|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on May 1, 2004 5:23:28 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2004 11:43:24 GMT -5
Tap-dancing on the deck of the Titanic again, I see.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on May 1, 2004 14:32:31 GMT -5
Hmmm.. I wonder what the numbers are going to look like for 2004. With all of the attacks of the insurgents in Iraq and those have have been reported around the world already this year I won't be surprised to see the total numbers for the year rise dramatically again. All still under the watchful eyes of that same president.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2004 14:37:51 GMT -5
You didn't read the "article." The numbers do not include Iraq statistics because it doesn't meet the State Department's definition of "terrorism."
I'm sure if one wanted to bother looking into these statistics (as someone no doubt will in the next few days), we will find it is just more Bush propaganda.
By the end of the Summer, up will be down and black will be white, and Bush will be the greatest statesman who ever lived.
|
|
Lwood
Sophomore
Go Lions!
Posts: 247
|
Post by Lwood on May 1, 2004 14:40:07 GMT -5
By the end of the Summer, up will be down and black will be white, and Bush will be the greatest statesman who ever lived. You all heard it here. (R) thinks that by the end of the summer GWB will be the greatest statesman who ever lived.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on May 1, 2004 14:46:50 GMT -5
You all heard it here. (R) thinks that by the end of the summer GWB will be the greatest statesman who ever lived. I read it here anyhow. Then again, you disagree with most of what (R)uffda! says so he might be wrong about GWB in this particular case.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on May 1, 2004 14:52:16 GMT -5
You didn't read the "article." The numbers do not include Iraq statistics because it doesn't meet the State Department's definition of "terrorism." I'm sure if one wanted to bother looking into these statistics (as someone no doubt will in the next few days), we will find it is just more Bush propaganda. By the end of the Summer, up will be down and black will be white, and Bush will be the greatest statesman who ever lived. I was actually referring to the attack on the Iraqi civilians of late. The busload of civilians including children and that sort of attack. Which doesn't fit the articles definition of not fitting the lot standing definition of terrorist attack and ought to therefore count in the totals. There were some 60 deaths alone in that one bus attack and there has been numerous others of that nature. Nearly 200 in the attack on the Spanish train. Oh wait, they don't count the number of people killed in the attacks just the number of attacks. I guess an attack is an attack.
|
|
|
Post by JT on May 1, 2004 15:08:50 GMT -5
>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1083407008&start=6#0 date=1083441136] I was actually referring to the attack on the Iraqi civilians of late. The busload of civilians including children and that sort of attack. Which doesn't fit the articles definition of not fitting the lot standing definition of terrorist attack and ought to therefore count in the totals. There were some 60 deaths alone in that one bus attack and there has been numerous others of that nature. Nearly 200 in the attack on the Spanish train. Oh wait, they don't count the number of people killed in the attacks just the number of attacks. I guess an attack is an attack. Actually, you should read the reports. The attacks in Iraq against non-combatants (which includes military personnel when unarmed or not on duty) will be counted in 2004. I expect that the numbers, both of attacks and deaths, will be higher again. The bombing of the train in Spain will definitely boost the number of deaths. And no, they count, and report on, deaths as well as incidents. There are online reports for 2000 through 2003. The 2000 report compares things to a 1999 report, so the reporting requirement predates Bush. www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/c12108.htmLooking at the "year in review" sections for each of those years: Offhand, I'd say that bragging comments about the low number are propaganda, since it's pretty clear that it'll be a "fluke" year. On the other hand, saying that the report itself is just Bush propaganda doesn't seem to hold water.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2004 16:53:40 GMT -5
Propaganda = ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause.
That's all it is. Everyone knows the world is powderkeg right now. Hell, Bush is supposedly fighting a WAR because of it.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on May 1, 2004 18:35:30 GMT -5
You all heard it here. (R) thinks that by the end of the summer GWB will be the greatest statesman who ever lived. (R)uffda is hard headed but every now and then he comes to his senses.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Jun 10, 2004 17:07:18 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2004 17:57:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jun 10, 2004 19:58:12 GMT -5
You sure BiK won't say "Reuters is Al Jareau" (or something like that) again?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2004 20:13:08 GMT -5
It was a ridiculous report then and it still is. You can't measure "terrorism."
And I doubt that anyone seriously believes the world is a safer place than it was 2 years ago or 5 years ago or 10 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jun 10, 2004 21:48:18 GMT -5
I could understand people in the US feeling it is safer now than they felt it was for a while after 9/11 but in generally I agree with you.
Plus, the earlier report was likely not "accidental" mistake.
It was "typical" spin doctoring.
People remember the original flamboyant reports, they don't remember the retraction that gets buried in the middle of the least read section of the newspaper.
|
|