"Fight against al-Qa'eda terrorism 'is a disaster'," from The Telegraph:
The so-called war on terror has been a "disaster" and British military policy in Iraq and Afghanistan must be fundamentally changed if al-Qa'eda is to be defeated, a report claims today.
Very interesting. Go on...
The Oxford Research Group calls for major changes in foreign policy and warns of the dangers of military action against Iran.
Iraq has become a training ground for violent jihadists and British and US forces should withdraw from the country immediately, the think-tank adds. The Prime Minister announced during a visit to British troops in Iraq last week that 1,000 of them would be back in the UK by Christmas. He will update MPs on the situation today in a Commons statement.
The Oxford Research Group's report claims that the fight against international terrorism has failed and has instead played into the hands of al-Qa'eda.
The dismantling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2001-02 was of "direct value" to al-Qa'eda and the "extraordinary rendition" and detention of terror suspects is a "constant source of propaganda", it adds. The report calls for a complete withdrawal from Iraq, a scaling down of military operations in Afghanistan and the ending of "extraordinary rendition" — sending suspects to another country to be interrogated —and detention without trial.
So... deposing the Taliban to deny al-Qaeda a safe haven was of direct value to al-Qaeda. Is this a... "doublethink" tank?
More from Reuters, in "Report says war on terror is fuelling al Qaeda," 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.
"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.
Again, the part about understanding al-Qaeda sounds interesting. But he continues:
"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."
[...]
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.
...professor of global "peace studies?"
Peace? Look how the concept of peace has been adulterated! A simple cursory examination of "peace" organizations and "peace" studies (that proliferate in our Universities) reveal not peace but the art of surrender, self hatred and the how to of modern day capitulation and servitude.
Sickening
"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.
The roots are islam, and the peoples of those countrys that follow the faith of islam. Is he saying we must focus the energy on these things?
The war on terror is fighting a straw-man, without a brain. Fighting that war has a first rule, try not to kill anybody.
We are in two countrys, but are not at war, we are the police more that a war machine.
This report has nearly everything reversed.
Diplomacy with the Taliban?
This guy is a professor?
Talk about ivory towers, foggy bottoms and heads up the arse!
This guy's got it it all...
Iraq After the Surge
August 2007 - Paul Rogers
But according to Rogers the real problem is CLIMATE CHANGE.
Beyond Terror: The Truth About the Real Threats to Our World
Chris Abbott, Paul Rogers and John Sloboda, April 2007 (Rider)
And his next book ... How I Became a Rich and Famous Peddling Garbage
The Oxford Research Group
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrivpfXJIr0
Using the same logic:
Crime is being fueled by policemen and the justice system that incarcerates criminals. Normally law abiding citizens are inspired to become criminals as a response to tough law enforcement and high prison populations.
The best way to end crime is to disband the police and justice system, release all inmates from the prisons and invest more money into education and job-training for all the former inmates who would then have no reason to commit crimes.
Thanks guys.
Helpful tips indeed. Now how do we get our politically correct halfwits to implement them?
The author of this report is 'Professor of global peace studies' from BRADFORD university. For our US friends, Bradford is pretty well 90% Muslim.
Perhaps the man fears for his safety, or else he has lived too long in the Asylum called Bradford and is becoming like the inmates!
If the War on Terror made Al Qaida more visible, then this is a success, not a desaster.
That's the solution, yep. More aid, more jizya, no troops, sit down and negotiate wih terrorists. That ought to work.
Think tank: Fighting back disastrous to "War on Terror"
How obvious, yet we missed it. After September 11, 2001 we all should have followed guidance and become muslim. This is not a think tank. This is sick think. Fighting the war will not be easy. We must attack the mosques from where this evil emanates. It is total idiocy to think the islamic attack on the west has anything to do with legitimate grievances against the west. This is the nonsense al Qaeda writes to the west as it justifies its murders to muslim followers in the name of conventional islam. Raymond Ibrahim in his recent article The Two Faces of Al Qaeda at
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/ibrahim100307.html
points out:
"...[Publications] contained not only excerpts or quotes by Al Qaeda but entire treatises written by its members. Surprisingly, I came to discover that most of these had never been translated into English. Most significantly, however, the documents struck me as markedly different from the messages directed to the West, in both tone and (especially) content.
It soon became clear why these particular documents had not been directed to the West. They were theological treatises, revolving around what Islam commands Muslims to do vis-à-vis non-Muslims. The documents rarely made mention of all those things — Zionism, Bush's "Crusade," malnourished Iraqi children — that formed the core of Al Qaeda's messages to the West. Instead, they were filled with countless Koranic verses, hadiths (traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad), and the consensus and verdicts of Islam's most authoritative voices. The temporal and emotive language directed at the West was exchanged for the eternal language of Islam when directed at Muslims. Or, put another way, the language of "reciprocity" was exchanged for that of intolerant religious fanaticism."
