Terrorism Deaths increase outside USA

[Calif. Hunter]

As speakers at the GOP convention trumpet Bush administration successes in the war on terrorism, an NBC News analysis of Islamic terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, shows that attacks are on the rise worldwide — dramatically.
.
.
.
While fewer than 60 of the deaths since Sept. 11 have been of American citizens — and all of which took place overseas — other countries continue to suffer at higher levels than ever before.

entire article -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/

 

[JoseCuervo]

Looks like Dubya is "winning" the war on terror...

 

[Nemont]

EG,

Wouldn't the fact that these acts are not happening on U.S. soil suggest that we are winning to some extent? Isn't it interesting that those countries who have been vocal critics of the war in Iraq have been spared attacks. The terrorist want to force another capitulation like the Spanish did. Should we allow that to happen?

Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont,

As someone who travels extensively OUTSIDE of the US, I can tell you that when I have a beer or two over dinner, the conversations will turn toward lack of support for Dubya's "war on terror". He did a lousy job selling it to our ALLIES, and now one has to ask how much influence we have with our allies.

Maybe "we don't need 'em".... But I think that might be a short sighted response.

Is it possible that these events are increasing in frequency, in severity, and expanding to other areas indicates, in fact, that terrorists everywhere are getting more emboldened? When they see Dubya not actually commit adequate resources to tracking Bin Laden, and instead, focusing resources on some 2-bit dictator in Iraq, who was effectively bottled up with 6 F-18's, does that give them a license to terrorize?

 

[Nemont]

EG,

Your point is well taken but the war on terror is in every civilized countries interests. The if the Governments of other countries cannot see that for themselves then what choice do we have to look out for only our own safety?

Shouldn't matter who is in the Whitehouse. If a foreign leader chooses sit on the side line because they dislike our president that is pretty short sighted also. What good are our allies doing if they let personal issues get in the way of their own security. Think Spain is more secure now? What happens if their next election isn't to the terrorists liking? Think Germany and France are immune and will never need our help on any issue again? Doubt it, the bridge burning works two ways. Whether you believe it or not it is all on Bush's shoulders. The French were willfully and quite profitably circumventing the sanctions against Saddam which led to him being emboldened enough to kick the U.N. inspectors out.

Our "allies" don't have to have to join us in Iraq if they so choose that is fine but then to undermine the U.S. throughout the world makes the same allies untrustworthy. Why do you defend them when they also say "we don't need the Americans".

In their hour of need we didn't debate whether leaving them to Hitler's mercy was the right thing to do, We also stuck around for nearly 50 years insuring that the Soviet hordes didn't invade from the North. We spent billions of dollars to prop up and rebuild these countries so the could be free and properous partners.

When our leaders decided on a course of action, right or wrong, these same countries shit backwards down our necks. You may have a love for them but I don't trust them to come to our aid when we need a helping hand and therefore we must carry the burden to protect ourselves and those who stand with us. It really is you are either with us or against us.

On your travels rather then just sitting back and enjoy the Bush bashing why not ask some probing questions of the people you sit with? Many of them are just as blind to their own governments follies and the actual danger then are in.

Nemont

[ 09-02-2004, 11:45: Message edited by: Nemont ]

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont,

I am sure there are many exceptions to this, but aren't most of these "current" terror attacks all related to somebody not wanting some "outside" entity in their country? Just thinking of Chechniya (with the Russians), Al-Quaida (Americans in Saudi Arabia), PLO/Hamas (Israelis in Palestine). Please note, I am not taking a position on these entities, but just trying to tie the thread together.

(Iraq is a different mess altogether, as people fighting an occupying army would not be considered terrorists if it was in most other countries. Remember when we called the mujadeen in Afghanastan "Freedom Fighters"???)

These are not like the old "terrorists" that were 12 college students in Berkley or Berlin. But these are "ethnic" groups that are trying to have a sovereign land.

How much of the terrorism would go away, if we all just "went home" and quit trying to project our influence elsewhere???

 

[Nemont]

Do you believe that all terrorism would end if we just "went home"? Do you believe we have any vital interests (economic, political or social) in the Middle East?

Is the projection of power or influence a viable part of our foreign policy?

Were you just as disgusted with Pres. Clinton for taking on Kosovo, Bosnia etc while ignoring Rwanda?

How should the president pick the problem areas to concentrate on?

Why should the "allies" be let off the hook their actions?

Al Qaeda has a much larger agenda then to just have our forces leave Suadi Arabia. They want the destruction of Israel and the end of the United States of America because they view our lifestyle as evil.

When another attack on U.S. soil happens who are you going to blame? The president or even past presidents or the guys who feel it is their calling from god and therefore their right to slaughter civilians?

All your above examples are somewhat flawed. Look at Afghanistan for instance once the Soviets left they turned on each other, the Taliban took power and Bin Laden flourished. Wouldn't have been better if our government had stayed engaged in that area of the world throughout the 1990's? I don't know how you blame Bush for that.

Israel is a completely different problem. The Arab vs. Israeli conflict most likely will never be resolved and President Clinton had a good faith agreement to end the violence there and both side reneged.

Chechnya wants independence but Russia has not effectively wielded power there in years. The warlords enjoy the status quo becuase it brings them huge profits from gun and drug running. Those guys are not simple freedom fighters fighting for freedon of an oppressed people they are muderers, thugs and rapists who don't want to lose their own little fiefdom .


Nemont

 

[Ten Bears]

NEMONT, I think you're just spinning your wheels. He wont take his blinders off for you or anyone else.

I have seen foriegn terrorists attack US intresets in countries that they were guests in, because the US didn't support their cause. EG, are these guys just attacking us because they want a "homeland", or are they just trying to be the mouse that roared?