International Terrorism Tripled in 2004

story.news.yahoo.com.../nm/20050426/ts_nm/security_usa_terrorism_dc

Partly because of new criteria for defining an international "terrorist" attack.

Of course, terrorism is just a tactic and can't be defeated unless you defeat the causes - something a "war" can never accomplish. I'm pretty sure the "war" on terrorism in a likely cause of the increase in terrorism, but just one guys opinion...

Thoughts?

yeah terrorism existed for thousands of years and these days even terrorism cant win, we see all these groups like Hamas and IRA and Basque and they still didnt get what they want.

Funny, terrorism in the USA is down. Wierd how that works.

Originally posted by skippytjc
Funny, terrorism in the USA is down. Wierd how that works.

True but Tyranny and capitilism is on the rise.

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas

Originally posted by skippytjc
Funny, terrorism in the USA is down. Wierd how that works.

True but Tyranny and capitilism is on the rise.

First up, nothing wrong with a little capitalism, one of the reasons why the US is such a hot spot for immigration. That capitalism creates opportunities. As far as tyranny, I cant disagree with you. But the bright side of that is we have an opportunity to shed that tyranny every 4 years or so. Dubya will be gone in 3.5 years no matter what.

8 years to late.

Yeah, Capitalism gives opportunities, but seldom to the disadvantaged.

Capitalism plays on the human instinct that is greed and selfishness and promotes inequality.

Originally posted by skippytjc
Funny, terrorism in the USA is down. Wierd how that works.

How many terrorist attacks have occured in the last 15 years on US soil?
Three?

The only ones I can think of are Oklahoma, the WTC bombing in 1993 and Septmeber 11th. So in reality, terrorism has peaked in the US on three occasions within this time period, rising dramatically from zero attacks to one.

Compare this with other regions, such as Iraq, where a terrorist attack now occurs almost every day, largely due to the poor judgement of American forces in invading a country they were inadequatly prepared to occupy and subsequently pacify. While terrorism in the US remains, as it has for a very long time, virtually non-existent, hundreds die in a multitude of terrorist attacks in the Middle East, because of the overblown and ill considered reaction to September 11th.

It just re-emphasises the deplorable perception that an American life is worth more than an Arab life.

Originally posted by skippytjc
As far as tyranny, I cant disagree with you. But the bright side of that is we have an opportunity to shed that tyranny every 4 years or so. Dubya will be gone in 3.5 years no matter what.

Ah yes, but the Republican party will not. The neo-conservative element will remain hugely influential. People who are naturally conservative will vote for them anyway, not knowing any better. The two party system will remain. The American system is wide open to puppet presidents like Bush being carried to victory by the devious extremists within his party.

As for capitalism, it is just as open to corruption and abuse as any other system.

Originally posted by Koka
8 years to late.

Yeah, Capitalism gives opportunities, but seldom to the disadvantaged.

Capitalism plays on the human instinct that is greed and selfishness and promotes inequality.

My point exactly. As for Mr Bush leaving in 3.5 years ha, He might be gone but one thing you forget is its not bush pulling the strings. Look at the administration and compare it to the politicians etc. etc. in bilderberg meetings, CFR, IFA, The round table, Bilderbegs etc.

Hundreds of terrorist attacks have happened on US soil in just the last decade.

They've almost all been committed by domestic terrorists - save a couple.

I'll save the lengthy interpretation, but sufficed to say, our big guns are NOT pointing in the correct direction.

We're just proving how out of control our political/military forces are - as though the world didn't know already.

The American people are supposed to be at the wheel of this speeding behemoth, but instead, they decided to take a quick nap in the back, eat some Cheetos, and catch the last half of Survivor.

Ofcourse the number of attacks has Tripled!

You can just declare "War on Terrorism" like mister Bush did - Terrorism is NOT a country, it does NOT have borders.

But Bush did it - he confined and defined that ALL EVIL of the World is located inside Afganistan and Iraq, and what happens everywhere around does not matter, and that is NOT terrorism.

Are there not acts of terrorism performed every day in Civil Wars in Africa? Congo? Rwanda? Oh wait, those "terrorist states" do not have any natural resources, that the West wants.


