Myth: American actions abroad have caused more terrorism and made the world less safe.
Fact: Terrorism is at its lowest level since 1969.
This shouldn’t be a surprise – the terrorists have either been killed, captured, or are tied up in Iraq – where they will soon be killed or captured. Along with that, the US and other nations have been confiscating accounts tied to terrorism, stemming the flow of money and weapons to terrorist groups.
In the long term, the efforts to stem the growth of terrorism by removing terrorist-sponsoring regimes, effective public diplomacy through efforts like the new al-Hurrah television network, and destroying terrorist infrastructure the war on terrorism is being won.
Dreamin’…dreamin’ is free…dreamin’…
Tired of “swatting at flies”…the moron threw a brick into a hornet’s nest.
“Tired of “swatting at flies”…the moron threw a brick into a hornet’s nest.”
Typical liberal response. Yes, Donnie, let’s just sit back and let them plan for 8 more years, then get hit again..
terrorism at his lowest since 1969…where were you in 2001???
The people of NYC, Madrid,Moscow, Bali, Jerusalem and many other cities of the world deeply agree with you I guess: 1969 was such a terrible year…
This is why I should have kept the rule about reading the argument. The study is a *yearly* study, measuring the number of attacks during 2003. As with 2002, the number of terrorist attacks is at an historic yearly low.
This is because finally the world is getting serious about combatting terrorism – although some more than others.
Jay,
I respectfully submit that if this study had concluded the opposite – that terrorism ran rampant in 2003 – you would be loudly blaming it on “eight years of inaction by the Clinton Administration”.
Don’t bother to rebut me (I’m not particularly interested in debating this) just quietly ask yourself if this is not true. Try to be honest with yourself.
While we all would welcome any good news on this front, please keep in mind that the current administration has a long-standing record of changing the data to fit the conclusions. Please read THE BOOK ON BUSH Aby Alterman and Green—available now wherever finer books are sold—for literally hundreds of examples.
Any stats that come from this government must be viewed with extreme skepticism, to say the least.
Or you could read The National Enquirer, which is about as intelligent and informative as yet another mindless Bush-bashing tome.
Again Jay is using a selective fact to make a general argument. This is only a yearly study and one that knows any measure of statistics knows that such generalizations cannot be made in ushc a short amount of time.
Second Jay is engaging in a very very very big fallacy with this argument. The fallacy here is “false cause.” Essentially Jay is drawing conclusion between two events which in this case is terroism being low and Neo-Conservative poltitics. There is NO evidence for a relationship between these two things. If you need help understanding this Jay I will provide a link for you.
http://ksumail.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-pbc-falsecause.htm
I just got OWNED.
Peace… in Iraq.
Owned by myself that is. BTW Jay your arguments are garbage. I don’t think you can post an arugment that doesn’t have at least two fallacies in it.
Peace… in Iraq.
The counterargument to such a claim is to show that a causual relationship between the factor indicated and the illustrated effect.
In order for such an argument to be valid, one would have to argue that a global effort against terrorism had no effect on the amount of terrorism, and that some other completely unrelated effect was responsible for the drop in terrorism, which is prima facie dumb. Of course, Mr. Smart-ass doesn’t bother to actually justify his response by profering his alternate explanation and actually proving his argument.
Go troll somewhere else.