Roadside bomb kills 6 British troops in southern Afghanistan

[News_Editor]

Roadside bomb kills 6 British troops in southern Afghanistan

2012-03-08 05:02:37 GMT+7 (ICT)

KABUL, Afghanistan (BNO NEWS) -- Six British service members were killed on late Tuesday when insurgents detonated a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan, Britain's Ministry of Defense confirmed on Wednesday. It is the worst day for British troops in Afghanistan since 2006.

The attack happened at around 7 p.m. local time on Tuesday when an improvised explosive device (IED) struck an armored vehicle in Helmand province, located in Afghanistan's south. "The six soldiers [..] were on patrol in a Warrior Armored Fighting Vehicle when it was caught in an explosion in the Task Force Helmand Area of Operations," said Lieutenant Colonel Gordon Mackenzie, a spokesman for British Forces in Helmand.

One of the soldiers was from the 1st Battalion, The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment while the five others were service members from 3rd Battalion, the Yorkshire Regiment. "Details are still being confirmed and further information will be released in due course," the ministry said in a statement. "The families of the soldiers have been informed."

Few other details about the incident were released, but Taliban spokesman Qari Yousuf Ahmadi claimed responsibility for the attack. "All invaders onboard [the tank] were incinerated in the powerful explosion, hence the British occupational officials initially said their invading soldiers were missing and later confirmed them dead," he said.

British Prime Minister David Cameron called it a 'desperately sad day' for Britain, especially for the families concerned. "It is a reminder of the huge price that we are paying for the work we are doing in Afghanistan and the sacrifice that our troops have made and continue to make," he said.

British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond also offered his condolences. "I utterly condemn those responsible for this incident who will ultimately fail to derail a mission that is protecting our national security at home and making real progress in Helmand Province," he said. "We should never forget those who have lost their lives in Afghanistan to protect our national security."

Tuesday's deaths raise the number of coalition troops killed in Afghanistan so far this year to 67, according to official figures. A total of 404 British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001, and Tuesday's attack represents the war's worst single loss of British life in one incident due to enemy action.

The incident on Tuesday is also the biggest single loss of British life in Afghanistan since September 2006. In that incident, fourteen British service members were killed when a Nimrod MR2 aircraft crashed in the Panjwaye District of Kandahar province. It was Britain's largest single loss of life since the Falklands War.

There are currently more than 130,000 ISAF troops in Afghanistan, including some 90,000 U.S. troops and more than 9,500 British soldiers. U.S. President Barack Obama previously ordered a drawdown of 23,000 U.S. troops later this year, and foreign combat troops are due to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-03-08

[Colin Yai]

What a waste! 6 young men losing their lives , the ordinance used to blow an armoured vehicle ( tank?)and its occupants to oblivion must have had immense power plus penetration , There is much evidence in the public domain that says Iran is supplying the Taliban with sophisticated Roadside bombs to achieve this very end.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Colin Yai

[GentlemanJim]

What a waste! 6 young men losing their lives , the ordinance used to blow an armoured vehicle ( tank?)and its occupants to oblivion must have had immense power plus penetration , There is much evidence in the public domain that says Iran is supplying the Taliban with sophisticated Roadside bombs to achieve this very end.

What evidence, can you provide links please.

Condolences to the families.

[Colin Yai]

What a waste! 6 young men losing their lives , the ordinance used to blow an armoured vehicle ( tank?)and its occupants to oblivion must have had immense power plus penetration , There is much evidence in the public domain that says Iran is supplying the Taliban with sophisticated Roadside bombs to achieve this very end.

What evidence, can you provide links please.

Condolences to the families.

Sure GJ why not, an absolute welter of data on Google too many for me to post all the links, just type in "Iran supplying sophisticated roadside bombs to the Taliban" good reading.

[GentlemanJim]

Sure GJ why not, an absolute welter of data on Google too many for me to post all the links, just type in "Iran supplying sophisticated roadside bombs to the Taliban" good reading.

Well the issue is Colin that those reports are from 2007/2008 and the IPS ran the following article, which is worth a read.

http://ipsnews.net/2007/06/politics-us-cheneys-iran-arms-to-taliban-gambit-rebuffed/

A media campaign portraying Iran as supplying arms to the Taliban guerrillas fighting U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, orchestrated by advocates of a more confrontational stance toward Iran in the George W. Bush administration, appears to have backfired last week when Defence Secretary Robert Gates and the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Dan McNeil, issued unusually strong denials.

