The Iraq Effect: War has increased terrorism sevenfold worldwide

[GaryC 7]

Well... If I were to judge their methodology I would at least look at their objectives, and how they reached those conclusions:

In our study we focusd on the following questions:

* Has jihadist terrorism gone up or down around the world since the invasion of Iraq?

* What has been the trend if terrorist incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan (the military fronts of the "war on terrorism") are excluded?

* Has terrorism explicitly directed at the United States and its allies also increased?

Yes.... And your point is?

My point is that there is no way to know what would have happend if we hadn't gone into Iraq and Afganistan. Al Queada declaired war on us before the war. They were committed to killing as many of us as they could. Who is to say that terrorist attacts would have gone up if we hadn't gone into Iraq? Maybe by taking out the leaders and keeping them busy in Iraq and Afganistan we REDUCED the number of attacts that would have happend? They are trying to play a big game of "what if" and choosing the facts they think support their pre-conceved ideas. just more biased BS.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well... If I were to judge their methodology I would at least look at their objectives, and how they reached those conclusions:

In our study we focusd on the following questions:

* Has jihadist terrorism gone up or down around the world since the invasion of Iraq?

* What has been the trend if terrorist incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan (the military fronts of the "war on terrorism") are excluded?

* Has terrorism explicitly directed at the United States and its allies also increased?

Yes.... And your point is?

My point is that there is no way to know what would have happend if we hadn't gone into Iraq and Afganistan. Al Queada declaired war on us before the war. They were committed to killing as many of us as they could. Who is to say that terrorist attacts would have gone up if we hadn't gone into Iraq? Maybe by taking out the leaders and keeping them busy in Iraq and Afganistan we REDUCED the number of attacts that would have happend? They are trying to play a big game of "what if" and choosing the facts they think support their pre-conceved ideas. just more biased BS.

The point is what I said. If I were to judge their methodology and conclusions, I would look first at what they set out to do.

They're not hiding anything. In fact, the limitations of the study are actually set out... which if you're doing this kind of thing... is exactly what you're supposed to do...

In order to zero in on The Iraq Effect, we focused on the rate of terrorist attacks in two time periods: September 12, 2001, to March 20, 2003 (the day of the Iraq invasion), and March 21, 2003, to September 30, 2006. Extending the data set before 9/11 would risk distorting the results, because the rate of attacks by jihadist groups jumped considerably after 9/11 as jihadist terrorists took inspiration from the events of that terrible day.

We first determined which terrorist organizations should be classified as jihadist. We included in this group Sunni extremist groups affiliated with or sympathetic to the ideology of Al Qaeda. We decided to exclude terrorist attacks by Palestinian groups, as they depend largely on factors particular to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

They also reference their statistical sources and define a "terrorist act" for the purpose of the study. Again... this is exactly what you're supposed to do...

Our study yields one resounding finding: The rate of terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups and the rate of fatalities in those attacks increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq. Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per year before and 199.8 after) and a 237 percent rise in the average fatality rate (from 501 to 1,689 deaths per year). A large part of this rise occurred in Iraq, which accounts for fully half of the global total of jihadist terrorist attacks in the post-Iraq War period. But even excluding Iraq, the average yearly number of jihadist terrorist attacks and resulting fatalities still rose sharply around the world by 265 percent and 58 percent respectively.

And even when attacks in both Afghanistan and Iraq (the two countries that together account for 80 percent of attacks and 67 percent of deaths since the invasion of Iraq) are excluded, there has still been a significant rise in jihadist terrorism elsewhere--a 35 percent increase in the number of jihadist terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan and Iraq, from 27.6 to 37 a year, with a 12 percent rise in fatalities from 496 to 554 per year.

Of course, just because jihadist terrorism has risen in the period after the invasion of Iraq, it does not follow that events in Iraq itself caused the change. For example, a rise in attacks in the Kashmir conflict and the Chechen separatist war against Russian forces may have nothing to do with the war in Iraq. But the most direct test of The Iraq Effect--whether the United States and its allies have suffered more jihadist terrorism after the invasion than before--shows that the rate of jihadist attacks on Western interests and citizens around the world (outside of Afghanistan and Iraq) has risen by a quarter, from 7.2 to 9 a year, while the yearly fatality rate in these attacks has increased by 4 percent from 191 to 198.

