Ever since the US and UK led the operation to liberate (or “occupy” in BBC-speak) to Iraq from the Saddam thuggocracy the BBC were constantly seeking to undermine the operation, demanding that we “get out” of Iran, Each military death was treated as an opportunity to advance that defeatist agenda and so it is that with the focus of military action in Afghanistan the same dreary beat of defeat sounds again on the BBC. What sickens me is the way that the tragic death of each British soldier is turned into a mechanism to advance the defeatist agenda so a week that has seen seven British soldiers lose their lives is a real bumper week. On today there was an exchange between former defence minster Lord Moonie and Sir Jeremy Greenstock (not linked yet) and it reeks of the narrative. Greenstock is a particularly pusillanimous personality. The only time we ever here positive news is when the military get to speak – and that is a rare event on the BBC. The BBC opposes the UK taking part in any form of military action and it shows through in their biased and dismal reporting.
THE BEAT OF DEFEAT…
Bookmark the permalink.
I say bring back John Simpson to tell us the facts and that it is a losing struggle.
Now doubtless the BBC's judgement is not something any sane person would want to touch, but there is a real problem here:
Our soldiers are being sent to fight and die in Afghanistan without a clear military objective. Neither they nor us have ever been told what would constitute 'victory'. This is a major dereliction of political duty which is costing the lives of our bravest. It is a dereliction of duty which condemns our politicians without hope of reprieve. They should be hammered for it on a daily basis.
I agree that the current crop of politicians are poor on this. The objective for me should be wiping out the Taliban and Al Queda. It is not about installing a functioning Jeffersonian democracy, with gay rights and transgender studies on the curriculum. In a war, the objective is victory over the enemy. But Government (and the opposition) is SCARED to define the enemy too clearly lest it offend those who follow the Religion of Peace. Simple as that.
DV
Too bloody right!
Fighting with one hand tied behind the back – a bit of carpet bombing after each IED death might do the trick – but that wouldnt win 'hearts and minds'.
So its alright to throw British lives away to limit offence and to aid social cohesion?
How obscene is that?
Of course the ruling classes have that left-liberal touchy-feely philosophy that has found 'other, non-confrontational ways' to maintain order in schools.
So now they reckon that getting rid of some of our nukes (as opposed to using them as a threat) will magically convince N. Korea and Iran of the error of their ways.
Will it work – well school bullying has gone through the roof – nuff said.
Anon,
You arent after a particular goal, what you want is a time frame for that victory to be delivered in.
Now, if you had asked Churchill the same thing in 1941 he probably would have just said to you that we will continue to fight until we win.
Same thing…we must continue to fight until we win. If that takes 5, 10, 100 years then so be it.
Placing artificial time frames around military events only achieves one thing, it gives your enemy a fixed date for your surrender.
Mailman
Mailman
Too right again!
Real wisdom to be found here.
Actually we are losing in Afghanistan. Why are we there? Bin Laden is long gone living in Pakistan or Iran.
If Bin Liner turned up in Leeds the entire Muslim population (or should that be army) of the UK would cheer. The Labour party would be lining up behind Bi Laden to protect him from extradition to the USA for murder.
Fuck the Muslims, fuck Afghanistan. It's a shithole and not worth the blood of one British soldier.
Get them out NOW. If they think Bin Liner is in Tora Bora nuke the fucking place.
Mailman 11:59
Well said !
I am not a military man, but I fear for Iraq because the US have given a timetable for withdrawal.
Martin
I disagree – Obama would go back into Afghanistan if the Taliban could take over again. He has to be dined access to failed states.
But yes – this looks like the work of many years. A milblogger has commented this week that the Afghans are medieval, light-years behind eg Nepal, totally ignorant, nil proper economy, no raods or electricity or whatever, nil education. All suffused by the worst traits of Islam, of course – ignorance and aggression and tribal hatred.
Mailman, I was clearly not asking for a timetable, I'm asking how we'll recognize victory or defeat. Turning Afghanistan into a social democracy isn't a military goal, but that's about all we've been offered. If the job is to keep the Taliban out of power long term, surely it's a job for mercenaries, not our national defence forces. I think it is a real crime to send our soldiers halfway round the world to die without bothering to articulate what 'victory' would be, and why it's worth it. God bless and keep our soldiers safe.
