Terrorism attacks rose nearly 30%.
McClatchy reports that a State Department terrorism report due out next week will show a nearly 30 percent increase in terror attacks worldwide in 2006. “Based on data compiled by the U.S. intelligence community’s National Counterterrorism Center, the reports says there were 14,338 terror attacks last year, up 29 percent from 11,111 attacks in 2005. Forty-five percent of the attacks took place in Iraq.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
30 Responses to “Terrorism attacks rose nearly 30%.”
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Site
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Dobbs
Drudge
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
And we should believe this report because…?!
We may have an increase, we may have a decrease, it may remain about the same. I’m not placing my bets on a state department report.
April 27th, 2007 at 5:27 pmSo how would the left solve this difficult problem?
April 27th, 2007 at 5:29 pmSee, we are winning because terrorism attacks are increasing. Just shows how desperate these dead-enders are, 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 mushroom clouds… Clinton did it too and Pelosi hates America!
/Bush, Perino, GOP trool’s ass
April 27th, 2007 at 5:30 pmThe Repugs will use this to keep up their bellicose and belligerent approach.
They will use this to bolster the Giuliani argument that this is why it’s important to be tough.
And, they will say “It’s Clinton’s fault.”
(of course this has nothing to do with the increased hostility directly traceable to the war in Iraq and our occupation of a muslim country)
April 27th, 2007 at 5:33 pmThink of the war as a video game. The higher the body count the more obvious it is that we are winning.
April 27th, 2007 at 5:34 pmKind of on topic but going on the whole “if a democratic candidate wins” meme.
Apparently, according to “pundits” such as Coulter, the reason the USA suffered the 911 attacks was of because of the foreign policy of Clinton.
So going by the same logic any attacks after Bush has gone will be because of the Bush foreign policy and have nothing to do with the president being a democratic president……correct??????
April 27th, 2007 at 5:38 pm#5 ahhhh…. gotcha. Forgot that we are in the realm of WoW being the basis for foreign policy.
(Wry grin)
April 27th, 2007 at 5:40 pmThere is only one way to end terrorism, and that is to not be afraid. I imagine that concept is beyond you, but take comfort in the fact that it is not a “liberal” concept, but an “American” one.
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
April 27th, 2007 at 5:43 pmPatrick1: “So how would the left solve this difficult problem?”
Good question. Admittedly, it’s difficult to solve a technique, but here are my thoughts:
Step 1. Don’t invade countries that we have absolutely no reason whatsoever to invade.
Step 2. Two-state solution, get the settlements out of the West Bank, tear down the apartheid wall
Step 3. Stop supporting dictators who are politically/financially convenient to us who also happen to be oppressing pres and religious freedom in their countries
Step 4. Address root causes of poverty inequality worldwide through targeted capacity-building and promotion of fair trade policies
That oughta be a good start.
April 27th, 2007 at 5:43 pm#8 in in reference to #2.
April 27th, 2007 at 5:44 pm#6 But even that doesn’t square, since they blame Clinton for the 1993 WTC bombing as well, even though that occurred 8 weeks into the Clinton administration.
You see, Clinton and his penis is like the Doc Brown DeLorean, it defies time and space, and no matter when or where bad things happen, it si the fault of Clinton (and his Johnson).
April 27th, 2007 at 5:44 pmI think that if the State Department has information that there will be more terrorism we should believe them. It should be obvious that the government is planning more attacks. They have had a lot of practice by attacking the WTC two times, the Pentagon, Madrid, London and the rest. So like I said they should know what will happen since odds are that they will be the ones doing it!
April 27th, 2007 at 5:49 pmNow the A*holes will claim that this is somehow proof of their success, because there would’ve been some even greater increase, had we not conjured up the world’s dumbest response to 9/11.
April 27th, 2007 at 5:53 pmIf Clinton was president it would have been worser.
April 27th, 2007 at 5:55 pmThe increase in terror attacks means that the insurgents are in their last throes, if you will.
April 27th, 2007 at 5:56 pmIt’s just the 14,338 terror attacks per year that bother people.
April 27th, 2007 at 6:00 pmAnyone hear about America’s Mayor and his kind words about Democrats in NH last Tuesday and how safe we’d keep America? Here’s my response to Hizdizzoner.
April 27th, 2007 at 6:01 pmRead it and weep ladies!
April 27th, 2007 at 6:10 pmI’m surprised nobody has called BS on this. I looked at my google news today and I see “Top Al Quaeda Commander” is “caught by CIA” and some other Rovian brush strokes. Isn’t it boringly obvious that it’s BS and it’s timed to coincide with the MSM’s ravaging of Alberto Gonzales and the congressional subpoenas regarding the attorney firings and ALL the other oversight they’re getting started on? Oh, and most likely it came out to make american’s scared (scared of attacks), and more war-oriented (captured al quaeda man = success, so keep at it and keep funding the war!!) in the perparation for some nasty lies from Bush’s future press conference where he exercises his VETO power on the timetable bill where he’ll use this manufactured Rovian made press as an example of why the democrats are “wrong.”
But maybe it’s just me seeing this painfully obvious sign, because no, there will not be a rise in terrorist attacks 30% or whatever. And that al quaeda commander was probably caught months ago by someone other than the CIA (pakistan police probably) and saved for just such an occaision as this (to boost war morale and fear)..or he actually doesn’t even exist and they just used a photo of some iraqi man they kidnapped and raped and tortured.
April 27th, 2007 at 6:18 pmStep one make sure republicans never run all three branches of government ever again.
