'A crucible of terrorism'

gets about, Gordon, doesn't he? ...

Why are we there exactly?

What are we achieving and why? what have we achieved either here or Iraq that was worth the lives of several hundred British Service personnel?.

Are we going to get an explanation for the peculiar `terror' arrests of a couple of weeks ago?

A group of young men violently plucked off the streets, intimations of a massive bombing spectacular in Manchester, but no explosives then suddenly the release of all bar one into the hands of the so-called Border Agency. I now expect most of these lads to be eventually quietly released back into the community. I hope so.

We need to know if we are going back to the days of the Birmingham Six and all that. What is the quality of our intelligence?

Not avoiding his many failures at home, is he?

Afghan is an historically tough posting. Great soldiers and statesmen have fallen in this untamed land, so Brown is wasting public money in even venturing there. Anything Brown undertakes is doomed, and whilst I doubt that Brown will meet his nemesis there, he will be condemning many to their deaths. If he really must do something, he should seal the borders to Britain and upgrade domestic security. Glad this blog has come to life again!

Is Gordon Brown incapable of forming his own strategy? Why do recent Prime Ministers have to ride on the 'coat tails' of the Americans.

Many of us have commented that this is a failed venture in both Iraq and Afghanistahn. Why do we have to pay for wars in these countries? Particularly when we are in such financial straits.

After last weeks shameful display of contempt for the armed forces by the government last week, do you think he'll have the backbone to meet any Gurkhas while he's there ?

Does ANYONE know or care why the Clown is there - some advice for him from a totally p - - - - d off taxpayer - STAY THERE FOR EVER.

"Seven and a half years after the victory over the Taleban was declared, the prime minister's message here is that the fight is on - not in one country now, but in two."

===

Some victory that turned out to be then!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Hope a someone out there tells him the truth about the lack of decent equipment.

How about you asking him?

"He believes that the big increase in troop numbers - particularly Americans - should be accompanied by the same strategy that succeeded in Iraq"

This makes me cross. A positive spin slipped into the report smacks of stealth reporting.

What hard evidence is there that the big troop numbers was a "success" in Iraq and that a similar surge will succeed in Afghanistan? How do you measure success - by the numbers of dead? Just copying president Obama doesn't make it right.

Is this a signal for yet more of our troops to be sent to this bloody, hopeless and unwinnable war?

It seems Brown has done his usual trick of running away to deflect from problems on the domestic front.

Could you ask the prime minister about the mood at Westminster and in the country over the budget, how he's going to wriggle out of his much derided MPs' expenses non-solution and the Downing Street e-petition calling for his resignation?

https://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/calls-for-no-confidence-vote-get-louder.html

Not so far removed from the porous UK borders.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Rather than simply using a soundbite to describe a part of the World ('crucible of terrorism'), why doesn't he explain (try and put several honest sentences together) why we're there?

Anyway, a more accurate way of describing the area he's in is a 'crucible of drug lords, wardlords, and very poor people who are more than happy to support the Taliban even though they're a different clan from a different area because they're sick of foreign interference'.

The only Afghans who are truly happy to have the Americans and their ISAF bag carriers are the corrupt officials that we support with vast sums of money. Wonderful.

Come back Gordon, we need you to resign - and no, I'm not a Conservative.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

'' Crucible of terror '' ?? .................... Really ??

Are there no ordinary civilians in these areas ??

...because if there aren't,then you could just send in the big bombs.

Is this the idea ??
To prepare for the this possibility ??

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The situation in Afghanistan could have been so much better today if Bush had given the country the commitment it needed in 2001 instead of being desperate to run off to Iraq.

when in trouble- leave the country

Can he stay away please- for about a year

In light of past government support, I would be surprised if Mr. Brown were not there to advise on the most effective use of poorly-aimed Nokias as a substitute for actual ordnance.

At least the enemy would be in no doubt they are dealing with a foe determined to get on with the job.

Did he not go to Iraqi last year with troop related announcements, just before he was meant to call a snap election? Just during the Tory conference?

I know it wasn't the full conference but it was a tory conference?

Just seems planned to distract attention from the Conservatives for some reason.

Ta

Rog

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Nick,

Wouldn't it have been a better idea for our PM to go to Afganistan before he had formulated his new war-strategy or should I say, before he agreed to Washington's new strategy.
This visit is all about Brown being able say to Parliament: "When I met with President Karzai last week, etc..." He hopes that this will make him sound more authoritative and plausible; two vital ingrediants for a man who is without a plan or an original thought of his own. No doubt this visit will help Brown spin the announcement about increased UK troops numbers.... but otherwise it is pointless. And so is your decision to go with the PM. The Tories and the Lib Dems support the Afgan mission so where is the political story? The BBC should have sent their Defence correspondant or even better, use the journalists already in situ to cover the PM's visit. After all, this is the age of Austerity - shouldn't the BBC folow suit. And think of your carbon footprint Nick. :)

21

Here here, and well said.

I have had many involved discussions over many years with many varied individuals over the nature of Western involvement in Eastern affairs.

It seems remarkable, to me at least, that the strikes perpetrated by the US (it is of course unfair to blame the US completely, but they obviously must shoulder the lions share) are sold as necessary, military strikes. Irrespective of the number of innocents killed (or "losing their lives" to use the benign American parlance), no attack by the US can ever be considered an act of terror.

I remember one particular conversation I had with a rather arrogant partner in my former firm. Over dinner and many, many glasses of wine, I mentioned a contention of mine that the two atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki amounted to the two single greatest terror acts in history. After all, the intention was by threat and use of force to compel an enemy to submit. Textbook terrorism, no? The partner looked down his nose at me haughtily, and declared that I needed to reexamine my interpretation of the word terrorism. These, he declared, were clearly acts of war.

At which point, I suppose we can conclude that any attack on US should no longer be considered to be terrorism. The US has declared war on terror, and god knows the Taliban has long considered itself to be at war with the US. Therefore if a state of war precludes any attack being considered to be terrorism, any such attack on the US can not be terrorism.

Although this discussion hinges to a great extent on semantics, it does highlight an interesting point. This being the different rules the Western powers have for anyone else. Ie. an attack made on the "crucible of terrorism"= in the cause of freedom; attack made against the US = terrorism.

It is beyond me that we, collectively, do not seem to realise that attacks made against Afghanistan will be seen in exactly the same way by its populace as attacks made against us are seen by our civilians. To an Afghani, a dead civilian is not a casualty of war, he is the victim of a terrorist attack. How can governments fail to see what is so plain to so many, the conflict can not be solved by putting more soldiers on the ground and bombs in the air. Conflict begets conflict, and short of genocide, the current approach will never work.

I have first hand knowledge of what our troops are up against in Afghan and it's a war that will NEVER be won. Unfortunately we are in too deep and to withdraw will result in a lot of backlash against a great many of the Afghan people (scores seemingly to be settled).
At the height of the Russian occupation there were 120,000 soviet troops who were far less careful where they aimed their missiles and they left with their tails between their legs. It's not a case of whether we should stay or go, more a case of how long the we can hold on.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Dear Mr Robinson

I am shocked and appalled to discover news stories of great importance regarding international affairs being brought to my attention initially through the news agencies and popular media outlets.

I initially checked for news regarding Mr Brown's visit to Afghanistan on youtube, over twelve hours ago. There was nothing. And now I have been told not to expect a statement on youtube from Mr Brown himself until it has been shown on television. That is, second-hand coverage!

What sort of a way is that to release important information? Why is this issue not important enough to release a statement via youtube when MPs expenses was?

I am disgusted that Mr Brown has shown such contempt for protocol and offended that you appear to be complicit in this act.

I await your moderation and your response in due course.

Yours sincerely



Colonel George Digby

It is increasingly frustration referring to the 'surge' as some sort of mass advance in counter-insurgency warfare.

There is little new to it. It is simply that circumstances have forced US high command to read a history book or two and realise that you cannot complete operations of this nature with a cold war general army. This type of campaign was not without precedent. If only Donald Rumsfeld had had the smarts to start with instead of conducting all operations under the misguided assumption that inside every Iraqi there was an American consumer screaming to get out.

It does not take hindsight to realise how much better our situation might of been if these kinds of policies were used in 2003.

Whilst we are on the subject, it is possible to exaggerate the importance of the local training. Vital as it is, it is the constant mass deployment of special forces and their nightly rounds of high profile killing that has achieved the most in Iraq post-surge.

This was a battlefield defeat of AQ and it was achieved with bullets and tempo. Credit where due.

