Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

November 20, 2007
Absurd Terror Stats

In Sunday’s LA Times Professors David Cole and Jules Lobel asked Are We Safer?

We have more than six years of experience with the Bush administration’s war on terror, and there has not been another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. But can the administration take credit for that?

They present: A report card on the war on terror (pdf).

The first item on their card is the "Worldwide
Number of Terrorist Attacks" displayed in three datapoints:

  • 2001  – 1,732 Terrorist Attacks
  • 2005  – 4,995 Terrorist Attacks
  • 2006  – 6,659 Terrorist Attacks

Yuk, now I’m scared!!!

The attributed source is the Rand-MIPT ‘Terrorism Knowledge Database‘. Using it I produced two charts:

This one shows quarterly terrorism incidents worldwide charted by region.


bigger

It is obvious from that any big increase in ‘terror incidents’ after 2000 is somewhat related to the Middle East (blue). (The dark grey line are regional independence fights in Kashmir and Baluchistan)

Now here is the graph of ‘terror incidents’ in the Middle East charted by country.


bigger

The reason for the increase of the "Worldwide
Number of Terrorist Attacks", as registered in the linked database, is obviously the War on Iraq. The chart also shows two smaller peaks in the West Bank/Gaza (yellow) and Israel (green). These coincide with the 2004-2005 pre-withdrawl action of Israel in Gaza and its 2006 war on Lebanon (green).

But it is preposterous to characterize the violent acts of some local resistance, which is fighting against an illegitimate attack
and occupation, as ‘terrorism’.

The only thing these numbers prove is that terrorism is a REaction and not some independent action. ‘Terrorists’ act against one because one DOES something, not because one IS something. Most of these acts are local and obviously reactions to a state entity’s aggression.

Aside from such local reactions there is hardly any international terrorism. The question "Are We Safer?" and the "report card" are based on the wrong assumption that such terrorism exists in any relevant numbers.

Does Pachyderm Repellent work?

We have more than six years of experience with building windmills in north Germany, and there has not been any Elephant attack on north German soil. But can the government take credit
for that?

Good questions, but it neither makes sense to ask them nor to look for answers. That is – unless someone pays you to make an op-ed ‘report card’ about it.

Posted by b on November 20, 2007 at 16:27 UTC | Permalink
Comments

b, check your rand Terrorism Knowledge Database link

Posted by: annie | Nov 20 2007 17:01 utc | 1

annie – thanks, corrected

Posted by: b | Nov 20 2007 17:20 utc | 2

Occupation breeds terror

When I first moved to this country, I was prepared to play my part by enlisting in the IDF and serving in the West Bank. While there, I saw for myself the effect my mere uniformed presence had on the Palestinians I encountered on a daily basis. Every interaction took place with me holding all the cards – it was me with the loaded gun in my hands; it was me barking instructions to “stop or I’ll shoot”, “lift up your shirt”, “don’t come another step closer”; it was me playing with my quarry as though they were puppets on the end of short, taut strings.
…
The unspoken truth that every Israeli knows, uncomfortable as it may be to admit, is that occupation breeds terror. Every incursion, every raid, every curfew and collective punishment, drives the moderates into the welcoming arms of the militants, who promise to return their honour and their wounded pride by fighting the oppressors’ fire with fire of their own. And that fact alone should be enough to shake Israelis awake and realise that the occupation has to end, as much for our own security as for the sake of the Palestinians that we’re subjugating.
…

Posted by: b | Nov 20 2007 18:21 utc | 3

So the Rand-MIPT counts the iraqi terror attacks but not the US terror attacks in the terror-war?
Oh yes, it only counts as terrorism if you do not have an air force. Silly me.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Nov 20 2007 18:58 utc | 4

it only counts as terrorism if you do not have an air force.
Can’t find the link but some ‘terrorist’ once said something like: “Give me F16’s and I’ll stop using pipe bombs.”

