T1B

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:53 am**

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature ... q_101.html

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:03 am**

Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per year before and 199.8 after) and a 237 percent rise in the fatality rate (from 501 to 1,689 deaths per year). A large part of this rise occurred in Iraq, the scene of almost half the global total of jihadist terrorist attacks. But even excluding Iraq and Afghanistan—the other current jihadist hot spot—there has been a 35 percent rise in the number of attacks, with a 12 percent rise in fatalities.

Contrary to Bush’s assertion, jihadists have not let the Iraq War distract them from targeting the United States and its allies. The rate of attacks on Western interests and citizens has risen by almost 25 percent, while the yearly fatality rate has increased by 4 percent, a figure that would have been higher had planned attacks, such as the London airline plot, not been prevented.

Gee. There's a totally surprising stat.

sin,

Not hardly

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:09 am**

If you even remotely give a shit about how tax dollars are spent in this country - even a PASSING interest...

You need to at least read this portion of the article:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature ... later.html

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:02 pm**

Why should I believe anything that a Commie rag like MJ has to say?

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:28 pm**

mvscal wrote:You mean to say that attacks are up during open warfare?!?

Who could have guessed? I'm sure those are very impressive statistics...to clueless morons.

It's not the "attacks are up" stat that jumps out. It's the combination of " Lets wage war in Iraq so we draw all of the terrorists to one place so we can kill em" strategy, coupled with the fact that worldwide, attacks are up 35%, many against US interests.

Scratch one "brilliant" plan.

Then there's this just in. Seems they're breeding new terrorists. Another total shock not really.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Following the death or capture of many top Al-Qaeda operatives in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, a new generation of the group's leaders has emerged in Pakistan's tribal areas, The New York Times reported on its website.
ADVERTISEMENT

Citing unnamed US intelligence and counterterrorism officials, the newspaper said the phenomenon was causing surprise and dismay within United States intelligence agencies.

US, European and Pakistani authorities have for months been piecing together a picture of the new leadership as they gathered evidence during terrorism investigations, the report said late Sunday.

New information about Al-Qaeda's structure came through intercepted communications between operatives in Pakistan's tribal areas, the paper said.

Also important have been interrogations of suspects and material evidence collected after a plot British and US investigators said they averted last summer to destroy multiple commercial airliners after takeoff from London, according to The Times.

The investigation into the airline plot has led officials to conclude that an Egyptian paramilitary commander called Abu Ubaidah al-Masri was the Al-Qaeda operative in Pakistan orchestrating the attack, the report said.

Masri, a veteran of the wars in
Afghanistan, is believed to travel frequently over the rugged border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, according to The Times.

He was long thought to be in charge of militia operations in the Kunar Province of Afghanistan, but he emerged as one of Al-Qaeda's senior operatives after the death of Abu Hamza Rabia, another Egyptian who was killed by a missile strike in Pakistan in 2005.

The evidence about Masri and a handful of other Qaeda figures has led to a reassessment within the US intelligence community about the strength of the group's core in Pakistan's tribal areas, and its role in some of the most significant terrorism plots of the past two years, the paper said.

US intelligence officials now believe that although the core Al-Qaeda leadership was weakened as a result of a counterterrorism campaign launched after the September 11 attacks, the blow was not as crippling as once thought, The Times said.

The reassessment has brought new urgency to joint Pakistani and US intelligence operations in Pakistan.

In February, Deputy
CIA Director Stephen Kappes accompanied Vice President
Dick Cheney to Islamabad to present Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf with intelligence on Al-Qaeda's growing abilities and to develop a strategy to strike at training camps.

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:40 pm**

Why would there be "surprise" that a new generation of AQ leaders would emerge in Afghanistan?

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:46 pm**

Well, that's my point. Its not a surprise to me, it never has been.

The trouble is our leaders have spun the "herd them all into one place so we can kill them" mentality so hard they've convinced themselves along the way that it is flawless.

Also, there are a handful of Bushites posting here who have been defending the same stupid doctrine from the day Bush announced it, mvscal being the leading proponent of the "kill em all in one place" strategy.

I never thought it would work. Now we can see that it hasn't

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:03 pm**

Well said, Tony Snow.

"Attacks are only up 35%...MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:07 pm**

Enough of this horseshit. How the fuck are we going to pay for all of this foolishness? Who has the right to squawk about entitlements when $270 million a day goes into this motherfucker?

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:17 pm**

PSUFAN wrote: $270 million a day goes into this motherfucker?

And in yet another W-kicking-his-own-ass moment...a decent chunk of that daily expenditure goes to fuelling the military vehicles. 2.7 million gallons per day, I was told by an ultra-reliable source(Halliburton is probably charging the DoD about $12 a gallon for it, just a guess).

And every last drop of it increases our dependence on foreign oil.

Classic.

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:30 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
PSUFAN wrote: $270 million a day goes into this motherfucker?

And in yet another W-kicking-his-own-ass moment...a decent chunk of that daily expenditure goes to fuelling the military vehicles. 2.7 million gallons per day, I was told by an ultra-reliable source(Halliburton is probably charging the DoD about $12 a gallon for it, just a guess).

And every last drop of it increases our dependence on foreign oil.

Classic.

I keep saying "Nuke Their Ass & Take The Gas", but nobody wants to listen

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:35 pm**

Y'know...we could always just buy the oil on the open market...but that would be too easy.

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:05 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Trucks don't run on oil, btw.

