Terrorists Are On The Run

[red states rule]

It would seem the doom and gloom talking points from the left are proven wrong once again

Despite the lefts best efforts to undermine the war effort, and to paint Pres Bush as a terrorist - terrorists worldwide are on the run.
Support for terrorists groups are down, and America is winning the global war on terrorism


The Only Thing We Have to Fear ...
If you set aside the war in Iraq, terrorism has in fact gone way down over the past five years.

snip

Including Iraq massively skews the analysis. In the NCTC and MIPT data, Iraq accounts for 80 percent of all deaths counted. But if you set aside the war there, terrorism has in fact gone way down over the past five years. In both the START and MIPT data, non-Iraq deaths from terrorism have declined by more than 40 percent since 2001. (The NCTC says the number has stayed roughly the same, but that too is because of a peculiar method of counting.) In the only other independent analysis of terrorism data, the U.S.-based IntelCenter published a study in mid-2007 that examined "significant" attacks launched by Al Qaeda over the past 10 years. It came to the conclusion that the number of Islamist attacks had declined 65 percent from a high point in 2004, and fatalities from such attacks had declined by 90 percent.

The Simon Fraser study notes that the decline in terrorism appears to be caused by many factors, among them successful counterterrorism operations in dozens of countries and infighting among terror groups. But the most significant, in the study's view, is the "extraordinary drop in support for Islamist terror organizations in the Muslim world over the past five years." These are largely self-inflicted wounds. The more people are exposed to the jihadists' tactics and world view, the less they support them. An ABC/BBC poll in Afghanistan in 2007 showed support for the jihadist militants in the country to be 1 percent. In Pakistan's North-West Frontier province, where Al Qaeda has bases, support for Osama bin Laden plummeted from 70 percent in August 2007 to 4 percent in January 2008. That dramatic drop was probably a reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, but it points to a general trend in Pakistan over the past five years. With every new terrorist attack, public support for jihad falls. "This pattern is repeated in country after country in the Muslim world," writes Mack. "Its strategic implications are critically important because historical evidence suggests that terrorist campaigns that lose public support will sooner or later be abandoned or defeated."

The University of Maryland's Center for International Development and Conflict Management (I wish academic centers would come up with shorter names!) has released another revealing study, documenting a 54 percent decline in the number of organizations using violence across the Middle East and North Africa between 1985 and 2004. The real rise, it points out, is in the number of groups employing nonviolent means of protest, which increased threefold during the same period.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/138508

[mundame]

If you set aside the war in Iraq, terrorism has in fact gone way down over the past five years.



Sure. The only actual problem ------------- are these stupid wars!

Stop the wars, and no problem.

So let's do it, what you said:

Let's set aside the war in Iraq.

[red states rule]

Sure. The only actual problem ------------- are these stupid wars!

Stop the wars, and no problem.

So let's do it, what you said:

Let's set aside the war in Iraq.

This war is killing the terrorists that wnat you and your family dead

The only way to defeat terrorists is to kill or capture them

[mundame]

This war is killing the terrorists that wnat you and your family dead

The only way to defeat terrorists is to kill or capture them


Naaaaaaaah, the war is just killing poor Iraqis and impoverished Afghans, none of whom would ever have left their own countries in their lives.



The actual terrorists, the bin Laden Saudis holing up in Pakistan, Bush doesn't bother to go after. Says he doesn't care about them, so much for killing the actual terrorists: he's not going to.

[red states rule]

Naaaaaaaah, the war is just killing poor Iraqis and impoverished Afghans, none of whom would ever have left their own countries in their lives.



The actual terrorists, the bin Laden Saudis holing up in Pakistan, Bush doesn't bother to go after. Says he doesn't care about them, so much for killing the actual terrorists: he's not going to.

Sorry to bust your bubble

snip

330 operatives killed
The U.S. military also has claimed huge recent gains against Al Qaeda. In Baghdad alone, according to one senior military official, the U.S. has captured or killed more than 330 Al Qaeda operatives just in the past four months.

Many of the Al Qaeda supporters who were chased away relocated to the northern city of Mosul, where Al Qaeda activity remains high.

