Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TheScuSpeaks

U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism (Big surprise?)

Recommended Posts

U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism

State Dept. Will Not Put Data in Report

 

By Susan B. Glasser

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A01

 

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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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,

that's really scary. like 450 more then the record year????????? and our government is supposedly trying to keep this information from us. we should all be afraid, very very afraid for our world.

 

but how can we as a country reduce terrorist attacks around the world? we can reduce certain ones against our country with a change in foreign policy possibly, but we cannot control radicals and attacks against other countries. hmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can say that we reduce terrorist attacks in America and severely hinder most of these groups to launch attacks. Outside of Iraq Al Qaeda has done little to nothing since the 3/11 bombing in Spain.

 

I do see how the Iraq war caused a spike in "terrorism" but really that is expected when you bring the fight into their backyard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Harmony
We can say that we reduce terrorist attacks in America

 

i must have missed that big wave of domestic terrorism that we got rid of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Harmony
What about his chemical scientists specifically that woman. Sadam also had the abilty to abtain a nuclear reactor this would have also made him threat even though the Israelis blew up the first one.

dude the fucking duelfer report has shown that saddam had no nbc capacity post-91 and wasn't working on any either

 

stop posting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/wmd.php

 

Look that up. He took it, word for word, from another web site. Of course he couldn't have responded: He wasn't even responding. Next time, someone should CITE the source they quote, as opposed to copy-pasting arguments that they would like to have the world believe they made on their own. That is intellectually dishonest, saying Bush lied, isn't.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, you didn't make those arguments.. we can agree. However, I would like ot point out thaat those arguments are fallacious for several reasons:

 

1. Not EVERYONE believed that Saddam had WMD's... The UN consitutes a rather large section of the world's population. Also, it doesn't prove that Bush was telling the truth if others stated the lie as fact, it only means that Bush succesfully promulgated the lie.

 

2. Incidentally, even if EVERY intelligence report in the world told us Saddam had WMD's--it doesn't make the claim true. Moreover, many intelligence agencies did NOT believe he hid WMD's: The UN is an excellent example.

 

3. Colin Powell, in February of 2001 indicated that his intelligence reports proved there were NO direct threats coming from Iraq--in a public speech. He couldn't have possibly gained nuclear capabilities that could hurt the US in any way within two years.

 

4. There is NO justification for the war: We've killed more people than Saddam (the Kurds killed in that one attack numbered 5,000), and have caused more pain and anguish. Incidentally, our claims of WMD's have gone mysteriously unfounded....

 

5. Any claim that Saddam had the potential to gain WMD's is ridiculous. Every country has such a potential. Do we bomb the shit out of any country that doesn't agree with us? Goodbye, Western Europe!

 

6. Saddam was very much at odds with Terrorist groups: He refused to give Al-Qaida personnel medical treatment when they had a need, and both Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have called for eachother's extermination. Not as friendly as one originally thought.

 

Largely, my argument against Iraq's justification is held on theis page:

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=943787&page=3

 

Discussion of justification for Iraq War should be held there.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Bush lied why did he really go to war? We should bomb any country in the world threatening us if anything just to show the other countries our military superiority this would deter most countries and terrorists from attacking or threatening us or our intrests.

 

1. Again, Iraq provided NO threat to us. There is no justification for Iraq in that regard, because of the lack of a coherent threat. May I remind you that he had not developed a nuclear, biological, or chemical program designed to harm the US. He didn't have the capability to spread material TO the United States, largely because he didn't A) have the technology to fire weapons at us at that range, and B) because he was at odds with terrorist groups.

 

2. Bombing the shit out of Afghanistan does nothing to deter people who ARE WILLING TO KILL THEMSELVES in order to hurt the US. Rather, we should look at the CAUSE of terrorism and resolve to eliminate that. I would like to ask the last time a STATE has attacked the US directly after the Cold War. We can still provide deterrants to states without exhibiting a sense of military foolishness and killing innocent civilians who would not attack the US. We just give terrorism a bigger cause to fight us, and don't deter them.

 

3. I would like to know what you mean by "our interests." Does China developing oil in Latin America before the US can buy the product consitute a threat against our interests? How about China buying oil directly from our suppliers, i.e. Venezuela? Or more directly, how about countries hostile ot the intentions of Israel? Again, should we bomb Western Europe? We don't agree with them and they HAVE WMD's.

 

4. I don't know Why Bush went to war. I'll be honest. To me it sounds like the dumbest decision a President has made in a long time. Maybe to insure election victory. Maybe for promoting the Military Industrial Complex. Maybe for oil. I don't know. I think maybe you should ask yourself the question, because you haven't provided an adequate reason, and are promoting such an action.

 

I sincerely hope this time you debate with warrants and valid points before asking inane questions that don't matter. I respect your opinion, just not your argumentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I look at history quite a bit and if you would ever like to go over any time in american history I would be happy to. I also know taking threats from other states and terrorists is not a good Idea it will lead to a weak image in the world and will cause major problems from other countries. For history now lets look at the clinton administration. There were several attacks against U.S. embassies in africa and the attack against the USS Cole. All clinton did was lob a couple cruise missles and missed multiple chances at Bin Laden. His inability to act with enough force led to the september 11th attacks. If you don't beleive me read the book deriliction of duty and watch the distcovery channel show about the US's tracking of bin laden in past years.

