Islam4uk March Through Wootton Bassett

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It started because the US government demanded the handover of Osama Bin Laden and associates who they BELIEVED were responsible for planning 9/11 in Afghanistan - but the Taliban would not agree to this without evidence of having orchestrated it (as would be usual for any extradiction request, even when there are no previous bilateral agreements in place for extraditions protocol). The US (with the UK) went to war because the Taliban were still vacilliating over what to do with the US kept demanding the handover - completely disregarding international law, concern for the Afghan people who would be bombed, the very likely increased starvation of the people, when some millions were already malnourished, and no concern for the American people who would be more likely to be under threat in the future from the radicalisation (in Afghanistan and other nations) that would (and has resulted) from invasion and occupation.

 

A few weeks later the British government proposed removed the Taliban - no doubt motivated because the US and UK would benefit greatly with having the ability to manage regime change in a strategic location. This was agreed.

(And to add, the Americans didn't even have any evidence to provide).

 

Because of the poor planning involved and lack of the required number of forces to cordon off the area where Al Qaeda were concentrated, the majority of Al Qaeda fled the country.

 

The war then lost its original purpose upon failure and became about eliminating the Taliban as a threat to a future regime that the neo-cons and New Labour government wanted in Afghanistan in order to gain influence and control over the region. Of cours this would have the benefit of preventing Al Qaeda from returning there.

 

But in gaining control over the region the US will have influence over a strategic area (because of its proximity to Iran and the oilfields in the south of the neighbouring former Soviet States).

 

It has nothing to do with any humanitarian mission to rid the world of an oppressive regime out of concern for the people. And it has nothing to do with ridding the world of terrorism - if the US, for instance, wanted to rid the world of terrorism then it might as well go to war with itself, stop supporting Israel, and certainly wouldn't have chosen to use violence so quickly and with little concern for inhabitants of Afghanistan. The war is terrorism against the Afghan people. But the war is primarily about control of the region. PK is right, the US and UK want stabilisation of this regime.

 

Whether or not any country can successfully take control of Afghanistan is not that relevant in taking account whether NATO can successfully eliminate the Taliban. I mean, the conflicts the British fought over a hundred years ago bears no similarities whatsoever except in location. Different goals, different technology, different people involved.

 

And 'taming the natives' is a rather racist remark to make about the people.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I'm not glad that NATO still exists. Wish it was ended in the early 1990s. Why are you a fan?

 

Why do you wish it ended?

Because its original purpose ended when the Soviet Union fell apart.

 

And because the existence and (most definitely) the expansion of the alliance has served to make the Russians very concerned about how this alliance system is used. What is especially problematic and truly worrying is the expansion of this alliance. Even the Ukraine could be a possible members. Of all the stupid, antagonistic steps that could be taken to fuck off Russia we this encirclement.

 

It is also an American dominated club - although I would want to have a world with no nations and no national military forces, if I put my liberal 'hat' on I see it as preferable to have a military alliance system of solely European nations rather have an American led alliance. I do think a world where the United States (which is still by far the largest military power) is not the only military superpower would be a better one, especially considering the less interventionist and less neo-conservative foreign policy stances of France, Germany, and Italy. And the Europeans nations will have more international clout if they club together and meet the US not as subservient individual partners but as a powerful unified body.

[K.os Theory]

And 'taming the natives' is a rather racist remark to make about the people.

 

Firstly apologies for remark, it was made in light of my reference to "Flashman", I hope it causes no offence.

 

Thanks LDV for the explanation, i'm sure however it will be a "blue-touch-paper" for other opinions on the ongoing conflict.

 

A couple of points;

 

your mentioning NATO eliminating the taliban is surely a moot point? As I understand weren't the Taliban trained and introduced into Afghanistan to fight the "communists" back in the 70's/80's? We may not agree with their methods but shit, we put them in a position of power to reclaim their country and now we're sayin " sorry didn't mean to teach you all that guerrilla warfare shit back in the 70's so now we're gonna take it away!"

 

Honestly before the attack on September 11th 2001 who was really paying any attention to Afghanistan ( apart from the herion users? )

 

The Afghans as a nation of people have always stood together against all "foreign" invaders and as far as we know they don't seem to be anything to do with "Al Queada"[sic]!

