Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Never trust a computer you can't throw out a window - Steve Wozniak

This is “Progress”
by Lee

So, how’s that war on terror going?

A State Department report on terrorism due out next week will show a nearly 30 percent increase in terrorist attacks worldwide in 2006 to more than 14,000, almost all of the boost due to growing violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. officials said Friday.

… Based on data compiled by the U.S. intelligence community’s National Counterterrorism Center, the report says there were 14,338 terrorist attacks last year, up 29 percent from 11,111 attacks in 2005.

Forty-five percent of the attacks were in Iraq.

Worldwide, there were about 5,800 terrorist attacks that resulted in at least one fatality, also up from 2005.

The figures for Iraq and elsewhere are limited to attacks on noncombatants and don’t include strikes against U.S. troops.

Of course, some participants on this blog will insist that, despite being written by Condi Rice’s gang at State, this report can’t be trusted due to the Democrats and the liberal media.  If it wasn’t for the Democrats and them durn media libruls, why, there wouldn’t be a terrorist attack anywhere in the world.

You know, call me crazy, or an “ass” if you like, but it seems to me that when you state that you are undertaking a war on terror, the purpose of which is to reduce terrorist attacks, and the number of terrorist attacks actually increases, you can’t really call that a success.  In fact, it’s the opposite of a success.  It’s a… um… oh, I can’t think of the word.  Oh, whatever the opposite of success is, someone tell me.

Posted by Lee on 04/30/07 at 01:54 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by Para on 04/30/07 at 02:50 PM from United States

Oh, I see, 14000 terrorists attacks.

I guess you’re right, we should just quit now.

Wait a minute, the administrationis reporting this new? I thought all they did was lie and cover up thier tracks?

so,so confused.

Posted by Sean Galbraith on 04/30/07 at 02:56 PM from St. Pierre and Miquelon

Lee: The Bush issued a signing statement not to be bound by the definition of success, or any contrary words therein.

Posted by Lee on 04/30/07 at 02:59 PM from United States

Wait a minute, the administrationis reporting this new? I thought all they did was lie and cover up thier tracks?

Yeah, that pesky concept where the government is open and accountable to the public even catches up with the Bush administration occasionally.  From the article, which you obviously didn’t read:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her top aides earlier this week had considered postponing or downplaying the release of this year’s edition of the terrorism report, officials in several agencies and on Capitol Hill said.

Ultimately, they decided to issue the report on or near the congressionally mandated deadline of Monday, the officials said.

But it gets better.

Even after this year’s report was largely completed and approved, Rice and her aides this week called for a further round of review, in part to avoid repeating embarrassing missteps of recent years in the report’s release, officials said. The review process is being led by Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, formerly the nation’s intelligence czar.

And what “missteps” (i.e. lies and obfuscation) were those?

In 2004, the State Department was forced to correct a first version of the report that the administration had used to tout progress in Bush’s war on terror. The original version had undercounted the number of people killed in terrorist attacks in 2003, putting it at less than half of the actual number.

In 2005, the department was again accused of playing politics with the report when it decided not to publish the document after U.S. officials concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985.

The outcry forced Rice to drop that plan and publish the report.

Do not question Dear Leader!  Independent thought is counterrevolutionary!

Posted by Lee on 04/30/07 at 03:02 PM from United States

I guess you’re right, we should just quit now.

See, this is where you’re actinglike a fucking teenage girl.  I have NEVER, not ONE SINGLE FUCKING TIME advocated quitting.  The reason I am so pissed off at this administration is because I WANT TO KILL FUCKING TERRORISTS.  And all we’ve done is make more of them.

You, for some unfathomable reason, think it’s more important to offer your unfettered love and devotion towards Dear Leader and his perfect plan for victory than to say, “Maybe this dickhead ain’t getting the job done, and perhaps we should try something new.”

You’re more interested in being right than you are in killing terrorists.

