Sectarian violence in Afghanistan. What the hell are we doing there?

[crasher]

How will I end up tying myself up in knots? It seems a pretty straightforward 'cause and effect' argument to me. The convoluted argument is to explain how 7/7 would have happened without Iraq and Afghanistan acting as a 'cause'.

But 9/11 happened first. Your view is perfectly respectable of course but what would you have done had you been PM on 10 September 2001?

 

[Pavilionaire]

Odd question to pose - within 6 months of taking office the Tory-led coalition announced British troops would be out of there by 2015, starting with a gradual withdrawal and transfer of power. The inter-necine killings only go to show just how unstable the country is and how disastrous a complete withdrawal would be if we upped and left right now.

 

[Brovion]

It would have happened sooner or later, iraq(which i didnt agree with) afghanistan(which i did) may have been the catalyst, but i can remember as far back as 20 years ago my local shopkeeper having handwritten posters, full of anti western rhetoric in his windows.

But there's a world of difference between spouting anti-Western rhetoric and becoming a suicide bomber. (There's a lot of anti-Daily Mail Rhetoric on here but I can't see anyone toddling up to their offices with a few pounds of Semtex strapped to their waists). Really you can't possibly tell if it was going to happen 'sooner or later' or 'never'.

But 9/11 happened first. Your view is perfectly respectable of course but what would you have done had you been PM on 10 September 2001?

But that happened (and don't forget it was the second attack on the Twin Towers) as part of an ongoing terror campaign against the USA because America was seen as 'The Great Satan'. After 9/11 we nailed our colors to the American mast and were thus seen as part of the 'War on Islam'. In other words it was us 'joining in' that helped to radicalise our young Muslims (and tip them from the rhetoric that bushy mentioned into violent bloody action).

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

How will I end up tying myself up in knots? It seems a pretty straightforward 'cause and effect' argument to me. The convoluted argument is to explain how 7/7 would have happened without Iraq and Afghanistan acting as a 'cause'.

Because Great Britain has a long history of influence in Middle East affairs dating back to the Crusades. Al Qaeda doesn't really need the convenient excuse of Iraq and Afghanistan as a basis to justify their Jihad. In fact their major reason for attacking this Country is more likely to have been as a result of the Balfour declaration of 1917, when the UK Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour explicity altered the UK's policy to one that, having previously supported the Arab Palestian case, to one that supported the establishment of a Jewish homeland in what was then Palestine.

Since then we have been embroiled in the whole situation whether we like it or not.

Al Qaeda regard the state of Israel as a Muslim Country and their stated aims are :

" The overthrow of the Godless regimes and their replacement with an Islamic regime "

Essentially they are ' picking ' their targets at will, as and when it suits them to do so. They are not using the same codes or ethics that you or I would do to justify such actions. It isn't a ' revenge ' or ' prid pro quo ' justification they are using, but one of fundamentalist belief in the righteousness of their cause.

 

[daveinprague]

We are there to give the American war a morale underpinning.

Get ready to go and fight in Iran for USA/Israel.

 

[crasher]

But that happened (and don't forget it was the second attack on the Twin Towers) as part of an ongoing terror campaign against the USA because America was seen as 'The Great Satan'. After 9/11 we nailed our colors to the American mast and were thus seen as part of the 'War on Islam'. In other words it was us 'joining in' that helped to radicalise our young Muslims (and tip them from the rhetoric that bushy mentioned into violent bloody action).

But what would you have done from 2001 on? I appreciate the "I wouldn't have started from here" argument but if you'd just been elected?

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

We are there to give the American war a morale underpinning.

Get ready to go and fight in Iran for USA/Israel.

Unfortunately, as the attack last week on the British Embassy demonstrated, that is EXACTLY what Al Qaeda would want us to do, and continue to fan the flames of a very long running problem. Our hands are not exactly clean in Iran either, as far as Muslims are concerned.

 

[Brovion]

Because Great Britain has a long history of influence in Middle East affairs dating back to the Crusades. Al Qaeda doesn't really need the convenient excuse of Iraq and Afghanistan as a basis to justify their Jihad. In fact their major reason for attacking this Country is more likely to have been as a result of the Balfour declaration of 1917, when the UK Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour explicity altered the UK's policy to one that, having previously supported the Arab Palestian case, to one that supported the establishment of a Jewish homeland in what was then Palestine.

