US Report: Sharp rise in terrorism in 2014, up 35% from 2013
28 replies, posted
[quote]The number of global terror attacks and casualties increased between 2013 and 2014, according to a new report by the US state Department.
The figures contained in the department's annual global terrorism report released on Friday say that[B] nearly 33,000 people were killed in almost 13,500 attacks[/B] around the world in 2014.
[B]That's up from just over 18,000 deaths in nearly 10,000 attacks in 2013, it said. Twenty-four Americans were among those killed in 2014, the report said. Abductions soared from 3,137 in 2013 to 9,428 in 2014, the report said[/B].
Attacks largely at the hands of the [B]Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group and Boko Haram raised the number of terror acts by more than a third[/B], nearly doubled the number of deaths and nearly tripled the number of kidnappings.
The report attributes the rise in attacks to increased terror activity in [B]Iraq, Afghanistan, and Nigeria[/B] and the sharp spike in deaths to a growth in exceptionally lethal attacks in those countries and elsewhere.
There were 20 attacks that killed more than 100 people each in 2014, compared to just two in 2013, according to the figures.[/quote]
[url]http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/06/report-sharp-rise-global-terror-attacks-2014-150620013633463.html[/url]
The NSA could have prevented this. But didn't.
10/10 spying, the system works.
oh its about ISIS, nevermind.
Well sure, statistic will go right the fuck up when you factor in an organization that's ruling 3 countries right now.
[QUOTE=Binladen34;48021629]The NSA could have prevented this. But didn't.
10/10 spying, the system works.
oh its about ISIS, nevermind.
Well sure, statistic will go right the fuck up when you factor in an organization that's ruling 3 countries right now.[/QUOTE]
I always wondered where the line was drawn between terrorist activity and state/national aggression and attacks? Is there a point where a terrorist organization becomes so large and well-organized that the land it occupies is considered its own nation rather than small pockets of deeply-rooted resistance?
[QUOTE=YCheez;48021680]I always wondered where the line was drawn between terrorist activity and state/national aggression and attacks? Is there a point where a terrorist organization becomes so large and well-organized that the land it occupies is considered its own nation rather than small pockets of deeply-rooted resistance?[/QUOTE]
Most nations are so because other nations recognize them as such. No one recognizes the Islamic State as a state.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48021782]Most nations are so because other nations recognize them as such. No one recognizes the Islamic State as a state.[/QUOTE]
So will ISIS or Book Haram ever be recognized as a state by the UN or any security council at some point after reaching a certain threshold of independence, organization or any other parameter or will they always be recognized as a terrorist group and diplomatically treated as such by most nations?
[QUOTE=YCheez;48021813]So will ISIS or Book Haram ever be recognized as a state by the UN or any security council at some point after reaching a certain threshold of independence, organization or any other parameter or will they always be recognized as a terrorist group and diplomatically treated as such by most nations?[/QUOTE]
They will always be considered a terrorist group. For one, their ideology states that they must always be at war with some kind of unbeliever until there is none left. For another, they've committed hundreds of war crimes, some of which are very genocidal. And on top of that, it's incredibly hard for a new government from a revolution to be recognized as the representative to a country in the UN. Taiwan was the representative of all of mainland China in the UN up until the 70s.
[QUOTE=YCheez;48021813]So will ISIS or Book Haram ever be recognized as a state by the UN or any security council at some point after reaching a certain threshold of independence, organization or any other parameter or will they always be recognized as a terrorist group and diplomatically treated as such by most nations?[/QUOTE]
If you refuse to adopt any portion of Western ideas you are still considered an enemy and/or terrorist organization. So your answer is no.
[QUOTE=Moose;48021632][img]http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/25/25-gwb-library-mission-accomplished.o.jpg/a_560x375.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
His mission was accomplished? If anything we should have picture of Obama being happy about leaving.