Posted by: b | Nov 20 2007 19:27 utc | 5

Seems so logical, that one has to conclude they don’t want to get it.

Posted by: Ben | Nov 20 2007 19:34 utc | 6

“All the bombs are in the hands of terrorists!”

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Nov 20 2007 21:26 utc | 7

b @5 – you’re probably thinking of a line from the film the battle of algiers.

Posted by: b real | Nov 20 2007 22:51 utc | 8

Top Gulf police chief flays US on Al Qaeda and Iraq

A top Gulf state police chief yesterday surprised an international security forum by accusing the United States of increasing support for Al Qaeda and its allies by demonising Muslims. “We the Arabs are charged with terrorism no matter how much we try to reassure them (the Americans),” Lieutenant General Dhahi Khalfan Tamim, police chief of Dubai, told the forum in Bahrain.
(snip)
“How can an Arab accept a foreigner who walks in his streets carrying a weapon,” Tamim told the Crans Montana global security forum, where the participants included former British home secretary Michael Howard, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mohammadi. Referring to the alleged US role in once helping Osama bin Laden’s activities when he was with the mujahedeen fighting the Soviet presence in Afghanistan in the 1980s, Tamim said “you created the Satan” and Western experts had taught the Al Qaeda forerunners “how to make and explode bombs”.
His speech was applauded by Middle East participants in the audience but surprised Western observers.
(snip)

All the more striking coming from the police chief of Dubai!

Posted by: Alamet | Nov 21 2007 0:33 utc | 9

here’s the working definition of terrorism that the rand corp uses for their “knowledge base”

Terrorism: Terrorism is violence, or the threat of violence, calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm. These acts are designed to coerce others into actions they would not otherwise undertake, or refrain from actions they desired to take. All terrorist acts are crimes. Many would also be violation of the rules of war if a state of war existed. This violence or threat of violence is generally directed against civilian targets. The motives of all terrorists are political, and terrorist actions are generally carried out in a way that will achieve maximum publicity. Unlike other criminal acts, terrorists often claim credit for their acts. Finally, terrorist acts are intended to produce effects beyond the immediate physical damage of the cause, having long-term psychological repercussions on a particular target audience. The fear created by terrorists may be intended to cause people to exaggerate the strengths of the terrorist and the importance of the cause, to provoke governmental overreaction, to discourage dissent, or simply to intimidate and thereby enforce compliance with their demands.

their glossary makes no account for “state terrorism”, by far the greatest source/scale of terrorism incidents throughout the world, though there is an entry for “state-sponsored terrorism”, though not the same thing.
state violence & threats of violence, of course, are not considered illegitimate or “off the table.”

Posted by: b real | Nov 21 2007 3:14 utc | 10

meant to type illegal rather than illegitimate

Posted by: b real | Nov 21 2007 3:18 utc | 11

# 11 actually, I prefer to illigitimate to illegal — it suits the bastards better!

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Nov 21 2007 6:21 utc | 12

#10,
Curious definition, in that like you say there’s no reference to the sponsorship of terrorism. Indeed, if you prefix the word terrorism with “state sponsored” all the inferences remain applicable, if not more so. The implicit point I imagine is to disassociate “state sponsored” from the word “terrorism” as if terrorism is never the agent of the state, but rather only the recipient or victim of terrorism. A rather pathetic irony considering that maintaining a “monopoly of violence” is a central characteristic of a “state”. In what appears to be an expansion of the word terrorism, to include any of the behavior so defined – is actually a reduced definition, eliminating the most endemic agent of terror, the state and its monopoly.

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 21 2007 7:49 utc | 13

b,
I agree with your assessment.
I would like to add that the war is still a crime against peace even if we were reducing the number of ‘terrorist attacks’, of which we most certainly are not. We will have to apologise to the German nation for finding some of their leaders guilty of invading Poland, if we now say that ‘preemptive’ invasions of nations are just fine. It is the moral crime that is the most important aspect.

