mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

May 22, 2005

Which Numbers Matter? The NCTC Report Revisited, Recoded and Reanalyzed

By Demosophist

At Rusty's suggestion I'm moving this reanalysis of the Terrorism Chronology back to the start, for another run through the gauntlet. What I'd like to make clear is that I disagree that there's any implication in the numbers that we're losing, or losing ground, in the fight against Totalitarianism 3.x. In fact, we're confounding them at every turn, which is one reason they're becoming more vicious. In addition, they're raising the number of attacks in certain places, such as Kashmir, at the expense of "quality." Anyway, here's the original post, from last week:

Marc Danziger (by way of reader T.M. Lutas) recently emailed an Excel file containing the narratives from the report released by the National Counterterrorism Center entitled A Chronology of Significant International Terrorism for 2004, describing the 651 terrorist attacks it identified. (Although there has been a debate with Larry Johnson over the significance of these numbers I've no argument with the idea that we ought to be concerned. After all, I'm concerned or I wouldn't be posting this re-analysis. However, I object to the notion that these numbers are some sort of signal that we're not winning the war.) At any rate, I've been mulling over these data since Marc dropped them to me about two weeks ago, doing a lot of what data geeks do with this sort of delicacy, and thought I'd post a little of what I've found.

First of all, Marc's post on Winds of Change describes his preliminary findings, according to which it's clear that two countries, India and Iraq, account for over 3/4ths of the terrorist attacks that took place in 2004. (If all attacks listed in the report are included these two countries account for 76.2%). After looking more carefully at the narratives in the glossy report the first thing that one finds is that there are about 70 events on the list of terrorist attacks that may not belong. That's because the target of those attacks was clearly military, rather than civilian. These amount to about 11% of the total number of attacks listed, and more than 80% of these (57 of 70) occurred in Kashmir.

Now, it's true that the folks who did these dirty deeds probably were not very concerned about "collateral damage" to civilians, so I don't have reservations about including them, provided some civilians were either wounded or killed, but in 36 of the 70 cases where the objective was clearly military there were no civilian casualties at all. I'm not sure why these events even appear in a terrorist attack database, but their inclusion tends to put more emphasis on terrorist activity in the troubled Indian state than might otherwise be the case. This is not so much because the events were included for Kashmir, but more because similar events were not generally included elsewhere. But whatever the justification, as one deletes some of these questionable "terrorist" attacks from consideration the percentage of attacks in Iraq rises from roughly 31% to 34% while those in India/Kashmir fall from about 45% down to 41%. So, while the proportion of "terrorist" attacks rises for Iraq and falls for India after you do a bit of circumspective culling, those two nations still account for approximately 3/4ths of all terrorist attacks in the world. That fact doesn't change. And in sheer frequency of attacks, India/Kashmir is still more active than Iraq, or anywhere else. But that's not the whole story, by a long shot.

more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 01:22 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 3381 words, total size 43 kb.

1 Is someone only a terrorist if they only attack civilians?

Posted by: actus at May 17, 2005 07:22 PM (f18+F)

2 Is someone only a terrorist if they only attack civilians? No Al Qaeda attacks both, and they're certainly terrorists. However, terrorists aren't always engaged in terrorism. The definition of a terrorist event or attack is an attack on non-combatants or civilians. The gray area is probably how you'd class an attempted assassination of a President or head of state, who is both the Commander-in-Chief and a civil authority. But targeting police, firemen, judges, etc. is generally considered a terrorist act. Most people also consider the attack on the Pentagon a terrorist act, primarily, I think, because it used a civilian transport as the weapon. There's also the matter of perfidy, and that can get fairly dicey. What do you call someone who raises a white flag of surrender in order to throw a grenade at those who accept the surrender? According to the Geneva Accords that's a war crime, but I'm not sure it'd be classed as terrorism. Probably not.

Posted by: Demosophist at May 17, 2005 10:33 PM (d0CtA)

3 "The definition of a terrorist event or attack is an attack on non-combatants or civilians." So in iraq our soldiers are not being attacked by terrorists? ok.

Posted by: actus at May 18, 2005 09:54 AM (Ygl+x)

4 This exchange points up the fact that there is no universally agreed definition of terrorism. Some definitions (including the one the US Department of State uses, last I knew) explicitly absolve the actions of sovereign states while others assert that insurgents are, by definition, not terrorists (that's how Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Syria, etc., justify attacks on Israeli civilians). I'd argue for a definition that terrorism is violence threatened or conducted against non-combatants (Geneva Conventions defines this term, as well as principles of proportionality that allow for the reality that some collateral damage will often occur even in the best-planned attack against a legitimate target) for the purpose of influencing political decisions. States don't get a pass, nor do insurgents--if the attack is primarily against non-combatants, or conducted in a manner that ignores the responsibility of combatants to not harm noncombatants, it's terrorism.

Posted by: Jem at May 18, 2005 09:56 AM (vT9Oz)

5 actus: So in iraq our soldiers are not being attacked by terrorists? ok. No, if you read what I said it differentiates between terrorists and terrorist acts. Obviously a terrorist can commit acts that aren't terrorism. They drink tea, for instance. Are they not terrorists because they drink tea? Did you read what I said? Our soldiers are very definitely being attacked by terrorists, even though the attack itself on the military may not be a terrorist act. Can you suss that out, or do you need a Venn diagram or something? Jem: I'd agree with that definition, but there probably is a distinction between a state that commits acts of terror against its own citizens, such a N. Korea or Myanmar (or against Winston Smith in 1984), and one that uses acts of terror against the citizens of other states during a war. One is clearly a means of social control employed by a group that's already in power and attempting to consolidate or expand that power, while the other is a combat strategy designed to demoralize and defeat an "external" enemy. It's also true that totalitarian "insurgencies" practice terror against their own partisans, so in that sense they resemble a terror state.

Posted by: Demosophist at May 18, 2005 02:07 PM (d0CtA)

6 I do agree with the definition also. Those Iraqis attacking our troups inside Iraq, would not necessarily be considered terrorist. But when they start targeting civilian contractors and other Iraqis, they are. A person has the right to defend his country against an invading military force. Even if he is not in the military. (Red Dawn, yahoo). But this should stop once the (invaded) civilian authority has surrender.

Posted by: Butch at May 18, 2005 04:36 PM (Gqhi9)

7 Butch: A person has the right to defend his country against an invading military force. Even if he is not in the military. (Red Dawn, yahoo). But this should stop once the (invaded) civilian authority has surrender. I think you're trying too hard for a universal standard. One doesn't have an obligation to acquiesce simply because the national authority has surrendered, though it does make resistance far more costly. Were the inhabitants of the Warsaw ghetto obligated to surrender, because the Polish authorities had? The Baathists and the Iraqi jihadists aren't evil because they resist. They're evil because their ideology is evil, and because their acts are demonstrably evil, and because they aren't seeking liberation from oppression, but the license to oppress.

Posted by: Demosophist at May 18, 2005 05:49 PM (d0CtA)

8 I guess what my point is, that after a certain point, resistance will eventually become just criminal. There was a Japanesee guy on Guam who evaded capture until last 50's. (Some on other Islands even later than this one.) I can see him resisting in the 40's and maybe early 50's. But by late 50, if he still attack US personnel then he would be just a criminal. Once the gig is up, you need to quit. Now I do think you are not mistaken about the majority of "resistance" fighters in Iraq. I agree most are resisting just to oppress the fellow countrymen.

Posted by: Butch at May 20, 2005 03:33 PM (Gqhi9)

9 Nuke 'em. Saves you time and scares the crap out of every other similar country/organization. Also gives other countries a reason to block you out of the world, therefore creating a brand new propaganda bubble, in which you would live happily until your country goes bust and sells pieces of itself to Canada and original colony ownerlands. Just tell the Iraqis to screw themselves and switch to hydro and ethanol power

Posted by: A Finn at May 22, 2005 01:56 PM (lGolT)

10 Are we talking terrorist attacks or "terrorist" attacks here? It's important in that the Reuters News Agency has not been able to find one example of a single terrorist attack in recents years. So one might say that Bush has nearly suceeded in ridding the world of terrorism. "Terrorism" however, is perhaps a different story. Has the MSM done an environmental impact study on the use of the scare quotes? The extra """"s that are now being used may not be much individually, but in a yearly aggregate total may exceed a ton of toxic ink poisoning our land fills. I shudder at the thought that baby Harp seals could be choking on these unncessessary billions of """"s that now cludder our planet.

Posted by: Charles at May 22, 2005 04:45 PM (wQbc6)

11 It doesn't matter how you define someone, if they are killing innocent people, or our troops, then they must be killed. I don't care what someone's motives are either, violence must be met with catastrophic violence, so that all know what they will get if they mess with us. If Klinton had the balls to deal with Al Qaeda ten years ago, 9/11 never would have happened. Appeasement is for cowards.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 22, 2005 05:25 PM (0yYS2)

12 I felt somewhat pleased to see the events of 9/11. It was nice to see the selfrighteous worldpolice get some punishment on its own continent. Temporarily raised bin Laden to the status of great person. But now I'm wishing it never happened, just because of the goddamn media fuss and "war on terrorism".

Posted by: A Finn at May 23, 2005 02:31 AM (cWMi4)

13 A Finn That comment makes me want to punch you in the head. I hope I never meet you.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 23, 2005 09:29 AM (jPCiN)

14 Defense Guy beats his children.

Posted by: greg at May 23, 2005 10:38 AM (/+dAV)

15 greg agrees with A Finn that 9/11 was pleasing. He is also a filthy liar and probably never even attended college, let alone made it out of high school.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 23, 2005 10:44 AM (jPCiN)

16 ... and he has not yet stopped beating his wife.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 23, 2005 10:45 AM (jPCiN)

17 Defense Guy, I have a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology, dumb shit. My dissertation was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. I run a major research laboratory. I hold two patents for a molecular technique that I invented. You're just a corporate bitch, so shut the fuck up.

Posted by: greg at May 23, 2005 12:14 PM (/+dAV)

18 greg You are a filthy liar. No one with those sorts of credentials would buy into the lies that you do everyday. Perhaps you should ask for the money you spent on your education back. You don't know shit about me, nor will you, ever.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 23, 2005 12:18 PM (jPCiN)

19 ...and you should really stop beating your wife.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 23, 2005 12:18 PM (jPCiN)

20 Defense Guy, You're a loser. ItÂ’s evident that youÂ’re under 40 years of age. The Army Reserves excepts people up to the age of 40. If youÂ’re so Gung Ho about this war why donÂ’t you join up? Answer: Because youÂ’re a ChickenHawk and you beat your wife and kids.

Posted by: greg at May 23, 2005 12:27 PM (/+dAV)

21 I have a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology, dumb shit. My dissertation was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. I run a major research laboratory. I hold two patents for a molecular technique that I invented. You're just a corporate bitch, so shut the fuck up. Sounds vaguely like "I have a degree! In Science!" (Updated version.) I didn't know Superman Comics granted Ph.D.s in their classified section. An actual, real, bonafide scientist would know how utterly pathetic it is to claim to be something he's not willing to prove he is. Let's have the citation. It's the only thing that'll stop the laughter. By the way, would you send your children to live in a Ba'athist Arab state that harbors and funds terrorists? Or a Theocratic Persian state that does the same? Would you go yourself? Let me guess. I'm probably becoming psychic because of all the spinach I'm eating lately. Er... some longwinded counter-accusation couched to avoid an actual answer. How'd I do?

Posted by: Demosophist at May 23, 2005 12:45 PM (d0CtA)

22 greg Whatever helps you sleep at night buddy. It's clear that you have built an artificial reality for yourself, so I am not surprised that I would fit into it in the way you describe. Am I a ditry jew in your world, wife beater?

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 23, 2005 12:45 PM (jPCiN)

23 Internet resumes, the last refuge of the pimple-faced racist adolescents greg so epitomizes.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 23, 2005 02:03 PM (xauGB)

24 Robin, Defense Guy and Demo, Prepare 5 milliliters of 3M potassium chloride and inject it intravenously. IÂ’m serious as a heart attack.

Posted by: greg at May 23, 2005 02:12 PM (/+dAV)

25 thanks greg, but I'll pass. Perhaps your wife will take you up on it in order to escape your madness.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 23, 2005 03:13 PM (jPCiN)

26 Sure, greg. You claim to have a Ph.D. which matches the fact that your language skills and worldview match a high school dropout. Here is Greg's choice of headgear to protect himself from the aliens who desire his bodily essences.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 23, 2005 03:16 PM (xauGB)

27 Robin, Defense Guy, Demo, It occurs to me that you may not know how to make a 5 milliliter solution of 3M KCl. The molecular weight of KCl is 74.56 grams. So, weigh out 1.12 grams of KCl and bring up in a volume of 5 millilters. Then shoot it! All of your problems will be over.

Posted by: greg at May 23, 2005 03:27 PM (/+dAV)

28 Robin desires my bodily essences. But she can't have any. Stick with your diesel powered vibrator Robin.

Posted by: greg at May 23, 2005 03:29 PM (/+dAV)

29 Robin is a womans name? Never knew, doesn't feel like one, guess Batman and Robin were even more gaaaaaaaaaaaaaay than the assumption was before.

Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 04:33 AM (cWMi4)

30 A Finn, the other and higher probability explanation is that greg is a flaming moron.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 25, 2005 01:12 PM (xauGB)

31 It is a name for a small bird though... Guess it's one of those names that can be used for both sexes with equal confusion. Or then greg is a flaming moron, either way is fine by me. You decide, I don't want to judge funny people.

Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 02:23 PM (lGolT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 20, 2005

Fisking Robert A. Pape
By Demosophist
There's something about ths piece from the New York Times Op/Ed page that just got me riled up, and I had to tackle it. I don't really have a problem with the basic thesis that terrorism, and even suicide terrorism, is a rational strategy. But I really do not like what Professor Pape does with that, at all.

Blowing Up an Assumption
By ROBERT A. PAPE
Published May 18, 2005
Chicago
MANY Americans are mystified by the recent rise in the number and the audacity of suicide attacks in Iraq.

I'm not. I'm mystified by the absence of reporting about the success of our strategies in Iraq, and the rather obvious fact that we're winning. So is there a reason why I need to read the rest of this? I'll read it though, because I have a hunch there are illusions waiting to be dispelled. Call me psychic. more...
Posted by: Demosophist at 02:30 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 3259 words, total size 21 kb.

1 ...and the rather obvious fact that we're winning winning? You're just trolling now.

Posted by: puzzled at May 20, 2005 04:01 AM (moq9v)

2 You 'won' after you invaded Baghdad. Now you're just having trouble disposing of suicidal guerillas.

Posted by: A Finn at May 20, 2005 04:45 AM (cWMi4)

3 Nice fisk. I'm not sure that you really disagree with Pape as much as you think you do, though. You'd both agree that terrorists are being manipulated for political gain and that they're not just nuts, but being (in some way) strategic.

Posted by: See-Dubya at May 20, 2005 05:10 AM (sF5cK)

4 Open me first

Posted by: suspicious package at June 09, 2005 06:48 PM (qMxTg)

5 There is great value to Pape's analysis to those of us here trying to save our own lives and the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Posted by: a soldier at June 26, 2005 03:16 AM (0hzhL)

6 There is great value in Pape's analysis to those of us here trying to save our own lives and the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Posted by: a soldier at June 26, 2005 03:17 AM (0hzhL)

7 The NYTimes Magazine ran an article October 28, 2001 All Suicide Bombers Are Not Alike: A journey to Gaza, Cairo and Hamburg in search of what really made Sept. 11 possible, By Joseph Lelveld (sorry, no URL), that I read when it was published. It dawned on me then, and you have reinforced to me now that, suicide bombers are not real human beings. They have surrendered their will, their humanity and their very lives to their handlers. Pape has fallen into the trap, laid by Arafat many years ago, of pretending that the Bombs are self-willed human beings. They are not. They are mere instruments. Trying to analyize them by social science methods is wasted motion. The Israelis will tell you that no child of a high ranking Palestinian operative has ever suicided. The real bombers never blow up themselves or their families. Further, his occupation theory is garbage on its face. There never was a Tamil state on Sri Lanka. Saudi Arabia never was occupied in any sense of the word. And in Iraq, the bombs are foreign and the targets are Iraqi.

Posted by: Roebrt Schwartz at June 30, 2005 12:54 AM (7LYst)

8 I think we can be even more precise than just noting that totalitarianism is to blame for much of the suicide attacks. It seems to me that there is an ideology, a cultlike nihilism, found in many totalitarian movements that is common to these attacks. Couple that with some hint of a legitimate claim to disenfranchisement, no matter how displaced the target from the cause, and we get suicide bombers. My take on this phenomena is here. I am directly concerned with Pape's conclusion being 180 degrees wrongheaded (even based on his own data).

Posted by: Paul Deignan at June 30, 2005 10:38 PM (CnGGk)

9 Mr. Schwartz: Pape has fallen into the trap, laid by Arafat many years ago, of pretending that the Bombs are self-willed human beings. They are not. They are mere instruments. Trying to analyze them by social science methods is wasted motion. I'm really glad there's this sort of engagement, and I agree in the sense that suicide bombing doesn't come under the rubric of either normal consciousness or even pathology. But there has been some genuinely excellent work that borrows from sociology and public choice economics that explains suicide bombing pretty well. It may not be an entirely rational response in the sense that we think of it, but it definitely does involve "preferences" of the sort that weigh the value of one action against the value of another. The scariest thing about it is that it's both economic (in a non-standard sense) and human. Where people like Chomsky, and to a lesser degree Pape, go wrong is that they assume that because the behavior is human that it's necessarily rational in the classic sense of weighing purely economic preferences. Simply put, it isn't. It dips into a reservoir of craziness that's all too typically human, and one that just about every person I know is susceptible to under certain conditions. But the good news is that the behavior is comprehensible. Suicide bombers are not only dedicated, but they also have fears and considerations which can be played upon. It's a tough nut to crack, but it's not impossible to make the suicide attack look like a very unattractive choice to the attacker. But to do so you have to expose the belief system which has "legitimated" the suicide attack strategy. You have to expose it as a false belief in the most fundamental human sense: in that conversation that the attacker has with himself about the morality of his act. It is in that place that the "dysfunctional group" has intervened, and turned a human being into a non-human. His motives are the groups motives, and if he realized that even for one instant he'd simply stop. There'd be no way such a person would go through with the act, because the person who ultimately stands in the way... is himself. Is anyone paying attention? Does anyone know how important this insight could be? How do you switch off a doomsday device? If you knew the danger, how much would you pay to see it done?

Posted by: Demosophist at July 05, 2005 09:51 PM (820MO)

10 As a result of the bombings in Madrid, the spanish people voted for a new government, who's election promise was to remove troops from Iraq? Prior to the bombings, the encumbent government was tipped to win quite easily. If this is the case, surely the terrorist would see this as a massive success. Doesn't it therefore stand to reason the Prof Pape's theory is correct. That by moving the combat troops out of the countries, but keeping troops close by, might go to resolving some of the problems. Your view of taking out all the organisers and recruiters seems highly unlikely to happen!

Posted by: jayday at July 13, 2005 07:53 PM (heTAn)

11 Your view of taking out all the organisers and recruiters seems highly unlikely to happen! Less likely than winning over all possible suicide bombers? You're underestimating the social benefits of shame. When promotion of suicide bombing is seen as a shameful act, on par with the seduction of young males into homosexual liasions that are against their nature, it will stop. Simple as that. What the Madrid bombings exposed was the corrupting nature of wishful thinking, or what a friend of mine calls a "lust for peace." Simply put, the Jihadists think we're fools, and in the case of the Spanish they were obviously right. But make no mistake, it doesn't stop there. The reason there was a followup bombing was that they intend for Spain to be re-integrated into the Ummah as Andalusa. Just what sort of magic wand do you propose to use to dissuade such a desire? [Hint: Unless you're prepared to simply kill them, as they are you, forget it.]

Posted by: Demosophist at July 13, 2005 10:25 PM (IbWE6)

12 perhaps we should use a combination of your ideas and Pape's, remove the combat troops as well as target the people who are recruiting the next suicide bombers. It would appear that political correctness has a lot to do with not only what happened in London but what is happening in a lot of "christian" countries, where we are too concerned about offending people from other cultures and thus allowing them (in Australia's case) to sell books promoting suicide bombings and making treasonist comments about their adopted countries, without so much of a whisper from the government.

Posted by: jayday at July 18, 2005 10:40 PM (heTAn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 13, 2005

Predator Missile Offs al Qaeda #3
The last 10 days have been extremely productive for our military in terms of snuffing dirtbags. 100s of insurgents killed, more captured including al-Libbi, al- Rawi, al- Zubaydi and now this. more...
Posted by: Traderrob at 07:11 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "Let them hate us as long as they fear us"......killed more IslamicNazis!!!!....Hurrah!!!!

Posted by: THANOS35 at May 13, 2005 09:55 PM (mZYh2)

2 An old saying goes"Cut off the head of the snake and the body will die"....Im just waiting for the rest of those dopey-ass Islamic scumbags to get spooked and start popping out so the US forces can frag their ass....nuff said

Posted by: THANOS35 at May 13, 2005 09:58 PM (mZYh2)

3 But was he given a fair trial? /guilt-wracked white Liberal

Posted by: Carlos at May 14, 2005 12:09 AM (8e/V4)

4 Carlos, you're crackin' me up. You need to work on your guilt too. I hear there a self-loathing, re-education, indoctrination class starting next month. Wanna go with me? ;-)

Posted by: Oyster at May 14, 2005 08:24 AM (YudAC)

5 I assumed Carlo's was being sarcastic, I hope he was because his entire concept is way beyond ludicrous.

Posted by: traderrob at May 14, 2005 08:42 AM (3al54)

6 Oyster, I grew up a guilt-wracked hispanic Liberal even though my hispanic mom picked cotton as a child in Texas and my father was exiled from Francoist Spain. Can you imagine feeling guilty about that? Nobody had a bigger claim to victimhood than I. Yet I was guilt-ridden-- precisely because I was a Liberal. It's par for the course. My two brothers are still guilt-ridden. One of them, a school teacher, felt guilty for his comfortable life because it was acquired "on the backs of the poor". LMAO! No jokes. Today I have ridden myself of that guilt in exchange for conservative rage. It's a lot more fun. No jokes. Being a conservative is a blast!

Posted by: Carlos at May 14, 2005 09:10 AM (8e/V4)

7 traderrob the slash line (/) at the end of a post is a symbol that represents sarcasm. So yes, he was joking.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 14, 2005 04:17 PM (xkIHW)

8 The thing about the guilt ridden while liberals is that they feel that not only is it wrong to profit from the labor of another, it is also wrong for one person to have more than another. Of course, this doesn't stop them from buying Volvos and hiring illeal alien gardeners at starvation wages. Of course, the whole profit and sharing thing doesn't apply to them, only to those evil rich white people, not to be confused with liberals, who are mostly rich white people.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 14, 2005 05:19 PM (0yYS2)

9 The left takes "all men are created equal" to the point of absudity. They believe it to mean all men have equal abilities, talents, motivations and drive to succeed and therefor are entitled to an "equal" piece of the pie. It's a naive interpreation of the psyche of man and highly delusional interpretaion of the intent of our founding fathers.

Posted by: traderrob at May 14, 2005 07:27 PM (3al54)

10 "Predator Missile Offs al Qaeda #3" How many al Qaeda #3 men are there for crying out loud.

Posted by: greg at May 16, 2005 10:31 AM (/+dAV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Viva Las Vegas
By Matt from WMD:
This comes as no surprise to anybody who has been following al Qaeda in the news, but apparently there is still some sort of threat being leveled towards Las Vegas.
The Egypt Election Daily News reports, you decide:

Las Vegas has been revealed as Osama Bin Laden's number one terror target.
Al Qaeda terrorists posing as tourists compiled a detailed dossier on America's gambling mecca, according to a top secret intelligence report. Videos and photographs of a string of landmarks and major hotels were sent back to terror bosses plotting a spectacular sequel to the September 11 attacks.
The security report - marked "restricted" and circulated to U.S. and coalition intelligence agencies - was drawn up by British intelligence agents following the arrest of 21 Al Qaeda operatives. It says: "Based on intelligence, Las Vegas is seen as the prime target for a major impact attack."
It explains later: "It would be the mainland 'spectacular' that we have been hearing about for some time.
"Information indicates that any attack would be multi-centered at several sites and probably take the form of explosive devices.
"Las Vegas represents all that is wrong about the West and so symbolically represents, to them, the ideal choice of target. This elevates it to being probably the most likely target in our assessment based on what we have learned recently."

Naturally, the Homeland Security folks are mum on the subject.
Visit Matt's home blog: Weapons of Mass Discussion
Posted by: MattWMD at 09:46 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Oh, I wonder how they plan to get in to Las Vegas...could it be...hmmm...through Mexico???

Posted by: Labosseuse at May 13, 2005 11:14 AM (GoTbZ)

2 Wayne Newton won't allow it.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 13, 2005 11:31 AM (x+5JB)

3 What happens in Vegas...leads to the death of the Infidel and the ascention of the Caliph!

Posted by: Eric J at May 13, 2005 11:31 AM (hrQvk)

4 Why oh why can't they aim for someplace like Hell-A or Berkeley?

Posted by: ethne at May 13, 2005 11:56 AM (miAG4)

5 ethne, Because they won't kill their supporters.

Posted by: Labosseuse at May 13, 2005 02:39 PM (GoTbZ)

6 i guess these dumb ass islamic nut cases think that we will be bored to death if we cant gamble???....this is the best they can do???....think they are just getting really desperate now that they feel the US Armed forces tightening that noose around their scrawny necks???....yep, id say so....nuff said

Posted by: THANOS35 at May 13, 2005 10:12 PM (mZYh2)

7 Heh.. note how they mention "gambling, prostitution and drinking as being among the Vegas staples" and then go on to state how "professional" the Al Qaeda research was. Yes, I'm sure they checked all those out very carefully. Well, this *would* put a damper on my Vegas honeymoon plans (because we both know people there, NOT for the reasons above)... But did anyone notice that the source of this is The National Enquirer? http://www.nationalenquirer.com/politics/63285 Guess the Egyptian press doesn't know the Enquirer's reputation? (P.S. It's not enough to make me change my honeymoon plans...)

Posted by: Kevin B. at May 13, 2005 10:38 PM (N+Twk)

8 These terrorists have to remember "what goes around comes around". They will probably all be reincarnated as ants!!!

Posted by: Jane Grey at July 27, 2005 07:54 AM (tm3hi)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 12, 2005

NCTC Teaser and "Right to Bear" in Kashmir

By Demosophist
I'm doing some "post-coding" of the terrorist attack data that was so controversial just last week. Armed Liberal on Winds of Change sent me the data (provided by T.M. Lutas), and I've been reading the narratives in an attempt to put together some sort of measures of magnitude and quality of terrorist attacks, in addition to mere quantity. There are several interisting patterns, though the work is not yet done. more...
Posted by: Demosophist at 03:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 11, 2005

The Western Approaches
By Demosophist
The primary characteristic of the current operations in western Iraq, which the Belmont Club discusses here in great depth and with typically impressive insight, is that the insurgents aren't slipping stealthily away as they have in previous engagements. Their "investment" is anchored at these approaches to the Syrian border, and while they may be able to swing a wide arc through the country allowing them the option of relocation after they've been ejected from Fallujah or Ramadi, that arc must be anchored *somewhere*. They may not have other options. more...
Posted by: Demosophist at 04:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 3 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

E-mail a Terrorist

zimas.alansar@gmail.com
If no response, I'm sure there are plenty of gay-porn sites that would just love to add that e-mail to their spam list.........
Posted by: Rusty at 09:27 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Sent him a love note and asked him to respond using Greg's e-mail.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at May 11, 2005 09:50 AM (yBHNA)

2 I thought signing them up for southern-style (pork) BBQ recipies was a nice touch, too...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 11, 2005 10:13 AM (UZ7Ih)

3 Rusty, before I drop this dude a line and put the fear of God in him, how do I know this guy is a terrorist?

Posted by: Carlos at May 11, 2005 10:26 AM (8e/V4)

4 You don't. As a matter of fact whoever it is has never pulled a trigger, slashed a throat, or planted an IED. However, he is the administrator of a terrorist supporting website. What was the Bush Doctrine again? Something about not distinguishing between the terrorists and those that support them? This guy is not a 'nation state', which is what Bush meant, but he is a bin Laden supporter actively recruiting for the cause.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 11, 2005 10:31 AM (JQjhA)

5 The fellow running the web site is as guilty as the pos cutting a throat. My death be upon him and all his Ilk. May Filthy visit him in the night and poop in his hair.

Posted by: Obsnooks at May 11, 2005 10:33 AM (yBHNA)

6 Yup, they're terrorists. I got a chilling response from them. It begins with "Ha Ha FBI .....What's a joke!!!!", and ends with "WE LIKE THE DITH AS YOU LIKE THE LIFE, ALLAH AKBAR." And some pictures of wounded marines and jubilant jihadis.

Posted by: Carlos at May 11, 2005 12:55 PM (8e/V4)

7 this is the reply i got I'm collecting links about the war againist america or israel or other countries which kill the muslimls

Posted by: peter at May 11, 2005 01:13 PM (ntCeu)

8 If possible, could you guys forward the e-mails to me?

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 11, 2005 03:16 PM (JQjhA)

9 aight.

Posted by: Carlos at May 11, 2005 04:15 PM (8e/V4)

10 Wish I could mail them a couple pair of undies for their heads. Wonder how they feel about female domination? Hmmm... goin' surfin'. Back later.

Posted by: Bonfire7 at May 14, 2005 04:25 PM (l2XtQ)

11 I can't believe the government is actually responding to these morons saying we flushed a copy of the Koran. WHO GIVES A $HIT??? They attack us and kill people all over the world and DUH-BYA is worried about offending them and is going to investigate this? Give me a copy of the Koran and I'll flush it for you right now--and I'll wipe my gorgeous A$$ with it first!! Let them kill each other over it--it shows how STUPID they are!! As for issuing me a Fatwah--I got your Fatwah right here!! OY VEY!!

Posted by: Teri Davis at May 14, 2005 07:09 PM (8JBAv)

12 Damn, Rusty, you sure get some spunky women commenting on here! I love it! :-) Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Dar at May 16, 2005 12:43 PM (DISMV)

13 would like someone to try and hack this address & please add me to any and all mailing lists. Testing my security. bet you all cannot do it.

Posted by: Zac at July 02, 2005 11:13 AM (P3GyZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 10, 2005

Utah Webhost Killing American Soldiers
I know it's not possible for Orem, Utah based United Online Web Services, Inc. which runs the 50megs.com free webhosting service to police all of it's sites, but come on!
We are talking about the worst sort of jihadi site here, the type that trains insurgents to kill American soldiers using Improvised Explosive Devices.
If the link doesn't work that's because I filed a complaint with the company, but Open Source Intelligence took a screenshot.
If the link still works it's either because a) they haven't gotten around to taking down this disgusting site because of manpower issues or b) they are a bunch of idiots who in the name of 'free speech' are willing to see their friends and neighbors killed.
If b, then I suggest somebody go down to 1253 N. Research Way, Suite Q-2500, in Orem Utah and raise bloody hell!
UPDATE: Site down!
Posted by: Rusty at 02:32 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Scumbags! It's still there as I comment.

Posted by: Don Miguel at May 10, 2005 02:37 PM (+KixN)

2 And why is there all this stuff in what looks like Polish? It's obviously Slavic, so if it's not Polish it's Czech or Croatian. Odd.

Posted by: Scott at May 10, 2005 02:57 PM (/b95t)

3 It's because 'Polish Expert' runs the Open Source Intelligence site.....

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 10, 2005 02:59 PM (JQjhA)

4 got a 404 error. it's gone.

Posted by: FatBoy71 at May 10, 2005 11:44 PM (0EG+7)

5 I bet there's some unit in various countries' police agencies that goes through P2P-networks, blogs and forums searching for stuff about harmful/illegal websites, which they then tell the servers to shut down.

Posted by: A Finn at May 11, 2005 04:12 AM (cWMi4)

6 A Finn, You'd think...but you'd be wrong.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 11, 2005 08:27 AM (JQjhA)

7 We in Finland have police going through DC++, Kazaa and stuff like that to find and jail pedofiles and other people with huge amounts of questionable and/or illegal content in their shares, so perhaps they do some siteshutting while they're at it.

Posted by: A Finn at May 12, 2005 04:06 AM (cWMi4)

8 I used to work for them - they used to be much nicer about taking care of things like this, but once Netzero bought them, the management seemed to grow giant bureaucratic sticks in their heinies. Just be nice to the girls at the front desk - it's definately not their fault!

Posted by: A Nony Mouse at June 29, 2005 01:07 PM (6Vkus)

9 Why are you wasting so much energy being angry at the web page company? Do you want them to be big brother? I think the site was vile, but I believe in freedom of speech. Why waste time making sure everyone is saying what you want them to?

Posted by: M. Quinn at July 11, 2005 04:58 PM (uGQ5t)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 09, 2005

Nuke Rockets on Sale to Terrorists
Come on, it can't be that easy to buy a rocket with a radiological tip? Joe Gandalman brings us this little tidbit of news from the UK. Times Online:
THREE radioactive rockets capable of contaminating a city centre were offered for sale last week to a Sunday Times reporter posing as a middleman for Islamic terrorists.
The Alazan rockets, which have a range of eight miles, were among 50,000 tons of weapons left behind at an arms dump in the breakaway eastern European republic of Transdniester when the Russian army withdrew after the cold war.
They were offered to the reporter for $500,000 (Ã‚Â£263,000) after he approached a senior officer in TransdniesterÂ’s secret police, claiming to represent a militant group in Algeria. The officer contacted a local arms dealer who arranged meetings with the reporter on a bridge in Transdniester and later at a hotel in neighbouring Moldova.
Did I say don't panic?
No?
Ok. PANIC.
Posted by: Rusty at 08:05 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

1 When in doubt Scream and shout; Flap your arms And run about! Any rocket capable of an air burst with radioactive debris in the warhead can "contaminate" a city center. Get a grip.

Posted by: Brian H at May 09, 2005 08:19 PM (8AabM)

2 Come on, if that counts as nukes then even Finland has WoMDs. But still, those could easily be used to slowly and painfully kill millions of people with radiation if detonated in... let's say Manhattan.

Posted by: A Finn at May 10, 2005 05:21 AM (cWMi4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 07, 2005

Update on Online Counterterrorism
E-mail from the man who helped the FBI nab the bad guy. We'll call him Werewolf. I'll also include this in the original post, just to clarify.
I would like to make one slight correction which I consider important-- it turns out that the FBI was NOT sitting on its hands "doing diddly squat" as I originally thought.
When Werewolf first e-mailed me he was pretty ticked off. He had alerted the FBI about the suspected terrorist. They had seemed less than interested.
One of the agents told me that I may think nothing was happening during those weeks when I didn't hear from them after I'd alerted them, but in fact a lot was going on behind the scenes. Actually, during that time, apparently the guy was being apprehended. So the last thing I want to do is seem annoyed in any way with the Feds! I think they deserve some enthusiastic thanks and appreciation, they are doing a great job. Especially since in their line of work, they can never get any recognition for what they do. In short, this was NOT a case of someone getting them off their duffs, etc, if you understand me.
Seriously, this makes me feel a whole lot better about the FBI.
Secondly, we have no way of knowing if my emails or my alerting of the FBI actually led to his capture. They may have been watching him for a long time already and just needed an excuse, etc. I have no idea. Just wanted to make it clear that I am not taking credit for that.
Ok, I just wanted to put this out in the open so that the story is clear.
In any event Werewolf deserves a lot of credit for helping nab this guy.
Posted by: Rusty at 03:52 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

1 We can only hope. My gut tells me this is not the norm however this was pleasantly surprising. We need more efforst like this. Think of the millions of eyes on the web that can be a force mutliplier in this GWOT.

Posted by: Ron Wright at May 07, 2005 04:09 PM (/Uj6Z)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Hospitals Being Targetted for Terrorist Attacks?
A number of other people have posted about this so I wasn't going to do a story on it, but since a number of you e-mailed me with it I thought I'd better put it up.
Hat tip to John Little and others. NY Sun:
New York City hospitals are on the lookout for impostors trying to scope out health-care facilities and locate radioactive materials following warnings late last month from the Department of Homeland Security and the city Police Department about an emerging pattern of "suspicious incidents" in some American cities.
In an April 22 bulletin, the Department of Homeland Security warned hospitals that a string of people falsely representing themselves as inspectors for the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations had visited hospitals across America at odd hours, demanding information about the inner workings of the facilities.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:17 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Really useful targeting places already full of dying people...

Posted by: A Finn at May 09, 2005 02:19 AM (cWMi4)

2 They aren't targeting the places for attack, They are targeting the places in order to steal radioactive Iodine, Adenosine, and tagged red cells, in order to build radioactive weapons. I can understand that, since most nuclear medicine rooms are wide open spaces, that are rarely locked, and rarely checked after hours. The only thing standing between terrorists and the matierals would be a sharp eyed tech or roaming security guard.

Posted by: A Texan at May 10, 2005 01:42 AM (LtbPK)

3 Interresting... So you suspect they might be trying to make a dirty bomb from cancer medication and radiate their message of Allahs wrath near your major cities ?

Posted by: A Finn at May 10, 2005 06:12 AM (cWMi4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 05, 2005

Jawa Report Nabs Terrorist
I almost never cuss. If you cuss too much it sort of takes away from the times when swearing is really appropriate. This is one of those time.
I know this is a PG-13 blog, but every now and then you have to say what the hell.

FUCKING-A!!
From time to time we like to do something called post the terrorist's e-mail. It's not just great fun to sign up for gay porn using a terrorists e-mail, it also pays off from time to time.
One of our terrorist buddies is now in jail thanks to a dedicated Jawa reader.
I'm not at liberty to give all the details yet. I'll post the rest of the story when the reader gives permission. I've been holding back on this one for a month. I can't anymore, though.
The basic story is we posted a terrorist's e-mail. A reader with an Arabic sounding e-mail address sent off a message to the terrorist. The terrorist responded. The FBI was informed. The FBI didn't do diddly-squat. The reader kept bugging the FBI. The FBI finally investigated, and ...... drumroll please ..... the FBI now has said terrorist locked up in a jail.
The Jawa Report readers get shit done.
Oh. One more piece of information. Some of you are going to love this.
Are you ready?
Wait for it.
Here it comes.....
The terrorist in question was in the U.S. illegally.
Let that sink in for a second.
Alright, I'm going to go celebrate by taking the rest of the day off and going fishing.
I think I fucking deserve it.
UPDATE 5/07/05:
E-mail from the man who helped the FBI nab the bad guy. We'll call him Werewolf.
I would like to make one slight correction which I consider important-- it turns out that the FBI was NOT sitting on its hands "doing diddly squat" as I originally thought.
When Werewolf first e-mailed me he was pretty ticked off. He had alerted the FBI about the suspected terrorist. They had seemed less than interested.
One of the agents told me that I may think nothing was happening during those weeks when I didn't hear from them after I'd alerted them, but in fact a lot was going on behind the scenes. Actually, during that time, apparently the guy was being apprehended. So the last thing I want to do is seem annoyed in any way with the Feds! I think they deserve some enthusiastic thanks and appreciation, they are doing a great job. Especially since in their line of work, they can never get any recognition for what they do. In short, this was NOT a case of someone getting them off their duffs, etc, if you understand me.
Seriously, this makes me feel a whole lot better about the FBI.
Secondly, we have no way of knowing if my emails or my alerting of the FBI actually led to his capture. They may have been watching him for a long time already and just needed an excuse, etc. I have no idea. Just wanted to make it clear that I am not taking credit for that.
Ok, I just wanted to put this out in the open so that the story is clear.
In any event Werewolf deserves a lot of credit for helping nab this guy.
Posted by: Rusty at 02:51 PM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 563 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Goldangit! I already linked to you today. Now my 12 readers will have to get a double dose! SWEET RUSTY! You should for sure get that fatwah, after all.

Posted by: Editor at May 05, 2005 02:55 PM (adpJH)

2 what was he doing?

Posted by: actus at May 05, 2005 02:57 PM (CqheE)

3 We are a force for good. Well, all except Greg Fonda.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at May 05, 2005 03:06 PM (yBHNA)

4 This is the best use of the 'F' word that I've heard since Cheney belittled Leahy. What other wonderfull things will the Jawa minion achieve? Cold-fusion anybody?

Posted by: Sean the INFDL at May 05, 2005 03:10 PM (pskKC)

5 Editor You've got 12 readers? Damn, you are bigtime, when I double my readership I'll be in your league!

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 05, 2005 03:21 PM (xkIHW)

6 Here here. May your stringer overflow with fish.

Posted by: Howie at May 05, 2005 03:32 PM (D3+20)

7 Cap. Infidel, Yeah, well, I don't like to brag. Actually, you know what, I did at one point have a steady 200+ readership, but I got lazy. I let them down.

Posted by: Editor at May 05, 2005 03:35 PM (adpJH)

8 Dude, you must paint a jihadist on the conning tower.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 05, 2005 03:40 PM (xauGB)

9 Maybe it was this guy... http://www.detnews.com/2005/wayne/0505/05/B03-170716.htm

Posted by: Ariya at May 05, 2005 03:40 PM (IXXEm)

10 Editor I built my readership from a couple of relatives to a half dozen or so. I figure I increased my readership 300% so I can retire soon.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 05, 2005 03:45 PM (xkIHW)

11 Maybe this will be worthy of a link from Instapundit, eh? If not, tell him that he is next!

Posted by: Wine-aholic at May 05, 2005 03:55 PM (Wsn+K)

12 These guys never answer me except for that one that tried to tell me he was in Japan. Most recent post of terrorist email I think. I spouted off a bunch of crap and he did reply once to tell me he wasn't in the USA. After that he didn't want top play anymore. I hope it was him that got busted. Gongratulations Rusty and whomever it was that got this creep in a conversation. You have done a great service for the USA. All I did was flame the bastard but some one out there is thinking on their feet. I think this calls for a toast tonight: Heres to Rusty and Mr. Anonymous::

Posted by: Howie at May 05, 2005 04:41 PM (D3+20)

13 Rusty, neither Greyrooster nor Colin have posted in a while. Which one is it??? (Easy on that wine, Howie.)

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 05, 2005 04:56 PM (iBKJj)

14 Well, aren't you just the evil, warmongering American today? Good on ya mate. Go Rusty, it's ya birthday, go Rusty it's ya birthday...