 

I personally believe the real danger is now coming in from Pakistan, the Yemen and to further extents certain militant areas of Africa ( I'm not even getting into the North Korea )

 

In my humble and uneducated opinion we're blowing 7shades of shite out of a country that has nothing to do with the initial problem apart from having loads of mountains y to hide in. The Islamist Fundamentalists in Pakistan seem to causing a load of troubles in Pakistan, this dude on xmas day had been to the Yemen and was from Nigeria ( not that i'm saying Nigeria is a hotbed of fundamentalist activity but at this stage who really fucking knows ), but was eductated in the UK so who should we really be fighting this war against?

 

Back on topic...these Islam4uk bods are quite clearly "crackers", but we live in a democratic country and as such they should be allowed ( and I'm playing devils advocate here btw ) to proceed with their march ( no matter how uncomfortable for people it is ). I agree with earlier posts that say people should line the march in silence with banners advocating the right to march but disagreeing as to the reasons why these people are marching ( pipe dream? maybe but... )

 

Either that or just have a massive "bacon bap" give-away along the march route!

 

I'm rambling and probably talking shite, i'm interested in see in what people think of my opinions...

 

Kymbo

[jimbms]

It started because the US government demanded the handover of Osama Bin Laden and associates who they BELIEVED were responsible for planning 9/11

I think you may find the only reason they BELIEVED Osama was responsible was due to the fact he went on the internet and openly admitted he planned it all, or is that not regarded as proof enough for you?

[Freggyragh]

PK, please let me explain what I think, and please correct me if I'm wrong anywhere.

 

The key planners behind 9 / 11 are all dead. Like it or not, they were not Afghanis. They were, for the most part, fairly wealthy middle class, well educated, English speakers, from Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, who had been living in Germany. The initial justification for war rests on us believing that these people could not possibly have come up with their plans and seen them through without the evil genius (and cash) of Bin Laden.

 

The story initially used to justify war is that these guys, one of whom was already a quailified commercial pilot, had to go to meet Al Queda in Afghanistan so Mohamed Atef could sort out their travel plans for them and Bin Laden could hand over the list of targets and enough cash to get them buy their plane tickets and box cutters.

 

When this story came to light the US demanded that the Taleban hand over Bin Laden and Al Queda, knowing that this wasn't going to happen, and having previously (before 9 / 11) decided that they would go to war against the Taleban anyway.

 

Why? Well, the Taleban regime in 2001 was barbaric by our standards, if not by the standards of their region, and maybe they looked like an easy target in 2001. Maybe because war contractors like Black Water and Haliburton were so well connected to the Bush administration. Maybe because the 'Coalition of the Willing' wanted to show that it could do what the British Empire and Soviet Union at their heights couldn't. Maybe it was because at least 13 million people worldwide are addicted to opiates. Maybe it was because intelligence and security companies and agencies needed enemies for their own expansion. Maybe because religious and ideological leaders in the West genuinely thought they could do something about fundamentalist Islam by invading the country and imposing regime change. Maybe because the Unocal Corporation wanted to build a 2.5 billion dollar oil pipeline through Afghanistan. Maybe Western intelligence services genuinely thought that if the Taleban ever actually managed to gain full control of their own lands then the next logical step would a blitzkrieg invasion of nuclear armed Pakistan. Maybe they genuinely thought that the best way to safeguard us from fundamentalist fanatics in the West would be to start a war in the mountains of Afghanistan.

 

Now, having decided to commit British troops to this venture, the British government has let them down time and time again. They have failed to ensure that other European Nato allies gave them enough support. They have failed to provide adequate equipment. They have put almost as much effort into limiting compensation payouts for injured soldiers as they have into claiming their own expenses. Crucially, they have failed to provide to adequately plan any coherent strategy or even provide clear objectives to the troops. They seem to have no problem coming up with the cash to maintain the cavalry, guards uniforms, etc. to support Westminster's tourism industry, but when it comes to helicopters and land vehicles for Afghanistan its a different story. Finally, and you may think it trivial, but the British government's attitiude towards support and condolence for fallen and injured soldiers in contrast to its nation crippling efforts to rescue private financial companies just turns my stomach.

 

That's why I made my comment.

