The U.S. government’s National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) announced this week that the number of worldwide terrorist attacks that occurred in 2004 was 3,192. This number is almost five times higher than the figure of 651 “significant” attacks that NCTC released on April 27 of this year, after the administration received widespread criticism for attempting to hide a major increase in terrorist incidents by dropping the data from the State Department’s 2004 report on global terrorism. The large discrepancy between the April and July figures occurred, according to NCTC officials, because the new number includes “domestic” attacks, in which the victims and perpetrators are of the same nationality, as well as “international” incidents of terrorism. NCTC has not provided comparable data from 2003 or earlier for the sum of domestic and international terrorism, so comparisons between 2004 and previous years can be made only by utilizing other data sets. As a result, most news reports of the announcement have focused on the change in the administration’s definition of terrorism rather than on whether the rate of terrorism is increasing or not.
After the initial number was leaked to the press on April 16 (and before it was officially released nine days later), BTC News prepared a graph displaying data on international terrorism from the last ten years of the State Department’s annual report (which, until this year, was entitled ‘Patterns of Global Terrorism’). As the graph shows, the preliminary 2004 figure was itself about three times higher than the previous year’s figure of 208 terrorist attacks (of which only 175 were classified as “significant”). The number of deaths from these “international” attacks similarly increased, from 625 in 2003 to 1,907 in 2004. Back in April, NCTC’s acting director John Brennan claimed that the 2003 and 2004 data could not be fairly compared, because, according to him, a different counting methodology was adopted in 2004. Brennan’s claim was disputed, however, by Democratic congressman Henry Waxman, who, according to CNN, said that State Department and NCTC officials who briefed congressional leaders indicated that “the methodology and definitions used to vet the data were identical to last year’s.”
The number of attacks and deaths for 2004 would be even higher if complete data from the “central front in the War on Terror” were included in the administration’s terrorism statistics. The NCTC figures do not include attacks on U.S. troops fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. If they did, the number of deaths in 2004 would be 958 higher, for a total of 4,150 2,865, and the number of attacks, at an average of 40 per day in Iraq alone, would be about 14,600 higher, yielding an incredible 17,800.
In this week’s announcement, outgoing NCTC director Brennan referred to a new source of terrorism-related data on the web, the “Terrorism Knowledge Base,” which is run by the Oklahoma City-based non-profit National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (which, in turn, is funded by the Department of Homeland Security). The Terrorism Knowledge Base features a nifty “analytical tools” section where you can construct your own charts and graphs using their data. I used the online graph wizard to make the following graph of “international” terrorist attacks from 1995 to 2004:
Notice that because the data sets and terrorism definitions used were different (tkb.org uses data from the RAND Corporation), this graph differs from the one we prepared in April that was based on NCTC data. The axis labels on this graph are hard to read, but the terrorism rate decreases steadily through Clinton’s second term, bottoming out in the year 2000, and then it rises again dramatically. I think this graph is one of the best illustrations I’ve seen yet of the difference between what Karl Rove described as the “liberal” and “conservative” approaches to combatting terrorism.
===================
EDITOR’S NOTE: Greetings to Atrios readers, and a program note: Eric wrote the piece and created the chart before news of the London attacks broke. There’s no prescience, just a tragic coincidence.
– wb
So you throw out a claim that the insurgency in Iraq is populated by outsiders, but you have nothing to back up your claim?
That’s called a lie. Makes you about as legit as Bush, anybody
Put up or shut up.
You brought it up, you show me the stats (quoting NewsMax or or Bill O’Reilly doesn’t count).
What’s the population of Iraq? How many of those are involved in the fighting.
Do you really believe that the MAJORITY of the people fighting against the US occupation of Iraq are from Afghanistan?
You were probably one of those people who thought that most of the people fighting for Ho Chi Min were from “communist block countries”.
Look! Over there! Ties between Sadam and Al-Quida!
Bill-anytime you want to give the Pakistani government over to the Taliban…
Comment by anybody
Wow … don’t know much about Pakistan, do you.
Cutting Saudi off at the knees…
Let’s boycott their oil!
