Acts of terrorism across the world was at an all time low in 2003. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/31569.htm
They are probably slowing down to regroup so they can concentrate their efforts. I'm sure things will pick back up now that those darned pictures have surfaced.
They decided to call the people attacking use after we occupied Iraq terrorists in all public announcements , until they made this report...
Of course if you suddenly don't consider attacks within a nation from nationals of that country 'terrorist attacks', which would fly completely in the face of everything the administration has been claiming, then this is correct. However, if you do, then the last year was an all time high.
I guess the daily attacks by Al Qaeda & the Taliban in the warm-up act for failed nationbuilding, Afghanistan, aren't counted either. Pity. But hey...the Tamil Tigers haven't launched as many bombings recently -- It's WORKING!
Honestly, is there any news that the liberals *don't* try to spin as negative?! Here we have an encouraging report regarding acts of terror being down. Most normal human beings would consider this a good thing. Not the liberals! No sir! This is HORRIBLE! It can't be true! Surely, they are overlooking data, or not taking everything into account! There has to be a way for this to be wrong! Nothing gives the liberals more pleasure that hearing that things are going poorly. News like this sickens them. They hate it! Just look at the way the liberals jump to their feet and try to attack the article. Do any of them celebrate the good news? Of course not. Do any of them give our troops, intelligence agencies, and leaders credit for this good news? Of course not. Remember, the only way a liberal is happy is if they are complaining about Americans! Yet another example here in this very thread. Typical liberals...
Right, so if I posted a poll saying that 115% of Iraqis want us to leave immediately, you'd just let it sit. The spin is in the intial report, T_J, not in the reaction. I know this never occurs to you. Like many others, I am seriously considering ceasing even responding to you. You have an ongoing pattern, and have been embarrassed and outright, to use one of your favorite expressions, exposed so often thhat it seems inconceivable that you'd even return, let alone act as though you have credibility. I have never, ever used the ignore function, and won't start with you, but am beginning to see that what I've always known, that there is absolutely no point in trying to have a substantive debate ( other than on economics where, although you are often wrong, you also often at least attempt to have a reasonable discourse) because you don't even try. You just follow the same old pattern, although I think you now skip the step where, following insulting other posters ad infenitum, you immediately report the first one who responds in kind to the mods. We all know your pattern, most of us have commented on it. But, as clowns are wont to do, you still attract attention at times...but also, as is the case with other clowns, there is a point where it ceases to be even a little entertaining, and just seems sad and boring.
T_J can you just cut and paste your "I hate liberals" post in response to all the threads that you post in? seems it's your MO these days THANKS
The proof is in the pudding, MacBeth. Read all of these threads, I'm not making this stuff up! The liberals have a *consistent* pattern of spinning good news into bad. The liberals have a *consistent* pattern of only starting threads that deal with bad news. The liberals have a *consistent* pattern of downplaying American successes. Please tell me you can at least acknowledge this. It's obvious to the rest of us.
Surprisingly, MILF is actually a more peaceful group than the groups it gets compared to. They mostly just swap Rachel Hunter pictures over the internet and talk about the virtues of being Rod Stewart. An odd group, to be sure, but not one I believe we have too much to fear from.
