Advertise on this site

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Basra : British Defeat Bodes Badly for Afghanistan

Guido takes no pleasure in reporting this, but it seems to be going unsaid in the British press. British forces are painted, particularly by broadcasters, as having achieved a measure of success in Basra due to superior British peace-keeping techniques honed in Northern Ireland.

The truth is very different. To quote from a report by the ICG;
Three major Shiite political groups are locked in a bloody conflict that has left the city in the hands of militias and criminal gangs, whose control extends to municipal offices and neighborhood streets. The city is plagued by "the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighborhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias that increasingly intermingle with political actors," a recent report by the International Crisis Group said.
The Washington Post reported a senior U.S. intelligence official yesterday saying that "The British have basically been defeated in the south".

The article went on to say that British forces
... are abandoning their former headquarters at Basra Palace, where a recent official visitor from London described them as "surrounded like cowboys and Indians" by militia fighters. An airport base outside the city, where a regional U.S. Embassy office and Britain's remaining 5,500 troops are barricaded behind building-high sandbags, has been attacked with mortars or rockets nearly 600 times over the past four months.
In May Blair visited the Basra HQ and came under mortar attack - not a sign of pacification.

The head of the armed forces, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, told the BBC that success depends "upon what your interpretation of the mission was in the first place... I'm afraid people had, in many instances, unrealistic aspirations for Iraq, and for the south of Iraq." The reality is that once Britsh forces exit Basra the fighting will escalate into a full-scale civil war. Mission failure.

This begs the question - what now is the plan in Afghanistan? They are a people who fought the Red Army and won. The Soviets were brutal and were still defeated. Is NATO going to match and exceed that brutality in pursuit of "victory"? Afghanistan should be monitored closely and elements that present a clear and present external danger should be eliminated. It is not the job of NATO to impose Western values by force as Rome's Imperial Armies once imposed Roman law.

70 comments:

SFIE said...

Good points, one wonders why the BBC haven't been asking similar questions and using the same quotes!

Surreptitious Evil said...

Hesco blocks, the ICG's "building-high sandbags" are all over Iraq and Afghanistan. In a place with plenty of sand, unreliable local labour and the RPG-7 being the one-up-from-an-AK of choice, a cheap and very effective way of building a wall. Duplo not Lego :)

Athos said...

Much as I hate to disappoint you on this one, but it still isn't civil war. A civil war requires that an alternate government stand up and fight for control of the country. To those who would stand up and say "Iran", I would point out that that would make it an invasion, not a civil war.

What we have at the moment is an insurgency and a massive breakdown in law and order, combined with a criminal/tribal infiltration of the political structure. In other words: because the Iraqi government has not established a monopoly on the use of force, everyone is using violence to further their own agenda.

Of course, much of this could be avoided or reduced if the British troops were permitted to return fire without fear of reprisal from their political superiors who could never stand the sight of a "civilian casualty" being caused when one of the insurgents has his weapon posthumously removed.

Anonymous said...

And on top of all that Eton Dave came calling.Haven't our men out there got enough to put up with?

Guido Fawkes Esq. said...

That is a very legalistic definition of a "civil war". To all intents and purposes it will be a civil war.

Anonymous said...

The US have woken up to the reality that the British Army is on its way out of Iraq and they're not happy.

I, for one, will be delighted if the venomous neocons now turn on Blair and blame him for the Iraq debacle, ie the US would not have invaded without Blair's support/encouragement, therefore it's all his fault. Serve the bugger right.

chatterbox said...

Guido, go and speak to soldiers just back from Iraq and Afghanistan
Don't depend on our media or the Defence press office if you want a true picture of what is going on.
If you think Basra is getting bl**dy dangerous try imagining what the soldiers on the ground are up against in Afghanistan.
The number of deaths and casualties in both war zones are increasing, but this shower are extremely shy about giving us the number of casualties and their injuries.

Guido Fawkes Esq. said...

Have spoken to senior officer back from Afghanistan. He was guarded but pessimistic.