When will the world learn.
Afghanistan will never be conquered by a foriegn power.
The best thing to do would be to simply refuse entry to the West of anyone who has been there.
That way there will be no chance of their drugs or any exported terrorists coming here.

Can we please pass that law today, as I am sure there are many undesirables from this country in that country today who we should not be letting back in.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Britain is losing the war in Aghanistan just as we did when a Colonial power all those years ago, if anyone at all in New Labour had respect for our history they would have never agreed to follow the Americans into this hell-hole.
A read of "Charlie Wilson's War" will give a fearful indication of the type and quantity of sophisticated weapons in the hands of these Tribal warlords. Make no mistake they are the forces that have to be reckoned with, they fought the Russians to a standstill and they have fought with and against the Taleban in the past and will again in the future.
Having a President who is no more than the "Mayor of Kabul" does not make for a democracy, corrupton is rife in the Country, it is still a growth industry, no amount of British blood spilt in the sands of this foreign land will make us one bit safer back in Britain, it is a lie to pretend otherwise.
Gordon's trip is just another abject attempt at statesmanship undertaken to distract from the one and only issue he should be attending to; The writing of his resignation letter. Once this is done hopefully who ever takes over will concentrate on the most important battle in this Country's history; Saving us from bankruptcy and an ignominious appeal for a loan from the IMF.

#32 east-beast

Yes an unwinnable war. This is also backed up by Paddy Ashdown's excellent analysis last weekend, where he highlighted too much political interference in military strategy and most importantly that the NATO led coalition is acting independently. UK is in Helmand, US in the east and north east, Poland in the north etc.

Each nation also have their own tactics and aims. The US prefers to destroy the poppy crop as they see this as s cash cow for the Taleban. The UK has an opposite view: don't destroy the poopy crop so as to not offend the local drug and war lords.

In this way the whole purpose of a NATO led coalition is completely undermined. NATO rules allow for one nation's troops to be ordered about by another nation's general etc. Not in Afghanistan! So NATO spends years and Billions training together, but in the theatre of war all that training is thrown away.

Meanwhile the gallant French have the extremely onerous and dangerous task of getting up each morning to raise the "Tri-coleur", and lowering it at dusk. I tell if it were not the French we would have been kicked out of Afghanistan long ago!

Democracy in Pakistan? Isn't that what the interfering west encouraged?

So what we have now is a so called democratic government which has no control and the fundamentalists who are gaining control.

Same in Afghanistan. What do we think we know that they don't.

Everything the west interferes in seems to turn out even worse than it was in the first place. When will they realise that they are hated so much in these countries it encourages even more fundamentalism.

Not only that we don't even have control of our own borders.

It has got to the stage now that so many have been able to gain easy access to our own country we are all branded as terrorists until proved otherwise. Civil liberty has become farcical. State control a reality.

If someone does not gain control of our own borders we could end up fighting these wars on our own doorstep.

oooops, The Pakistani president Zardari in a huff cancels news conference with our very own Gordy after his comments on Pakistan being the epi centre on terrorism...

Well isn't he clever? What logic do these people use? Perhaps they missed the numerous examples in history that showed an organised resistance evolves in response to a foreign invader. In Chemistry - the reactivity to contaminants. In medicine - the response by anti-bodies to pathogens. Even Newton's Laws tell us that every action creates a reaction.

"A Crucible of Terrorism." Has he not heard of the stereotyping effect?

Eight years ago they went into Afghanistan looking for bin Laden. How much closer are they to that objective? Perhaps Brown and Obama ought to be questioning all the money ploughed into West Point and Sandhurst. The best officers we can produce, supported by the latest military technology, have been completely outwitted by the bearded, sandal clad tribesmen.

Obama and Brown should just cut their losses, admit defeat and pull the troops back. Put the money back into domestic economies. The problem: they can't admit defeat.

@39 spot on

This is a power grab and money making exercise for the USA and its allies

If we hadnt poked our noses in they would have no reason to feel the need to attack the west.

Lets not forget the USA funded the various tribes in Afghanistan , then once the Soviets went they were left with all the money and arms to have a go elsewhere

GET OUT AND STAY OUT OF COUNTRIES THAT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE IN

plain and simple, it is not of course a case of lets ignore them and hope they go away , it is their right, same for everyone.

Besides even though we have no right being there ,we cant pigging afford it.
because we are bailing out the financial sector who fund this in the first place. its no coincidence that one of the UK's largest exports is military equipment

#5 phoenixarisenq

Do you really believe the government spin that we're all in mortal danger from terrorism even though they don't seem to be able to find any terrorists to arrest?

