Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Iraq figures distort terrorism statistics: study
Wed May 21, 2008 1:57pm EDT
By Louis Charbonneau
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - A study released on Wednesday reports a decline in fatal attacks of terrorism worldwide and says U.S. think-tank data showing sharp increases were distorted due to the inclusion of killings in Iraq.
"Even if the Iraq 'terrorism' data are included, there has still been a substantial decline in the global terrorism toll," said the 2007 Human Security Brief, an annual report funded by the governments of Canada, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden and Britain.
For example, global terrorism fatalities declined by 40 percent between July and September 2007, driven by a 55 percent decline in the "terrorism" death toll in Iraq after the so-called surge of new U.S. troops and a cease-fire by the Shi'ite militant Mehdi Army, the brief said.
...
Depends on what the meaning of "us" is.
The study surveyed fatal attacks of terrorism worldwide, but excluded one area where attacks on the USA are concentrated - Iraq. The world at large may be experiencing fewer attacks than other surveys estimated, but that does not mean the USA is safer.
Even excluding Iraq data, the chart from the report (below) shows that terror fatalities after the jump in 2001 never returned to the levels that existed before 2001. Even if other reports of terror fatalities were exaggerated, the data does not support Kathianne's suggestion that we are now safer. It says that we are in more danger than before, but that the amount of the increased danger was overstated.
The fact remains however, that there has not been another terrorist attack in the US since 9/11. No matter how you wish to twist and dance, THAT is the fact. Until something happens to prove otherwise, THAT fact = safer.
By that reasoning, we were safer on 9/10/01 because we had gone over 8 years without an attack on our soil.
Al-Qaeda has shown patience between attacks. Another factor has been Bush policies that appeased them. They wanted our army out of Saudi Arabia, and Bush gave that to them for nothing in return. They have used the war in Iraq for recruiting the same way the GOP uses a Ted Kennedy speech for fundraising.
I agree that border security is a major problem, but not "[t]he only reason the US isn't 'safer'. . . ." We are wasting time and money with a Southern wall that has gaps everywhere that a Bush crony declines to sell his land. The masterminds of 9/11 have figured out ladders. If we actually made the southern border secure, al-Qaeda would come through Canada, by boat from the Caribbean or directly into the US on false papers.
In the meantime, Bush has scrapped or cut back efforts to secure loose nukes from the USSR and has refused to increase port security despite repeated calls to do so. We need better intelligence gathering, which requires help from foreigners, but our policies have harmed our standing in the world and made other people less willing to provide the needed intelligence. People who once helped us now hate us, and that has a cost.
Embassies are considered US soil, so you are factually mistaken.
gunny said, "The fact remains however, that there has not been another terrorist attack in the US since 9/11." I responded to that. I even quoted gunny, and still you missed it.
If you cannot learn to read in context, reconsider your career choice.
Well if there is an attack in what is considered the US how is that not in context. It seems to me, everything is out of context in your opinion. It's quite funny really, if Obama says something that is blantly wrong<---dogger "well he was taken out of context".
I say it because that's all you do. I responded to his post about domestic attacks and you tried to dispute it with attacks that were technically on US soil, but actually overseas.
US soil also includes US ships, bases and aircraft. Under your analysis, gunny was wrong because of frequent attacks on those targets in Iraq. But gunny wasn't wrong, because he was talking about apples and you have been talking about orange-colored spacecraft.
Being taken out of context happens quite often to Obama as well, do you see a pattern?
You do understand the difference between military and civilian attacks don't you?
"Even if the Iraq 'terrorism' data are included, there has still been a substantial decline in the global terrorism toll," said the 2007 Human Security Brief, an annual report funded by the governments of Canada, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden and Britain."
This is propaganda from European socialists to convince us that the war on terror is no longer necessary and it is safe to elect Obama. Don't fall for it.