As Al Qaeda-related violence has diminished, attacks attributed to Shiite extremist militias have been on the rise, to the extent that Gen. David Petraeus identified Shiite groups in his testimony to Congress earlier this month as potentially Iraq's "greatest long-term threat."

"The threat posed by AQI, while still lethal and substantial, has been reduced significantly," he said.

Iraqi officials have gone further, with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki describing the Shiite extremists as "worse than Al Qaeda" during his offensive against militias in Basra last month.

But U.S. officials also have warned repeatedly that Al Qaeda is trying to stage a comeback, in part because Al Qaeda leadership continues to see Iraq "as the central front in their global strategy," according to Petraeus.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-iraq-qaeda_slyapr20,1,7218618.story

[Yurt]

Sure. The only actual problem ------------- are these stupid wars!

Stop the wars, and no problem.

So let's do it, what you said:

Let's set aside the war in Iraq.

so there were no terrorist attacks before we went to afganistan or iraq?

[mundame]

But U.S. officials also have warned repeatedly that Al Qaeda is trying to stage a comeback,




Yeah, that's always their out for keeping the troops there forever and forever and forever while they pretend we're winning, though plainly we aren't, or, you know, we would have WON.


And everyone would know it.

Like Desert Storm: we won, and we knew it.

[red states rule]

Yeah, that's always their out for keeping the troops there forever and forever and forever while they pretend we're winning, though plainly we aren't, or, you know, we would have WON.


And everyone would know it.

Like Desert Storm: we won, and we knew it.

So we need to leave and let AQ rebuild their organization. That makes as much sense of leaving Europe after securing the beach at Normandy on D-Day

[Yurt]

so there were no terrorist attacks before we went to afganistan or iraq?

:dance:

[Yurt]

Yeah, that's always their out for keeping the troops there forever and forever and forever while they pretend we're winning, though plainly we aren't, or, you know, we would have WON.


And everyone would know it.

Like Desert Storm: we won, and we knew it.

really? hussein was still president, but we did accomplish our immediate objective and that was to rout iraqi troops from kuwait....in iraq today we accomplished our immediate goal, ousting saddam.

[mundame]

So we need to leave and let AQ rebuild their organization. That makes as much sense of leaving Europe after securing the beach at Normandy on D-Day



REBUILD?????!! I WISH they had to rebuild!!

Bush never effectively attacked al Qaeda, so they don't have to rebuild, they're thriving, investing in all sorts of new video filming equipment. Darn, could we just GET to the "rebuilding" part? That would assume we had actually done them some damage somewhere, sometime, but that we never have done.

Just useless wars forever against people WHO HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH 9/11!

[mundame]

:dance:
I'm not sure what point you are making, Yurt. If you can state it in words, I will try to address it.

[red states rule]

REBUILD?????!! I WISH they had to rebuild!!

Bush never effectively attacked al Qaeda, so they don't have to rebuild, they're thriving, investing in all sorts of new video filming equipment. Darn, could we just GET to the "rebuilding" part? That would assume we had actually done them some damage somewhere, sometime, but that we never have done.

Just useless wars forever against people WHO HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH 9/11!

Considering they have been all but destroyed in Iraq, they will rebuild if yu get your wish

[mundame]

Considering they have been all but destroyed in Iraq, they will rebuild if yu get your wish


News flash, RSR: bin Laden is believed to be in the wilds of Pakistan. None of our troubles have anything to do with Iraq, except that we've been bogged down there in a losing war for five years.

[red states rule]

News flash, RSR: bin Laden is believed to be in the wilds of Pakistan. None of our troubles have anything to do with Iraq, except that we've been bogged down there in a losing war for five years.

OBL is the top dog in AQ. AQ said Iraq was trheir main battlefield with the US. AQ has been beaten in Iraq

Maybe Obama would invade Pakistan to get OBL, the US has decided not to

[retiredman]

Considering they have been all but destroyed in Iraq, they will rebuild if yu get your wish


AQI is an organization that sprung up in reaction to our invasion. They are related to the organization that attacked us on 9/11 in name only.

Oh, and even John McCain admits what you have yet to: AQI is NOT being supported by Iran...

it's that old sunni-shiite thing that you seem to have never quite figured out!:laugh2:

[mundame]

Maybe Obama would invade Pakistan to get OBL, the US has decided not to


I guess Bush is afraid to fight our real enemy.