[slinkydevil]

It started because the US government demanded the handover of Osama Bin Laden and associates who they BELIEVED were responsible for planning 9/11

I think you may find the only reason they BELIEVED Osama was responsible was due to the fact he went on the internet and openly admitted he planned it all, or is that not regarded as proof enough for you?

 

Well that's not proof is it? I could have gone on the internet and said I did it, but I doubt I'd see cruise missiles landing in Upper Douglas.

[P.K.]

PK, please let me explain what I think, and please correct me if I'm wrong anywhere.

 

The key planners behind 9 / 11 are all dead. Like it or not, they were not Afghanis. They were, for the most part, fairly wealthy middle class, well educated, English speakers, from Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, who had been living in Germany. The initial justification for war rests on us believing that these people could not possibly have come up with their plans and seen them through without the evil genius (and cash) of Bin Laden.

 

The story initially used to justify war is that these guys, one of whom was already a quailified commercial pilot, had to go to meet Al Queda in Afghanistan so Mohamed Atef could sort out their travel plans for them and Bin Laden could hand over the list of targets and enough cash to get them buy their plane tickets and box cutters.

 

When this story came to light the US demanded that the Taleban hand over Bin Laden and Al Queda, knowing that this wasn't going to happen, and having previously (before 9 / 11) decided that they would go to war against the Taleban anyway.

 

Why? Well, the Taleban regime in 2001 was barbaric by our standards, if not by the standards of their region, and maybe they looked like an easy target in 2001. Maybe because war contractors like Black Water and Haliburton were so well connected to the Bush administration. Maybe because the 'Coalition of the Willing' wanted to show that it could do what the British Empire and Soviet Union at their heights couldn't. Maybe it was because at least 13 million people worldwide are addicted to opiates. Maybe it was because intelligence and security companies and agencies needed enemies for their own expansion. Maybe because religious and ideological leaders in the West genuinely thought they could do something about fundamentalist Islam by invading the country and imposing regime change. Maybe because the Unocal Corporation wanted to build a 2.5 billion dollar oil pipeline through Afghanistan. Maybe Western intelligence services genuinely thought that if the Taleban ever actually managed to gain full control of their own lands then the next logical step would a blitzkrieg invasion of nuclear armed Pakistan. Maybe they genuinely thought that the best way to safeguard us from fundamentalist fanatics in the West would be to start a war in the mountains of Afghanistan.

 

Now, having decided to commit British troops to this venture, the British government has let them down time and time again. They have failed to ensure that other European Nato allies gave them enough support. They have failed to provide adequate equipment. They have put almost as much effort into limiting compensation payouts for injured soldiers as they have into claiming their own expenses. Crucially, they have failed to provide to adequately plan any coherent strategy or even provide clear objectives to the troops. They seem to have no problem coming up with the cash to maintain the cavalry, guards uniforms, etc. to support Westminster's tourism industry, but when it comes to helicopters and land vehicles for Afghanistan its a different story. Finally, and you may think it trivial, but the British government's attitiude towards support and condolence for fallen and injured soldiers in contrast to its nation crippling efforts to rescue private financial companies just turns my stomach.

 

That's why I made my comment.

Most of your post (well, the parts I bothered to read that is) is completely irrelevant.

 

Al-Queda and the Taliban need failed states to function. That is, where the Governments remit fails to have any effect. So NATO et al have to prop up ANY pro-western Afghanistan administration that will stand up to them. If they don't Pakistan, a nuclear state, could go the same way. Nightmare time. Which is why the British Planks are dying there. Now that's not at all difficult to understand. So anyone who pushes back on the blindingly obvious is either VERY thick indeed or clearly has another axe to grind...

[La_Dolce_Vita]

When this story came to light the US demanded that the Taleban hand over Bin Laden and Al Queda, knowing that this wasn't going to happen, and having previously (before 9 / 11) decided that they would go to war against the Taleban anyway.

No evidence or indication to show that removal of Taliban was planned prior to 9/11.

Maybe because the 'Coalition of the Willing' wanted to show that it could do what the British Empire and Soviet Union at their heights couldn't.

Nation states don't fight war for the sake of collecting trophies. Though it might be an added bonus.

Maybe it was because at least 13 million people worldwide are addicted to opiates.

Very, very unlikely. Logically, the best move would be to let the Taliban continue in eradicating opium production in the country and maybe even help to finance such policies.