Lovely moment on BBC News at One today. The lead story was about the cortege in Oxford for soldiers'
funerals, with the inevitable BBC subtext.
There was a live interview with some Beeboid and an old soldier from the British Legion, who said that a lot of the public turn up to put "two fingers up at the government". The Beeboid moved on rapidly.
I wonder if they will broadcast that bit in later bulletins.
JohnA: But if you listen to the security experts (not that cripple tool at the BBC) most of Al Qaeda has moved back to Africa where they can work and move about unhindered.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be killing these scumbags, my companit is we're not killing enough of them. But using our soldiers to try to get the hearts and minds of people who hate our guts is pointless.
We can easily pick off the Al Qaeda lot (as the USA has been doing for months now, there was an excellent article on Fox News about how the Muslims fear the Predator drone which is so effective at killing them) as we need to. I'd like to see us doing omre of that, but it's a total waste of time, money and human life our soldiers trying to hold ground in a foreign Country.
Grant: I saw that as well. Beeboid was not impressed.
Anon @ 1:44: Agreed. There is no end game. As soon as we moved out troops out the Taliban would move back in. The Taliban come from Pakistan. They have huge support there. All we can do is pick them off as we track them down.
Check this out about the Predator Drone
http://infidelsarecool.com/2009/07/09/new-al-qaeda-book-shows-overwhelming-fear-of-us-predator-drones-and-spies/
Anon,
The real crime is sending our soldiers half way round the world without the proper protection the need to do their jobs simply because this Government values money over the lives of its soldiers.
Although I suspect, unfortunately, that you arent the only one wanting to give up. And really, the Taliban is relying on people like you to pressure the Government in to surrendering and withdrawing the troops.
Hell, if we could stay in Ireland for 40 odd years then a couple years in Afghanistan should be a walk in the country.
Mailman
The Taliban are mostly Pashtun – which straddle the Afghan/Pakistan border.
And if they took over Afghanistan again, that would once again be the Al Q heartland, the training centre. Sure, some of Al Q are moving to Somalia – but only because things are getting too hot for them in Asia.
The British casualties would be far lower if we used the same vehicles the US were using in Iraq. Is it impossible to get any of them ? Rumsfeld took a lot of criticism for the failure to have enough armoured vehicles originally – but when the US military really concentrated they got the supplies they needed.
…………..
Another problem the Brits have had in Afghanistan – as in Iraq – has been insufficient numbers, not enough to "take-and-hold". Again, that was the lesson the US learnt and adopted in the surge, and it may be what they aim to start doing in Afghanistan. But with a far poorer Afghan army and police support ?
………………..
Meanwhile I think the BBC are trying to do in Afghanistan what they did in Iraq – endless bad stories with no good stories, far too little reporting on what bastards the Taliban are, endless "grim milestones" with false sympathy for our troops – and often brushing aside the main reason we went to Afghanistan in the first place. Appeasement at the BBC is nothing new.
the whole population of helmand province should be evacuated first,to the same concept as Vietnam-era "fortified Villages" which I believe were very successful.Then the scumbags, denied aid and succor, can be destroyed.
Dont hold your breath though.
piggy kosher said "the whole population of helmand province should be evacuated first"
For some reason the presence of our troops fails to encourage the innocent civilians to get the hell out of the war zone. My abiding memory of the 2003 Iraq war was of people driving around columns of tanks in their Toyota pickups.
The Pakistan government offensive in the Swat Valley has prompted 250,000 to leg it to refugee camps.
Why?
1. Nobody – and I mean nobody – has ever to my knowledge defined "victory" in the "war on terror". I guess that's because they would have to address the evil of Islamic militancy – and that's a no-no.
2. The BBC anti-military stance is a direct result of its employment practices. The producers and presenters are a self-selecting group of ex-CND activists who have probably never met anyone in the services.
3. The anti-war news attitude is now a habit. The template can never be broken within the BBC. It is unquestioned within the corporation.
There is no way the BBC can be reformed.
John Bosworth
Yes, you can so often hear pacifism dripping from the lips of Today presenters etc.
maybe that's why they love Obama – he was a unilateral disarmer when a student (the New York Times has finally published a boring article he wrote then) and he is a unilateral disarmer NOW – witness his surrender in Moscow.