Question: Do you think that Terrorism is the weapon of the Rich and Powerful, or of the Poor and Powerless?

Originally posted by Souljah
Question: Do you think that Terrorism is the weapon of the Rich and Powerful, or of the Poor and Powerless?

I would have to say both.
Good question, Souljah.

Sanc'.

Terrorism is the term given to those who have a point but not an army.

The poor would just call it war.

Originally posted by sanctum

Originally posted by Souljah
Question: Do you think that Terrorism is the weapon of the Rich and Powerful, or of the Poor and Powerless?

I would have to say both.
Good question, Souljah.

Let me quote professor Chomsky on this one:

That brings us back to the question, what is terrorism? A brief definition, from a US army manual, is that "terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear". The problem with this is that it corresponds almost exactly with what the US calls low intensity warfare, which is official US policy. In December 1987, when the UN General Assembly passed a strong resolution against terrorism, one country, Honduras, abstained. Two countries voted against the resolution, the US and Israel. Why? Because the resolution had one paragraph that says that nothing in it infringes on the rights of people struggling against racist and colonialist regimes or foreign military occupation.

At the time South Africa was an ally of the US. Apart from attacks against neighbouring countries (Namibia, Angola) that killed about 1.5m people and did $60bn damage, the apartheid regime fought a socalled "terrorist" force, the African National Congress (ANC), inside the country. Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories since 1967 and others in Lebanon since 1978, opposed by what the US calls a "terrorist force", Hizbollah. None of that appears in the annals of terrorism, or in scholarly works on terrorism, because the wrong people held the guns. You have to hone the definitions and the scholarship carefully so that you come up with the right conclusions; otherwise it is not considered respectable scholarship or honourable journalism.

Chomsky makes his attitude towards terrorism against America clear early on:
"Everyone's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way - stop participating in it."

Colombia was the worst human rights violator in the 1990s, and by far the leading recipient of US military aid (excluding Israel and Egypt, both in a separate category). Turkey was also a prime beneficiary of US military aid until 1999. It is a strategically placed member of Nato, but the arms flow to it increased sharply in 1984. This had nothing to do with the cold war, as Russia was already collapsing: 1984 was the year that Turkey launched a major terrorist campaign against the Kurds. In 1997 US military aid to Turkey was more than for the entire 195083 cold war period an indication of how much the cold war affected policy. The results were awesome, with two or three million refugees, tens of thousands killed, 350 towns and villages destroyed. The US provided 80% of the arms, peaking in 1997. The supply declined in 1999 because Turkish terrorism (called, of course, counterterrorism) worked: it usually does when executed by the powerful.

The Rich and the Powerful give weapons to the Poor and the Angry.

So who is really the Number 1 International Terrorist State?

The people of Afganistan, one of the poorest nations on this planet?

Was Saddam a Number 1 Terrorist State, that supported international terrorism?

OR are the REAL terrorists that sold these people weapons and equipment in the first place - and they made money doing that before, and they are still making money doing that same thing.

So, to stop terrorism - STOP participating in it!

To combat terrorism we must start by reducing the level of terror, rather than by escalating it. When the IRA detonates bombs in London, London does not destroy Boston, although it is the source of most of the IRA finance, nor does it wipe out West Belfast. The UK hunts the perpetrators, brings them to trial and looks for the reasons for the violence.

Posted by Souljah:

"OR are the REAL terrorists that sold these people weapons and equipment in the first place - and they made money doing that before, and they are still making money doing that same thing."

You are right on!! By this logic FRANCE is the Terrorist, as they provide anybody with the cash with whatever weapons they want. Thanks Soul for clearing this all up.

Originally posted by skippytjc
Posted by Souljah:

"OR are the REAL terrorists that sold these people weapons and equipment in the first place - and they made money doing that before, and they are still making money doing that same thing."

You are right on!! By this logic FRANCE is the Terrorist, as they provide anybody with the cash with whatever weapons they want. Thanks Soul for clearing this all up.

Yes it is! And France is not alone in this group in International Terrorist Sponsors in Europe. I never said that they are innocent - nobody is really innocent in this Dirty Game we call International Politics today.