Of course we would have to increase domestic production. You don’t mind an oil rig off California do you?
I sure as hell don’t. Far cheaper than the lives lost in Iraq. So if you really care about our soldiers, you’d be advocating drilling at home. You care more about the environment than you do our soldiers. You guys really are sick.
Bill, apparently I know a lot more than you.
For all I care they can still rule it…it is a rock farm.
Way to show how much you care for the people of Afghanistan.
Don’t they deserve democracy? Don’t you agree with W that the best way to prevent terrorism is by having democratic countries that represent the people?
Yeah, let them rot … what harm could it do us?
Oh, and spare me your 2-bit Neo-con lectures on the region. If I need information, you’ll be one of the last people I ask.
Look! Over there! Osama & the Mujahadeen are freedom fighters backed by the CIA (Thanks Ronnie!)!
I don’t drive an SUV, I actaully have a diesel jetta 2004 TDI. 48 mpg in the city. Sorry about the smog(nitrates) but a lot less cO2.
Actaully we can’t afford democracy in Afghanistan.
We’d be paying thru the nose forever.
Iraq can afford democracy, that’s why we chose it over Afghanstan. IT is and willbe one of the richest nations in the world.
Newsmax quotes the Pentagon as saying that 9 in 10 insurgents are Iraqi. It’s pretty clear they wouldn’t be in Afghanistan.
Anybody, if you knew anything about modern guerilla combat, you’d know that as unpleasant as it is to fight in the mountains, urban combat is worse. That’s why the CIA warned that Iraq was becoming a training ground for militants.
BTW, leaving UBL in Pakistan alone because of the danger of Islamists getting nucular weapons goes 100% against Bush’s “dead or alive”/”no difference between terrorists and those who harbor them” rhetoric.
What was that about Bush having a plan, but it was just so simple that somehow you couldn’t find any references to it other than “Democracy good! Hulk smash!”
Actaully we can’t afford democracy in Afghanistan.
Well, then the last thing we need would be a US President promising an ironclad commitment to help Afghanistan “succeed and prosper” as a democracy.
Or it would, if you believed him. Which you apparently don’t?
Friday, June 10, 2005 9:44 a.m. EDT
Biden: Saudis Fighting U.S. in Iraq
More foreign fighters than ever are crossing Iraq’s porous borders to fight U.S. and Iraqi forces, and a growing number are from U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, a Senate Democrat said Thursday.
“The mix is changing,” said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., citing conversations last week in Iraq with Marine and Army generals. “Now the mix is increasingly more Islamists crossing the border … and a lot of them are Saudis. It presents a different profile” that is harder for U.S. forces to confront.
Story Continues Below
Biden, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s top Democrat, gave no specific numbers, for foreign fighters as a whole or for the percentage from Saudi Arabia. He said he was told repeatedly that the totals are going up and that Saudis are “a disproportionate number.”
or
In the past, the U.S. military has said foreign fighters are a small percentage – perhaps one in 10 – of the insurgents fighting the U.S. presence in Iraq. They do a disproportionate amount of killing, however, in part because they are more likely to carry out suicide bombings.
perhaps 1 in 10…
Foreign fighters doing a disproportianate amount of killing…
In regards to urban fighting vs Afghanistan, you have no idea what you are talking about. Is a cave on a rocky hill, harder to attack than a building? Incline of a battlefield is 5 to 1 advantage if used right. In Afghanistan the enemy can selct the area of combat. In Iraq, it is very limited.
That calculation won’t work with foreign fighters, Biden said.
Good link…but Al says Newsmax isn’t credible…and Biden didn’t give specific numbers. a modest hat tip, but hardly convincing.
Still no plans? No surprise here. Find a link to a democratic plan. I’m off to walk my pyr, but I’ll check back with you. My brother just landed at glasgow, so I also need to get some news. Regards.
anybody: As noted before, plans abound. If you’re looking for one, easily digestible plan, it would begin with not concocting spurious reasons for invading a Middle Eastern country, and not providing additional recruiting opportunities for terrorists during the occupation of that country if one simply must have one’s invasion.