[QUOTE=Moose;48021632][img]http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/25/25-gwb-library-mission-accomplished.o.jpg/a_560x375.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Picture is taken completely out of context. The 'mission accomplished' is referring to the end of major combat operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48022308]Picture is taken completely out of context. The 'mission accomplished' is referring to the end of major combat operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom.[/QUOTE]
You say that every time. No one gives a shit.
[QUOTE=Richoxen;48022324]You say that every time. No one gives a shit.[/QUOTE]
Well you probably should because Operation Iraqi Freedom had nothing to do terrorism.
Using that photo in relation to terrorism has just as much relevance as using a photo of Hitler in relation to the Vietnam war. Makes no sense
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;48022349]Well you probably should because Operation Iraqi Freedom had nothing to do terrorism.
Using that photo in relation to terrorism has just as much relevance as using a photo of Hitler in relation to the Vietnam war. Makes no sense[/QUOTE]
So you're claiming without 9/11 we still would of invaded Iraq?
That's a funny notion, thinking the war in Iraq was not a direct result of the "War on Terror".
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;48022349]Well you probably should because Operation Iraqi Freedom had nothing to do terrorism.
Using that photo in relation to terrorism has just as much relevance as using a photo of Hitler in relation to the Vietnam war. Makes no sense[/QUOTE]
That was not how that war was billed, sold, propped up, or named. The Iraq War was billed as part of the war on terror, Saddam was supposed to be holding WMDs to be used on or sold to anti-American terrorists, and was himself supposed to be a state sponsor of terror. That's more like using a photo of Hitler in occupied Czechoslovakia relation to the invasion of Poland- they were completely entwined with one another at the time, or so the public perception was.
Hell, this happened in the internet age. We have fucking youtube videos illustrating the connection in people's mind:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVx9aP2QSHc[/media]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=524v81GhJjQ[/media]
[url]http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/20021007-8.html[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations[/url]
So don't feed us that when we were there, y'know? The Iraq War was intricately linked with terrorism, and at the time the photo was mocked for being asinine because the goals that the US publicly set out to do were clearly not met.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48022432']That was not how that war was billed, sold, propped up, or named. The Iraq War was billed as part of the war on terror, Saddam was supposed to be holding WMDs to be used on or sold to anti-American terrorists, and was himself supposed to be a state sponsor of terror. That's more like using a photo of Hitler in occupied Czechoslovakia relation to the invasion of Poland- they were completely entwined with one another at the time, or so the public perception was.
Hell, this happened in the internet age. We have fucking youtube videos illustrating the connection in people's mind:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVx9aP2QSHc[/media]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=524v81GhJjQ[/media]
[url]http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/20021007-8.html[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations[/url]
So don't feed us that when we were there, y'know? The Iraq War was intricately linked with terrorism, and at the time the photo was mocked for being asinine because the goals that the US publicly set out to do were clearly not met.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for explaining why I said that in an actually intelligent way.
I like to refer people to [url=http://www.ted.com/talks/trevor_aaronson_how_this_fbi_strategy_is_actually_creating_us_based_terrorists?language=en]here[/url].
[quote]How this FBI strategy is actually creating US-based terrorists[/quote]
or Watch it on 'youtube'.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGG97dDfZ7E[/media]
Not only are we creating more terrorists abroad were doing it at home.
We started a war on drugs and ended up with more drug users.
Then we started a war on terror and ended up with more terrorists.
Normally I would say "Hey let's start a war on jobs and money and see how that goes" but that's been going on since the Reagan years and NAFTA and the results ain't been good.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48022308]Picture is taken completely out of context. The 'mission accomplished' is referring to the end of major combat operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom.[/QUOTE]
Last time you defended that photo, you said it was just referring to that individual ship's mission during the invasion. Which one was it? Because it's pretty crystal clear what implication Bush was going for.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48022308]Picture is taken completely out of context. The 'mission accomplished' is referring to the end of major combat operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom.[/QUOTE]
It's probably best to not be defensive about the failed propaganda image of a terrible president.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;48024441]We started a war on drugs and ended up with more drug users.
Then we started a war on terror and ended up with more terrorists.
Normally I would say "Hey let's start a war on jobs and money and see how that goes" but that's been going on since the Reagan years and NAFTA and the results ain't been good.[/QUOTE]
This is pretty disingenuous. The war on terror was successful until we left Iraq prematurely and let ISIS grow without doing anything at all.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48027160]This is pretty disingenuous. The war on terror was successful until we left Iraq prematurely and let ISIS grow without doing anything at all.[/QUOTE]
But we were bankrupting ourselves in unpopular wars we had little reason to fight other than to sate our own bloodlust after 9/11. And at the same time, trying to impose a governmental system upon a geopolitical region where that same governmental system is nearly impossible to maintain in any real long-term sense.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48027160]This is pretty disingenuous. The war on terror was successful until we left Iraq prematurely and let ISIS grow without doing anything at all.[/QUOTE]
You mean the Iraq we had precisely 0 business getting involved in?
And on that same note the ONE "weapon" instated during all that bullshit to help us fight the War on Terror (namely the NSA) did absolute jack shit to prevent terror attacks.
Oh and there's also the Boston Bombings, pretty sure that happened before ISIS was a household word.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;48028998]You mean the Iraq we had precisely 0 business getting involved in?
And on that same note the ONE "weapon" instated during all that bullshit to help us fight the War on Terror (namely the NSA) did absolute jack shit to prevent terror attacks.
Oh and there's also the Boston Bombings, pretty sure that happened before ISIS was a household word.[/QUOTE]
Still all irrelevant to what I said. The increase in terror attacks is a direct result of leaving Iraq, not the war on terror. If we had stayed until the right time, who knows, maybe the government would have been powerful enough to stop it's spread.
[QUOTE]It also pointed out a rise in the number of so-called "lone wolf" attacks in the West...[/QUOTE]
Huh, I wonder how they got here...
[QUOTE=sgman91;48029422]Still all irrelevant to what I said. The increase in terror attacks is a direct result of leaving Iraq, not the war on terror. If we had stayed until the right time, who knows, maybe the government would have been powerful enough to stop it's spread.[/QUOTE]
1)As Seed Eater pointed out, the Second Gulf War was a direct result of the "War on Terror" global strategy.
2) The invasion of Iraq created the breeding ground for Islamic terrorism to begin with, including the rapid rise of the Islamic State.
[I]Therefore[/I] the "War on Terror" created [I]more[/I] terrorism.
Besides, the elected Iraqi government forced the US out, what did you want us to do, knock down the democratically elected government we had spent a decade building?
[QUOTE=sgman91;48029422]Still all irrelevant to what I said. The increase in terror attacks is a direct result of leaving Iraq, not the war on terror. If we had stayed until the right time, who knows, maybe the government would have been powerful enough to stop it's spread.[/QUOTE]
"The right time" would have been...?
Postulate all you want about what would/could have happened, but we spent over a decade on foreign soil fighting guerilla war against ubiquitous enemies in an inherently flawed attempt to bring an unwanted form of government to a region of the world that has demonstrated it's desire to be away from American/European influence for a long time.
And now we fly drones over several countries in the same region, creating dissidents who we then attempt to fight by blowing up civilians and "potential terrorists" in the name of preemptive self-defense.
Any comprehensive idea of the political/terroristic/religious climes in the Middle East [I]must[/I] take into account an incalculable number of variables, and for you to say things would have been different had we stayed speaks volumes towards the ignorance you hold towards the matter you're attempting to speak on.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;48022349] [b]Operation Iraqi Freedom had nothing to do terrorism.[/b] [/QUOTE]
>OIF not about terrorism
>out of context photo
your fucking me right?? yeah your fucking me
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
