Top 5 Counties : Terror victim's in 2004


Recommended Posts

Most Attacks Occurred In Iraq, New Definition Of Terrorism Used By US Agency Tracking Militancy

Washington: There were nearly 3,200 terrorist attacks worldwide last year, a US federal counterterrorism center said, using a broader definition that increased fivefold the number of attacks the agency had been counting.

The National Counterterrorism Center's interim director, John Brennan, called a new database that was to go online Wednesday “the most comprehensive US effort to date to track terrorist incidents worldwide.” But he cautioned that comparing the new tally to previous ones was comparing apples to oranges.

In 2004, the counterterrorism center says, there were 3,192 terror attacks worldwide with 28,433 people wounded, killed or kidnapped. Iraq, with 866, had the most terror attacks against civilians and other noncombatants, according to the new database. India was the next largest victim, with 358 attacks, followed by Nepal with 318.

In government numbers made public in April 2005, using a more stringent definition of terror, the US state department and the counterterrorism center had tallied 651 significant international terror attacks with more than 9,000 victims. Iraq was said to have had 201 attacks. The new numbers included attacks on Iraqis by Iraqis, a category previously excluded because it wasn’t considered international terrorism.

Terrorism statistics have become a hot-button issue with the Bush administration's war on terror. Critics have said previous government reports did not reflect an increase in global terrorism. Brennan and other government officials blamed human error and a definition of terrorism that had not been updated since the 1980s.

Following the criticism, the counterterrorism center sought to establish a public, searchable database of attacks, starting with attacks from 2004, to allow private researchers access to the unclassified information.

Among other changes, the new definition of terrorism includes attacks that are politically motivated violence carried out by extremist groups within a country, often aimed at changing their own government’s policies. The previous definition focused on international terrorism and required that the terrorists victimise at least one citizen of another country.

Previously, only attacks resulting in more than $10,000 damage or serious injuries were counted. The new definition includes all injuries and puts no limit on damages.

Governments have long argued over what constitutes a terrorist attack, and Brennan concedes his center's database is not “black and white and perfect”. Grey areas immediately emerged. For example, attacks against US military personnel in Iraq are not included because US forces there are considered combatants.

Larry Johnson, a former US state department official, called the tallying of Iraq “foolish”. He did see merit, however, in counting domestic attacks within a country because they can be a precursor to problems that can spill out internationally. AP

Source : The Times Of India

post-44892-1120760690.jpg

post-44892-1120760704.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol you really thought so ?

AL-QUAIDA sponsored terrorist groups like LASHKAR-E-TOIBA and JAISH-E-MOHAMMAD are already blacklisted by USA and are on hit-list

just 2 days back in INDIA

6 militants storm Ayodhya, killed

Six heavily armed terrorists, who made an attempt to storm the high-security makeshift Ram temple in Ayodhya were killed before they could make it to the shrine.

more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH, Western Countries terrorise Eastern Civilisation by invading them.

To whom you would call 'Terrorists', America and its allies are countrys of terrorists.

And No, Im not a terrorist sympathiser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wtf, india is on that list? I thought the conflict with pakistan had nothing to do with terrorism?

586178185[/snapback]

Oh, boy..... :no: It has everything to do with terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH, Western Countries terrorise Eastern Civilisation by invading them.

To whom you would call 'Terrorists', America and its allies are countrys of terrorists.

And No, Im not a terrorist sympathiser.

586179246[/snapback]

As far as I remember neither US nor India etc ever rammed cars full of explosives into public places in the name of their religions :pinch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I remember neither US nor India etc ever rammed cars full of explosives into public places in the name of their religions  :pinch:

586180368[/snapback]

While I understand your feelings, dhan, one should understand what the other side is saying. ShadowPHP has a response that could be considered more of an emotional response than a educated one. He expresses that the western countries induce terror, which is, despite any protest, true. Unintentionally, I'm sure, but inevitably, a result of war, especially in Iraq. Many people of Iraq have felt terror at the hands of opposing sides, using them as tools in propoganda and physical wars.

