Joe Sick Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 And some people actually believe W has made us safer?? :doh: Just because he says something doesn't make it so. -------- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/ NBC News findings run counter to recent Bush administration claims By Robert Rivas and Robert Windrem NBC News Updated: 10:43 a.m. ET Sept. 2, 2004 NEW YORK - As speakers at the GOP convention trumpet Bush administration successes in the war on terrorism, an NBC News analysis of Islamic terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, shows that attacks are on the rise worldwide — dramatically. Of the roughly 2,929 terrorism-related deaths around the world since the attacks on New York and Washington, the NBC News analysis shows 58 percent of them — 1,709 — have occurred this year. In the past 10 days, in fact, the number of dead has risen by 142 people in places as diverse as Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel. On Tuesday, the number of civilians killed by terrorists totaled 38 — 10 at a subway entrance bombing in Moscow, 16 in a bus bombing in Israel and 12 Nepalese executed in Iraq. Moreover, the level of sophistication is increasing. Terrorism experts point in particular to the attacks apparently carried out by Chechen rebels during that 10-day period. The rebels, whose top military commanders have been Arabs, are operating at a whole different level. ‘This is all coordinated’ “You have bombs on board planes, bombs at a train station and now a hostage taking,” said Roger Cressey, a former deputy Nantional Security Council director of counterterrorism. “This is all coordinated. These things do not happen by accident, and in fact, United States officials are frantically trying to determine if they are a forerunner of an attack aimed at the U.S.” Cressey, who is an NBC News analyst, was referring in particular to last week’s twin bombings of Russian airliners that left 90 dead in southern Russia, an attack Cressey says indicates a greater level of coordination and sophistication than thought possible just last year. While fewer than 60 of the deaths since Sept. 11 have been of American citizens — and all of which took place overseas — other countries continue to suffer at higher levels than ever before. Since Sept. 11, 2001, according to the analysis, around 1,500 have died in terrorist attacks in Iraq, nearly 700 in Russia, more than 350 have died in Israel, around 200 in Spain and more than 100 in the Philippines. The numbers sometimes are imprecise because of the nature of the attacks, which leave many missing. ‘Central al-Qaida’ Senior U.S. intelligence officials note that in fact, the frequency of terrorist attacks carried out by Muslim radicals is increasing, not decreasing. Moreover, they say the attacks carried out by what they now refer to as “central al-Qaida” are being dwarfed by those carried out by affiliates, such Ansar al Sunnah in Iraq, the Chechen rebels and even ad hoc groups like those who blew up the Madrid train stations. While there may be links to al-Qaida in terms of training and in some cases money, these groups operate independently of Osama bin Laden's command. The threat in fact is “morphing,” as one senior U.S. intelligence official put it. “You're talking about an al-Qaida that's trying to regenerate, and you're also talking about a movement that has looked to al-Qaida for inspiration but is not really al-Qaida central,” said another intelligence official. Concern: ‘Localization of threat’ “The thing we worry about a lot is what we call, in some ways, the localization of threat,” the official said. “Regional organizations that operate in different environments, that may have had some training from al-Qaida, that may have had some money, but that really see the world in al-Qaida terms and that's why we worry about them, and they are the wave of the future, and I believe that's the wave of the future for us operationally.” As more and more groups get into the mix, say officials, there are more and more attacks. In fact, the three worst months for Islamic terrorism since Sept. 11 were March (431 dead), February (393 dead) and June (245 dead) of this year. With the three terrorist attacks on Tuesday, the suicide bombing in Israel, the car bombing in Moscow and the execution of the Nepalese workers in Iraq, the August total will rise to 228 dead, the sixth worst month since Sept. 11. Robert Rivas is a researcher at the MSNBC political unit in Secaucus. Robert Windrem is the investigative producer for special projects at NBC News. © 2004 MSNBC Interactive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr11fan Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 I think he made "US" safer, he can't protect the entire world, other countries need their leaders to step up and do the same for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted September 2, 2004 Author Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by pr11fan he can't protect the entire world So you agree that the whole Iraq War is wrong? No WMDs have been found. Saddam has never and could never attack us. The only thing Bush has to stand on now is the human rights side of the issue. At least we agree on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr11fan Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Imo he made a mistake, he got bad intelligence information and acted on it. I'm not sorry we went in there though, Sadaam was a murderer and would gladly have done anything in his power to help terrorists attack us imo. It was a mistake, but the end result of the mistake will still be positive imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Hmmm, nothing about the terrorist attacks in the US? Did I miss something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murdering Purple Turds Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 You know what cracks me up about the whole war on terror and the constant fear instilled in us by the Republican party? That the very people affected by terror threats (New York City, D.C., and other large metropolitan areas) AREN'T living in fear and DON'T support Bush. Yet the Zell Millers and backwoods Kentucky-folk of the world want to stand on this "keep America safer" platform. Sorry Senator Miller, but I doubt Osama (still not captured) has his sights set on your outhouse and NASCAR memorabilia collection in rural Georgia. Let the people who's families died and are directly affected by the terrorists decide what is best for them. You go back to the moonshine-making and peach-picking. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward So you agree that the whole Iraq War is wrong? No WMDs have been found. Saddam has never and could never attack us. The only thing Bush has to stand on now is the human rights side of the issue. At least we agree on that. Man you are really something (in your mind at least) So it's now a Bush issue that the kids in Russia are being held hostage? Is Bush responsible for the suicide bombings worldwide? I actually thought that Isreal was being f$@#ed with decades before Bush even took office. Terrorism was here before Bush, is here while Bush is in office, and will most likely be here (on some level) after he leaves office. To think differently is plain idiocy. Of course the Terrorists are all riled up now. We are going after them everywhere. Wouldnt you be upset if you were being hunted too? We need to measure the entire picture rather that selective figures that ABB people dig up to proove some inconsequential point. By aggressively being proactive in solving this problem, we disrupt current terrorist attacks, force them into lesser planned or less value added options and we come out better in the end. The war on terror success/failure measurments are like the stats for a great offensive lineman. If you don't here the lineman's name, you know he has done well because it shows he prevented the defence from impacting the game. We rarely hear about the thousands of terror attacks that were prevented from occurring on our soil either. It's a good sign too. No news (on the home front) is good news when dealing with terror. Personally, I'm almost relieved to know the attacks are off of our soil. Why doesnt anyone ever blame the real source of our problems... THE FRIGGIN TERRORISTS!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward So you agree that the whole Iraq War is wrong? No WMDs have been found. Saddam has never and could never attack us. The only thing Bush has to stand on now is the human rights side of the issue. At least we agree on that. so you would rather wait 10 more years so we could lose 10K troops, it had to be done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Hmmmm ... I think Bush was refering to international terrorism. Chechen and Palestinian attacks wouldn't fall under that category. They are internal problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by Murdering Purple Turds You know what cracks me up about the whole war on terror and the constant fear instilled in us by the Republican party? That the very people affected by terror threats (New York City, D.C., and other large metropolitan areas) AREN'T living in fear and DON'T support Bush. Yet the Zell Millers and backwoods Kentucky-folk of the world want to stand on this "keep America safer" platform. Sorry Senator Miller, but I doubt Osama (still not captured) has his sights set on your outhouse and NASCAR memorabilia collection in rural Georgia. Let the people who's families died and are directly affected by the terrorists decide what is best for them. You go back to the moonshine-making and peach-picking. Thanks. There is that famous "liberal" and "Democrat" tolerance and diversity! Of course the entire country is really unimportant when you exclude the major metropolitan areas. The remaining 80% of the nation arent even real Americans to you?:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted September 2, 2004 Author Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma so you would rather wait 10 more years so we could lose 10K troops, it had to be done You have ZERO facts to back up that statement. Is this sort of like the fear tactic of the "chemical weapons belt" around Baghdad. Your fear tactics have little effect now that we know that Saddam was no threat to us. To Israel, maybe, but not to us. Of course, who needs facts when you have ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted September 2, 2004 Author Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by skin-n-vegas There is that famous "liberal" and "Democrat" tolerance and diversity! Of course the entire country is really unimportant when you exclude the major metropolitan areas. The remaining 80% of the nation arent even real Americans to you?:doh: You can still be a hick and live in the big city. It's more a mindstate than a location. And try to remember, that more people voted for the other guy, so he doesn't even have the mandate to act for "the people." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward Your fear tactics have little effect now that we know that Saddam was no threat to us. To Israel, maybe, but not to us. And there it is again. The new liberal line attacking all things Israel. And the exact sort of thing that may lose the Democrats my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted September 2, 2004 Author Share Posted September 2, 2004 Please try to keep up. The point is that Bush's policies have spawned terrorists all over the globe. Those facts are supported by the study. And the situation is getting worse. What do you disagree with? Do you agree with Bush when he said the war was unwinnable or do you agree with him saying the next day that we will win the war? Which do you support? Flip or flop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward Please try to keep up. The point is that Bush's policies have spawned terrorists all over the globe. Those facts are supported by the study. And the situation is getting worse. What do you disagree with? Do you agree with Bush when he said the war was unwinnable or do you agree with him saying the next day that we will win the war? Which do you support? Flip or flop? JW they weren't spawn they are now just out in the open more since we are hot on their tail, so you would rather let them do what they want when so they can do something even worse then 911 countries every where are looking for them, they are on the run, unlike in the 90's when we let them do what they wanted :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr11fan Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward Please try to keep up. The point is that Bush's policies have spawned terrorists all over the globe. Those facts are supported by the study. And the situation is getting worse. What do you disagree with? Do you agree with Bush when he said the war was unwinnable or do you agree with him saying the next day that we will win the war? Which do you support? Flip or flop? What??? You're right, I guess Bin Laden and Al Queda use to be a bunch of family guys until Bush turned them all into terrorists. Unbelievable.