He's making our troops fight everyone EXCEPT the people who bombed New York.

[red states rule]

I guess Bush is afraid to fight our real enemy.

He's making our troops fight everyone EXCEPT the people who bombed New York.

So you would invade a friendly nation? and you call Pres Bush a warmonger :laugh2:

[retiredman]

So you would invade a friendly nation? and you call Pres Bush a warmonger :laugh2:

I don't think anyone said "invasion". I would certainly support cruise missile strikes based upon actionable intelligence.... which is what Obama said he would do...and which is what Bush has already done in Pakistan.

[mundame]

So you would invade a friendly nation? and you call Pres Bush a warmonger :laugh2:


So you agree with fighting everyone except the guys that had New York bombed? And letting bin Laden live happily ever after?

I don't know, RSR ---------

I don't see how that is a defensible position.

[red states rule]

I don't think anyone said "invasion". I would certainly support cruise missile strikes based upon actionable intelligence.... which is what Obama said he would do...and which is what Bush has already done in Pakistan.

Obama Says He Would Take Fight To Pakistan

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 2, 2007; Page A01

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.

In his most comprehensive statement on terrorism, the senator from Illinois said that the Iraq war has left the United States less safe than it was before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that if elected he would seek to withdraw U.S. troops and shift the country's military focus to threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html




Obama willing to invade Pakistan in al-Qaeda hunt

Barack Obama, a leading Democrat candidate in the US presidential race, provoked anger yesterday by threatening to send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists — even without permission from that country’s Government.

Standing in front of a Stars and Stripes flag, Mr Obama said: “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

The speech to the Woodrow Wilson Centre was designed to shore up his credentials as a potential commander-in-chief by backing a pre-emptive military action that even President Bush has so far refused to order.

Pakistan, a key ally of the US in the war on terrorism, reacted angrily, advising all American politicians to refrain from inflammatory remarks. “These are serious matters and should not be used for point-scoring,” Tasnim Aslam, a spokeswoman for the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, said. “Political candidates and commentators should show responsibility.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece

[retiredman]

neither of your links mentions anything about "invasion". Acting on actionable intelligence is not synonymous with invasion. sorry.

[red states rule]

neither of your links mentions anything about "invasion". Acting on actionable intelligence is not synonymous with invasion. sorry.

Having trouble reading English?


"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists."


Obama willing to invade Pakistan in al-Qaeda hunt

Barack Obama, a leading Democrat candidate in the US presidential race, provoked anger yesterday by threatening to send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists — even without permission from that country’s Government.

[Yurt]

News flash, RSR: bin Laden is believed to be in the wilds of Pakistan. None of our troubles have anything to do with Iraq, except that we've been bogged down there in a losing war for five years.

and why do you think he is not in afganistan with a major power base instead of hiding in caves?


I'm not sure what point you are making, Yurt. If you can state it in words, I will try to address it.

you made the statement that terrorists want to harm us because of iraq and afganistan:


RSR -If you set aside the war in Iraq, terrorism has in fact gone way down over the past five years.


YOU - Sure. The only actual problem ------------- are these stupid wars!

Stop the wars, and no problem.

So let's do it, what you said:

Let's set aside the war in Iraq.

so i asked if there were no terrorist attacks before we went into iraq and afganistan

[retiredman]

You are such a liar and a hack. No wonder so ammy have you on ignore


"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists."

IF IT FAILED TO ACT. If our "allies" and our "friends" are not prepared to act like allies and friends, can we really call them that anymore?

And it is interesting that there is no quote from Obama in that paragraph.

And it is also interesting to note that sending in a special forces team to a site for a surgical strike against a known terrorist encampment is not an "invasion".

[Yurt]

Having trouble reading English?


"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists."


Obama willing to invade Pakistan in al-Qaeda hunt

Barack Obama, a leading Democrat candidate in the US presidential race, provoked anger yesterday by threatening to send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists — even without permission from that country’s Government.

seems pretty clear to me, then again i don't drink obama kook-aid

[red states rule]

IF IT FAILED TO ACT. If our "allies" and our "friends" are not prepared to act like allies and friends, can we really call them that anymore?

