Since I have not read the article by Ms Stern I am not sure what she is implying. Taking a look at the Rand Co. stats shows that of the 4400 attacks, 2300 occur in 2002 & 1300 in 2003. A 50% reduction. Looking closer at the 2002 Stats reveal that 1400 of the incidents occur in Kashmir, Colombia & the Palestinian areas. The link is www.mipt.org.
There were actually 15 terrorist attacks in North America in 2002. A couple were performed by a group call the ELF (Earth Lliberation Fund) and ALF (Animal liberation Fund)
Unless I missed something we are talking about Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists and not terrorism in general. Either way, it is not statistically relevant to use 9/11 as a starting point because that is not when it started. The article is misleading in it’s use of statitistics. I could easily go to some point in President Clinton’s term and choose a bill he signed regarding terrorism and show what a miserable failure he was because terrorism went up 10,000 percent in the following 2 weeks but it would be an abuse of statistics. I also wouldn’t have the balls to say war activity increased because we engaged the enemy. It’s a redundant observation.
You’re missing the point entirely. Read the thread title: “BUSH’s plan is failing”. To discuss whether Bush’s plan is working, it is necessary to start at the point at which Bush ENACTED his plan, not to the point where terrorism first started, ever. If Bush is claiming success for his plan, then it’s certainly fair to evaluate whether that plan has had a positive or negative effect. If you put the starting date BEFORE Bush’s plan, then you aren’t evaluating Bush’s plan, are you now?
Where are you getting “2 weeks”? Who said anything about 2 weeks? If Clinton claimed to have made a difference in 2 weeks, and didn’t, then it would be fair to bring it up. But Clinton made no such claim.
I call bullshit on this. Can you demostrate that the statistics are counting standard combat in Iraq towards terrorists incidents? If we counted every Iraqi who’s fired a gun at U.S. troops, I suspect the number would be far, far higher.
Magiver, I’m just trying to grasp this, are you saying that the war started in, say 1993 (just to pick a year) and that the number of terrorist attacks have been continuously increasing year by year, and that that is the reason why such attacks have doubled since 9/11 as compared to the two prior years?
blowero, I think he was just using an example … 
The use of these stats is complete bullshit. The reason for the spike after 9/11 comes form less than half a dozen regions. Kashmir, Colombia, Israel, Palestine territories, northern Ireland, Spain account for 60% of the terrorist attacks in 2002. How is this George Bush’s fault & what would you have done differently. The next year, 2003, attacks fell to 1998 levels. It is very convenient to blame Bush for every world Ill but this is pretty sad.
No, I understand the point of the article. It starts with a premise, and then uses statistics to back up the premise. I can do that all day long. That is not a scientific process.
My point was that the premise was lame to begin with. I could make the exact same claim using President Clinton (or any other President) and back it up with statistics. Islamic terrorist attacks against the United States skyrocketed since President Clinton’s first day of office. That is a statistical FACT. Its also bullshit to tie it to his political wagon. Did he have anything to do with it? NO. Could he have reduced the number. Maybe. It would be a meaningless argument consisting of what if’s and statistics. It’s carrot logic.
I don’t remember anyone claiming that terrorist attacks are GW’s fault. However, his ballyhooed ‘war on terror’ has apparently not stopped terrorist attacks. Or are you claiming that the ‘war’ is only intended to keep such attacks from happening in the US? I don’t think attacks on US citizens overseas should be discounted nor attacks on US supporters such as Spain, Saudi Arabia(?).
I understood the ‘war’ as intended to counter worldwide terrorism because terrorists anywhere are at bottom also a danger to the US. The second thing (after Afghanistan) that Bush did was to push for an unecessary war instead of working hard to get world support in opposing terrorism. In that process he said to the very people we need for support in our ‘war on terrorism’ that we didn’t need them and if they didn’t agree with his agenda then they were “against us.”
Caviling against particular numbers and their use merely obscures the fact that we have done nothing about the fundamental causes of terrorism and alienated potential supporters in overcoming it while tying down a large portion of our economic resources that otherwise could go to counterterroism in a war which is, as someone said about another war - At the wrong time, in the wrong place and with the wrong enemy.
Oh come on, No one. Not the most rabid foaming at the mouth hawk has claimed that the war on terror would stop terrorist attacks in the first year. That the attacks have not stoped is no more relevant than that the sun still comes up.