With all the talk of Bush failing to keep America safe is only coincidental that you ignored the number of only 10 domestic terror attacks in 2004, many of those by Animal Liberation Front?( source from DailyKos, http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ac120644-edab-11d9-9ff5-00000e2511c8.html ) Not to shabby. I also am unclear why you claim Iraq is not included in the stats, according to http://www.tkb.com, they are included. Considering the broad definition of terrorism (arson, vandalsim, etc.), I think it is more revealing to use the RAND data to determine casualty related terror attacks. If you do this you’ll notice that post-9/11 the US has registered zero domestic terror deaths, unlike the Clinton admin. which almost yearly had deaths.
Just in case your defensive instincts make you ignore the post and not search the data yourslef, here is a list of domestic terror incidents from tkb.org :
Unknown Group attacked Diplomatic target (May 5, 2005, United States)
Unknown Group attacked Business target (Jan. 12, 2005, United States)
Unknown Group attacked Private Citizens & Property target (Dec. 27, 2004, United States)
Earth Liberation Front (ELF) attacked Educational Institutions target (July 8, 2004, United States)
Earth Liberation Front (ELF) attacked Business target (June 14, 2004, United States)
Earth Liberation Front (ELF) attacked Private Citizens & Property target (Apr. 20, 2004, United States)
Earth Liberation Front (ELF) attacked Business target (Feb. 7, 2004, United States)
Unknown Group attacked Government target (Feb. 2, 2004, United States)
Unknown Group attacked Government target (Nov. 12, 2003, United States)
Unknown Group attacked Government target (Oct. 15, 2003, United States)
Revolutionary Cells Animal Liberation Brigade attacked Business target (Sept. 26, 2003, United States)
Earth Liberation Front (ELF) attacked Business target (Sept. 22, 2003, United States)
Earth Liberation Front (ELF) attacked Private Citizens & Property target (Sept. 19, 2003, United States)
Unknown Group attacked Business target (Sept. 2, 2003, United States)
Unknown Group attacked Business target (Aug. 28, 2003, United States)
Earth Liberation Front (ELF) attacked Business target (Aug. 22, 2003, United States)
Earth Liberation Front (ELF) attacked Business target (Aug. 1, 2003, United States)
Earth Liberation Front (ELF) attacked Private Citizens & Property target (June 4, 2003, United States)
Earth Liberation Front (ELF) attacked Private Citizens & Property target (June 3, 2003, United States)
Earth Liberation Front (ELF) attacked Business target (Apr. 8, 2003, United States)
Bush hasn’t done so bad eh?
Also, given that there are now terrorists in Iraq aren’t we all on the same side? Do you or do you not want to see the terrorists, those who would kill civilians, defeated in Iraq? At this point it is not about how what whne where or why, it’s about what must be done.
Also, given that there are now terrorists in Iraq aren’t we all on the same side?
No, Eric, we’re not all on the same side, any more than we would be on the side of an arsonist who offers to help put out the fire he started. We may share some limited objectives, but your boss, the arsonist, still deserves some serious stir time, especially since he insists on trying to extinguish the flames with gasoline.
Further, the administration have yet to demonstrate that they’ve even the slightest idea of exactly how to go about defeating the insurgency — witness Rumsfeld’s recent declaration that we won’t defeat it — let alone stem the increasing flow of imported fanatics, and, as noted elsewhere, the CIA have now officially noted that Iraq has become a graduate school in urban terrorism tactics which is now returning its graduates to their home countries.
What you’re doing is pleading a modified version of the orphan defense. You’re familiar with that, right? where a kid kills his parents and begs the court for mercy because he’s an orphan?
Eric – any source that shows no domestic terror deaths post 9/11 is wrong.
I have one word for you: anthrax.
Why are you still asking us for a plan when you have yet to give us the details of your glorious leader’s?
I support President Bush’s military campaigns in Iraq and elsewhere. I believe they are making the United States, and the rest of the world, safer.
Here’s a link that explains in more detail why I think this way: link.
The link didn’t work.