Since then we have been embroiled in the whole situation whether we like it or not.

Al Qaeda regard the state of Israel as a Muslim Country and their stated aims are :

" The overthrow of the Godless regimes and their replacement with an Islamic regime "

Essentially they are ' picking ' their targets at will, as and when it suits them to do so. They are not using the same codes or ethics that you or I would do to justify such actions. It isn't a ' revenge ' or ' prid pro quo ' justification they are using, but one of fundamentalist belief in the righteousness of their cause.

Other countries also have a long history of influence in Middle Eastern affairs, and why are you trying to muddy the waters by bringing in Israel?

The simple fact is that I believe that 7/7 happened as a direct result of our response to 9/11 and you don't. I can draw a direct line of 'cause and effect' and you can't - in fact your line starts with the Crusades and goes via the Balfour Declaration! That's an awful lot of dots to be joined and relies on a lot of suppositions to be accepted. Obviously I'm not going to convince you (no one ever does in online debates!) but you have to admit on the prima facie evidence my case is considerably stronger.

 

[Brovion]

But what would you have done from 2001 on? I appreciate the "I wouldn't have started from here" argument but if you'd just been elected?

Well I'd have kept us out as much as possible and tried to keep decent relations with the Islamic world and our own Islamic citizens. I'd have been happy to help the USA in exactly the same way as they helped us against the IRA. Can you imagine how apoplectic they'd have been if the Finsbury mosques all held Al Queda fund-raising events?

 

[User removed 4]

Well I'd have kept us out as much as possible and tried to keep decent relations with the Islamic world and our own Islamic citizens. I'd have been happy to help the USA in exactly the same way as they helped us against the IRA Can you imagine how apoplectic they'd have been if the Finsbury mosques all held Al Queda fund-raising events?.

You reckon they didnt? Snigger !

 

[crasher]

Well I'd have kept us out as much as possible and tried to keep decent relations with the Islamic world and our own Islamic citizens. I'd have been happy to help the USA in exactly the same way as they helped us against the IRA. Can you imagine how apoplectic they'd have been if the Finsbury mosques all held Al Queda fund-raising events?

I have a lot of sympathy with your views. But was sitting on our hands really an option after more than 2,000 people were murdered in New York? (from memory - more than 30 of them UK citizens). Was it right to do nothing about a state run by religious fanatics who tortured and murdered their own citizens as well as shielding a terrorist organisation? If our policy had been as you suggest, would further attacks (like 7/7) not have happened away?

I sound like a neo-con - I'm not. America's disastrous policies have been as much responsible for this godawful mess as the terrorists and the Iraq invasion was, with hindsight, an unjustified disaster. But I dare to hope that if Western powers had taken action in Afghanistan and stayed out of Iraq, we might be in a better position now.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

Other countries also have a long history of influence in Middle Eastern affairs, and why are you trying to muddy the waters by bringing in Israel?

The simple fact is that I believe that 7/7 happened as a direct result of our response to 9/11 and you don't. I can draw a direct line of 'cause and effect' and you can't - in fact your line starts with the Crusades and goes via the Balfour Declaration! That's an awful lot of dots to be joined and relies on a lot of suppositions to be accepted. Obviously I'm not going to convince you (no one ever does in online debates!) but you have to admit on the prima facie evidence my case is considerably stronger.

Well a major influence on Osama Bin Laden is Sayid Qutb who was the leading light of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950's , and who are now in charge of Eygpt after the recent elections. Qutb's brother is believed to have been tutoring Ayman Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden in his brothers beliefs.

Qutb also suppported General Nasser in his overthrow of the Egyptian Government in 1952, but then fell out when Nasser refused to establish an Islamic State in Egypt.

Who was it who went in to attack Eygpt to get the Suez Canal back - yes you've guessed it, Great Britain.

So as I've said, we've been meddling around in Islamic Countries ( as Al Qaeda would define them ) long, long before the Iraq War and Afghan Conflicts of more recent times.

But you can redefine history to start in 2001 if you want to.

 

[User removed 4]

Well a major influence on Osama Bin Laden is Sayid Qutb who was the leading light of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950's , and who are now in charge of Eygpt after the recent elections. Qutb's brother is believed to have been a major influence on Ayman Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden.

Qutb also suppported General Nasser in his overthrow of the Egyptian Government in 1952, but then fell out when Nasser refused to establish an Islamic State in Egypt.

