Do No Evil – Are we winning? Looking at the just-released State Department report on terrorism, the answer appears to be "no."
how can terrorism ever be defeated? terrorism is the manifestation of an individual's emotion or collection of emotions. anger, hatred, frustration, desperation and vengeance are the first few i can think of. they fester inside the human heart. they can't be defeated with soldiers, bombs and guns. logically, that can only breed more of the same. war, death, destruction and humiliation just feeds more anger, hatred, frustration, desperation and vengeance. terrorism can only be defeated by taking away the reasons that cause anger, hatred, frustration, desperation and vengeance. my guess is we really don't want to. it just doesn't fit in with our plans.
A lot of the time the people fighting the war against us are hired to do so. Most of these people have nothing and are recruited through Muslims that preach the same stuff reverend Wrong says which is God damn America. When your poor and you dont have a pot to ****** in, shooting Americans and causing Chaos becomes a job.
Sure they are. Your comment shows a level of ignorance of what is going on in the world that is simply amazing for the overwhelming majority of those committing terrorist acts do so because of their convictions be they religious or political and not because of some paycheck as you imply!
Like most neoclowns you are shortsighted and unable to see the larger picture for when Rev, Wright said "God Damm America" he was referring to the actions and policies of the government toward it's own citizens in particular and toward the rest of the world in general and not to the Nation as a whole!
Your comments show overall ignorance of every aspect of human knowledge. Who cares about Rev. Wright in the course of this discussion. Apologize for him elsewhere. So what you are saying is that most terrorists are actually crazed fanatics, not mercenaries. It's good that they are dedicated murderers.
"cares about Rev. Wright in the course of this discussion. Apologize for him elsewhere. So what you are saying is that most terrorists are actually crazed fanatics, not mercenaries. It's good that they are dedicated murderers."
I think that what he's saying is one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. As far as the Iraqis are concerned, the US is the greatest terrorist in the middle east responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocents.
--WOW...I can't believe it. DanmLiberals is channelling Barack Obama.
"When your poor and you dont have a pot to ****** in, shooting Americans and causing Chaos becomes a job."
""It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or anti-pathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
--So which of these is more "despicable"?
I personally don't want to became a Muslim or be ruled by a caliphates. So yeah, your right. "it just doesn't fit in with our plans." or my plans at least.
i don't see them trying to make us muslims. but i do see us trying to make them americans. for starters, we're over there spreading "freedom & democracy", making 4 million of them homeless, (they're the ones with no hope of ever becoming americans), God only knows how many of them dead, (same as before), oh, and to add insult to injury.... building disneyland!!! which seems to be a lot more important than water, electricity, a roof over their heads, healthcare, employment, security and peace
"- Algeria and Thailand also saw big increases in the number of terror victims.
"Around the globe people are getting increasingly efficient at killing other people," said Russ Travers of the National Counterterrorism Center, which compiled the data for the report. One factor contributing the increased lethality of terror attacks: increased use of backpacks by suicide bombers that are easier to sneak into crowded areas."
Wow, whoever posted and titled this article sure is trying to push some agenda....
IT SEEMS WE MUST START TO TEACH OUR CHILDREN JUST WHAT KIND OF ANIMALS THESE MUSLIMS ARE, AND PUT SOME HATE IN THEM FOR MUSLIMS,, TIT FOR TAT--SO TO SPEAK
THEN--WHEN DO WE START TO KILL MUSLIMS??
MAYBE WHEN OUR POLITICIANS GET SOME BACK BONE..??
WHAT WE SHOULD DO -IS JUST MAKE IRAQ OUR 51ST STATE..
It seems to me that if there were far fewer people in the world with your level of hate toward those that are different the world would be a much more friendly and peaceful place in which to rear our children!
It's freaks like yourself that are the ones directly responsible for the increased levels of violence seen in the world today!
