What do you do when statistics don't agree w/Admin standpts?

[StruckingFuggle]

You halt the publication of the offending report, of course!

The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered.

'Huh? What? We sold the War On Terror's SubWar Of Iraq as reducing terrorism, but it's going up? Well ... we certainly can't let the people know. Baleet that document.'
'But ... that won't make it go away or make it untrue...'
'Silly mortal! It doesn't matter if they're going up or going down, only that we Look Good and look like we're accomplishing things people like! See, this is why we run things and you're just a minion.'
'...Yes, sir.'

Another U.S. official said Rice's office was leery of the center's methodology, believing that analysts eager to avoid a repetition of last year's undercount included incidents that may not have been terrorist attacks. The U.S. intelligence officials said Rice's office eliminated "Patterns of Global Terrorism" when the counterterrorism center declined to use alternative methodology that would have reported fewer significant attacks.

So, before getting rid of it, they tried to pressure them into producing a more favorable result - and then, when they wouldn't just outright squished them. Am I the only one troubled by that?

First science, and now statistics ... what else, one wonders, is the Administration willing to distort or deny/ willingly ignore for their own politics?

[kyoryu]

I'd be curious what the methodology was, compared to the methodology previously used.

Also, a temporary rise in terrorism does not surprise me. IMHO, much of the terrorism is caused by desperate people in the area... those in power (there) like the situation the way it is, as they get all the power, and the people are pissed at someone that's not them! Win/win! If we actually manage to get a working democracy in Iraq, that may very well change.

[Deacon]

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="482245"]'Huh? What? We sold the War On Terror's SubWar Of Iraq as reducing terrorism, but it's going up?[/quote]
I don't recall it ever having been "sold" as "An Instant End To Terror".

So, before getting rid of it, they tried to pressure them into producing a more favorable result - and then, when they wouldn't just outright squished them. Am I the only one troubled by that?

Does it say what the two models were? Such info is vital if one is going to jump to accurate conclusions.

First science, and now statistics ... what else, one wonders, is the Administration willing to distort or deny/ willingly ignore for their own politics?

Probably pretty much anything. Where were you during the Clinton years?

[StruckingFuggle]

Deacon:

reduction vs. instant end ... hard to find a set of definitions where the two are similar, or even that close, in meaning.

[kyoryu]

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="482284"]Deacon:

reduction vs. instant end ... hard to find a set of definitions where the two are similar, or even that close, in meaning.[/quote]

Unfortunately, the region was in a *relatively* stable condition previous to 9/11. It just happened to be a relatively stable condition that was a fertile breeding ground for the types of extremists that are prone to terrorism.

Taking out Saddam destabilized the region. Period. The hope is that it can be restabilized into something a little better for everyone around... a better life would hopefully mean that less people are willing to blow themselves up because they see no other hope.

This obviously annoys the Sunnis in Iraq, as they had power, and now they don't. It obviously annoys those that think that the US is the cause for all of their problems. So a short-term increase in terrorism seems to be almost inevitable.

Sometimes the process of solving a problem can make it temporarily worse. Take surgery for instance. Usually people come out of surgery feeling not very good, but it often will fix problems that would have only escalated into something fatal down the road.

[StruckingFuggle]

Oh, I understand that. I'm just saying it's no reason to cover it up.

[Deacon]

StruckingFuggle, perhaps you missed my point, which is that the idea is to tear the house down and try to rebuild it in such a way that the inhabitants and all the neighbors start behaving better. Right now only the foundation is being laid. We won't know how successful it was for several years at least. Additionally, was the report regarding acts of terrorism against America (and/or American targets)? Or just in general?

[kyoryu]

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="482308"]Oh, I understand that. I'm just saying it's no reason to cover it up.[/quote]

Well first off, I'm not sure there's a 'coverup'. We're hearing one side of the story, and one of the principal pieces of evidence is missing - what methodology is being used to define 'terrorist action', especially vs. what was previously used.

Unfortunately, there's a certain number of folks here that WOULD use 'OMG terrorism is increasing!!!1!!1!one!!!eleven' as a reason to push for us leaving the region, which would be an insanely bad idea. If the report is flawed (ie using widely different definitions of 'terrorist activity' than it had in the past) then yes, I think that suppressing it would be a good idea. In the current us vs. them political climate, people just wouldn't bother looking past the big headline before they started screaming for heads on stakes.

[Deacon]

kyoryu, that was well thought-out and well said.

[Martin Blank]

The proper way is to provide the numbers without the terrorist attacks in Iraq, which clearly do skew the numbers inappropriately. Graphs should present the tendencies and exclude Iraqi history for the coverage time, because Iraq is an anomaly. The FBI did exactly the same thing with the Uniform Crime Reports for 2001, excluding 9/11, so I would say that yes, there is potentially a problem with the methodology.

[Blaze]

Absolutly there is.

Besides which, people shouldn't be concerned with a rise anyway. As the saying goes, "It always gets worse before it gets better."

[Blinker]

why should the terrorist attacks be excluded if we are labeling them as terrorist who are commiting acts of terror?

[Deacon]

Because they're looking at global trends of relatively small numbers. Toss in an anomaly, and it throws off the whole picture. It's like measuring crime in NYC on September 11 of '01 and not pulling the WTC deaths and destruction out of the mix. It's like, what, did the Italians and Irish finally snap and murder each other on a scale like has never been seen before?

[Nekra]

or it could be a growing international backlash at your nations repeated assualts on other nations, a large number of which have us coming along for the ride, a point i would like to make is in actual fact against the wishes of most people i know. Last time i checked for a people with 6% of the worlds population you use over 25% of the worlds resources (by that i always assumed the resources used that year) a fact that does piss of a lot of people, especially ones in poorer countries who just cant afford to compete.

And lets not forget the extremists groups whose religions are really strong on some things and might feel this need to punish the infidels who keep breaking these constraints and are not being punished by god.

[peter-griffin]

a fact that does piss of a lot of people

why? we're buying it, and we wouldn't be able to do much if they legitimately bought it. those african tribesmen sure do need coal and oil to power their bows and arrows, i tell ya. i suggest you just stop posting.