 

I think he also stopped fucking genocide in Bosnia. How's that for projecting an image? Teroorists don't attack because we look weak--there would be no reason to. They attack because we look arrogant--I think you use the word "strong." Diplomacy solves problems. War causes them. After the USS Cole, Clinton worked with Yemen in order to decrease attacks, not kill their citizens. It helped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many argue that 9/11 had multiple causes--Bush had the chance to stop it, and I won't deny that Clinton did too. However, that doesn't undermine my point that Clinton decreased terrorism. One terrorist attack after his initiative took place doesn't account for the potential others that Clinton DID stop.

 

Clinton did make a mistake. But he wasn't a dumbass, such as the one we have now. Bush may have gotten into Yale, but he doesn't know Jack-Shit about IR. It is likely that I don't either, but the results are easy to see. If there was a qualifying exam, Bush wouldn't pass. Clinton, however is considered to be the smartest president in the History of the United States--He has scored higher on IQ tests than any other president who has taken the test, I believe his is above 180, though I could be wrong. He is also the only President to have been awarded the Rhodes Scholarship.

 

You also haven't answered my previous posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This message is hidden because Raptor1990 is on your ignore list.

This message is hidden because Raptor1990 is on your ignore list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep telling you to post sources. I thihnk I know why you didn't:

 

http://www.worldthreats.com/russia_former_ussr/Russia%20Moved%20WMDs.htm

 

worldthreats.com doesn't sound like the most credible source in the world to me. Additionally, Newsmax is one of the most horrid "newssources" in the world: It has stated gross lies and distorts facts in order to advance a political agenda. This source never stated that Saddam could or would use these alleged "weapons" against the US, it is largely an article about the dangers of Russia, something we should get past. Working with Russia is better than antagonizing it.

 

The article is again fallacious.

 

1. It doesn't take into consideration that the Administration would use the article's arguments if there were the slightest hint of validity. I can guarantee most independent Russian or French newsservices couldn't find evidence of this. How did this article find such evidence? The newsservice that runs it doesn't necesarily have all the resources of the Agence-France Presse or similar news agency.

 

2. How the Hell does Hariri's assanination point to WMD's? There is no causal or corellary link.

 

3. Again, Saddam can't use any weapons he could have gained.

 

4. Russian agents on the WMD search squad with the UN wouldn't have known about their host country's back dealings with Iraq. It's stupid policy to send the few in the know to search for WMD's.

 

5. This article has no access to any information other than an OZRStaffer.

 

6. This is a FORMER staffer of Bush. Why isn't he on the Bush Administration's team? this is a critical question that needs to be answered.

 

7. Why have none of these claims been propogated by other media sources? It seems as if such impacting claims would make it into the news SOMEHOW.

 

It can be safely dismissed as a conspiracy theory. No evidence and wild assertations will do that. Incidentally, there is NO way the Russians could have taken ALL of the WMD's out of Iraq. That is impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clinton was too interested in how we looked to spend his time protecting the country.

 

They are one and the same. If we look arrogant and ugly, people will be offended and have reason to attack. Repairing this causality may be the only form of pre-emptive efforts to stop terrorism that I know of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
news max is bad as apposed to cnn pushing its political agenda same with msnbc and Fox all news agencies push an agenda so what do you have to compare news max to for fax Iraq not ever having WMD is just a therory to flame bush

 

1. Type in sentences, it's easier.

 

2. GET RID OF YOUR SWASTIKA AVATAR! I don't think your avatar means the Hindu sign of purity and good luck, I remain being offended.

 

3. Newsmax has an obvious right-wing slant. The entire site has Bush ads as well as Republican material, liberal-bashing, etc. CNN doesn't force an obvious agenda. I don't think CNN is as biased as Newsmax, nor do I think CNN is biased in the liberal sense. It is objective for a national source.

 

4. The last part of your post confused the hell out of me.

 

5. Iraq not having WMD's is not a theory to flame Bush--HE'S ADMITTED IT! Jesus Christ. It is obvious. He's found none, the UN has found none, the idea is commonplace and accepted. Before you dismiss "theories" just check your facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
news max is bad as apposed to cnn pushing its political agenda same with msnbc and Fox all news agencies push an agenda so what do you have to compare news max to for fax Iraq not ever having WMD is just a therory to flame bush

 

In response to this, I agree with Kernelreefer (By the way Kernelreefer, this is the most active I've seen you since we advocated fedelect together).

 

If you think that CNN is as bad as newsmax, you are DEAD WRONG. CNN is:

 

Moderate. They want the largest possible audience, so they cater to the center.

Reasonably fair. Remember, Crossfire is one of their most popular programs. What does it consist of? (Largely) civilized discource between the Left and Right, with some of the finest minds from both sides (Begala, Carville on the left, Novak and someone else on the right).

 

Newsmax does neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...