The United States has established new definitions for terrorist attacks, that, it is believed, more accurately reflects what is actually happening. This is not a new problem. There has always been a some confusion over exactly what international terrorism is. In the past, it was defined as terrorists going to another country to commit terrorist acts, or local terrorists killing foreign visitors. That definition did not work very well with Islamic terrorism. Thats because this often involves local terrorists, inspired by the call for Islamic radicals the world over, to go out and kill infidels (non-Moslems), just killing their infidel neighbors (or fellow Moslems who disagree with radical Islam.) So the National Counterterrorism Center now counts all the terrorist acts that have some international component. This is an important distinction, because there is still a lot of local terrorism. For example, most criminal organizations use terror to carry out many of their criminal schemes. A protection racket is one of the more obvious criminal uses of terror. Either you pay protection money to the gangsters, or they will hurt you. Terrorism at its most basic. Rebel organizations often use this form of terror to raise money to keep themselves going. Kidnapping is another variation, although grabbing people is also done for purely terrorist purposes, just to raise money, or a combination of the two.
OK, so where does that place the war on terror? In 2004, this new study counted 3,192 cases of international terrorism. Iraq accounted for 27 percent of these attacks. Iraq is where the remnants of Saddams supporters have teamed up with Islamic terrorists to try and regain control of the country. This is absurd, as over 80 percent of Iraqis are rather violently opposed to Saddam and his crew coming back. After all these al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attacks in Iraq, Iraqis now hate al Qaeda as well. Add in the rest of the Middle East, and you have 37 percent of all terrorist attacks. The next bloodiest area was South Asia, where the bulk of the mayhem was wrought by Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (mainly Kashmir). Those two areas, and their numerous Islamic terrorists, account for 70 percent of all the terrorism. The remaining 30 percent also includes more Islamic terrorists, mainly in Africa.
Islamic radicalism only appeals to a small minority of Moslems, a fraction of one percent will actually commit violence, but with over a billion Moslems on the planet, thats several million people ready to kill, or die trying. Their goals are not negotiable. The Infidels are threatening Islam, and the only solution is for Infidels to accept Islam and live by its values (religious dictatorship, no education for women, no more bacon or ham, and so on). Like the nazis and communists before them, the Islamic terrorists are good at manipulating the media. For example, the Islamic radicals say it really only about justice, and getting Infidel troops out of the Middle East. But if you back a few more years, or check enough Islamic web sites, youll see that the main goal isnt ending American occupation of Iraq (where the majority of the population want the foreign troops to stay for the moment), but conquering the world in the name of Islam. Since that particular goal does not lend itself to manipulating the Western media, a little creative lying is in order. This would all be absurd, if it were not so real, and tragic. Islamic terrorism is so illogical to non-Moslems (and many Moslems as well), that new methods had to be devised to count it. Eliminating it will require equally imaginative thinking.