Mike Jericho Joins The Ranks
Which ranks? These ones. The ranks of those like me who, as Mike himself puts it, 'openly and freely admit that the attempt to bring Democracy to Iraq has been a dismal failure'.
I particularly liked this line:
"I propose that not a dime more be spent nor a drop more of western blood be spilled in seeking to make tame the savages who populate the region. It is a phyricc exercise which we can ill afford to indulge in."
I second that proposal wholeheartedly, oh my yes I do.
What angered him off so? Mike was writing this in response to this Telegraph article.
"Thousands of jubilant Iraqis looted the British military base in Amarah yesterday, only a day after the Army pulled out of the camp. Everything from doors and window frames to corrugated roofing and metal pipes was pillaged from Camp Abu Naji, previously Britain's only permanent base in Maysan province."
Great. Note the 'jubilant' part. Sounds kinda familiar doesnt it - what's with this Arab compulsion to steal everything that isnt nailed down?
"The Queen's Royal Hussars had departed Camp Abu Naji on Thursday, taking up new positions in the desert and marshes near the border with Iran. The British stressed that the redeployment was a tactical move, not a withdrawal. But this was not how Iraqis viewed it. As news spread through Amarah that the British had gone, locals rushed on to the streets shouting "God is great" and drivers sounded their horns in celebration.
Hundreds gathered around the local offices of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shia cleric whose followers had fired 281 mortar rounds and rockets at the camp, to offer their congratulations. A loudspeaker repeatedly broadcast the triumphant message: "This is the first Iraqi city that has kicked out the occupiers." "
Got all that? We are not the liberators, even though we spent years and hundreds of millions of pounds (perhaps billions) protecting these bastards from Saddam with the no-fly zone and then removed the man who had oppressed them for decades from power. No, we are the 'Occupiers' who have mortar shells and rockets fired at us and then respond with truncheons and riot shields.
Such overwhelming gratitude, you BASTARDS.
"First indications of what would follow came a few hours later as a crowd gathered outside Camp Abu Naji. Iraqi soldiers positioned inside the base dispersed them with shots into the air.
But the following morning a mob of between 2,000 and 5,000 returned, hundreds of them armed with machineguns and rocket-propelled grenades. After sporadic fighting the Iraqi troops retreated to a corner of the camp as the base was stripped."
So that policy of NOT disarming/imprisoning/wiping out al-Sadr and his murdering lunatics when we had them pinned in Najaf and instead letting them go to murder again has really worked well for the West then. All that time, all those dead British troops, all those squaddies who risked their lives to come home to the hate of 'our' Muslim population, all those resources - and within a single day of leaving our friendly 'house-Iraqis' to take control they fold and let the enemy take over control again.
There is no purpose to us being there any longer. I remember when the idea of regime change was first mooted watching a hilarious BBC 'debate' on the subject, hijacked as usual by a bearded pundit who clamed that 9/11 was actually carried out by Mossad and the Jews, the Jews control the media blah blah blah. What also stood out was a moment when a monumentally smug Islamic 'academic' from Bradford or some other blight on the British landscape informed the audience that no matter how we debated, however hard we tried to bring democracy to a country such as Iraq, it was 'incompatible with the tenets of Islam'. I was appalled at the statement at the time, but now I know why the bastard was so smug.
Because he was right, and he knew it too.
Iraq
I particularly liked this line:
"I propose that not a dime more be spent nor a drop more of western blood be spilled in seeking to make tame the savages who populate the region. It is a phyricc exercise which we can ill afford to indulge in."
I second that proposal wholeheartedly, oh my yes I do.
What angered him off so? Mike was writing this in response to this Telegraph article.
"Thousands of jubilant Iraqis looted the British military base in Amarah yesterday, only a day after the Army pulled out of the camp. Everything from doors and window frames to corrugated roofing and metal pipes was pillaged from Camp Abu Naji, previously Britain's only permanent base in Maysan province."
Great. Note the 'jubilant' part. Sounds kinda familiar doesnt it - what's with this Arab compulsion to steal everything that isnt nailed down?
"The Queen's Royal Hussars had departed Camp Abu Naji on Thursday, taking up new positions in the desert and marshes near the border with Iran. The British stressed that the redeployment was a tactical move, not a withdrawal. But this was not how Iraqis viewed it. As news spread through Amarah that the British had gone, locals rushed on to the streets shouting "God is great" and drivers sounded their horns in celebration.
Hundreds gathered around the local offices of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shia cleric whose followers had fired 281 mortar rounds and rockets at the camp, to offer their congratulations. A loudspeaker repeatedly broadcast the triumphant message: "This is the first Iraqi city that has kicked out the occupiers." "
Got all that? We are not the liberators, even though we spent years and hundreds of millions of pounds (perhaps billions) protecting these bastards from Saddam with the no-fly zone and then removed the man who had oppressed them for decades from power. No, we are the 'Occupiers' who have mortar shells and rockets fired at us and then respond with truncheons and riot shields.
Such overwhelming gratitude, you BASTARDS.
"First indications of what would follow came a few hours later as a crowd gathered outside Camp Abu Naji. Iraqi soldiers positioned inside the base dispersed them with shots into the air.
But the following morning a mob of between 2,000 and 5,000 returned, hundreds of them armed with machineguns and rocket-propelled grenades. After sporadic fighting the Iraqi troops retreated to a corner of the camp as the base was stripped."
So that policy of NOT disarming/imprisoning/wiping out al-Sadr and his murdering lunatics when we had them pinned in Najaf and instead letting them go to murder again has really worked well for the West then. All that time, all those dead British troops, all those squaddies who risked their lives to come home to the hate of 'our' Muslim population, all those resources - and within a single day of leaving our friendly 'house-Iraqis' to take control they fold and let the enemy take over control again.
There is no purpose to us being there any longer. I remember when the idea of regime change was first mooted watching a hilarious BBC 'debate' on the subject, hijacked as usual by a bearded pundit who clamed that 9/11 was actually carried out by Mossad and the Jews, the Jews control the media blah blah blah. What also stood out was a moment when a monumentally smug Islamic 'academic' from Bradford or some other blight on the British landscape informed the audience that no matter how we debated, however hard we tried to bring democracy to a country such as Iraq, it was 'incompatible with the tenets of Islam'. I was appalled at the statement at the time, but now I know why the bastard was so smug.
Because he was right, and he knew it too.
Iraq
posted by Dangerouslysubversivedad at 12:22 PM
7 Comments:
The invasion of Iraq was so obviously a rash and foolish thing to do. How could you fail to see it? I now classify support for it with believing in (man-made) Global Warming - scepticism deficiency disorder.
Dearieme,
You're right of course. Afghanistan I dont think anyone could sanely argue with, even though the Americans have now let the Islamists take it back in all but name. But I opposed Iraq at the time for the simple reason that it was the wrong target, even though I found myself VERY unhappy with the company I was in in doing it.
Syria, Iran, yes. Iraq, no.
I think I've said before on this site - but maybe it was somewhere else (I get confused), but you will never make a successful democracy in an Islamist nation. Islam and democracy just don't mix. However, I still support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan because those wars are attracting thousands of jihadis who are going there to fight and die for Islam. And they are dying in their thousands. I prefer them fighting their jihad in Baghdad or Kabul rather than Manchester or Birmingham. Yes, I know there have been a couple of hundred Brit soldiers killed and a couple of thousand yanks, too - but they are soldiers and that is their job. It is not the job of those on tube trains or New York tower blocks to die for their country. Even after several years of fighting in these two countries, the number of dead soldiers still does excede the number of civilians murdered in 9/11. The number of jihadis killed in the wars excedes those that died in 9/11 by a ratio of several thousand to 1. I rate that an outstanding success. I prefer to see the battles of the third world war fought out on the plains of Afghanistan or in the back streets of Baghdad much more than in Bolton. It's sad that so many innocent Iraqis are being killed too - but, to be brutally frank, rather them than us.
You can not fight a purely defensive war. If you try - you will eventually lose. At some point you have to go on the offensive and that is what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The spate of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan is not because the Taliban have suddenly got better - it's because there is currently an offensive in those provinces to track down, capture or kill Taliban terrorists. Not that you'd know this from the BBC or other MSM sites.
I don't even ask that politicians make a case that I find compelling: I'd settle for plausible. Iraq didn't remotely reach that standard. Afghanistan did.
"in seeking to make tame the savages who populate the region."
Furthermore, in seeking to accomodate and integrate those same savages that now live amongst us.
The smug Muslim mentioned was indeed right, democracy IS incompatible with Islam, therefore, would anyone from government like to take a few moments to explain to the nation exactly why there are here in such numbers?
Old Nail,
Largely because - and I realise this may be a controversial answer - the EU.
It is the EU which dictates our border 'policy' (best illustrated by a colander on a field of open doors) and it is at the EU's behest that our traitorous politicians have acted in the matter of mass immigration.
It is the idea of 'open borders' and 'migrant workforces' which the EU has pushed even harder than its totalitarian tendencies in some ways - why? Because the more an individual nation state's population has roots in an identifiable, homogenous culture, the more it resists the dilution of its nationhood. However if you create a constantly shifting mass of migrant workers, changing jobs and countries every few years, never putting down true roots or needing to properly absorb the culture and mores of its host nation, the easier it is to control that mass of workers.
When that bastard Cruddas made his comment about 'changing the demographic' of Barking in the context of multiple BNP councillors being elected there, he was letting slip the plans the EU and our traitorous politicians have for the whole of Europe. The Muslims are just the tip of the iceberg, and they are useful to the EU because they make a lot of mess and therefore draw attention away from the bigger picture.
Comforting thought, isnt it...
DSD, I am currently walking around spraying aerosols from each hand, my car has been filled with leaded petrol and is left running on the driveway, I even watered my lawn - twice!
If they think they're gonna steal my 'Earth' from under me then why the fuck should I preserve it? :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home