Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Terror attacks down since 2001, the war on terror works...Follow

#1 Jun 13 2004 at 2:12 AM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Oops

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/33433.htm

I mean, terror attacks up since 2001, we need the war on terror now more than ever.

Yeah. That's it.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#2 Jun 13 2004 at 7:01 AM Rating: Default
well when you **** away a couple hundred billion on not fighting terror who is to be suprised =)
#3 Jun 13 2004 at 7:03 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Sometimes I think if things don't change, I'll launch my own terrorist attacks.
#4 Jun 14 2004 at 4:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Oops

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/33433.htm

I mean, terror attacks up since 2001, we need the war on terror now more than ever.

Yeah. That's it.


Ok. I realize I'm a day late replying to this, but um... What are you talking about? I know you are uber-biased, but the report you linked doesn't say anything remotely close to what you posted.

It merely says that the original report on terrorist activities was in error and that the number was "up sharply" from what was originally reported.

It gives absolutely no comparison of terrorism rates between this year and 2001. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

If you wanted one, you could have linked the stats to give us a baseline.

Um... 426 events in 2000. 355 in 2001. 190 in 2003. Exactly how much is "up sharply"? If we double the amount, it's in the same ball park as pre 9/11. I seriously doubt the report was that far off...


Do you just make this stuff up? This is a pathetic batch of fearmongering, even for you Smash.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5 Jun 15 2004 at 4:43 PM Rating: Default
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5215019/

Quote:
The State Department said last week it was wrong in stating that terrorism declined worldwide last year in a report that the Bush administration initially cited as evidence it was succeeding against terrorism, Graham noted. Both the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department acknowledged.


Just sayin'.

Eb
#6 Jun 15 2004 at 5:03 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
pickleprince wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5215019/

Quote:
The State Department said last week it was wrong in stating that terrorism declined worldwide last year in a report that the Bush administration initially cited as evidence it was succeeding against terrorism, Graham noted. Both the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department acknowledged.


Just sayin'.

Eb


Yes. I know. That was what I was referring to when I said "up sharply" in my last post. My point is that we don't know exactly how much that is.

Look at the stats I posted. Here's the number of total terrorist events worldwide for each year:

2000: 426
2001: 355
2002: 198
2003: 190*


So they are saying that the 190 figure for last year is lower then it should be. So what? It's 200? Or 250? Even 300 (more then double the number in the report) would still be fewer terrorist attacks then there were in 2001.


Take another look at those stats folks. They go back to 1982. The previous lowest rate of attacks was in 1998 at 274 (about double what we've had the last two years). What this means is that since 9/11, and since the start of the "war on terror", the rate of terrorist attacks worldwide has been reduced on average a minimum of 50%.


There are lots of arguments you can use against the current US policy on terrorism. This is absolutely *not* one of them. Based on those numbers, the "war on terror" has been an undeniable success.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#7 Jun 15 2004 at 5:07 PM Rating: Good
Yea, while those may be the facts, the threat of terror has certainly seen a sharp incline, and, indeed even terror in general has seen significant gains.
#8 Jun 15 2004 at 5:29 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Reinman wrote:
Yea, while those may be the facts, the threat of terror has certainly seen a sharp incline, and, indeed even terror in general has seen significant gains.



Maybe. But "threats of terror" is pretty subjective. Every expert will have a slightly different opinion as to what actions will generate more terrorist actions, and which will generate fewer, and they pretty much all disagree with eachother. You can certainly argue this issue. But you absolutely cannot argue that we've had more terror events.

Actual acts of terror is a pretty measurable thing.


DAmn earthquake...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#9 Jun 15 2004 at 9:41 PM Rating: Decent
Guess we not counting car bombs and such in Iraq.
#10 Jun 15 2004 at 9:49 PM Rating: Good
Those only cause terror in Iraq, so it doesn't really count. Also the Iraqis’ don't seem to be scared by car bombs, in fact, they seem to enjoy them as long as some westerners die.
#11 Jun 16 2004 at 2:30 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
The stats you're linking are the ones being revised.

Think it through, you'll get why they aren't valid in an hour or so.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#12 Jun 16 2004 at 4:27 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04166/331549.stm

Quote:
Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday that a State Department report claiming a global decline in terrorist incidents last year was a "big mistake," but he said there was no intent to "cook the books" for political purposes.
#13 Jun 16 2004 at 5:44 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
The stats you're linking are the ones being revised.

Think it through, you'll get why they aren't valid in an hour or so.


I have thought it through Smash. The reported number of incidents is 190. However, that did not include some events after Nov 11 in 2003. So they are revising the numbers.

Approximately how many events do you think will be added Smash? Assuming a roughly equal rate yearwide, and even making that Nov 1st instead of 11th, that means that 1/6th of the events were not in the report (and I'm being *exremely* generous here).

That would bring the total up to 222ish. Again, assuming my very generous number are correct. Odds are, the final number is lower then that.

222, while up from 196 of 2002, is still a huge decrease from the 355 from 2001, and is also significantly lower then the 20 year low prior to the start of the war on terror (1998 at 274).


Here. How about you guess Smash? What do you think the final numbers will be? Just give us a guess. Unless you give us a number higher then 355, then the claim that terrorism has decreases since 2001 is still accurate. Just not as much as they stated earlier...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 337 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (337)