Anonymous said...

Heard an ironic anecdote. NATO have rented Hind helicopters off the Russians for use in theatre. The same Hind helicopters used by the Soviets against the Afghan resistance when they tried unsuccessfully to pacify Afghanistan.

chatterbox said...

Has anyone in the media even tried to ascertain whether this governments often repeated promises to the armed forces ever get delivered?
How many extra helicopters have been delivered in Afghanistan, and how many properly armoured patrol vehicles fit for purpose are now there and in Basra?
Trying to fight one war on the cheap is dangerous but two, that is criminal!

Anonymous said...

We cannot exit Iraq without being seen (by the US) to be taking on the 'insurgents' in Afghanistan. Once out of Iraq it will be possible to exit Afghanistan.

Anonymous said...

"British forces are painted, particularly by broadcasters, as having achieved a measure of success in Basra due to superior British peace-keeping techniques honed in Northern Ireland."

Those "superior" techniques ending up with Northern Ireland being in the hands of religious fundamentalists (the DUP) and criminal gangs (Sinn Fein).

So no change there then.........

William Wilberfarce said...

I'm sure I read somewhere, that British Army death rate in Afghanistan is a higher percentage than it was in WWII.

If this is a victory god help us if we ever really get defeated.

I get the feeling that the worst is yet to comme in Iraq.

Hope you are enjoying your holiday Tony, you utter wanker.

W.W.

The Hitch said...

I know you are away old chap , sat in the sun having cheap Anjou rose' rubbed into your private parts by a romanian au pair leaving Mrs F to breast feed in peace , but this is hardly news.
Dont bother to offer me a refund I have just nicked your television in lieu.
BTW the roof terrace is leaking.

Athos said...

Guido,
I forget that this is an age in which something doesn't actually have to meet the definition of a thing to be described as it.

If one looks back to history, then all the conflicts that have been descibed as Civil Wars have had that in common, which Iraq does not.
There are different words for fighting occuring within a country... why call it a Civil War when that's one of the ones it most definately isn't?

John Trenchard said...

all that will happen is that once the "surge" is sorted out north of basra, the americans will surge into basra to prevent the iranians gaining a foothold.

William Wilberfarce said...

Does it really matter what you call it,

An complete and utter disaster, which will probably send the entire middle east up in flames.

Debating wether you call it a Civil War or an Insugencey seems pointless.

W.W.

John Trenchard said...

and another point. ever notice how the MOD site never reports on enemy casualties - its all "british dead" reports - and yet the Yanks give us the low down on how many terrorists they are killing and capturing?

methinks the MOD itself has a bit of a "defeatism" problem. the yanks are probably better off without us.

mod:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/

americans:
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=1&id=4&Itemid=128

John Trenchard said...

links came out bad.. here they are again
MOD

Americans

William Wilberfarce said...

John Trenchard -
maybe the MOD know it's a lost cause, and are not quite as blinded as the 'yanks' remember they thought they would win in Vietnamn

W.W.

Madasafish said...

Well as the poppy harvest is a record we appear to be fighting for and on behalf of the drug producers. So frankly we deserve to lose.

The whole Afghan war is a mess.. and history teaches .... but since when have the US and the UK(UB) (Under Blair) learned anything from history?

The public don't care and rightly so. It's a mess.. and when we leave it will be a mess.


Fighting unwinnable wars is for muppets (see Vietnam)

IanP said...

I think its more to do with the fact that the MOD know they don't have much longer in the job.

It will all soon be integrated with Brussels, so our army is being dumbed down to the level of the Dutch and Italians, and our Navy's newly announced super carriers will never see a White Ensign flying on them, it will be the ring of stars.

The MOD have been bought off, with their swivel chairs and marble stairs costing more than the equipment they are sending our troops.

The pride has been knocked out of them from the very top, they just have to hang in their for their pensions now.

Anonymous said...

Meantime Billy Hague is attacking the new EU treaty but does anyone know what his friends in the EPP are saying?The EPP is the outfit that Dave promised to exit pronto during the leadership campaign.Talk about two faces!

chatterbox said...

