The number of terrorist attacks worldwide rose by 20,000 (40 percent) last year, "mostly due to greater violence in Iraq. ... Iraq alone accounts for nearly two-thirds of all terrorism-related deaths last year."
2007-05-01 12:48:08 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
no one is exhorting surrender.....but a new policy that WORKS.
2007-05-01 13:01:48 · update #1
....those stats are accurate...you don't think there are terrorist attacks against innocent iraqis?
2007-05-01 13:04:56 · update #2
Bush's "strategery" is more of the same failed policy we have suffered the past four years. The policy is a failure from Iraq's point of view, but a resounding success from the point of view of the CEOs of Halliburton, Aegis Defense Systems, SAIC, CACI, and numerous other beneficiaries of this administrations grandiose largesse.
Incidents of international terrorism have steadily risen in the years since we launched our unprovoked war. "Better to fight them there," neocons extol, failing to realize or remember or recall that there were no terrorists in Iraq until we begat them.
Why is it neocons have such faulty memories? Libby Scooter could not remember to whom he lied, neither could Attorney General Gonzales. "Non ricardo mi" was Reagan's favorite phrase during the Iran/Contra hearings--though in his case alztheimers may have been the culprit.
Do you think it is just because they cannot coherently distinguish arabs from persians?
2007-05-01 13:25:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
What I find amusing is the number of people who continously chant terrorism is the biggest threat to Americans.
The CDC comes out with mortality statistics every few years. It's basically the odds of death the average person faces from various causes.
Is terrorism in the top 5? Nope. 10? Nope. 100? Nope.
In fact, 12 of the top 15 causes you are most likely to die from are diseases. The other three are accidents (car crash, falling down the stairs, slipping in your tub, etc.), suicide, and murder (non-terrorist related).
So where does terrorism rate? Between getting struck by lightning and getting hit by an asteroid.
Although, since terrorism is on the rise it may not be ranked there anymore (the last report came out in 2004 that I can find).
And what is the number one threat to Americans? It kills orders of magnitude more per year than terrorism. It's silent. It's deadly. Most don'tknow it's coming until it's too late....
Wait for it....
Heart disease. Heart disease kills hundreds of thousands of Americans per year.
Terrorism? Yeah. We got bigger problems to worry about.
2007-05-01 13:18:03 · answer #2 · answered by X 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Hard to say. It could mean that terrorist mother is breeding at a faster rate and pumping out more baby terrorists. With the decreased age of terrorists it is natural that the attacks will increase. Don't forget you are not dealing with norman people. You can't reason with barbarians.
2007-05-02 16:08:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If that is not an indicator then the fact that April was the deadliest month in Iraq after a troop surge has to be. That and we are going to pump 120 billion more dollars into Iraq regardless if the president vetoed the bill with the only conciliation that Iraq controls itself.
2007-05-01 12:53:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Perhaps Bush's original mission was to increase the growth rate of terrorist attacks worldwide. If so, than may I be the second to declare "Mission Accomplished."
2007-05-01 12:51:53 · answer #5 · answered by Blackacre 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Oh no. Bush's real mission is to increase oil prices so he can profit personally from it. Oil has gone from $28 a barrel to $70+ a barrel.
I'd say his war on America...I mean terror...is going just fine.
2007-05-01 12:55:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
You said it yourself 2/3rds of that increase was in a warzone. Its not an act of terrorism if it is against military personnel in a time of war. How many attacks have we had on American soil? Your statistics are pure BS.
In the modern age of warfare, wars are fought in the streets of our nations, that means unfortunately noncombatants are in danger. That by no means implys that acts of war are acts of terrorism.
2007-05-01 12:57:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
decidedly so especially as the stats come from an authorative source.
2007-05-01 13:06:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
BBBuuttt, I thought the surge was supposed to be working well.
2007-05-01 13:08:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If we are losing the war that does not mean we should give up.
Why do you think if we stop fighting and bow down , they will not just kill any way. They hate Islam is hate and that is all it is. They hate your skin color and how you think do you think putting our hands up will make them stop.
2007-05-01 12:55:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