Mace you are a bloodthirsty fool. You would turn your children into the thing you despise. Our politicians all could do with a little less bone a little more brain and heart. We are in debt up to our necks just to have a war in Iraq. How in the world could we afford to keep it as a state of our Union, assuming you could get them to petition for that--why don't you head on over there and take that on as your little personal mission? Perhaps we would become a more tolerant society if we had a predominantly Muslim star on our flag.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
darwinm701977
rhettdejesus1975
jasonlowjy
our0120home
Monte G
thousandsunny
gabriel19671968
nopatacious
DiffeeOnline
yarrkz24
Pilgrimage1
TheRealizer
Ciera Marie
TipsOfAllSorts
EngineerTiat
whodey08
texangelwings
Alexia
NoWayMan
joeblowe
Drumm
flyonthewallzz
jaronbrowning
Dobes_Rule
ML2007
BronxBomber
cosmogenium
mesodude
Candida
marat-007
TechnologyExpert
factoring2117
maneetion
complicious
quincy40
batmanpr01
TrueProgressive
tcnt
felipeIII
rightfromwrong
jomarjarmo
cleare
kibasilasa
gamahuche
jeepndave
satansatan
crespi
dadesider
Will1313
avpd85
| Channels | Anchors |
|---|
94)
The title is misleading. It's talking about worldwide terror attacks, not focusing on Iraq or Afghanistan. It focus on Pakistan and other countries. I just wanted to say that before everyone jumped on the Iraq bandwagon.
THANK YOU, including Iraq and Afghanistan in this count is like adding NASCAR crash stats in the total numbers of highway crashes. OEF and OIF are combat zones.
I see the analogy at all. Are you saying Bush has been lying when he says Iraq is a central front on the war against terrorism?
OEF and OIF are combat zones that are not being fought by uniformed soldiers. Terrorist have flocked to Iraq and Afghanistan to continue their war on us. Their operations are combat in natural against us ,the Iraqis and our allies. Confusing terrorist attacks in a combat zone is the same as confusing infant mortality due to abortions.
The Title misleading? Hell the whole article is "less than informative"
"Most dramatically, there was a 50 percent increase worldwide in suicide bombings last year. All told, 66,995 people were killed or wounded in terror attacks in 2007 (up from 59,327 in 2006 and 39,469 in 2005)"
How many actual attacks? An increase in deaths and wounded can also be due to bigger bombs, blowing them self's up in a more crowded area.
Consider the WTC, In 1993 AQ tried to blast out the support for the towers with the goal of causing the buildings to collapse killing everyone inside. 6 people were killed 1042 injured
2001, same target WTC, same gang AQ, used aircraft as missiles 3000 dead
"The Title misleading? Hell the whole article is "less than informative"
--What's complicated? The number of deaths due to terrorism jumped by 50% between 2006 and 2007. You're desperately grasping for reasons to give Bush and Cheney a pat on the back for the success of the so called war on terrorism and that's why you're quibbling over whether the world is more dangerous because of the number of attacks or because bombs are getting more powerful. Do you have any idea how sick that is?
Mesodude
"What's complicated? The number of deaths due to terrorism jumped by 50% between 2006 and 2007."
Not complicated but without context the info does not indicate anything
"less than informative"
Number of deaths up 50%
Does that mean there are 50% more attacks?
Does that mean the number of attacks are down 25% but the number of casualties are up 75% ave per attack thus being 50% deaths.
Number of deaths up 50%, how many attacks is that?
Say 1 year there are 100 attacks and 75 people dead, next year there are 25 attacks and 600 dead.
That would be a 75% drop in attacks but an 8 fold increase in casualties. Just giving 1 number doesn't tell ya anything about an increase or decrease in terrorism.
"Not complicated but without context the info does not indicate anything"
--What "context" does one need to understand that more people died and terrorism has worsened?
"Number of deaths up 50%
Does that mean there are 50% more attacks?"
--It means what it says. 50% more people died in terrorist attacks in '06 than did in '07.
"Number of deaths up 50%, how many attacks is that?"
--Why do I care whether more people died because there are more attacks or because bigger bombs are being used?
"Say 1 year there are 100 attacks and 75 people dead, next year there are 25 attacks and 600 dead."
--I'd say that the 2nd year was deadlier and that terrorism was on the rise.
"That would be a 75% drop in attacks but an 8 fold increase in casualties. Just giving 1 number doesn't tell ya anything about an increase or decrease in terrorism."