What the Defence Secretary and the General eluded to was that a report saying that NATO forces had caught Iranians red handed was taken out of context. The US only ever found 4 small vehicles with arms originating from Iran and they were considered a smuggling operation to drug lords in Afghanistan and nothing to do with the Iranian Government, and those facts were clear in the original report.

The responsibility with finding 'good reading' as you put it, is to find out as much as possible and not stop at the story that suits. In any case, the international arms business is a dirty dirty business, and if one country will not sell arms, then another will quickly step in. If I were to list the terrorist organisations that have been provided with arms by the US I could take up a whole page on TV, let alone them recently providing weapons to the very drug lords in Mexico they are supposed to be trying to defeat. Is is a case of keep the US population stoned then come the day they will be easier to handle?

Avoidance of war means that all information must be taken with a pinch of salt, particularly when it is from a Government driven by the Worlds largest Military Industrial Complex. It means we have a responsibility to give all sides the benefit of doubt until conclusive independent evidence points towards a set of established occurrences.

The reaction of the British Army members themselves to this dreadful incident is telling. On the Army Rumour Network Site one soldier has put in capitals "those f*ing cowardly Taliban B**tards", he was then rounded on by all the other soldiers saying 'calm down' what do you expect the Taliban to do to their enemy, throw confetti on us', another comment by a Soldier says 'how many times have we lay in wait to ambush the Taliban and hit them with all we have got' !.

The soldiers are fully aware that this is a part of war and whilst the soldiers are diligently doing their jobs, they also know that the Taliban are doing the same. The British soldiers have a great deal of respect for the skill of their enemies and they do not underestimate them. These 6 soldiers and the other 398 before them (and that is just British!!) have died because corrupt self serving politicians have put them in harms way to satisfy the shareholders of the companies that form the Military Industrial Complex, there bye resulting in a good chance of another term in office for a respective administration or Government. It does not strike me that there are any cowards in either the British Army or the Taliban, but I think there are shed loads in Capitol Hill and Westminster, who now try and claim an extra political advantage by capitalising on the deaths of these young men, that they themselves are responsible for killing.

[chuckd]

http://ipsnews.net/2...ambit-rebuffed/

This is the message received from your link...

"Error Summary

HTTP Error 404.0 - Not Found

The resource you are looking for has been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable."

[Colin Yai]

Sure GJ why not, an absolute welter of data on Google too many for me to post all the links, just type in "Iran supplying sophisticated roadside bombs to the Taliban" good reading.

Well the issue is Colin that those reports are from 2007/2008 and the IPS ran the following article, which is worth a read.

http://ipsnews.net/2...ambit-rebuffed/

A media campaign portraying Iran as supplying arms to the Taliban guerrillas fighting U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, orchestrated by advocates of a more confrontational stance toward Iran in the George W. Bush administration, appears to have backfired last week when Defence Secretary Robert Gates and the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Dan McNeil, issued unusually strong denials.

What the Defence Secretary and the General eluded to was that a report saying that NATO forces had caught Iranians red handed was taken out of context. The US only ever found 4 small vehicles with arms originating from Iran and they were considered a smuggling operation to drug lords in Afghanistan and nothing to do with the Iranian Government, and those facts were clear in the original report.

The responsibility with finding 'good reading' as you put it, is to find out as much as possible and not stop at the story that suits. In any case, the international arms business is a dirty dirty business, and if one country will not sell arms, then another will quickly step in. If I were to list the terrorist organisations that have been provided with arms by the US I could take up a whole page on TV, let alone them recently providing weapons to the very drug lords in Mexico they are supposed to be trying to defeat. Is is a case of keep the US population stoned then come the day they will be easier to handle?

Avoidance of war means that all information must be taken with a pinch of salt, particularly when it is from a Government driven by the Worlds largest Military Industrial Complex. It means we have a responsibility to give all sides the benefit of doubt until conclusive independent evidence points towards a set of established occurrences.

The reaction of the British Army members themselves to this dreadful incident is telling. On the Army Rumour Network Site one soldier has put in capitals "those f*ing cowardly Taliban B**tards", he was then rounded on by all the other soldiers saying 'calm down' what do you expect the Taliban to do to their enemy, throw confetti on us', another comment by a Soldier says 'how many times have we lay in wait to ambush the Taliban and hit them with all we have got' !.