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 05, 2005 05:02 PM (0yYS2)

15 Hip Hip Hooray Good news for a change

Posted by: sparky at May 05, 2005 05:51 PM (F1nba)

16 I know this off subject, but I thought you might this interesting. The link below takes you to the front page the Sunday London Times. One this page you will find the EXACT text of a memo leaked by an MI-6 agent detailing President Bush's intention to Militarily invade Iraq, and use fake threats of WMD's and the Terrorist mantra as tools to achieve this invasion. You'll also notice in this memo the clearly stated facts that at no time in the years Bush has been President Iraq has posed ANY threat to us, or to any other regional power. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html This is exactly what I, and millions of others have been saying from the start. President Bush, the White House and all other agencies involved in this have lied from the beginning and it has now cost us 20,000 us servicemen (killed and permanently disabled), tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, our national security, our economy, and our reputation. If you still support Bush, then you deserve exactly what you get.

Posted by: deccles at May 05, 2005 06:52 PM (UCtX/)

17 YBP No lil warrior either Hmmmmm

Posted by: sparky at May 05, 2005 06:55 PM (F1nba)

18 Rusty, hot damn, you get the job done!

Posted by: Carlos at May 05, 2005 06:57 PM (tFXpR)

19 Congrats, Rusty. I look forward to reading the details when you can post them.

Posted by: The Commissar at May 05, 2005 08:24 PM (qXD9J)

20 On the one hand, I thought hot damn, this is great news, on the other hand, how many others are there out there lurking, reading our comments about them???? It's scarey, in a way, that they could be ascloseasthis. Know what I mean, vern?

Posted by: Laura at May 05, 2005 08:24 PM (L3PPO)

21 I hope the poor bastard that turned the terrorist in didn't get his ISP snatched by one of the terrorist's cohorts...I'd hate to see anybody retaliate. Scarey that these terrorists areascloseasthis.

Posted by: Laura at May 05, 2005 08:29 PM (L3PPO)

22 Rusty: What's my name! What's my name! Terrorist: Dr. Rusty Shackleford! Score one more victory for the good guys.

Posted by: Tim at May 05, 2005 09:00 PM (T3ovD)

23 Pulitzers and Medals of Freedom all 'round! Congratulations, Doc, on a great idea, and kudos to the unnamed cyber bounty hunter. Operation "Spider and the Fly" ROCKS!!

Posted by: D. Carter at May 05, 2005 09:55 PM (xT77+)

24 Damn it, Rusty... this is my one phone call... that was not cool dude, not cool... that's it, when I get out of here, a fresh Adam & Eve subscription to your Mom's house in your name... Get me OUTTA HERE!!! Good work ;-)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 06, 2005 12:20 AM (CO4eV)

25 Hehe, I love the way everyone is ignoring eccles the loser's post. Hey loserdave, maybe ya need to add another layer of foil to yer hat, Rove's mind control ray is getting through! He'll find ya and send the flying monkeys after ya!!!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 06, 2005 12:27 AM (0yYS2)

26 Just as there are times to swear and times to not...there are times to use AWESOME which is overused by my 7 year old...This situation is definitely one of those times as well!! Nice JOB...

Posted by: Crystal Clear at May 06, 2005 01:09 AM (E5Eyf)

27 TOUCHDOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Chris

Posted by: Chris at May 06, 2005 06:53 AM (rOTlG)

28 Probulus, Maybe if you ignore the truth long enough, the lie will become the truth. It worked for Bush. I guess it works for Rusty too.

Posted by: deccles at May 06, 2005 08:48 AM (rhFBK)

29 deccles, Please refrain from posting lengthy articles. You're on troll watch. Would hate to ban you.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 06, 2005 09:19 AM (JQjhA)

30 Hey diccless, you don't suppose Dan Rather is over in England handing out memos, do you?

Posted by: Mr. K at May 06, 2005 10:07 AM (X7H5V)

31 "I sincerely hope that the terrorist is brought to court and tried for his or her crimes." (SOMEONE has to say it.)

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 06, 2005 10:40 AM (x+5JB)

32 Rusty, in all fairness to deccles, he only posted an excerpt from the article. I'd hate to see you do something you'd regret later on.

Posted by: Carlos at May 06, 2005 10:59 AM (tFXpR)

33 Troll watch? Cool!!! Here's a better link. This is the memo in its entirety. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

Posted by: deccles at May 06, 2005 12:34 PM (UCtX/)

34 Deccles needs to find another article to post his articles on. We are talking about something completely different. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. I will refrain from namecalling. In "FAIRNESS" carlos he is not on the subject at all. That is just IGNORANT. Don't you just love it when you and your friends are talking about something great in your lives and someone comes over and spoils it for you by bringing up something completely different, and off subject so that they can start an argument, or interject themselves into a conversation, or to focus the conversation on themselves?? Yeah we all know people like them. Lets gat back to the most important part of our conversation...... FUCKIN YEE HAWWWWW... The witch is dead... the witch is dead.... the wicked witch is dead!!! Chris

Posted by: Chris at May 06, 2005 12:51 PM (aNrPC)

35 deccles, like all other whining wankers, just hates it when something good happens and one of us get to claim the credit. Well, boo hoo. Here's a kleenex ________ Way to go, Rusty! I wish you could share details, but I will be happy in the knowledge that the terrorist is out of commission. You rock!

Posted by: Bonfire7 at May 06, 2005 08:38 PM (l2XtQ)

36 Well crap. That trackback that my software swears was send still hasn't shown up. Anyway, Right on, Rusty!.

Posted by: Ken Summers at May 07, 2005 10:40 AM (YElNr)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 29, 2005

Larry Johnson and the Numbers Game (Updated)

by Demosophist

I had a brief debate with Larry Johnson on the Jawa Report last week, that was recently referenced by an article in Mother Jones Blog. I expanded on the issue briefly here. To summarize, my position has basically been that:

1. The inference that State is somehow avoiding empirical evidence related to its policies is not justified by what we know and what Larry has reported. It's more likely that they are just tired of confounding policy with a report whose only real value is in a fruitless advocacy conflict; and

2. That the increase in attacks, even if specified and counted correctly, is not a meaningful indicator of whether we are "making progress" in the War on Terror, though Larry insists the data demand some negative inference.

In addition, I also suggested: more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 12:36 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 2237 words, total size 15 kb.

1 Duhhhhh. We decided to attack the terrorists at home rather than here. Of course there will be more attacks. I would expect lots of terrorist attacks after attacking a terrorist strong hold. Who the f cares. We are killing them there rather than in Boston.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at April 29, 2005 01:02 PM (yBHNA)

2 Allah -- I care I hope to never see another attack on my country that starts in my country. If we do not win in Afghanistan and Iraq they (Mislin Social--ts) will be able to mastermind and finance inflitrators to sneak across our borders again and attrack us from within. To me the successful elections in both of these countries in the last year is proof that we are winning. The jump in the destruction of property and # of people killed the last month is proof that we are far from victory. No matter what unit of measure is used I would be hard to convince that we are close to the end. As a first hand participant the Tet Cease Fire violation was similar to the Battle of the Bulge up to the turning point. When we turned the tide and could (and should have) go on the offensive our Sec Def said "Do not attack. Do not pursue. Hold your positions." You probably know what happened 30 years ago this week. For the same reason the success this month of the Minuteman Project shows we can win the local part of the War on Terror. Which may be the most important part.If Muslim agents can just walk across the desert and slip into America it will facilitate their gearing up for another 911.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at April 29, 2005 02:41 PM (vRg2Q)

3 Sophist, Surely you can't be this dense or this misinformed. Go back and look at the data on terrorism over the last 7 years. For starters over 80% of the terrorist attacks in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 occurred in Colombia and India. The difference was that the attacks in Colombia were against pipelines and didn't kill anyone. The attacks in India, however, consistently produced casualties. I'm going out on a limb here but I am assuming you are still capable of rational thought. In 2003, for example, 20% of all casualties occurred in this region. I haven't run the numbers for 2004 yet but I suspect they'll still be in the 20% ballpark. 2003 was a watershed year because the casualties shifted almost exclusively to countries where Islamic extremists were operating. Colombia dropped off as a country experiencing significant terrorist attacks. 2004 now continues this new and disturbing trend. I agree with you that Pakistan and India are now starting to make a good effort to settle their conflict but don't pop your champagne cork yet. Musharref does not control ISI, who has been funding and directing the Islamic extremists carrying out the attacks. As far as Iraq goes, if you count that a victory you are as delusional as Zelikow. Tell you what, if life is so good there I challenge you to fly to Baghdad and take ground transportation from the airport to the city. Then return the same. By the way, also list me as the beneficiary on your life insurance policy. Reality is you talk a good game but don't have the balls to put your life your mouth is running.