"ever notice how the MOD site never reports on enemy casualties - its all "british dead" reports - and yet the Yanks give us the low down on how many terrorists they are killing and capturing?"

Because to do so would be to admit that John Reid's early ill advised statement (against civil service recommendation) was very misleading. That kind of honest reporting of the facts and figures would blow the governments spin machines carefully crafted narrative of the situation out of the water. It might make it too easy for the media to start doing a bit of joined up thinking and result in some uncomfortable reporting of the true situation.
The government made a huge tactical error walking away from Afghanistan and going straight into Iraq. Now again they cannot admit that and therefore would not take the military advice to withdraw from one country and concentrate on the other.
We are going to end up leaving a bl**dy mess in both countries and will have done untold damage to our armed forces.
It shows incompetence and lack of the most basic forward planning in this governments Foreign and Defence policy.

Anonymous said...

It would certainly have made rather more sense to have gone in, shot up the place and taken Saddam Hussein and his seriously dodgy family out of the picture, then left immediately to leave the Islamofacists to fight it out amongst themselves. Nation building in Islamic lands is for muppets. If you are going to do it you need to get tough as in the Boer war - put everyone in a concentration camp, disarm them, then shoot on sight those that refuse to be captured. Easy, but expensive, and doesn't go down well at the UN.

Anonymous said...

Detailed reports from Afghan suggest that we are batting on a losing wicket. The Afghans are very good at defending their country from the infidel. They are proud of their tradition.

If you can't beat them.....we could have made a smart move by legalising the poppy farms and buying the entire harvest for medical use.

Why are our leaders so exceptionally dim?

Athos said...

Mr. Wilberfarce...

"a Rose by any other name would still smell as sweet" ,eh?

Indeed. You could call it a petunia, a housecat or the Duchess of Cornwall and it would still smell as sweet... but it wouldn't actually be a petunia, housecat or the Duchess of Cornwall. It would be a Rose.

Being a complete and utter disaster does not make it a civil war. The Titanic was not a civil war, nor is Microsoft Vista...

Anonymous said...

The writing was on the wall the minute that Gordon became PM. He needs to get UK forces out of Iraq asap and I predict that the statement to Parliament in early October will confirm this. The "green" light for withdrawal is Gen Petreus' report due September and it's obvious that was communicated to Bush at Camp David in July. The hints were in Gordon's statement to the press afterward.

The Iraq War is a sensitive issue with his far left and the liberal media and Afghanistan is the "forgotten war" although our forces are having a bloodier time out there compared to Iraq and are fully stretched and the "enemy" is well grouped and trained. You can "hammer away" at them with artillery;small arms and air strikes and they still regroup and fight on.

However, don't expect a joyous homecoming for our boys in Iraq. It'll be a swift redeployment to 'stan.

Penfold said...

If you've got no political will, ill-equipped forces, no proper leadership and endgame plan, then this is what you get.

The next step will be for Gordo to go to Basra and talk to the radicals and extremists and sell the Basrans/Iraqui's down the river, in exactly the same manner as St Tone of B-Liar did in Northern Ireland.

The armed forces can only do so much, they in turn are led by the politicoes...the fuck-ups, deadbeats, knowitalls, sanctimonious, smug, dogmatic, class warfare, PC areseholes who have the termerity to place themselves in positions of leadership.
Sack the lot, put 'em against a wall, or just let 'em dangle from a handy lamp post.

May their souls rot in eternal purgatory, Amen.

Travis Bickle said...

"If you can't beat them.....we could have made a smart move by legalising the poppy farms and buying the entire harvest for medical use."

I read this somewhere else recently, is it really true that we are losing lives trying to stop Opium production for the drugs trade (something the Taliban had apparnetly been controlling rather better than us) whilst paying UK farmers to grow poppies because os a shortage of morphine ???

