Terrorism on the rise?

[I am me]

Winning the war: Over and over, George Bush has told us that we're winning the so-called "War on Terrorism," and that the world is now a safer place.

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush's State Department doesn't quite agree with him. According to a State Department study, significant terrorist attacks worldwide rose from 175 in 2003 to 655 in 2004 — a more than tripling of the number of attacks. And despite Mr. Bush's claims that we're wining the peace in Iraq, the number of terrorist attacks there increased from 22 in 2003 to 198 in 2004 — more than nine times as many. In addition, terrorist attacks more than doubled in 2004 in Afghanistan — another site of a great U.S. victory.

Of course, the "War on Terrorism" isn't really about security, lives saved, liberation, or victory. It's about words — words that can roll off a president's tongue with no regard to whether the words conform to reality. After all, who's going to check? Who's going to question the President of United States — the leader of the "Free" World?

Maybe that's why the State Department has decided not to include the figures on rising terrorist attacks in its annual report on worldwide terrorism. The figures will be in the version submitted to Congress, but not in this week's public version.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/Journal.htm

click on the link to view the entry with hyper links included that link you to news articles where he got some of his information.

[Babs]

Winning the war: Over and over, George Bush has told us that we're winning the so-called "War on Terrorism," and that the world is now a safer place. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush's State Department doesn't quite agree with him. According to a State Department study, significant terrorist attacks worldwide rose from 175 in 2003 to 655 in 2004 — a more than tripling of the number of attacks. And despite Mr. Bush's claims that we're wining the peace in Iraq, the number of terrorist attacks there increased from 22 in 2003 to 198 in 2004 — more than nine times as many. In addition, terrorist attacks more than doubled in 2004 in Afghanistan — another site of a great U.S. victory.

Of course, the "War on Terrorism" isn't really about security, lives saved, liberation, or victory. It's about words — words that can roll off a president's tongue with no regard to whether the words conform to reality. After all, who's going to check? Who's going to question the President of United States — the leader of the "Free" World?

Maybe that's why the State Department has decided not to include the figures on rising terrorist attacks in its annual report on worldwide terrorism. The figures will be in the version submitted to Congress, but not in this week's public version.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/Journal.htm

click on the link to view the entry with hyper links included that link you to news articles where he got some of his information.

595413[/snapback]

Interesting, but I think the war on terror is successful....you don't see another 911, do you? The terror war is a world-wide affair or world war as I have stated a few years back. Nothing's changed, except, that, there are more dead terrorists. And it is a good thing to have the terrorists contained in a small region (Iraq and Afghanistan) where we can kill them off.

Edited April 28, 2005 by Babs

[I am me]

ok, so the amount of terrorist attacks have greatly increased but you think the war on terrorism has been a success?

[Babs]

Well sure it is. We haven't had any major attacks, keeping fingers crossed, and we have the terrorists contained, so what's the beef? Oh, I know terrorism is on the rise, but you have to expect that for now. No one said it was going to be a 'walk in the park'.

A long long war ahead.

Edited April 30, 2005 by Babs

[dmgspycat]

If terrorism was really on the rise then Bush and Company wouldnt be depleting all of our resources in Iraq and running the stock market down. All the more reason to see the War on Terror as a smokescreen to cover exploitation of weak countries resources! There are no terrorists...however, if we keep continualy p***ing people off and getting over on the rest of the worlds people then it would come back to haunt us sooner or later...just not now. Or we would have made other arrandements to fight a real war on terror...ther have been police and people from the military complaining about this very thing so don't think I'm going off on a deep one here. How many State POlice do we really have patrolling our coastlines? Not enough...not enough for a war on terror that is...another reason to see through this phoney veil of the Bush administration. Will the real US please stand up.

[Dowdy]

Interesting, but I think the war on terror is successful....you don't see another 911, do you? The terror war is a world-wide affair or world war as I have stated a few years back. Nothing's changed, except, that, there are more dead terrorists.  And it is a good thing to have the terrorists contained in a small region (Iraq and Afghanistan) where we can kill them off.

