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?
I have been a long time advocate of the war on militant Islam. 9/11 marked the dividing moment for me but I feel that under Obama and now with McDoom the original momentum has gone out of things as liberal values re-assert themselves and we forget what happened the last time the Taliban got their base. I don’t think that there is any such thing as “moderate” Taliban but the political left and their courtiers in the BBC believe otherwise. Hence this sort of ever so helpful item to Brown and his white flag brigade.
Is it just me or did you also find the prattle of a Eurocrat of the efficacy or otherwise of the election process in Afghanistan a tad hypocritical? Mr Semple represents an organisation which consistently ignores the wishes of those European people that vote against EU policy so he is no position to lecture the Afghans on anything. I know that the BBC consider the EU to be a paragon of virtue and goodness, second only to the United Nations in high esteem, but it seems to me that it might do better to have someone from the Afghan government on to explain how the EU might give democracy a chance.
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?
Like a latter day Dr Doolittle (and he really does do very little) Foreign Secretary David Miliband is to announce today that UK strategy on Afghanistan should now revolve around getting the Afghan government to speak to the “moderate” Taliban. The BBC interview wee Dougie Alexander about this and the usual references to the Northern Ireland peace process are thrown around to approving murmurs from the BBC.
Let me put this one straight.
Firstly, the Taliban are an Islamic malignancy with a Dark Ages mindset. The idea that there is a “moderate” section is like suggesting that there were some “moderate” Nazis. It seems to me that the BBC, in line with it’s Nulabour masters, are determined to pretend that some of those Taliban chaps will see sense if they are taken in from the cold and reasoned with.
Second, the comparison with Northern Ireland is lunatic. The British Government created the fiction here that there were “good” and “bad” terrorists – little consolation to the next of kin of their victims. “Good” terrorists play along with the fiction, “bad” terrorists don’t. This was served up as a “peace process” which enabled the Government to reward the mass killers in the terrorist establishment, betray their victims , disembowel the force of law and order, and win the plaudits of the liberal intelligentsia in the process. This depravity is the template that Miliband somehow seeks to impose on the Taliban. The head-cutters and limb amputators that make up the Taliban elite do not think in the way the IRA did, except when it comes to murder. They will take all concessions offered, of course, and then look for more.
Appeasing evil is pretty much all that Miliband and his ilk are capable of doing and they can be assured of a sympathetic hearing from the moral relativists that infest the BBC. There is, as Sir Winston Churchill once put it, NO point of compromise between the fireman and the arsonist.
As a final reference point, did you read THIS about the Taliban’s new terror chief? Why, he makes Butcher Boy Martin McGuinness seem like an almost decent cove.
Always nice to see the BBC giving prominence to those in our armed forces who desert their post.
Lance Corporal Joe Glenton is being charged with desertion. He went absent
without leave in 2007 after a particularly unhappy period in the army and having
been told he would have to go back to Afghanistan. It is said he “has
problems” with the military operation in Afghanistan.
The BBC is inherently anti-military and is thus attracted to those who desert their comrades in pursuit of their own moral equivocations. Lance Cpl Glenton knew the terms of serving his country and the fact that he then decided to run away from the battle does not make him a hero or a cause celebre except through the eyes of the BBC. He is a common deserter and should be made to pay the price.
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.
I see that the BBC is suggesting that “at least 10 militants have died after missiles were fired by a suspected US drone aircraft at a Taliban target in Pakistan, intelligence officials say. “ Finally, a strike that doesn’t involve a “wedding party.” Go USA. Of course the thing that gets me is the use of politically correct language at play here. Those killed weren’t “militants” – they were Islamic Jihadists. Why not SAY it? Why imply that the Taliban and Al Queda are some sort of professional army when in fact they are merely opportunistic and cowardly killers driven by the mad pathology of Islam? I wish we could speak a little more truth but then again the BBC has contorted and bent so many words out of all recognition.