Anonymous said...

how this government is ahead in the polls I simply do not know. they have the blood of 100's of our soldiers on their hands. Cowards all of them. a vote for nuLab is a vote for murderers.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the link to the Washington Post. The sponsored thought I was looking for a trip to the place mentioned in the article!

Basra
Create Your Ideal Trip - Flights, Hotels & Car Hire
www.expedia.co.uk

Dodgy Geezer said...

"Much as I hate to disappoint you on this one, but it still isn't civil war. A civil war requires that an alternate government stand up and fight for control of the country."

I can see three clear governments in waiting; Kurds, Shias and Sunnis. All of these are involved in fighting the others while occasional infighting takes place as well. You can claim it's a messy civil war, but you can't claim it's not a civil war.

"It would certainly have made rather more sense to have gone in, shot up the place and taken Saddam Hussein and his seriously dodgy family out of the picture, then left immediately to leave the Islamofacists to fight it out amongst themselves. "

It would have made even more sense not to have gone in in the first place and left Saddam in power. We put him in place so we could do business with him - we could have kept doing business with him. And that would be infinitely better for the mass of Iraquis who are going to end up dead if we encourage civil war.

Madasafish said...

"is it really true that we are losing lives trying to stop Opium production for the drugs trade "

No.. we are doing our best to help output which is a record.. our drug addicts need it.
Cynical?
Read..http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article612865.ece

hangemall said...

Travis Bickle 3:21PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/
articles/news/news.html?in_article_
id=469983&in_page_id=1770

Was that it? Another site pointed me to this a few weeks ago.

hangemall said...

A few days ago. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

"This begs the question..."

No, it doesn't, Guido old chap, it raises the question...

english democrat said...

Has anyone noticed the lack of NuLab trolls in this forum? They know they have not got a leg to stand on! The Iraq/afghan fiasco will go down as the biggest set of tactical and strategic fuck ups since Vietnam! So far the only defence the NuLab imbeciles can come up with is that the Tories agreed with the stupidity as well!
How many serving Labour MPs have served in the Armed Forces? How many Labour MPs sold out the West by working in secret for the Warsaw pact? Which Labour Mayor on a visit to the East German socialist paradise said he would much rather live under the Soviet Union than have ONE American soldier in the UK? Which Labour MP on an all expenses paid visit to the USSR gave out details of soviet poitical refugees to the KGB? Which Labour MP (ret) took money from the KGB to cause industrial strife in the British shipping industries?
All in all the socialist muppets are a gang of self serving traitors and I wish they would get their just desserts before they all pass away in their beds!

Madasafish said...

>english democrat
Your party polemic is worthless cos Iraq and Afghanistan were 100% supported .. and still are.. by the long sighted ex military people in the Conservative Party.. thus proving politicians are idiots whether from military backgrounds or not as far as those two wars are concerned.

See IDS, Mercer and David Davis.

So don't speak bollocks on partisan issues when by YOUR logic the above 3 MPs should have been against the current wars. IDS was all for them.

(and you wonder why the electorate don't trust the Conservatives?)

Anonymous said...

Who's totally up their own Khyber?

it's the Eton Rifles (echo)

Anonymous said...

""is it really true that we are losing lives trying to stop Opium production for the drugs trade "


Lord no! How would the real Tory parties get off if that wre to happen?

Want a Party to get back on line with a bang?

Call 'MeDave' !

Anonymous said...

madasafish, it's the staggeringly feeble and moronic way the wars have been conducted that is the problem, something the interfering NuLab govt have total responsibility for.

english democrat said...

Opium production has increased hugely over the last 3yrs! Are the halfwit Tories to blame for that? When will you NULAB comrades start putting your hands up for your errors? You are making yourselves look childish when you answer every post with your constant moaning about what the fuckwit Tories did or did not do! I hate to break it to you that this is not a tory blog! If you want to carp on about the muppet Tories go to CONHOME or some other Tory blog but for fucks sake just for once I would love to hear a leftist admit just one fuck up by the Bliar/McStalin roadshow!

PS I hate the scumbag Tories more than I hate you leftists.