One measure of the impact of the Iraq War is the precipitous drop in public support for the United States in Muslim countries. Jordan, a key U.S. ally, saw popular approval for the United States drop from 25 percent in 2002 to 1 percent in 2003. In Lebanon during the same period, favorable views of the United States dropped from 30 percent to 15 percent, and in the world’s largest Muslim country, Indonesia, favorable views plummeted from 61 percent to 15 percent. Disliking the United States does not make you a terrorist, but clearly the pool of Muslims who dislike the United States has grown by hundreds of millions since the Iraq War began. The United States’ plummeting popularity does not suggest active popular support for jihadist terrorists but it does imply some sympathy with their anti-American posture, which means a significant swath of the Muslim population cannot be relied on as an effective party in counter-terrorism/insurgency measures.

I start to wonder what you would actually consider a 'non-biased' source...

[GaryC 7]

Well... If I were to judge their methodology I would at least look at their objectives, and how they reached those conclusions:

In our study we focusd on the following questions:

* Has jihadist terrorism gone up or down around the world since the invasion of Iraq?

* What has been the trend if terrorist incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan (the military fronts of the "war on terrorism") are excluded?

* Has terrorism explicitly directed at the United States and its allies also increased?

Yes.... And your point is?

My point is that there is no way to know what would have happend if we hadn't gone into Iraq and Afganistan. Al Queada declaired war on us before the war. They were committed to killing as many of us as they could. Who is to say that terrorist attacts would have gone up if we hadn't gone into Iraq? Maybe by taking out the leaders and keeping them busy in Iraq and Afganistan we REDUCED the number of attacts that would have happend? They are trying to play a big game of "what if" and choosing the facts they think support their pre-conceved ideas. just more biased BS.

The point is what I said. If I were to judge their methodology and conclusions, I would look first at what they set out to do.

They're not hiding anything. In fact, the limitations of the study are actually set out... which if you're doing this kind of thing... is exactly what you're supposed to do...

In order to zero in on The Iraq Effect, we focused on the rate of terrorist attacks in two time periods: September 12, 2001, to March 20, 2003 (the day of the Iraq invasion), and March 21, 2003, to September 30, 2006. Extending the data set before 9/11 would risk distorting the results, because the rate of attacks by jihadist groups jumped considerably after 9/11 as jihadist terrorists took inspiration from the events of that terrible day.

We first determined which terrorist organizations should be classified as jihadist. We included in this group Sunni extremist groups affiliated with or sympathetic to the ideology of Al Qaeda. We decided to exclude terrorist attacks by Palestinian groups, as they depend largely on factors particular to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

They also reference their statistical sources and define a "terrorist act" for the purpose of the study. Again... this is exactly what you're supposed to do...

Our study yields one resounding finding: The rate of terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups and the rate of fatalities in those attacks increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq. Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per year before and 199.8 after) and a 237 percent rise in the average fatality rate (from 501 to 1,689 deaths per year). A large part of this rise occurred in Iraq, which accounts for fully half of the global total of jihadist terrorist attacks in the post-Iraq War period. But even excluding Iraq, the average yearly number of jihadist terrorist attacks and resulting fatalities still rose sharply around the world by 265 percent and 58 percent respectively.

And even when attacks in both Afghanistan and Iraq (the two countries that together account for 80 percent of attacks and 67 percent of deaths since the invasion of Iraq) are excluded, there has still been a significant rise in jihadist terrorism elsewhere--a 35 percent increase in the number of jihadist terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan and Iraq, from 27.6 to 37 a year, with a 12 percent rise in fatalities from 496 to 554 per year.