If not, why on earth should the borders need sealing and domestic security upgrading?

Now that the powers that be have realised that the Taliban cannot be defeated by the philosophy foisted on the British army of not killing them , but winning hearts and minds, have failed, we have had to ask uncle Sam to take control and destroy the enemy. If this government had allowed the army to destroy the enemy right from the start, they would not have been able to regroup, rearm, and kill British soldiers. The first and only principle of war is and must always, be to render the enemy incapable of fighting before the enemy destroys you. Pacifism and diplomacy is alright in it's place, but in this case where there is no negotiating point and the enemy has no clear negotiable ambition, the only answer is to destroy it.

One man's terrorist, another man's freedom fighter.

Can someone enlighten me on what our objective is in Afghanistan? Are we there to "Westernize" it, stop the narcotics production, stop terrorism training camps, bring in democracy? I think there is a problem with mission creep and goals that are simply not-measureable.

Isn't it strange how it's always socialists that invade countries who have shown no aggression or harmful intent to Britain at all - all for the moral good. Hitler, Stalin, Mao - all socialists who committed their atrocities 'for the moral good'.

Yet, when Britain has been under the direct threat of the Nazis, Argentineans or IRA - Labour didn't want military action at all.

Why does Golem Brown run to Afghanistan every time he is in a spot of bother over here? How much is his little jaunt costing "hard-pressed tax payers" and what is the "carbon footprint"?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

So, anyone know why Brown is out there?

Shaking the hands of the squaddies who'll be getting the greatest % pay rise of all public bodies, whilst failing to add that the defence budget is being shelved, so the RAF won't have planes, and the Navy won't have aircraft carriers, or was he telling them the army had to forego ammunition?

Brown must be fuming though about the cancellation of the Q&A with Pakistan's president because of the handling of the terrorists in this country handed over to be deported because of insufficient evidence to prosecute.

Meanwhile someone is commenting from the bunker whilst he is away about the shelving of the second home allowance for MP's

So what is MaCavity doing out there?

From one bunker to another...

This Economic Terrorist should be denied entry back into the country - he's just too damn dangerous!

#51 phoenixarisenq

The BBC has a remit to educate. If you persist in thinking wrong thoughts, then you leave little room for anything other than negative reinforcement.

I for one think that Afhganistan and Pakistan are a crucible of terror and that our government is doing the right thing once again. I think that Gordon Brown should be Chancellor of the World and that he triumphed at the G20 summit. I think that all negative coverage of our government is un-newsworthy at best and pro-Conservative fantasy at worst. I think that Peter Mandelson is the fountain of all knowledge.

I could go on, but I thnk you understand. The whole point of discussion forums is so that people can exchange their opinions for the correct opinions. Maybe you should pay attention to the feedback that you are getting.

I await your moderation.

WHY does it need reporters from UK to travel with Brown - how much did this jolly cost us, the taxpayers????????

20 - 30 years ago, I was told that the U.S.A. always needs a theatre of war in which to try out it's latest weapons of war.

On Sky T.V., there is a programme introduced by an ex-U.S.Navy Seal, he describes the latest weapons [recent to us] and explains their purpose. You retired Service people out there, any truth in the "theatre of war" theory?

Nick

How can Brown influence the politics of this region? The UK has massive debt and its armed forces' operational capacity is likely to diminish in the coming months and years. It's like the illusion that Tony Blair can make any contribution to peace in the Middle East. I thought Brown's area of expertise was finance?!!?

The problem is less to do with Afghanistan being a base for terrorists threatening the UK than a problem of regional instability. If you draw India into the equation, two nuclear powers co-inhabiting such a volatile region is a matter of grave concern.

"Handing over control, province by province, to local leaders", i.e. decentalising government, is no guarantee of lasting peace. It could just be the start of local history repeating itself. They are not going to eradicate Sunni Muslim 'fundamentalism' or convert Pashduns to Western democracy, so they may have to do a deal with the Taliban to shore up Pakistan's border, then focus on the real reasons for terrorist threats to the UK.

PS Nick, there appears to be a C130 taxiing towards your ear. (Plainspotters correct me if I'm wrong)


FOR THE RECORD
Laughatthetories (Tallstories?)
242. At 4:13pm on 24 Apr 2009, 'Age of Austerity' Laughatthetories wrote:
"Here are some of the ideas coming out of the Tories' policy think tank to tackle the Debt..."