Ohhhkay, mvschanic...

DO tell me more...

Since that one was good for a laugh.

PSSSST! Uhm...a little quiz question for you...

Most trucks on planet earth run on _________ oil.

See if you can fill in the blank. This same fuel is also known as "Home heating ______."

There may be a hint to Question 1 within Question #2

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:30 pm**

I see we're being treated to the mvstard character today.

So, let's just cut to the chase, and follow your "point" to its logical conclusion...

that deisel OIL and other vehicle fuels don't come from petroleum.

Uhhhh, yeah...you sure showed me there.

Or, are you contending that the fuels used by the DoD are from American reserves, and are shipped across the world for use in the Gulf region?

Or by consuming 2.7 million extra gallons of petroleum products a day, we're reducing the demand on foreign oil?

Take the marbles out of your mouth and try again.

BTW -kerosene is a refined product, too...and it still comes from crude petroleum.

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:33 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:It's not the "attacks are up" stat that jumps out. It's the combination of " Lets wage war in Iraq so we draw all of the terrorists to one place so we can kill em" strategy, coupled with the fact that worldwide, attacks are up 35%, many against US interests.
Subtract Iraq and Afghanistan and they are up only 35%.

In other words,

You spin as well as they do.

572% increase in attacks in the two countries we were supposed to easily contain several years ago, plus 35% increase in worldwide terror attacks = NO EVIDENCE OF PROGRESS.

The math is reallly not that hard to do.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:34 am**

$270 million a day - for what? At this point, what's the reason for our involvement?

What are we getting for that?

Spinners yap about the Marshall Plan...we've already outspent what it took to rebuild Germany in adjusted dollars. Is Iraq going to turn out like Germany?

If you believe that we're going to be able to pass this off to Iraqis...well, you're just about the only one.

There's no two ways about it - this war was a colossal mistake, based on faulty intelligence at best.

Will chaos descend when we retreat? Sure it will. What exactly are we going to be able to do to avoid it? Maybe we can double what we're pouring into it...does 600 million a day sound good? Would that get the job done, idiot?

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:45 am**

PSUFAN wrote: Will chaos descend when we retreat? Sure it will.

I've noticed a mythology being concocted that the situation in Iraq isn't as bad as the MSM has been reporting it, and that
it can only get worse with a troop withdrawal.

Bullshit.

You're not worried about an escalation in violence. You're scared shitless of this:

...loosing face on the world stage.

Congratulations, America. You've surpassed N. Korea in the field of hollow grandstanding.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:49 am**

mvscal wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:Enough of this horseshit. How the fuck are we going to pay for all of this foolishness?
The same way we've always paid for it, pussy.

Require our grandchildren to foot the bill? No thanks.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:39 pm**

mvscal wrote:Why not? What so fucking special about them that they shouldn't have to pay for the world that they will inherit?

You know...a world without insane Islamic murderers.

Link?

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:25 pm**

Not gonna happen in my lifetime or yours.

Or our grandchildren's, for that matter.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:43 pm**

mvscal wrote:We're working on it.

Get with the program, you fuck. We already won the motherfucking war.

Don't make me pepper your brown ass with birdshot.

--Dick Cheney

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:28 pm**

mvscal wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:Enough of this horseshit. How the fuck are we going to pay for all of this foolishness?
The same way we've always paid for it, pussy.

Great. Thanks, Mr. Fiscal Conservative.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:47 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:
mvscal wrote: Subtract Iraq and Afghanistan and they are up only 35%.

In other words,

You spin as well as they do.

572% increase in attacks in the two countries we were supposed to easily contain several years ago, plus 35% increase in worldwide terror attacks = NO EVIDENCE OF PROGRESS.

The math is reallly not that hard to do.
We're right in the middle of a war, you fucking dumbshit.

We're right in the middle of a religious sectarian slap fest. The war was over quite a ways back.

If you think you can sell this "world wide war on terror" bullshit here, think again.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:35 pm**

woah, woah. now you're contradicting yourself.

First you downplayed the high percentage of attacks because the majority happened in iraq and afghanistan, now you're using it as proof of a global terror war?

There is no global war being fought. We're stuck in two piss dribble countries in the desert in between two piss ant religious sects duking it out for who can send the most martyrs to heaven. Most of the world is against iraq, and few other countries are doing anything about worldwide terrorism except picking up the pieces after an attack inside their borders.

When we start actually addressing terrorism on a worldwide basis, you can claim bode. Until them, we are doing nothing more than projectle vomiting our cash into the desert.

Posted: **Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:52 am**

mvscal wrote: Is it a meaningful or informative metric in any way?

Why are you asking Butard about the price of tea in China? After almost two years, this twat still thinks that the quote he features from Martard in his sig is a "meaningful metric".

Posted: **Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:09 pm**

War Wagon wrote:
mvscal wrote: Is it a meaningful or informative metric in any way?
Why are you asking Butard about the price of tea in China? After almost two years, this twat still thinks that the quote he features from Martard in his sig is a "meaningful metric".

Did Mizzou ask you to take any English courses?

Posted: **Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:25 pm**

War Wagon wrote:
mvscal wrote: Is it a meaningful or informative metric in any way?
Why are you asking Butard about the price of tea in China? After almost two years, this twat still thinks that the quote he features from Martard in his sig is a "meaningful metric".

I didn't realize how deep that wound was.

Me so sorry.

:cry:

T1B

This one pretty much says it all

This one pretty much says it all