And it is interesting that there is no quote from Obama in that paragraph.

And it is also interesting to note that sending in a special forces team to a site for a surgical strike against a known terrorist encampment is not an "invasion".

Back to the Obama Kool Aid again. Lord knows you would NEVER disagree with the black lib you worship from afar

[Yurt]

not an invasion, tell that to the people of pakistan .... or maybe you wouldn't mind chinese forces coming in to surgically remove your mayor, governor or the president of the US...

[mundame]

you made the statement that terrorists want to harm us because of iraq and afganistan:

No, I am saying that the harm we are doing is wholly self-inflicted: the endless wars have nothing to do with terrorism, which isn't happening here. The wars, which we are doing to ourselves, are the whole problem. Stop the wars, and no problem.

The terrorists MAY want to harm us because of Iraq and Afghanistan, but they don't seem to be able to get themselves together enough to do even a little cross-border hop; donkey driver incompetants.

I'm not concerned with them; they just get in mobs and yell death to America and tromple each other: I hope they go on and on that way. The more they catch each other on fire trying to light our flag up, the better.


I'm concerned with the harm our wars do to us. I'm not interested in a bunch of stupid camel riders.

[red states rule]

not an invasion, tell that to the people of pakistan .... or maybe you wouldn't mind chinese forces coming in to surgically remove your mayor, governor or the president of the US...

To MFM, Barry can do or say no wrong. He has a (D) at the end of his name

Now MFM will call me a racist for ointing out what Barry said

[Yurt]

mundame;252632]No, I am saying that the harm we are doing is wholly self-inflicted: the endless wars have nothing to do with terrorism, which isn't happening here. The wars, which we are doing to ourselves, are the whole problem. Stop the wars, and no problem.

so afganistan has nothing to do with terrorism?


The terrorists MAY want to harm us because of Iraq and Afghanistan, but they don't seem to be able to get themselves together enough to do even a little cross-border hop; donkey driver incompetants.

could it be that is so because they are too busy fighting us in iraq and afganistan?


I'm not concerned with them; they just get in mobs and yell death to America and tromple each other: I hope they go on and on that way. The more they catch each other on fire trying to light our flag up, the better.


I'm concerned with the harm our wars do to us. I'm not interested in a bunch of stupid camel riders.

ok

[Yurt]

To MFM, Barry can do or say no wrong. He has a (D) at the end of his name

Now MFM will call me a racist for ointing out what Barry said

many libs pull the racist card if criticize obama...sharpton and jesse have taught them well

[mundame]

so afganistan has nothing to do with terrorism?

Nope. Bin Laden moved south. All that's left in Afghanistan are prospering poppy farmers, escalating their crops of Papaver somniferum.




could it be that is so because they are too busy fighting us in iraq and afganistan?

No, that's impossible. What, ten men in a covered pickup with Kalishnikovs? They can't even manage THAT? No, it's just pitiful.

[retiredman]

Back to the Obama Kool Aid again. Lord knows you would NEVER disagree with the black lib you worship from afar

back to avoiding the points I made.

using our troops against terrorist sites is not an "invasion". that's a fact.

and I would disagree with Obama in a heartbeat. Regarding the use of our military against AQ sites, wherever they may be, I am in complete agreement with him.

and why do you keep bringing up his color?

[Yurt]

Nope. Bin Laden moved south. All that's left in Afghanistan are prospering poppy farmers, escalating their crops of Papaver somniferum.





No, that's impossible. What, ten men in a covered pickup with Kalishnikovs? They can't even manage THAT? No, it's just pitiful.

and why did bin laden move? impossible? you think only 10 men are over there and our soldiers are dying from simple rag tag losers? that is an insult to the men and women who proudly wear are uniform. they are more organized that you think. i have no doubt iran, bin laden and others are directing their moves. it is entirely reasonable to believe that they are fighting us over there and not here and that our efforts over there have broken up major terrorist networks.

[mundame]

and why did bin laden move?

I don't care whether he MOVED. I care whether he's DEAD.

And he isn't, so nothing since makes sense.

