What do the statistics say about terrorism? I was shocked!?

Question

The University of Maryland maintains the Global Terrorism Database.

Today I looked at those numbers in many different ways and was shocked at what I found? Many of you will call it propaganda and lies. I can't help you, but today was such a 'bad day' in Iraq that the news is reporting about the political crisis where Sunni Iraqi ministers have decided to do their jobs but not attend cabinet meetings.

The numbers are similar news that isn't getting reported. 98-04 demonstrates a worldwide decline in terrorism, with an increase in attacks killing more people at a time and a concentration of attacks against our allies and in the "hot spots."

Don't believe me? I have the link to the databases on my blog. Crunch the numbers yourself and see if you can come up with ANY way to refute the data.

War on Terror Blog: http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-DfkctJU7dK5B7LcNROoyVQ--?cq=1

No politics. Just the groundtruth from a combat veteran of both fronts backed up by independent research

Answer 1

Neither Iraq, nor any other supposed muslim country are expressly terrorist.  Adequate research would reveal that terrorism are often ignored in vast countries when it should have been opposed by related leadership all along.

Answer 2

I have always believed that terrorism is something we can't get rid of in this generation or the next or whenever....  There will always be people who will do anything and everything to execute their beliefs whether it will be the demise to a few or how many ever will be... Statistically speaking...the numbers are probably correct, but terrorism is something we must be on our guard with and not something we have to go to war with like we're doing right now in Iraq and Afghanistan... Our leaders are so dumb and ignorant that they started this commotion and didn't have the slightest clue that we'd lose close to 4000 lives and 20000+ wounded in this ordeal in Iraq.  It would be nice if they find a solution and try to go another route in fighting terrorism rather than the nightmare we're facing right now...I just wanna wake up one day and hear that it's over and our men and women are on our own American soil...

Answer 3

Your analysis is fundamentally flawed and your process ill conceived.  It begins with the very dates you've chosen:  group 1 (1970-1997) verses group 2 (1998-2004).  You're comparing a 27-year span with a 6-year span.  You state you correct this because 6 is 1/4 of 27 and apparently you're multiplying the first group stats by 1/4 to compare them to group 2.  Well, first of all, 6 isn't 1/4 of 27.  Second, you cannot compare such wildly different lengths of time then just try to correct the output by using a multiplier.  It just doesn't work.  Just for example, let's say terrorist attacks were very high (relatively) from 1970 - 1985, but then steadily declined until 1998, when they continued to increase until 2004.  Using your formula, you could come to the conclusion that terrorism from 1970-1997 (times 1/4) was higher than from 1998-2004, so terrorism must be in decline.  It makes no sense.  Why not just compare 1991-1997 with 1998-2004?  Or, if you want to actually be intellectually honest about the whole thing, why not compare an equal number of years before and after we launched our War on Terror?  Isn't that the real issue?  

Second, I must question your very definition of "terrorist attack."  What is the definition being used?  According the current administration, every attack in Iraq is a terrorist attack.  How can terrorism be up only 800% in Iraq?  How many terrorist attacks occurred in Iraq before we showed up?  Your statistics can be wildly skewed by the simple fact that there might not be a simple definition of terrorism.

Lastly, you make a number of simply illogical statements/conclusions.  Some examples:

In regard to Pakistan:  "Terrorism is down 34% and we are not seeing them show up in Iraq so much."  So much as when?  Pre 1998?  Pre "War on Terror?"  Come on.

You say, "...I...say it indicates that terrorists are traveling to Iraq, Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent Afghanistan from other countries and instead of here."  Really?  Prior to our War in Iraq, all of these terrorists were on their way here but changed their flight plans when then heard they could find us in Iraq?  Come on.  

Etc., etc., etc.... I could go on, but what's the point.

To conclude, I would just say that you are wildly out of your element (as you readily admit).  Your attempted use of statistics is so flawed as to be meaningless.  The time periods you rely upon have no application to the so-called "War on Terror" currently espoused by the administration.

Answer 4

You need to organize your data better.  You're mixing your conclusions in with the data and in some cases not clearly defining what the data represents.  I'm not saying you are wrong and I hope you will see this as constructive criticism.  The way it is now it's difficult for me to look at the information and come up with my own opinion.

EDIT - In my job I have to organize and analyze sales figures.  I would be interested in looking at the raw data.