Did they have public support for an invasion, I certainly never supported and personally think Bush and Blair should burn at the stake. Amazes me Blair still has the front to be seen living and breathing on TV.
Amazes me all these individual terror attacks across Europe over the years, yet no one ever goes for him, the instigator.
In October 2001, polling showed around 88% of Americans favoured military intervention in Afghanistan. However, a Gallup poll conducted in 37 countries in September 2001 showed only 3 of the 37 (US, Israel, India) favoured military intervention whereas the other 34 countries heavily opposed. 75% of Brits were opposed and preferred legal procedures for extradition of al-Qaeda operatives from Afghanistan.
Dont forget Brown bankrupt the country paying for our part in this disaster, including hiving off £5-6b a year from the Pension Funds through tax changes which left almost every Pension Fund short of money
He had the brass neck recently to write a sanctimonious open essay asking us (the general population) to reflect on the occupation of Afghanistan. Nowhere does he reflect on his decisions or take responsibility. He also said he doesn't regret the intervention because it was in favour of 'Western values' that were worth defending. Last time I checked, Afghanis weren't Westerners and whatever we think we think of the Taliban, their Pashtun society is more 'natural', for want of a better word, to Afghanistan than 'Western values' (whatever that means).
If push comes to shove and the Taliban use British citizens as bargaining chips after August 31st, I think we should really consider the option of extraditing Tony Blair to the Taliban as an olive branch and let them publicly stone or crucify him. I'd watch it on Al Jazeera.
Money invested in Tax Funds was essentially tax free, if you paid into your own pension fund you did not pay income tax on the amount you paid in, profits made from the investments was also virtually tax free and reinvested in the funds, the more the funds produced the better the dividends paid to the major investors so was a win win for investors and the people who were to have their pensions paid out of those funds Brown tweaked the tax system so that the government had £5-6b in their war chest every year for 13 years This was one of the reasons that there was a major shortfall in the pension funds when The Conservatives regained power in 2010, not the only reason but overall had a big impact
Americans did two things after Sept 11. Like after every tragedy they went out and bought a bunch of guns and bibles... Then they went looking for scape goats. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were slightly to blame. Probably not enough to warrant a war, but Bush had to find an enemy and make an action or be seen as weak by a population that wanted blood. Obviously the Taliban suck eggs up their arse through coffee straws but the reasons we went to war were bogus. The Saudis give us too much money, Iran was too powerful to roll over without an effort... So that left Iraq who conveniently had our old enemy Saddam at the helm... And Afghanistan, where the Taliban were already hated for pulling down historic Buddha statues and being all Talibany. Iraq and Afghanistan were picked over other potential targets because they were more convenient to attack and the people already had a grudge against both countries.
There's a common factor with both Vietnam and Afghanistan wars as far as America is concerned and that's the neo-cons. And let's not gloss over where the likes of Al-Qaeda emerged from - the arming and training by CIA operatives inside Afghanistan, of the what was originally the Mujahedeen fighting against Russia. They were well and truly complicit in the call to arms of men from Saudi Arabia, Middle-east and North Africa to come and fight a holy war against the Ruskies. The U.S. even supported them in the civil war after the russians left. All was ok right? Until Sadam invaded Iraq and then those same fighters felt affronted that the Saudis would sell out to the Americans to defend them rather than those same Jihadists that defended Afghanistan. And then the wild dog broke free from its lead and bit back. Almost similar in Panama when the fcker the CIA backed turned on them and then the U.S. army had to go in to clean up the mess. And now same **** with a proxy war in Yemen where innocent folk are being killed by a Saudi propped up government and we're arming the fckers doing the killing. It still goes on. It's not just the U.S. - wherever they are there's usually Russia on the other side but the U.S. claim to be the holier than thou party whilst often creating the bigger almighty fcking mess.
Interesting backstory to that. As an historian, I find the destruction of artefacts and historical monuments disgraceful. That being said, the Taliban's motivation for the vandalism was different from say, ISIS' in Syria and Iraq. They didn't destroy the Buddha statues because they wanted to 'purify' Afghanistan of non-Islamic culture. Initially, the Taliban leader/emir Mohammed Omar issued a decree demanding the statues be protected and not destroyed when the Taliban captured the region in 1998. They even contacted the UN to ask for aid to prevent erosion of the heads. At the time, poverty was rife in the northern regions of Afghanistan where the statues were located and at some point a Swedish monuments expert turned up and wanted to do some restoration work on the statues. The Taliban asked him if he was from the UN and if they also had aid to alleviate poverty and hunger in the region. The Swedish expert said the money was only for the statues, not the starving people. The Taliban were that pissed off that they blew up the statues just out of spite because they thought Westerners cared more about stone than starving people.
These are the sort of 'foreign expert' journos with blue ticks on Twitter I was referring to earlier. Thick ****s don't understand the complexities of the conflict so just default to "Taliban = enemies who are Muslims and ISIS = enemies who are Muslims, therefore they're allies". I'd argue the Taliban and ISIS hate each other more than they hate the West because, at least in the eyes of ISIS, apostates/heretics who 'collaborate' with infidels are worse than infidels.
Why's he a thick shhite because he says that, if I was out in the thick of this, I wouldn't trust the Taliban either. I don't have to understand the complexities of it, I will judge by the actions you treat me with, and that means there is bound to be an element of distrust. Thus I will think the Taliban is in cahoots with ISIS, because you get to a stage where you trust no one. Just because you are a self-claimed historian, don't make you right, no more than it makes that journo right. It's an act of survival, and under those terms you trust no one.
Tbf the former head of ISIS in Afghanistan was executed by the Taliban only last week when they took over the Afghan prison he was being held in. I doubt they'd be best pleased to join forces
