NYT: Attacks in Iraq at Record High, Pentagon Says

[Midnight Judges]

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/attacks-in-iraq-at-record-high-pentagon/20061219070309990012



WASHINGTON (Dec. 19) -- A Pentagon assessment of security conditions in Iraq concluded Monday that attacks against American and Iraqi targets had surged this summer and autumn to their highest level, and called violence by Shiite militants the most significant threat in Baghdad.





The report, which covers the period from early August to early November, found an average of almost 960 attacks against Americans and Iraqis every week, the highest level recorded since the Pentagon began issuing the quarterly reports in 2005, with the biggest surge in attacks against American-led forces. That was an increase of 22 percent from the level for early May to early August, the report said.

While most attacks were directed at American forces, most deaths and injuries were suffered by the Iraqi military and civilians.



I keep hearing about how "we haven't been attacked since 9/11" but to me, these attacks count and these troops' lives are every bit as precious as the rest of us.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Well despite that I think we've really turned a corner and that is just the work of a few dead-enders who are in their last throes. My :2cents:

:doh:

[mrhetzler]

The Pentagon said that?! I thought only the "Liberal Media" pointed out the negatives. Does this mean that the White House has been lying to us? Say it ain't so!


Maybe we should blame the "Liberal Media" for pointing out what the Pentagon is pointing out. Bastards!

[Redskins Diehard]

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/attacks-in-iraq-at-record-high-pentagon/20061219070309990012





I keep hearing about how "we haven't been attacked since 9/11" but to me, these attacks count and these troops' lives are every bit as precious as the rest of us.

I partially agree with your statement here. Of course those lives are as precious as the rest of us...and I would say they are probably more precious than most.

However, in the context of "there or here", I think we disagree. While I was there I was completely comfortable with the notion that I would prefer those people take a shot at me, instead of a shot at my family and friends back home. First, I am trained and equipped to deal with the threat. Second, anticipating and reacting to such a threat is my complete focus. Third, I am better at it.

[Midnight Judges]

The Pentagon said that?! I thought only the "Liberal Media" pointed out the negatives. Does this mean that the White House has been lying to us? Say it ain't so!


Maybe we should blame the "Liberal Media" for pointing out what the Pentagon is pointing out. Bastards!

Actually, the media pointed this out about two years before the pentagon was able to admit it in public.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I partially agree with your statement here. Of course those lives are as precious as the rest of us...and I would say they are probably more precious than most.

However, in the context of "there or here", I think we disagree. While I was there I was completely comfortable with the notion that I would prefer those people take a shot at me, instead of a shot at my family and friends back home. First, I am trained and equipped to deal with the threat. Second, anticipating and reacting to such a threat is my complete focus. Third, I am better at it.
Yeah because there was such a huge chance that Iraqi's were going to be firing shots at us here at home.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Actually, the media pointed this out about two years before the pentagon was able to admit it in public.
Then clearly the liberal media has brainwashed the Pentagon now. Just great...

[Hooper]

The answer is obviously more troops.

[Redskins Diehard]

Yeah because there was such a huge chance that Iraqi's were going to be firing shots at us here at home.

Not "firing shots"..."taking shots". Do you claim that all the people engaging US troops in Iraq are Iraqis?

[Redskins Diehard]

Actually, the media pointed this out about two years before the pentagon was able to admit it in public.

The media pointed out that there was a surge this summer and autumn about 2 years ago. Those are some pretty bright people.

[Prosperity]

The media pointed out that there was a surge this summer and autumn about 2 years ago. Those are some pretty bright people.

yes lots of people predicted what is happening to Iraq now. before and during the war

[Midnight Judges]

The media pointed out that there was a surge this summer and autumn about 2 years ago. Those are some pretty bright people.

The media reported the deteriorating security aspect 2 years ago. Back then the Bush Administration was not even able to admit there was an insurgency. Rumsfeld thought he had the authority to declare when it was or was not an insurgency. The President followed that lead. Unfortunately, SECDEFS do not declare insurgencies from half way around the globe. Insurgencies declare themselves.

The commanders on the ground wanted permission to re-enlist mid-level Baathist Sunni military officials and were denied by the Bush administration, seemingly without discussion. This information can be found in Bob Woodward's book.

[alexey]

These people will take any opportunity they can to kill Americans. If they can attack Americans in America they will do that. If they can attack Americans in Iraq they will do that as well. This is not a either-here-or-there scenario our capable leaders will try to make you believe. Terrorists will attack anything that is vulnerable to an attack.

[NoCalMike]

I find it hilarious when people say "All we get from the media is the bad stuff" yet if you look at the numbers regarding what is going on over there, our media isn't even reporting HALF OF THE BAD STUFF going on over there.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Not "firing shots"..."taking shots". Do you claim that all the people engaging US troops in Iraq are Iraqis?
Nope but what percentage of the insurgency is made up of foreigners?

