i can confirm that the statistics i posted are the correct ones.

so this is interesting, cause you have been misled by the CNN article..!
i already knew about this miscalculation deal, as i read about it yesterday . what this article does that the CNN article doesn't is explain to what extent the statistic were wrong. (probably because it was published at a later date, when the correct numbers had been published.) it says exactly how much the numbers increased. the CNN article just tells you that instead of a -decrease- there was an -increase-. an important message for them to send across, but it is a very simplified version, and a misleading one unless you really study the facts. (average joe doesn't.)

if you look at the article i linked to above, the increase was by only 3 attacks. from 205 to 208 (instead of 198 as was the number in the incorrect report). you can check the graph that i linked to, it shows the corrected & updated number for 2003.

there is another side of this issue: the number of people killed in the attacks. the stats were also incorrect on that aspect before being corrected. instead of 307 there were 625 people killed. but! that number is still less than in 2002, when 725 people were killed.
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33771.htm

so this sentance from the CNN article is a misleading overstatement: 'In fact, he told reporters, the corrected report will show "a sharp increase over the previous year."'
the increase wasn't sharp at all. only 3 more attacks, and with less people killed.

man, i didn't know it would be so entertaining to do this sort of research!

░▒▓█▌¹♥▐█▓▒░

War is nothing but a campaign / Freedom is nothing but a brand name
-Promoe

The Impossible attracts me, because everything possible has been done and the world didn’t change.
-Sun Ra