You can cut-and-paste the link instead:
http://thebronxblogger.blogspot.com/2005/02/bronx-blog-backs-bush-says-bush-beats.html
The link in comment 118 works just by clicking.
War on Terror: Getting Serious
The Bush Administration has often been lambasted for making more political hay than progress in the War on Terror. They grabbed Jose Padilla and trumpeted the fact before he had a chance to do anything or lead them anywhere. They…
So Weldon, your counter plan is….forthcoming?
I have a plan for Vietnam, we don’t go. Pearl Harbor? We attack the Japanese fleet in November 1941. IS criticizing the past a plan? For democrats, yes.
Can’t wait for those “Free Jose Padilla Bumper Stickers”, I saw a “Free Leonard Peltier” on an SUV, the other day.
Retired grunt: Bush’s plan is an ongoing event. Since the it is being enacted, it seems like there is a plan.
You think that an alternative solution existed-what is it?
Greyspace- you are correct, it actually was post 2001, not post 9/11…I just used that major event as a reference point, my bad. Aside from my own error, the RAND data shows, to me at least, that terror events related to national security have decreased under Bush, but it’s much more easy to just say that we are less safe. Either way I thank you all for the site it is very infomrmative.
As for Iraq, I think you have a valid point (guy who made valid point up there) BUT you can’t for one moment think that most of the left doesn’t just wants us out right? It’s not about how this war is ran to them, it’s how it started. Lefty gleefuly tout bad news and ignore good news, to me it shows tha for many the war is still just a political argument, the war=Bush, therefore they activly root against success. You can’t really think that given poll pressure and rehtoric from themselves that kerry would not have withdrawn from Iraq by now? We are, everyday fighting, terrorists in Iraq. Kos is right there is no finite supply, but we are fighting the ideology, Iraq is fighting to stand up to terror, to keep democracy, if we cut and run it is a victory for terror. You nor I knows how this will turn out, it is silly for ANYONE to propose that Iraq will turn out OK or will not, that remains to be seen but what can be known is that when you advocate leaving you advocate a win for terrorists—point blank. When you advocate staying you could be advocating a whole slew of things, some very good many very bad, but in your heart want you want is eventual peace.
Just to pre-emptive strike: how peaceful is war? someone will inevidably ask.
Not very. But name me one war that was? Would terrorists be bombing daily, even monthy, if we weren’t there—nope. But do you think that the people (sunnis) who are killing civilians now actually want whats best for the majority of Iraq? You think those fighting (sunnis) who have decried democracy actually just want a democratic process with US gone? The we are fighting are bad for Iraq, the middle east, the idea is bad for the world—and without us there they not only exsist, but they will ferment and spread.
Hey repub fucktards. Clinton presented the Chimp’s fuck buddy Condi Rice with a plan to fight terrorism. Of course, she and her simeon like boss ignored it. There’s your fucking plan. If you had followed OUR plan, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now.
Losers.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html
Thanks for the link moron:
A plan by Sandy Berger?
The same Sandy Berger who stole records from the national archives, regarding the Millenium plot? The same Sandy Berger who smuggled them out in his socks? The same Sandy Berger who took them home and shredded them?
“On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for allegedly taking as many as fifty classified documents, in October 2003, from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were commissioned from Richard Clarke about the Clinton administration’s handling of millennium terror threats.”
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger
Dude, you wandered off the reservation, and here is your smackdown.
Please, explain Berger’s actions.
Throw caution to the wind and your men and women in uniform into the breach and hope for the best is not a plan unless you plan for those mean and women to die.
For the last time, before I write you off for the delusional dreamer you seem to be, give me details. The fact that we’re in Iraq fighting is not a detail. What are the primary goals of our deployment in Iraq? What’s the plan for containing the insurgents? What’s the plan for maintaining stability over the long run? What’s the plan for dealing with the less-than-cooperative new Iraqi army?
Give me details, not platitudes. Platitudes get good men killed for bullshit reasons.
And, since you people are so fond of linking to things, let’s take a look at the latest study on the overal war on terror from the Army War College.