The war of terror is a war of an intolerant islamic religious fanaticism against you, you ignorati of the tank and the press. Surrender is not a good option, unless you want your wife and children given to slavery and your head cut off! Ignorati, don't you know what the muslims are planning for you?
Useful idiots would be too much of a compliment for these brainfart thinkers.
I would go along with the esteemed profs advice if he also made the stipulation that all Muslkms in the West be deported.
The Oxford Research Group is a synonym for Thinkers Who Are Losers (and Hugh, tie yourself to the mast so you are not seduced by their song(lol))
If Cambridge produced the commies of the thirties, is Oxford trying to catch up by producing the appeasers of the new millenium ?
Yes, the way to win is by losing - great advice for those of the female persuasion out to wrangle her man, but a disaster as a tenet of foreign policy for the West.
(how about some research into the sex lives and practices of these 'researchers'?)
In a related item on the Oxford Research Group site - It was wrong for Britain to bomb Germany as it only made Hitler seriously angry, and it helped him to recruit more soldiers.
When "think" is spelled "s-e-p-t-i-c."
back to the 1990s then? no thanks.
"more civil aid and negotiations with militia groups aimed at bringing them into the political process."
I wonder did these "thinkers" ever hear of Hamas or Hezbollah?
Great Britain is losing it's greatness piece by PC piece.
Thimk Tank?
"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."
....sounds a lot like surrender.....
It's interesting that this story was published the The Telegraph ("torygraph"), the Conservative Party newspaper in London. Being the opposition, the Tories need to criticize the Iraq war and blame in on the Labor Party of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. I also find the alliance of right-wing Bush with left-wing Blair / Brown interesting.
The theory that the Iraq war has made the USA and UK less safe is the mantra of the Dhimmicrats in Washington. The prime example is John "war on terror is only a bumper sticker" Edwards.
The Liberals want to send troops to Darfur, Sudan. Haven't they heard OBL's promise to wage jihad in Darfur if the USA, Europe or UN get involved? Yes, if the US and UK leave Iraq, Al Qaeda will leave. They will follow the United Nations troops to Somalia or Sudan.
--
Connecticut (rhymes with septic tank) Yank
Well that makes perfect sense, any time you are at war and you kill a large number of your enemies, it always works against you, just ask Alexander the Great or any WW2 generals, they will tell you the same thing.
The suggestions by the "think-tank" is nothing short of preposterous and Paul Rogers should be added to the "enemies of the West" list.
"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" --article--
"Extremist" Islamic movements? Extreme in what way? Tu quoque anyone?
"If the al Qaeda movement is to be countered, then the roots of its support must be understood and systematically undercut," said Paul Rogers.--article--
Well, Mr. Rogers, what are the "roots" of al Qaeda's support? Please identify them so we can undercut them.
This is the same Islamic apologist argument we see all the time now. All these issues with extremists, with no correlation to the tenets of Islam. No sane solutions offered, with the exception of surrender and submission.
Absurd.
I agree with the Report that the War Against Islamic Fascism is being prosecuted too weakly.
But on no other points.
By not naming the enemy who have declared their name and aims, it remains a neo-Phony War.
These fools recommend putting on more gloves.
I say: take off the ones we've foolishly donned.
These Brits want to Pussyfoot to Oblivion.
They can watch England for an example of that theory in practice.
Meanwhile, those who understand the real stakes need to keep hitting the Islamofascists harder.
First, by defining them more accurately.
Which this site, and others, attempts to do.
Nothing changes.
The same craven, delusional thinking dominated the media and academia in the 1930's as they do now.
These people are the heirs of the Nazi enablers and sympathizers who blindly led their nations to war because they preferred to "feed the crocodile in hopes that they would be eaten last".
No brains, no shame.
To put it simply..."WHAT A CROCK!".
Let's try playing Slim Whitman records at high volume.
/sarcasm
...and Chemotherapy is the wrong method to fight cancer. The powerful chemicals can cause otherwise healthy cells to spontaneously become cancerous. The best way to cure cancer is to think positive thoughts.
"Run away! Run away!"
I must admit that I agree with him on one. The war on terror is failing. But not because we attcked them, but because we quit attacking them and tried to "win the hearts and minds of the people" of islam.
If we actully started fighting to win the war and quit fighting to democratize the muslim nations, we could win.
Submit!
What virtually all of these leftist buffoons simply refuse to face is the fact that all attempts to appease (or curry favor with) Islam's aggression are AUTOMATICALLY doomed to failure because it is against the teachings of al-lah for any Muslims to validate the unbelieving "infidels" in any way.
And, despite the leftists' drumbeating to the contrary, efforts made at appeasing Islam will NOT preclude Muslims from attacking and killing you!
Why?? Because
Non-compliance with Kuranic teachings make one an "infidel" and a 'criminal against God' warranting any and all retributions including the death penalty. Nothing can change this except total "submission" (and not even then really since Muslims kill other Muslims all the time).