John Trenchard said...

" William Wilberfarce said...
John Trenchard -
maybe the MOD know it's a lost cause, and are not quite as blinded as the 'yanks' remember they thought they would win in Vietnamn 1:54 PM, August 08, 2007"

but the Vietnamese had no intention of taking the war to American soil The Jihadists most certainly DO want to do that.

The stakes are far higher this time round.

english democrat said...

Dear madasatwat (pregnant goldfish)

I am NOT a Tory! and why did you ignore the rest of my post? Bliar fucked up in Iraq NOT the Tories! So why do you keep on flogging the tired old crap that Iraq was the fault of the opposition?
Iraq and Afghanistan was down to NuLabour And you know it! So stop fucking putting the blame on everyone else but where it belongs and that is Messrs Bliar&Brown! it is getting so tiresome to read your NULAB blame shifting!

William Wilberfarce said...

Athos,
I'm not calling it a Civil War, I'm not calling it anything, as you say 'The Titanic was not a civil war, nor is Microsoft Vista' no but they are or where disasters, as is the War in Iraq.

John trenchard,

I agree the stakes are far higher this time round, but not because of the jihadists, but because of the looming all out conflict in Iraq, which will inflame the whole regoin sending oil to $150+ a barrel.
And lets not forget the jihadists where not in Iraq until the Americans got there.
I was just making the point, that they thought they could win in Vietnamn, without taking everything into consideration, they have made the same mistake in Iraq, but the simularities end there.

W.W.

chatterbox said...

Madasafish, with respect it is you who are speaking bollocks.
Labour is the party in government with control over planning and implementation of their Foreign and Defence policies.
Criticise the Conservatives if you want for supporting the use of force or the desired outcome. But don't include the Conservative party when it comes to dishing out the blame on the present mess. Pretty cheap shot fired in a bid to deflect the blame away from this incompetent and downright dangerous Labour government when it comes to planning and delivery.
You should watch Defence questions more often, these days it is left to the Conservative party to ask the questions and demand an enquiry into Iraq. They didn't do it lightly and far from being opportunistic it should have a been a real wake up call to just how concerned some people are at the way things have been handled. It was a bid to get the government to stop and think through their mistakes in the hope we could salvage something from this mess.
By the way Blair, Brown & Co have been ignoring the warnings issued by their own Chiefs of Staff present and retired. The government are not listening to their advice so why should you think that they would listen to anyone else with military experience in the Conservative party!

chatterbox said...

Guido, a bit out of date but still worth reading. I rate John Simpson and I wish the Beeb would use him more effectively in Iraq and Afghanistan, that is if he is still prepared to don his flak jacket on the ground.
I think he has a more up to date assessment of the situation in Iraq but unable to find it. If it is too dangerous to embed journalists with the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan these days that should be further cause for concern.

Anonymous said...

John Trenchard said: "but the Vietnamese had no intention of taking the war to American soil...The stakes are far higher this time round."

The Vietnamese didn't want to do much on US soil, their communist Russian sponsors, who the US went there to fight, certainly did. The idea that the terrorists are more dangerous than the Russian Cold War nuclear arsenal seems daft to me.

John Trenchard said...

"The idea that the terrorists are more dangerous than the Russian Cold War nuclear arsenal seems daft to me."

at least the Russian communists had a sense of self-preservation, which is why the M.A.D doctrine worked.

The concept of "deterence" no longer works when faced with a Jihadist who wants to meet his 72 virgins.

So, yes - they are more dangerous.

John Trenchard said...

"And lets not forget the jihadists where not in Iraq until the Americans got there."

You never heard of the "flypaper theory" so? That was intentional - to attract the jihadists to Iraq , so that the U.S. army would be able to eliminate them.
A very dodgy and dangerous policy, but when you are dealing with an elusive and global enemy, why not attract them to the battlefield?

You need to read a bit more, rather than swallowing the moonbat narrative.

