US state department won't report on sharp rise in global terror

In summary, the US government only considers one of the planes that crashed as a terrorist attack because two Israeli citizens were on board.
  • #1
pattylou
306
0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html

Why is it thought that aggression will lead to less terror? Particularly pre-emptive aggression?

This is from a few months ago, and I don't know if it has been discussed already. I searched for relevant articles based on Bush's comments today about more fighting, more aggression, more pre-emption necessary.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The thought process that terrorism will decrease with use of military invasions is misguided. Here is an interesting excerpt from the link:
Terrorist incidents in Iraq also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198, or nine times the previous year's total -- a sensitive subset of the tally, given the Bush administration's assertion that the situation there had stabilized significantly after the U.S. handover of political authority to an interim Iraqi government last summer.
Attacks rose nine times from the previous year. (As for the 'handover of political authority' the highlight is mine.)

The real reasons for terrorism are too complex, too embarrassing, and too long term. Americans have simple, arrogant, and short term views. Immediate military power is much more appealing.
 
  • #3
Don't you think a military showing will also have long term effects? Such as countries being less willing to permit a bright-red bullseye to roam free in their borders?
 
  • #4
Q When is a terrorist not a terrorist?

A When the US gov't is compiling statistics on terrorism.

I see in the article attacks on uniformed military personnel are not included as terrorist attacks and yet Bush insists daily his forces are being attacked by terrorists (to be spit out with lip curled). No wonder there is such confusion on this forum as to what constitutes terrorism when the US gov't can't agree with itself :biggrin:
 
  • #5
Art said:
Q When is a terrorist not a terrorist?

A When the US gov't is compiling statistics on terrorism.

I see in the article attacks on uniformed military personnel are not included as terrorist attacks and yet Bush insists daily his forces are being attacked by terrorists (to be spit out with lip curled). No wonder there is such confusion on this forum as to what constitutes terrorism when the US gov't can't agree with itself :biggrin:
CASE IN POINT:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/30/AR2005043000907.html

Late on the night of Aug. 24 last year, two Russian airplanes disappeared nearly simultaneously from radar screens not long after taking off from a Moscow airport. Both crashed when Chechen women blew up explosives hidden on board, killing nearly 100 people in the first multiple-plane terrorist incident since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

But the U.S. government considers only one of the downed planes the result of an international terrorist attack, because two Israeli citizens were on board one of them while the other explosion killed only Russian passengers. It was, said the senior intelligence official responsible for compiling the U.S. statistics, "the poster child for what is wrong" with the annual report monitoring global terrorism that the United States has put out since the 1980s. "It simply makes no sense," said John O. Brennan, acting head of the new National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).
 

1. Why is the US State Department not reporting on the sharp rise in global terror?

The US State Department has not released a report on the sharp rise in global terror because of concerns that the data may not be accurate or complete. Additionally, the State Department may be focusing on other priorities at this time.

2. What does this mean for national security?

The lack of a report from the US State Department on the rise in global terror does not necessarily mean that national security is at risk. Other agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, are still monitoring and responding to potential threats.

3. Is this a political decision?

The decision to not report on the sharp rise in global terror may have political implications, but it is ultimately up to the State Department to decide what information to release. It is important to remember that national security and the safety of citizens should always be a top priority.

4. How can we stay informed about global terror without a report from the US State Department?

There are other sources of information on global terror, such as international organizations like the United Nations and non-governmental organizations that track and report on terrorist activity. Additionally, news outlets often cover major incidents and trends in global terror.

5. Will the US State Department release a report in the future?

It is unclear if or when the US State Department will release a report on the sharp rise in global terror. The decision to do so will likely depend on the availability and reliability of data, as well as the priorities and policies of the current administration.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
48
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
62
Views
6K
Back
Top