The soldiers are fully aware that this is a part of war and whilst the soldiers are diligently doing their jobs, they also know that the Taliban are doing the same. The British soldiers have a great deal of respect for the skill of their enemies and they do not underestimate them. These 6 soldiers and the other 398 before them (and that is just British!!) have died because corrupt self serving politicians have put them in harms way to satisfy the shareholders of the companies that form the Military Industrial Complex, there bye resulting in a good chance of another term in office for a respective administration or Government. It does not strike me that there are any cowards in either the British Army or the Taliban, but I think there are shed loads in Capitol Hill and Westminster, who now try and claim an extra political advantage by capitalising on the deaths of these young men, that they themselves are responsible for killing.

Corrupt self serving politicians?I have never heard of a US or British service man being groomed to be a suicide bomber have you? Edited March 8, 2012 by Colin Yai

[GentlemanJim]

http://ipsnews.net/2...ambit-rebuffed/

This is the message received from your link...

"Error Summary

HTTP Error 404.0 - Not Found

The resource you are looking for has been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable."

Chuckd

Unsure how to help. I just clicked the link and got through. Try removing all the blurb in the url until IPSnews.net is left, then enter "

POLITICS-US: Cheney’s Iran-Arms-to-Taliban Gambit Rebuffed"

in the search box, and see how you get on. It is an interesting article. Let me know if you succeed, if not I will pm you the text.

Colin

Corrupt self serving politicians?I have never heard of a US or British service man being groomed to be a suicide bomber have you?

I don't understand where you are coming from. I gave you a fairly comprehensive reply and you hit me with that? What has corrupt self serving politicians got to do with the training of suicide bombers?

Have you ever been in the military? The reason I ask is that if you had you would understand that a suicide bomber is just another means of delivery. No we do not train British servicemen as suicide bombers as thankfully we have the money and an arms industry to provide them with munitions that can be fired from afar and hit their target. Rag tag armies don't have that luxury so have to be 'inventive' with how they get explosives to the target. The suicide bomber is an unpalatable thing, as they were in WW2 with the Japanese, when the Japs knew that a determined young man on a suicide mission not only was difficult to stop but struck a real chord of fear in their enemies in terms of Psychological warfare. The fact is that whether a hellfire missile hits you fired from 8km away or a suicide bomber gets you in a car from 50 mtrs away, the result is the same, death and devastation. One way costs 20K $ fired from a 20 Mill $ platform, the other costs 1k $ and a period of training and indoctrination.

The suicide bomber is considered cowardly and 'not cricket', is a missile fired from 8km away any different? Get over the suicide bomber thing, war is dirty and the enemy will always be resourceful when they have run out of money. The question you raised was about the provision of roadside bombs from Iran to the taliban, you said there was lots of evidence for it. The thing is there is not lots of evidence and I have given you a Government quote that also disputes what you say. But you haven't answered that, you now come up with a completely different and irrelevant tack. The questions here are

1. These poor men were hit with a devastating weapon that at the moment bears all the hallmarks of involving Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFP's).

2. How did the Taliban get to lay this thing

3. Where did they get it from

4 How many do they have.

As regards evidence, we have solid proof that they still use a large number of weapons and munitions provided to them by the US and that recently, In 2007 NATO commanders in Pakistan, stated they have long been aware that the Taliban has been dependent on Pakistan for its arms and ammunition. The Telegraph reported that a NATO report on a battle showed the Taliban fired an estimated 400,000 rounds of ammunition, 2,000 rocket-propelled grenades and 1,000 mortar shells and had stocked over one million rounds of ammunition, all of which came from Quetta, Pakistan during the spring months. Now if you were to put money on it, where do you think arms are coming from, Iran or Pakistan?

[Colin Yai]

http://ipsnews.net/2...ambit-rebuffed/

This is the message received from your link...

"Error Summary

HTTP Error 404.0 - Not Found

The resource you are looking for has been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable."

Chuckd

Unsure how to help. I just clicked the link and got through. Try removing all the blurb in the url until IPSnews.net is left, then enter "

POLITICS-US: Cheney’s Iran-Arms-to-Taliban Gambit Rebuffed"

in the search box, and see how you get on. It is an interesting article. Let me know if you succeed, if not I will pm you the text.

Colin

Corrupt self serving politicians?I have never heard of a US or British service man being groomed to be a suicide bomber have you?

I don't understand where you are coming from. I gave you a fairly comprehensive reply and you hit me with that? What has corrupt self serving politicians got to do with the training of suicide bombers?