In the three years since 9-11, the Administration has yet to arrive at a clear definition of the enemy or the aim in the War on Terrorism; to date, American policy has combined ambitious public statements with ambiguity on critical particulars. Heretofore, the costs of pursuing such ambitious but ill-defined goals have been high but tolerable. The ongoing insurgency in Iraq, however, is increasing the costs of grand strategic ambiguity to the point where fundamental choices can no longer be deferred. …
Now, I expect you to tell me how the AWC has been infiltrated by liberals or some such absurd assessment like that. Surprise me for once and actually admit that maybe your boy’s in over his head.
“He would later, in a guilty plea, admit to deliberately removing materials.”
Why?
You also realize that he was the one who was responsible for briefing Condi, since was his job she was taking, but somehow stealing documents from the National Archives and destroying them, seems…criminal?
Yep, the Clinton Administration was really forthcoming.
an excerpt from your article-
“The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the other national security “principals” on Dec. 20. But Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up.”
Clearly, an admission of failure to act by Clinton. The Cole was attacked in October 2000, the meeting takes place in December 2000, but the Clinton admin did not appear to be pursuing the matter.
The problem is that you are citing an article from 2002, and more information has come foward, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT SANDY BERGER WAS CONVICTED OF RETENTION AND REMOVAL OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS in April 2005. I’m far from enamoured with Bush, but you ignorance is titanic.
What are the primary goals? Establish a representative government, draft a constitution, establish a military force, then leave.
Let’s take a look at your excerpt:
“In the three years since 9/11″, that would mean the assessment is based on info prior to 9/11/04. Seems current-if you don’t want to discuss the elections that took place on January 31, 2005. If you don’t want to discuss selction of their leadership.
Get something more current, then we’ll talk. and once again, what is your plan?
Establish a representative government
How? By ignoring major parts of the population? Nice representation.
draft a constitution
You seem to think that a constitution is some magical document that will make all opposition fall into instant submission. The insurgency couldn’t care less about a constitution drafted by a government protected by an occupying foreign army.
establish a military force, then leave.
A military force of recalitrant, less-than-cooperative locals. That worked really well with the ARVN too.
I don’t need anything more current, as all the salient points raised in that study have yet to be addressed.
As for my plan, once you actually address my points, I’ll give it to you.
Anybody
I AM predicting 32 seats in the house.
I know that you’re still hung up by CLINTONS PENIS!
THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS ARE DEAD.
NO PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE
TIME FOR A NEW TACTIC.
If you were shortsighted 7 years ago, admit that you still might not really ‘get it’.
~Your~ attitude is the problem the world has with us.
You are an Ugly American.
Clinton’s penis…
The legitimization of a president commitng perjury in court.(My personal view was that he should not have been made to testify, as he was the President) Good luck with the ‘Bush lies’ mantra, in some cases it is probably true, but by case history of Clinton, it is irrelevant and an unimpeachable offense, decided by a majority of Republicans and Democrats.
Too bad you guys don’t have a majority.
Good luck with those 32 seats, the GOP majority from 94 has proved instrumental, and Clinton played no small part in helping remove the dem majority out. I love Bill Clinton. We need to see more of him. Please nominate HRC.
Time for a new tactic? What is this new tactic? We did just have an election, largely about Iraq. How did it turn out?
I am an ugly American. 51% of us are, meaning America is run by a majority of ugly Americans.
Grunt-so much for the AWC report. Get better and more recent sources. Let me guess, you have a secret plan. That worked well for Kerry. You have no plan, you can’t point to a plan. IF you stop and realize that you lost in every major demographic group for the 2004 election, you might find that a majority of America believes you have no plan, and are irrelevant.
Can’t wait for 2006. Believe me, I don’t vote for a party, I vote against the lesser of two evils. Selecting someone to leadership who has no core or center is a recipe for disaster. Tough when I am pro choice, pro-leagalization, and an atheist, but until the dems ever recover-GOP baby!
http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/partyDiv.html
Take a look at 93-95.
Kinda like a score card. 56 seats! Thank you President Clinton, thank you.
I’m not even a tom de lay fan, but he’ll be reelected too! This is an absolute political asswhipping.