But lets not go into how much MONEY and SUPPORT United States sent - now that number is pretty bigger than France and everybody else put togather!

Anyway, I know what you wanted to achieve with this post - blame France again, the eternal European enemy of the United States, as said by Bush.

Which brings us to the question:

How many interventions in Other foreign countries did France perticipate after the World War II?

And how many interventions in Other foreign countries did USA perticipate after the World War II?

France is a small fish in this Ocean my dear skippytjc. The Big Fish of this Ocean is the United States.

Belive it or refuse to belive it. Numbers are there in front of you.

[edit on 27/4/05 by Souljah]

I cant believe I am going to say this, but Souljah is kinda right. BUT, big But here: Nearly every nation in the world has sold another nation arms. So, even though the remark has some merrit, its hardly conclusive or meaningfull.

Just to play devil's advocate, don't forget Ivory Coast Souljah.

I agree with you, I always have in regards to who the real terrorists are. It's quite clear who uses fear and threats of violence to advance their goals. No thinking person could miss this easily attainable understanding.

Unfortunately, the majority of people in the world don't think, in any meaningful sense of the word. In the US, about 80% are tragically crippled mentally, given the statistics for average inteligence, comprehension, and the ability to problem solve. I imagine the figures are approximately the same world wide.

So..the world is full of idiots, and that's pretty obvious given our current heading (into the whirlpool) and speed (full steam).

Enjoy the ride all!

(For the record, I'm having a fantastic time observing the scenery from up here in the mountains. I sure will miss all the folks on ATS when the power finally goes out for good, but I'll always have the misty mountains. )

Originally posted by skippytjc
I cant believe I am going to say this, but Souljah is kinda right. BUT, big But here: Nearly every nation in the world has sold another nation arms. So, even though the remark has some merrit, its hardly conclusive or meaningfull.

Its not just the Weapons that make the whole Terrorist Package work, man.

You must then have strong economic support, strong diplomatic support, strong political pressure on that country, in order to bring it on their knees. You must have a Culture of Terrorism to support such actions in order for them to work.

Lets take a look at Nicaragua.

The Reagan administration came into office with a declaration that war against international terrorism would be the core of US foreign policy, and it responded to the plague by creating its own extraordinary international terrorist network, unprecedented in scale, which carried out massive atrocities all over the world, primarily in Latin America.

One case is Nicaragua and it is an incontrovertible case, because of the judgments of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the UN Security Council. But how often has this precedent for a lawabiding state's response to terrorism been mentioned since September? The ReaganUS war against Nicaragua was more extreme than I I September: it left tens of thousands of people dead, and the country ruined, perhaps beyond recovery.

Nicaragua responded not by bombing Washington but by taking Washington to the ICJ. The ICJ accepted Nicaragua's case, ruled in its favour, condemned what it called the "unlawful use of force" by the US (which had mined Nicaragua's ports), ordered the US to end the crime and pay massive reparations. The US dismissed the judgment with contempt and announced it would not accept the jurisdiction of the court.

Nicaragua then went to the UN Security Council, which considered a resolution calling on all states to observe international law. No state was mentioned but everyone understood which one was meant. The US vetoed the resolution. The US now stands as the only state on record which has been condemned by both the ICJ for international terrorism and has vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law. Nicaragua then went to the UN general assembly, where there is technically no veto, but where a negative US vote amounts to a veto. It passed a similar resolution, which only the US, Israel, and El Salvador opposed.

The USA is so Powerful and Mighty that really nobody can stand against them. The people of Nicaragua want the Truth and Justice, but they are getting none of that.

So Reagan administration was fighting Fire against Fire - Terror against Terror; started a war against terrorism by creating their own terrorist netowork. Now that will for sure help this War on Terrorism to come to an end.

Today we see almost the same story in Afganistan and Iraq - and with the Best Propaganda Machine in the world, the USA goverment is making people belive that they really are fighting agaist Terror, but infact they are spreading it all over the globe.

And that is EXACTLY what these people want - the money hungry Corporations, that are feeding on suffering and despair of other people.