[Thiebear]

But the Democrats in power now..
its fixed.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

But the Democrats in power now..
its fixed.
You think so? I'm not sure that they really can do too much since the President is still the C-and-C. Even if they could I think it's going to take years, possibly decades, to fix this mess. The sooner we start the better though.

[shagman]

The answer is obviously more troops.


:doh:

[Burgold]

I keep hearing about how "we haven't been attacked since 9/11" but to me, these attacks count and these troops' lives are every bit as precious as the rest of us.

We have been attacked on U.S. soil in the continental U.S. following 9/11. It drives me crazy. This amnesia or willing to blow off the anthrax attacks that shut down the U.S. government, paralyzed the U.S. Postal service, and even made cocaine addicts pause for an instant when faced with white powder.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Nope but what percentage of the insurgency is made up of foreigners?


Knowing the way the Arabs work, a significant percentage are

Then you have Shia insurgencey, which should have been squashed in 2004 if we had killed Sadr

But the Sunni portion? Foreigners are coming in from all over the ME to get their licks on on US troops, and with 140,000 there, they aren't doing a good job

[Hooper]

It's just bad news over there. God bless our troops because.... well, obviously no one in our government knows what to do. Dem or repub. When you've got Dubya hinting that he's going to basically ignore the advice of the military... wow. And the dems aren't offering any good alternatives because none exist.

It's a clusterf--k. Again, god bless the troops because it doesn't look like things are going to get better any time soon.

[mboyd784]

I keep hearing about how "we haven't been attacked since 9/11" but to me, these attacks count and these troops' lives are every bit as precious as the rest of us.

You're not making sense.

[mboyd784]

We have been attacked on U.S. soil in the continental U.S. following 9/11. It drives me crazy. This amnesia or willing to blow off the anthrax attacks that shut down the U.S. government, paralyzed the U.S. Postal service, and even made cocaine addicts pause for an instant when faced with white powder.

You mean the Anthrax that was traced to our own labs?

[Burgold]

You mean the Anthrax that was traced to our own labs?

Was it really? I'd forgotten or didn't know that. Are you sure about this? Edit: I found this article. Looks like it is still unsolved, that they are still considering possibilities inside and outside the U.S. Regardless, whether foreign or domestic, it certainly was a successful act of terrorism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/15/AR2005091502456.html

Little Progress In FBI Probe of Anthrax Attacks
Internal Report Compiled As Agents Hope for a Break

By Allan Lengel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 16, 2005; Page A01

Four years after the deadly 2001 anthrax attacks, one of the most exhaustive investigations in FBI history has yielded no arrests and is showing signs of growing cold as officials have sharply reduced the number of agents on the case.

FBI agents and postal inspectors have pursued leads on four continents, conducted more than 8,000 interviews and carried out dozens of searches of houses, laboratories and other locations. They traveled to Afghanistan twice in the past 16 months to follow up on tips that proved fruitless, said law enforcement sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the issue.

[Redskins Diehard]

You think so? I'm not sure that they really can do too much since the President is still the C-and-C. Even if they could I think it's going to take years, possibly decades, to fix this mess. The sooner we start the better though.

What is the C-and-C? Getting simple things wrong detracts from your credibility.

[Burgold]

I would gues C and C is Commander and Chief

[Prosperity]

He probably meant commander in chief, not and chief... acting like a grammar nazi also detracts from your credibility

[Redskins Diehard]

He probably meant commander in chief, not and chief... acting like a grammar nazi also detracts from your credibility

Its not a grammar issue. He probably did mean that office/title, but he doesn't know what it is called.

Explaining things for people instead of letting them take of it themselves detracts even further from their credibility

[spanishomelette]

We haven't been attacked since 9/11 "in the U.S."... is implied in the statement.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Its not a grammar issue. He probably did mean that office/title, but he doesn't know what it is called.

Explaining things for people instead of letting them take of it themselves detracts even further from their credibility
Yeah, yeah. C-in-C, C-and-C, whatever. It's called a typo buddy. The fact that you think foreigners make up a good percentage of the insurgency doesn't just hurt your credibility it kills it. Our very own intelligence agencys say that they are not. Jump off the bandwagon. It's a civil war and we're stuck right dab in the middle of it.

[Midnight Judges]

We haven't been attacked since 9/11 "in the U.S."... is implied in the statement.

The US embassy in Iraq is technically American soil. We have been attacked there and people have died there. When Clinton was President, he was held responsible for our embassies that were attacked in Africa so lets be honest and use the same criteria for everyone.

I just don't see why the fact that someone is deployed justifies the ultimate sacrifice. To me, the absolute worst aspect about 9/11 is that 3,000 innocent people died. The same can be said about the Iraq war. I just don't see how Bush can brag (or people bragging on Bush's behalf) about making America safer, when he single-handedly got 3000 Americans killed in this unnecessary war. Not to mention several hundred contractors.

