Category Archives: afghanistan

Mr Doolittle, McDoom is determined to talk to the Taliban as part of his fantasy strategy in Afghanistan. British Governments have proven rather good at selling out to terrorists over the years and I do appreciate that Brown is merely following in the same dishonourable tradition as Major and Blair but I do wish the BBC would provide balancing voices to those sirens such as Col Richard Kemp. The meme is that if we listen to those wise old coves in the F.O. and sit down and talk to these dark age barbarians then perhaps we can conquer and divide, although I note that the Colonel does make the precautionary suggestion that talking to Mullar Omah is not possible….”at this stage”. How very shrewd. How long before we have a chat with Bin Laden?

It’s almost surreal. In the endless quest to undermine ANY benefits stemming from the Afghan election, the BBC sends the witless Hugh Sykes to woodland near Calais in northern France. He is there to interview the hundreds of Afghan “refugees” squatting there awaiting entry into welfare central – the UK. It’s just terrible for these poor refugees, apparently. No “facilities” and awful weather. But on the bright side the unanimous view of all these welfare tourists and future UK residents was that the election result back home makes no difference to them. BBC mission accomplished. Love the way Hugh didn’t probe too deep as to why they had travelled half way round the world to get into Britain – put it down to “facilities” – natch.

Reading this article about changes in the Taliban leadership I was struck by the way the language tends to validate them as an organisation. We are told:

Pakistan’s Taliban movement has named a new leader, its deputy head Maulvi Faqir Mohammed has told the BBC. He said Hakimullah Mehsud, a close associate of ex-leader Baitullah Mehsud, had been unanimously appointed at a meeting in northern Pakistan.

So, the “deputy-head” announces that “a close associate” of the “ex-leader” has been “unanimously” “appointed”. It sounds like a union movement, rather than a bunch of bearded desperate goons with ieds and the education levels of ten year olds except no doubt for their memorisation of the Koran.

Richard North of excellent EU Referendum has been railing at the BBC for a different reason- suggesting that they whitewashed corruption in the Afghan elections. Rather than just spotty as the BBC claim, he believes them to be worthless. Whatevever works for you when it comes to cynicism, but surely this illustrates how things are with the BBC- they do the British Government a small favour with a few apparently white lies in the name of furthering democracy, and then tell massive whoppers by covering for the enemies of the West. In hock to the politicians on the one hand, and to their own ideology on the other- where does that leave the paying British public? According to the BBC, claims that the Taliban has been at war with itself following the loss of their leader were just “rumours”, while the unanimous election of the new Taliban leader… totally Halal mate, straight down the line, fair dinkum and jolly hockey sticks, hurrah.

I see that Al Beeb has been giving much publicity to the comment from Gen Sir David Richards the incoming head of the Army that “nation-building” in Afghanistan could last decades. Now, I am not sure why Gen Richards is pontificating on matters political (The BBC does not ask) nor am I clear on why the BBC could not find any commutator who might take issue with this interpretation of future strategy, perhaps you can help? My own view is are not there to nation build nor win hearts and minds, we are there to kill as many Islamic terrorists as possible and minimise the risk to our country.

You could understand if marriage rates were to decline in Afghanistan given the attrition rate of those attending such ceremonies. Yes, yet ANOTHER “wedding party” has suffered grievously only this time it seems that Taliban “militants” were responsible rather than the Great Satan. The BBC correspondent coos “As foreign troops have become better at detecting IEDs, the militants have become more sophisticated in modifying their designs…” Yes, they might be dark age savages but hey, somehow they seem to have ever increased technological capability. I wonder could the BBC correspondent help us understand how this situation could come about?

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.