I will agree that there is a tendency for those who oppose the war to post in opposition to it, just as there is a tendency for those who support it to post in support of it. But where there is a difference is this: Many, many of those who now oppose the war or Bush didn't start out that way. An objective analysis fo the war argument and what has transpired since it began leaves little doubt as to which side has been far more vindicated. The lies, mistakes, and idealogical premises upon which this war was founded have been more and more exposed. Forget that I supported Bush at one time, or the previous Gulf War, and call me biased. But look at it this way, T_J, that bias increasingly agrees with the opinion of the vast majority of the rest of the planet. Who is revealing a greater need to spin, the person who agrees with the majority of the planet, or the person who finds a way to dismiss the rest of the planet's opinion, usually en masse? Who is revealing a greater need to spin, those who consist primarily of people who have hard-lined from day one, or those comprised of many people who previously supported the other side or were on the fence? Who is revealing a greater need to spin, those who want us to emphasize the 'positives' of a war we chose to start, or those who emphasie the 'negative'? Think about this: This war was posited on false premises, and those have been shown to be so. As such the support has shifted away from protecting ourselves to the humanitarian aspect. As such, the humanitarian aspect is being called into focus by those who support the war, not the reverse. If you do that, of course the events contrary to the war are going to be emphasized by those who oppose it, for two reasons: 1) After the way the WMD/9-11 arguements were spun to us, any objective observer would be skeptical to say the least about our further arguments. It's called learning. Honestly, do you understand that? 2) It is human nature. We hold our leaders accountable for the mistakes, as the successes are what we expect as a foundation. It would be virtually impossible for us to have NO positves, but they are less significant than the negatives. If someone shows up late 4 out of 5 days a week, and is called on it, or even if it's 4- the other way, or 3-2 either way, is a rational defense for him to point out the days he didn't show up late? Or, for a better example, how many people did the Nazis NOT kill? There's a reason you don't know... T_J, whether or not you care, your response to this is a deciding factor for me. I responded to your post with sincerity and thought. That, to me, is showing you respect I am unsure you have earned. How you respond to me will determine what, if any, interaction you and I have in the future. I don't expect you to care, but am just stating my position. It's up to you. If you come back with your lobster-trap questions, as you;ve been trying on other posters lately, ( ie Are you happy the President and Vice President appeared before the commission, yes or no, no qualifiers?) I won't even respond with a reversal ( ie Are you dissapointed that US soldiers are dying to protect us from a non-existant threat, yes or no, no qualifiers?) If you come back with another post full of slogans, captial letters, and insults/political bigotry, I won;t reverse it. I'll just walk away. I know you have the capacity for something approaching rational discourse, I;ve seen glimpses of it at times, especially revolving around economics. But you rarely if ever put it to use in political/war discussions, and I'm giving you a chance here to move forward. I doubt we'll ever agree, but at least we can debate like adults, and actually put thought into both sides of the argument.
Nice post MacBeth. TJ doesn't understand that he is in the minority with the rest of the world much less 50% of Americans. TJ, you often make interesting arguments. But when you follow it up with the typical "I hate liberals," that is, well, getting boring. What do they say, two wrongs don't make a right? If liberals are being negative, your negativity towards liberals gets you nowhere. If you want people to take you seriously, try a different approach. Okay, I promise. That's my last post to TJ (unless he changes his tune).
Personally, I'd like to see data plotted from, say, 1990 onward. I can't find that. I will say I'm very glad that international incidents are down after 2001. I'm sure there are parts of counter-terrorism that we hear very little about that are quite effective... the surgical types of efforts that we all advocate.
MacBeth, you, like so many liberals, seem to *insist* that there are no WMD in Iraq. Why won't John Forbes Kerry go on record as saying this? He always couches his statements regarding WMD by saying that we may still find them. Why would he do this? Maybe because he thinks they are still there. The terrain in Iraq and neighboring countries makes it very easy to conceal items that would qualify as WMD. You saw how long it took us to find Saddam. Finding WMD is much harder. To definitively conclude that there are no WMD in Iraq today is wrong. The entire premise of your sermon on the mount that you just delivered is based on the concept of 'false information'. The jury is still out on that. It is beyond premature to offer definitive conclusions on what Saddam did and did not have. Kinda ruins your whole argument, doesn't it?
TJ I'll go on record and say there are no WMD in Iraq. How come you won't go on record and proclaim that there definitely are Iraqi WMD's there now?