Maybe it was because intelligence and security companies and agencies needed enemies for their own expansion. Maybe because religious and ideological leaders in the West genuinely thought they could do something about fundamentalist Islam by invading the country and imposing regime change.

That wouldn't make much sense at all. If you put these two 'maybes' together then the logical place to attack (if the US had to) would be Iran.

Maybe because the Unocal Corporation wanted to build a 2.5 billion dollar oil pipeline through Afghanistan.

Well yeah, that motivates a country with energy interests to get involved. But it was still originally about Al Qaeda.

Maybe Western intelligence services genuinely thought that if the Taleban ever actually managed to gain full control of their own lands then the next logical step would a blitzkrieg invasion of nuclear armed Pakistan

Pure fantasy, it would not be a logical step to attack Pakistan, not heard this one before.

Maybe they genuinely thought that the best way to safeguard us from fundamentalist fanatics in the West would be to start a war in the mountains of Afghanistan.

And this one is probably the most ridiculous. It would take a stupid person in the government to think that attacking Afghanistan would limit or end terrorism.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Al-Queda and the Taliban need failed states to function.

I don't understand this thinking and what you think function means in respect of each group. Al Qaeda have little interest in forming a government - they are just a terrorist group at present. And the Taliban did function as the viable Afghani state.

That is, where the Governments remit fails to have any effect.

Following from your previous statements, are you simply pointing out that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are enemies? And that is why they cannot coexist?

 

So NATO et al have to prop up ANY pro-western Afghanistan administration that will stand up to them. If they don't Pakistan, a nuclear state, could go the same way.

It is the war that has pushed the Taliban into Pakistan and thus de-stabilised the north of the country and in a previously rather stable nation. It has also further attracted some nasty fundamentalist Islamic elements into north-western Pakistan who want to attack the Pakistanis because of their support to the US in this war.

However unlikely, if the Pakistan regime did crumble and was replaced by some nasty regime, it would be very much be NATO that is to blame.

Nightmare time.

Well yeah. But it isn't likely to happen. The Taliban don't have the strength to form a regime and the Islamic terrorist groups don't have the strengths either. It is whether they can somehow get hold of the weapons.

[Albert Tatlock]

Al-Queda and the Taliban need failed states to function. That is, where the Governments remit fails to have any effect. So NATO et al have to prop up ANY pro-western Afghanistan administration that will stand up to them. If they don't Pakistan, a nuclear state, could go the same way. Nightmare time. Which is why the British Planks are dying there. Now that's not at all difficult to understand. So anyone who pushes back on the blindingly obvious is either VERY thick indeed or clearly has another axe to grind...

Al-Queda do not simply need failed states to function. Al-Queda have a philosophy of centralised decisions and decentralised execution. Might I remind you just who has actually carried out all of the recent attacks we have had in the UK for example. Al-Queda don't even need leadership or a communication network anymore now, they have enough rabble rousers all over the world spreading the word and recruiting more and more terrorist jihadists and fighters locally - wherever that may be - some in specific hotspots, but practically anywhere there are muslims, including the likes of Bradford and Birmingham. Al-Queda is a franchise, practically a brand now even.

 

They even have their own broadcasts on the BBC, NBC etc. showing that 'christian forces' are present in the islamic world, doing just what Al-Queda said they would be doing out there in the islamic world.

 

Chances are most senior Al-Queda people of the past are dead, and if there are any still alive - they are unimportant because it's now a philosphy and belief system, not down to specific leaders. Lots of those trouble stirrers have already moved to Pakistan too, out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and are stirring up even more trouble in Pakistan. But who has pushed them there, to a soverign state that is supposedly an ally in terms of the 'war on teror'? - we have. Where does this end PK? An invasion of Pakistan next? And what after that?

 

Prior to the war on terror, we had very little terrorism, in fact we still do not have that much, but what we do have we are partly to blame for, by continually pushing and pushing and effectively recruiting more terrorists to fight. For every terrorist and fighter killed, two more are recruited IMO. We have gone from a few terrorists and criminals that most of Islam decryed too, to hardly anyone trusting any muslim - if they are honest enough to say so. Jebus, we don't even trust ourselves anymore with all the anti civil libertarian right wing shit and security that we have to live with now.