Of course, just because jihadist terrorism has risen in the period after the invasion of Iraq, it does not follow that events in Iraq itself caused the change. For example, a rise in attacks in the Kashmir conflict and the Chechen separatist war against Russian forces may have nothing to do with the war in Iraq. But the most direct test of The Iraq Effect--whether the United States and its allies have suffered more jihadist terrorism after the invasion than before--shows that the rate of jihadist attacks on Western interests and citizens around the world (outside of Afghanistan and Iraq) has risen by a quarter, from 7.2 to 9 a year, while the yearly fatality rate in these attacks has increased by 4 percent from 191 to 198.

One measure of the impact of the Iraq War is the precipitous drop in public support for the United States in Muslim countries. Jordan, a key U.S. ally, saw popular approval for the United States drop from 25 percent in 2002 to 1 percent in 2003. In Lebanon during the same period, favorable views of the United States dropped from 30 percent to 15 percent, and in the world’s largest Muslim country, Indonesia, favorable views plummeted from 61 percent to 15 percent. Disliking the United States does not make you a terrorist, but clearly the pool of Muslims who dislike the United States has grown by hundreds of millions since the Iraq War began. The United States’ plummeting popularity does not suggest active popular support for jihadist terrorists but it does imply some sympathy with their anti-American posture, which means a significant swath of the Muslim population cannot be relied on as an effective party in counter-terrorism/insurgency measures.

I start to wonder what you would actually consider a 'non-biased' source...

Unless your a fortune teller there is no un-biased source. There is no way to tell either way what the outcome would be if we didn't go into Iraq and Afganistan. So then I can only conclude that the whole point of this story is to drum up more anti-war feelings. That in it self is the bias. It's the steady drum beat of negitive stories and studies that is shaping the opinions of the people. There is a lot of good things happening in Iraq but we never hear about that. It would go against the prevailing mind set of the media.

Edited February 23, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Unless your a fortune teller there is no un-biased source. There is no way to tell either way what the outcome would be if we didn't go into Iraq and Afganistan. So then I can only conclude that the whole point of this story is to drum up more anti-war feelings. That in it self is the bias. It's the steady drum beat of negitive stories and studies that is shaping the opinions of the people. There is a lot of good things happening in Iraq but we never hear about that. It would go against the prevailing mind set of the media.

So then there is nothing specific in this study to which you attribute bias, other than that you just don't like the conclusions?

I know there is "no unbiased source", and I think the people behind this study do too. That's why they take pains to explicitly point out its limitations.

[GaryC 7]

Unless your a fortune teller there is no un-biased source. There is no way to tell either way what the outcome would be if we didn't go into Iraq and Afganistan. So then I can only conclude that the whole point of this story is to drum up more anti-war feelings. That in it self is the bias. It's the steady drum beat of negitive stories and studies that is shaping the opinions of the people. There is a lot of good things happening in Iraq but we never hear about that. It would go against the prevailing mind set of the media.

So then there is nothing specific in this study to which you attribute bias, other than that you just don't like the conclusions?

I know there is "no unbiased source", and I think the people behind this study do too. That's why they take pains to explicitly point out its limitations.

If they even admit that there is no unbiased source then why write the story at all? It's all a game of what if and it serves no useful porpose other than to put their own opinions into the national thoughts. It's not overt bias but it is a sub-concious mind game. Its what has been going on since the start of the war. A slow and steady diet of doubt. I wish the media would just report the news as it happens and leave the subjective studies for the editorial pages.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Unless your a fortune teller there is no un-biased source. There is no way to tell either way what the outcome would be if we didn't go into Iraq and Afganistan. So then I can only conclude that the whole point of this story is to drum up more anti-war feelings. That in it self is the bias. It's the steady drum beat of negitive stories and studies that is shaping the opinions of the people. There is a lot of good things happening in Iraq but we never hear about that. It would go against the prevailing mind set of the media.

So then there is nothing specific in this study to which you attribute bias, other than that you just don't like the conclusions?

I know there is "no unbiased source", and I think the people behind this study do too. That's why they take pains to explicitly point out its limitations.

If they even admit that there is no unbiased source then why write the story at all? It's all a game of what if and it serves no useful porpose other than to put their own opinions into the national thoughts. It's not overt bias but it is a sub-concious mind game. Its what has been going on since the start of the war. A slow and steady diet of doubt. I wish the media would just report the news as it happens and leave the subjective studies for the editorial pages.