But I agree with your "all out conflict" part - for that is indeed what will certainly happen if the surge fails.
I suspect that the Americans wont look too kindly on Brown when he withdraws the troops - for that will embolden the militias in Basra , as they will claim victory. So, more American blood will be spilt sorting out the mess that the British left behind.

The Americans were naive to allow them alongside in Iraq in the first place.

Madasafish said...

>ED/CHATTERBOX.
Where do I blame the CP for the current mess.

I'm a dislillusioned Conservative voter (who is NOT a Labour supporter) who sees ED spouting carp on militray thinking and the CP supporting two futile wars.. and still supporting them.

The CP is still out of touch with "real people"... last leaders have been : Military, management consultant, lawyer, Eton and PR? . Common touch? What's that.

I would like to support the CP but frankly it's ineffective in opposition, supports unwinnable wars and is totally out of touch with reality. (as seen in the North Midlands). ED's polemic supports that view.

You guys don't seem to realise how out of touch you are. Get real. It's like the grammar school debate. It may very well be importnat for the 10% of your constituenst but for the rest of the country there are no grammar schools to go to.. so it's academic and tyical of the out of touch carp I would have expected 10 years ago but not now.
:-((((((((

Madasafish said...

sorry for the spelling. Written in a hurry.

Indigo said...

I don't care what the Washington Post says about the Brits. We shouldn't be there in Iraq at all.

But I happen to believe that the US is trying to "shame" us into staying in Iraq. I hope that it just speeds up our departure.

Stuff the US kakistocracy: all the UK got out of being part of the Coalition that invaded Iraq was - a medal from George Bush for Tony Blair, and a hugely increased threat of terrorist attack.

By the way, have you heard (see eg Democratic Underground Forum) that President Bush has had Lyme's disease? Some people who've had this go on to develop meningitis and dementia. One thing worse than a non-recovered alcoholic ordering an invasion of Iraq could be a demented Lyme's disease sufferer with his finger on the nuclear button.

english democrat said...

Is madasatwat pissed or what? what is the NULAB boing boing on about?
He is up and down like fucking zebbedy from the magic roundabout!
If he is a Tory then I am a LIBDUM!
Does he think we have not read his other posts?
Its like herding cats trying to pin down these NULAB trolls and they never answer direct questions! Why do they bother?

Hereward said...

Time to leave not just Iraq but the whole Middle east.Cut all ties except basic diplomatic ones.And at whatever cost cut out the need for their oil even if it brings us economic chaos.Redeploy our soldiers on the frontiers of Europe and isolate ourselves from these lunatics.Never sell any of them a single weapon or a piece of advanced technology.Stop air and sea communication.Let them recreate the 7th century in peace.

Manfarang said...

Does this mean there will be no Tony Blair Chair in Peace Studies for the University of Basra?

Anonymous said...

"I don't care what the Washington Post says about the Brits. We shouldn't be there in Iraq at all."

pah! defeatist wimp.

do you seriously thnk that Jihadism wont happen here if we just run away and leave them alone?

then again your kind of appeasement talk has a long pedegree in British politics.

you are the kind of Chamberlain supporter who will be crying out for a Churchill when the Jihadists start blowing up schools,

Anonymous said...

"Hereward said...
and isolate ourselves from these lunatics"

i agree. there should also be a "bomb us again, we nuke meccah" option on the table to make it extremely clear that you dont mess with us. but unfortunately there is nobody in the political elite with the balls to do that, being that they are so far up the arses of the saudi royal family with their "sweeteners" (i.e. protection money for al qaeda) for multi-billion BAE contracts.

Anonymous said...

Reported October 13th 2006

"General Sir Richard Dannatt said troops should come home within two years - flatly contradicting the Prime Minister's policy (TB) that the military will stay "as long as it takes".

In unprecedented comments he warned that the Army could 'break' if British soldiers are kept too long in Iraq.

"I want an Army in five years time and 10 years time. Don't let's break it on this one. Let's keep an eye on time, he said."

As our troops are NOW in Afghanistan too I can only assume the above deadlines are somewhat shorter.