Posted by Manwhore on 04/30/07 at 03:26 PM from United States

The reason I am so pissed off at this administration is because I WANT TO KILL FUCKING TERRORISTS.  And all we’ve done is make more of them

yeah, but Lee, I think that there was probably a plan by Al queada and other groups to ratchet up attacks post 911 and dispurse. in many cases like this there will be a spike in activity before we can see what has actually happened. Like kicking over an ant pile. the ant pile is eventually gone, but for a while it looks impressive.

I do agree with you that the administration is incompetent, but wasn’t the terror stance one of the things bush did well?

Posted by Para on 04/30/07 at 03:29 PM from United States

See, this is where you’re actinglike a fucking teenage girl.

Does that mean that you’re attracted to me?

Lighten up,Lee.

Posted by Lee on 04/30/07 at 03:55 PM from United States

yeah, but Lee, I think that there was probably a plan by Al queada and other groups to ratchet up attacks post 911 and dispurse. in many cases like this there will be a spike in activity before we can see what has actually happened. Like kicking over an ant pile. the ant pile is eventually gone, but for a while it looks impressive.

See, I used to think this.  Now, I’m not so sure.  I don’t doubt that there are AQ here in the US right now, and while I am sure that we’ve had great effect in disrupting their operations, especially financial, I think that the primary reason we haven’t been attacked again is because they haven’t needed to yet. 

I’ve used the example of the DC snipers, two guys with rifles who were able to shut down four states for a week.  You’re going to tell me that 20 suicide bombings coordinated in one day wouldn’t shut this entire country down?  Of course it would.  And these aren’t difficult operations, all you need is a little explosive and someone willing to martyr themselves. 

So why haven’t they done it?  The way I see it, Occam’s Razor tells us it’s because they’ve chosen not to.

Posted by Lee on 04/30/07 at 03:56 PM from United States

Does that mean that you’re attracted to me?

This is about the third time you’ve done this, ignored the meat of what I wrote and responded to some snarky comment I made.

Posted by Para on 04/30/07 at 04:04 PM from United States

This is about the third time you’ve done this, ignored the meat of what I wrote and responded to some snarky comment I made.

First you complain that I write eight paraghraph responses (too long) , then you call me a fucking teenage girl, then you have the gall to complain that my responses are not appropriate?(too short)

What gives?

Posted by Manwhore on 04/30/07 at 04:29 PM from United States

See, I used to think this.  Now, I’m not so sure.  I don’t doubt that there are AQ here in the US right now, and while I am sure that we’ve had great effect in disrupting their operations, especially financial, I think that the primary reason we haven’t been attacked again is because they haven’t needed to yet.

Of course they could hit us, but the political weaponry at thier disposal is far more useful. That’s been the real stupidity in the War on Terror. Everyone feels that the government has wronged them at a certain point, and acting as if we were the good guys was a dumb move. Now Al Queada can bomb us and convince us that we are the problem. Genius.

I think they are focusing our efforts in Iraq while they dominate other countries that we don’t care about.

I still retain the idea that we must have put some kind of a dent in there ilk. It just doesn’t seem as hyper as before, and there seems to be less rhetoric.

Posted by Brian at Tomfoolery on 04/30/07 at 04:32 PM from United States

Actually, Lee, the State Department is supposed to be the United States’ representative to the world.  It is now however the world’s representative to the U.S.  I’ll take it for what it is worth, which is little.  The State Department is a defeatist outfit with lazy career bureaucrats who do nothing.  Condi Rice can’t change that, just like Mr. Powell before her, and Mrs. Albright before him, and Mr. Christopher before her, and so on.

Posted by Lee on 04/30/07 at 04:38 PM from United States

First you complain that I write eight paraghraph responses (too long) , then you call me a fucking teenage girl, then you have the gall to complain that my responses are not appropriate?(too short)

First, the length of your comments doesn’t concern me anywhere near as the “It’s not Bush, it’s those defeatist Democrats and the media, who hate Bush and never gave him a fair shake!” lameness.  Then you acted like a petulant little girl when, after I gave a completely accurate criticism of how badly Bush has botched the war against terror, you said, “Well, I guess we should just quit then.”