 

You just don't get it do you PK. You, like much of the current leadership in the west, think only in terms of borders and containment. But ideas, books, philosophys, brands and memes don't have borders - and understanding that is a fundamental brain shift that has to happen to even begin to think about solving this. Your statement 'Now that's not at all difficult to understand. So anyone who pushes back on the blindingly obvious is either VERY thick indeed or clearly has another axe to grind...' is very condescending, and typical of the 'you're either with us or against us' rhetoric and bullshit that has made this whole sorry situation worse, and will continue to make it even worse. Whole industries have now been created on the back of this same tired old bullshit - and worse still, young lives needlessly lost.

 

The only real answer to Al-Queda is to promote a live and let live and peace with Islam. To do that, is going to take a fundamental shift in foreign policy, much along the lines the UK had to inevitably take with Northern Ireland, with specific rules agreed to be applied by both sides. We need to change foreign policy, Islam needs a worldwide co-ordinated demonstration of its committment to peace, and a recognised islamic authority created within it to represent it and act on its behalf, made up of representatives from many islamic countries. And the territories an intransigent Israel has occupied have got to be part of that settlement with the west putting just as much pressure on them to help solve this, as that is a fundamental part of the initial problem. If there is not a fundamental change in our own philosophy on foreign policy, this is a war that will expand forever, and go on forever, until they get their hands on the likes of nuclear technology. Look at how many middle eastern countries are involved in this all now, compared to before the 'war on terror'.

 

This needs to stop now, and no matter how uncomfortable, a peace sought - because otherwise it will eventually be the end of all of us. If anyone had the backing and remit to start to stop it I thought it would be Obama. Now is when the world needs quality leaders on both sides of this, and not the spin merchants and shit stirrers we are stuck with, as well as that insistance that Israel plays its part to start to solve this. It will take a lot of lateral thinking, and maybe even some uncomfortable thinking and decisions on both sides, but thinking about solving this is paramount. Anyone that thinks this can be won, by either side, is living in dreamland.

 

There is no guarantee a peace will ever come, but we have to try, as currently both 'sides' of this are moving further away from that every day.

[Freggyragh]

When this story came to light the US demanded that the Taleban hand over Bin Laden and Al Queda, knowing that this wasn't going to happen, and having previously (before 9 / 11) decided that they would go to war against the Taleban anyway.

No evidence or indication to show that removal of Taliban was planned prior to 9/11.

 

Oh yes there is - read up on it. The Bush administration agreed on September 10th 2001 that the Taleban would be ousted if they did not hand over Bin Laden - knowing that handing over a guest was a cultural no no.

 

Maybe because the 'Coalition of the Willing' wanted to show that it could do what the British Empire and Soviet Union at their heights couldn't.

Nation states don't fight war for the sake of collecting trophies. Though it might be an added bonus.

 

Says who?

 

Maybe it was because at least 13 million people worldwide are addicted to opiates.

Very, very unlikely. Logically, the best move would be to let the Taliban continue in eradicating opium production in the country and maybe even help to finance such policies.

 

Best move for who? It takes a whole hectare of poppies to produce 1.5 kg of pure heroin. There are at least 120,000 hectares of poppy fields in Afghanistan. By the time it reaches here 1.5kg would be worth, according to Manx police £150,000 (except pure heroin would be worth much more. 120,000 multiplied by 150,000 = £18 billion. Is it possible to hide 120,000 hectares of bright red flowers in a country under so much surveillance? But western government agencies wouldn't get involved in drug dealing, or the proceeds of drug dealing would they? Ever heard of the Opium Wars, or Iran-Contra?

 

Maybe it was because intelligence and security companies and agencies needed enemies for their own expansion. Maybe because religious and ideological leaders in the West genuinely thought they could do something about fundamentalist Islam by invading the country and imposing regime change.

That wouldn't make much sense at all. If you put these two 'maybes' together then the logical place to attack (if the US had to) would be Iran.

 

Yes, except that Iran is much, bigger and stronger.

 

Maybe because the Unocal Corporation wanted to build a 2.5 billion dollar oil pipeline through Afghanistan.

Well yeah, that motivates a country with energy interests to get involved. But it was still originally about Al Qaeda.

