Are We Winning Yet?

[PanTheMan]

Global terror attacks tripled in 2004

National Counterterrorism Center releases stats after State Department decides not to.

csmonitor.com


Terror attacks around the world tripled in 2004, rising from 175 in 2003 to 655 last year, according to statistics released by the US government's National Counterterrorism Center (NCC) Wednesday. The figure includes the children killed in the Beslan massacre in Russia, and the victims of the Madrid train bombings.
Terror attacks in Iraq - 198 - were nine times the previous year's total. The numbers did not include attacks on US troops.

The US State Department held a briefing Wednesday on its global terrorism report (formerly called 'Global Patterns of Terrorism,' now called the Country Report on Terrorism) Wednesday, but did not include the statistics on actual attacks, on the order of Secretary of State Condelezza Rice, the Washington Post reported. Ms. Rice had said she wanted US terrorism officials not to release the figures.

The Herald of Scotland, however, reports that the NCC released the statistics after it was pressured to do so by several congressmen. The Herald also reported that former senior counterterrorism official Larry Johnson said the State Department balked at releasing the data because "it might lead to the public perception that America is losing the global war on terror."

"Last year was bad [said Mr. Johnson]. This year is worse. They are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on international terrorism is concerned, we're losing."
A spokesman for the State Department admitted that there had been a "dramatic uptick" in terrorism, and said the government will provide the public with "all the information it needs for an informed debate." Knight Ridder reported Wednesday that senior NCC officials said that the high total was "a result of changes in methodology and urged reporters not to compare this year's terrorism numbers with previous ones."

"The numbers can't be compared in any meaningful way," said John Brennan, acting head of the center, which compiled the statistics. He said his agency had revamped the process of counting terrorist attacks after last year's embarrassment in which the State Department withdrew its first report and admitted it had significantly understated what turned out to be a record number of attacks.
Knight Ridder reported in mid-April that the Bush administration planned to withhold the terrorist-attacks statistics. But it became harder for the Bush administration not to make the data public, the BBC reported Wednesday, after Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman last week released the figures, which he had received in a congressional briefing.
CNN reports that, contrary to Mr. Brennan's statement above, Mr. Waxman said officials told the congressmen "that the methodology and definitions used to vet the data were identical to last year's [controversial report]."

Looking at the bigger picture, media reports say the NCC study indicates the battle against international terrorism remains "formidable." While Al Qaeda remains the main enemy, it has grown much weaker. But freelance terror operations, "either affiliated with Al Qaeda or inspired by its goals," have become a much greater threat.

Bloomberg News quotes the report as saying that "an increasing number of terrorist groups are seeking weapons of mass destruction."

"Although Al Qaeda remains the primary concern regarding possible WMD threats, the number of groups expressing interest in such material is increasing, and WMD technology and know-how is proliferating in the jihadist community," the report said.
The Washington Post reports that the actual number of terror-related incidents may in fact be higher than even the total released by the NCC Wednesday. The counter terrorism organization is working on a new list, to be released in July, that aims to use "new, more realistic, definitions of terrorism."
As an example of the rules under which the State Department, and his center for the listings distributed Wednesday, have operated, Brennan said the report lists only one of two Russian airliners that suicide bombers blew out of the sky last year. The one that counted had an Israeli aboard. The other had all Russians, which made it a domestic incident.
"It makes no sense to have the definition of terrorism depend on checking the nationality of all the victims," Brennan said.

[sleepyjeff]

Bloomberg News quotes the report as saying that "an increasing number of terrorist groups are seeking weapons of mass destruction."

hmmm...........no, too easy;)

[Isaac]

Allow me:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v686/zapppop/bushvote.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v686/zapppop/bushtv.jpg


:snap:

[sleepyjeff]

^^^Now that was funny; all politics aside........... :snap: :snap: :snap:

[PanTheMan]

I heard yet another report on the radio that the insurgents are NOT flowing in fro other countries as was earlier said, but were 90% Iraqi's fighting what they believe to be an occupation. (Rumsfeld kind of coughed while mumbling out these findings to a reporter)

Soon we will arrive at 2000 dead American Soldiers (Officially) and countless others that are dead at the feet of an idiot and his little war.

9/11 just passed and Bush said not a word about Osama Bin Laden, but yet again touted his brilliant successes following 9/11 including the capture of Saddam. Once again trying oh so desperatly to make it sound like Saddam was connected to flying those planes on 9/11.

I wonder if he needed help walking away from the mic as not to get wet his $1500 suit in that waist deep sh*t-water both him and the city of New Orleans are in.