Who was it who went in to attack Eygpt to get the Suez Canal back - yes you've guessed it, Great Britain.

So as I've said, we've been meddling around in Islamic Countries ( as Al Qaeda would define them ) long, long before the Iraq War and Afghan Conflicts of more recent times.

But you can redefine history to start in 2001 if you want to.

And france, and also stabbed in the back royally by our US "allies".

PS I am a supporter of the war in Afghan by the way.

 

[Brovion]

I have a lot of sympathy with your views. But was sitting on our hands really an option after more than 2,000 people were murdered in New York? (from memory - more than 30 of them UK citizens). Was it right to do nothing about a state run by religious fanatics who tortured and murdered their own citizens as well as shielding a terrorist organisation? If our policy had been as you suggest, would further attacks (like 7/7) not have happened away?

...

To answer your questions: Yes, I think sitting on on our hands would have been exactly the right move as opposed to us trying to avenge our dead. It takes two sides to have a war and all we (the west) did was escalate the problem. And once we started bombing Iraq and Afghanistan we lost any moral high ground we might have had after 9/11.

Yes I think it was right to do nothing about a murderous state run by fanatics. As has been mentioned before we couldn't possibly go to war with every country that was run by murderous dictators, but also once you start intervening, despite your best intentions, you become, by proxy, a 'murderous dictator' yourself. By that I mean we killed Iraqi civilians just as the same as Sadam - in my book that makes us no better than him. I appreciate you won't share that view. And as you correctly pointed out it was a catastrophe - as most sane people knew it would be.

And for my views on 7/7 attacks I refer you to my answers to the Brighton-built steam locomotive.

 

[User removed 4]

To answer your questions: Yes, I think sitting on on our hands would have been exactly the right move as opposed to us trying to avenge our dead. It takes two sides to have a war and all we (the west) did was escalate the problem. And once we started bombing Iraq and Iran we lost any moral high ground we might have had after 9/11.

Yes I think it was right to do nothing about a murderous state run by fanatics. As has been mentioned before we couldn't possibly go to war with every country that was run by murderous dictators, but also once you start intervening, despite your best intentions, you become, by proxy, a 'murderous dictator' yourself. By that I mean we killed Iraqi civilians just as the same as Sadam - in my book that makes us no better than him. I appreciate you won't share that view. And as you correctly pointed out it was a catastrophe - as most sane people knew it would be.

And for my views on 7/7 attacks I refer you to my answers to the Brighton-built steam locomotive.

Have we bombed Iran ? Serious question, I genuinely thoght we hadn't.. I woudnt mind giving them a little taste in return for all the help they've given the taliban with IED's.

 

[goldstone]

None of the points made on here by anyone supporting our involvement in Afghanistan can justify the spending of £11bn of UK taxpayers money and the loss of so many military lives.

We need to keep the hell out of other countries' affairs.

 

[Brovion]

Well a major influence on Osama Bin Laden is Sayid Qutb who was the leading light of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950's , and who are now in charge of Eygpt after the recent elections. Qutb's brother is believed to have been tutoring Ayman Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden in his brothers beliefs.

Qutb also suppported General Nasser in his overthrow of the Egyptian Government in 1952, but then fell out when Nasser refused to establish an Islamic State in Egypt.

Who was it who went in to attack Eygpt to get the Suez Canal back - yes you've guessed it, Great Britain.

So as I've said, we've been meddling around in Islamic Countries ( as Al Qaeda would define them ) long, long before the Iraq War and Afghan Conflicts of more recent times.

But you can redefine history to start in 2001 if you want to.

I'm not re-defining history! I'm merely discussing one event, 7/7 that happened as a direct consequence of our actions after 9/11. You don't believe that but you're getting 'tied up in knots' (to coin a phrase) and trying to bring in every almost single event that has happened since the death of Christ!

Do you really think the 7/7 bombers sat down and read a long and detailed history of the political machinations of the Middle East and the role Britain played in the shifting alliances?

 

[Brovion]

Have we bombed Iran ? Serious question, I genuinely thoght we hadn't.. I woudnt mind giving them a little taste in return for all the help they've given the taliban with IED's.

Bugger, meant to say "Afghanistan'!

 

[Falmer]

What the hell are we doing there? We are having a war on terror. Terror is the new tool to carry out war. We cause the terror. The terror gives us oil. Simples.