Thank you, ignorant dems everywhere. Please tell me in which demographics you will be gaining…I concede the ass spelunkers demographic.
You guys have no clue. Let me help you. Clinton NEVER discussed foreign policy, because Bush was coming off Gulf War 1, and his consultants knew that there is a 58-33 margin of advantage regarding foreign policy. The dems who are obsessing on fighting Bush over Iraq, without an alternate plan, are not helping.
Hype domestic issues…you guys are pretty good at that, and you do have a political advantage. Everytime you guys discuss foreign policy, you reveal your utter ignorance and remind America why Republicans are better. Getting a third party candiate to run doesn’t usually hurt, except the case where the same guys who hate Bush so much, but voted for Nader instead…ah what if?
Let’s be honest. Odds are that if Al Gore had been President, 9/11 would never have happened. Specifically, Al Gore would probably have:
- Implemented Clark’s ‘war plan’ to take down and destroy Al Quaeda, thereby putting Osama on the defensive. That plan was shelved by Condoleeza Rice.
- Would have continued funding allocations and personnel allocations to anti-terrorism operations in the US. Whereas Ashcroft cut both back.
- Would have continued to make fighting terrorism a top priority, as opposed to Bush’s indifference.
- Would have understood stateless terrorist organizations, which the Clinton administration had long grasped. The Bush administration were still mired in the Rogue state theory.
- Would have implemented the Hart Rudman recommendations, increasing and improving airport security and reinforcing cockpit doors.
- Would have actually taken the August 6 memo “Osama intends to strike inside US” seriously.
- Would not have been in Florida reading about goats with pre-school children, but would have been on the ball doing his job.
Now, it is possible that 9/11 would have happened anyway, at least in some form. On the other hand, we have to admit that simply by following existing Clinton administration policies, Gore would have had a far better chance of stopping 9/11.
History shows us that Bush threw all of those anti-terrorism policies and actions in the dumpster, and was completely helpless for 9/11.
So if Al Gore was President the embassies woudn’t have been bombed? The Cole would newver have happened? The plan came out in October 2000, but they shelved it, for the next administration. Gore was trying to be the next Prez…you think he’d be paying attention. Not like the plan from Al-Queda came about in 1998.
Continued funding? Clinton cut our foreign intell in half, during his presidency, since the Cold WAr had ended.
If Al Gore were President, we woud have over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, dying or doing nothing. During the elction, did Al Gore mention Al-queda? Yep, it was a top priority.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html
“Berger attended only one of the briefings—the session that dealt with the threat posed to the U.S. by international terrorism, and especially by al-Qaeda. “I’m coming to this briefing,” he says he told Rice, “to underscore how important I think this subject is.”
“Berger had left the room by the time Clarke, using a Powerpoint presentation, outlined his thinking to Rice.”
and also…
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aWHbMYS3rEvY&refer=us
deficit reduced 24% in a year?
tax revenue up 15%?
unemployment at 5%?
On second thought, maybe you should only discuss the War. Domestically, you are getting destroyed.
Enjoy your weekend, I’m up 3 grand today on the market. I’ll be cashing some of it, sorry that the tax will go to reducing the deficit, hurting the democrats…but a guy has got to have some fun.
I’ll check back with you guys on saturday, see if you can come up with a plan. Once again, I won’t hold my breath.
One more little point of contention before I go… the 2001 Budget was passed in the fall of 2000. Any effort to spend money or make effort to stop Al=Queda would have to come from that session. Bush passed his budget, but it would not go into effect til well after September 11.
Complaining about ignoring a problem is funny, especially when you can’t acknowledge blame. It is a sticking point for you guys and Bush, and yes mistakes were made, but for you to be so ignorantly one-sided in seeking to blame one administration, without acknowledging history is…
democratic?
Oh and CLINTON’S PENIS…
is very small. Might explain his voracious appetite for women. He’s a good guy, made me money, none of my family was killed in Sept 11, but it was a close call for one.
I am sure it has already been said but…………….