Posted by: Larry Johnson at April 29, 2005 06:23 PM (iRpAk)

4 Sophist, Cute, but you know... sorta ignorant. (Demosagnoia) Surely you can't be this dense or this misinformed. Go back and look at the data on terrorism over the last 7 years. For starters over 80% of the terrorist attacks in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 occurred in Colombia and India. The difference was that the attacks in Colombia were against pipelines and didn't kill anyone. The attacks in India, however, consistently produced casualties. I'm going out on a limb here but I am assuming you are still capable of rational thought. In 2003, for example, 20% of all casualties occurred in this region. I haven't run the numbers for 2004 yet but I suspect they'll still be in the 20% ballpark. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this basically says that the fight is both more concentrated and more intense. So? We're fighting a war, right? That's the bad news. I figured that out four years ago. I just thought we'd be in far worse shape at this point than we are. Matter of perspective, I guess. 2003 was a watershed year because the casualties shifted almost exclusively to countries where Islamic extremists were operating. Colombia dropped off as a country experiencing significant terrorist attacks. The watershed is that we attacked them at the balance point of the Middle East. In terms of their strategy, they need a sanctuary somewhere. (I think you made this point yourself, to Perl, who seemed to think a virtual or distributed sanctuary was good enough.) We're fighting Totalitarianism 3.0, which is pretty much Salafist/Qtubist Islam, not the tail end of Marxism in the southern cone. We struck them in early 2003. What'd you expect, that they'd just roll over? Is that what you normally expect an opponent to do? 2004 now continues this new and disturbing trend. I agree with you that Pakistan and India are now starting to make a good effort to settle their conflict but don't pop your champagne cork yet. Musharref does not control ISI, who has been funding and directing the Islamic extremists carrying out the attacks. Well, I'm not going to argue with the observation that we need to do something about that, but it's a tricky situation. And of course it's a disturbing trend. The Battle of the Bulge distubed people a lot too. And I don't rule out the possibility of reversals either. All I'm saying is that there's no reason to believe, from these numbers alone, that we're not winning. (And there's some reason, given other trends, to think we are.) I'm certainly not saying that our strategy is perfect or can't be improved upon, but this is the first winning strategy against this type of enemy since its inception at the start of the post-colonial period. As for detailed strategy, these just aren't the right sort of data for that sort of analysis... and I'm fairly sure that if you sit down and think about it, you'll agree. I'm not sure whether the Jihadists (aided by ISI or whatever) are attempting to turn Kashmir into their Islamist sanctuary (following the method of Muhammed) or are just trying to ignite a conflagration between India and Pakistan in order to score some nukes or make Pakistan a sanctuary state. That's not my area of expertise, and I just don't know enough about the details. But they probably have some strategy that's deeper than "kill all the infidels." And they're roughly following the Koranic narrative as a guide. Frankly with that blustery opening I hoped you'd have more. Is that it? As far as Iraq goes, if you count that a victory you are as delusional as Zelikow. Tell you what, if life is so good there I challenge you to fly to Baghdad and take ground transportation from the airport to the city. Then return the same. By the way, also list me as the beneficiary on your life insurance policy. Reality is you talk a good game but don't have the balls to put your life your mouth is running. Now you're just being nasty. I didn't count Iraq a victory. I said we're winning, which we are. As for going there, well I've been studying Arabic so I'll know the language when it's time, and I'm putting in my hours on the firing range at Q so I won't be a pure liability. The bottom line is that there's nothing about this pattern that demands the pessimistic interpretation you seem bound to attach to it, and I'm rather surprised that you insist it does. You ought to know better, with your background.

Posted by: Demosophist at April 29, 2005 09:42 PM (d0CtA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 21, 2005

Is Counterterrorism Really Dying? (Updated)

by Demosophist

OK, I'm still not sure whether I'm out to lunch on this issue of the counterterrorism report, or whether it's Larry Johnson who's missing the boat. It's certainly possible that each of us it outclassing the other on some aspect of the analysis. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to concede that the accounting method used to define a terrorist act hasn't changed at all from 2003 to 2004 and that continuity isn't the issue. I'm not 100% convinced of that, for one thing because Larry characterizes the whole debate as a "mere squabble over method," and as a methodologist, I know of no such thing. Issues of method, as I learned from Thelma Z. Lavine, go right to the heart of what we call "reality," and it just doesn't get any more momentous or important than that. But again, I'll concede the point that the method hasn't changed, and also that the State Department attempted to change it, failed, and then cancelled the Annual Report. more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 06:22 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1218 words, total size 8 kb.

1 Counterterrorism will be a growth industry for years to come. 4GW is on the rise and somebody has to defend the Westphalian State concept from such dangerous forces.

Posted by: Collin Baber at April 21, 2005 07:14 PM (FV4oJ)

2 I don't suppose it's exactly flattering to compare Larry's "Demise of Counterterrorism" thesis to Wretchard's observation that we've finally arrived at a method of exploiting Terrorism's "Achilles Heel." After all, that's more like the "Demise of Terrorism," or something.

Posted by: Demosophist at April 21, 2005 09:11 PM (d0CtA)

3 The United States is now using G.I.s to shut down gasoline bootlegging in Iraq - so much for desire that the Iraqis practice free market economics, eh?

Posted by: Collin Baber at April 22, 2005 02:00 AM (FV4oJ)

4 Collin I may be wrong, but isn't the oil industry in Iraq a state owned entity? If so, doesn't that mean that the people own it, with the proceeds going to the betterment of the society. That being the case, aren't you condemning what amounts to stopping thieves who are taking food out of the innocent Iraqi babies mouths? Why do you hate Iraqi babies Collin? Why? You know what I mean. I do find your almost pathalogical need to paint the actions of the GI's in a negative light interesting, in a makes me want to puke sort of way.

Posted by: Defense Guy at April 22, 2005 09:03 AM (jPCiN)

5 YAHOO: President Bush is going to nominate Marine Corps General Peter Pace as Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff. About time a Marine took charge. General Pace is not an armchair politican. He lead a rifle company in Nam. He served actively in Korea. Got in involved in Somalia. He knows what its like to have people shooting at you and how to kick ass. At last we have a chance to get a fighting man in charge. God bless the Marine Corps. Semper Fi til I die.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 22, 2005 09:07 AM (CBNGy)

6 U.S. Troops are being misallocated and endangered by such trivial concerns.

Posted by: Collin Baber at April 23, 2005 04:57 AM (fufbw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Well, Somebody's Weak Grasp of the Issue, Anyway (Rapidly Updated)

by Demosophist

Larry Johnson, the fellow who broke the original story that the State Department was tucking its tail between its legs and dropping stats on the number of terrorist attacks, because the number increased from 2003 to 2004, has posted an "update," on the Counterterrorism Blog that seems to counter the contention that the data method changed before the State Department cancelled the report. (He contends that they tried to change it themselves, while they contend that they tried to revert to the old method for the sake of continuity.) He seems to be saying that the only change is that the State Department has decided to ignore the data because it's disagreeable, but others have suggested that they've decided to ignore it because a new method used to compile the numbers loses continuity with the old statistics, and that therefore the apparent increase isn't real. And if you read what he says carefully, he doesn't quite make the assertion that their version isn't true. He just blusters about it alot. What's going on? Enquiring minds want, and need, to know?
more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 10:30 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 861 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Good call. The problem with saying there was MORE terrorism than last year may just be an artifact of the methodology.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 21, 2005 11:44 AM (JQjhA)

2 To clarify. In my first posting on 14 April I was trying to give Condi Rice the benefit of the doubt. Since then friends inside the intel community have alerted me to the fact that Rice and company tried to get the NCTC to change the methodology to produce a smaller number of attacks. This is more than mere squabbling over a methodology. The NCTC is still using the same definition of a significant terrorist incident (i.e., someone is killed, wounded, kidnapped, or there is property damage in excess of $10,000). The fact that State Department, who does have the lead and still maintains the responsibility for international terrorism, decided to cease publishing an annual PUBLIC report that provided both summary and analysis about the state of international terrorist activity is cowardice. You are free to believe otherwise, but friends on the inside tell me this was pure political cover their ass punting.