Have you ever been in the military? The reason I ask is that if you had you would understand that a suicide bomber is just another means of delivery. No we do not train British servicemen as suicide bombers as thankfully we have the money and an arms industry to provide them with munitions that can be fired from afar and hit their target. Rag tag armies don't have that luxury so have to be 'inventive' with how they get explosives to the target. The suicide bomber is an unpalatable thing, as they were in WW2 with the Japanese, when the Japs knew that a determined young man on a suicide mission not only was difficult to stop but struck a real chord of fear in their enemies in terms of Psychological warfare. The fact is that whether a hellfire missile hits you fired from 8km away or a suicide bomber gets you in a car from 50 mtrs away, the result is the same, death and devastation. One way costs 20K $ fired from a 20 Mill $ platform, the other costs 1k $ and a period of training and indoctrination.

The suicide bomber is considered cowardly and 'not cricket', is a missile fired from 8km away any different? Get over the suicide bomber thing, war is dirty and the enemy will always be resourceful when they have run out of money. The question you raised was about the provision of roadside bombs from Iran to the taliban, you said there was lots of evidence for it. The thing is there is not lots of evidence and I have given you a Government quote that also disputes what you say. But you haven't answered that, you now come up with a completely different and irrelevant tack. The questions here are

1. These poor men were hit with a devastating weapon that at the moment bears all the hallmarks of involving Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFP's).

2. How did the Taliban get to lay this thing

3. Where did they get it from

4 How many do they have.

As regards evidence, we have solid proof that they still use a large number of weapons and munitions provided to them by the US and that recently, In 2007 NATO commanders in Pakistan, stated they have long been aware that the Taliban has been dependent on Pakistan for its arms and ammunition. The Telegraph reported that a NATO report on a battle showed the Taliban fired an estimated 400,000 rounds of ammunition, 2,000 rocket-propelled grenades and 1,000 mortar shells and had stocked over one million rounds of ammunition, all of which came from Quetta, Pakistan during the spring months. Now if you were to put money on it, where do you think arms are coming from, Iran or Pakistan?

You Write of "shed loads" of self seeking and corrupt politicians on Capitol hill and Westminster capitalizing on the death of young servicemen , who are responsible for their deaths , this is just your opinion, and just a little "over the top", I countered by mentioning Taliban suicide bombers which is an Irrifutable fact.

[lukey1979]

Gentleman Jim. Well said throughout, you are completely spot on.

Too many of the ill informed are quick to jump on the outrage bus these days.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

[GentlemanJim]

You Write of "shed loads" of self seeking and corrupt politicians on Capitol hill and Westminster capitalizing on the death of young servicemen , who are responsible for their deaths , this is just your opinion, and just a little "over the top", I countered by mentioning Taliban suicide bombers which is an Irrifutable fact.

Again, I am confused as to where you are going. You have departed from your original argument completely.

It is not 'my opinion', that the heads of Government of both the US and the UK, took us to war on a pack of lies, It is not 'my opinion' that Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell lied on many occasions (at least the latter bearing some integrity and resigning from Government), It is not 'my opinion' that Dick Chenney lied and not 'my opinion' that he was Chairman of Haliburton who coincidentally took the Lions share of all contracts for Iran and continue to overcharge the US Government and taxpayer for the services they provide. It is not 'my opinion' that our soldiers were sent to war not to stop a Dictator with WMD's as we were told, but to eradicate a problematic man who controlled huge oil reserves and was about to change the currency of purchase of his oil to the Euro. These are indisputable facts of just a few of the many self serving corrupt politicians happy to watch young men and women die while they see extra zero's amass in their bank accounts, either directly or indirectly through continued political power and influence. I am not sure where your Taliban suicide bomber fits in, apart from being another fact, but so it is that the sun is big, round and hot.

The six men who died were just 6 of many who were sent to do the bidding of bad men, and those men were our elected politicians, who should all be languishing in jail right now.

Edited March 8, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[Scott]

I am not confused about where this is going....which is off-topic.

The topic is about a roadside bomb killing British troops. Not some philosophical or historical perspective on war.

Stick to the topic.

[folium]

I am not confused about where this is going....which is off-topic.

The topic is about a roadside bomb killing British troops. Not some philosophical or historical perspective on war.

Stick to the topic.

Amazingly enough the Daily Mail actually printed some half decent copy on this incident. See link below:

http://m.dailymail.co.uk/mobile/news/article.html?articleID=2111812

The key issue is that the Warrior is an APC or armoured bus (not a tank), and was designed for conflict on the north German plains. The likelihood of encountering minefields and thus explosions from below was regarded as limited given the fact that the enemy was likely to be an advancing one with little need for minefields.