Firstly, Laugh, the ideas came from a Reform report "Back to Black" , which was launched with Vince Cable, who is the LibDem's Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, in case you had forgotten. Reform is an independent think tank with a cross-party advisory board, not a "Tory policy think tank".
Secondly, several of the ideas, as you posted them, were missing key words which changed their basic intent.
Example:
"Abolish universal Child Benefit" - let’s make the children pay (your comment after quote)
From actual Report: "Child benefit for the WELL-OFF scrapped" (my caps)
Spot the difference, Laugh.

The 'Morning Star'(19 Apr 2009), reported these "nutty cutbacks", comrade, as per your post. What was your source?
A look at the Reform site and a scan of the mainstream media would have given you the facts.
I'm sure it wasn’t your intention to mislead, Laugh, but a little research goes a long way.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

nick @ 0

After seven and a half years, there will be plenty of people who doubt whether this strategy will be any more successful than the last

Indeed ... if I was Prime Minister, I'd be inclined to give the order to start pulling our troops out - or, if I could have a one on one with Mr Brown, that's also what I'd be advising. "Gordon," I'd say, "I doubt whether this strategy will be any more successful than the last one ... better, surely, to begin preparations for a withdrawal"

Nick,

You seemed to have missed a story. 'Pakistan leader misses Brown talk' belows the BBC headline. Apparently, "Pakistan's president pulled out of a joint news conference, amid tensions over recent anti-terror raids."

So why no blog from the man on the spot? You are going to mention this, aren't you?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

46. extremesense

Dear ectremesense,

I do not believe anything, spin or otherwise which this government says. I do, however, believe that Ghurkas can be treated with contempt by this government since they are not perecived as political allies, nor feared as becoming violent if they don't get their own way. By contrast Pakistanis and other groups allied with them are treated with kid gloves and officials here will fall over backwards to show they are not prejudiced.

#31 greatHayemaker

Yes, you're right, the US as the imperial power provides the definition of terrorist/terrorism (eg - the Kosovo Liberation Army, who prompted Serbian action in Kosovo, was not a terrorist organisation even though it was responsible for far more, and in some cases greater, atrocities than the Serbs. In other words they started the war by killing ethnic Serbs).

Mind you, it really does puzzle me when the US and it's allies show mock bemusement when men simply armed with rifles and grenade launchers won't come out in the open and fight fairly (so that they can be bombed from high above using advanced and far superior weaponry).

Consequently, with regard to Hiroshima/Nagasaki, given that the war in the Pacific was already won (Japan was on its knees and the Allies had dominant air power), there is a school of thought that considers the greater crime to be the fact that the 'bombs' were primarily to intimidate the USSR. Although the 'exercise' was also useful as a comparison of the two different bombs this was a secondary consideration.

If this gets posted it'll be a miracle - the moderators seem to be in an over zealous mood today.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

has our leader lost his mind or does he not read history, was this not one of the worst areas when india was under british control, and if the media had been available back then you will find terrorists were far worse then than now. to be honest i feel mr brown our leader is too busy with overseas problems and just paying lip service to problems here in his own country.

46. At 2:47pm on 27 Apr 2009, extremesense

I don't believe anything this government says, spin or otherswise. It is obvious that the Ghurkas can be dismissed, they are small, politically unimportant and not troublemakers. Pakistanis, by contrast are a large group in the UK, and have powerful political sway. The government bends over backwards to avoid causing them any offence. I maintain that too many potential terrorists are infiltrating the UK, by land and sea.
54. At 3:42pm on 27 Apr 2009, ColonelDigby
Interesting. I do trust you are displaying the now dying art of satire. Swift could have written your posting. Regarding Peter Mandelson as the "Fountain of all knowledge" I'm afraid I prefer to live without that type of knowledge. I will say one thing however, you are a wily chap, you got your blog posted and it hasn't been torn off. Finally, you state the BBC has a remit to educate. Fortunately my education took place at great centres of education, and I wasn't brain washed. Oh dear, I pray you are just being ironic.

26. At 1:46pm on 27 Apr 2009, JunkkMale wrote:
In light of past government support, I would be surprised if Mr. Brown were not there to advise on the most effective use of poorly-aimed Nokias as a substitute for actual ordnance.