How?

They've taken a number of quoted statements made by government officials about the progress of the Iraq war against the specific background of the war on terror, and tested those statements against specifically defined statistical (and non-statistical) data. Its a research study, not a news story...

Edited February 23, 2007 by erekose

[GaryC 7]

Unless your a fortune teller there is no un-biased source. There is no way to tell either way what the outcome would be if we didn't go into Iraq and Afganistan. So then I can only conclude that the whole point of this story is to drum up more anti-war feelings. That in it self is the bias. It's the steady drum beat of negitive stories and studies that is shaping the opinions of the people. There is a lot of good things happening in Iraq but we never hear about that. It would go against the prevailing mind set of the media.

So then there is nothing specific in this study to which you attribute bias, other than that you just don't like the conclusions?

I know there is "no unbiased source", and I think the people behind this study do too. That's why they take pains to explicitly point out its limitations.

If they even admit that there is no unbiased source then why write the story at all? It's all a game of what if and it serves no useful porpose other than to put their own opinions into the national thoughts. It's not overt bias but it is a sub-concious mind game. Its what has been going on since the start of the war. A slow and steady diet of doubt. I wish the media would just report the news as it happens and leave the subjective studies for the editorial pages.

How?

They've taken a number of quoted statements made by government officials about the progress of the Iraq war against the specific background of the war on terror, and tested those statements against specifically defined statistical (and non-statistical) data. Its a research study, not a news story...

That is my point! There is no way to write a "what if" story like this and make it objective. Since we are not clairvoyent then there is no useful reason to even write a study like this unless the goal is to shape public opinion. If a pro-war writer wanted to write a "what if" story using the same facts he could spin it to say we are reducing the terror. It's not journalism it's editorialism passed off as a objective study. The whole reason for it is to change peoples thinking and not to inform.

Edited February 23, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Unless your a fortune teller there is no un-biased source. There is no way to tell either way what the outcome would be if we didn't go into Iraq and Afganistan. So then I can only conclude that the whole point of this story is to drum up more anti-war feelings. That in it self is the bias. It's the steady drum beat of negitive stories and studies that is shaping the opinions of the people. There is a lot of good things happening in Iraq but we never hear about that. It would go against the prevailing mind set of the media.

So then there is nothing specific in this study to which you attribute bias, other than that you just don't like the conclusions?

I know there is "no unbiased source", and I think the people behind this study do too. That's why they take pains to explicitly point out its limitations.

If they even admit that there is no unbiased source then why write the story at all? It's all a game of what if and it serves no useful porpose other than to put their own opinions into the national thoughts. It's not overt bias but it is a sub-concious mind game. Its what has been going on since the start of the war. A slow and steady diet of doubt. I wish the media would just report the news as it happens and leave the subjective studies for the editorial pages.

How?

They've taken a number of quoted statements made by government officials about the progress of the Iraq war against the specific background of the war on terror, and tested those statements against specifically defined statistical (and non-statistical) data. Its a research study, not a news story...

That is my point! There is no way to write a "what if" story like this and make it objective. Since we are not clairvoyent then there is no useful reason to even write a study like this unless the goal is to shape public opinion. If a pro-war writer wanted to write a "what if" story using the same facts he could spin it to say we are reducing the terror. It's not journalism it's editorialism passed off as a objective study. The whole reason for it is to change peoples thinking and not to inform.

Do you apply that same scrutiny to the President and his subjective assumptions? Emboldening the enemy, eh?

[GaryC 7]

Unless your a fortune teller there is no un-biased source. There is no way to tell either way what the outcome would be if we didn't go into Iraq and Afganistan. So then I can only conclude that the whole point of this story is to drum up more anti-war feelings. That in it self is the bias. It's the steady drum beat of negitive stories and studies that is shaping the opinions of the people. There is a lot of good things happening in Iraq but we never hear about that. It would go against the prevailing mind set of the media.

So then there is nothing specific in this study to which you attribute bias, other than that you just don't like the conclusions?

I know there is "no unbiased source", and I think the people behind this study do too. That's why they take pains to explicitly point out its limitations.

If they even admit that there is no unbiased source then why write the story at all? It's all a game of what if and it serves no useful porpose other than to put their own opinions into the national thoughts. It's not overt bias but it is a sub-concious mind game. Its what has been going on since the start of the war. A slow and steady diet of doubt. I wish the media would just report the news as it happens and leave the subjective studies for the editorial pages.

How?

They've taken a number of quoted statements made by government officials about the progress of the Iraq war against the specific background of the war on terror, and tested those statements against specifically defined statistical (and non-statistical) data. Its a research study, not a news story...

That is my point! There is no way to write a "what if" story like this and make it objective. Since we are not clairvoyent then there is no useful reason to even write a study like this unless the goal is to shape public opinion. If a pro-war writer wanted to write a "what if" story using the same facts he could spin it to say we are reducing the terror. It's not journalism it's editorialism passed off as a objective study. The whole reason for it is to change peoples thinking and not to inform.

Do you apply that same scrutiny to the President and his subjective assumptions? Emboldening the enemy, eh?

Don't dodge Steven. We are not talking about Bush right now. If you want to do that start another thread.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That is my point! There is no way to write a "what if" story like this and make it objective. Since we are not clairvoyent then there is no useful reason to even write a study like this unless the goal is to shape public opinion. If a pro-war writer wanted to write a "what if" story using the same facts he could spin it to say we are reducing the terror. It's not journalism it's editorialism passed off as a objective study. The whole reason for it is to change peoples thinking and not to inform.

How is it not objective? They've cited their sources very openly, and explained in detail the limitations of the study - where's the intent to deceive? They've covered their butts pretty well as I see it. It seems to me that the only people who would be offended by this are people who didn't read the paper in its entirety... and 'knee jerk' at the conclusions. Have you ever done any quantitative/qualitative research?

It also says at the outset that the author's are not journalists... and the study is clearly not a news piece. So I'm not sure how you can claim its editorialism. Most editorial columns, only cite a limited number of sources, often very few at all. Did you see the reference list at the end?

Edited February 23, 2007 by erekose

[GaryC 7]

That is my point! There is no way to write a "what if" story like this and make it objective. Since we are not clairvoyent then there is no useful reason to even write a study like this unless the goal is to shape public opinion. If a pro-war writer wanted to write a "what if" story using the same facts he could spin it to say we are reducing the terror. It's not journalism it's editorialism passed off as a objective study. The whole reason for it is to change peoples thinking and not to inform.

How is it not objective? They've cited their sources very openly, and explained in detail the limitations of the study - where's the intent to deceive? They've covered their butts pretty well as I see it. It seems to me that the only people who would be offended by this are people who didn't read the paper in its entirety... and 'knee jerk' at the conclusions. Have you ever done any quantitative/qualitative research?

It also says at the outset that the author's are not journalists... and the study is clearly not a news piece. So I'm not sure how you can claim its editorialism. Most editorial columns, only cite a limited number of sources, often very few at all. Did you see the reference list at the end?

Your just not getting me. We are treated to a parade of stories like this whose sole pourpose is to form public opinion. It's not news or even investigative journalism, it's a opinion piece that people like Steven slavishly post in order to bolster their opinons.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That is my point! There is no way to write a "what if" story like this and make it objective. Since we are not clairvoyent then there is no useful reason to even write a study like this unless the goal is to shape public opinion. If a pro-war writer wanted to write a "what if" story using the same facts he could spin it to say we are reducing the terror. It's not journalism it's editorialism passed off as a objective study. The whole reason for it is to change peoples thinking and not to inform.

How is it not objective? They've cited their sources very openly, and explained in detail the limitations of the study - where's the intent to deceive? They've covered their butts pretty well as I see it. It seems to me that the only people who would be offended by this are people who didn't read the paper in its entirety... and 'knee jerk' at the conclusions. Have you ever done any quantitative/qualitative research?