Posted by: bucky | Nov 21 2007 12:08 utc | 14

real pachyderm repellent – may work against “terrorists” or DHS agents too.
World’s Hottest Chili Used as Elephant Repellent

Conservationists working on the experimental project in Assam state said they have put up jute fences made of strong vegetable fiber and smeared them with automobile grease and bhut jolokia chilies. These peppers, also known as ghost chilies, have been certified as the world’s hottest by the Guinness Book of World Records.
Wildlife experts also were using smoke bombs made from the chili to keep away elephants.

Posted by: b | Nov 21 2007 13:00 utc | 15

War on terrorism leads to rights abuses – watchdog

KAMPALA, Nov 19 (Reuters) – Torture, beatings, executions, racist stereotyping and intrusive surveillance are among the abuses countries are committing in the name of fighting terrorism, a rights watchdog said on Monday.
The Commonwealth Human Rights Commission said since the 9/11 attacks, many nations had been using the military for police work in the so-called “war on terror”, leading to brutal policing techniques, including extra-judicial killings.
The Commission made the allegations in a report which reviews human rights in the 53-nation body before the biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM).
…
The report notes that despite 13 international counter-terrorism conventions and resolutions, countries have failed to agree on a definition of terrorism.

rpt: Stamping Out Rights: The impact of anti-terrorism laws on policing

In many countries of the Commonwealth, counter-terrorism measures are reshaping civilian policing in violation of fundamental human rights and posing a serious challenge to meaningful democratic police reform. This is happening in a number of ways – significantly through the enactment of laws that include vague definitions of terrorism which allow for the laws to be broadly applied and extend police powers to arbitrarily stop and search, use unreasonable and excessive force, arrest without warrant, preventively detain, detain suspects for long-periods without charge and limit fundamental due process rights. Counter-terrorism policing in many countries is undermining already struggling police oversight and accountability instruments designed to safeguard against police abuse. This is happening with anti-terrorism responses that: give police increased immunity from prosecution, see police forces joining with unregulated security bodies (such as military and intelligence forces), the integration of national and foreign security actors, and the scope for unreported secret police operations under new laws.
…
The report examines:
* new counter-terrorism legislation and measures that have been adopted in the Commonwealth;
* how these measures are impacting policing on the ground;
* the compatibility of legislation and policing practices at international law;
* how anti-terrorism policing measures are impacting on police oversight and accountability mechanisms; and
* offers recommendations to Commonwealth heads of government, member states, heads of police, civil society and donors.

Posted by: b real | Nov 21 2007 19:13 utc | 16

#14 – exactly so

Posted by: jcairo | Nov 21 2007 23:35 utc | 17

Professor David Cole is bragging about his stupid use of false statistics at balkinization

Sometimes a statistic is worth a thousand words. In an effort to demonstrate as simply as possibly how ineffectual and costly the war on terror has been, Jules Lobel and I created a Report Card on the War on Terror, which was published in the LA Times on November 18. It reveals, in a single, digestible page – the print equivalent of a “soundbite” — that the Bush administration’s strategy has failed. We think this is an especially important message in this election season, where too many Democrats seem to be running scared on the issue of national security. Among other things, the report card shows that since the administration declared its war on terror, the number of terrorist attacks worldwide has increased exponentially; we have discovered not a single Al Qaeda cell in the United States; we have obtained only two convictions for an attempted terrorist act (and only one of those was an Islamic terrorist); none of the more than 5,000 foreign nationals we preventively detained as “suspected terrorists” in the first two years after 9/11 turned out to be a terrorist; and we have spent about twice as much on the war in Iraq (where nearly 4,000 Americans and approximately 80,000 Iraqi civilians have died already) than we have on homeland security.

How did this guy earn the title of Professor? The stats he uses prove nothing either way.

Posted by: b | Nov 22 2007 5:09 utc | 18

Back to Main