--Sure it does. More deaths=worse terrorism. That's not hard to grasp.
"It's talking about worldwide terror attacks"
--What about the title of the article suggests otherwise?
"I just wanted to say that before everyone jumped on the Iraq bandwagon."
--This doesn't change the fact that terrorism worldwide is rising and that Iraq and Afghanistan are still disasters.
The point is that the article doesn't provide any data for Iraq or Afghanistan. I wanted to head off baseless comments like yours.
Baseless how so? You're pre-supposing what conclusions readers will draw about Iraq and Afghanistan based on the article's title when those countries aren't even mentioned in the title of the article (unless you're referring to the tags). What makes you think you've cornered the market on reading comprehension?
I've never been in a thread when someone on the Left didn't segway into Iraq, even in the absence of any relevance to the article.
Granted, "segways" can be dangerous but why do you feel the need to censor others on a matter that impacts their dailly lives in countless ways? Just because you, Bush, and other Republicans choose to deny this reality doesn't change the fact that our presence in Iraq is destroying our country more and more by the day and millions of Americans are suffering.
Listen, I understand how hard it can be to acknowledge when one has backed a loser (I'll never forgive myself for voting for Joe Lieberman) but sometimes the adult thing to do is admit that you support a failed venture and then step back and re-evaluate your judgement and decision making skills.
As I have told you before, if you support spending $500,000,000,000 on an effort that returns nothing to the US except casualties and dead soldiers, how is that anything but liberal? There is nothing conservative about it. If you believe that there is something conservative about it, could you please explain it? I'd love to know how the supporters justify it and still think they are conservative.
It's not mentioned in the article. That was my point. Nice try. I'm not in favor of out of control spending., btw.
FTA:
"- Iraq was the country most heavily hit by suicide bombings, accounting for 45 percent of the attacks and 60 percent of the victims."
Re-read it, young son.
FTA: "Iraq was the country most heavily hit by suicide bombings, accounting for 45 percent of the attacks and 60 percent of the victims."
the only way those acts of terrorism would be counted as acts of war or otherwise is if Iraq was actually in a civil war.
you can't have it both ways.
so...
is Iraq in a civil war?
or are those attacks terrorist attacks?
the only way those acts of terrorism would be counted as acts of war or otherwise is if Iraq was actually in a civil war.
you can't have it both ways.
so...
What?
Suicide bombings are a tactic, not an indication of a "civil war" History lesson 101.
WW2 Kamikaze pilots, ever heard of them? If not look it up.
WW2 was not a civil war it was a Frigging war as most are. Confusing tactics for anything other than tactics is a bad idea. The worlds not that simple.
really stupid analogy.
kamikaze pilots were attacking us. most suicide bombers are not. if kamikaze pilots from one faction of japanese were killing japanese from another faction in japan while we were occupying japan after the war then you might have a point. but since that didn't happen, you don't have squat.
re-read the thread. re-read the article. most of the victims are not americans in iraq. or elsewhere for that matter. in iraq, most of the victims are iraqis, in-fighting between factions and tribes. which means they are acts of terrorism.
duh.
you still can't have it both ways.
Just a couple weeks ago Al Qaeda's No. 2 butthole was whining that Muslims were not embracing and supporting al Qaeda, and there have been no attacks in the U.S. since 9/11. I call that success.
Iraqi forces more and more are policing their own nation, Pakistan is policing its own nation, Afghanistan is mostly policing its own nation. The story says at least half the attacks are Muslim on Muslim, which means it's mostly happening in the Middle East and other Muslim nations.
Beats the hell out of letting the Taliban run Afghanistan, Saddam Iraq and taking attacks here in the U.S.
"Just a couple weeks ago Al Qaeda's No. 2 butthole was whining that Muslims were not embracing and supporting al Qaeda, and there have been no attacks in the U.S. since 9/11"
--And the anthrax attack and attacks on our allies are just collateral damage so they don't count as attacks on the US, naturally. But attacks on our military abroad DO count as attacks on the US unless they're in Iraq. Now I"m really confused... ;-(