US-led war on terror increases risk of terrorist attacks: think tank

[Fozzledick]

by Deborah Haynes
Mon Jun 12, 7:24 AM ET

LONDON (AFP) - The US-led "war on terror" is increasing the risk of terrorist attacks and distracting governments from greater threats to global security such as climate change, a think-tank warned in a report.

The Oxford Research Group urged countries, especially the United States and Britain, to rethink their security policies to counter future instability.

"The war on terror is a dangerous diversion and prevents the international community from responding effectively to the most likely causes of future conflict," a press statement about the report said.

...

"This deeply flawed strategy is consuming hundreds of billions of dollars, creating more recruits and supporters of terrorism than it defeats and is diverting attention from threats to security that are far more serious, lasting and destructive than that of international terrorism," the report found.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/britainusattacks;_ylt=Ah40R6lnNWw2S.ARR7vX8iwDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBhcmljNmVhBHNlYwNtcm5ld3M-

[JeffR]

1. Geez! Ya think? Who knew?

To paraphrase Mr. Zimmerman, "You don't need a think tank to see which way the wind blows."

[coalition_unwilling]

11. Americans are too busy watching the parking meters :)

[Ghost Dog]

2. What's hard is getting such 'clear thinking' into the MSM

...and thus into the average dumbed-down anglo-american's mind...

Instead of terrorism, the report cited climate change; competition over resources; socio-economic marginalisation and global militarisation as the main threats to peace and the likely causes of future conflict.

These issues "are far more important than the current focus on the 'war on terror'", the authors of the 18-month study concluded.

"This deeply flawed strategy is consuming hundreds of billions of dollars, creating more recruits and supporters of terrorism than it defeats and is diverting attention from threats to security that are far more serious, lasting and destructive than that of international terrorism," the report found.

edit: Unfortunately, what's usually missing in this kind of analysis is a recognition that the '(socio-economic) system' needs to change: that the 'wealthy' and the 'rich world' must curb their media-inspired desires for ever-increasing, indiscriminate consumption: there are many, many others who need to consume more, starting from much less. Those who are already free of poverty should prefer to choose quality over quantity - give others a - moderate - chance, and stop exploiting/raping them.

'Economic growth' for its own sake, for the few 'winners', without considering social and environmental goals, is simply, like a cancer, an ill-considered madness that will lead us all to a very sad, bad end.

:rant:

ed. again: But notice here the headline writer's need only to refer to "war on terror" and "terrorist attacks". The agenda has thus been set (at least for the 'mainstream' powerful minority).

[Norquist Nemesis]

3. Well duh!!!

[UpInArms]

4. I'll echo that! "Well duh!!"

Well duh!!

[ixion]

5. is there an echo in here?

Well duh!!

[Canuckistanian]

8. Double duh!

[Tin Man]

6. Related story in today's WaPo

Discussion thread can be found at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1406182&mesg_id=1406182

[rodeodance]

15. rec.

[schmuls]

7. Are they sure? It can't be. How shocking! They must be mistaken

[Jade Fox]

9. How can that be?

Every time I deploy soldiers into a huge deadly mess and get thousands of innocents civilians killed in the process, I make friends! :sarcasm:

[coalition_unwilling]

10. There is no "War on Terror"; there is a "War for Empire" n/t

[YankeyMCC]

12. And in other news

"Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead."

[roseBudd]

13. click through and rate it a 5 it only has 84 votes!

[rodeodance]

14. they put out some grood recommendations also.

The report argued that "such security policies are self-defeating in the long-term and so a new approach is urgently needed."

It suggested a different strategy focused on addressing the fundamental issues that create instability:

-- Renewable energy and conservation to counter climate change;

-- energy efficiency to combat resource competition;

-- poverty reduction programmes to defeat marginalisation; and

-- halting development of weapons of mass destruction to stop global militarisation.

"These provide the best chance of averting global disaster as well as addressing some of the root causes of terrorism," the research group said.

[truthisfreedom]

16. bushco doesn't want less terror... more terror and world domination are

their primary goals. they could give a rat's ass about the environment either. it's like they're from outer space and want to kill us for our water.

[CJCRANE]

17. "This deeply flawed strategy is consuming hundreds of billions of dollars"

Just ask where all that money's going and I think you have your real answer about what the GWOT is all about.

[Clyde39]

18. Who, exactly, came up with "The War On Terror"?

It's become so commonplace now that no one even blinks when it's mentioned. To see our country drop to such a low level is very depressing!

[demigoddess]

19. I said that about 5 years ago and I'm not very smart.

any idiot with half a brain knows that. oh, i forgot! republicans! that explains everything.

[young_at_heart]

20. "This deeply flawed strategy".......it's about time somebody said it

For the Bushites to claim they are "tough" on terror is an oxymoron. It should be shouted loudly from all media outlets!

[unkachuck]

21. it's nice to see....

....the neocon agenda is right on track....

[struggle4progress]

22. kick

:kick: