UK military commander: War against Taliban cannot be won

It is all about the hearts and minds. Islam yes, USA no.

Interesting polls in Pakistan.

http://www.usip.org/newsmedia/releases/2008/0107_pakistan_opinion.html

40% of Pakistanis have "sympathy" for the Taliban.

"There is also little sympathy for Islamist militant groups operating in Pakistan. Three in five (60-62 percent) view the activities of al Qaeda, local Taliban, and Pakistani Islamist militant groups as threats to Pakistan’s vital interests."

Feel the love, so 25% think that the Ahmadiyya, and Shi'a should be attacked.

This one is a gem, "and three quarters (75-78 percent) say that attacks on specific religious minorities (Ahmadiyya and Shi’a) are never justified.

They believe Islamic values clash with western values.

"The survey also found that Pakistani attitudes toward the United States are negative and that there is a growing perception that the United States is hostile toward Islam."

Muslims want shari'a.

"The survey finds strong public support for a wider role for Islam. Asked to gauge the importance of living "in a country that is governed according to Islamic principles" on a 10-point scale, 61 percent give an answer of 10 (meaning "absolutely important").

"Sixty percent want Shari’a to play a larger role, "as compared to current Pakistan law."

Drill holes in the earth in every back yard in America now if we have to in order to impliment this policy. Just say no to Islamic immigration. Cut off every penny of aid and trade, and pull out every piece of western technology we can before we pull every boot off of the ground. Let this wither on the vine, they have nothing we need.

I beg the differ with the kind general as the war CAN be won against the Taliban and the twisted political system it promotes: guns & a little bit of serious resolve for a change! 'Resolve' as in the likes of George S. Patton and Winston Churchhill rather than passing out candy bars for 'hearts & minds' idiocy!

I've always believed that from day one, the war in Afghanistan was a losing battle. Let's think of the might of Russia, at the time of the Great Bear when it was a superpower. Although the West created the Taliban(that was a great idea wasn't it?) and gave them arms to fight the Russians they were still seriously up against it. As you know the Russians lost so why on earth did America and a country that no longer has the military supremacy of its past?
My anger at the war and the reasons behind it continue to frustrate, as many still do not realise that it was all about the building of a pipeline from the middle East to Europe and the USA.
The war, as many people are brainwashed into believing, is not about helping Afghanistan build infrastructure, destroy the Taliban and their regime, because if it was, then why on earth is Europe currently bowing down to Islamists and allowing Sharia Law within their countries?
Afghanistan was about money and oil. End of. If they'd really wanted to make a dent in terrorism then they're are umpteen more countries they could have gone after, most notably Iran and better still Saudi Arabia. Iraq should never have happened.

Worse still, think of all the money that's being used to 'bomb' Afghanistan? Jesus, there's nothing to bomb as the Russians bombed it into the dark ages already! Think about the millions of pounds wasted in the cost of making a rocket/missile to be fired at a brick wall? Think of how much use that could be better used for?
Now don't think I'm appeasing Islam, I'm not, as many will have seen previous posts of mine, but you go to war knowing that you'll win, not to lose. This whole war has been a fiasco, with the lives of many young British/American and European soldiers losing their lives and for what? So that the Taliban can continue to turn their football pitches into execution sites for adulterers, apostates, victims of rape or enemies of Allah.

They should pull out all troops now, cut off all aid and support to Afghanistan, stop all trade/commerce and tourism and let it continue it's dark age death cult. Who are we to impose democracy on them? If the people want democracy then let them fight for it. If they don't want Allah and the Taliban then let Afghanistanis sacrifice their lives for it. After all, they will only truly understand their new found freedom and democracy, if they want it that is, from seeing the cost in lives that it has taken.
Our servicemen and women should be in their own lands, protecting it from invasion, not dying in foreign lands, trying to free people who don't want to be freed and despise our culture that we, in the West, are trying to impose on them.

Revolution takes time and that is what we have there in reality, but Afghanistan's Taliban problem are Afghanistani's problem not ours. Let us live by our culture and let them live by theirs. When they want to live like we do, then let them shed their own blood. It's despicable to see our servicemen and women dying for Muslims.

I agree with the general, since our strategy is to leave Afghanistan intact as an Islamic state. Victory would mean imposing a secular regime, identifying Islam as the enemy, destroying mosques, and actually liberating the country. Since we're not willing to do that, we might as well let it rot. Afghanistan has nothing positive to offer.
Too bad Obama wants to pour even more aid and military effort into that rathole, especially since he places such a high stake on getting OBL. I'm sure old Osama has a cackle over the prospect of getting us to blow even more blood and money chasing his carcass around.

I've always believed that from day one, the war in Afghanistan was a losing battle. Let's think of the might of Russia, at the time of the Great Bear when it was a superpower. posted by Mark

Totally agree. Been saying that from day 1. These Taliban/AQ guys know nothing but fighting, and they are very good at it in their territory. They know the terrain, the weather, the caves etc. When the Russians had to admit defeat, the Taliban/AQ knew they had winning tactics. Hard to fight against people that you can't see, either because they're hiding in the general population or in their caves.

Having said that, what a waste of our troops lives if we do leave.

I don’t think we should expect that when we go there won’t be roaming bands of armed men in this part of the world. That would be unrealistic and probably incredible.”...

Okay. You've just said something not very good about the people of that region. It must be followed through to its logical conclusion:

They don't come here and we won't go there.

Not only that, no one who goes there can ever come here again. There will be no need for us to check up on who is getting jihadist training in Afghanistan. Get on a plane to Kabul and you will forever be denied reentry. You could just be a journalist looking to "inform" the world. It won't matter.

Mark,
You said it perfectly:

"If the people want democracy then let them fight for it. If they don't want Allah and the Taliban then let Afghanistanis sacrifice their lives for it."

I've not yet read Spencer's interview with Wilders but Wilders' previous proclamations don't inspire confidence.
Europe is capable of fighting its own battles. If they want to resist Islamization, they will. If they don't, then there's nothing the US can do for them.

We can most likely stomp out the heads of the taliban, and disrupt their ability to conduct massive overseas attacks such as 9/11 in the USA and the coordinated assaults in Great Britain and Spain, however there is little likelihood of putting an end to banditry in that part of the world. That's what they do there. They have squatted on the Silk Road and preyed upon those with more incentive than they for centuries.
Those people use their murderous cult of a "religion" as an excuse for business as usual. Even the so-called "countries" they inhabit have given up trying to civilize them; witness the "tribal areas" of the various 'stans they infect.
I'm in favor of chasing them to their ratholes and bottling them up there, no one goes in and anyone attempting to leave dies.

Mark wrote:

Afghanistan was about money and oil. End of.
.................................

Actually, Afghanistan itself has no significant oil or natural gas reserves. I believe the US and allied attack on Afghanistan did begin as an attempt to go after Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, his most obvious backers.

Soon, though, it became clear that OBL was skipping back and forth over the border with our supposed "ally in the war on terror", Pakistan. We weren't willing to go there, at least not while Pakistan was under Musharaff.

Things in Afghanistan quickly devolved into a well-meant but extremely muddled attempt at "nation building". That the nation we are helping to "build" is prosecuting apostates, moving toward full Shari'ah law, and is eager to negotiate with the horrific Taliban seems to have largely escaped our attention.

gymgal wrote:

Hard to fight against people that you can't see, either because they're hiding in the general population or in their caves.

Having said that, what a waste of our troops lives if we do leave.

That's the problem in that they use Afghanis as human shields. Sure, it would be a waste of their lives if we leave but then how many more lives will be wasted in fighting a losing battle that will very possibly end up in Pakistan and further afield? What's worse is that our Politicians WILL actually allow more and more troops to die fighting against the Islamists while allowing Islamism to grow more and more in Western Countries. I'm really beginning to wonder if this is a ploy to remove our country of its armed forces so that the Islamists have no one to repel their Islamisation of the UK.

So what is new?

35 years ago there was a British television series based on the experiences of a fictional Regiment serving on Northwest frontier. In it the British political service officer was given the following line “The Afghan tribes have been murdering each other for 2000 years all we do by trying to act as gamekeepers is add to the sport”

Also at the height of the war against Russian backed Kabul regime a US Marine Officer is reported to have said much the same thing, “They are more interested in taking other tribes villages and killing all the men so they can rape the women than fighting Russians”

So what is new? If the taliban and all the Afghans stay in Afghanistan that’s a victory.

I am all for hearts and minds at the right moment because as another US serviceman correctly observed “If you get them by the balls the hearts and minds will follow.”

BTW I recently spoke to a man back from Afghanistan who like a good kuffur had taken a wounded jihadi into a military hospital. The wound was not serious but an inch either way and it would have been fatal. The doctor said he had been very lucky and when the interpreter passed this on the bearded warrior gave huge grin and nodded his agreement. Then a soldier present said quietly “Tell him we will get him next time” the interpreter would not translate, which was a pity because that was hearts and minds too.

PMK wrote:

Europe is capable of fighting its own battles. If they want to resist Islamization, they will. If they don't, then there's nothing the US can do for them.

We are more than capable PMK as you know and that's the point. Our problem are not the Afghanis' problems with the Taliban and far from it. This is a Muslim against a Muslim and we should keep our nose out of it. If they truly despise the Taliban then they'll do something about it. A leader will come along and together they'll revolt and overthrow their Islamist regime. You are very correct in that they have to WANT it first and really PMK, I can't see any of them wanting it as they know no different. Like I said, one day an Afghani, who has come to the West and seen how we live, with our democracy and freedoms will go back and teach that to the Afghani people. There will be a revolution and it will be bloody but it will happen and we should stay well out of it.

This is the sort of person who inherited the military that built the British empire?

UK military commander: War against Taliban cannot be won - JW

This statement could be a political propaganda, because Kazai (the Afghan President) is not doing that he ought to. His brother is caught heroin trafficking. The country is the pits.

If we leave the country that will be a huge psychological victory for the Talibans and a huge blow to us. Then we will be chasing one terrorist attack after another on our shores, because "MoreSlums" would have verified that Terrorism is the way to go.

I think that General should be replaced by someone who is eager to see the job to the end, i.e. no more Talibans anywhere.

gravenimage wrote:

Actually, Afghanistan itself has no significant oil or natural gas reserves. I believe the US and allied attack on Afghanistan did begin as an attempt to go after Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, his most obvious backers.

I know there are no Oil reserves but it was all about the creation of an Oil pipe from Iraq through Afghanistan into the UK and USA.

Is an Oil Pipeline Behind the War in Afghanistan?

This is what amazes me in that they still haven't found Bin Laden and how long has it been? Worse still, why is Britain in Afghanistan, fighting against the Taliban and AQ, when the Saudis are pumping millions into the UK to build Mosques, fund Islamist groups and promote Wahabism.
They should have gone to Saudi Arabia first long before they went into Afghanistan.

It's winnable, all wars are. You just have to have the arms, money and will to do it.
It can't be won and turn a profit, and you have to kill loads and loads and loads of people. In the end you can perhaps create a greater good.
What you have to do is decide whether you are at war or not. We haven't been able to decide that yet.
Creating a fantasy sideshow in Iraq, to draw of your resources doesn't help either.

Either crush your enemy, or leave.
Simplicity works, if you've killed everyone with a more complex view of the world.
The war is against Islam, and will never be won until it's eradicated.

“The Afghan tribes have been murdering each other for 2000 years all we do by trying to act as gamekeepers is add to the sport” - FRED

There is BS-ing going on here. Before the arrival off "MoreSlums", Afghanstan was a peaceful Buddhist state. "MoreSlums" brought their evil religion and since then they gone absolute ape-sheiss with each other. Now they feel the real love of humanity.

Also at the height of the war against Russian backed Kabul regime a US Marine Officer is reported to have said much the same thing, “They are more interested in taking other tribes villages and killing all the men so they can rape the women than fighting Russians” - FRED

- Bit more of the same BS-ing here. These people fought the Russians with our weapons. There was not much tribal warfare going on. They fought the war and Russians lost.

I know there are no Oil reserves but it was all about the creation of an Oil pipe from Iraq through Afghanistan into the UK and USA. - Mark

Wut the heck is that? From Iraq, through Afghanistan ... get out of here.

MusHuntCowboy,

A made a mistake. I meant to say a pipeline from Afghanistan into Europe. I was thinking about Iraq and got the two confused.

My apologies.

MusHuntCowboy,

"MoreSlums" dude you just floored me with that one! Now that is funny! Most of us here do not want a relationship with the Islamic world at all. We do not want it (Islam) in our countries, as bad as they do not want us (westerners) in their countries. I am all for respecting their right to living in their Crapistans free of anything western, if we prevent anything Crapistan from entering our cultures. I am not for a one way street, if we pull out we totally isolate it, cut the relationship off like a gangrenous wound, and leave them to rot in their retrograde world.

Most of us here do not want a relationship with the Islamic world at all. - ethoman

There are about 20 Million MoreSlums living in the West. Unless you are thinking of a genocide, cutting relationship aint gonne happen, right?

It is inevitable they will use every cent to get into the high-offices, as they have done. That is one way traffic. I don't know of any Christians in any Islamic countries holding high positions. They don't allow that, because that is not written in the Allahs Constitution.

We have a serious problem here at home allowing these people to take every advantage of our generosity. Can we stop any of that?

I'm really beginning to wonder if this is a ploy to remove our country of its armed forces so that the Islamists have no one to repel their Islamisation of the UK.

Mark,
Why do you need armed forces to repel the islamization of the UK? These people aren't coming in on tanks. They aren't flying overhead and dropping bombs. They are being welcomed every day.
Why, if Britons want this to stop, do you elect people who continue it and who preach the canard of the religion of peace?
What happened to immigration law?
Where is the Parliament?

MusHuntCowboy,

I'm not sure how you would do it, but I am not for genocide of any kind. I think maybe some sort of strict travel restrictions, to and from Islamic countries would be a great start. I think stopping all Islamic immigration would be integral. I think many would probably elect to move out and go back home if we disallowed any and all travel, and communication from the M.E. to the U.S. You could take advantage of Islamic scripture. I understand that Muslims can't live in countries in which they are not allowed to practice their faith, by Islamic Law. How do you force a population to give up Islam peacefully? I have thought on this a bit. We could institute mandatory Norplant treatment for all Muslim women, or force them to become Apostates, or leave. I don't know, but allowing Islam into our society is cultural suicide. I'd like to open it up. How do you get rid of it? I'd like to hear ideas.

Britain's most senior military commander in Afghanistan has warned that the war against the Taliban cannot be won. Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said the British public should not expect a “decisive military victory” but should be prepared for a possible deal with the Taliban.

Does this mean that an actual enemy has finally been identified?

If so, then the enemy can be defeated -- oh no, I forgot, you are not allowed to use overwhelming force to defeat an enemy as far as the West is concerned.

I wonder if the enemy is playing by these rules too?

I'll wager the entire history of Western Civilization that they are not.

MusHuntCowboy

“The Afghan tribes have been murdering each other for 2000 years"

Purleese! It was a quote from a 35-year-old fictional programme to make a point about Afghan life - OK? If you want factual confirmation look up "The Savage Frontier" author unknown, or "Penders Progress" General Pendergast on Amazon, both cover British army experience in Afghanistan up to WW2. Pendergast served on the frontier in the 1930's in a "police" unit and wrote the tribesmen had no political motive but fired at them for sport as much as anything. Also 2 of his NCOs families had a feud and while there was no trouble while the were in service they did not dare travel on leave together in case one killed the other.

"Also at the height of the war against Russian backed Kabul"

This was a quote in a British quality paper of the situation BEFORE you armed them. Perhaps I should have said, "Until the CIA went in"?

Paki Thug in chief demands 100 billion to ’save Pakistan’

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/10/05/paki-thug-in-chief-demands-100-billion-to-save-pakistan/

Fighting Islam terror with chivalry and Miranda rights was doomed from the beginning.

In war, you fight to win. If you don't go in with that intention, you will have lost before the battle begins.

There are no 'hearts & minds' to be won anywhere amongst the ummah Islamiyah. And there will never be democracy under sharia.

If we in the West continue to allow appallingly stupid 'leaders' to make appallingly idiotic policies things will get much worse before they get better.

PMK wrote:

Mark,
Why do you need armed forces to repel the islamization of the UK? These people aren't coming in on tanks. They aren't flying overhead and dropping bombs. They are being welcomed every day.
Why, if Britons want this to stop, do you elect people who continue it and who preach the canard of the religion of peace?
What happened to immigration law?
Where is the Parliament?

PMK, when Islam eventually is a size in comparable to the rest of the UK Non Muslims will the battle begin, in fact when it reaches 10% of the population the Islamists will start attacking. Don't get me wrong, the 'quiet' muslims will just continue to emigrate and propagate, showing everyone that only the Islamists are the violent ones, when in fact they are actually the mothers and the fathers of them, breeding and making up the fifth column.

This is the problem PMK, our main three parties have continually lied to the people of the UK. They have continued to force untruthful propaganda that Islam is the Religion of Peace and any discussion on it, we are looked upon as Racists, Bigots and Nazis.
There is one party who sees Islam as serious threat and they are the BNP, but because of their National Front and Racist past then no one is voting for them, especially as the Socialists have been creating a 'multicultural' UK for over 40 years.
We have NO immigration Law PMK. I suggest you read "The Great Immigration scandal" by Steve Moxon and see how pathetic it is. Over the last 11 years of NuLabour, there has been an average of 400k immigrants to the UK every year. That also does not take into account the tourists and those with student visas who simply never leave. The latter is far worse considering the UK has over 19million tourists every year.
In America, Canada or Australia, if you turn up their penniless, no sponsor, no job and riddled with disease then you will not get in. However in the UK, not only do we welcome them in but they get a council house, benefits and medical care all paid for by the tax payer. Already Britain's seen the rise of smallpox and TB again, thanks to our immigrant population.

Last but not least, our Parliament is full of pigs with their snouts in the trough busily organising the sell out of the UK to Europe and its amalgamation into it. Already Brussels makes 80% of all the laws in the UK. We were promised a referendum by the Labour Party and they never gave it to us on Europe and our activity with it. The Conservatives and the Liberals are no different to NuLabour. People in the UK are disillusioned with who to vote for. It's a case of the main three(Labour, Conservative, Liberal) and watch the country go down the pan or the BNP and get called a racist, a bigot, a xenophobe and a Nazi. However there's no doubt that the BNP would sort out the UK, immigration, Europe and Islamisation, but then they won't win because of their 'racist' history and their wanting a 'white' Britain. My argument on the BNP is very long but if you want to have a read and a good discussion on it and the problems in the UK then go back to a debate on here : September 30, 2008
Melanie Phillips: "The leaders of the democracies are...burying their heads in the sand"

It's a very good argument and will tell you just how pathetic our government is.

The British Empire fought three wars against the Afghans

first war 1842
A British Army of 20,000 was forced to withdraw from Kabul only one a Dr. Bryson reached Jallabad he was killed later in the Indian Mutiny. The worst defeat in British military history.

second war 1876
General Roberts later of Boar war fame took a British Army to Kabul some very hard fighting around Kabul we left after a negotiated peace, money exchanged hands. You must remember this was the time of the great game and we were desperate to keep the expanding Russian empire from controlling the Khyber pass the gateway to India the Jewel in the Imperial crown that was basically what it was all about.

Third War 1919
The afghans attack the Brits, result of the Russian revolution. I wont go into details we got most of what we wanted which was basically about afghan foreign policy but it was still a bloody affair.

If it hadn't been about keeping the back door to India locked, we would have left them to stew in there own juice. With the Afghans the best policy is just to leave them alone they are not going to change, all the wars have ended up in a war of attrition, but imperial hubris got the better of George and Tony and they thought they could bring democracy to the Afghans, the Delusional fools. There was most likely another reason making the place safe so they could build an oil pipeline down from the oil fields of central Asia but then we will never know.

"I don't know, but allowing Islam into our society is cultural suicide. I'd like to open it up. How do you get rid of it? I'd like to hear ideas."
Posted by: ethoman

FIRST, as always, you must define the enemy.

Until we do this, we will be forced to play an endless and enervating game of “whack a mole” - a game which we will eventually lose.

Ironic that the thing that we in the West treasure and take the most pride in, our freedom to speak the truth, is the very thing that we find most difficult to do – even though our very survival depends on it.

So all energy, all effort, all our force of will must be focused on communicating the truth about Muhammad and Islam – there will be no progress until this is done.

The British Empire fought three wars against the Afghans - Holger Dansker

Right- that was in the 1800s.... Lets not compare oranges with apples.

I am pretty much sure, if we want we can really kick some dust all over Afghanistan. I think the British General is doing press-ups to make an early exit, a policy that British PM may be encouraging. Brown (the current British PM) is listening to his local MoreSlum advisers. They are pretty active and instrumental in the UK political scenes.

Mark,

"This is the problem PMK, our main three parties have continually lied to the people of the UK. They have continued to force untruthful propaganda that Islam is the Religion of Peace and any discussion on it, we are looked upon as Racists, Bigots and Nazis."

And how long do you listen to the lies before changing your voting pattern? Why are they STILL your "three main parties"?

Over the last 11 years of NuLabour, there has been an average of 400k immigrants to the UK every year.

So why has NuLabour lasted eleven years?

"Last but not least, our Parliament is full of pigs with their snouts in the trough busily organising the sell out of the UK to Europe and its amalgamation into it."

So why are those people not turned out at election time?
This is where we come back to the first post. If the PEOPLE want to fight Islamization, it will be done. Do the people care enough to risk being labeled politically incorrect? Are the people willing to vote for those who will fight? Fighting, even the rhetorical kind, is messy. It's dirty. Too many people want to have their cake and eat it, too. You're not the only ones. We have the same inner conflict. Given the deterioration of Britain, what are the people prepared to do about it? Will they take their vote elsewhere?

I'm not saying things are hunky dory on this side of the pond. We have the same problem, though ours seems (though it may not be) more manageable. Everything boils down to one fact: people in a democracy get the government they deserve.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that all the Muslim immigrants are coming from countries that were once part of the British Empire. Are those from former member countries given as much freedom to enter Britain as I would have to travel from New Jersey to New York?
p.s. Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

PMK wrote:

And how long do you listen to the lies before changing your voting pattern? Why are they STILL your "three main parties"?

I don't vote for the main three PMK because I know them to be the Charlatans that they are. My vote next election may very well go to the BNP or the EDP(English Democratic Party).

So why has NuLabour lasted eleven years

NuLabour have lasted 11 years because of the previous 15 years of Conservative government that alienated many of the voters today. NuLabour have lied and lied and lied. Then again so did the Conservatives before them. The rich have gotten richer under NuLabour even though they're supposed to be a Social Democratic Party and a 'people's party'. NuLabour has targeted the minorities in the UK in order to win. You also have to remember that only about 50% of the population voted in the last election. I think it was even less.

So why are those people not turned out at election time?
This is where we come back to the first post. If the PEOPLE want to fight Islamization, it will be done. Do the people care enough to risk being labeled politically incorrect? Are the people willing to vote for those who will fight? Fighting, even the rhetorical kind, is messy. It's dirty. Too many people want to have their cake and eat it, too. You're not the only ones. We have the same inner conflict. Given the deterioration of Britain, what are the people prepared to do about it? Will they take their vote elsewhere?

The people in the UK are not fighting Islamisation because they have been brainwashed into believing that the fear of Islamisation is nothing more than scaremongering innocent peaceful Muslims by the racists, the Nationalists, the fascists, the bigots, the xenophobes and the Nazis.
People do not fight in the UK because it could mean their job. No job and the mortgage falls through and then they're homeless. No one rocks the boat. Put it this way PMK, do you know that a school teacher was sacked in the UK for looking at the BNP website? The Police Association has also told recruits that any officer who supports the BNP will be sacked. There was also a campaign to have Britain's top ballerina removed from her position because it was found out she supported the BNP.
They are a political party and perfectly allowed to be in our democratic society, but the reason why the governments hate them is because they will scupper their plans of destroying Britain and its sovereignty.
I don't know what the people are going to do about it. They are weak, many of them. However do not forget that the left wing has been controlling our society for a while now. It's slowly taken control of the education system and Media(indoctrination) and now the Government is left wing along with the police force. Our society's being destroyed and anyone who argues against it is arrested for one of the many laws that NuLabour have put into place. We are living in a Police state where our liberties are disappearing daily. You should read "The Abolition of Liberty" by Peter Hitchens to understand just how the Left Wing has undermined Law and Order and created chaos in the UK.

I'm not saying things are hunky dory on this side of the pond. We have the same problem, though ours seems (though it may not be) more manageable. Everything boils down to one fact: people in a democracy get the government they deserve.

I agree 100%. We have what we have because of our own apathy and nothing more.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that all the Muslim immigrants are coming from countries that were once part of the British Empire. Are those from former member countries given as much freedom to enter Britain as I would have to travel from New Jersey to New York?

This is what's wrong. FORMER British Colonies; it's in the word. If they were still British Colonies then there should be no restriction of movement. However, we gave all the colonies Independence and look at them now(the African ones that is).
The bottom line is that Britain has ZERO immigration policy. They are now beginning to tighten them up but it's a case of closing the door once the horse has bolted. The mass immigration over the last 11 years has amounted to no less than 5 million more into the UK and that's what they know of. They state the UK Muslim population to be around 1.8million when everyone knows it's close to five, even six million. We should have a policy like America and Australia in that you can only come in if you have 'x' amount in the bank, skills and no disease.

PMK asked three questions:
1. And how long do you listen to the lies before changing your voting pattern? Why are they STILL your "three main parties"?

Because the system of government, invariably and very erroneously referred to as “democracy” is in fact an elective dictatorship. This applies to the "first past the post" or the proportional “representation” system.
The main characteristic of an elective junta is that the people, who have graciously been permitted to vote by their rulers every few years or so, only have a choice of quite similar, vaguely worded and quite bloated party platforms. They have no power to influence specific policies that effect the actions of the winning junta. The people have merely the illusion of power.
After an election the winning junta or combination of juntas takes all power and does as much or as little as it likes with near impunity.

2. So why has NuLabour lasted eleven years?

Because the system of government, invariably and very erroneously referred to as “democracy” is in fact an elective dictatorship. This applies to the "first past the post" or the proportional “representation” system.
The main characteristic of an elective junta is that the people, who have graciously been permitted to vote by their rulers every few years or so, only have a choice of quite similar, vaguely worded and quite bloated party platforms. They have no power to influence specific policies that effect the actions of the winning junta. The people have merely the illusion of power.
After an election the winning junta or combination of juntas takes all power and does as much or as little as it likes with near impunity.

3. So why are those people not turned out at election time?

Because the system of government, invariably and very erroneously referred to as “democracy” is in fact an elective dictatorship. This applies to the "first past the post" or the proportional “representation” system.
The main characteristic of an elective junta is that the people, who have graciously been permitted to vote by their rulers every few years or so, only have a choice of quite similar, vaguely worded and quite bloated party platforms. They have no power to influence specific policies that effect the actions of the winning junta. The people have merely the illusion of power.
After an election the winning junta or combination of juntas takes all power and does as much or as little as it likes with near impunity.

Mark

100% correct but a few additional details.

"The Police Association has also told recruits that any officer who supports the BNP will be sacked."

To the general approval of the Manchester Evening News - the countries largest regional paper - A policeman with 14 years exemplary service has just been sacked for being seen wearing a BNP lapel badge at a football match. He was not nor had he ever been a member of the BNP.

“There was also a campaign to have Britain's top ballerina removed from her position because it was found out she supported the BNP.”

She was “outed” after a spy – sorry investigative reporter – from the “liberal” Guardian infiltrated the BNP for the specific purpose of exposing such members. I have seen reports that she has since been forced out of the profession.

The driver of a Council bus for disabled children was sacked not for belonging to the BNP but because his membership of the BNP meant “he would be unable to deal fairly with minority children”. The government and liberal belief is the BNP are so evil BNP bus drivers will mistreat sick children if they are not white.

An “Anti fascist” organisation called "Searchlight" run by an elderly (ex?) communist is subsidised by the trade unions and government run charity lottery. It infiltrates any club or group (however non-political) a BNP member belongs to and invites the club organisers to expel them. I belong to a club that was given the treatment because unknown to most of us we had a single member who was in the BNP. Although I am not a member of any party an invitation to speak at a charity lunch on my professional career was cancelled at short notice.

I could go on but what really P----- me of is the regular reminders we get in the MSM and particular the BBC about the evil American Senator Joe McCarthy and how he drove innocent people out of their jobs in the 1950’s.

Mark (and Fred)

Davegreybeard has the right idea.

And hasn't Lady Neville-Jones said something sensible recently? OK, she doesn't have the whole picture: but it's a start. Right now she should be receiving an avalanche of commendatory email, phone calls, letters, and friendly encouraging personal visits from counter-jihadist non-Muslim British citizens of all stripes.

Can UK jihadwatchers send Lady Neville-Jones polite, encouraging letters enclosing copies of 1. Geert Wilders' speech in the Dutch parliament (I think it was his maiden speech) 2. Geert Wilders' speech in the Danish parliament on 2nd June this year and 3. Geert Wilders' speech to the Hudson Institute, given in full in a different thread here on jihadwatch.

For good measure, throw in Robert Redeker's brilliant and completely accurate and truthful 'Le Figaro' article, all 1000 words of it - the one that led to him being showered with death threats by Muslims, and driven from his job as a high school teacher.

Other possible information to share with Lady Neville-Jones: Winston Churchill's assessments of Islam, from 'The River Wars' and 'The Malakand Field Force', and John Quincy Adams' brief but trenchant observations. Churchill's and JQA's summary of Muslim doctrine and practice would fit on about two pages of neatly-printed text.

You may note that the Facing Jihad conference in Jerusalem is supposed to be getting some guests/ participants from the UK. Find out who they are and back them!

Furthermore: look for priests, ministers, rabbis, and religious leaders of other faiths who show signs of 'getting it': write to them or visit them and express support, and give hard nuggets of extra information. If such Resisters are in your local area: attend their place of worship and make a donation, even if you're not a believer!

Express public support for Canon Patrick Sookhdeo and Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali. There *are* other churchmen out there, too, who 'get' it, you'll find them if you look; they need to to be backed to the hilt. There was an Anglican priest in Oxford (at St Aldate's, I believe) who was fighting tooth and nail to prevent the broadcasting of the azhan from the newly-built mosque there - I emailed him, all the way from Australia, to express support; just as I also emailed Bp Michael, at the time when he was copping a lot of flak for truthfully pointing out the total incompatibility of sharia with British common law.

A few ideas for 'direct action'.
1. Community events, open to all kafir, involving large bonfires that contain Mohammed Turban-Bomb or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad effigies (or effigies of particularly notorious jihad inciters from within the British Mohammedan colonies) back to back with the 'Guy', on Guy Fawkes Day next. Mark, Fred - where you are - do you think you could find enough like-minded people to get together and have such a bonfire?

2. Massive displays of Hanukkah lights by all supporters of Israel and of the Jews, come Hanukkah (consult with local rabbi or synagogue and find out whether they'd like you to do it, and if so, what's the proper procedure).

Diwali would provide a similar opportunity to display solidarity with non-Muslim India which has suffered hugely from jihad terror bombings.

And of course, go over the top with Christmas decorations, Christmas lights, wassailing, carolling, and nativity plays! (Dust off some of those medieval miracle and mystery plays - make them a bit more Jew-friendly - and perform them in the streets, like they were originally meant to be). Easter processions, come Easter.

3. start planning now for HUGE 'Beating the Bounds' ceremonial marches and processions involving as many kafir as possible (non-christians as well as Christians) in parishes all over Britain, but especially in areas with Mohammedan colonies. There are parish churches in the UK that do already carry out this ceremony - hunt around the internet, find the one nearest to you, and take part, so you know how to do it and can encourage your own parish priest to give it a go.

In November the Feast of All Souls might provide a good excuse for bringing to public attention the Tears of Jihad - the 270 MILLION human beings that Bill Warner guesstimates have been butchered in the name of 'allah' over the past 1300 years (something like 200 000 people a year, most of this wholesale butchery carried out at a time when the total world population of humans was a LOT less than it is now).

Imagine if a parish church somewhere in Britain were to toll the Passing Bell all day long on All Souls...and at the same time, to offer leaflets to passersby, with Qur'an surah 9: 29, and the estimates of numbers of people killed in Africa, Asia and Europe, by Muslim jihadists.

If you have actor friends, form an underground Resistance Theatre Group and perform Marlowe's Tamburlaine unexpurgated, complete with Qur'an-burning, or Voltaire's Mahomet, also unexpurgated; video and post on the internet or circulate samizdat disks.

We have a serious problem here at home allowing these people to take every advantage of our generosity. Can we stop any of that?

Yes. We can actually execute people just for saying Muslim prayers, which actually do constitute treasonous sedition, not to mention explicit calls for genocide. They literally pledge allegiance to a nation that doesn't exist and pray that we all die five times a day. We can certainly deport any non-citizen who practice Islam and their families. We can stop allowing in anyone from Islamic hellhole countries unless they are religious minorities. We can also ship off people who commit treasonous sedition to Guantanamo instead of killing them. We can extradite them to Saudi Arabia. We can inter them all and keep fighting stupid wars as an excuse to keep them all interred, or just linger around Iraq until they all die. There are ways to do away with Muslims in the free world.

But the first step is the official recognition of Islam as a political movement, as no more 'divine,' 'theological,' or moral than Nazism, which was just a whitewashed, less barbaric brand of Islam for snappy dressers who weren't woman-hating pedophiles. The second step is to cut off the jizya to every nation that doesn't uphold the UDHR and the Geneva Conventions. Step 3 is pull out of the UN and start a new, expanded NATO with nations which hold regular, free elections, uphold the UDHR, sign onto the Geneva Conventions, and - check it out, Britain - do not recognize any system of law which violates the UDHR. Step 4 is to develop the water vapor car, which also would fix our economy overnight.

By the way, Obama wants to double foreign aid, and he's not talking about Mexico, Guatemala, India, or any nation that deserves it.

But yeah, Afghanistan and Pakistan aren't worth a single free-world life or a dollar of our tax money. Let 'em kill each other and blow themselves up while we take those resources we're wasting over there and secure our borders, our coastlines, and keep our missile defense system in tip-top shape.

Contrary to the heroic image foisted on us in WW ll with the help of great writers like Winston Churchill. the English for the most part were neither very brave or competent, though there were some exceptions, the Navy and RAF was a lot braver than the Army. During the Battle for France, while it is common for contards to mock the French, the British fought poorly and/or retreated to Dunkirk where the French covered their retreat. Then they sacrificed two whole divisions in a southern France landing which did nothing. The Norway campaign was a disaster except for some brave naval actions in the fjords. Crete, Tobruk, Malaysia and Singapore were utter routs by a numerically inferior enemy with less logistics and heavy weapons. They were driven out of Burma easily by the Japanese,who were heavily outnumbered. Even El Alamein, Monty refused to follow it up with an effective pursuit, which he repeated when he dallied marching up the toe of Italy while we were getting plastered at Salerno. Then the Falaise Gap, where a small extra effort would have made it a total victory but Monty refused to close the gap, out of fear of friendly fire, but left his Polish and Canadian troops exposed to the desperate retreating landsers. Then in WW l, they distinguished themselves with tactical and strategic disasters like the Somme, Ypres, Gallipoli, etc etc etc.
So I am not surprised that they are already talking trash like defeatist rot today. For all their worldy sophistication and colonial expertise (past tense) they seem to be more into image than reality.

Every one of you are i dont know lost.
AFGHANISTAn is exactly where the significant part of this war is my god it is like 911 did not happen and these idiots did not train there.
This isexactly where we need to be and fight to win which is not what we are doing.
The beauty of propergander is the more its repeated the more people start to talk fact we did not repeat not go to afghanistan or to iraq for oil al-quada hand book ya chimps should go read it if we cannot win in this area you might as well convert now .
I know americans have lost focus but my god this is pure stupidity repeating the enemy pure propergander.
VERY SIMPLE GUYS PAY ATTENTION THIS IS IN THE HEART OF ISLAM EXACTLY WHERE THE FIGHT NEEDS TO BE.

jdamn

"The second step is to cut off the jizya to every nation that doesn't uphold the UDHR and the Geneva Conventions."

That's all very well, but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes as part of Article 29, clause (3):

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

You'll notice that over all of the Islamic states and 80% of the UN members overall are gangster states with purposes and principles at odds with what a civilised person would regard as rights and freedoms, so reliance on the terms of the UDHR in that milieu needs to be qualified to recognise that reality.

Re MorisMinor's comments.

From your passion to denigrate the British Army in World War II I'd guess you’re an American, particularly when you include several examples of false history in your diatribe. Perhaps you rely too much on notoriously dishonest American historians like Stephen Ambrose:

Just a couple of points:

On the “--- even El Alamein, Monty refused to follow it up with effective pursuit ---” claim, the facts don't support the 'slowness' accusation at all.

Eighth Army progress following the conclusion of the twelve day El Alamein battle 23 October - 3 November 1942 which destroyed the fighting effectiveness of Axis forces, involved:

Pursuit Phase

Tobruk: 4-13 November 1942.
Eighth Army under Montgomery advanced 365 miles from Alamein in 10 days meeting with little resistance from the shattered remnant of the Afrika Korps under Rommel and continued to collect prisoners.

That’s over 36 miles per day for ten days.

Benghazi: 14-20 November 1942.
Eighth Army continued to pursue of the remnant of the Afrika Korps led by the Rommel and advanced 670 miles from Alamein in 17 days.

That’s over 43 miles per day for another seven days or over 39 miles per day for 17 days and a total of 670 miles.

There was a brief pause of a few weeks while the demolished port of Benghazi was made usable again and supplies had to be built up to enable the advance to continue.

If you know of a longer or more rapid military advance in all of human history please tell us about it.

As for the Falaise pocket, US General Bradley was responsible for ordering Patton to stop his forces from advancing any further from his sector because he feared US forces might be over extended and cut off, To imply, as you did, that the British, Canadian and Polish Forces did nothing is false.

Don’t forget that German forces were doing their level best to keep the escape route from the Falaise pocket open for as long as possible.

And, contrary to ill informed opinion, the amount of hard to replace combat equipment captured or destroyed during and after the closing of the pocket was regarded, at the time (and quite correctly) as having seriously weakened the combat effectiveness of German forces in Northern France.

If you do not know what you are fighting for, you can never win.

To allow an Islamic state to continue in Afghanistan was the deathknell to any military aim.

The entire enterprise was thus foredoomed by the mistaken understanding of militant Mohammadism.

Either recognize that Islam is the cause of the Jihad and that terrorism, in the name of Allah, is a permanent state within this "religion", and then battle it to its defeat, or don't waste the effort at irrational partial measures like the "winning hearts and minds" of those who are taught by their "faith" to consider all non-Muslims infidel dogs.

It's the Islam, generals.

I almost forgot what the topic was...Oh yes, The Taliban and how they can't be beaten...Boy are they tough. Well, they do know where all the good caves are, and some of them know how to slip into Pakistan, and Karzai did offer Mullah Omar an invitation to return to partial power, which Omar turned down.

Bush invaded Afghanistan because Mullah Omar refused to hand over Bin Laden. It was a mistake, in my estimation, to invade...A sustained and on going air assault until the Taliban hollered uncle, and gave up Osama, would have been better...

Then, why fight the Taliban? Why not focus on the real enemy, and that is islam itself?

A interesting study is to look at how they, who follow islam, fights against us. Look at the tactics, and goals of islam itself. Some may find the process a eye opener, it shows how we are perhaps fighting against ourselves, more than a enemy that has weakness, one that has yet been used against islam and it's followers.

You can not defeat what you do not fight.

And one more time,
PROGRESS WILL NOT BE ACHIEVED UNTIL THE ENEMY IS DEFINED.

So follow some of dumbledore’s most excellent suggestions and make the effort to educate your fellow Infidels about Muhammad and Islam.

And while you are “out and about” rubbing elbows with the kuffar, pass out some leaflets on the life of Muhammad and pithy quotes from the Qur’an – you will be surprised how satisfying actually DOING SOMETHING can be!

(Email me if you need leaflets)

Gawd, I heard that last night before I went to bed. Nothing like raising the white surrender flag before the job is finished. Where do we get these men???

The British General is not correct. He should have said that the war can be won but we do not wish to win it. We don't wish to fight Islam and until we do, we should keep our nose out of it because the enemy's heart is with Islam.

Islam (Sharia) is their law and we either accept it, get out of there, or eliminate it. Unfortunately, the General does not know what we are there to do.

"They believe Islamic values clash with western values."
Posted by: ethoman

What are Islamic values?...

Mark,

How often do we see the world view of the extreme right dovetail with that of the Left...

MARK: "Although the West created the Taliban(that was a great idea wasn't it?) and gave them arms to fight the Russians they were still seriously up against it."

RESPONSE: The West had absolutely NOTHING to do with the creation of the Taliban. Mark is obviously confusing the Afghan Mujahhadin of the 80s with the Taliban, an organization that didn't appear on the scene until 1994, 2 years after America had thrown up its hands in frustration and left Afghanistan, and 4 years after the USA had cut ties to Pakistan over the nuclear issue.

MARK: "Afghanistan was about money and oil."

RESPONSE: Another far Left narrative...just like Iraq was "all about money and oil".

Yes, there were preliminary discussions in oil circles about a possible pipeline from Central Asia through Afghanistan, but the idea that America invaded that country so in 20 or 30 years an oil pipeline would be constructed is pathetic Left-wing boilerplate.

America invaded Afghanistan for ONE reason, because the Taliban gave sanctuary to those who attacked us on 9-11.

But the first step is the official recognition of Islam as a political movement

Posted by: jdamn at October 5, 2008 10:13 PM

This first step would be one BIG leap towards victory.

The war cannot be won with a few thousand troops.

We kill hundreds of them but then the Pakistani madrassas keep churning out more of them from their HR pool of millions - onto the wack a mole jihadi conveyor belt that runs directly into Afghanistan.
This, plus the help and funding they recieve from their muslim "brothers" in the ISI, Iran, Saudi and indeed most of the muslim nations in the middle east if not the world - I tend to agree with Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith.

Cornelius,

First off I'm not extreme right or left as I have no political affiliation whatsoever.

Cornelius wrote: "The West had absolutely NOTHING to do with the creation of the Taliban. Mark is obviously confusing the Afghan Mujahhadin of the 80s with the Taliban, an organization that didn't appear on the scene until 1994, 2 years after America had thrown up its hands in frustration and left Afghanistan, and 4 years after the USA had cut ties to Pakistan over the nuclear issue."

I stand corrected. The CIA DID support the Taliban though against the Russians and their Special Forces along with the British, helped to train them as well. The Mujahadeen Warlords upon surrender to the Taliban did say to the west that we were arming our own assassins. It's a pity no one listened to them then.

Cornelius wrote: "Another far Left narrative...just like Iraq was "all about money and oil"."

Again, you like to place me in the far left because I happen to see that Iraq and Afghanistan WERE and always WILL be about Oil. Afghanistan is about securing passage for an Oil line. Iraq was not about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam posed no threat to the West whatsoever. He in fact kept order in Iraq and the death toll was far less than it is now. America invaded Iraq, because Saddam wouldn't play puppet any more to the masters who put him in power. This "far right" belief or should I say "NeoCon" belief is nothing more than laughable.
More importantly Cornelius, you need to read up on your facts a bit more. It is illegal to go to War, in another country for Regime Change. A country should only go to War if under direct attack from another and the West was not under any attack from Iraq whatsoever. America wanted cheap oil and Saddam was going to put up the price. That's about the whole reality of it, something the far right/Neo Cons need to realise a bit more, instead of following the blind sheep in front of them.

Cornelius wrote: "Yes, there were preliminary discussions in oil circles about a possible pipeline from Central Asia through Afghanistan, but the idea that America invaded that country so in 20 or 30 years an oil pipeline would be constructed is pathetic Left-wing boilerplate."

Wow! This website really is full of argumentative sorts. I AM NOT LEFT WING OR HAVE I EVER BEEN. America should have invaded Saudi Arabia, the home of Bin Laden before any other. Saudi Arabia is the biggest Islamist problem in the World and unfortunately, there are too many American and British politicians cosying up to them. Afghanistan was simply a country that had been bombed to the 7th Century and the USA and UK thought that they could do what no other country could and that was win there. Face facts, it's all about Oil and Money and always has been.

Cornelius wrote: "America invaded Afghanistan for ONE reason, because the Taliban gave sanctuary to those who attacked us on 9-11."

Really? Well if that were the case then why hasn't it invaded all the surrounding areas and most Islamic states, because you can bet your bottom dollar they've all given sanctuary to Bin Laden. Where is he? Does anyone know? Is he alive? Or is he being protected by the USA, so as to keep this hopeless War in Afghanistan going?
The more I do however look at events surrounding 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, especially from the left's point of view, the more I'm swinging to what they have said, for the simple reason that many things are starting to add up.

I like to listen to all viewpoints thank you very much. I listen to the right, the left and the centre. I then make up my own mind on the information presented before me. Anyone with the intelligence of an eight year old knows that Iraq was about Oil. The whole relationship with the Bin Laden's and the Bush Family is a little bit too close for comfort. However what I find really sad is that there is a very strong possibility that the attacks on 9/11 were Government planned and executed, the same as here in the UK on 7/7.
One day the truth will come out, but I fear those guilty will be long gone, having spent the rest of their lives in luxury and comfort, while having destroyed the lives of millions.

I am spellbound by your scalpel keen insight into these things, Mark!

Just one a few questions though, if “it’s all about oil” and we have some semblance of military dominance in both Iraq and Afghanistan, why aren’t we
1 Taking the oil
2 Beginning the work on the sacred pipeline

I’ll bet you got some super secret source that tells you that the CIA is actually doing these things don’t you. Come ON Mark we’re on the edge of our seats here! Tell us the rest of the tale!

Davegreybeard,

Seeing as this place is rapidly turning into a "If you don't agree with me then you're against me" situation, I would like to ask you two simple questions;

Why did America go to war with Iraq, when they posed no danger whatsoever to the West?
Why then if they did it to free the Iraqi people, from the tyrant of Saddam Hussain have they not gone into other countries to do the same?

I can think of quite a few off hand where there are 'regimes' oppressing many people in the world. In fact Zimbabwe(quite a few countries in Africa) springs to mind, so does North Korea and Iran and Saudi Arabia, yes SAUDI ARABIA.

I used to think like you until I started looking at the investment by multi global corporations in Iraq.

The reason why you don't have any Oil from Iraq is:

1. It's a bit too dangerous to start the Oil production until Iraq is stable once again.
2. It would look too obvious if America DID start removing barrels of oil wouldn't it? Instead they'll wait a little longer.

I do however realise that I am up against many American Neo Cons on this site who will believe anything their Republican leader tell them to, so I suppose I'll just have to say that we'll just have to agree to differ.

Anyway, let's keep this thread what it's supposed to be about and that's the problem we face with Islam.

Mark,

I’m right with you in the fight against Islam.

But I get the uneasy feeling that you are a bit too susceptible to moonbat conspiracy theories. Government planned 9/11 and 7/7? We not stealing the oil now because we got a sneaky plan to steal it later? You’re loosing me buddy!

MARK: "However what I find really sad is that there is a very strong possibility that the attacks on 9/11 were Government planned and executed, the same as here in the UK on 7/7."

RESPONSE: There you have it folks. Mark is a "troofer"...he's bought into the most obscene Left-wing conspiracy theories available, that the US government planned the murder of 3000 of its citizens and ahaved a trillion dollars off the US economy because...oh yes, a prospective oil pipeline in Afghanistan.

But no, he's not a Leftist. Good God!

Just read the nonsense he's spewing...

MARK:"The reason why you don't have any Oil from Iraq is...It's a bit too dangerous to start the Oil production until Iraq is stable once again."

RESPONSE: Iraqi oil production has exceeded pre-invasion levels. The Iraqi government's coffers are filled to the tune of $80 billion in RECENT oil revenue. Only a moron would there is no production there.

Mark is a far-Left loon...and an inarticulate one at that. Anyone in this thread who ever sang his praises ought to be embarrassed.

MARK: "However what I find really sad is that there is a very strong possibility that the attacks on 9/11 were Government planned and executed, the same as here in the UK on 7/7."

RESPONSE: There you have it folks. Mark is a "troofer"...he's bought into the most obscene Left-wing conspiracy theories available, that the US government planned the murder of 3000 of its citizens and shaved a trillion dollars off the US economy because...oh yes, a prospective oil pipeline in Afghanistan.

But no, he's not a Leftist. Good God!

Just read the nonsense he's spewing...

MARK:"The reason why you don't have any Oil from Iraq is...It's a bit too dangerous to start the Oil production until Iraq is stable once again."

RESPONSE: Iraqi oil production has exceeded pre-invasion levels. The Iraqi government's coffers are filled to the tune of $80 billion in RECENT oil revenue. Only a moron would insist there is no production there.

Mark is a far-Left loon...and an inarticulate o

Cornelius,

Unlike Davegreybeard, it seems you are unable to have a debate without insulting - "Mark is a far-Left loon...and an inarticulate o"
Just because you disagree with my opinion there's no need to be derogatory about it.
There is a strong Conspiracy movement in the USA and the UK regarding 9/11 and 7/7. The last thing I want to believe is that our own governments were capable of doing such a thing. However absurd as it may seem to you, there are many who do have their suspicions of our governments.
I am not a far left loon. If anything I am a centrist that swings to the right.

The grounds for the invasion of Iraq were wrong. The war was an illegal war and should never have happened. Those responsible for the War should be tried in a court of law and subsequently imprisoned for life or, like Saddam,

executed.

1. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction(WOMD).
2. Dr David Kelly, the UK weapons expert, people believe, was murdered for
stating that the Governments WOMD dossier was 'sexed up' and shed much doubt that there were WOMD in Iraq and it posing a threat to the security of the UK/USA.
3. The UK government first stated that they had WOMD. They then changed that to regime change, when they know that is not precedence for going to war. They still maintain they had WOMD when we all know they didn't.
4. The USA and the UK(along with other European companies) are profiting from this war. They have their corporations in Iraq, behind the building of its infrastructure.

You may look at the above as the views of the left, whereas I look at the above as truths, where our governments have lied to their people in order to 'pay back' their business buddies, the people responsible for getting them into power. Because you are obviously a far right NeoCon, then because I disagree with the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you automatically attack me and brandish me as a 'far-left loon".

The Iraq War ties in very nicely with this whole debate and every debate on Jihad Watch.
I find it exceptionally sad that people like you still fail to realise that by going into another land and attacking it, when it threatened your country not, has not helped the War against Terror but greatly exacerbated it. It has made the East and Muslims hate your country even more and, worse still, my country's reputation has been seriously sullied in the due course.

Think of all the money wasted on the War in Iraq? Think of how much better it could have been used in America and the West?
There are 1.5billion+ Muslims in the world and they are breeding extremists daily who are growing up to join the growing ranks of the 'West Haters'. They are coming to the West to spread their hate and one day soon to attack it and gain
total supremacy. These haters are also swelling the Taliban by coming from all over the Muslim World to fight against the Coalition Forces. These Muslims are also coming from the USA, the UK and other Western Non Muslim countries and you
think that this War can be won?
Our backs are completely unprotected as our fronts attack Islam in Iraq and Afghanistan. We continue to send our brave soldiers to sacrifice their lives hunting down the Islamists, while our governments welcome more and more Muslims into
our countries, bending over backwards to make them feel comfortable. Kind of odd that don't you think that one minute we've got soldiers hunting Islamists and yet on the other hand we're allowing them to breed in our own country and hate us even more. Worse still we're creating laws to protect them too?

Afghanistan and Iraq were about Global power, via Western Corporations, getting involved. YES, Afghanistan WAS about the pipeline. YES Iraq was about Oil and removing Saddam from power because he no longer would play ball with the Americans
regarding the cost of Oil. America and the West put him there. We've only got ourselves to blame for his brutal regime and murder of so many Iraqis, that we always turned a blind eye to as "It's ok, Saddam's an ally of the West".

You still have not yet answered the two simple question that no Neo Con is able to answer and that is:"If Iraq was about Regime Change/War on Terror and the removal of dictators in the world, then why has it only done it with Iraq? What about the following dictators and Brutal Regimes around the World:

Hu Jintao China, Robert Mugabe Zimbabwe, Islam Karimov Uzbekistan, King Abdullah Saudi Arabia, Than Shwe Burma, Muammar al-Qaddafi Libya, Bashar al-Assad Syria, Isayas Afewerki Eritrea, Aleksandr Lukashenko Belarus, Pervez Musharraf Pakistan, Choummaly Sayasone Laos, Meles Zenawi Ethiopia, Hosni Mubarak Egypt, Paul Biya Cameroon........?

I could go on and state another twenty or so more.

You fail to realise that the Islamist problem is growing because of American and Western actions in Muslim countries. We should leave them alone and let them get on with their own brutal business. We should make sure that that business never reaches the West. And yet, what do we do? We cause problems in Muslim lands and then allow them to come and live over here. Talk about suicide.
Our society is what it is because of Democracy and Freedom. That democracy and Freedom was sculpted throughout the last millennium by wars throughout Europe. That Democracy and Freedom was hard fought for and our ancestors sacrificed their lives for it. They at least had the common sense to keep their enemies at the gates and no allow them into their cities and lands.

Lastly, again, I am not left wing. I have my own mind, it is not controlled and I like to look at both sides of the argument before I make a decision. I do not blindly follow what my political affiliation does like you obviously do. I know the War in Iraq and Afghanistan were wrong and not our affairs. If Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 as I said I'm not so sure he was, then why didn't they look for him in Saudi Arabia? After all, it's his birth country isn't it? Had the USA attacked Saudi Arabia, then that would certainly have brought him out of hiding. Then again, is he in hiding? Is he alive? Was this not all part of a secretive plan, set up by the Americans and Bin Laden for more power?
The bottom line is that we don't know who was really behind 9/11 and I really don't know if we ever will. I have a funny feeling that this will remain as one of the great unsolved mysteries of our time, along with the assassination of Kennedy. Furthermore, the fighting between American and Americans for the truth is just what Islamism wants. United we stand, divided we fall
There is the saying and the truth shall set you free. It is very poignant and of course true. The machinations of the British and American governments may never be known but what we can do is piece together the pieces of the jigsaw we have, even though many may be missing and when it's finished, we'll get a good enough overall picture.

Mark,
I do agree with you that you are not a 'far left loon', whatever else you may be. Maybe just a centre right loon, which is much better.

Seriously, you need to stick to facts or plausible theories, not wild allegations. What did I tell you about 'fantasy based ideas'?

Of course it's harder that way, and you need to study seriously. But that's OK, you can start with Hugh's articles on this site and go on from there.
(I know you have studied already, but not enough)

StephenA55,

There are in fact huge discrepancies with 9/11 and 7/7 and I am far from convinced that American/UK government administrations/security associations were not involved in the disasters. They are not 'wild allegations' like you seem to think but there are many questions that many people would like to see answered.

Like I have already said, I like to take both sides of a story and come to my own conclusion thank you.
We have disagreed already on here about the BNP and I feel that calling me a 'loon' really is not the way one should conduct themselves in debate. If you disagree with me then by all means say you do, but really, when it comes to insulting others because you are not of the same opinion, then that's completely out of order.

Mark,
I called you a centre right loon in a kindly attempt at humour. Sorry if you missed that, I don't blame you.

As for the rest, feel free to air your conspiracy theories, but don't be surprised at the angry responses.
And since you will generously allow me to disagree with you, I will say that people who think the government was involved in those jihadist attacks are just a bunch of boneheaded nincompoops; however many they are.

StephenA55,

It is talking that makes us better understand and I'm sure you would agree.
However, I will simply state that you may think that those who believed that the government was involved in 9/11 and 7/7 are nincompoops, but I might hasten to add that "They all laughed at Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round".

Of course I expect angry responses, but then I always have, from people who are not prepared to dig deeper than surface level and go with the status quo and NOT rock the boat.

It is precisely people like me this world needs, who ask questions and won't stand down, no matter how much ridicule comes my way. If there weren't people like me then Islamisation will happen unquestionably.

Mark,

Please
Open your eyes
Make sure your
Political
Opinions do not
Undermine common
Sense.

Perhaps you don't
Realize there is
Another plainer
Truth.

MARK: "If Iraq was about Regime Change/War on Terror and the removal of dictators in the world, then why has it only done it with Iraq? What about the following dictators and Brutal Regimes around the World..."

RESPONSE: The question itself is asinine. It suggests that America has the power to cure all the world's ills in one swoop. The converse logic - pervasive among your Left-wing buddies even though it is devoid of moral and practical credibility - is that if we can't remove all the evil in the world, we shouldn't do anything. Believe it or not, the world does not work this way.

Your views on 9-11 disqualify you as a credible interlocutor.

I hope someone spotted my coded message.

Anyone?

Huh, pearls before swine.