Just a little chart showing the relative number of "international" terrorist acts from 1995 (on the left) to 2004 (on the right).
Hmmm.. steady decline through the end of the 90's, then a sharp increase. I wonder what might have taken place during that time that reversed the trends?
link:
10 comments:
Do you think that the London population will blame this bombing on the fact that London took sides with George Bush? The people have already shown resistance to England getting involved. What do you think?
I don't pretend to be an expert on English society, but they strke me as very stoic people.
Clearly - this is not a "British 9/11". They're far more used to terrorist attacks at home than American's were prior to 9/11.
There will be Brits on the extreme far left that will blaim Bush/Blair but they would pin a bad weather day in London on them as well.
I think life will quickly return to normal in London. However - this British are far less tolerant of being lied to than Americans, and the underlying simmering anger due to the Iraqi debacle will be in the back's of their minds.
Bill Bennet is just now on Fox, and he said "This will be 'Pearl Harbor' for the British." He couldn't be more wrong. London was nearly razed to the ground during the Blitz. This will not affect them to that degree.
I thought my contention that some in your political camp would link Bush's election to terrorist acts made me "not that bright." Then, you make a post about it. Hmm.
Some in my political camp? Good God..
You said..
Watch the libs blame Bush and Blair for "provoking" the terrorists.
You have an extraordinary way of generalizing and then taking it back.. You did not say "some", and you did not identify who you were talking about.. you generalized in a mean spirited way, in order to further propogate you're total mischaracterization of liberals.
I stand by my "not that bright". You really don't have a clue, do you?
God, that pisses me off. That's the problem with many right wingers and you don't have the mental capacity to grasp it. I can see, from the very little of you that I've read, that you do it over and over, don't you?
Karl Rove generalizes about liberals being weak on terrorism and "against the troops" or some such shit.. and everyone thinks that's okay..
Well, Rove didn't say Ted Rall.. and he didn't say Michael Moore.. He said "liberals".. and people like you just don't frigging get it..
Perhaps as a Brit I could comment? London was almost back to normal last night. Today everyone is at work, public transport is normal, I'm afraid that it takes a lot more than a cowardly attack like we saw yesterday to stop the UK. It's also true that the VAST majority of people in the UK left, right or middle think that Bush is having a negative impact on just about everything from terrorism to climate change.
Thank's for the insight Dave.
"All you right-wingers." Okay, I get it. It's okay when you generalize about us, but when we make comments about your camp, noooooooooooo.
But then again, I'm not bright enough to make that observation, because I'm just a dumb girl with cooties.
Oh for God's sake.. You just quoted me as saying "all you right-wingers" and I did no such thing. Just to make sure, I googled my blog..
Your search - "all you right-wingers" site:tomsneurosis.blogspot.com - did not match any documents.
Now - not only are you really not that bright, you're also a liar. Don't attribute a quote to me that I didn't make, okay?
But then again, I'm not bright enough to make that observation, because I'm just a dumb girl with cooties.
Thinking about that, it gave me a good chuckle... not bright enough to make that observation? And then you went and mis-quoted me, going so far as to put italics around words I didn't write. And then you wonder why I think you're a dumb shit?
I find that highly amusing..
And no.. it has nothing to do with you being a girl - which I never alluded to in any way, yet you felt compelled to attribute to me none the less.
I just gets funnier all the time, because with every point I make, you rebutt me by reinforcing my points, and the grandest point of all - that you just don't get it - becomes ever more apparent as you do it over and over.
So I'm saying you Marian, are not that terribly bright, and you're a liar. I'm not saying women are stupid and liars - I'm not even saying that all right wingers are stupid and liars, I'm saying you are. Okay?
I could write a book about your inability to distinguish nuance in language, as that is the trait I find common in a number of Republicans.
If you're going to cry about me being mean to you, you might as well just go do it someplace else. I don't "play nice" just because somebody can't grasp basic concepts. I berate them for being in over their heads. This is politics, and it's not for the weak of heart, or sensitive of feelings.
If you want to debate me, great, but you have to stop lying.
I wouldn't presume to answer for Dave, but I don't know how anyone could think "fighting the terrorists" is something we don't want to do. I think what Dave is saying here is that the vast majority of Brits think Bush's strategy is inept and incompetent. I would point out that the vast majority of people in the entire world agree. Just look at Bush's ratings here in the United States. He has a sub 50% approval rating. The ratings are worse everywhere else.
Iraq never had anything to do with terrorism. I've said that a few times.. But let me clarify that. It's impossible to know if "never had anything" is true. It is impossible to know. But - Iraq clearly was not in the same league of terrorist breeding ground that many other countries are, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and so on.
In addition, Iraq was secular for the most part. I suspect that it will become another Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt - a radical Islamic theocracy.
So, I'm still confused how Iraq is the "central front in the war on terror". Iraq had to be pretty low on the totem pole of Muslim nations creating and supporting terrorist.
But - then there's the fly paper theory. Bush likes his "fight them in Iraq instead of fighting them at home" bullshit. The London bombing has proven that's a load of crap.
I am absolutely and fully convinced that you cannot kill all the terrorists, and you cannot stop them. The only thing you can do is change their desire to commit terrorism, and you can't do that by invading and occupying sovereign Muslim nations.
As for climate change - I'm totally unqualified to comment. But, I will say - this is a really big planet, with very complex systems affecting climate. Long before man invented carbon monoxide, the climate shifted in all sorts of crazy ways.
I doubt there's much that we're doing right now that can affect climate in the long run. But, like I said, I'm ignorant on that topic.
Post a Comment