One should also remember is that, expressing disapprovement at the actions of one side is not approval of the other side. If I were to say that terrorists are bad, it does not mean I approve of the actions of the U.S. If I were to say that the U.S. has done poorly by inflicting terror, it does not mean I support the terrorists.

However, I would express that the terrorists who deliberately target civilians in that manner for propoganda victories are the ones doing the most evil, especially if it were for religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I understand your feelings, dhan, one should understand what the other side is saying. ShadowPHP has a response that could be considered more of an emotional response than a educated one. He expresses that the western countries induce terror, which is, despite any protest, true. Unintentionally, I'm sure, but inevitably, a result of war, especially in Iraq. Many people of Iraq have felt terror at the hands of opposing sides, using them as tools in propoganda and physical wars.

One should also remember is that, expressing disapprovement at the actions of one side is not approval of the other side. If I were to say that terrorists are bad, it does not mean I approve of the actions of the U.S. If I were to say that the U.S. has done poorly by inflicting terror, it does not mean I support the terrorists.

However, I would express that the terrorists who deliberately target civilians in that manner for propoganda victories are the ones doing the most evil, especially if it were for religion.

586182411[/snapback]

I dont think western countries induce terror. ****ing of some people isn't inducing terror. sure, lots of indians dont like west looking the other way when pakistan sponsered terror hits us in India. so do i as an Indian, go get myself a suicide bomber jacket and blow myself up in the middle of NewYork? will it help?

There are different and better forms of expressing dislike/disagreement than terror.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think western countries induce terror. ****ing of some people isn't inducing terror. sure, lots of indians dont like west looking the other way when pakistan sponsered terror hits us in India. so do i as an Indian, go get myself a suicide bomber jacket and blow myself up  in the middle of NewYork? will it help?

There are different and better forms of expressing dislike/disagreement than terror.

586184003[/snapback]

There are different forms of expressing an opinion but they think otherwise. Why do they feel that going out and blowing people up is a far better way to express the way they feel is beyond me. I think I've heard many reasons why they do these things and,then, try to justify it and then give ultimatums.

Western culture gets the blame either way. I think it just makes it more difficult and I personally think its a cowardly way to do things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do they feel that going out and blowing people up is a far better way to express the way they feel is beyond me.

586184746[/snapback]

This is where the ideology comes in, If they become a martyr for Islam, they are promised 72 virgins in heaven among other things by the Imams and the Mullahs and terrorists are dumb enough to belive that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think western countries induce terror. ****ing of some people isn't inducing terror. sure, lots of indians dont like west looking the other way when pakistan sponsered terror hits us in India. so do i as an Indian, go get myself a suicide bomber jacket and blow myself up  in the middle of NewYork? will it help?

There are different and better forms of expressing dislike/disagreement than terror.

586184003[/snapback]

Perhaps you pander to the new definition of terrorism, but it is hardly correct. Is it not terror as your house is being bombed? Is it not terror as a war is being fought right in your backyard? Is it not terror when your entire family is killed? That is war, my friends, and it terrorizes everyone.

Both sides are guilty of inducing terror. Not under the new definition, which labels feedom fighters as terrorists, but the actual definition of terror. Terror is fear, and conflict is at the heart of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There never was an agreed-upon 'definition' of terrorism to pander to, sorry. It has been argued about since the word became popularly used.

Most people, in any case, do not consider war to be a terrorist act. If you want to be a pedant about the root of the word, that's awesome, as long as you want to consider anyone involved in any sort of harrassment or frightening activity (school-yard bullies, dangerous drivers, parents with short tempers) terrorists also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you pander to the new definition of terrorism, but it is hardly correct. Is it not terror as your house is being bombed? Is it not terror as a war is being fought right in your backyard? Is it not terror when your entire family is killed? That is war, my friends, and it terrorizes everyone.

Both sides are guilty of inducing terror. Not under the new definition, which labels feedom fighters as terrorists, but the actual definition of terror. Terror is fear, and conflict is at the heart of it.