So we won’t see actual results until… around mid-November? We just have to stay the course until then, and not change a thing. Just sign on for 4 more years, and all will be well.
That’s right. Just take your meds an all will be well.
What is this insane need to see results in a venture like the war on terror immediately? I truly don’t understand it. You guys act like the fact that terrorist attacks have occured since the war on terror was declared means we should simply give up. Serisoulsy, Maybe some of you should up your meds.
No, we’re citing the fact that they have doubled, not continued. If Kerry won in November, and the level of attacks stayed the same, what the hell do you think the Republicans would say? I betcha it won’t be, “Awe, he just needs more time.”
And I already took my meds today, but you might want to keep that talk in the pit, eh?
Well, the terrorists attacks on the oil workers compound in Saudi Arabia certainly occurred more than 1 year after the war on terror was declared.
I think, sir or madam, that if you looked carefully at the post of yours to which I replied, you suggested that you were looking for results. This was in response to my post in which I said that a reduction to 0 was not reasonable. This, in turn, was in response to David Simmons complaint that the war on terror has not stopped terrorist attacks. Notice that he was not complaining that they were not reduced to his satisfaction, but that they were not stopped. Now, if you want to suggest that stopping terrorism is the same thing as not doubling it, then fine make that argument. Otherwise, maybe you should confine your own ramblings to the pit.
And just so we are clear, If Kerry wins in November, the Republicans will bring up as many terrorist attacks as they can, just like you guys are now doing to Bush. I will abhor such behavior just as I abhor yours.
Oh, well, in that case… :rolleyes:
Seriously. Can you guys find a cite which suggests that anyone in the Administration claimed that terrorism would be elliminated in the current time frame? Everything I have ever heard them say includes things like “there is still a long way to go…”, “The road we are on will not be easy…” things like that.
Now, if you want to argue that the current policy will not ever (or at least in any reasonable time frame) reduce terrorism, that’s a different argument. You’d have to provide good evidence that your prognostication is better than others, but it would at least be a different argument. This one amounts to snide sniping from the peanut gallery.
Taking the statistics from the cite above and removing those areas that include Kashmir, Colombia and Africa I get from the following areas:
North America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, East and Central Asia, Southeas Asia and Oceana and the Middle East and Persian Gulf
For 11 Sep 1999 to 11 Sep 2001 a total of 1833 reported incidents.
For 11 Sep 2001 to 11 Sep 2003 a total of 2438 reported incidents.
If it is claimed that incidents in Kasmir etc. don’t count after 911 then they don’t count before either.
And I don’t see why incidents in Israel and Palestine don’t count. It seems to me they are all part of the same 'terrorism war."
It doesn’t look to me like the ‘war on terror’ has had the desired effect. I’ll say it again. The GW approach isn’t working and rather than staying course it is time to change horses in midstream, to use another well known and equally hackneyed phrase.
One way to make sure you can’t be criticized for your inability is to claim that the problem is so complex that it can’t possibly be solved on your watch.
Attorneys can withdraw questions during a trial. Can I withdraw the word “stopped?”
Maybe we shouldn’t cross bridges that we may never come to. GW is in charge of things right now, not Kerry. Although Kerry might not do any better than the current administration, I don’t think he will trample civil liberties in the process of fucking up should that happen.
Its also a way to prevent misleading people.
Sure. If you want to say that the war on terror is not working because terrorism is <FILLINTHEBLANK> that is completely fair.
If you want to say that the war on terror is not working because terrorism is 1833 incidents before and 2438 incidents after 911 that is completely fair
Ok, I want to say exactly that. I’ll go further. I’ll predict that there will be even more incidents next year. How’s that?
The war on terror is working because it is causing the terrorists to use their weapons against us. They are not spending their time planing and building up their forces. They are using their resources against us, and BTW, letting us know where they are.
This is the begining of a long road. The shooting war part of it will go on for quite a few more years yet. Perhaps longer than the next presidency. I don’t know. After that, there will be a couple decades of diplomacy and alliance building. The process will be long and hard. Some of the victories will be visible. Most of the failures will be. Many of the victories will be hidden.
If you want to say that the doubling is proof of anything, then make the case. You could start by suggesting a new course. What exactly will your “new crew” do differently? I assume you are suggesting that they will withdraw from Iraq? Afghanistan?