Such a prescient, beautiful sentiment.

Thursday, 20 August 2009

Who Gets Involved With The Taliban?

Oldrightie Follows Some Money!

A glimpse in the picture above, of our Taliban opponents. Since major contractors have to have Taliban protection they pay handsomely to get it. As this series of posts is saying, this revenue stream helps them purchase weaponry and explosives.

I am therefore arguing that ANY Government or MP association with such companies is ergo, nurturing the system that results in the killing and maiming of coalition troops. I now have two comprehensive lists of civilian contractors to The US Government for Afghan work.
I am working through those lists. So welcome everyone to,


"AMEC strongly believes in being a good citizen, by developing Afghan and Iraqi companies’ capabilities to work efficiently in their own country. This belief is evidenced in our programs to provide technical assistance to Afghan and Iraqi entities by utilizing Afghan and Iraqi subcontractors, laborers, craftsmen, managers, and as suppliers of goods and materials to the project." Does this also include The Taliban? Bet it does.

Do we have an interested MP. We DO! Welcome to

CABORN, Rt. Hon. Richard (Sheffield Central)

Remunerated directorships
Nuclear Management Partners (NMP) (non executive).

Remunerated employment, office, profession etc
Consultant to AMEC; construction in the nuclear industry. (£20,001-£25,000)
Consultant to Fitness Industry Association; trade association for fitness industry. (£10,001-£15,000.

Now AMEC and EDF, (Jimmy's brother is Communications Director of EDF) are like peas in a pod on the nuclear construction side. So let us hope AMEC don't supply nuclear information to the Taliban!

Cosy old stuff, I know. It's how it is all supposed to work but as that famous phrase about mini doors being blown off from The Italian Job, "You're not supposed to blow our troops up"

So how about The MSM folowing the money? Why does someone not chase how the weaponry gets to The Taliban and the drugs get to Peckham? Civilisation, my arse. As for starting with Labour potential culprits, give me time. They, after all, started this expedition under Phony, aided and abetted reluctantly by Jimmy.


  1. Hoi!

    oddrightie what your view on ala magheri or whatever being allowed to go home to Tripoli.

  2. corpwatch - a web site dedicated to investigating the profiteering from war especially Iraq and Afghanistan may be of interest although I realise you're chasing down names.
    The Berger Holdings Group is one of the biggest in Afghanistan - earning billions in new and renewed USAID contracts despite a record of failure.
    I understand the revulsion felt at our MPs financial and moral shysterism in possible bribes and arms for the Taliban originating from their guilt by association directorships etc. but I'm sure they will trot out the old 'unintended consequences' chestnut in their defence?
    No reason to stop your shovel action however - but I fear it's a bottomless pit.

  3. You better be careful digging too deep... remember, it's only likes of Damian Green that get's his DNA removed!

  4. Well done, well said, good luck!

  5. "Since major contractors have to have Taliban protection they pay handsomely to get it."

    You do not make clear what it is you are suggesting. Should contractors refuse to pay the Taliban protection money? What happens then? Should contractors be withdrawn from Afghanistan? What happens to our stated objective of "take, hold and build"?

    The Taliban rackets have been going on for years, rather than squealing like a big girl now you've just found out about it, say what you think should be done about it.

  6. Iain, the whole adventure was mis-guided from day one. As for what to do about it. Hand it all over to The Afghan people and pull foreign troops out. Contractors would be much better off without billions of dollars of armaments going off all the time. Furthermore, regardless of any other issues, Saddam kept the lid on Iraq and there was no shortage of contractors in his time. I remember they came into danger when we dropped by.
    The so called rebuilding has been just cover for multi-nationals to profit.
    Finally, why should young men and women be sacrificing their lives and limbs for the profit of said "contractors"?

  7. Clarinda, the bottom of the pit is only 646 people deep!
    Sue, I'm not sure The Stazi are aware of my teeny blog but if I go missing help Mrs OR get the bastards!
    I have to say, are the secret services beyong morality and just do as they are told? Do they regard themselves above the law. Probably.

  8. Anonymouse, what's this "Hoi"?

  9. Whoops, it's getting hairier!

  10. I agree the whole thing was misguided from the start and that the best thing we could do is get out; we are serving no useful purpose, apart from providing the Taliban with target practice.

    But that isn't what your post is about, is it? You are arguing that by paying protection money contractors are helping the very people who kill our troops. My point is - what choice do they have, and what's your alternative?

    Given that the Taliban's cut of the heroin trade is reckoned at around $1 billion pa, I doubt the protection money makes much difference. And how about the idiot DFID delivering ammonium nitrate fertiliser directly into the main battle zones of Helmand, for the convenience of the Taliban ANFO bombmakers? That's your tax pounds at work, that is.

  11. Iain, I posted about the fertiliser issue the other day so it's not news.

    The alternative is exactly what OR says, pull troops out and leave the Afghanis to get on with it.

    The country has survived on other peoples' money for years. Time they stood on their own feet and it's not for us to insist what shoes they wear.

    OR I see Richard on EURef has mentioned you in his mea culpa post :)

  12. subrosa, what or when you post does not define what is "news". Your sense of your own importance is really amazing. The fertiliser story was around and known about long before you belatedly parroted it.

    As usual, dearie, you miss the point. I'm not arguing about whether or not we should be there. Oldrightie's post complains about the contractors paying protection money. OK, so what would you have them do instead?

  13. "You are arguing that by paying protection money contractors are helping the very people who kill our troops."

    Iain, you are wrong as to my motives for the post. The end result of our presence is that we are being manipulated by big business, aided and abetted by Government, in creating a several trillion dollar industry that neither helps our economies, the Afghan's and certainly not our troops terrible injuries and deaths. For example, just look at the MoD's attempts to reduce compensation and measure what is going to the Taliban to allow contractors to operate. It's madness. So I shall continue to dig, doff my cap to the contractors' protection rackets and attempt to highlight some of the nastiness at the heart of Labour.
    Finally, Subrosa is a campaigner blogger and is not the lady you describe. I accept the points you are making, you should respect her very well subscribed blog.

  14. We either fight the taliban in Afghanistan or in Oddrighties back Garden with oddrightie hiding behind his water barrel.

    there is no cutting and running the white feather brigade preferred option.

    Likethe americans wake up in the morning and all the brits have folded up ther tents and gone away in the night.

    we do not do that way we are warriors not cowards.

  15. Oldrightie, we will agree to disagree. I accept your motives are sincere though I do not accept your overview. I thank you for a courteous reply.

    My respect or otherwise for subrosa is entirely the result of what she says, and not the extent to which her blog may be subscribed. I find her comment sycophantic, her outlook parochial and her posting derivative; there is very little of worth there.