===

And laser printers for heavy munitions!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#53 electionnowplease

The reason he's there is because the troops have to clap him and Karzai et al will continue to love him - certainly whilst the British treasury is handing them vast amounts of cash for them to allegedly (moderators: please note the word allegedly) squirrel away.

I doubt he'll venture into Pakistan.... the Pakistanis are none to pleased with him after his offensive remarks regarding them churning out the world's terrorists.

#the lone whinger
What about Eden's failed foray in 1956. He was a Conservative PM and what was that all about? It was the US among others who tried to dissuade him from that debacle.

#60 ngodinhdiem

It's hardly surprising that the president of the crucible of terror pulled out, is it?

Good soundbite for the media. Bad soundbite for international relations.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Everything suggests that Iraq was a nation divided religiously, but held together by a savage dictator - now toppled. At least, in recent memory there was a recognisable (though disreputable) state structure. If Shia, Sunni and Kurd can accept some common purpose, you have to hope for a positive future.

I see no evidence that Afghanistan has recently been subject to any genuine structure of state that can simply be resurrected. The writ of a Kabul based government doesn't seem to have an impact in the more remote regions.

If the Russians (with 120,000 troops) couldn't subjugate people - how will 20 odd thousand Western forces?

I don't like the Taleban approach. Though I may not have been too happy with some of the Puritan attitudes years ago in the UK.

Problem seems to be that East Afghanistan and West Pakistan is so detached from any genuine central control that there is a massive territory virtually devoid of anything we would recognise as "modern" government.

It took various branches of Christianity almost two millennia to learn how to rub along without slaughtering each other. Islam has similar fractures. In the west, it's taken centuries to come up with legal systems that are fairly secular and relatively neutral from a religious perspective.

Getting genuine acceptance that others wish to believe and have different legal structures will take a lot longer...

Mind you, I gather that an EU initiative may force countries to apply legal approaches which relate to the laws of nations with whom the litigating people have "close links"... Goodness knows how that would work.

Just hope that Brown looks after the troops we expect to deliver the impossible.

#62 phoenixarisenq

Sorry, looks like I've been a little over zealous and chased you a for a response - terribly bad form.

Yes, I do agree that troops from a fine and great British Army regiment have been treated despicably by our government - as have many other brave soldiers from other regiments.

However, you say Pakistanis and their allies (this word is used out of context - we're talking about immigration, not war) receive preferential treatment, and this, compared to the situation the Ghurkas are in is of course correct.

Any other person wishing to settle in this country is treated according to the rules set out with recourse to the courts if they feel they have been treated unfairly.

This sounds fairly civilised and I'm glad. The same Ghurka regiment has played a significant part in defending our Justice, decency and freedoms, and this, makes the government ruling all the more terrible.

To be honest I'm a little fed up that there is no meaty political blog on which to comment today.

I certainly do not wish to minimise the efforts of our fantastic troops who are doing a difficult job and must be wondering what its all for. However, I cannot believe that a visit from Gordon is going to improve morale at all, except of course if he has taken with him the kit that they need to do the job properly.

Surely Gordon would be better off here sorting out the MPs expences mess and helping poor lost Mr Darling with his budget figures as they seem to be in a bit of a muddle.

When the going gets tough McAvity is no where to be seen!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

ColonelDigby,

I may have missed your posts in earlier months.

Welcome. A breath of fresh air.

It is disgraceful that the PM did not perform another dance on YouTube to explain his visit to Afghanistan.

The nation waits with bated breath to know whether there will be a vote to allow MPs to simply pick up a wedge of money with no intrusive examination of details...

The crucibles of terrorism in the world are anywhere people are forced to live miserable lives with no hope of improvement except, they come to believe, by violent insurrection. These no doubt exist on the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan, but also in many other deprived areas, including some in the UK. Mr Brown would do well to try and tackle some of these crucibles of crime and terrorism closer to home.

In any case sending troops to fight wars over these border areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan, simply makes life even worse for the inhabitants, ensuring plenty of future recruits for terrorist groups.

"President Obama and Gordon Brown are committing resources here in the hope that an Iraq-style 'surge' and an agreement to give control of provinces to local people will make the difference."

The only difference it will make is that more Afghans will get killed, and the threat of terrorist attacks will increase.

The question to ask is WHY Islamic extremists want to attack US and Western interests.

