Ongoing terrorist actions

[Tarantulas]

I was going to put these in separate threads but decided not to. It looks like there's a lot going on today.

Paris metro feared target of suicide bombers

John Hooper in Rome and Jon Henley in Paris
Thursday June 10, 2004
The Guardian

An alleged Egyptian bomb expert arrested in Milan this week was feared to be planning an attack on the Paris metro in the next three days, modelled on the one in which 191 people died in Madrid on March 11.

According to one Italian media report last night, police seized him to avert a massacre before Sunday's European elections. The Madrid bombings took place three days before Spain's general election.

A French interior ministry source said last night that Paris had been informed of the allegations, but played down the claim. "Searches carried out [in France] on the basis of information relayed by the investigators have not allowed a potential attack target to be identified," a French police source told the Reuters news agency.

Police in Milan arrested a man Italian officials now identify as Hamed Sayed Osman Rabei on Monday. The 33-year-old man, also known as Mohammed the Egyptian, is suspected of playing a leading role in the Madrid train bombings and is wanted by the Spanish judicial authorities.

Link

Suspected nail bomb injures 22 in Germany

By JOACHIM SONDERMANN
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

COLOGNE, Germany -- A bomb packed with nails exploded in a shopping street Wednesday, injuring 22 people, police said. Authorities said they had no immediate evidence of a terrorist attack.

The blast shortly before 4 p.m. spewed broken glass and debris along the street in the Muelheim neighborhood, a Turkish area of family shops and three-story residential buildings.

Twisted carpenter's nails littered the street, leading police to conclude that they were part of an explosive device. A wrecked bicycle lay in front of the two most heavily damaged shops, prompting speculation that the bomb might have been on it.

Police said in the hours after the blast that they had no suspects or motive.

"Considering the current evidence, it was a nail bomb," Cologne police spokesman Juergen Goebel told ARD television.

Link

This next one comes from the Phillipines:

Captured al-Qaeda suspect questioned on plans

By FERNAN MARASIGAN
TODAY Reporter

Defense Secretary Eduardo Ermita disclosed that government’s anti-terrorism task force is currently interrogating suspected international terrorist Hassan Bakre, who was nabbed in Maguindanao, to find out plans of the al-Qaeda terrorist network of Osama bin Laden in the Philippines.

He said initial tactical interrogation has been conducted on Bakre but the task force is still grilling him to uncover the plans of al-Qaeda in the country.

This is the reason why the task force has not yet presented Bakre to the public.

“The usual practice is to conduct tactical interrogation. What we can extract from him. We might get information from him and find out who his companions are,” said Ermita.

"They [al-Qaeda] might have plans for the projection of their activities outside Lanao or Maguindanao. These are the things we want to find out. We don’t want to preempt it [terror plot], so that’s the reason why he has not been presented,” Ermita added.

A source earlier revealed that Bakre has admitted teaching some 500 Islamic students on bombing techniques at a Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) stronghold in Camp Omar in Datu Piang, Maguindanao.

Link

It looks like the world is really starting to wake up and start investigating the bad guys.

[h2g2Fan]

It looks like we're not winning the war on terror.

[Malcolm Wright]

Originally Posted by Tarantulas

It looks like the world is really starting to wake up and start investigating the bad guys.

I don't know that they ever stopped investigating into terrorist cells...

M.

[DngrMse]

Originally Posted by h2g2Fan

It looks like we're not winning the war on terror.

And the metric used to measure success/failure would be the fact that terrorist attacks are at the lowest levels since 1969. If this is failure, I'll have seconds, please.

[h2g2Fan]

Originally Posted by DngrMse

And the metric used to measure success/failure would be the fact that terrorist attacks are at the lowest levels since 1969. If this is failure, I'll have seconds, please.

Not true. The number of attacks is at its lowest level since 1969. This is a very misleading statistic.

But if you're so set on using it, you've got to realize these numbers show an increasing # of attacks against Americans, and no that does not count any of the deaths in Iraq.

[DngrMse]

Originally Posted by h2g2Fan

Not true. The number of attacks is at its lowest level since 1969. This is a very misleading statistic.

But if you're so set on using it, you've got to realize these numbers show an increasing # of attacks against Americans, and no that does not count any of the deaths in Iraq.

Not misleading at all. Attacks against Americans in 2003 are down by 62% from 2001, (this represents the number of attacks, 82 in 2003, versus 217 in 2001).

[h2g2Fan]

Read more than just the chart which tells you the #s of attacks.

[DngrMse]

Originally Posted by h2g2Fan

Read more than just the chart which tells you the #s of attacks.

The figures I posted are accurate, 217 attacks against Americans in 2001, versus 82 in 2003. The numbers are legit, and represent an enormous decline. If you'd like to argue that point, fine, but you'll have to provide something other than the quoted text above.....

[h2g2Fan]

Alright, well just as long as you realize:
a) the attacks/deaths in Iraq are not counted regardless of how many people on DA refer to Iraqi insurgents as terrorists.
b) these numbers are of 2003 (not current), in particular they do not take into consideration the 191 killed in Spain (by al-Qa'eda, the real threat)

[DngrMse]

Originally Posted by h2g2Fan

Alright, well just as long as you realize:
a) the attacks/deaths in Iraq are not counted regardless of how many people on DA refer to Iraqi insurgents as terrorists.

Wrong. Attacks against unarmed non-combatants, and off duty, (and unarmed) military personnel are indeed counted as terrorist attacks in Iraq. From the state dept report:

Most of the attacks that have occurred during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom do not meet the longstanding US defi nition of international terrorism because they were directed at combatants, that is, US and Coalition forces on duty. Attacks against noncombatants, that is, civilians and military personnel who at the time of the incident were unarmed and/or not on duty, are judged as terrorist attacks.

b) these numbers are of 2003 (not current), in particular they do not take into consideration the 191 killed in Spain (by al-Qa'eda, the real threat)

They are up to date through all of 2003. Come April of 2005, 2004 figures will be available in the next State Dept report on terrorism. And I don't believe I ever suggested otherwise. So I'm not sure I get your point on even bringing this up.....

[h2g2Fan]

Originally Posted by DngrMse

Attacks against unarmed non-combatants, and off duty, (and unarmed) military personnel are indeed counted as terrorist attacks in Iraq. From the state dept report:

Most of the attacks that have occurred during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom do not meet the longstanding US defi nition of international terrorism because they were directed at combatants, that is, US and Coalition forces on duty. Attacks against noncombatants, that is, civilians and military personnel who at the time of the incident were unarmed and/or not on duty, are judged as terrorist attacks.

That's one of my points. The # of non-military killed is extremely low, but I couldn't find a figure for it anywhere.

They are up to date through all of 2003. Come April of 2005, 2004 figures will be available in the next State Dept report on terrorism. And I don't believe I ever suggested otherwise. So I'm not sure I get your point on even bringing this up.....

That's six months ago. You're talking about the world now but using 6-month old numbers. Number of dead due to terrorists attacks in 2004 (so far) is roughly equal to the # who died all of last year. And we're hearing reports of another attack which might come this summer.

I also do not think it's fair to not count deaths from terror attacks just because we're at war with terrorists. That's silly. That's also about a thousand since the war started, NOT counting the Iraqis.

[DngrMse]

Originally Posted by h2g2Fan

That's one of my points. The # of non-military killed is extremely low, but I couldn't find a figure for it anywhere.

And this is a bad thing?

That's six months ago. You're talking about the world now but using 6-month old numbers. Number of dead due to terrorists attacks in 2004 (so far) is roughly equal to the # who died all of last year. And we're hearing reports of another attack which might come this summer.

I also do not think it's fair to not count deaths from terror attacks just because we're at war with terrorists. That's silly. That's also about a thousand since the war started, NOT counting the Iraqis.

The definintion of terrorism was'nt rewritten for this war, nor will it be rewritten to address your opposition to this war. It is what it is, and it says, (quite clearly), that terrorist attacks are down. Current year figures are always delayed until such time that an accurate count for the year can be tallied. We don't count attacks that have'nt happened, and we don't count threats. You seem, (on one hand), concerned that the report did'nt divine the future to your liking, while, (on the other hand), express the wish that the methods by which attacks are tallied are changed to fit your opinions. All this while seemingly ignoring that the current year, 2004, is a work still in progress, and accurate counts will not be available until the year is over.


Last week sometime, (I think), the Associated Press ran a piece where they suggested Kerry, and Nader could be characterized as Glum, and Glummer. Every silver lining has it's cloud. The future is bleak. The present is bleak. Everything is bleak. Every bit of good news is spun into a prediction of a dark, and forbidding future. I can't help but feel that you're falling into that same mindset, and have forgotten that sometimes good news is just good news.

[h2g2Fan]

Originally Posted by DngrMse

The definintion of terrorism was'nt rewritten for this war, nor will it be rewritten to address your opposition to this war. It is what it is, and it says, (quite clearly), that terrorist attacks are down. Current year figures are always delayed until such time that an accurate count for the year can be tallied. We don't count attacks that have'nt happened, and we don't count threats. You seem, (on one hand), concerned that the report did'nt divine the future to your liking, while, (on the other hand), express the wish that the methods by which attacks are tallied are changed to fit your opinions. All this while seemingly ignoring that the current year, 2004, is a work still in progress, and accurate counts will not be available until the year is over.

1) We're at war from terror, fighting terrorists.
2) When one of our brave soldiers dies, fighting terror, from a terrorist, it's not considered terrorism. Even if it's from a terrorist attack, such as a car bomb. Not terrorism.

[DngrMse]

Originally Posted by h2g2Fan

1) We're at war from terror, fighting terrorists.
2) When one of our brave soldiers dies, fighting terror, from a terrorist, it's not considered terrorism. Even if it's from a terrorist attack, such as a car bomb. Not terrorism.

I interupt this thread for the following non-commercial announcement:

H2's Bouncing Penguin sig cracks me up.

I now return you to the debate....such that it is.

There is a difference between random acts of terror, and attacks against a foreign occupying power. While the differences might be slight in many cases, the Geneva Conventions do recognize the difference, and so does, by force of that treaty, the U.S.

[h2g2Fan]

Alright, well you've made some fine points. I agree that the number of terrorists attacks/deaths have decreased statistically. Obviously, the US is safer in many ways than it used to be. I think a large part of this is we've focused much of the terror attacks on our forces in Iraq, which is good (for me), but I don't feel like we do justice to those who serve unless we recognize their deaths as a result of terror.

My main beef is I don't feel that much safer than I did on Sept 12, particularly after the attacks in Spain. I think that's my main bias here, the 'I'm still scared' bias, more so than my 'Bush sux' bias.

P.S. -

[h2g2Fan]

GG, thread revived.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...sedataonterror

Repost, but relevant.

Administration lies.

[jwreck]

Hmm... I think what it really shows about the war on terror is that those in favor of sitting on their butts and caving to terrorist are just as high on the list as we are.