I would also like to point out that basing an overall anti-terrorism assessment on the "no successful attacks" criteria is a very dangerous way of evaluating the situation.

[Redskins Diehard]

Yeah, yeah. C-in-C, C-and-C, whatever. It's called a typo buddy. The fact that you think foreigners make up a good percentage of the insurgency doesn't just hurt your credibility it kills it. Our very own intelligence agencys say that they are not. Jump off the bandwagon. It's a civil war and we're stuck right dab in the middle of it.

No, it isn't a typo. It is not knowing what it is called...buddy.

Quote my "good percentage of the insurgency". Please find it. While you are at it, quote the intelligence agencies that say that there are no foreign fighters.

Question for you, what part of Iraq was Abu Musab Al Zarqawi from? But I'm sure he was the only foreigner

[Redskins Diehard]

The US embassy in Iraq is technically American soil. We have been attacked there and people have died there. When Clinton was President, he was held responsible for our embassies that were attacked in Africa so lets be honest and use the same criteria for everyone.

I just don't see why the fact that someone is deployed justifies the ultimate sacrifice. To me, the absolute worst aspect about 9/11 is that 3,000 innocent people died. The same can be said about the Iraq war. I just don't see how Bush can brag (or people bragging on Bush's behalf) about making America safer, when he single-handedly got 3000 Americans killed in this unnecessary war. Not to mention several hundred contractors.

I would also like to point out that basing an overall anti-terrorism assessment on the "no successful attacks" criteria is a very dangerous way of evaluating the situation.

I think the number of successfull attacks is a pretty important criteria, even if it shouldn't be the only criteria. The people that are at the embassy in Baghdad go there knowing exactly what the risks are. The people that show up in your building every day really don't expect to come under a direct or indirect fire assault. I think that is the key difference.

And yes, while technically the embassy is American soil, I think you can comprehend the difference.

[NoCalMike]

The problem with basing the success of the War on Terrorism on "we haven't been attacked since..." is that we have never been in a situation where we have been attacked over and over and over again. It's not like the Terrorists had all these attacks laid out and then decided, "oops we can't do them now because of the War on Terrorism" We are talking about guys who got on planes with boxcutters, not some sophisticated bio-warfare attack.

We have also had would-be attacks that are stopped from Christian-"terrorists" Once recently, the guy had a website, said he was a messenger from god to take out secularists, had plans to bomb clinics. Of course that will never make the evening Fox News channel or hell even CNN for that matter, because it doesn't fit the media's profile for what a terrorist is.

Question: Have we been attacked on american soil more by Radical Muslims or Radical Christians? Before you answer, do some research.

[spanishomelette]

The US embassy in Iraq is technically American soil. We have been attacked there and people have died there. When Clinton was President, he was held responsible for our embassies that were attacked in Africa so lets be honest and use the same criteria for everyone.

I just don't see why the fact that someone is deployed justifies the ultimate sacrifice. To me, the absolute worst aspect about 9/11 is that 3,000 innocent people died. The same can be said about the Iraq war. I just don't see how Bush can brag (or people bragging on Bush's behalf) about making America safer, when he single-handedly got 3000 Americans killed in this unnecessary war. Not to mention several hundred contractors.

I would also like to point out that basing an overall anti-terrorism assessment on the "no successful attacks" criteria is a very dangerous way of evaluating the situation.
I still think the implication would exclude an embassy, but we disagree.

[Redskins Diehard]

The problem with basing the success of the War on Terrorism on "we haven't been attacked since..." is that we have never been in a situation where we have been attacked over and over and over again. It's not like the Terrorists had all these attacks laid out and then decided, "oops we can't do them now because of the War on Terrorism" We are talking about guys who got on planes with boxcutters, not some sophisticated bio-warfare attack.

We have also had would-be attacks that are stopped from Christian-"terrorists" Once recently, the guy had a website, said he was a messenger from god to take out secularists, had plans to bomb clinics. Of course that will never make the evening Fox News channel or hell even CNN for that matter, because it doesn't fit the media's profile for what a terrorist is.

Question: Have we been attacked on american soil more by Radical Muslims or Radical Christians? Before you answer, do some research.

What does your last question have to do with this? So assuming that we have had more Radical Christians plot and prepare attacks in other countries and then come here to execute, does that mean we should ignore the Radical Muslims that are doing the same thing? And executed it on a much larger scale?

If this Christian messenger of god made plans that weren't reported then how do you know about it? If we are singularly focused on Muslims then how was it stopped?

And how confident are you that no attacks were in the planning and preparation phase and were since cancelled because there was another target to go after?

[Midnight Judges]

I still think the implication would exclude an embassy, but we disagree.

That might be the implication, but then it's kind of a meaningless stat and potentially misleading.