Step two have the president apologize to the world for screwing the hell out of everything.
Step three stop making more terrorists by attacking countries that have nothing to do with terrorism.
Step four go after the terrorists themselves, where they are. The fly paper method doesn’t work. Al Qaeda is in Pakistan.
Step five make sure republicans never run all three branches of government ever again.
April 27th, 2007 at 6:24 pmSo how would the left solve this difficult problem?
Comment by Patrick1 — April 27, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
Imbeach Bush and Cheney. Give Pelosi the job. Maybe SHE would be willing to listen to experts instead of following her own agenda.
April 27th, 2007 at 6:26 pm# 20 Shane,…dito…Blessings
April 27th, 2007 at 6:42 pmTerror attacks could increase 3000% and you’d still have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than dying in some sort of attack.
Terror is all about fear, and on that note, Bush and his administration are the worst terrorists that our nation has ever seen.
It’s 6pm. Time to go home! Now I have to get in that death trap called a car and drive next to a bunch of cell phone talking crazies on the highway! I’ll take the possible chances of dying in a terror attack over an everyday ride home from work in a car ANYDAY!!
April 27th, 2007 at 6:59 pmYou can say that again. I have to drive through Irvine, CA to get to my home in Lake Forest and that is nothing but giant SUV driving republican cell phone yappers. If not, it is all of the dumb a$$es in their BMWs or Mercedes who can’t drive worth a fu*k. Too busy plotting the destruction of the United States to learn how to drive.
April 27th, 2007 at 7:17 pm#23 Yikes, the OC. The epicenter of shallow narcissists, Botox freaks driving bright yellow Hummers.
April 27th, 2007 at 7:27 pm24. Yellow hummers.
Haha!!!!
April 27th, 2007 at 7:41 pmA yellow hummer sounds like some sorta weird sex act.
April 27th, 2007 at 7:41 pmSo how would the left solve this difficult problem?
Comment by Patrick1 — April 27, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
How come nobody listed as step one defining a non-HYPOCRITICAL definition of terrorism?
If Osama Bin Ladin had a part in 9-11 and the government has some evidence other than that fake video they tried to pass off, then he should be hunted down by the POLICE of the world and brought to trial for that crime.
But we KNOW George W Bush had a part in 3-20, therefore why has he not been hunted down by the POLICE of the world and brought to trial for that crime?
No people, the first step in stopping terrorism is to stop being HYPOCRITES and acting like OUR warriors should be given an excuse for their crimes against humanity, while THEIR warriors are not to be given that same “only following orders” lame ass excuse!
HYPOCRISY is the worse sin because it means you can never be wrong, because you always “imagine” that you are right.
If you are gonna have a “war on terror”, then United States has to be the first place to be attacked.
April 27th, 2007 at 8:15 pmSo how would the left solve this difficult problem?
Comment by Patrick1 — April 27, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
How about this: CHANGE COURSE. Or better yet, CHANGE “DECIDERS.”
Bush isn’t that stupid. He knows that “stay the course” is the only way he can save his legacy. If he changes course now, he will be blamed for everything–the failure of his policies, the bad decisions and all their consequences. He will be forced to admit his mistakes.
BUT, if he waits it out, he can always blame the inevitable change in policy (redeployment, etc.) for all of the subsequent problems. Redeployment will necessarily be a messy business, and you can bet that everyone on the right won’t hesitate to say, “See! It’s the liberals lack of will to continue the fight that has cause this mess!” If a Democrat administration comes to power, the left will be blamed for every messy situation that occurs during the post-Bush cleanup.
We need to find ways to clearly hold the current administration accountable NOW so that, in the future, we don’t forget whose policies ultimately caused this mess. Articles of impeachment may be one way, but there needs to be some sort of clear and undeniable case laid before the nation about this administration’s lies and deceit before Bush leaves office. All the piece-meal news stories about this administration’s malfeasance have an effect, but in isolation they are too weak to convince those who haven’t yet seen the truth, and still follow Bush because they don’t know what else to do, or are swayed by his stubborn ‘resolve’ (sic).
April 27th, 2007 at 8:37 pm#2 — Let’s go back to the beginning: When the Taliban offered OBL to Bush, upon seeing the evidence, your buddy George have negotiated with them and shown them the fricking’ evidence. Only problem was: Bush didn’t HAVE any evidence. That’s why he didn’t call of an official FBI investigation of the “crime” scene. In fact, go to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist website and yes, you’ll see OBL there. But, read what he’s wanted FOR: Nowhere on the his “crimes” will you see 9-11. Here’s why: The FBI doesn’t have conclusive proof that OBL was responsible.
Second, when our SF forces had OBL trapped in Afghanistan, they were ordered to turn over the capture to Afghani forces. Then, the SF operatives who had been mission-essential were sent to Iraq, to be replaced by “green” SF operatives. Makes no sense.
Third, listen to, and I mean REALLY LISTEN to the military commanders, such as Shinsheki, who provided reasoned and knowledgeable rationale for requesting 500,000 troops to accomplish the mission.
Fourth, have the patience to allow the UN inspectors to finish their inspections — but no, George wouldn’t have that. Funny he didn’t have the patience to forestall a “war” but now he demands we have patience for an illegal occupation of a country that did NOT attack us and HAD NOTHING to do with 9-11.
I’m sure if you would have just thought about this, you could have come up with your own solutions. How’s that kool-aid?
April 28th, 2007 at 5:34 pm