Because the number of terror acts are so low, we can afford to put 5 times the number of agents working Al-Q on the case of Fidel. Another example of our war footing no doubt. _____________________ Four Treasury agents track bin Laden and Saddam money, while 21 work Castro JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer Thursday, April 29, 2004 ©2004 Associated Press URL: sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/04/29/national1842EDT0787.DTL (04-29) 15:42 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Treasury Department agency entrusted with blocking the financial resources of terrorists has assigned five times as many agents to investigate Cuban embargo violations as it has to track Osama bin Laden's and Saddam Hussein's money, documents show. In addition, the Office of Foreign Assets Control said that between 1990 and 2003 it opened just 93 enforcement investigations related to terrorism. Since 1994 it has collected just $9,425 in fines for terrorism financing violations. In contrast, OFAC opened 10,683 enforcement investigations since 1990 for possible violations of the long-standing economic embargo against Fidel Castro's regime, and collected more than $8 million in fines since 1994, mostly from people who sent money to, did business with or traveled to Cuba without permission. The figures, included in a lengthy letter OFAC sent to Congress late last year and provided to The Associated Press this week, prompted Republicans and Democrats alike to question whether OFAC has failed to adjust from the Cold War to the war on terrorism. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., threatened Thursday to start an effort in Congress to eliminate some funding for OFAC if more resources weren't put toward the bin Laden and Saddam efforts. "This is really astounding," Dorgan said. "I hope somebody in the administration will soon come to his or her senses and start directing our resources where they are needed. Politics is clearly diverting precious time, money and manpower away from the war on terrorism here." Sen. Max Baucus, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, requested the figures, which showed that at the end of 2003, OFAC had 21 full-time agents working Cuba violations and just four full-time workers hunting bin Laden's and Saddam's riches. "Rather than spending precious resources to prevent Americans from exercising their right to travel, OFAC must realign its priorities and instead work harder to keep very real terrorist threats out of our country," said Baucus, D-Mont. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the tax-writing Senate panel, agreed. "OFAC obviously needs to enforce the law with regard to U.S. policy on Cuba, but the United States is at war against terrorism, and al-Qaida is the biggest threat to our national security," Grassley said. "Cutting off the blood money that has financed Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden must be a priority when it comes to resources." The Treasury Department, which oversees OFAC, said its workers "fully utilize the resources and tools available to us to protect our nation and the good-willing people around the world from those who seek to harm us, be they terrorist thugs or fascist dictators." In a statement, Treasury said the Bush administration was "steadfast in fighting the financial war on terror and honoring our commitment to the United States and the United Nations to uphold our economic sanctions against rogue nations." But the department last month signaled it wasn't completely satisfied with its terror-fighting effort, announcing a reorganization that placed four historically autonomous offices -- OFAC, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the Office of Asset Forfeiture and the Office of Intelligence Support -- under the control of a new undersecretary for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. Treasury Secretary John Snow wrote Grassley that the initiative will, by 2005, double the resources OFAC had just four years ago if President Bush's budget is approved. Still, Snow acknowledged change was needed. "In a post-Sept. 11 world it was crucial that we took a good, hard look at the capabilities we had available as well as question what changes needed to be made in light of that attack," Snow wrote. In its letter late last year to the Senate committee, OFAC said it "has no information that any foreign government is knowingly sheltering Saddam's personal wealth." The agency added that the deposed Iraqi dictator "almost certainly used front companies and trusted associates outside Iraq to hold and manage assets." As for bin Laden, OFAC wrote that its dealings with Saudi officials and bin Laden's family since 1999 have led it to conclude that the al-Qaida leader did not have a fortune of $300 million or more, as some media reports have suggested. "He may have had some wealth, but not in this range," OFAC wrote. Instead, OFAC said bin Laden used his status as a "trusted person" from a wealthy Saudi family to collect and distribute charitable funds in the name of radical Islam, essentially underwriting a recruiting and training network that became al-Qaida. OFAC is charged with freezing the bank accounts and other financial assets of countries, companies and individuals who are U.S. enemies. Though obscure to most Americans, the office has encountered significant controversy. Last Christmas, Grassley and Baucus accused the agency of failing on at least two occasions to freeze the money of people identified by U.S. allies as terrorist financiers. Richard Newcomb, the career official who has run OFAC for years under both Republican and Democratic presidents, was the subject of an internal investigation in the mid-1990s that concluded he improperly met outside the office with representatives of companies under investigation by his agency and took uncoordinated enforcement actions that potentially compromised criminal investigations.