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward Please try to keep up. The point is that Bush's policies have spawned terrorists all over the globe. Those facts are supported by the study. And the situation is getting worse. What do you disagree with? Do you agree with Bush when he said the war was unwinnable or do you agree with him saying the next day that we will win the war? Which do you support? Flip or flop? Well then please try to stay on topic. If you don't want to talk about Israel, keep the little digs to yourself. I honestly dont think Bush's policies had anything to do with the actions of the Chechen rebels. That's a situation that has been festering for ten years. Same goes for the Palestinian situation. As I said before, if we are talking about international terrorism, then I don't think we've seen a spike in attacks over the past few months, as this article claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted September 2, 2004 Author Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by pr11fan What??? You're right, I guess Bin Laden and Al Queda use to be a bunch of family guys until Bush turned them all into terrorists. Unbelievable.... Use your little cutesy emoticon all you want. Try to comprehend. By invading a sovereign state, for reasons that have proved to be false, we turned regular Iraqis into terrorists. How many terrorist attacks in Iraq under Saddam? None. This was AFTER Bin Laden / Al Qaeda attacked us. You remember, when the plan for tax cuts was because we had a surplus. When the major issue for the FBI was busting bong dealers and interstate porn rings. You know, when the administration didn't find terrorism important enough to even be mentioned as one of the top priorities and where Ashcroft wanted to cut funding. Remember the PDB "Bin Laden determined to attack". But of course, that doesn't fit the "current reality" Republicans have created for themselves. To you guys, Bush is and always has been the "crusader" against terra, not the bumbling idiot he has proven to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward The point is that Bush's policies have spawned terrorists all over the globe. What would Kerry do differently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted September 2, 2004 Author Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by Henry Well then please try to stay on topic. If you don't want to talk about Israel, keep the little digs to yourself. I honestly dont think Bush's policies had anything to do with the actions of the Chechen rebels. That's a situation that has been festering for ten years. Same goes for the Palestinian situation. As I said before, if we are talking about international terrorism, then I don't think we've seen a spike in attacks over the past few months, as this article claims. So you don't address the flip-flop issue? "Hey, he said something about Israel. Try to paint him as an anti-semite." The point, and why I brought Israel up, is that Saddam was NEVER a threat to us. NEVER. Even with chemical weapons and 100 mile missiles, he was not going to attack us. A dictator doesn't want to mess with us because that would jeopardize his position. The other fact is that there is NO evidence that Saddam dealt with Al Qaeda. NONE. Therefore, we have no business in Iraq. Our being in Iraq provides fire to any terrorist organization anywhere. It is a rallying cry for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward Therefore, we have no business in Iraq. Our being in Iraq provides fire to any terrorist organization anywhere. It is a rallying cry for them. last i checked they are coming there to fight us not here, so that is one positive about being in iraq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 JW, Want a job? My house needs painting, can't pay you anything though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 The point, and why I brought Israel up, is that Saddam was NEVER a threat to us. NEVER. a matter of opinion A dictator doesn't want to mess with us because that would jeopardize his position. IMO History has clearly shown, Saddam was not a rational figure( the invasion of Kuwait proves that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted September 2, 2004 Author Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by Phat Hog What would Kerry do differently? Use the power that Congress gave him to actually enforce the preconditions that Congress agreed to. Inspections. (Which OBVIOUSLY worked - No WMDs.) And they did not get kicked out by Saddam before the war. Bush pulled them out because they weren't finding anything. :doh: Take a second vote before the UN to share the responsibility (since Iraq is really a bigger problem for Europe than it is for us. Iraq had missiles that could actually reach some of Europe. Remember the Bush comment about "laying your cards on the table.") If the conditions that Congress set down were followed, and Saddam reneged on his side, then we would go to war. Remember, CONGRESS not the president has the power to take us to war. For a president to get a blank check and never even try to fulfill its conditions is a crime. Kerry knows that the congress and the congress alone has the power to go to war. I don't think Kerry would start a war with one of the reasonings being "He tried to kill my Daddy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted September 2, 2004 Author Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma last i checked they are coming there to fight us not here, so that is one positive about being in iraq THEY were already there. It is mainly (by the casualty counts) Iraqis who are fighting us. Ah, the old flypaper plan. At least you admit that our soldiers are being used as targets. Big question: Will Bush mention Osama in his speech tonight? I don't know if I've heard a single mention of him yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.