Why It's 4 More Years For Bush

Since the Colombia cartel didn't strike a country in the manner terrorists did, the 'war' is a euphemism.

0 Replies

War on drugs: Concerted police action.

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

Show the graph as a function of total worldwide deaths at the hands of terrorists and I'll bet it would look much different. On this graph, 9/11 probably counts as only four "attacks."

Yep, sure does. Here ya go:

http://www.state.gov/cms_images/appg_no5.jpg

The spectacularly successfull (by Al Quaeda's standards and expectations) attacks on that day are a statistical anomoly that has changed the world. But that doesn't mean this is WW3. We will not be engaging nations very much (if at all) in the future of this "war" and it will be closer to the "war" on drugs, resembling a "police action" more so than war.

0 Replies

3000 deaths = "statistical anomaly"??? Shocked

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Since the Colombia cartel didn't strike a country in the manner terrorists did, the 'war' is a euphemism.

They didn't? Sofia said cartels are responsible for a very significant portion of terrorism and they very frequently strike out at countries. In fact the FARC have an enclave that's about as big as a country and they fight the US Trained and assisted Colombian military very well.

Sincere question: did you know about the cartel terrorism and attacks?

0 Replies

I think you may put too much store in to 911 (or you think I am). Terrorism by this particular group, Islamic terrorists, was nothing to sneeze at pre-911, and post, had we not taken such severe action.

I think the fact that we have concentrated their efforts in Iraq, we'd have suffered many more attacks here, and elsewhere...

**My computer (or typing) is too slow. I refreshed and saw your question. I did know the Colombia cartel is making a disaster (political murders, other murders) in their own country. I hadn't heard much about attacks in other locales. I did think it was much more localized than the brand of terrorism that we are talking about. Would you disagree?

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

3000 deaths = "statistical anomaly"???

Yes Tarantulas, it was not normal given the average deaths per attack. Not normal = anomaly.

See dictionary definitions to the effect that anomaly means deviation from normal.

0 Replies

:::

0 Replies

From Craven's graphs, it would appear terrorism was coming back with a vengeance which is what the gurus I listen to most have been saying: 9/11 was the first strike of many planned. (And no, I don't have a source at the moment. Working from memory here.)

0 Replies

How does a 30-plus-year low qualify as "coming with a vengeance"? A subsiding vengeance? Coming back with less vengeance*?

* 45% reduction over a few years.

0 Replies

But it was only in the late 90's and early 2000 that Osama Bin Laden and his ilk began mobilizing for a massive assault on the infidels. And your graphs support that theory.

0 Replies

"Coming back with a vengeance" is supposed to be worse.

"Die Hard with 45% less vengeance" just doesn't have the same feel.

And for your 90's comment it's not 45% less than the pre-90's or the 90's.

0 Replies

You guys do realize that you don't have to guess? That you can just look it up?

For example, the expressed opinion that "the graph" supports the notion that Al Quaeda was ratcheting up attacks in the 90's can easily be checked and you can, with a very small amount of curiosity, discover that the statistical increase has almost nothing to do with them.

They were, in fact, growing and such, but that has precious little to do with the graph. American awareness of terrorism is what has really changed, that's why you guys are talking Al Quaeda when the 90's increase has little to do with them except in American awareness.

Just look it up, you don't have to guess. This stuff already happened folks. That means you can look up what it was rather than speculate about what it might have been.

0 Replies

It is vital for America that President Bush is elected for another four years. The conduct of our forces is completely dependent upon the quality of our political leaders and our nation deserves the very best, as so ably demonstrated by this Republican administration.

It is certain that, should a dithering Democrat like Kerry gain control of the White House, he would be a loose cannon who could not be trusted.

A Kerry administration would be so dangerous that they might even take up invading defenseless countries with plenty of oil, bomb hell out of them, kill or injure many thousands of civilians, set up prison camps outside our legal jurisdiction and even order the military to torture surviving prisoners. In turn, causing us to become a target for terrorism.

The American people are far too smart to ever permit the election of such a threat to our national integrity, pride and international standing. Therefore, another term for President Bush and his brilliant administration remains our only protection against these evils.

0 Replies

Insider wrote:

It is vital for America that President Bush is elected for another four years. The conduct of our forces is completely dependent upon the quality of our political leaders and our nation deserves the very best, as so ably demonstrated by this Republican administration.