I believe General Sir Richard Dannatt (the man on the ground), or you could of course believe our Politicians depends on your level of stupidity I guess.

Julian said...

I'm sure I read somewhere, that British Army death rate in Afghanistan is a higher percentage than it was in WWII.

Were we in Afghanistan in the 1940's? Thought only Germany had any contingent there at that time.

People I have spoken to, some freshly returned from Helmand and Kabul, were quite optimistic about British operations there apart from the ridiculous shortages (troops always complain about shortages though) and the complete lack of comprehensive war policy on what our military objectives actually are supposed to be.

I still feel that any turn-and-run tactic would be seen as a sign of weakness by the insurgents, and would only redouble their efforts to eventually bring their war closer to home in the UK. If, on the other hand, we can be seen as having amply provided the new Iraqi army and Iraqi police with the resolve, training and armanents to be able to deal with the insurgents in Basra then we might be able to make a bit more of a dignified withdrawal from the region - or at least not a 'tail between the legs' type of withdrawal. Also worth recalling that between 1921 and 1932 we lost at least one man per day in terrorist actions in Iraq. Between 1941 and 1947 (another 'invasion') we lost a lot more than that number on a daily basis.

Anonymous said...

The minority who know what they want always rule the majority who never ever know what they want.

The fundamentalist minority are rejecting Western values. They are an ever growing force across the Muslim world and it is hard to see how Western military intervention will do more than make then stronger. There is nothing new here, as Kipling's verse will attest.

Where is the cunning plan, one wonders?

Indigo said...

anonymous, 9:12 AM, August 09, 2007, i agree. there should also be a "bomb us again, we nuke meccah" option on the table

Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, you cretin. That's Saudi Arabia as in Friend of George Bush. The USA has recently sold Saudi Arabia a stonking amount of weapons in exchange for deliveries of oil. Your suggestion would result in the "nuke London" option.

Anonymous said...

"Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, you cretin"

yes i know that you asshole.

"That's Saudi Arabia as in Friend of George Bush."

if the U.S. gets hit again by Saudi terrorists, they wont be friends anymore, you moonbat.

its a good job they're fighting amongst themselves coz together they'd kick our arses into touch said...

athos 2:52 PM, August 08

Being a complete and utter disaster does not make it a civil war. The Titanic was not a civil war, nor is Microsoft Vista...

ITS A CIVIL WAR! The fact that what they're fighting about is "who hates the western insurgents most" is academic because they're fighting each other.

den of iniquity said...

anonymous 2:44pm

If you can't beat them.....we could have made a smart move by legalising the poppy farms and buying the entire harvest for medical use.

Yeah right, in my street, you can't get hold of a good opium smoke for love nor money - the UK government should deregulate the market.

extremely finely balanced said...

john trenchard 8:34pm

at least the Russian communists had a sense of self-preservation, which is why the M.A.D doctrine worked.

The concept of "deterence" no longer works when faced with a Jihadist who wants to meet his 72 virgins.

So, yes - they are more dangerous.


They're only more dangerous because they've become desperate after a century of occupation, oppression and slaughter at the hands of Western forces - we did not invade Russia and drive the communists to extremism. We should pull out of the Middle East and sell the Iranian government a nuclear deterrent. Or would you prefer Al Quaeda buy the capability?

Anonymous said...

The British have been defeated in Britain. Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year.

link

George said...

Anonymous 4:39 PM, August 10, 2007 said: "Muhammad(sic) is now only second to Jack as the most popular name in for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year."

Wrong: Mohammed was the 22nd most popular name in England and Wales in 2006. Source: National Statistics Online
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/specials/babiesnames_boys.asp

As practically all Moslem boys have the first name of Mohammed it is bound to be one of the most popular names.

PS Anonymous 4:39 PM, August 10, 2007, since when has having a baby been an act of war. I presume your first name is Bigot.

G said...

.. PPS That Times article is crap. You may as well bulk up Tom, with Thomas, Jake with Jack, and Bigot with Moron and see what the statistics say.


Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Categories