Sunshine79 From UK - England, joined Jan 2006, 1736 posts, RR: 40 Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1374 times:
I hope it's the start of the end of troops in Afghanistan. Too many young inexperienced soldiers are being sent out there with inadequate training or equipment and end up being killed. I say let them fight it out for themselves and get our men out of there.
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 9219 posts, RR: 50 Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1371 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter): Dreadful, just dreadful. Is there really going to be an end to this?
I agree. The governments who send these troops to Afghanistan are criminals, there is no excuse to be found for any reason whatsoever for having our people sent to Afghanistan and killed because of this war.
This has to stop.
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
KiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 3617 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1365 times:
I wouldn't call this murder. It's not nice but soldiers die in combat, it's there job, it's what we pay them for, they join up knowing the risks. The numbers dying in Afghanistan are very minor, nothing compared to what happened in WW1 or WW2 or even the Fauklands, it doesn't make it any less a tradegy but when you put it into perspective its not a lot.
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 9219 posts, RR: 50 Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1333 times:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5): Say nothing of the Afghani who did this, or their violent culture and religion that glorifies these attacks.
I did not mean this particular case. I mean the Afghan occupying/war in general, the same as when the Russians were there and finally had to leave. Most seem to have forgotten that. This occupying/war will get to what? Nothing good it seems.
About their religion and violent culture don't expect it to change. Why don't the occupiers (the US, UK and others) just leave and let them mind their own business without "us"? The longer they stay in Afghanistan the worse it is going to get.
NO WAR!
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5074 posts, RR: 51 Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1326 times:
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 7): Why don't the occupiers (the US, UK and others) just leave and let them mind their own business without "us"?
In some ways we did, then they provided assistance and safe harbour to those that chose to export their terror.
If they could be trusted to keep their warped idealogies in house I would be happy to leave them to it,hard on the moderate Afghans that suffered and continue to, under the Taliban though.
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
Ferengi80 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 649 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1287 times:
The five British soldiers have today been named by the Ministry of Defence as Sergeant Major Darren Chant, Sergeant Matthew Telford, Guardsman Jimmy Major, Acting Corporal Steven Boote and Corporal Nicholas Webster-Smith.
I stand a salute you, Gentlemen. You were the bravest of the brave. God bless you all.
They shall grow not old
As those which are left grow old;
Age shall not weary them,
Nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun
And in the morning,
WE WILL REMEMBER THEM
AF1981 LHR-CDG A380-800 10 July 2010 / AF1980 CDG-LHR A380-800 11 July 2010
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1277 times:
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 8): If they could be trusted to keep their warped idealogies in house I would be happy to leave them to it,hard on the moderate Afghans that suffered and continue to, under the Taliban though.
Some of those "warped ideologies" were brought into Afghanistan on the heels of Mujahudeen encouraged and quite possibly paid in part by some of the western powers now occupying or trying to occupy the place.
It would have been much easier if the mess had not been stirred up in the first place in such a skillful manner.
The whole mess is an excellent lesson in not making things worse in the first place. Had the UK applied its Vietnam strategy, it is arguable that matters would have been better. Just in case that misses the mark, the UK quite sensibly decided to sit out the Vietnam mess, while of course Australia could not get there fast enough under the disappearing Harold Holt.
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 8615 posts, RR: 11 Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1274 times:
RIP for the fallen. If to kill soldiers this way isnt murder I dont know what murder is. Those Taliban grow like mushrooms. In a way they are just a muslim version of a Nazi. Cruel, oppressive and anyone not thinking like them they treat like slaves and cattle.
Sure, but when and how? Just retreat and let the Taliban hordes enslave millions of women and massacre everyone not thinking 1000 years backwards? I dont think so.
But I dont see a sound strategy how the western troops might be able to end this. I think the politicians responsible need to do more than just let the soldiers do the job. Those poor folks cannot do it on their own because they dont have an honest enemy, just dirty rats in turbans stabbing from the back.
KiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 3617 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1274 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 6): Did you read the story? That's the point - they weren't fighting, they were relaxing in a supposedly safe place, and were killed by a Police officer.
Yes I did, the police officer was a taliban assassin, I don't see it as being much different than a sniper shooting a taliban soldier whilst he's sitting down having tea with his family. It's a war, soldiers get killed, its a risk that a person takes when they join up. Calling this murder is just a step beyond the truth and tabloid sensationalism. I feel sorry for them and their families but don't see this being any more or any less an issue than any other combat death in Afghanistan.
Put it this way would you really care if 6 taliban were killed in the same manor? Be realistic, any foreign soldier in Afghanistan is a target.
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 4948 posts, RR: 25 Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1266 times:
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 12): Put it this way would you really care if 6 taliban were killed in the same manor? Be realistic, any foreign soldier in Afghanistan is a target.
Er, yes actually. If they were sat around eating and drinking, not fighting, and someone ran up and slaughtered them, that would be murder and very wrong.
KiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 3617 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1259 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 13): Er, yes actually. If they were sat around eating and drinking, not fighting, and someone ran up and slaughtered them, that would be murder and very wrong.
Somehow I don't think the commanding officers in Afghanistan or the newspapers would see it that way, as they say the only good taliban is a dead taliban. By your reasoning only soldiers in combat are allowed to be killed, which is rubbish, if that was how you think wars should be fought then you are in dreamland.
Put it this was, do you think the French Resistance or any other partisan group in WW2 thought hmm we shouldn't kill these Germans bacause they are sitting in a cafe having a coffee, it we did we would be murderers, no they didn't they killed Germans whenever and whereever they could. War is nasty business beople get killed, these guys were not murdered.
FuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1995 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1249 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 6): Did you read the story? That's the point - they weren't fighting, they were relaxing in a supposedly safe place, and were killed by a Police officer.
It's still in the middle of a war. Relaxing or not if a mortar fell on a tent while soldiers were trying to sleep, it would be called KIA (killed in action), the daily mail just decided to word it as murder.
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 12): Calling this murder is just a step beyond the truth and tabloid sensationalism. I
Verytrue. The word "murder" seems to speak to people more than say "Five british soldiers were killed today in Afghanistan", which is the right title to use. What you see here is the daily mail trying to hit closer to home. You never like to see it but soldiers die in wwarfare. They're told that and they accept that responsibility and that risk. In a perfect world we wouldn't be having this convo, but unfortunately it's not. I don't see the sense in getting worked up about it.
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 7): I did not mean this particular case. I mean the Afghan occupying/war in general, the same as when the Russians were there and finally had to leave. Most seem to have forgotten that. This occupying/war will get to what? Nothing good it seems.
What you have to realize is that the U.S. and UK and other countries that have "western" values are constantly under attack from these animals. The utopia called Monaco has probably never been the target of a terrorist attack, which is you constantly say no war. But the fact is this war needs to continue, but with better strategy.
"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 15274 posts, RR: 55 Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1229 times:
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 2): The governments who send these troops to Afghanistan are criminals, there is no excuse to be found for any reason whatsoever for having our people sent to Afghanistan and killed because of this war.
You're way off, first of all do a little reading about what the Taliban regime did to the people and culture of that area. Then consider the possibility of those same folks taking over their neighbor Pakistan, the Taliban are already actively trying to overthrow the Pakistani Government. So you say let them do what they will in Afghanistan, problem is it already is spilling over into the streets of Pakistan. May God help us all if the Pakistani Government were to fall to the Taliban, those barbarians combined with Pakistan's Nuclear weapons would bring untold destruction and suffering to hundreds of Million of people. It could very well lead to a Nuclear war between India and Pakistan, or it could include China.
Many are being very naive of what's at stake in Afghanistan, fact is war is war and people die. The question is will more people die if the Coalition stays in Afghanistan, or will more people die if we leave. If you think you know 100% the answer you are wrong, no one knows. It's a simple practice of weighing consequences;
The best hope if we pull troops out = Afghanistan stabilizes, and no more people are killed.
How realistic is that?
The worst outcome if we pull out = Taliban is galvanized and spread their influence into Pakistan where they are able to take over the Government, Taliban control Pakistan's Nuclear arsenal and use them to attack other nations (especially India). Or other Nation's (China, India) fearing what the Taliban might do with those Nuclear weapons make pre-emptive Nuclear strikes against Pakistan. Possibility of millions killed.
I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to take the chance.
Then there's something else to consider, over 80% of the World's Heroin comes from Afghanistan. Go take a walk down to your local shooting gallery, look into the addicts eyes and see for your self how what happens in Afghanistan effects daily lives of people in Cities and towns across the Globe.
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 9219 posts, RR: 50 Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1224 times:
Quoting NA (Reply 11): Sure, but when and how? Just retreat and let the Taliban hordes enslave millions of women and massacre everyone not thinking 1000 years backwards? I dont think so.
Why does it always have to be the "Western" troops?
Why not the Indian Army or the Chinese Army?
They are geographically much closer to Afghanistan than we are.
They have troops that are trained for these areas of the world and they are used to these areas much more so than "we" are. Their equipment is good enough for tracking and defeating the Taliban guerrillas.
... and who provides all for the Taliban to make them so powerful that they cannot be defeated?
Where/who does the Afghani opium/heroin/drugs money go to?
Can anyone tell me?
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 15274 posts, RR: 55 Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1217 times:
How do you think the Pakistani's would feel about the Indian Army coming into Afghanistan and "killing" people who are culturally and Politically connected to Pakistan?.. Again Nuclear war is a possibility.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14021 posts, RR: 55 Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1165 times:
Quoting NA (Reply 11):
Sure, but when and how? Just retreat and let the Taliban hordes enslave millions of women and massacre everyone not thinking 1000 years backwards?
How about granting refugee status to these people and allowing them to settle in the U.S.? Give Afghanistan to the Taliban, get the good people out, and then sterilize the place with a few neutron bombs.
BarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2029 posts, RR: 7 Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1102 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 17): May God help us all if the Pakistani Government were to fall to the Taliban, those barbarians combined with Pakistan's Nuclear weapons would bring untold destruction and suffering to hundreds of Million of people. It could very well lead to a Nuclear war between india and Pakistan, or it could include China.
Pakistan under Taliban control would be a better option for India than the the historical collection of admnistrations so far. Why ? Because they'd be too busy trying to turn the country into a backward utopia and generally railing at all and sundry (particularly the west) to bother us much. The more effort they spend antagonizing the west, the less time they have for us.
On the other hand, an administration chronically indisposed to us, like essentially all the 'normal' ones so far, just means needless headaches for us. Any nuclear weapons in the hands of an Islamist administration will face far greater world scrutiny than those in the hands of the present junta, who are considered western allies, despite constantly playing both sides.
Personally I consider subcontinental nuclear war to be in the realm of western paranoia. India simply does not consider Pakistan a strategic enemy as much as a tactical nuisance. Our strategic weapons doctrine - the development of ICBMs and SSBNs - focusses on China instead.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12357 posts, RR: 83 Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1062 times:
Quoting Sunshine79 (Reply 1): o many young inexperienced soldiers are being sent out there with inadequate training or equipment and end up being killed. I say let them fight it out for themselves and get our men out of there.
They do not go out there 'inexperienced', even those on first deployment.
The specialized training pre deployment is very extensive, as for equipment, the main issue is with too few helicopters, although the imminent deployment of RAF Merlins will be a big help.
What appears to have happened is that the troops returned from a patrol, once in the compound the put their weapons down and took off their body armour.
Then this Afghan who was manning a machine gun on the roof, turned the weapon on them, explaining the high fatalities from a very short shooting incident.
This has happened before, two US soldiers were killed by an Afghan 'policeman'.
In 1967, Policemen in Aden being trained by the British, prior to the UK withdrawal, mutinied and ambushed some British troops, 22 of whom were killed.
It seems that the Afghan National Army are coming on well, even if after a firefight, they have a habit of sparking up joints full of hashish as their bemused British mentors drink their tea/have a meal.
But the police are a different matter, calling them 'police' at this stage is a stretch.
However, in Iraq it was also found much harder and it took longer, to even start to get the Police there into any kind of shape.
There is a culture in parts of the world where donning a police uniform is seen as a license to extort, settle tribal feuds.
RIP to the fallen, it's going to be an even more poignant remembrance day of the 11th than usual.
But then, since WW2, only 1968 was a year without fresh British military casualties.
Speedbird174 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 22 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 956 times:
To pull out of Afghanistan now would be wrong IMHO.
To think that the 200 plus troops that have already paid the ultimate sacrifice would have died for no reason, we need a reason and that reason would be a victory there. We need to finish the job before that happens, and that could be another 5-10 years away.
Speedbird174 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 22 posts, RR: 0 Reply 26, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 959 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 25): And what if another two hundred die and we still don't get anywhere? Is that better?
No it's not and i understand your point, but I'm afraid that the coalition governments have got them them self's into a tight corner, if we leave, the troops will have died for nothing, and the Taliban and terrorists will once again come to power.
Or we stay and get the job done, certainly resulting in the loss of many more lives. However that would result in a safer and fairer country, and a safer international community.
Though some raise the point that this war cannot be won, and on that note, I'm well and truly baffled.
Afterburner From Indonesia, joined Jun 2005, 1050 posts, RR: 1 Reply 27, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 910 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 13): If they were sat around eating and drinking, not fighting, and someone ran up and slaughtered them, that would be murder and very wrong.
In Hollywood war movies, US (or other Western) soldiers ambush and kill their enemies while they (the enemies) are eating, drinking, or having fun with prostitutes. And these kind of movies are inspired by actual events. Tell me that Western soldiers never killed unprepared enemy soldiers.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5074 posts, RR: 51 Reply 28, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 875 times:
Quoting Afterburner (Reply 27): Tell me that Western soldiers never killed unprepared enemy soldiers.
No one is trying to say that but this was different in that the shooter not only was wearing the uniform of an ally but had been on patrol alongside these men only shortly before turning his gun on them.
That is not combat, that is murder!
Just like Hasan committed in Texas and the deployed soldier that threw a hand grenade in a tent where his comrades were resting... murder plain and simple
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
Afterburner From Indonesia, joined Jun 2005, 1050 posts, RR: 1 Reply 29, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 856 times:
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 28): the shooter not only was wearing the uniform of an ally but had been on patrol alongside these men only shortly before turning his gun on them.
Whatever clothing the shooter wore, the fact is that he was one of the enemies.
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 28): That is not combat, that is murder!
Soldiers are killed in wars, whether in combats or not. In most cases, they should be honored. If a soldiers was killed by a tiger or a bear while patrolling an area, he should be honored. If a soldier was killed when the airplane carrying him to his assignment area crashed, he should be honored. If a soldier was killed by a land mine, he should be honored. The five British soldiers, they should be honored.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12357 posts, RR: 83 Reply 30, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 803 times:
Counter insurgency ops do not give you an obvious victory, in the normal military sense.
The average length of such conflicts, taken from a sample of some 70 since WW2, is 14 years.
'Winning' might just be, eventually, a gradual draining away of insurgent activity, probably also splits within the insurgents too.
During the Northern Ireland troubles, a brutal phrase was coined, to bring down terrorist activity to an 'acceptable level of violence'.
But it came to be. It wasn't the British will to carry on that was eventually drained, it was the IRA.
Some counter insurgency ops are more straightforward, such as the 'Indonesian Confrontation' of the 1960's.
Where relatively small numbers of UK/Commonweath forces completely blunted an attempt by the then hostile Indonesian regime to subvert Borneo, part of the newly formed Malaysian Federation.
Described as, in terms of UK casualties and mission success, as the most successful war Britain ever fought.
Thankfully neither side escalated to using major arms, the British were not allowed to drop bombs for fear of losing local support.
In the end, the other side blinked.
This was not typical troops against insurgents, rather troops acting as insurgents.
Sponsor Message: 
From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 4948 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Jan 2006, 1736 posts, 
From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 9219 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 3617 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5074 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 649 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 8615 posts, 
"Five british soldiers were killed today in Afghanistan", which is the right title to use. What you see here is the daily mail trying to hit closer to home. You never like to see it but soldiers die in wwarfare. They're told that and they accept that responsibility and that risk. In a perfect world we wouldn't be having this convo, but unfortunately it's not. I don't see the sense in getting worked up about it.
From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24550 posts, 
From India, joined Mar 2001, 2029 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Jun 2005, 1050 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