This flaw in the Warrior's protection was seen as a trade off for better side and top armour (all armoured vehicles are a trade off between firepower, mobility and protection). They are being retrofitted with more flexible and appropriate armour packages but the programme has only recently started.

This why the Challenger 2 main battle tank is not deployed in Afghanistan due to a similar weakness (exposed a couple of times in Iraq). Also if you look at the more recent vehicles they have been chosen and adapted for counter-insurgency ops, and are better protected against IEDs.

Most recent Protected Patrol Vehicles:

http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/fighting-vehicles/1483.aspx

Ironically we are seeing a return to the v-hulled style Crocs seen in southern Africa's bush wars of the 1970's and 1980's.

Changing one's vehicle fleet from conventional warfare requirements to counter-insurgency is an expensive and long drawn out business. By and large the Brits are very well equipped for the threat in Afghanistan now. Sadly these 6 guys were in legacy equipment, but that's part of the job, namely having to make the best of what you have.

Six more devastated families, my thoughts are with them.

[thomdixon]

"when insurgents detonated a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan".....we invade their country, install a puppet government, rape, murder and kill their women and children. I call that defending themselves and their families. I don't call that being an insurgent.

Before I get a bashing let me say I am a War veteran, Wounded, Decorated and with a monthly pension to reward me for my sacrifice. We have no business being there. We invaded them. They never attacked us.

[folium]

"when insurgents detonated a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan".....we invade their country, install a puppet government, rape, murder and kill their women and children. I call that defending themselves and their families. I don't call that being an insurgent.

Before I get a bashing let me say I am a War veteran, Wounded, Decorated and with a monthly pension to reward me for my sacrifice. We have no business being there. We invaded them. They never attacked us.

Suggest you look up what the word insurgent means.

[philw]

What a waste! 6 young men losing their lives , the ordinance used to blow an armoured vehicle ( tank?)and its occupants to oblivion must have had immense power plus penetration , There is much evidence in the public domain that says Iran is supplying the Taliban with sophisticated Roadside bombs to achieve this very end.

Sod all to do with Iran and you know it.

You are a little too eager and obvious with your propaganda.

At least you have outed yourself.

[thomdixon]

"when insurgents detonated a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan".....we invade their country, install a puppet government, rape, murder and kill their women and children. I call that defending themselves and their families. I don't call that being an insurgent.

Before I get a bashing let me say I am a War veteran, Wounded, Decorated and with a monthly pension to reward me for my sacrifice. We have no business being there. We invaded them. They never attacked us.

Suggest you look up what the word insurgent means.

insurgent : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially: a rebel not recognized as a belligerent

A puppet government set up by the invaders does not constitute civil authority. I suggest you read history and the news once in a while.

By your ignorant post I would assume you spend more time with the night ladies than you ever did in school.

​By The Way, Just how much combat experoence do you have? I mean, you were a real man, a productive member of society before you came to Thailand.

Edited March 8, 2012 by thomdixon

[GentlemanJim]

"when insurgents detonated a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan".....we invade their country, install a puppet government, rape, murder and kill their women and children. I call that defending themselves and their families. I don't call that being an insurgent.

Before I get a bashing let me say I am a War veteran, Wounded, Decorated and with a monthly pension to reward me for my sacrifice. We have no business being there. We invaded them. They never attacked us.

Suggest you look up what the word insurgent means.

Well in that case maybe you need to look up how we are applying the word insurgent to the Taliban in Afghanistan. They were the ruling Government until they were overthrown during Operation Enduring Freedom. Now they really are not nice people, but as they are from the majority Pashtun tribe in Afghanistan and fighting an invading force and puppet government, the question is are they insurgents. The next point is does it matter? I am absolutely sure that you are aware of the sentiments thomdixon is trying to communicate.

[philw]

Sure GJ why not, an absolute welter of data on Google too many for me to post all the links, just type in "Iran supplying sophisticated roadside bombs to the Taliban" good reading.

Well the issue is Colin that those reports are from 2007/2008 and the IPS ran the following article, which is worth a read.

http://ipsnews.net/2...ambit-rebuffed/

A media campaign portraying Iran as supplying arms to the Taliban guerrillas fighting U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, orchestrated by advocates of a more confrontational stance toward Iran in the George W. Bush administration, appears to have backfired last week when Defence Secretary Robert Gates and the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Dan McNeil, issued unusually strong denials.