Many of the new terrorist attacks are numbered when insurgents attack soldiers of the coalition. Kind of like the way MADD rewrites alcohal related fatalities if even one person in the car had a drink even if it wasn’t the driver.
So the fact we are in Iraq fignting, or occupying as some of us may believe, and every attack over there is added into the numbers, well the graph would be skewed. But there really isn’t any question that the attacks are becoming major operations that the whole world sees. But even the number of deaths may be skewed. Before Bush we may have never counted deaths going on in parts of Africa or elsewhere the can be accounted to Jihadist Muslims, but now certain people seeking to lay as much blame at the feet of terrorist count deaths they might never have considered before to prove points.
Bahh. Just thoughts.
To bobinkc:
If being a Democrat “in good standing” means I have to go along with Dean/Kerry’s “Stay the Bush course, only do it right” theory on Iraq, then I am no longer a Democrat.
Our very presence the sole cause of the violence, leaves but one solution.
every liberal here is full of crap, you all know it.
Your arguements have no validity.
We aren’t out to do this to get back at the people who fight us.
After 9/11 we realize this is a serious world wide problem and it needs to be dealt with.
Its like a school bully. If you run away from the problem the bully enjoys it and keeps coming back for more. Until one day you kick the bullys ass. He don’t come around no more does he.
Same damn concept. You’re all just to ignorant to see this.
So instead of kicking the bullys ass we let him go and then went to another school and took over.
To bad the the original bully is still out there and the new school is falling apart.
Idiocy!
Why, look at all the Armchair Jihadis we have here. Hey, I’ve got a plan, why don’t all you terrorist sympathizers stop hiding behind your computers and go out and do something about it.
Strap on that explosive belt, grab that Ak-47, and take your fight to the enemy, the Great Satan.
Or better yet, why aren’t you sending your children to fight the Infidel in Iraq? There is no age restriction on martyrdom, you know.
Cowards, the lot of you. Why won’t you die for your Kos? Your brethren are.
Fewer incidents during higher markets? Follow the oil!
No, anybody, YOU are an ugly american. When I cast an aspersion twards you, it is towards. YOU.
As for the election, among the closest in history.
But that’s the exact same as a madate to to Americans like you, becuase you are an Ugly American.
I am also an American. I may be ugly, but I don;t hide behing a group when someone calls me out.
I have no problem with Republicans. i work closely with them, we get along fine.
What i have a problem with is apologists for bad policy. Ehose, like you, who think admitting a liberal might be a little correct is damn near a felony.
You are so interested in increasing the divide, splitting Americans who agree on so much into little target groups for you to hate
you are an ugly ugly American.
i am not saying you’re a bad person, just an intellectually bankrupt twit.
You are however, a Master Debater
wheras I am a cunning linguist.
The problem with the Republicans today is selective hearing. When you only hear what u WANT to hear, you get lost in the sauce.
Since when have we been trying to let the terrorists go?! HUH?!
Yes democrats have a leave it alone it will go away policy. It doesnt go away.
Your so busy bitching and moaning about it, you end up doing nothing to help the cause.
Your a waste of American space, if you dont like the country so much, LEAVE. But you’ll wish you hadn’t once you’ve done so.
No validity to any liberalist comments.
I know alot of poeple don’t agree with the war but if don’t do any thing about now we’ll get walk all over and become a spot to hit. I m sorry but i believe that what we are doing is very important. Poeple are giving there lives and there time to protect something of the most important thing that most poeple dont even think about on a daily bases. Like our freedom and the protection of our famlies. But i sever with the best poeple in the world US milltary. And for i all know is that when it my time to go is that i m going to my best to bring back every one i go with.It may not happen but i would lay my life down for any one of my fellow soldoier if i kniw them or not. All i want to is that they make home safe.
and i pray for them every day that my friends and the one s i dont know come home safly.
Talking Points For Treason (Part II): Joseph Wilson and Dick Cheney
Picking up from my previous post, another strong meme from the Radical Far Right (i.e., the GOP leadership) in their Talking Points For Treason(TM) is this: Karl Rove Discouraged A Reporter From Writing A False Story Based on A False…