Mailman, you certainly misinterpret my position – I'm 100% with you on the equipment scandal. And I'm with all of you on the BBC's default biases. However, you seem to be arguing we should remain in Afghanistan until it is safe for democracy. History suggests this means forever. I think this is plain daft- but also the result of our politicians not carving out a clear military objective. What I want is not defeatism but some stated grounds for 'victoryism'. Otherwise, I fear our soldiers will die, quite literally, 'in vain'.
We should remain in Afghanistan until the job is done. I really couldnt give a toss about whether we install democracy or not.
I think its far more important to put a strong, resilient government in place that can govern its people.
Democracy can come later.
That doesnt mean we install a bunch of clowns no better than the Taliban. Im merely saying that we should stay until the Afghans can control their own country.
Mailman
What Afghanistan needs is a good oldfashioned scorched earth campaign. Mao Zedong compared guerrilla fighters to fish that swim in the 'water' of civilian support. Drain away the 'water' and you can catch the 'fish'.
Wherever the Taliban are detected operating we should burn the dwellings and destroy the crops and other supplies in order to deprive them of support, food and the necessities of life. By emptying the countryside areas they operate in the Taliban will be left high and dry. This would also have the added bonus of eliminating the opium crop.
The defeatists always draw parallels with Vietnam but not with, say, the Latin American counter-insurgency experience of the 20th century in which guerrilla groups were generally routed.
Mailman: Problem is Afghanistan has never really had a functional Government. Sure if you look back parts of the Country (the more urban areas) were quite westernised for a time, but in the countryside it had always been run by the inbred bushy bearded halfwits. Just like Pakistan really. In fact like all Muslim Countries.
But what is the job? To kill Muslims? Fine by me, but lets not piss around, get those buckets of instant sunshine glowing.
The only way we westerners will have true peace is to kill every Muslim or kick everyone of them out of every western Country.
Mailman, Ed and JohnA: great points and well said!
Better than the defeatist crap we hear from the BBC and even from some quarters here. The job in Afghanistan is clear – kill as many Taliban as possible and keep al-Qaeda on its toes. Better to keep them busy in their heartlands, wasting their energies. Unfortunately, our troops are restricted from doing their job properly by the bleeding-heart BBC who get upset every time there is a little bit of collatoral damage or what they think is torture.
In some ways, we already have a measure of victory, because it has been impossible for al-Qaeda to mount plots on the scale of 9/11 or the Bojinka scheme ever since 2001. All the plotting has been happening in our own back yard, such as with Abu Hamza, the 7/7 and 21/7 plotters, or the atlantic airlines plot, all as a result of our pathetic non-interfering police and cowardly government. Dealing with the Muslim extremists here is a different problem and needs to be addressed, but this is not an either-or problem. Defeat in Afghanistan would just be leaving the towelheads alone to concoct some new and more bloody international plot against our civilians
Defeatists play the BBC's own game, which is to wither away our military power and eventually eliminate our armed forces entirely. Removing all of our commitments around the world gives them the perfect excuse to do just that.
Ed
The Russians tried that and failed .
A better approach would be that taken by us during the Malayan "emergency" when Communists tried to portray themselves as anti-colonialist "liberators" .This involved
1.Isolating villigers by fortifying and guarding their villages , but at the same time giving medical and other types of aid.
2.Defining the end-game , Britain would withdraw and declare Malaya independent once the terrorists were defeated
3.Going after the the terrorists in the Jungle often in the form of small units that would live off of the land for weeks and even months (the S.A.S was re-formed for that Purpose)
Th Americans chose your "scorched earth "approach in Vietnam.Enough said .
John Stephens: Problem is John the real enemy is within. It's Muslims born and living here that are trying to kill us.
If we were as robust dealing with the Muslim community here as we are in Afghanistan I'd be a lot happier.
I put money that the next suicide bomber here is from within the British Muslim community.
Wasting £50,000 laser guided bombs on mud huts in Afghanistan looks good but achieves very little.
The study of climate requirse expertise in so many subjects – thermodynamics, oceanography, geology, physics, to name just a few, that no person can be an expert in the study of climate. It is therefor wrong to name the study of climate as climate science.
Moreover, if the "debate is over" in the study of clinate, that would mean that we have stoped studying climate, just when we had started.
The reason that politicians want to stop the debate, is that they have the pressing matter to set the tax hikes for the next few budget cycles fairly soon- of which the AGW tax hike is a significant part.
Every time a British serviceman is greeted at Wootton Bassett by the local people and every time there is not one politician there to pay respects.
Every time, I blog on this. Can others do the same so that we can shame these bastards into at least being there when bodies come home?
You can see what I write at http://www.catosays.blogspot.com.
In my opinion the USSR failed in Afghanistan for the simple reason that the Soviet system itself failed. By the 1980s the USSR was decrepit both politically and economically and its own leadership was begining to lose faith in the whole project. Contrast this with the 1930s-40s when various similar Muslim insurgencies in the Caucasus and Central Asia were put down.
I don't know if Aghanistan can be compared with Malaya. In Malaya the communist insurgency was mainly based on the minority Chinese population. It was defeated to a large degree I believe by getting the indigenous Malays onboard and splitting them from the Chinese communists.
Geoffrey Sturdey
Yes, the Malayan campaign is very instructive.And I believe Gen Petraeus took very close note of the Malayan strategy (Gen Templar ?) in framing the strategy for the successful surge in Iraq.
I would expect the US strategy to be the same in Adghanistan – and they have the numbers, we don't.
Just an observation – but has anyone notice that the BBC (or politicians) never use the word "allies" but "international community". Just like they hardly ever use the term "enemy". How can anyone win a war where no one knows who are the "allies" and who is the "enemy"?
I also noticed on Radio 4 News that Gordon Brown never even used the term "British" when talking about the latest casualties.
It really is unwinable fighting the PC way.
I think David would like to go back to those old WWII film reels shown in the cinema which talk about how our boys are marching to a famous victory over the dispicable enemy.
I want a public service broadcasters in the 21st century to discuss the campaign in Afghanistan. It's obviously a subject of public interest. The rest of this nonsens is down to your own rather twisted perceptions.
PS. Shouldn't you really do something about Martin?
5 more dead tonight. What I find interesting is what little criticism the fat one eyed Scottish jock twat gets from the BBC.
Who was in charge of the Treasury when the soldiers went into Afghanistan? Who continually refused to increase spending for better equipment?
Yep the one eyed twat from north of the border.
Why is the BBC not more critical of the mess in Afghanistan? Iraq looks a well fought war by the current standards.
Two reasons
1. Afghanistan is Barry O's war which means the BBC is signed up to it
2. The BBC wants no boat rocking. It knows the public don't like politicians cutting money to the forces and we know ONE MAN (if you can call that fat arsehole a man) is to blame for the lack of money for equipment and the BBC want him to win the election next year.
I really think Afghanistan is going to turn into an utter disaster which could see the end of McTwat and see Barry O's popularity go down the pan.
When we begin to face reality we will realise that any involvement in the internal affairs of middle Eastern and central Asian countries is pointless and counter to our long term survival.
At that time we will adopt, I hope, the policy of complete separation- military , commercial, travel, etc and leave only the most minimal diplomatic contact.
Turn Europe- the old geographical Europe that ends at the borders of Greece into a fortress and wait out the madness of these lands.
Any incursion or hostile act we should meet with maximum military force- destroy the infrastructure of any nation that threatens our Europe.
That way we might just make it into the 22nd century.
Such a policy would also put an end to globalisation and finish off third world immmigration.
It will take courage and a willingness to accept economic hardship for a while.
Every other policy will end in failure. You may well disagree.
Geoff,
Your comment about Americans adopting scorched earth tactics in Vietnam only highlights your ignorance.
The problem the Americans had wasnt scorched earth BUT their spineless politicians that prohibited the military from doing its job (ie. killing nigel where ever he could find him).
Letting the Vietcong operate without hinder from Loas (initially) and not smashing North Vietnam (until the gooks tried to play ball in Paris, in which case the Americans finally allowed their airpower to smash North Vietnam during the later Linebacker campaigns) was a recipe for failure.
Yes we should kill terry where ever we can find him but we should also be working with the locals to help them improve their lives. In fact in the 7 years we have been in Afghanistan we have achieved a hell of a lot more than Russia ever did during their extended stay, probably because we havent completely alienated the locals.
All this is of course without even touching the role the MSM played in stripping support from the Military through the Vietnam campaign. That is worth of its very own thread.
I guess our version of Jane Fonda is Curious George (both should be shot as traitors).
Mailman
dave s: Spot on. We need to leave these inbred savages to their own devices.