What about Madrid bombings, Bali bombings. May not be 3000 death but they are 911 type. And madrid and Bali contradicts your statement " terrorists contained in a small region (Iraq and Afghanistan)"

[Commander CMG]

Winning the war: Over and over, George Bush has told us that we're winning the so-called "War on Terrorism," and that the world is now a safer place. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush's State Department doesn't quite agree with him. According to a State Department study, significant terrorist attacks worldwide rose from 175 in 2003 to 655 in 2004 — a more than tripling of the number of attacks. And despite Mr. Bush's claims that we're wining the peace in Iraq, the number of terrorist attacks there increased from 22 in 2003 to 198 in 2004 — more than nine times as many. In addition, terrorist attacks more than doubled in 2004 in Afghanistan — another site of a great U.S. victory.

Of course, the "War on Terrorism" isn't really about security, lives saved, liberation, or victory. It's about words — words that can roll off a president's tongue with no regard to whether the words conform to reality. After all, who's going to check? Who's going to question the President of United States — the leader of the "Free" World?

Maybe that's why the State Department has decided not to include the figures on rising terrorist attacks in its annual report on worldwide terrorism. The figures will be in the version submitted to Congress, but not in this week's public version.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/Journal.htm

click on the link to view the entry with hyper links included that link you to news articles where he got some of his information.

595413[/snapback]

Interesting, but I think the war on terror is successful....you don't see another 911, do you? The terror war is a world-wide affair or world war as I have stated a few years back. Nothing's changed, except, that, there are more dead terrorists. And it is a good thing to have the terrorists contained in a small region (Iraq and Afghanistan) where we can kill them off.

595464[/snapback]

That is an absurd comment... "you dont see another 911 do you" just becasue this has not happened again in the US the war on Terror has been a success, so it is alright for Terrorists to blow the sh** out of Europe and South East Asia and you seriously think that Terror is now contained in Afghanistan and Iraq??

Edited April 29, 2005 by XSAS

[wunarmdscissor]

Well sure it is. We haven't had any major attacks, keeping fingers crossed, and we have the terrorists contained, so what's the beef? Oh, I know terrorism is on the rise, but you have to expect that for now. No one said it was going to be a 'walk in the park'

u mean there hasnt been a major attack in america

my god the complete and utter blindness of that statement says it all for me.

tell that to the victims of the madrid and bali bombings , i know geography isnt your strongest point but they arent anywhere near iraq or afghanistand, stop swalling the whitehouse press officers bull and at least consider the fact that we arent quite goin about this the best way.

[Commander CMG]

Well said.

[dmgspycat]

The Bali and Madrid bombings were done by sabateurs for political reasons...I think Spain knows this as there was no direct Al Queda involvement. The people behind the war on terror are people like the right -wing CIA who Ben Laden still works for...that is why Laden wasn't arrested when he was in the hospital in Dubai when he was visited by the CIA. The administration here is pro-corporate right-wing and 9-11 was nothing more than a Reichstaag fire blamed on the Jews...only in this case it is the Muslim world because we need it's strategic oil reserves. Wake up!

[Commander CMG]

No one said anything about Al Queda being involved in the bombings and there are other Terrorist groups other then Al Queda.

[wunarmdscissor]

where is it said that al-queda had no part in those bombings anyway????

[Commander CMG]

Thats right and at the end of the day this topic is about Terrorism ingeneral not Al Queda, just because they are the ones responsible for 911 that is all the US think about... As devastating as the 911 attacks were the UK mainland has had to live with that for decades with the IRA.

[sanchera1978]

Well sure it is. We haven't had any major attacks, keeping fingers crossed, and we have the terrorists contained, so what's the beef? Oh, I know terrorism is on the rise, but you have to expect that for now. No one said it was going to be a 'walk in the park'

Babs no offense but you need to get over 9/11.. It was a tragedy that shouldnt have ever happened but that happened 4 years ago stop relating everything to that moment in time. Just becuase an attack of that magnitude has happened yet doesnt mean the fictional war on terrorism is a sucess. If its on the rise it means the war isnt going to great.

[Babs]

The Bali and Madrid bombings were done by sabateurs for political reasons...I think Spain knows this as there was no direct Al Queda involvement. The people behind the war on terror are people like the right -wing CIA who Ben Laden still works for...that is why Laden wasn't arrested when he was in the hospital in Dubai when he was visited by the CIA. The administration here is pro-corporate right-wing and 9-11 was nothing more than a Reichstaag fire blamed on the Jews...only in this case it is the Muslim world because we need it's strategic oil reserves. Wake up!

596771[/snapback]

Question: if this is true, why are we paying through the nose at the gas pumps?

[Babs]

Well sure it is. We haven't had any major attacks, keeping fingers crossed, and we have the terrorists contained, so what's the beef? Oh, I know terrorism is on the rise, but you have to expect that for now. No one said it was going to be a 'walk in the park'

u mean there hasnt been a major attack in america

my god the complete and utter blindness of that statement says it all for me.

tell that to the victims of the madrid and bali bombings , i know geography isnt your strongest point but they arent anywhere near iraq or afghanistand, stop swalling the whitehouse press officers bull and at least consider the fact that we arent quite goin about this the best way.

596444[/snapback]

I disagree. This is the right way...the only way, you just don't like it.

[Babs]

Well sure it is. We haven't had any major attacks, keeping fingers crossed, and we have the terrorists contained, so what's the beef? Oh, I know terrorism is on the rise, but you have to expect that for now. No one said it was going to be a 'walk in the park'

u mean there hasnt been a major attack in america

my god the complete and utter blindness of that statement says it all for me.

tell that to the victims of the madrid and bali bombings , i know geography isnt your strongest point but they arent anywhere near iraq or afghanistand, stop swalling the whitehouse press officers bull and at least consider the fact that we arent quite goin about this the best way.

596444[/snapback]

I disagree. We are going about this the right way...'the only way', you just don't like it.

We have to kill terrorists, this is how you do it.

[Babs]

Well sure it is. We haven't had any major attacks, keeping fingers crossed, and we have the terrorists contained, so what's the beef? Oh, I know terrorism is on the rise, but you have to expect that for now. No one said it was going to be a 'walk in the park'

Babs no offense but you need to get over 9/11.. It was a tragedy that  shouldnt have ever happened but that happened 4 years ago stop relating everything to that moment in time.  Just becuase an attack of that magnitude has happened yet doesnt mean the fictional war on terrorism is a sucess. If its on the rise it means the war isnt going to great.

597000[/snapback]

No offense, but 911, 'you don't get over'.

Edited April 30, 2005 by Babs

[Fluffybunny]

Well babs, I think that a big point is that we are being told that the world is a safer place because of the war on terror; when the numbers show otherwise...

We have to kill terrorists, this is how you do it.

1. It is the also same way that you help to recruit far more "terrorists" than you have ever killed...

2. There are plenty of ways to kill "terrorists", you just happen to buy what bush is selling...

[bathory]

you are never going to wipe out terrorism, terrorism is a tool, plain and simple, this isn't a war on terrorism, its a war on islamofacism, and ideological war if you will, the only way to combat it is to remove the support they have through the removal of friendly governments and through the promotion of either hardline dictatorships or democracies, the US picked the harder of the two options.

2. There are plenty of ways to kill "terrorists", you just happen to buy what bush is selling...

funnily enough, but the individual terrorists are really quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, Bin Ladin? wouldn't make a difference if the US caught him, it would be a nice symbolic victory but beyond that it would do nothing.

Edited April 30, 2005 by bathory

[Babs]

Well babs, I think that a big point is that we are being told that the world is a safer place because of the war on terror; when the numbers show otherwise...

We have to kill terrorists, this is how you do it.

1. It is the also same way that you help to recruit far more "terrorists" than you have ever killed...

2. There are plenty of ways to kill "terrorists", you just happen to buy what bush is selling...

598323[/snapback]

How, Fluffy? What are the plenty of ways to kill terrorists?

Edited April 30, 2005 by Babs

[zephyr]

terrorism is a tool, plain and simple, this isn't a war on terrorism, its a war on islamofacism,

I know what terrorism and fascism are, but could you please explain what 'islamofascism' is; thanks!

[wunarmdscissor]

hes referring to the elemnt of islam (and its quite a prominent element) that seems to beleieve we have no right to exist.

its is a problem that seems to be far more popular in islam than with other religions. ya know the whole infidel thing.

[Babs]

As I see it you are going to have to kill terrorists 'and the children' that are born and raised 'to enter terrorism'. There is new youth coming into terrorism, so, it will be a long war.

....(unless, of course, they see the light and stop being terrorists).

If anyone sees a better plan, please bring it forth.

Edited April 30, 2005 by Babs

[bathory]

I know what terrorism and fascism are, but could you please explain what 'islamofascism' is; thanks!

Wun pretty much got it, the problem is if Bush were to come out and say, "Hey this is a war against Islamists (or islamofacism, same thing)", the world would be in an uproar, why? because so many people know so little about whats going on. The uneducated would see Islam there and think, hey this is a war against Islam, and the hard left would more than likely try and perpetuate this misconception.