The answer is plain and simple. Western, particularly British and US, foreign policy for a century or more has treated the Middle East, the Arabs and Moslems with utter contempt.

At the heart of the problem is the state of Israel and Zionism. Britain in 1917 gave its support to a handful of eastern-European Jews who wanted to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and allowed large numbers of Zionists to enter Palestine between 1922 and 1945, giving them land to settle on.

In 1947 the US leaned on many smaller members of the newly created UN to vote on a partition plan to be put to the Zionists and the Palestinians. Having created the problem, Britain shamefully abstained. If both sides approved, the Partition Plan could have been implemented. The Palestinians rejected it because it would mean losing half their country. In May 1948 the Zionists accepted it and unilaterally declared the State of Israel, which was recognised 11 minutes later by the US.

During the ensuing war with its Arab neighbours Israel drove out hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes and land for fear of atrocities such as the massacre at the village of Deir Yassin. Israel subsequently refused to allow any of them to return... to this day!

The first act of the Israeli parliament was the infamous racist Law of Return, which gave the right to any Jew, from anywhere in the world, to come to live in Israel, whilst denying the lawful right of the Palestinian refugees to live in their land.

For 60 years the United States has supported the racist Israeli state's existence with at least three billion dollars per annum, and massive military aid. It has not lifted a finger against or spoken a word of criticism of Israel's appalling treatment of the Palestinian people. It has not prevented hundreds of illegal Zionist settlements in the occupied territories of the West Bank, or the further theft of Palestinian land, against international law and several UN resolutions. Neither did the US stop the massacres of over two thousand innocent civilians and 600 children in Lebanon (2006) and Gaza (2008-9).

The US has also supported corrupt dictatorships in the ME, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, not to mention the invasion of Iraq, which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent civilians, and of over a million refugees. It has resorted to the use of torture, as has the British army.

In Afghanistan British and US forces have killed many civilians, particularly using aerial bombing. Even the US puppet President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karsai, to whom Brown talked to today, condemned these brutal killings, and wants the Americans particularly to rein in their bombings. The gung-ho prince Harry revelled in his brief exploits in Afghanistan, directing aerial bombing of villages.

The US won't be happy until 'terrorism' is exported throughout the ME and Pakistan. Bush, Blair and Brown are responsible for increasing the threat. It doesn't look as if Obama and Clinton are going to fundamentally change the policies which the US has followed for 60 years. The Zionist lobby in the US is just too powerful.

It doesn't surprise me that the United States and Britain are despised by hundreds of millions of people. If we want a better and safer world there has to be a radical rethink by the likes of Brown, but he is too much in the pocket of American interests to risk offending the US.

Nick,

Still no update on the PM's cancelled news conference?

'Commonwealth leader snubs British PM': Sounds like a story to me, but clearly you think otherwise. Now if Brown had been hailed as Pakistan's new best friend in the war on terror, I bet you would have reported that.

NB: Just what is it with Brown and news conferences on his international trips. I mea he didn't get one at the White House either. I can't remember any PM in my lifetime - Heath, Challaghan, Thatcher, Major or Blair being snubbed like this, but Brown manages it twice in the same year.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Hi Nick,

now I do not want to be too flippant but has Gordon got himself mixed up and thought that he was actually meant to be attending the snooker in Sheffield.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Nick,

Mujahideen Day's the anniversary of the new regime in 1992, not of the Soviet withdrawal of 1989 (not 1988). Not singling you out, there's enough chronological howleres on the Beeb pages to keep someone in full-time work - but at least there's the opportunity here to correct your detail!

Today's of course the anniversary of the less-honoured coup of 1978, which brought the "communist" (a relative notion when we're talking about Afghanistan) PDPA to power, inaugurating the cycle of US armed backing for its fundamentalist opponents and subsequent Soviet intervention to maintain the regime (yes, that was the order of events).

So let's remember 27 April 1978 too: A local coup, no Soviet tanks, and a lost opportunity to see Afghanistan develop under a left nationalist regime held in some kind of ckeck by the conservatism which it would always have faced in the countryside... no 911, no open-ended Nato campaign.

How different things might have been if the west had just left that regime in place to muddle through and maybe deliver some modernisation in a country badly in need of it. Instead we spent billions turning the place into the quagmire we see today.

