Why Are We Fighting the Taliban?

[The Lawspeaker]

Why Are We Fighting the Taliban?

The above image is a montage of 200 men killed fighting in Afghanistan.

Since it was created, it has gone out of date; another British soldier has died after succumbing to injuries received in a bomb blast, and the death toll currently stands at 201.

Earlier in the week, Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth, a man who has never served in the military and was flirting with radical Marxism well into his thirties, blamed the 'defeatist attitude' of the British public for letting down our soldiers.

Of course, one can stand firmly behind our soldiers and all their NATO allies without necessarily supporting the war in Afghanistan, and most sensible people realise this.

Perhaps Mr Ainsworth should do his job, and garner support by actually explaining the purpose of the war. Whilst he is at it, he could complete the far more important task of equipping the troops on the ground with what they actually need.

Several senior commanders have come forward to say he is capable of doing neither.

In an article written in today's Mail on Sunday, Peter Hitchens says:

The explanation shifts and wobbles as the months pass. One minute, we are global social workers, then a sort of drugs squad, then we are promoting feminism or training the Afghan army.

Or perhaps we are introducing ‘democracy’ in a country where men vote as their tribal leaders tell them.

As a last resort, we are spun some tale that by fighting over mud villages near Lashkar Gah, we are protecting Britain from terrorist plots – though all the evidence shows that terrorist plots can be and are begun in Britain, with no aid from supposed ‘training camps’ in Afghanistan.

Although he seems quite glib about some issues, I'm inclined to agree with him; however good the intentions of trying to make Afghanistan a better place may be, I'm not sure they are realistically achievable.

Take the following story:

AFGHANISTAN has quietly passed a law permitting Shiite men to deny their wives food and sustenance if they refuse to obey their husbands' sexual demands, despite international outrage over an earlier version of the legislation that President Hamid Karzai had promised to review.

The new final draft of the legislation also grants guardianship of children exclusively to their fathers and grandfathers, and requires women to gain permission from their husbands to work.

''It also effectively allows a rapist to avoid prosecution by paying 'blood money' to a girl who was injured when he raped her,'' the US charity Human Rights Watch said.

This is the government we are paying with the blood of our young men to prop up.

The problem with Afghanistan is that pretty much everyone in a position of power is a backward, bloodthirsty Islamist - it is simply a question of degrees.

Meanwhile, as the death toll soars and the practices of the Taliban enter normal society once more via the back door, female U.S. Marines are donning headscarves 'to bond with local women':

That was the drill for female American Marines who set out on patrol this week with a mission to make friends with Afghan women in a war zone by showing respect for Muslim standards of modesty. The all-female unit of 46 Marines is the military’s latest innovation in its rivalry with the Taliban for the populace’s loyalty. Afghan women are viewed as good intelligence sources, and more open to the basics of the military’s hearts-and-minds effort — hygiene, education and an end to the violence. “It’s part of the effort to show we’re sensitive to local culture,” said Capt. Jennifer Gregoire, of East Strasburg, Pennsylvania. She leads the Female Engagement Team in the Now Zad Valley of Helmand province, the heartland of the Taliban insurgency.
“If you show your hair, its kind of like seeing a nude picture here, because women are very covered up,” she said.

Silly question, I know, but aren't these Marines there to help liberate Afghan women from tyrannical oppression, rather than adapting to medieval customs themselves?

It truly beggars belief. These women are the ultimate example, supposedly, of women succeeding in a man's world.

Increasingly, I think this war is a fool's errand. This country cannot be occupied, and it isn't in our interests to do so anyway; if we are concerned about security, then our borders deserve more attention than they currently get.

The Taliban and the training camps can be kept at bay with drones, airstrikes and special forces; but pretending Afghanistan has a democratic future with the way things currently stand is simply delusional.

[Lady L]

Because they are evil. Whether its our problem are not, some are going to fight for what they believe. There is no stopping them in good vs. evil.

[Atlas]

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009

9 years of war. Boring. These people who shaved after the talibans were overthrown, are just waiting for stabbing us in the back. Get all our boys out of there and nuke them.

[QAZAQ]

2019 TALIBAN WON

[Dick]

2019 TALIBAN WIN

Mashallah

[Daos777]

Because we need heroin from somewhere

[The Lawspeaker]

In another era. Another war, another enemy:

[Sarmatian]

Why Are We Fighting the Taliban?

Because Taliban was destroying all the poppy fields thus disrupting supply of heroin and ruining profits of few big banks gaining from drug money laundering.

[The Lawspeaker]

Because Taliban was destroying all the poppy fields thus disrupting supply of heroin and ruining profits of few big banks gaining from drug money laundering.

Precisely and don't think for a second that the Americans cared about the Nazi's even when they overran half of Europe - no the problem was that they might have ended up losing the European market in the end. Here is a book you might want to read. There is also one about who funded the Bolsheviks.

[Sarmatian]

Precisely and don't think for a second that the Americans cared about the Nazi's even when they overran half of Europe - no the problem was that they might have ended up losing the European market in the end. Here is a book you might want to read. There is also one about who funded the Bolsheviks.

Global bankers have that talent to insert their tentacles into any movement that could matter in future. Sutton is absolutely correct identifying Trotsky as Wall Street puppet. But again Trotsky wasn't Bolshevik in the beginning, he was member Social Revolutionary party. Only later Lenin accepted him in Bolshevik ranks as new government was desperate for any international support they could get and Trotsky brought massive backing. With him in high ranks bankers expected to have direct control of Soviet government.

But Stalin was too familiar with their games. Some years before revolution he was member of group hired more than once by Rothschild to rob and bomb banks of Nobel in their competition for oil developments in Baku. So in 1920's Stalin outplayed Trotsky in struggle for power in Soviet government and had him expelled. That was the moment when bankers lost control over Soviet government. That's why they hate Stalin, he gave them middle finger. Exactly when Trotsky was expelled Hitler was pushed to power in Germany to prepare an assault on USSR.

So yes they created monster who left most of Europe in ruins and allowed them to buy assets that matter at cheap prices. That's how Europe was colonized. They didn't care for a second how many human lives it cost. They still don't care. Contrary they like the war as it allows them to burn all those passionate young men who still cares and who could become a dangerous for their rule if left unchecked.