Islam is the real "disaster" in this scenario-- for the entire world. (Whether or not you fight back against Islamic terror!).
Listening to leftists on this matter is not merely a total waste of time but a total waste of time that can get you killed, too.
lmao @ topic
paul rogers? lmao...
poster boy for the radical left as can be seen onmany kook fringe sites...cross searches tell the tale...may as well have gotten opinion from the puppetmaster himself, george "the capo" soros.
What's next?
"This just in! comrade stalin says capitalism is evil!"
Oh, man...lmao
Some ones thinking is backward here. The Disaster was doing nothing BEFORE 9/11, not after.
Talk is cheap. Some cheapen it even further.
Let us all use the same logic to reduce Defence Budgets. If we have a smaller force then they will do so as well.
These type Jokers talked about Saddam for 12 Years that extracted nothing except massive Bribery. The Diplomacy was worthless, Contributing only to the warming of the Planet.
I suspect were just short of hearing recomendations that we say we're sorry for standing up for ourselfs. Not being good Infidels and all.
Perhaps the “war on terror” is a misnomer, but it started the ball rolling to peer under the lid of Islam and guess what we uncovered? Rot, maggot filled hatred, and the bodies of 100 millions who perished from centuries of Islamic jihad. We at JW and DW are doing the heavy lifting for now, but it is only a matter of time until the rest of the PC world looks under the covers of this “religion of peace” and find the same maggot riddled lies and hatreds. Surrender is not an option. This evil disease must be fought, quarantined, and totally discredited as a religion. Mohammed’s lunatic ravings of an egomaniacal war lord doth not pass for anything to do with God, or love and spirituality of humanity, which is the basis of all religious beliefs. It is time to put this evil cult-like war machine called Islam out of business.
In every civilized country (that excludes Islamic ones) the imams and supporters of this evil war cult must be called to answer for their crimes against humanity, not only since 9/11, but since that vile vicious sect spread out of the Arabian desert like so many malevolent locusts. Put that jinn back into its evil box and deep bury it forever. Islam is death worship, dead. This socalled ROP must RIP, forever.
"
What's next?
"This just in! comrade stalin says capitalism is evil!"
Oh, man...lmao
Posted by: jcom972 "
take this test and then look at the answers....
"1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above
2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above
3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Jose f Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above
4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."
A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above
5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above
6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above
Answers:
(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005
Be afraid. Be very, very afraid!"
When Paul Rogers, a Professor of "Global Peace Studies" at Bradford, shows the slightest sign of having read, and re-read, and thoroughly assimilated the contents -- as they would be naturally understood by a Believer -- of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and when in addition he shows some sign, even a teeny-tiny one, of having grasped the essence, and many of the details, without which the essence cannot be grasped, of Jihad-conquest and subsequent subjugation of many varied non-Muslim peoples whose lands were conguered, over 1350 years of history, and from Spain to the East Indies, then, and only then, will he be entitled to any hearing on this matter whatsoever. He will probably remain a fool in his comprehension, but at least he will be a fool whose foolishness will be held just a bit in check by the knowledge that he will now possess, even if fail to comprehend, and that will necessarily limit his foolishness, inhibit what would otherwise be the full-throated expression of his folly.
Hugh-
As William Blake put it:
"If the fool would persist in his folly, he would become wise."
It's the persistence they all lack.
The equivalent of a child throwing the blankets over his head and hoping the monster in the closet will go away.
Hint: They don't hate us for what we do. They hate us for who we are.
They don't hate us for what we do. They hate us for who we are. - JohnAdams
We in return do not hate Muslims, but we do criticize them.
What we do hate is the monstrosity of their Mohammedan religious cult of war, supremacism, submission enslavement, blind obedience, inequality of human beings, inequality of women, legalized rape of women, hudna and deceits, taqiyya lying, and murder, mass murders. We hate their Mohammed inspired jihadic evil actions. We hate what they do.
We cannot hate Muslims, at least for me, because we do not care enough about them emotionally to hate them. But we can criticize their actions, and hate what their evil teachings represent as threats to our freedoms. They hate us for who we are, but we are better than them. We hate their actions, not for who they are, but for what they do.
How many Muslims can understand this? They appear emotionally immature, stuck in their terrible twos stage, and falling into temper tantrums of rage when disagreeing. If they are odious to us, it is because of their emotional immaturity, which is also murderous to us with their evil jihad. We hate the actions, but all human beings are capable of redemption, even Muslims. So why hate them? But they will project their hates on us, and say that we hate them. They simply cannot understand that we do not hate them, only their evil actions and intents spawned from Mohammed's fevered brain. Muslim men and women who are ready for redemption must be liberated, if they cannot liberate themselves, from this evil Mohammed invented.
Sharia must be outlawed in all the lands of the world.