What the Defence Secretary and the General eluded to was that a report saying that NATO forces had caught Iranians red handed was taken out of context. The US only ever found 4 small vehicles with arms originating from Iran and they were considered a smuggling operation to drug lords in Afghanistan and nothing to do with the Iranian Government, and those facts were clear in the original report.

The responsibility with finding 'good reading' as you put it, is to find out as much as possible and not stop at the story that suits. In any case, the international arms business is a dirty dirty business, and if one country will not sell arms, then another will quickly step in. If I were to list the terrorist organisations that have been provided with arms by the US I could take up a whole page on TV, let alone them recently providing weapons to the very drug lords in Mexico they are supposed to be trying to defeat. Is is a case of keep the US population stoned then come the day they will be easier to handle?

Avoidance of war means that all information must be taken with a pinch of salt, particularly when it is from a Government driven by the Worlds largest Military Industrial Complex. It means we have a responsibility to give all sides the benefit of doubt until conclusive independent evidence points towards a set of established occurrences.

The reaction of the British Army members themselves to this dreadful incident is telling. On the Army Rumour Network Site one soldier has put in capitals "those f*ing cowardly Taliban B**tards", he was then rounded on by all the other soldiers saying 'calm down' what do you expect the Taliban to do to their enemy, throw confetti on us', another comment by a Soldier says 'how many times have we lay in wait to ambush the Taliban and hit them with all we have got' !.

The soldiers are fully aware that this is a part of war and whilst the soldiers are diligently doing their jobs, they also know that the Taliban are doing the same. The British soldiers have a great deal of respect for the skill of their enemies and they do not underestimate them. These 6 soldiers and the other 398 before them (and that is just British!!) have died because corrupt self serving politicians have put them in harms way to satisfy the shareholders of the companies that form the Military Industrial Complex, there bye resulting in a good chance of another term in office for a respective administration or Government. It does not strike me that there are any cowards in either the British Army or the Taliban, but I think there are shed loads in Capitol Hill and Westminster, who now try and claim an extra political advantage by capitalising on the deaths of these young men, that they themselves are responsible for killing.

Spot on accurate and well said, and it needs saying !!

Thank you GJ.

Edited March 8, 2012 by philw

[folium]

"when insurgents detonated a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan".....we invade their country, install a puppet government, rape, murder and kill their women and children. I call that defending themselves and their families. I don't call that being an insurgent.

Before I get a bashing let me say I am a War veteran, Wounded, Decorated and with a monthly pension to reward me for my sacrifice. We have no business being there. We invaded them. They never attacked us.

Suggest you look up what the word insurgent means.

insurgent : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially: a rebel not recognized as a belligerent

A puppet government set up by the invaders does not constitute civil authority. I suggest you read history and the news once in a while.

By your ignorant post I would assume you spend more time with the night ladies than you ever did in school.

Nice try, but wrong on all counts.

Like it or not the Karzai regime is the recognized government of Afghanistan and hence has a seat at the UN. An insurgent is someone in a state of armed rebellion against the constituted authority of a country.

What would you rather call the Taliban?

[thomdixon]

For the ignorant here and those with political rhetoric,

Iran is a Shiite Muslim Country and the enemy of Al Qaeda and the Taliban who are Sunnite. Iran and the Taliban do not work together other than to try to kill each other.

I see American propaganda is working well with some expats here. Why don't you try doing web searches rather than listening to CNN or the BBC.

[thomdixon]

"when insurgents detonated a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan".....we invade their country, install a puppet government, rape, murder and kill their women and children. I call that defending themselves and their families. I don't call that being an insurgent.

Before I get a bashing let me say I am a War veteran, Wounded, Decorated and with a monthly pension to reward me for my sacrifice. We have no business being there. We invaded them. They never attacked us.

Suggest you look up what the word insurgent means.

insurgent : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially: a rebel not recognized as a belligerent

A puppet government set up by the invaders does not constitute civil authority. I suggest you read history and the news once in a while.

By your ignorant post I would assume you spend more time with the night ladies than you ever did in school.

Nice try, but wrong on all counts.

Like it or not the Karzai regime is the recognized government of Afghanistan and hence has a seat at the UN. An insurgent is someone in a state of armed rebellion against the constituted authority of a country.

What would you rather call the Taliban?

Bad try, The Taliban were the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan before the US invasion. Your lack of a real education is showing. You should stop posting as to conserve the little dignity you can pretend to have.

[GentlemanJim]

"when insurgents detonated a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan".....we invade their country, install a puppet government, rape, murder and kill their women and children. I call that defending themselves and their families. I don't call that being an insurgent.

Before I get a bashing let me say I am a War veteran, Wounded, Decorated and with a monthly pension to reward me for my sacrifice. We have no business being there. We invaded them. They never attacked us.

Suggest you look up what the word insurgent means.

insurgent : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially: a rebel not recognized as a belligerent

A puppet government set up by the invaders does not constitute civil authority. I suggest you read history and the news once in a while.

By your ignorant post I would assume you spend more time with the night ladies than you ever did in school.

Nice try, but wrong on all counts.

Like it or not the Karzai regime is the recognized government of Afghanistan and hence has a seat at the UN. An insurgent is someone in a state of armed rebellion against the constituted authority of a country.

What would you rather call the Taliban?

But prior to the invasion, the Taliban were the constituted Government and were recognised as such in particular by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, all a lot closer to Afghanistan than the USA. But the USA also had a good relationship with these 'insurgents'. didn't they? (and a few others!)

http://whitenoiseins...he-white-house/

But don't let me spoil the fun, go to the link above and see the rest!

[folium]

Not quite sure what your point is but your picture of Reagan with the Afghans is utterly irrelevant.

The picture was taken in 1985, 9 years before the Taliban came into existence. The Taliban were largely the creation of Pakistan's ISI to counterbalance the warlords backed by Saudi and Iran who had been in conflict since the fall of Najibullah's government in 1991.

While Saudi, UAE & Pakistan did recognize the Taliban no other nation did (certainly not Afghanistan's neighbours, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, China or Iran if you want to stress geographical proximity as some proxy for legitimacy), hence they were never the recognized, constituted government of Afghanistan and thus never took the seat at the UN. See UN link below:

http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/afghan/un-afghan-history.shtml

I hope that you are not trying to claim that the Taliban are a misunderstood group of nationalists denied the right to rule their own country. No one comes out of the Afghan story smelling of roses and simplistic analysis does little to help anyone.

[koheesti]

"when insurgents detonated a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan".....we invade their country, install a puppet government, rape, murder and kill their women and children. I call that defending themselves and their families. I don't call that being an insurgent.

Before I get a bashing let me say I am a War veteran, Wounded, Decorated and with a monthly pension to reward me for my sacrifice. We have no business being there. We invaded them. They never attacked us.

Do you HONESTLY believe that the Taliban are fighting to defend their families?

Edited March 8, 2012 by koheesti

[GentlemanJim]

Not quite sure what your point is but your picture of Reagan with the Afghans is utterly irrelevant.

The picture was taken in 1985, 9 years before the Taliban came into existence. The Taliban were largely the creation of Pakistan's ISI to counterbalance the warlords backed by Saudi and Iran who had been in conflict since the fall of Najibullah's government in 1991.

While Saudi, UAE & Pakistan did recognize the Taliban no other nation did (certainly not Afghanistan's neighbours, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, China or Iran if you want to stress geographical proximity as some proxy for legitimacy), hence they were never the recognized, constituted government of Afghanistan and thus never took the seat at the UN. See UN link below:

http://www.un.org/ne...n-history.shtml

I hope that you are not trying to claim that the Taliban are a misunderstood group of nationalists denied the right to rule their own country. No one comes out of the Afghan story smelling of roses and simplistic analysis does little to help anyone.

But your analysis is simplistic.

The beginning of your last para is offensive, who has tried to claim that, where, and in what language? YOU, for some reason known to yourself had a go at thomdixon over his statement that the Taliban were defending their own country. It is true. Now you can argue all you like about the definitions of an insurgent, but suffice to say we do not belong there, and they do. They make up the majority tribe. The people sat in Reagan's office were freedom fighters, the Mujahadeen, who later became the Taliban politico-religious movement. Same men, same hats, different gang name.

Koheesti

They are fighting to get us out of their land, just as any Brit or Yank would do if their respective lands were under an occupying force. They are very bad people, they are hateful in fact but they are non of our business and we should not be there. The Taliban never ever bothered us, but boy they do now.

[folium]

Bad try, The Taliban were the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan before the US invasion. Your lack of a real education is showing. You should stop posting as to conserve the little dignity you can pretend to have.

