since i keep hearing about this infamous 2003 terror report for every arguement from certain liberals...and i don't think they were looking at the same terror report i was. I only found one.

50% less isreali casualties
30% less attacks on isreali targets

The report in no way shape or form announced that terrorism was at its highest ever. It only mentioned:

"terrorists employed a variety new strategies in attacks carried out, including the recruitment of Israeli Arabs, foreigners and women, the targeting US interests and plans to assassinate Israel's Prime Minister."

here's the link
http://fzs.blogspot.com/2004/01/2003-terror-report-50-decrease-in.html

Is this the same terror report? if not whats the link for the correct one

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040623_1046.html

Significant acts of terror worldwide reached a 21-year high in 2003, the State Department announced Tuesday as it corrected a mistaken report that had been cited to boost President Bush's war on terror.

(Meaning they said terrorism decreased, but amended the Official Terror Report and it thus showed it has reached a 21 year high)
Which shows terrorism isn’t doing much better.

While the article does show high numbers of people wounded in terrorist attacks from the previous year.....There were only 3 more incidents from 2003 compared to 2002. There is really no way to directly track at what level terrorism is...i find your claim, that Al-Queda is more powerful than ever, to be highly suspect. There is no way of proving it, and its just a liberal-spinned guess in my opinion.

Well then I guess this war on terrorism (Bush’s style) hasn’t worked out so well? Since we are at a 21 year high.

The only thing that is on a 21-year high is "significant acts of terror", which is all a mattar of perspective in the first place. Ive given many reasons why terrorism went up, but yet you refute it with "but...the terror report says"....lol. I KNOW what it says, and its broad and questionable at best. The total acts of terror only went up by 3 acts....so get over this TERROR IS RISING AT INCREDIBLE RATES notion.

And you never answered my question....where is your proof that Al Queda is stronger than ever? I doubt you have it.

Decka, it’s up from last year. And in 2002, we had already been Afghanistan and in 2003 we were in Iraq as well. It went up dramatically in 2002, a went up again in 2003. Which thus shows the way in which George Bush has run this war, isn’t making us safer.

Next, I don’t care if you don’t believe me. All sings point to them increasing. I don’t have an official link, if that’s what your looking for, but it’s fairly easy to understand that it would rise.

When terror increases, you usually have more members, for you can thus commit more attacks.

Also the Prisoner Abuse has riled up Al Queda and given them an example to spread Anti-Americanism. If you don’t think they’ve gained members after that, you are delusional.

decka, the terror attacks are higher by 3, so they ARE technically higher, thus ripe for using as part of an argument. of course the uneployment rate is DOWN from the previous year , though technically DOWN from the previous year, they are still ripe for use as part of their argument. liberals have a very specific way of looking at statistics. Overdose claims to know that somehow there are more terrorists then last year. his only way to verify this is that there were 3 more terror attacks then last year :rolleyes:

Trav, it’s up from last year. Period. They were fairly major terrorist attacks, also. Plus, in 2002, that was when it increased dramatically. Which was already when Bush had started his War on Terrorism.
Which thus means the way in which he has run this war on terrorism, isn’t working very well.

As for the terrorists, gaining members. I personally believe they are. The Prisoner Abuse will lead to a lot of hate against the United States. The deformities in Iraq from our bombs, will cause a lot of hate. Many things we are doing in Iraq are going to lead to a lot of hate for the United States. But I’m sure you disagree with all of that. That’s okay, it’s not my problem.