Uh, no, we shouldn’t quit.  What we SHOULD do is change stragetgies to one which will actuall do something other than create more terrorists, make the problem worse, and besmirch the name of the United States.  The problem, Para, is that in your mind you equate what Bush is doing with fighting terrorists.  It isn’t.  It’s like doing a tonsillectomy with a chainsaw.  Doing the tonsillectomy is necessary, and the chainsaw is a perfectly legitimate tool for cutting down trees, but only a fucking moron would think to combine the two.  And standing by, saying “Are you fucking insane, using a chainsaw to remove tonsils?” is not a defeatist attitude, nor does it mean that I think we should give up the operation.

You can support Bush all you like, but don’t expect me or anyone else to respect you for doing so.  Like I said the other day, I always wondered who the hell were in the 30% who still think he’s doing a shit hot job.  Now I know.

Posted by InsipiD on 04/30/07 at 05:10 PM from United States

I think that you can also say that the violence in Afghanistan and Iraq is because we are there.  It’s vital for them to attack where we are, even if they aren’t attacking us (the figures don’t count US service personnell).  They’re doing a great job with their war of information, making it seem as if the violence is our fault (where the US goes, violence follows), but that’s like saying that Israel is a dangerous place because Jews live there.

I’m just glad that they aren’t conducting 14,000 attacks here.  Thanks to all the service members who are making that a reality, and perhaps even Bush in spite of himself.

Posted by Para on 04/30/07 at 07:00 PM from United States

You can support Bush all you like, but don’t expect me or anyone else to respect you for doing so.  Like I said the other day, I always wondered who the hell were in the 30% who still think he’s doing a shit hot job.  Now I know

First of all I’ve never said Bush was doing a shit hot job, I just don’t think anything is to be gained by telling everyone that he a big fucking loser. You know, our enemies read the American Media. We just bolster thier confidence every time we rag on Bush.

Maybe it’s a military thing, but I would never bad mouth my commander to the enemy, and in this digital age the enemy hears and reads eveything that comes out of our mouths and off our keyboards.

I have a lot more sense than you give me credit for, Lee. I just feel like I’m a part of this fight and I don’t want to be part of the piling on the President. If I have to defend from time to time, I feel it’s my part of the fight.

All I’m saying is that the negative media hurts the effort, especially in the whole “world stage” part of the equation. I don’t want to be part of that.

Posted by ? on 04/30/07 at 08:06 PM from United States

Lee,

Am i confused?  Based on what i have read we should expect an increase in terror attacks since we are fight them over there?  But if terror attacks were going down then that would be a sign that the WOT is working.

Thus, if attacks go up we are winning the WOT and if attacks go down we are winning the WOT?  What if the number of attacks stays the same.  Are we then losing the WOT?

david

Posted by Brian at Tomfoolery on 05/01/07 at 09:50 AM from United States

Perhaps as long as NYC isn’t reduced to rubble we could look at it as winning.  After all, is there a doubt in anyone’s mind that if al-Qaeda could detonate a nuke in New York they will?

Posted by on 05/01/07 at 10:26 AM from United Kingdom

First of all I’ve never said Bush was doing a shit hot job, I just don’t think anything is to be gained by telling everyone that he a big fucking loser. You know, our enemies read the American Media. We just bolster thier confidence every time we rag on Bush.

This is an interesting point, and one I sort of agree with - I guess the question would be at what point it is okay to state that the CIC is a loser - or are we looking for blind support whatever.

On this theory, it does seem you would be giving the CIC absolute power to do anything he pleases, as disagreeing with him would embolden the enemy.

Not saying I necessarily disagree with you Para, I just think its an interesting point, and yes, I do think its the military background that is speaking there.

<< Back to main