I had to laugh at the Queen of breakfast radio (Nikki Campbell) the other day who on the Radio 5 phone in was pleading that 'we' (he means those nice butch soldiers) must defend the rights of women in Afghanistan to be educated.
Yet every Sunday we see this camp prick arse licking the very same people that send their daughters off to Pakistan to be married and raped at 14.
Until England is free of all Muslims we will be living with the suicide bomber.
Martin,
Its s scandal that we dont have the same level of protection for our armed forces that Uncle Sam gives to theirs. The reason we are suffering so many casualties is simply down to the fact that the vehicles being used are completely and utterly unsuited to fighting terrorists who's first line of offense is the IED.
Love him or hate him, but at least Rumsfield finally reacted to the requests for more material and men! Brown is a different case, there is something hard wired in to his twisted little mind that restricts money going to where its needed most (protecting our soldiers) and sending it to where its not (long term unemployed).
Mailman
The only trouble is that we have forgotten how to be unashamed in killing and hating the enemy.
1/ If you support the Taliban you are an enemy. The Isle of Man is free for large scale enternment.
2/If you support disengagement, you are an appeaser and a fellow traveller of 1/. The Isle of Man would welcome you too.
Give war a chance.
With the sad news about five more dead, after a particularly bad day in Afghanistan (for that is what this is) comes the orgiastic 'Big Picture' on the website.
This is usually ony reserved for Cataclysmic world events or things that they love to get up on their anti-whatever soapbox about.
"I want a public service broadcasters in the 21st century to discuss the campaign in Afghanistan. It's obviously a subject of public interest."
You mean the 21st century one sided, love your enemy, don't take sides type of reporting. There are British troops fighting there – So why should a British publically funded media corporation be even handed with the enemy.?
Mailman: Because McTwat is only happy when he's in front of a TV camera giving our taxes away to third world corrupt shitholes.
He hates the military, he always has done. It was an open secret that in the years he was Chancellor he objected strongly to giving a single penny to the armed forces.
As I pointed out a long long long time ago on this blog the people I'm fed up with are the senior officers who should have had the balls to resign their commissions together.
Interestingly, the BBC website lead on the offensive today mentions that Pakistani and Arab Taliban are the enemy in Afganistan. The locals are not a part of it now the Western forces are kicking raggy arse.
Afganistan has been thoroughly invaded by foreign terrorists, all fresh from lebanon, Iraq, Gaza and the Iranian training camps.
Anyone hear the Milliband interview on the toady show this AM?
Did I hear him claim that ten billion has been spent on force protection? I can only wonder how he put that figure together!
Milliband plumbs new depths in spin'N'lies lying seems to be his only refuge now.
How many more lies will he utter while our lads die for want of a strategic goal,increased troop levels and decent vehicles/kit?
Helicopters?
The newlabour gang have been told for years about the dire shortage, old sea kings now almost worn out, a few heavy lift chinooks spending more hours on the ground than in the air, where are the new mega expensive merlins?
A handfull of unsuitable to theatre helicopters when we could have had all the blackhawks/upgraded hueys we needed!
A few harriers whose unsuitability is well known their endurance over target area barely more than a first world war biplane FFS, in it dashes one circuit of the target and its out of time, too high too fast too little time to loiter where refitted A10 warthogs could have been a godsend.
Troops having to move slowly in convoy to forward staging areas with barely enough troops to complete a company strength probe and the taliban lookouts able to track every move all the way to target with advance notice given by informers within the ANA.
Not enough troops to hold taken ground leaving civilians open to the loving embrace of the taliban time after time and IED teams able to move back in unhindered, how many IEDs have been smuggled into theatre by burkha clad female mules?
Millband knows full well that money,manpower,ammo,aircover and even fuel is rationed, resupply is patchy and all the lessons of the soviets and the US in Vietnam go unlearned.
Is anyone aware that a gaggle of starry eyed civilians and yuman rites briefs dictate the battle terms and conditions, Appache and Harrier pilots are too scared to release weapon loads in case they are prosecuted, the busybodies tie the hands of the UK forces while the governemt starves them of kit and manpower on cost grounds.
Money is wasted on civilian reCONstruction on such spiffing ideas as a women only fairground!