Wrong again in all your claims, especially that the Taliban was an internationally recognized government. Today Russia acknowledges the existence of South Ossetia & Abkhazia who in turn are the only acknowledgers of Transnistria; Turkey alone recognizes the TRNC, and so on, yet none of these are recognized as genuine independent governments by the international community as with the Taliban regime).

I repeat the Karzai government (like it or not) is the constituted government of Afghanistan today and holds the country's seat at the UN, something the Taliban never did. An insurgent is someone involved in armed resistance against said constituted government.

The whole point of the word insurgent is that it removes the loaded use of terminology such as freedom fighter or terrorist. If you can't accept that, how would you refer to the Taliban?

[GentlemanJim]

follum

If you can't accept that, how would you refer to the Taliban?

err! 'The Taliban'.

You know after your post number 13 which I enjoyed reading, I thought you knew what you were talking about, but whether you are ex military or not, it was clear from your dealings with Mr Dixon that you either no longer, or ever did have any empathy with the man on the ground. Your subsequent posts clearly illustrate that. How disappointing.

[folium]

Not quite sure what your point is but your picture of Reagan with the Afghans is utterly irrelevant. The picture was taken in 1985, 9 years before the Taliban came into existence. The Taliban were largely the creation of Pakistan's ISI to counterbalance the warlords backed by Saudi and Iran who had been in conflict since the fall of Najibullah's government in 1991. While Saudi, UAE & Pakistan did recognize the Taliban no other nation did (certainly not Afghanistan's neighbours, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, China or Iran if you want to stress geographical proximity as some proxy for legitimacy), hence they were never the recognized, constituted government of Afghanistan and thus never took the seat at the UN. See UN link below: http://www.un.org/ne...n-history.shtml I hope that you are not trying to claim that the Taliban are a misunderstood group of nationalists denied the right to rule their own country. No one comes out of the Afghan story smelling of roses and simplistic analysis does little to help anyone.

But your analysis is simplistic. The beginning of your last para is offensive, who has tried to claim that, where, and in what language? YOU, for some reason known to yourself had a go at thomdixon over his statement that the Taliban were defending their own country. It is true. Now you can argue all you like about the definitions of an insurgent, but suffice to say we do not belong there, and they do. They make up the majority tribe. The people sat in Reagan's office were freedom fighters, the Mujahadeen, who later became the Taliban politico-religious movement. Same men, same hats, different gang name. Koheesti They are fighting to get us out of their land, just as any Brit or Yank would do if their respective lands were under an occupying force. They are very bad people, they are hateful in fact but they are non of our business and we should not be there. The Taliban never ever bothered us, but boy they do now.

At least you seem to have dropped the claim that the Taliban were ever the constituted government of Afghanistan.

The failure to understand the logic behind the use of the term Insurgent, and subsequent comments, sadly reflects how discussion of Afghanisan soon breaks down into name-calling and partisan politics.

Your comment that the Mujahadeen morphed into the Taliban is completely wrong. This disparate coalition (at best) of anti-Soviet, anti-Najibullah, drug running brigands soon plunged the country into civil war as they fought over the spoils. This allowed the ISI created Taliban to seize power in 1994-95, but Mujahadeen such as Massoud and the Northern Alliance were still fighting the Taliban in 2001.

As for "The Taliban never bothered us" comment, that sounds like a line from Monty Python's "What have the Romans ever done for us?" sketch. Apart from the fact that the Taliban sheltered, supported and helped fund Al Qaida after they were kicked out by the Sudanese in 1996. Thus the US embassy bombings in Nairobi & Dar es Salaam 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 in Yemen and the Sept 2011 attacks were all planned and executed under the wing of Taliban support, sustenance and protection. So of course the Taliban have never bothered us (though of course that depends on your use of the word us, is that the royal use of the word or a more general description of the "western " world?)

[folium]

follum

If you can't accept that, how would you refer to the Taliban?

err! 'The Taliban'.

Trite comment. If you and Thom have a problem with describing the Taliban as insurgents, would you use the word freedom fighter, terrorist; guerilla, resistance fighter or something else?

You know after your post number 13 which I enjoyed reading, I thought you knew what you were talking about, but whether you are ex military or not, it was clear from your dealings with Mr Dixon that you either no longer, or ever did have any empathy with the man on the ground. Your subsequent posts clearly illustrate that. How disappointing.

Apart from making wonderfully patronising comments coupled with groundless assumptions, what point are you actually trying to make?

If there is an easy answer to the whole Afghan mess, one which will actually result in the lives of the majority of its long-suffering inhabitants being improved, could you tell us what that answer is?