State Department reports Global Terrorism increasing!
Ops!
I guess the White House forgot to tell Secretary of State Rice to ignore car bombings as terrorist acts.
On this blog, we’ve covered the news that Bush is ignoring deaths by car bombing.
Now, the State Department issues its annual report and OPS!
There goes the old ball game.
Terrorist attacks worldwide shot up more than 25 percent last year, killing 40 percent more people than in 2005, particularly in Iraq where extremists used chemical weapons and suicide bombers to target crowds, the State Department said Monday.” The State Dept.
Car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years, but the administration doesn’t include them in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge of additional U.S. forces is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Depending on how you look at it George W. Bush and the neocons are either total failures or a total success. On the one hand terror has increased (that’s a failure) on the other hand, the military industrial complex has a new enemy which GETS BIGGER AND BIGGER. Hey, they had to find something after the collapse of Communism.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:03 am
So wait… you mean, we’re NOT winning the “war” on terrorism? But we’ve spent billions, sacrificed thousands… our leaders tell us we are winning. Surely you aren’t suggesting… no! They wouldn’t lie to us… would they?
May 1st, 2007 at 9:19 am
Big joke as per usual reporting of the AP adoring terrorist(freedom fighters)report they fail to point out that all the incidences of rising terrorism is taking place in areas of Islam encroachment.Small detail not worth telling.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:06 am
Mike,
Areas of Islam encroachment?
The world’s largest religion is encroaching on … what?
Your underlying premise is that the world has designated areas for Christians, Jews, and Muslims. And, the Muslims are breaking that agreement.
The religious violence would end if the Muslims would stay where they belong.
Or, do you mean all the Christians should move back to Bethlehem?
May 1st, 2007 at 10:07 am
and, Mike.
How do you define Iraq?
Are the Muslims encroaching there?
May 1st, 2007 at 10:17 am
Don’t forget, MD, that the Muslims in Iraq used to allow a large population of Christians and Jews to live there…until they persecuted, killed, and kicked the other two religions out! So, yes, the Muslims did “encroach” upon and take over the once Christian held lands in Iraq.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:45 am
Aubrey,
The chicken or the egg?
That’s the entire argument that you and Mike are making.
If you want to go that route, Iraq didn’t exist until the British created it.
Now if you are going to support your egg theory, discuss for everyone how the Christian egg was laid in Persia without a hen.
Then, we’ll get into why our government is picking sides in a religious, global war.
Do you see how you and Mike have put terrorism out of the discussion?
We’re not fighting global terrorism. We’re Christians fighting Muslims.
You are aiding the enemy directly by configuring the debate to religious terms.
Exactly a huge part of the risk assessment for invading Iraq: “Christian army invading Muslim country would be a self-defeating war policy.”
You and Mike are defeatists.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
No MD, I just think that Mike had a notable point in that main stream media tends to leave out the fact that today’s terrorists are Muslim. And, while, I don’t believe that coalition side of the war considers itself religiously motivated, there is little doubt that our enemies are totally motivated by their religion.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:11 pm
The State Department ignored your point of view as well.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Aubrey,
At least you didn’t use the word crusade. However, you’ve been brainwashed. “Today’s terrorist” …? Who was yesterday’s terrorist? Tomorrow’s terrorist?
I don’t listen to those non-mainstream media types. But, I’d bet the phrase, today’s terrorist, gets repeated often enough to be more than a sound bite.
If you would read the pitiful State Department report, you’d see that terrorism isn’t limited to Iraq, Iran, and Israel.
The short list of terrorist organizations can be found here.
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/82738.htm
A longer list can be found here
http://www.treasury.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sdn/sdnlist.txt
Neither list is comprehensive. Each list is western ethno-centric. Information used to compile the list is finite and dependent upon voluntary reporting.
For example, I don’t believe the report when it says China experienced no act of terrorism. China just didn’t report any acts of terrorism within it’s territory.
For example, China makes a territorial claim to Kashmir. So does Pakistan and India. Pakistani based terrorists routinely operate in Kashmir. But, China reports none of this.
How does the State Department reconcile that? Or, how does it in the report deal with a disputed territory like Kashmir?
Certainly, the methodology hurls chunks.
But, as horribly flawed as the State Department report is and always will be, it’s light years ahead of the non-mainstream people like you and Mike.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Well, why don’t we call people like Eric Rudolph Christian terrorists? Terrorists are adherents of radical fundamentalism no matter what religion they claim as their own. What’s wrong with just calling them terrorists? It’s what they all are.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Caroline,
I guess since Eric Robert Rudolph blew people up, a perfectly acceptable way to kill people in the Western way of thinking, he’s not a terrorist.
Now, if he had used a kitchen knife, cut off somebody parts… ops! He’d be a serial killer. David Koresh… not a terrorist. The UnaBomber … not a terrorist … The Oklahoma City bombers … not terrorists … The SLA … not terrorists … The Black Panthers … not terrorists … Mexican drug gangs … not terrorists even when they run sections of the Mexican government, assassinate police and judges … Columbian drug gangs … Korean gangs … The Bloods, the Crips, The Republican Party of Georgia… not terrorists.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:36 pm
So who’s a terrorist? MMM so who are people most scared to criticize these days?
May 1st, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Good question and an excellent way to define terrorists.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:09 am
.
“Mission Accomplished, GOPers!”
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
MD,
Really?…come on. Nice spin. “Today’s terroists”, as far as I know, I made the term up. I can’t recall a time that I’ve either read the phrase or heard on tv/radio.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Aubrey,
Sematics? All you have left in the way of ideas is sematics?
No substance? Not even style?
Just this vague sort of defense that “Mad didn’t say it the right way. And, I just coined the term, today’s terrorist.”
Wow! The fringe right has nothing to offer. No plans. No facts. No vision.
You’ve not nothing, including a bad memory?
Come on! The future of the world depends upon you and Mike.
Get your acts together!
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:04 pm
and if you do a search for the term, you’ll get over 30,000 hits.
Today’s terrorist is a flappen catch phrase and you’re so deeply brainwashed you think you just coined the term yourself?
Oiy!
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/wh/71803.htm
Title for Chapter 3
National Review uses the term constantly…
Even the title of a book …