Truth, Honesty and Justice
The Alternative to Wars, Terrorism and Politics

Home Page - Issues - The World Court of Justice - BOOKS - Contacts - Donate - Search

Taliban in London?
Publication date: 2008-06-19

Shall We Have to Fight the Taliban in London Streets?

The latest argument in support of the current Afghan War is that “If we do not defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, we shall have to fight them in the streets of London, so we must win the Afghan War at any cost”.

This argument is supported by mentioning the Al‐Qa'ida camps in Afghanistan, and the 7/7 bombings in London.

But what is the connection between the Taliban, the Al‐Qa'ida Camps, and the 7/7 bombings?

The Taliban did not set up the camps, nor did they run the camps. Nor did they have any plans to attack Britain or any other country.

Nor had the 7/7 bombing had any connection with the Taliban.

Moreover, when George Bush requested the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden, following the 9/11, they agreed, on condition that he be given a fair trial in a neutral country. And the subsequent events in Guantanamo and Abu Graib have proved that this condition was justified.

The Taliban did not start the war, they are fighting against lawless foreign invaders, just as their predecessors had fought against the Russians in the past.

And once the invaders withdraw from Afghanistan, the Taliban are not going to attack London, just as their predecessors did not attack Moscow when the Russians withdrew. This is obvious to any straight‐thinking person.

Then why do the politicians and the Media say something which is obviously not true?

Because, the politicals are not winning the war, and they do not want to be seen loosing it. They want to win. To win at any cost. This is an issue of pride, vanity, prestige, desire to be at the top, and, above all, of fear that, if they lose, they will also lose their powers, and even might have to face a Nuremberg‐style war tribunal for their criminal wars. So they keep sending in more and more troops. Just as the Russians did before them. And as more and more of the soldiers are killed, and the people do not see any good reason for their children being killed in a politicians' war, the politicians seek to persuade the public that the war is just and necessary. And as they cannot find any real reasons for the war, they have no choice but to invent them.

But whom are they deceiving?

To all straight‐thinking people in Britain, and around the world, it is obvious that politicians talk nonsense.

So, the only ones the politicians are succeeding to deceive are those who want to believe that the war is justified, and this is the politicians themselves and those who are so gullible that they believe anything they hear.

And what are the practical results of this all?

Gordon Brown keeps discrediting himself, just as Tony Blair did in his days.

But as long as Gordon Brown is in power he can still keep sending in more and more troops and killing more and more Afghans and British soldiers.

Will he succeed to win the war?

Eight thousand more soldiers will not be enough. The Russians could not win with a 100,000. They had some 1,000,000 Afghans killed, and still lost.

And even, if he does increase the troops to over 200,000 and kills over 2,000,000, the most he can hope for is a temporary suppression of what he calls the “insurgency”, which will keep simmering under the surface, and sooner or later will erupt into another war.

But bringing the invasion forces to 200,000 is an unlikely scenario. Gordon Brown is already, like George Bush, a cadavre politico, whose days in office are counted. He succeeded to discredit himself in the first year of his office more than Tony Blair had discredited himself in over 10 years of his. And the Afghan War will help to hasten his political demise, just as the Russian war against Afghanistan had speeded up the demise of the Soviet Union.

And, if the Russian‐Afghan War had speeded up the demise of the Mighty Soviet Union, then what a “tiny speck on the face of this world” like Gordon Brown can hope for?

But what would have happened, if, in stead of attacking Afghanistan, George Bush had accepted the Afghan conditions for handing over Osama bin Laden?

Osama bin Laden would have been put on trial, to which he would have been looking forward to put his message across (like Shaheed Bhagat Singh in 1931). His defence speech would have been similar to his Message to the American People. Then he would have been, either jailed like Nelson Mandella, or executed like Shaheed Bhagat Singh. Millions of people (including over 4,000 American soldiers) would not have died in the senseless wars. And George Bush, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would not have had to invent lies to justify their wars and destroy their own credibility. And the World Economy would not have been affected by “credit crunches”, “fuel shortages”, and other problems, caused by the trillions of dollars wasted on mass murder and destruction in senseless wars.

Tweet       Follow @wcj4

If you have found this article stimulating, check out other articles.

If you disagree with us, tell us. Prove us wrong, and we shall agree with you.
If you agree with us, spread the message of Government by Truth, Honesty and Justice.

If you want us to deal with more issues and publish more articles, send a monetary donation.

You can see printed books and publications at Truth and Justice Publications Ltd website and find out how you can buy, borrow or review them.

If you want to be informed of any new articles on this site, send us an empty email, by clicking here. If you are interested in articles only on a particular subject, tell us so in the email.

Home Page - Issues - The World Court of Justice - BOOKS - Contacts - Donate

Copyright (C) 2008 Shams Ali — All rights reserved

WARNING: The Google Search data can be out of date. For up to date search go to the issues and browse through the contents using your browser search (find) facility.

Search WWW Search Search

      to Top