[Article]Terrorism at a 30-year low.

mr_angry

I'm not sure whether this is a good or a bad report for the US. On one hand, one could put the spin on it that the War on Terror has obviously been a success. On the other hand, it negates the reasons for them enforcing tough homeland security measures and taking away rights in favour of impediments to terrorists, and the general atmosphere of fear that American TV seems to like presenting.

Anyway, here's the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3672035.stm

US government figures suggest that terrorist attacks have fallen to the lowest level for more than 30 years.

The annual report records a slight fall in the number of international attacks last year and a dramatic decrease in the number of victims.

The report says that less than half the number of people lost their lives in such attacks last year compared with the year before.

However, most of the violence in Iraq has not been included in the figures.

The US government routinely labels many attacks on coalition forces as terrorism, but these do not fit within the report's definitions.

Progress

Nevertheless, the State Department coordinator for counter-terrorism, Cofer Black, said there had been significant progress since the US declared a war on terror in the wake of the 11 September attacks.

He said that last year there had been unprecedented cooperation between the United States and foreign countries to defeat terrorism.

The report goes out of its way to praise the work of Saudi Arabia in fighting terror in the wake of two major attacks in the country last year.

The State Department says the attacks galvanised the Saudi government into action, although the clear implication is that Saudi Arabia was not doing enough before then.

The report also criticises some familiar targets.

Iran and Syria are among the countries still condemned as state sponsors of terror.

Such state sponsors, argues the report, provide a critical foundation for terrorist groups.

To be honest, I don't know what to make of it. I don't know if terrorist attacks are better reported these days or what. The US will try to say that the War on Terror has been effective, and then turn around and tell us that we have more to fear than ever before.

bonkey

"he US government routinely labels many attacks on coalition forces as terrorism, but these do not fit within the report's definitions."

Well...that kinda says it all for me. Call it terrorism, but don't include it in the count.

jc

vorbis

is the war on terror actually working? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Ajnag

Given the pics from Iraq and the situation in palestine, It could just be the calm before the storm.Im not infering that all Terrorism comes from the middle east or moslim extremists, Just that the current global situation is probably giving these recruitment drives a hell of a boost.

Sand

Well the removal of Iraqi violence as terrorism is controversial but it does place the apologists for the actions of Iraqi insurgents who cant bear to agree that terrorism hasnt increased since the war on terror ina tight spot.

Agree with Bush that the Insurgents are terrorists and not freedom fighters and that their activity should be counted as part of global terrorism.

Agree with Bush that his War on Terror has led to a 30 year low in Global Terrorism and that as the Insurgents are not terrorists, it is correct that their violence should not be counted.

Or just pretend the report doesnt exist, that the Insurgents are freedom fighters with a carte blanche for terrorism and maintain that global terrorism has actually increased since the War on Terror.

I can guess what option will be the popular one.

halkar

I guess their report does not include terrorist acts of US and Israel either :rolleyes:
Oooops forgot its election time. Time to make Comical Bush look good in the eyes of Americans:D

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Well the removal of Iraqi violence as terrorism is controversial but it does place the apologists for the actions of Iraqi insurgents who cant bear to agree that terrorism hasnt increased since the war on terror ina tight spot.

Not entirely true. It had increased, and now has decreased. And I doubt any serious statistician would consider suggesting that enough time has elapsed for this to signify any sort of a meaningful trend either way.

Is it a promising sign? Perhaps. In terms of the amount of terrorism...its good that its low, and it will be better if it stays low, but we have no guarantee that we have that yet.

As for is it a promising sign in terms of the overall impact? I guess that still remains to be seen. The cost of getting to this 30-year low has been horrific, and the hard work is only beginning. What cost is too high?

Agree with Bush that his War on Terror has led to a 30 year low in Global Terrorism and that as the Insurgents are not terrorists, it is correct that their violence should not be counted
....
I can guess what option will be the popular one.

Well, assuming that nothing else significant has been dropped - which is a reasonable assumption I feel - then this is the option I'd go for.

I'm wondering though Sand....which would you go for?

Is it this one as well, despite you frequently referring to the insurgents as terrorists. And if that is the case, how do you feel about the Bush administration inaccurately referring to the insurgents as terrorists, whilst backing a report which says they are not?

Or is it that you feel the activity is terroristic in nature, and that this report isn't accurate and that the Bush administration would be somewhat dishonest in backing it given that they too refer to the insurgents as terrorists?

Or would you like one of your other options?