 

Al Queda was not just in Afghanistan in 2001. It had cells worldwide. The leaders were probably in Afghanistan, and some of its training camps were there, I wouldn't say that Afghanistan was targeted for that reason alone.

 

Maybe Western intelligence services genuinely thought that if the Taleban ever actually managed to gain full control of their own lands then the next logical step would a blitzkrieg invasion of nuclear armed Pakistan

Pure fantasy, it would not be a logical step to attack Pakistan, not heard this one before.

 

No? Look at PK's post again.

 

Maybe they genuinely thought that the best way to safeguard us from fundamentalist fanatics in the West would be to start a war in the mountains of Afghanistan.

 

And this one is probably the most ridiculous. It would take a stupid person in the government to think that attacking Afghanistan would limit or end terrorism.

 

Well done. That is the point I was making, as this, plus the fear that without Coalition troops Taleban / Al Queda would take over Afghanistan and Pakistan, is the argument the UK government, and believers such as PK are making.

[Freggyragh]

Sorry for the garbled quoting in the message above. Albert's post is probably too long for your attention span PK, but try and read it through.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Oh yes there is - read up on it. The Bush administration agreed on September 10th 2001 that the Taleban would be ousted if they did not hand over Bin Laden - knowing that handing over a guest was a cultural no no.

The Bush administration threatened the Taliban to hand over Al Qaeda '...or else'. There were no direct threats to remove them from government in Afghanistan, although no doubt it was considered in the American administration.

Says who?[in regard to 'trophy winning']

Countries don't go to war just to prove that they can do what others could not in different circumstances. Besides the proxy war fought in the 70-80s in Afghanistan was an American government success. I do very much think that this recent war does serve to show American military power as a warning to other countries who do not heed its demand.

Best move for who? It takes a whole hectare of poppies to produce 1.5 kg of pure heroin. There are at least 120,000 hectares of poppy fields in Afghanistan. By the time it reaches here 1.5kg would be worth, according to Manx police £150,000 (except pure heroin would be worth much more. 120,000 multiplied by 150,000 = £18 billion. Is it possible to hide 120,000 hectares of bright red flowers in a country under so much surveillance? But western government agencies wouldn't get involved in drug dealing, or the proceeds of drug dealing would they? Ever heard of the Opium Wars, or Iran-Contra?

Best move for any people or government who want to reduce heroin production would have been to allow the Taliban to go ahead and wipe out the stuff. The Taliban banned opium production in 2001. Given that the USA invaded and removed the Taliban, the drug argument wouldn't stand up.

Yes, except that Iran is much, bigger and stronger.

But are we talking about 2001 or years later? In 2001 the USA could have invaded and successfully did what it achieved in Iraq. It had the military and economic power to do so, and it would have had willing allies.

Al Queda was not just in Afghanistan in 2001. It had cells worldwide. The leaders were probably in Afghanistan, and some of its training camps were there, I wouldn't say that Afghanistan was targeted for that reason alone.

Osama Bin Laden (the leader), the top hierarchy of the group, and training camps (as you say were there). And considering that the plan was not initially to wipe out the Taliban, it shows that direct control over that country was not the motivation for the war. It can only leave Al Qaeda. Once it was decided to remove the Taliban then you can throw in the need to control those oil resources and maintain control over this strategically located country.

No? Look at PK's post again.

But PKs comments about Pakistan related to reasons for continuing action in Afghanistan. Not why the war started.

[jimbms]

A lot of this I can't understand due to the fact that after a nice chunk of Afghan Black in my younger days nobody wanted to fight, just have a good giggle and eat loads of munchies.

[P.K.]

Albert's post is probably too long for your attention span PK, but try and read it through.

Hardly, I easily managed to get through the first half of Captain Correli's Mandolin which surely just has to be the slowest starting book on record. Well worth it though. I started reading AT's rather dull post, quickly realised it was all his usual guff about how I completely misunderstand the situation etc etc etc (yawn!) so I very quickly gave up.

 

Folks on here can waffle on as much as they like (and unfortunately they probably will) but the situation remains as I previously stated i.e. the planks have to go on dying until the ballot box overtakes the gun and the Taliban are marginalised. They'll never go away though because their philosophy simply doesn't include any accommodations with the non-believers. Anyone who thinks otherwise deserves to be ridiculed.