Nick,

I trust the following isn't off track since torture affects those we have specially rendered from Iraq/Pakistan/Afghanistan

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/index.html

Maybe you could ask Brown, now that he doesn't have his meeting with the Pakistan leader in front of the press? Please?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#53 electionnowplease

Well, I was wrong.... Brown's gone to Pakistan, however, he's been snubbed by President Zardari.

Silly man.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

31. At 1:57pm on 27 Apr 2009, greatHayemaker wrote:
21

I remember one particular conversation I had with a rather arrogant partner in my former firm. Over dinner and many, many glasses of wine, I mentioned a contention of mine that the two atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki amounted to the two single greatest terror acts in history. After all, the intention was by threat and use of force to compel an enemy to submit. Textbook terrorism, no? The partner looked down his nose at me haughtily, and declared that I needed to reexamine my interpretation of the word terrorism. These, he declared, were clearly acts of war.



Not wishing to rain on your parade Mr Haymaker, but you're wrong about the bombs, they in fact probably killed a lot less than an invasion would have done.

Check the number of direct and indirect dead and wounded from the two bombs, I believe at max its 200,000.

Compared to the death toll that Okinawa and Saipan had already caused, plus the massive casualties that an American invasion would have caused to both allied and japanese forces and civilian populous, the two bombs were the best that could have been hoped, considering how the Japenese army had decided to fight to the death, and if your ead your history, a coup attempt by the army hardliners (who had virtually started the war) almost captured the Emperor after he'd decided to surrender. If that had happened then there would have been a horrendous fight which would have still led to a US victory, but with most of Japan knocked back to the Stone Age.

Plus the dropping of the bombs were a message to Stalin, you know the mass murdering pshycopath in charge of the worlds biggest army, to behave himself in Europe and to stay within the agreed boundaries.

Want to know something to beat the Yanks with? Try LeMay's fire bombing of the japenese cities, the death tolls were much higher.

Still if you want to believe the nukes were a bad thing, then so be it, you're wrong, but any amount of arguments wont change your mind.

Getting back to Broon

Is this jaunt another excuse to avoid PMQ's and the absolute kicking he'll recieve?

Gordon is going to present a new strategy to parliament???!!! Are you sure??? This is isn't his normal modus operandi.

P.S. Since you are out there on this trip with Gordon, can you please ask him what his views on the petition asking for him to resign? The number of people requesting him to resign looks like it is going to soon supersede the number of people who actually voted for him in the last election. Thus the mandate of those calling for him to resign could be bigger than the mandate he is able to justify to continue as Prime Minister.

'Crucible of terrorism'

Mr Brown said he also wanted to see the Afghan army expanded from 75,000 to 135,000-strong by the end of 2011, as well as seeing thousands more police.
In a joint press conference with President Karzai, Mr Brown said Britain could not "sit by" and do nothing."

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8020235.stm

===

God, he's like a stuck record, isn't he?

Nick,

any word on this?

"Gordon Brown received an apparent snub today as he arrived in Pakistan for talks with President Zardari only to be told that he was not available to appear at a joint press conference.

The Prime Minister, who landed in Pakistan this afternoon after talks in Afghanistan, told reporters on the plane that he would hold a meeting with the President.

But instead of a joint press conference with Mr Zardari in Islamabad, Mr Brown appeared alongside the relatively junior Pakistani Prime Minister, Yusuf Raza Gilani."

===

Apparently, Brown was heard to say: "This is no time for a novice"!

And here come the global Keystone Cops.

Hot on the heels of Obama comes Gordy.

Where's he gone now? (puff, puff)

Running into the back of Brown is our hapless reporter.

It's worse than the Marathon trying to keep up with our PM. (Puff, puff)

Now where's he off to? (puff, puff)

Afgahnistan is a bit off topic, Nick, which is exactly why Gordon is there!

On topic is the absence of the Pakistan President at the 'joint' news conference.

On topic is the sudden cancellation of Gordon's Titan Prisons designed to curb crime.

On topic is the scrapping of Gordon's expenses vote on Thursday to avoid embarrassing defeat.

On topic is the EU referendum that New Labour promised in their last manifesto and then reneged on that promise.

That's just today.

Whilst you've been galivanting about all over the world with Flash, Saviour of the Universe, we've all been too busy keeping up with breaking stories in cash strapped Britain.

Don't take this the wrong way but why don't you two stop off in Mexico on the way back and take in some of the city air at our expense.