The socialist regime headed by a known coward and ditherer has betrayed our forces, the ministry of defeat headed by nincompoops and seat warming penpushers direct what is turning into a farce, a farce costing lives, half hearted half measures going off half cocked, our wonderful troops soldering on as best they can under terrible conditions with no strategic/political leadership, how must they feel when having ground at cost they then have to withdraw and hand it back to the taliban?
I hope a Tory regime launches a full scale clean out of the MOD and a full inquiry into who did what when and who is to blame for the fiasco.
Ok then, whats needed to win a campaign in Afghanistan?
First and foremost a strategic goal limited to what is achievable by the forces on the ground coupled with a moral will to see it through to the end. a concerted campaign of killing every taliban anywhere including supporters and funders including those who live in the UK!
OK then, what equipment do the troops need to get the job done?
Enough helicopters both troop carrying and load carrying to insert a complete regiment sized battlegroup with all its kit and enough aircver in support 24/7 and enough back up troops to backfill the area taken, is this possible? given the right kit,manpower and and will oooh hell yes it is!
Find out where the taliban get their reserves/training/manpower/finance and their supply routes and go after them all with a furious will, we have the SAS/SBS there should be a declaration of intent to destroy every avenue of taliban resource anywhere possible to reach and the political will to carry it through.
It should be made so hazzardous for anyone supporting the taliban that they give up, only then can victory be contemplated.
A millionaire supporter and finacier of the taliban is found shot in his mansion a mobile phone blows the head off a commander hiding in a mosque, a bomb maker is blown up in a car bomb or shot down in the streets of London or Paris, this should and indeed must be the future of beating the taliban.
"Ever since the US and UK led the operation to occupy (or "liberate" in B-BBC-speak) to Iraq from the Saddam thuggocracy "
Objectiveness becomes you
Remind me why we invaded anyway…
BBC report on its chum, dhimmi David Miliband's comments:
"Troops 'fighting for UK's future'"
-against the Islamic jihadists of Afghanistan – presumably, so as to facilitate Labour's stealth campaign to get 75 million Muslim Turks into the E.U.,and thereby speed up the Islamizatiopn of the E.U., i.e. Eurabia.
('UK' page.)
"Turkey in Europe: A Bridge Too Far"
(-excellent review at 'paulweston101.blogspot.com')
And the dhimmi special preference for Islam continues in Britain:
'Jihadwatch'-
"U.K.: Police told not to charge Muslim "extremists" in some hate crime cases for fear of 'radicalizing' them even more."
[Extract]:
In part, they don't want to subject Muslims to prison dawah by incarcerating them. Essentially, they are creating a new problem in order to sidestep the one they already created by allowing the prisons to become conduits for jihadist indoctrination — a move also influenced by a politically correct fear of the consequences of causing offense.
"'Take it easy on Muslim extremists, police told,'" by Macer Hall for the 'Daily Express', July 11."
Cassandra: You won't get the BBC pulling the lies of Millipede and co apart for two reasons.
1. The main reason for the underfunding of the forces was down to ONE MAN. He of course being McTwat.
2. The BBC wants no rocking of the boat between now and the General Election. They want Liebour to win.
Isn't it odd that the BBC offers no criticism of the war in Afghanistan yet Iraq it was non stop.
Don't get me wrong, most here know I opposed both as I don't care about how Muslims are treated in their lands. Saddam could have gassed every child in Iraq and I would not have been interested.
Typically robust there, Martin.
BBC reports Brown soundbite:
"Afghan strategy 'right', PM says."
Brown come out with his usual unchallenged, unexplained, unjustified assertions:
"In the letter, he [Mr. Brown] said: 'So our purpose is clear: to prevent terrorism coming to the streets of Britain.
"'Our security depends on strengthening the Pakistan and Afghan governments to defeat both al-Qaeda and also the Pakistan and Afghan Taliban.'"
Brown's massive errors include:
1.) Britain is NOT fighting against some abstact 'terrorism'; if Britain is fighting against anything, it is global ISLAMIC JIHAD, inspired by Islam, and carried out by Muslims.
The dhimmi Labour government does not understand the nature of the war being fought, and the phrase 'Islamic Jihad' is censored by Brown, underlining the misconception.
2.) Labour's stealth policy of MASS IMMIGRATION by peoples from Islamic Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc, has significantly contributed to the lax importation of Islamic jihadists and their descendents to British society. And despite this, Labour/Lib Dems and Tories campaign to add 75 million Turkish Muslims to the E.U.