586185046[/snapback]

War is not terror. no one accused vietnamese of terror during the vietnam of war. They employed guerilla tactics. They had political cause,teritory and military to defend it. They wore the north vietnamese uniforms, identified themselves as soldiers etc.

Further US is not delibertaly targetting civilians in Iraq unlike the terrorists whose aim was to kill as many civilians as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further US is not delibertaly targetting civilians in Iraq unlike the terrorists whose aim was to kill as many civilians as possible.

586185087[/snapback]

Most think it's deliberate and also think that the soliders wake up every day and want to hurt and kill people. War doesn't come without causalities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

War is not terror. no one accused vietnamese of terror during the vietnam of war. They employed guerilla tactics. They had political cause,teritory and military to defend it. They wore the north vietnamese uniforms, identified themselves as soldiers etc.

No they didn't

Children were combatants, as were civilians and the elderly...

They wore no uniforms, simply defended their homes as they could.

I saw the same when I was in Bosnia during their civil war....locals acting in common defence against a perceived invader. Without insignia, without uniforms, without warning.

But we live in the age of spin. Where by the simple expedient of not actually declaring war you can change all the old terminology. Opponents can be called 'enemy combatants' rather than 'POWS' and be denied any rights, and anybody who opposes you can be called terrorists.

Further US is not delibertaly targetting civilians in Iraq unlike the terrorists whose aim was to kill as many civilians as possible.

Hopefully this can be effectively communicated to those killed in the shock and awe bombings, denounced as being against the Geneva conventions as being wildly indiscriminate in choices of targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the same when I was in Bosnia during their civil war....locals acting in common defence against a perceived invader. Without insignia, without uniforms, without warning.

586185132[/snapback]

Civilians protecting themselves against enemy fire and taking cover from all the firing is natural. The percived invader identified themselves with military Insignia didn't they. I think they were called "Serb Paramilitary". even in the video that was shown recently on tv serb paramilitary killing 8 men...

They are called war crimes and milosovic is in jail for that.

Hopefully this can be effectively communicated to those killed in the shock and awe bombings, denounced as being against the Geneva conventions as being wildly indiscriminate in choices of targets.

586185132[/snapback]

honestly if America wants to kill all Iraqi civilians they really can can't they - Militarily? They got enough nukes to kill everything human in all the middle east countries.

Now if al-qaeda had even one nuke from pakistan, where would they use it?

New York - maximum civilian casualties or Fort Bragg - maximum military casualties.

A warring army would attack Fort Bragg but Al-Qaeda [a terrorist group] would go for New York. do you see a difference?

furher, If war is terror then all soldiers are terrorists? i dont agree with that.

-----

United States - 0 terror attacks and Irsrael -> almost no terror attacks [relatively] are the two countries that are dealing harshest with terrorism.

is there a message there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone care to post the list of building hit during the "shock and awe" campaign? I find it hard to believe we the US bombed Hospitals and schools and apartment buildings. I recall seeing pictures of ministry buildings and military compounds ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

War is not terror.

Woah, you are grossly misinformed, war can be, and very often is terrorism. Terrorism is simply unlawfull use of force, or threat of force against people or property, in an attempt to coerce. Terrorism has become a buzzword that somehow only applies to the weak fighting the strong, but something like a "Shock and Awe Campaign" is just as much terrorism as 9/11 was.

(Big clue is in the name, its like they sat down and said "Alright, we need to spread terror in Iraq, so they give up easier, but we can't say that, what are some milder sounding synonyms.".)

Definition of Terrorism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

furher, If war is terror then all soldiers are terrorists? i dont agree with that.

-----

United States - 0 terror attacks and Irsrael -> almost no terror attacks [relatively] are the two countries that are dealing harshest with terrorism.

is there a message there?

586185227[/snapback]

Perhaps soldiers are not 'terrorists' per se, but they do indeed cause terror.

I find it odd to mention Israel with it's mixed history, especially with their prime minister being the commanding officer of the 1953 Qibya Massacre of Palestinian civilians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.