PDA

View Full Version : War on terror backfires: think tank



danno
11th April 07, 07:31 AM
The US-led war on terror is only fuelling more violence by focusing on military solutions rather than on root causes, a British think tank has warned.

"The war on terror is failing and actually increasing the likelihood of more terrorist attacks," the Oxford Research Group said in its study Beyond Terror: The Truth About The Real Threats To Our World.

It accused the United States and Britain of using military might to try to "keep the lid on" problems rather than trying to uproot the causes of terrorism.

It said such an approach, particularly the 2003 invasion of Iraq, had actually heightened the risk of further terrorist atrocities on the scale of September 11, 2001.

"Treating Iraq as part of the war on terror only spawned new terror in the region and created a combat training zone for jihadists," the report's authors said.

It pointed out that the Islamist Taliban movement is now resurgent, six years after it was overthrown in 2001 by the US-led invasion in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

"Sustainable approaches" to fighting terrorism would involve the withdrawal of US-led forces from Iraq and their replacement with a United Nations' stabilisation force, it said.

It also recommended the provision of sustained aid for rebuilding and developing Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as closing the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where most suspects are held without charge or trial.

It also called for a "genuine commitment to a viable two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict".

The study warned that military intervention in Iran over its nuclear ambitions would be "disastrous", calling instead for a firm and public commitment to a diplomatic solution.

Iran insists the program is peaceful, despite claims from Washington that it masks a drive for nuclear weapons.

The study also said the British Government's plans to upgrade the submarine-based Trident nuclear deterrent could produce international instability.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1894168.htm

more on where this info comes from:

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/1846040701.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_V43814303_SS500_.jpg


Is international terrorism really the single greatest threat to world security?

Since the 9/11 attacks, many Western governments assume terrorism to be the greatest threat we face. In response, their dangerous policies attempt to maintain control and keep the status quo by using overwhelming military force. This important book shows why this approach has been such a failure, and how it distracts us from other, much greater, threats:

* Climate change
* Competition over resources
* Marginalisation of the majority world
* Global militarisation

Unless urgent, coordinated action is taken in the next 5-10 years on all these issues it will be almost impossible to avoid the earth becoming a highly unstable place by the middle years of this century. Beyond Terror offers an alternative path for politicians, journalists and concerned citizens alike.

About this book

This book is based on Global Responses to Global Threats: Sustainable Security for the 21st Century, published by ORG in June 2006. Fully revised, updated and expanded, this current work has involved nearly two years of research in total as part of ORGís Moving towards sustainable security project. The English version was published in April 2007 by Random House on their Rider list. Later in the year it will also be published in Dutch by A.W. Bruna and Portuguese by Editorial Presenca.

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/books/beyondterror.php

i've been saying this for years:


It accused the United States and Britain of using military might to try to "keep the lid on" problems rather than trying to uproot the causes of terrorism.

It said such an approach, particularly the 2003 invasion of Iraq, had actually heightened the risk of further terrorist atrocities on the scale of September 11, 2001.

much to the horror of many people on internet forums.

i know a few people here will strongly disagree with what has been quoted above. so please, rip it up.

also, i'm not totally sold on every other claim they have made. is this "think tank" full of it? anyone got some dirt on their reliability?

Shawarma
11th April 07, 08:50 AM
"Think Tanks" in general are worthless because they always have a specific ideology. The usual procedure is to begin with an idea that its ideology claims to be correct and then make it so that the facts support this idea.

I'll comment on the article when I can be arsed to do so, but I'll just say that the situation is at this point so FUBAR that the UN sure as hell won't be able to do any good should leadership of Iraq be handed over to them.

WarPhalange
11th April 07, 10:41 AM
"Think Tanks" in general are worthless because they always have a specific ideology. The usual procedure is to begin with an idea that its ideology claims to be correct and then make it so that the facts support this idea.

True. But in this case, they are right.

danno
11th April 07, 10:59 AM
"Think Tanks" in general are worthless because they always have a specific ideology. The usual procedure is to begin with an idea that its ideology claims to be correct and then make it so that the facts support this idea.

yeah i thought so.

however this is pretty much how everyone operates...


I'll comment on the article when I can be arsed to do so, but I'll just say that the situation is at this point so FUBAR that the UN sure as hell won't be able to do any good should leadership of Iraq be handed over to them.

what is FUBAR?

WarPhalange
11th April 07, 11:00 AM
Fucked Up Beyond All Reason would be my guess.

Neildo
11th April 07, 11:03 AM
R can also be for Recognition.


I watched some BBC report on the war the other day. Lots of graphic footage, like that sniper guy and other war atrocities.

My morbid curiousity wants to see America pull out of Iraq and watch the whole powder keg fucking blow. It's total chaos over there.

billy sol hurok
11th April 07, 12:13 PM
LOL U.N. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmM3NjNjOTA2Mjg5Y2MzY2FmYTEwNTBmODM4NjMyMjY=)


On April 9, 2007 there was a United Nations believe-it-or-not moment extraordinaire. At the same time that Iranís President Ahmadinejad declared his country was now capable of industrial-scale uranium enrichment, the U.N. reelected Iran as a vice chairman of the U.N. Disarmament Commission.

Yes Ripley, the very U.N. body charged with promoting nuclear nonproliferation installed in a senior position the state that the Security Council recently declared violated its nonproliferation resolutions.
'Cause, like, you need to ENGAGE them already.

Look how well it's working in Sudan!!1!eleven! Striped pants FTW!

Shawarma
11th April 07, 12:35 PM
Wait, just how did Iran violate this? They have stated (yes, stated) that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Surely they're allowed to have a nuclear plant or two without violating any resolutions regarding atomic bombs?

WarPhalange
11th April 07, 12:55 PM
Because, they will throw the nuclear power plants at the US (Yes, the US) and cause them to melt down mid air, so when they impact, they explode!!!!

!!!!!

Stick
11th April 07, 01:51 PM
I'd always understoud it to be "Fucked up beyond all repair".

I'm inclined to agree with the think tank, but I'm also inclined to think these guys are all limp wrested liberal pansies..... which I guess makes me.....

Anywho.

Dagon Akujin
11th April 07, 10:53 PM
I've been saying that for years.

Wait. Do those people get paid for doing that? 'Cause I certainly would love to get some cash for the shit that spouts out of my mouth in coffee shops at 2:00 a.m.

And hey look! The U.S. is now lengthening tours of duty another 3 months at a time! Woot! A year away from your family/friends/sanity? No way! Make it 15 months of fighting for your country instead. Nobody back home will notice/care about the toll you are paying anyway.

Dagon