Posted by: Larry Johnson at April 21, 2005 12:00 PM (glxut)

3 Larry: Sorry, I didn't see your comment earlier. I'm, frankly, a bit mystified by what the issue is supposed to be. If, as you say, the number of attacks really is up then I guess the State Department can be faulted for something, but I'm not sure what. Having egg on their face, maybe? Basically what the State Department brings to the table is the legitimacy afforded an "official" report, though to tell the truth that legitimacy has relatively little impact on me or those like me, who are inclined to distrust the State Department anyway. Do I want the State Department in the lead on counterterrorism? Well actually, no I don't. I don't trust them. Given their historical preference (or should I say "addiction") for stability I just don't think they're the right department for he job. But even if they were, they may not be the right department to publish this report, and certainly the fact that the NCTC keeps the data, doesn't mean it's unavailable to the State Department. Now, if you're saying that they intend to willfully ignore empirical data in the formulation of policy that's something else. Par for the course for the State Department, but very atypical of Condi Rice. I'm pretty skeptical of that assertion, though I can be convinced.

Posted by: Demosophist at April 21, 2005 04:19 PM (d0CtA)

4 OK, down on all fours... This is more than mere squabbling over a methodology. The NCTC is still using the same definition of a significant terrorist incident (i.e., someone is killed, wounded, kidnapped, or there is property damage in excess of $10,000). The term "mere" suggests that methodological issues aren't substantive, which suggests to me that you don't quite grasp what those issues are about. Now, you seem to be saying that the method hasn't changed... and if that's the case then you've got a point (though I'm still not clear about the implications of it). But I'm sure you know that there's more to defining terrorism than the level of harm, whether of persons or property. And the troublesome part of any definition will be how you specify intent, because merely defining it by harm will include lots of criminal acts that have to political intent at all. Again, I don't want to be a pill, but I'm rather impatient at all the stuff that's apparently missing from this discussion. Is the definition of a terrorist exactly the same as it was in 1993? That would appear to be the only decent starting point for an informed discussion.

Posted by: Demosophist at April 21, 2005 04:35 PM (d0CtA)

5 Don't understand the big deal here. If more attacks, we need to hit them harder. No big deal. That is what our military is trained to do. Where we fail is in police work. Believe politicians, or Government career employees? Nobody is that stupid.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 21, 2005 05:40 PM (CBNGy)

6 My friend Greyrooster, Striking out in anger will produce more grievances and promote the unholy cycle of violence.

Posted by: Collin Baber at April 21, 2005 11:02 PM (FV4oJ)

7 Striking out in anger will produce more grievances and promote the unholy cycle of violence. You've a fundamental misunderstanding. Terrorism isn't a method of expressing grievance and its objective isn't violence, it's control... of you. And for greyrooster, I agree that we should increase the pressure, but we still need to know whether the attacks are actually increasing in order to make those decisions. Larry seems to say that the method hasn't changed, which may be true (though I need some proof). But the apparent number of attacks could also increase because people are reporting more events in terms that meet the criteria. In other words, people are more aware of the phenomenon of terrorism and are therefore reporting more events that fit the description. This is an old problem in following crime trends. Finally, the number of terrorist events would increase as people become more politically free, because the old methods of social control through state terror no longer work. And in addition, totalitarian governments are usually pretty effective at controlling both crime and rival totalitarian gangs. What we're seeing, at least to some extent, could easily be greater competition among totalitarian movements for the opportunity to control compliant populations. And in that sense what's happening in Iraq (and to a lesser extent in Palestine) is critical... because they represent populations that are unwilling to comply with totalitarian prescriptions any longer.

Posted by: Demosophist at April 22, 2005 10:33 AM (d0CtA)

8 Let me take another shot at clarification. On 13 April I learned that unclassified data on the NCTC website showed that the number of significant incidents of international terrorism had soared to 655 in 2004. Initially I did not know whether this was a result of a change in methodology or not. As I said, I wanted to give Rice the benefit of the doubt. I have now learned that State Department did not want to go public with the statistics because the numbers are up dramatically. Consider for example that the number of international terrorist attacks in Iraq alone in 2004 were 191. Remember that in 2003 there were 175 attacks worldwide. From a policy perspective this means that the "progress" in the war on terrorism may not be progress at all. In my initial analysis I pointed out that the scope of extremist Islamic activity may be on the wane. Compared to 2003 I believe (but have not seen the firm data yet) that fewer countries experienced significant attacks in 2004 from groups tied to Al Qaeda. Nonetheless, when you add up several terrorist attacks in Russia (the bombing of two planes for example), the 3/11 attack in Spain, hotel bombings in Egypt and Indonesia, and the fatalities in India and Iraq we are likely to see a death toll that could approach 2000. The numbers are going in the wrong way. I think you are misinformed on what State Department's role is. I know of several cases over the last four years where State Department recommended military action and the Department of Defense vetoed the idea. Methinks you watch too much of Fox News. Best LJ

Posted by: Larry Johnson at April 22, 2005 11:43 AM (glxut)

9 Larry, it stretches credulity to argue that State is on the front lines of fighting terrorism. Their intelligence reports have consistently been more skeptical than those of the CIA. Their diplomats have worked actively to counteract the impact of the GWOT on the states they live in. (In Pakistan, the Ambassador refused to hand out flyers seeking bin Laden, for example.) You may be able to find isolated examples where State is arguably more aggressive than DoD, but the pattern is clearly one of appeasement. Please don't insult our intelligence. We may not have your contacts, but we're perhaps a bit more skeptical of their motives than you.

Posted by: antimedia at April 23, 2005 12:09 PM (haXeH)

10 Larry: Let me take another shot at clarification. On 13 April I learned that unclassified data on the NCTC website showed that the number of significant incidents of international terrorism had soared to 655 in 2004. Initially I did not know whether this was a result of a change in methodology or not. As you know, it's entirely possible that there could be other explanations for a false accounting of an increase in terrorist attacks. There might, for instance, be a reason why more attacks are reported relative to the total. Better reporting isn't a change in method. In addition, if the original method were mis-specified and included a subset of events that were not terrorist in nature it's possible that an expansion in the number of non-terrorist events might be falsely interpreted as an expansion of terrorist attacks, even without a change in method. Not that any of this has happened. As you point out, it's reasonable to think that a jump in terrorist attacks in Kashmir might be connected to an internal conflict within Pakistani Intelligence. But does the decision not to publish the report automatically mean that State has decided to keep itself in the dark? If you can figure that dynamic out, so can they. And, as I said in another post above, it may simply be that State doesn't want to handle a report that is so closely associated with advocacy rather than policy. They may simply regard it as an unnecessary and counterproductive distraction. From a policy perspective this means that the "progress" in the war on terrorism may not be progress at all. It's not clear to me that there's anything like a direct correlation between the number of attacks, and the success of the strategy, at least in the short run. Indeed, Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent piece that argues just the opposite, and that's not only empirical but logical... from one of the great military historians of the present age. By your logic, fighting a bully is a mistake because he's likely to hit you more often for opposing him. It would also suggest that U.S. Grant ought to have turned north after the Battle of the Wilderness, instead of pursuing Lee to Appomattox. But I agree that the embedded information might be very important to policy formulation, and that it oughtn't to be ignored. I think you are misinformed on what State Department's role is. I know of several cases over the last four years where State Department recommended military action and the Department of Defense vetoed the idea. Methinks you watch too much of Fox News. Fox News is tedious. I only watch it because it's an ideological balance to the unrelenting bias of the rest of MSM news, but balance isn't accuracy. If you're correct about State's recommendations then I'd like to see examples, not so much to challenge your thesis as to incorporate some of those "embedded truths" in the data into my analysis. It's the details that matter. As a general rule, though, State has been committed to "RealPolitik," and I'm in a book club with a number of friends from State who, although smart as hell, consistently express that bias. So it's not so much FOX as my own experience, which of course could also misinform me. The bottom line, though, is that I don't think it's necessarily alarming or even a matter of concern that State is no longer publishing this report. That case hasn't been made convincingly.

Posted by: Demosophist at April 23, 2005 04:47 PM (d0CtA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

131kb generated in CPU 0.0663, elapsed 0.1578 seconds.
128 queries taking 0.1352 seconds, 406 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 45482
Files: 15
Bytes: 268.5M
CPU Time: 25:13
Queries: 3906964

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76631

Feeds

May 22, 2005

May 20, 2005

May 13, 2005

May 12, 2005

May 11, 2005

May 10, 2005

May 09, 2005

May 07, 2005

May 05, 2005

April 29, 2005

April 21, 2005

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds