War on Terror Failing; Fueling Extremism

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2007-10-08 05:01pm

Report says war on terror is fuelling al Qaeda
Sun Oct 7, 2007 7:28pm EDT

By Kate Kelland

LONDON (Reuters) - Six years after the September 11 attacks in the United States, the "war on terror" is failing and instead fuelling an increase in support for extremist Islamist movements, a British think-tank said on Monday.

A report by the Oxford Research Group (ORG) said a "fundamental re-think is required" if the global terrorist network is to be rendered ineffective.

"If the al Qaeda movement is to be countered, then the roots of its support must be understood and systematically undercut," said Paul Rogers, the report's author and professor of global peace studies at Bradford University in northern England.

"Combined with conventional policing and security measures, al Qaeda can be contained and minimized but this will require a change in policy at every level."

He described the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as a "disastrous mistake" which had helped establish a "most valued jihadist combat training zone" for al Qaeda supporters.

The report -- Alternatives to the War on Terror -- recommended the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq coupled with intensive diplomatic engagement in the region, including with Iran and Syria.

In Afghanistan, Rogers also called for an immediate scaling down of military activities, an injection of more civil aid and negotiations with militia groups aimed at bringing them into the political process.

If such measures were adopted it would still take "at least 10 years to make up for the mistakes made since 9/11."

"Failure to make the necessary changes could result in the war on terror lasting decades," the report added.

Rogers also warned of a drift toward conflict with Iran.

"Going to war with Iran", he said, "will make matters far worse, playing directly into the hands of extreme elements and adding greatly to the violence across the region. Whatever the problems with Iran, war should be avoided at all costs."

salm · Post by **salm** » 2007-10-08 05:33pm

Too bad that "Stay the course" jokes aren´t funny anymore.

Santiago · Post by **Santiago** » 2007-10-08 05:51pm

Of course you must realize that we are bringing liberty, peace, hope and democracy to them.

Every time we kill a few of the terrorists we help fuel this fanatical jihad fatalism. What we need is a plan to do whatever we must in order to end this.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-10-08 05:57pm

Well, I for one am shocked, really, who would've guessed this would've been the outcome?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2007-10-08 06:11pm

Violence breeds violence? Nah, not if everyone else is dead.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2007-10-08 06:56pm

It’s not like the objective was ever in any way possible anyway.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-10-08 10:25pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:It’s not like the objective was ever in any way possible anyway.

It's nice that the general population is starting to wake up to this fact. It would have been nicer if they figured this out 5 years ago.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2007-10-08 10:34pm

Like the War on Drugs, the War on Terror can't possibly be meant to have any sort of conclusion; the War on Terror is a permanent institution by design.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-10-08 10:40pm

Frank Hipper wrote:Like the War on Drugs, the War on Terror can't possibly be meant to have any sort of conclusion; the War on Terror is a permanent institution by design.

I don't know if I'd necessarily go that far. I believe it is entirely possible that the war's backers sincerely believed their idiotic bullshit about the people greeting them as "liberators" and then spontaneously creating an anarcho-libertarian state out of the ashes, while happily joining the Saudis in becoming staunch allies of the United States and working to change the entire Middle East into a pro-American, pro-Israeli land of joy.

After all, they never really meant "War on Terror" literally; they meant "War to make Israel safe for all time and ensure the return of Jesus Christ on a Cloud of Glory". They did have a specific end-point in mind, even if it was a totally brain-damaged one.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-10-08 10:42pm

Well, which backers? It's not like there's even coherency across the group besides an intense, undying hatred of 'liberals' and a love of war. Big businesses, who were definitely part(Seen how much Blackwater USA is pulling down for being unpoliced maniacs?), probably want it as long as possible. The Religious Right just see it as a useful catalyst. The Neocons wanted to be proven right and thus superior. And so on down the line.

Pelranius · Post by **Pelranius** » 2007-10-08 11:40pm

It depends on which part of Big Business. The multinational corporations probably want us to get out pronto. The PMCs and energy monopolies would like us to stay indefinitely, I think.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-10-09 04:23am

Darth Wong wrote:After all, they never really meant "War on Terror" literally; they meant "War to make Israel safe for all time and ensure the return of Jesus Christ on a Cloud of Glory". They did have a specific end-point in mind, even if it was a totally brain-damaged one.

The way I understood the "prophecies", the Israeli military is supposed to be getting its collective ass kicked and then Jesus returns and rescues them.

[R_H] · Post by **[R_H]** » 2007-10-09 05:17am

Darth Servo wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:After all, they never really meant "War on Terror" literally; they meant "War to make Israel safe for all time and ensure the return of Jesus Christ on a Cloud of Glory". They did have a specific end-point in mind, even if it was a totally brain-damaged one.
The way I understood the "prophecies", the Israeli military is supposed to be getting its collective ass kicked and then Jesus returns and rescues them.

Why do they wanktastically support Israel with all the military aid then? Then again, it's Repulitard thinking, logic need not apply.

Lord of the Abyss · Post by **Lord of the Abyss** » 2007-10-09 06:24am

[R_H] wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:After all, they never really meant "War on Terror" literally; they meant "War to make Israel safe for all time and ensure the return of Jesus Christ on a Cloud of Glory". They did have a specific end-point in mind, even if it was a totally brain-damaged one.
The way I understood the "prophecies", the Israeli military is supposed to be getting its collective ass kicked and then Jesus returns and rescues them.
Why do they wanktastically support Israel with all the military aid then? Then again, it's Repulitard thinking, logic need not apply.

I gather that the idea is that they want to keep Israel in existence until the End Times arrive, and then and only then will it be destroyed. They want to make everything is in place, so the End Times come as soon as possilbe. To the True Believers, the end of the world is a good thing.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2007-10-10 01:20am

But if Gods omnipotent, and the End times are going to arrive no matter what we do, why bother helping it arrive? Oh wait, these are right wing retards we are talking about.

ray245 · Post by **ray245** » 2007-10-10 01:39am

Darth Wong wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:It’s not like the objective was ever in any way possible anyway.
It's nice that the general population is starting to wake up to this fact. It would have been nicer if they figured this out 5 years ago.

Agreed...and I got flamed in other boards while trying to tell them how stupid it was.