http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4488513.stm

Gotta love the State Department. The figures don't show what they want, so they simply stop publishing them :rolleyes:

Well, duuuuhhhh. 2004 saw a huge surge, what with all the kidnappings and other events. I bet this year's figures are down -- way down. Not enough of course, but way down.

Not duuhh!

These are global figures and directly related to the claim that Bush made that the War on Terrorism would make the world safer.

Furthermore, I doubt that these figures include Iraq, given that it only refers to 600 people.

[ 04-27-2005, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

You would be correct, the figures don't include Iraq. There are dozens of incidents daily in Iraq, you can imagine what the total number would look like if they were counted.

Personally, I think the reason that the State Department didn't want these figures published is that ~300 out of the ~650 incidents were from groups backed by the US. I don't understand how the US can claim to be fighting a war on terrorism but still support countries like Pakistan.

[ 04-28-2005, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Seraph ]

Seraph, Pakistan is a necessary ally. And, what's so evil about it anyway? The Pakistanis I've met don't report any atrocities at home -- much different from the Russians I met during the 1980's.

Besides, Pakistan has nukes now. As with all members of Club Nuke, it's not like you can just go make war with them. I guarantee two nuclear countries won't clash -- not directly. Nuclear countries have no recourse except diplomacy -- which is part of my argument for why every country should have them. Having the ultimate weapon levels the playing field.

Anyway, now I'm rambling.

Back to the figures -- sorry I did not notice they did not include Iraq. Still, my general point stands. We've stirred up a hornet's nest in the middle east, and an increase in terrorism is a logical result. We fight, they fight. Natural. Ultimately, the goal is to win, and to have terrorism decrease to a negligible amount.

I also still stand by my assertion that I bet the 2005 levels are lower.

Yes, I agree with you there - my point was that the State Department is wrong to withold the impact of the hornet's nest stirring from the American people.

And what's wrong with Pakistan? Apart from the military dictatorship you mean? [img]tongue.gif[/img] The one that is in violation of Pakinstan's constitution?

This is why America isn't taken seriously - you can't preach democracy on the one hand and support tyranny on the other. The world isn't stupid and they recognise hypocrisy when they see it.

<font color = lightgreen>It doesn't matter if the State Department gets the numbers right or wrong and it won't matter if the numbers will now be published by <strike>CTU</strike> [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] NCTC because the typically oblivious people who happen to be my fellow citizens don't care unless it happens here. As long as the local Starbucks isn't being bombed and the mall is still open most Americans couldn't care less.

The War on Terrorism will be recorded in the history books like the War on Drugs is/will be--a ridiculous notion that sounds good in a speech but makes for horrible policy. It is a waste of time because you cannot eradicate terrorism just like you cannot eradicate drugs--some people will always want their escape from reality and some people will always want to blow things up.
It would be much more intelligent to spend the money being wasted on fighting terrorism on other things like reducing taxes, improving infrastructure, or raising the quality of education.</font>