He bombed New York, you know. Many countries would view that sort of thing as a no-no.


you think only 10 men are over there and our soldiers are dying from simple rag tag losers? that is an insult to the men and women who proudly wear are uniform.

What? I don't think this question makes sense. This oh-so-amazing enemy we have can't even load ten men into a pickup with a cap on it for some terrorism in our country, that's how incompetant they are. They are trying to defend their own countries, and are dying like flies doing so, but they wildly outnumber us and they don't have to actually fight --- apparently they never fight, just detonate off one IED after another, wherever our troops go. So we can't win even though they are pretty lame.


it is entirely reasonable to believe that they are fighting us over there and not here and that our efforts over there have broken up major terrorist networks.

I believe I'll take a miss on believing any of that. While bin Laden is making his quarterly broadcasts to the world completely unimpeded, and North Korea is selling nukes to Syria, and Iran is putting in thousands of centrifuges, I am unimpressed with what "good" these wars are doing anybody, least of all us.

[Yurt]

I don't care whether he MOVED. I care whether he's DEAD.

And he isn't, so nothing since makes sense.

He bombed New York, you know. Many countries would view that sort of thing as a no-no.



What? I don't think this question makes sense. This oh-so-amazing enemy we have can't even load ten men into a pickup with a cap on it for some terrorism in our country, that's how incompetant they are. They are trying to defend their own countries, and are dying like flies doing so, but they wildly outnumber us and they don't have to actually fight --- apparently they never fight, just detonate off one IED after another, wherever our troops go. So we can't win even though they are pretty lame.



I believe I'll take a miss on believing any of that. While bin Laden is making his quarterly broadcasts to the world completely unimpeded, and North Korea is selling nukes to Syria, and Iran is putting in thousands of centrifuges, I am unimpressed with what "good" these wars are doing anybody, least of all us.

there is ample proof that many terrorist in iraq are NOT iraqis, give me a break. further, bin laden did not move until the US went to afganistan and removed his government, yes, those guy were de facto his government. you should be careful about underestimating your enemies....

[red states rule]

there is ample proof that many terrorist in iraq are NOT iraqis, give me a break. further, bin laden did not move until the US went to afganistan and removed his government, yes, those guy were de facto his government. you should be careful about underestimating your enemies....

I hope Obama, and every anti war lib views the ad Iraq vets have made asking Obama to come to Iraq.

Or will Obama supporters and anti war appeasers call it another "cheap political trick"?

http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/

[mundame]

I hope Obama, and every anti war lib views the ad Iraq vets have made asking Obama to come to Iraq.



It is a cheap political trick. They just want him to get shot.

He'd be a fool to go; he probably WOULD get shot.

Wouldn't surprise me if he did go, though. It won't win him any votes! Might lose him some votes, and his life.

[red states rule]

It is a cheap political trick. They just want him to get shot.

He'd be a fool to go; he probably WOULD get shot.

Wouldn't surprise me if he did go, though. It won't win him any votes! Might lose him some votes, and his life.

You really are pathic Mundame. Did you watch the video, or are you refusing to listen to what they ahve to say like Obama?

[Yurt]

It is a cheap political trick. They just want him to get shot.

He'd be a fool to go; he probably WOULD get shot.

Wouldn't surprise me if he did go, though. It won't win him any votes! Might lose him some votes, and his life.

you're sick in the head, you do realize you are accusing people of premeditated murder....

[red states rule]

you're sick in the head, you do realize you are accusing people of premeditated murder....

Sick is putting it mildly. Appeasers like her do consider our troops cold blooded killers

Does the name John Murtha mean anything to you?

[retiredman]

you're sick in the head, you do realize you are accusing people of premeditated murder....


no she's not counselor. How can you accuse someone of a murder that has not been committed? The might be "premeditating"...but that is not premeditated murder. That would seem blatantly obvious... expecially for an attorney of YOUR caliber!

[red states rule]

It is a cheap political trick. They just want him to get shot.

He'd be a fool to go; he probably WOULD get shot.

Wouldn't surprise me if he did go, though. It won't win him any votes! Might lose him some votes, and his life.

Don't tell me, it is another vast right wing conspiracy