It is certain that, should a dithering Democrat like Kerry gain control of the White House, he would be a loose cannon who could not be trusted.

A Kerry administration would be so dangerous that they might even take up invading defenseless countries with plenty of oil, bomb hell out of them, kill or injure many thousands of civilians, set up prison camps outside our legal jurisdiction and even order the military to torture surviving prisoners. In turn, causing us to become a target for terrorism.

The American people are far too smart to ever permit the election of such a threat to our national integrity, pride and international standing. Therefore, another term for President Bush and his brilliant administration remains our only protection against these evils.

That is hilarious.

0 Replies

Apparently the polls don't look too good for the shrub right now. That's the best news I"ve heard in almost four years.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

How does a 30-plus-year low qualify as "coming with a vengeance"? A subsiding vengeance? Coming back with less vengeance*?

* 45% reduction over a few years.

Looks like it's coming back with a vengeance to me too...

Deaths

1998 - 12
1999 - 6
2000 - 23
2001 - 2689
2002 - 27
2003 - 35

Spain lost around 200 people on March 11 of 2004. Seems like deaths are trending up quite a bit. How is that increase a "30-plus-year low?"

0 Replies

Insider wrote:

It is vital for America that President Bush is elected for another four years. The conduct of our forces is completely dependent upon the quality of our political leaders and our nation deserves the very best, as so ably demonstrated by this Republican administration.

But in four years in office Bush has demonstrated what a negative force he is. Common sense decrees that we not permit Bush to mangle the nation for another four years.

Why vote for the certainty of four more years of disaster when we might at least choose the possibility of better things?

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

Spain lost around 200 people on March 11 of 2004. Seems like deaths are trending up quite a bit. How is that increase a "30-plus-year low?"

You know very well that I was referring to statistics on the number of attacks. What you are doing is tantamount to replying to a statement saying "there are five apples" with "I counted 10 oranges, how is that five?"

The number of attacks is a more accurate way to quantify terror because the number of deaths has more to do with circumstantial fortune/misfortune.

But let's let that slide, there are bigger fish to fry, your calculation is wrong, you do yet another apples/oranges there! Laughing

Let me help. First you start with American casualty statistics. Ok? The first numbers you give are American deaths.

Then you want to add deaths from Spain.

Well, guess what? The "200" figure you are citing are not American deaths. That's like trying to gauge Laker victories over time by first counting their wins and then deciding to add NBA-wide wins. It makes no sense.

Lastly, counting American deaths is not a gauge on worldwide terror. I already said the big difference these days is that Americans are paying more attention to terrorism and one reason is because Americans are increasingly being targeted.

But get this, that does not mean terror is increasing. It just means targets are changing.

But even if we disregard even thise "lying with stats" we run into yet another thing I'd mentioned earlier. Counting deaths is not a way of making a case for increased terror attacks. It speaks of the success rates and mechanisms and not the attack volume (another example of how when you dispute numbers on apples you can't count oranges).

Now I must admit to being more than a bit frustrated and will say this yet again:

The statistics are publically available knowledge. Before opining why not have a real look at them and make factual proclamations?

I posted them so that ya didn't have to find them and then ya go and mix different statistics (that are clearly labeled).

Sigh, nimh must go nuts trying to bring facts and accuracy all the time. Even when ya bring it people project what they want to think onto them without paying any attention.

0 Replies

Okay, I see what you're up to now. Your original graph was "Total International Terrorist Attacks, 1982-2003." Then when I posted the following:

Tarantulas wrote:

Show the graph as a function of total worldwide deaths at the hands of terrorists and I'll bet it would look much different. On this graph, 9/11 probably counts as only four "attacks."

You posted a graph for "Total US Citizen Casualties Caused by International Attacks, 1998-2003." I didn't even check to see if you had posted data for worldwide deaths, I just assumed you did. So yeah, you got me pretty good with that one, hyuck hyuck hyuck!!

I looked around on the State Department's website for a while, but I didn't see the place where you got those graphs. Do they talk about total worldwide deaths due to terrorism? The reason I ask is that I think that's more important than the total number of attacks. If terrorists are going after bigger body counts and succeeding, then it seems to me that terrorism is getting worse, not better.

0 Replies

Why It's 4 More Years For Bush

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know