[Name]

Sorry, I haven't seen the leaderboard lately, so I don't know what the score is. So not sure if we are winning or not, not even sure what period we are in. But I don't remember seeing the halftime show yet, so guess we aren't even half way through this yet.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Sorry, I haven't seen the leaderboard lately, so I don't know what the score is. So not sure if we are winning or not, not even sure what period we are in. But I don't remember seeing the halftime show yet, so guess we aren't even half way through this yet.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/gdiddy/LoT/osamahalf.jpg

(possibly my worst photoshop effort ever)

[Isaac]

(possibly my worst photoshop effort ever)
" Pardon my photoshop malfunction. " ;)

[PanTheMan]

It is am Amazing Game, Right After the Kickoff Bombed and brought the buildings down, instead of taking it right up the middle, we made a WIDE turn right and tackled Saddam the Janitor out in one of the wings. Team Osama , Im sure had a good laugh at that one....

[Morrigoon]

Take THAT metaphor a bit further, and you've got the makings of a great open mic post! LOL

[PanTheMan]

It's up and it's good!......

[PanTheMan]

Iraq coming apart, Saudi official , USA TODAY

Iraq is moving toward disintegration, and war there could spread to its neighbors, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said Thursday.

In part because of a new constitution that would give more power to various regions in Iraq, "there seems to be no dynamic that is pulling the country together," Saud said. Iraqis are to vote on the constitution next month. Sunni Arab leaders are urging a "no" vote, while majority Shiites urge approval.


"All the dynamics there are pushing people away from each other," said Saud, whose nation is predominantly Sunni.


The main problem, Saud told a small group of reporters here, is the split between Sunnis and Shiites in central and southern Iraq. Continued autonomy for non-Arab Kurds in northern Iraq is less of a concern, he said.


"If things go the way they are ... there will be a struggle among the three for natural resources," Saud said, and Iraq's neighbors will be drawn into a wider war.


He said Iran, a predominantly Shiite but non-Arab nation, would intervene on the side of Iraqi Shiites. Turkey, which has a big Kurdish minority, has repeatedly threatened to enter northern Iraq if Kurds there declare independence. If Iraq's Sunni Arab minority appears to lose out, "I don't see how the Arab countries will be left out of the conflict in one way or another."


The State Department had no comment on Saud's remarks.


Saud, who met later with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, faulted the Bush administration for adding to sectarian tensions by treating all members of Saddam Hussein's mainly Sunni Baath Party as "criminals" after ousting Saddam. He urged the United States to work harder to persuade Shiites to reach out to Sunni Arabs to assure them of their safety and equality and of Iraq's territorial integrity.


Although Saudi Arabia provided limited help to the United States in the initial phases of the war, Saud had recommended a coup to oust Saddam - not the dismantling of the Iraqi government. "It's no secret that Saudi Arabia does not believe military action in Iraq will achieve the objective it is aimed at," he said in a March 2002 interview with USA TODAY

:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

[alphabassettgrrl]

Hmmm... don't figure out what we're doing wrong, just let's not tell people the bad news... :: sigh ::

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Well, it sure is nice to see how much progress we are making in training the Iraqi forces. At this rate, we'll be celebrating Disneyland's 75th anniversary before we see any troops come home.

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/29/AR2005092902085.html)

The number of Iraqi army battalions that can fight insurgents without U.S. and coalition help has dropped from three to one, top U.S. generals told Congress yesterday, adding that the security situation in Iraq is too uncertain to predict large-scale American troop withdrawals anytime soon.

Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who oversees U.S. forces in Iraq, said there are fewer Iraqi battalions at "Level 1" readiness than there were a few months ago. Although Casey said the number of troops and overall readiness of Iraqi security forces have steadily increased in recent months, and that there has not been a "step backwards," both Republican and Democratic senators expressed deep concern that the United States is not making enough progress against a resilient insurgency.

How exactly is this not a step backwards?

[PanTheMan]

Bush and Co., can put a spin on anything.... "hey look....we are using up their ammo!"

Right up there with "Better to fight them over there than in the streets of America." and hey, People believed that one! Of course Rumsfeld has had to backtrack on that one now admitting most of the insurgency are IRAQI, not "Terrorists" from all around the world. But what is a little lie between friends...

i have to say, If I had an occupying Army sitting on my street, I'd be taking shots at them too. Of Course many of my Pro-War freinds would NEVER fight off an occupying force and be thrilled to have them there. At least that is what they tell me.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Mission Accomplished!

[Scrooge McSam]

Freedom is on the march!

[SacTown Chronic]

God save the queen!


Oh, wait.


We're fighting them there so we won't have to fight them here.

[Nephythys]

here's a quandry-

They say that the vote on the new constitution is a vital step to getting the US troops home-

The insurgents claim they want us gone, that their stated objective is making us leave-

But they have vowed to disrupt and stop the vote on the constitution that would take a large step forward towards getting rid of us-

Huh? Methinks they are sending a mixed message....and are not being honest about anything- imagine dishonesty from terrorists- whoda thunk it?

[Betty]

That doesn't seem to odd - they don't like what's in the constitution and they still want us out of there. Simple.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Huh? Methinks they are sending a mixed message....and are not being honest about anything- imagine dishonesty from terrorists- whoda thunk it?Ya' think maybe, just maybe, they don't quite believe our claim that we'll be starting to leave after the vote? Maybe?

[Nephythys]

wow- I can't decide which vibe is stronger- the flippant one, or the one that gives any validity to the insanity of these people-

[Ghoulish Delight]

wow- I can't decide which vibe is stronger- the flippant one, or the one that gives any validity to the insanity of these people-
I'm not giving validity to anything. You were looking for a rational, I believe that's their rational. I don't excuse them, whether we are going to leave or not doesn't justify murder, but expecting them to stop because we gave a vague promise to think about leaving after this one vote is a bit optimistic.

[Nephythys]

perhaps because their true motivation is NOT us leaving

[€uroMeinke]

perhaps because their true motivation is NOT us leaving

Or ours having nothing to do with interest in oil ;)

[PanTheMan]

here's a quandry-

They say that the vote on the new constitution is a vital step to getting the US troops home-

The insurgents claim they want us gone, that their stated objective is making us leave-

But they have vowed to disrupt and stop the vote on the constitution that would take a large step forward towards getting rid of us-

Huh? Methinks they are sending a mixed message....and are not being honest about anything- imagine dishonesty from terrorists- whoda thunk it?


I think there is a reason they have been at eachothers throats, killing eachother for 1500 years. Think a piece of paper or us leaving will fix that?
I can figure that out, and I'm not even President!

[Reaver]

They've been at each other's throats for many reasons. Religion, land, politics... But the main reason it has continued unabated for so long is simple. The societies haven't changed much in all of that time. They've been ruled by fanatical dictators, and anyone proposing progress is silenced before they can make a dent. They've been conditioned, as a society, to act a certain way, and to believe a certain way. The only way to change that is to get a new form of ruling body in place and give the people time to realize what freedom and democracy are. And that's going to take a while. The Constitution of the United States didn't bring instant peace to our country, and we weren't even at war at the time. Granted, the far leftists are constantly attacking and altering our constitution, so we know they don't care much about it anyway...

[PanTheMan]

Tell us how the the "Far leftists" have altered our constitution...

Right Now we have a President trying to Put Jesus on the SCOTUS. And the "Leftists" have altered it, huh?....interesting....

[Nephythys]

Tell us how the the "Far leftists" have altered our constitution...

Right Now we have a President trying to Put Jesus on the SCOTUS. And the "Leftists" have altered it, huh?....interesting....


Is it possible for you to ask a question without being offensive, rude and spitting out generalizations that totally alienate anyone who doesn't agree with you? No one is trying to put Jesus on the court- be sort of hard to be honest.....but with your overtly hostile tone, it is impossible to even view your posts as something to respond to.

[PanTheMan]

ok....PLEASE, would you tell us how "Far leftists" have altered the constitution?

Better?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Granted, the far leftists are constantly attacking and altering our constitution, so we know they don't care much about it anyway...

The most recent attempt to alter the constitution came from the far right. Does that mean that they don't care either?

[Nephythys]

The most recent attempt to alter the constitution came from the far right. Does that mean that they don't care either?


Amending the Constitution (for better or for worse)- is very different than finding things in the Constitution that aren't there to be found.

Perhaps- and I will let Reaver verify his opinion- that it is less about "changing" than bastardizing it for anyones ideological purposes.

[Reaver]

Perhaps- and I will let Reaver verify his opinion- that it is less about "changing" than bastardizing it for anyones ideological purposes.

Thankee Neph. That is basically what I was referring to. The "reinterpreting" of the Constitution to mean what you want it to mean. That's just wrong. Times change, and things need to be added. But the Constitution is what it is, and it's core should not be altered. That's right, not even to remove those pesky references to "God", and "Our Creator". What were they thinking adding all of that religious rhetoric?!? Didn't they know they'd alienate people? Sheesh!

[Prudence]

I realize it's been a whole week since I last read the Constitution, but I don't recall seeing any references to "God" or "Our Creator."

[Reaver]

Gah! You're right! I was thinking of the Declaration of Indepenence when it came to references to God. My mistake!

[Prudence]

Your Carville abduction will be arranged shortly. :evil:

[Reaver]

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/7700.jpg

[Nephythys]

*snort*

[Reaver]

lol

[PanTheMan]

So there are no far leftist changes made to the Constitution then?.... good... I will sleep better tonight.

No Changes to the "Dec of Independence" either....lol