It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

RAND - Global Terror Incidents Plummet %66

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Hmmm ... now why did they go down so much? hmmmm ...
Could it be because we are fighting back? Yep. Could it
be because we aren't appeasing them? Yep. Could be.




Stats on terrorism




posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
*(Major sarcasm)* Oh my, I guess this will be Bush's fault too?






seekerof

[edit on 10-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
A silly question perhaps, but there are two lines on the chart. Which one is measuring what you are talking about, and what's the other one indicate?

I need a legend, it's too early in the AM for me to figure this out on my own. yawn.

**In fact, it's so early, I didn't think to check the link you provided so thoughtfully. My bad.

[edit on 10-2-2005 by Duzey]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Oh, wait a minute there seeker baby, rummy gets some sauce too.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
"red indicates U.S. DOS data, blue indicates RAND/MIPT data "

more data on
www.johnstonsarchive.net...

such as
www.johnstonsarchive.net...
Nuke Terror Incidents

Interesting data, rand is certainly an authority on statisics and studies.

Notice in the data that around 2001, when the 911 attacks occured, there is obviously a big jump on all measures. Even if you eliminat, say, 3,000 people from the fatalities list, there is still about 1500 terrorism fatalities, which is in the general vicinity of the few years preceeding, part of the big block of increases.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
The one set of data is only up to 2003 and the other one goes up to September 2004.
The US data shows an increase in terrorist attacks in 2003 vs 2002.

state.gov
There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight increase from the most recently published figure of 198* attacks in 2002, and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks.


I'd like to see US data for 2004.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Nice effort in providing us with an extremely erroneous website FlyerFan (www.johnstonsarchive.net). I really had a good time laughing (no offence)
.

Reports of anthrax bioattacks, September-October 2001 (www.johnstonsarchive.net)

compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston
last updated 27 October 2000



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer
Nice effort in providing us with an extremely erroneous website FlyerFan (www.johnstonsarchive.net). I really had a good time laughing (no offence)
.

Reports of anthrax bioattacks, September-October 2001 (www.johnstonsarchive.net)

compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston
last updated 27 October 2000



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer
Nice effort in providing us with an extremely erroneous website FlyerFan (www.johnstonsarchive.net).

So you are saying that this is a manipulation of data or that Rand did do any such study or what exactly?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
I'd like to see US data for 2004.

Why is the international and domestic data insufficient? Or are you just expressing curiosity?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Well, no US data for 2004. RAND data is only through September 2004. I'd say the initial post is very misleading, but hey, whatever you can get right?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why is the international and domestic data insufficient? Or are you just expressing curiosity?


I want to see data produced by the US government for 2004 terrorist attacks as I think they are higher than 2003.

I would also like to see up to date information for the RAND data.
I think the chart may be a little deceptive as they list 1,772 attacks for 2003 and 588 for 2004 but the data for 2004 only goes up to September.
I would also like to know if they include attacks in Iraq in their statistics as there are an average of 13 mass casualty bombings per month in Iraq. (link)



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I've seen a similar statistic recenly in local newspapers, but I can't find it on the internet.
It showed a significant drop of terror activities around 96-98, then a rise through 2000-2002, then drop again, then rise with the "official end" of war in Iraq (remember that craptacular Bush anouncement on aircraft carrier).

Wasnt there a scandal a while back, Bush administration fixing stats data so it shows a drop on terror activity, when in fact they were rising? They admited doing that, but said it wasnt intentional.

Anyways, I do think that these statistics are slightly misleading.
They count global terror attacks generaly, but that doesn't really reflect the situation. Most terror attacks in the last year or so are commited in Iraq, which is currently in the middle of a war.
They should do a statistic on terror without counting attacks in Iraq and Israel, since Israel is also a semi-war zone. It is clear that there will be more terror activity there.

A global assesment of the situation without these two countries would reflect failure/success of anti-terror policies implemented everywhere.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I'd like to see the chart on anti-terrorist spending.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I'd say the initial post is very misleading, but hey,
whatever you can get right?


How so? RAND says these are GLOBAL stats. I stated they are
GLOBAL. I also gave my opinion on why GLOBAL terrorism is
down 66%. Nothing 'VERY MISLEADING' that I can see.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by paperclip
Wasnt there a scandal a while back, Bush administration
fixing stats data so it shows a drop on terror activity,
when in fact they were rising?


If there was, I don't recall it. However you should know
that RAND is independent of the BUSH administration.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
If there was, I don't recall it.


I think he's referring to the US Patterns of Global Terrorism report released last year:

CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. government restated its 2003 accounting of terrorist attacks Tuesday, reporting a sharp increase in the number of significant attacks and more than doubling its initial count of those killed.

The State Department's annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report now counts 208 terrorist attacks as having occurred in 2003, with 625 dead. When the report was released in April, it counted 307 deaths in a total of 190 terror attacks.


[edit on 10-2-2005 by AceOfBase]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   
What would the stats be like if RAND counted Bush's terrorist attack on Iraq?



Aww. Just funnin ya.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase


I think he's referring to the US Patterns of Global Terrorism report released last year:

CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. government restated its 2003 accounting of terrorist attacks Tuesday, reporting a sharp increase in the number of significant attacks and more than doubling its initial count of those killed.

The State Department's annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report now counts 208 terrorist attacks as having occurred in 2003, with 625 dead. When the report was released in April, it counted 307 deaths in a total of 190 terror attacks.


[edit on 10-2-2005 by AceOfBase]



Yes, I was talking about that



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by paperclip
I've seen a similar statistic recenly in local newspapers, but I can't find it on the internet.
It showed a significant drop of terror activities around 96-98, then a rise through 2000-2002, then drop again, then rise with the "official end" of war in Iraq (remember that craptacular Bush anouncement on aircraft carrier).


"craptacular"?
I love it! I'm going to have to remember to use this one. (Most likely in a different context, of course.)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join