It also says at the outset that the author's are not journalists... and the study is clearly not a news piece. So I'm not sure how you can claim its editorialism. Most editorial columns, only cite a limited number of sources, often very few at all. Did you see the reference list at the end?

Your just not getting me. We are treated to a parade of stories like this whose sole pourpose is to form public opinion. It's not news or even investigative journalism, it's a opinion piece that people like Steven slavishly post in order to bolster their opinons.

Well for a start Steven didn't post it, Peezey did ;-)

You're attacking this paper but not qualifying your point with anything substantive about its specific merits (or lack of).

Then when asked to elaborate you make a general point about "Skewed coverage". That says to me that you didn't read it in its entirety.

Its not journalism, nor does it pretend to be. Its a research study, the exact same sort of thing that social scientists and psychologists do on a regular basis. As the authors cite the direct limitations of the study, I'm not sure what exactly they've done wrong - except write something that you don't like...?

Edited February 23, 2007 by erekose

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Unless your a fortune teller there is no un-biased source. There is no way to tell either way what the outcome would be if we didn't go into Iraq and Afganistan. So then I can only conclude that the whole point of this story is to drum up more anti-war feelings. That in it self is the bias. It's the steady drum beat of negitive stories and studies that is shaping the opinions of the people. There is a lot of good things happening in Iraq but we never hear about that. It would go against the prevailing mind set of the media.

So then there is nothing specific in this study to which you attribute bias, other than that you just don't like the conclusions?

I know there is "no unbiased source", and I think the people behind this study do too. That's why they take pains to explicitly point out its limitations.

If they even admit that there is no unbiased source then why write the story at all? It's all a game of what if and it serves no useful porpose other than to put their own opinions into the national thoughts. It's not overt bias but it is a sub-concious mind game. Its what has been going on since the start of the war. A slow and steady diet of doubt. I wish the media would just report the news as it happens and leave the subjective studies for the editorial pages.

How?

They've taken a number of quoted statements made by government officials about the progress of the Iraq war against the specific background of the war on terror, and tested those statements against specifically defined statistical (and non-statistical) data. Its a research study, not a news story...

That is my point! There is no way to write a "what if" story like this and make it objective. Since we are not clairvoyent then there is no useful reason to even write a study like this unless the goal is to shape public opinion. If a pro-war writer wanted to write a "what if" story using the same facts he could spin it to say we are reducing the terror. It's not journalism it's editorialism passed off as a objective study. The whole reason for it is to change peoples thinking and not to inform.

Do you apply that same scrutiny to the President and his subjective assumptions? Emboldening the enemy, eh?

Don't dodge Steven. We are not talking about Bush right now. If you want to do that start another thread.

That's not a dodge. He's made his salespitch to stay the course based on what you are calling subjective assumptions, correct? Stating that those who even mention troop reduction or withdrawal are emboldening the enemy. I think you've made a reasonable argument when it comes to making subjective assumptions, however, I'm pointing out your tendency to be blind to it when it applies to all.

[Ban Hammer 14,567]

Well for a start Steven didn't post it, Peezey did ;-)

You're attacking this paper but not qualifying your point with anything substantive about its specific merits (or lack of).

Then when asked to elaborate you make a general point about "Skewed coverage". That says to me that you didn't read it in its entirety.

Its not journalism, nor does it pretend to be. Its a research study, the exact same sort of thing that social scientists and psychologists do on a regular basis. As the authors cite the direct limitations of the study, I'm not sure what exactly they've done wrong - except write something that you don't like...?

kinda reminds me of someone's rant about bush cherrypicking intel and wmd's in iraq too

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

kinda reminds me of someone's rant about bush cherrypicking intel and wmd's in iraq too

Well as you know, I'm of the opinion that he did - on the basis of several news stories that didn't receive much airtime in the US, but caused a huge scandal in Britain. But if you want to start another thread about that - be my guest.

I'm talking about a specific research study, which clearly outlines its limitations, and shortcomings (which is standard, accepted procedure when doing this kind of study) as well as a massive reference list.

Edited February 23, 2007 by erekose