US counts all "terrorism" - but not all "terrorism"

[Security]

There have been countless acts of violence in Iraq, from carbombs, suicide bombers, to grenade attacks. The US army calls these acts of violence as "terrorism". Others back home in the US obviously don't - they've decided that statistics "prove" that the world was safer from terrorism last year - so long as you don't count the wide-variety of acts of "terrism" in Iraq - because that isn't "terrorism".

I can imagine George W Bush already announcing that going to war with Iraq was good, because it helped combat "terrorism" and that the world is now safer from "terrorism" - so long as we don't count Iraq in that action, and also conveniently forget that the reason for going to war with Iraq was allegedly over Weapons of Mass Destruction - which, of course, apparently never existed anyway.

Anyway, here's the story:


Terror attacks 'at 30-year low'

US government figures suggest that terrorist attacks have fallen to the lowest level for more than 30 years. The annual report records a slight fall in the number of international attacks last year and a dramatic decrease in the number of victims.

The report says that less than half the number of people lost their lives in such attacks last year compared with the year before.

However, most of the violence in Iraq has not been included in the figures.

The US government routinely labels many attacks on coalition forces as terrorism, but these do not fit within the report's definitions.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3672035.stm

[Belson17]

I hear what your saying but yeah - there is a lot of random terrorism in Iraq. But the US has defnitely made it harder for "organized" terror, which will prevent another attack in scope of 9/11.

[vicki2]

If terrorist activity can be mainly confined to Iraq, then we've made strides. Unfortunately, I think it will take an army in place to keep it there.

[Belson17]

This is where the US totally screwed up. They didn't forsee all of this terrorism in Iraq.