, and they don't learn from it?

War on drugs
War on poverty
War on terrorism

What next war on war?

Originally posted by KidRock
When you start reading what I say and not making random stuff up, I will start making you look dumb again.

Actually, I doubt anyone here would say you made me look dumb.

If I've misinterpreted what you've said, please correct me.

Originally posted by lord xyz
How come whenever America tries to sort out a problem with war, it's so much ****ing worse, and they don't learn from it?

War on drugs
War on poverty
War on terrorism

What next war on war?

Actually, none of those were wars, they were simply co-opting military terminology because they think that people think they know what that means.