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

[pattylou]

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.

 

[Informal Logic]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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?

 

[Art]

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

 

[The Smoking Man]

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

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).