A Ironic Fact of Afghan.

A

ALVIN

Guest
#1
You know, we are told by our government that one of the main reasons for our deployment in Afghanistan, is to keep terrorism off our streets here in the U.K. Well with the death toll now sadly nudgeing some 200 of our brave service people, not to mention the countless of seriously wounded, and the inevitable people in need of mental health treatment after they return home!! ------- Those sort of statistics are the equivalent of several major terroristst attacks on our home land here in the U.K!! -------- So much for protecting our citizens Mr.Brown.
 
#2
An*

A brilliant post and insight into this subject, you are out there with the best. Original and controversial, you
present such an eye opener on the current situation. Thanks and keep it up.
 
#3
ALVIN said:
Those sort of statistics are the equivalent of several major terroristst attacks on our home land here in the U.K!!
True, though terrorist attacks in the UK aren't just about body counts. And afterall, we get paid to maybe end up getting killed, civvies don't.
 
#4
Alvin makes an interesting observation though Fal. Does Herrick lead to an increased or decreased risk of terrorism in the UK? Government seems sure that it does, difficulty being that it's not really easy to qualify the numbers.
 
#5
If NATO fails in Afghanistan it will be seen , RIGHTLY , by the Jihadists as total military and political failure to combat terrorism and will be a red rag to a bull . " The infidels have been defeated in the battlefields of Afghanistan . Now to complete our victory we shall now make the streets of Europe our new frontline " they will shriek . I do wish the democratic governments would recognise this but it's seemingly beyond them :x
 
#6
Spanny:

Excellent point that seems lost on most Americans as well. Even a superficial study of the dynamics of the Afghan conflict demonstrates the folly of believing the Taliban (I realize I risk a generalization here given the numerous factions, tribal and otherwise) can ever be mollified, much les "pacified" through traditional Western diplomacy.

Whether our enlightened (and increasingly soft and spoiled) Western naivete can be overcome with cold reality such that we realize this is an idealogical and religious struggle of Biblical proportions that will only be held in check, and possibly won if we persist, is through force of arms. Of course, this presupposes that the application of such force will be intelligent and effective. This is made problematic by not only the current economic crisis and the strain it places on national defense budgets but even more importantly by "progressive" liberal governments that generally regard the use of military force as something to be avoided at virtually all costs and more particularly view their own military forces with condescending disdain.
 
#7
Spanny said:
If NATO fails in Afghanistan it will be seen , RIGHTLY , by the Jihadists as total military and political failure to combat terrorism and will be a red rag to a bull . " The infidels have been defeated in the battlefields of Afghanistan . Now to complete our victory we shall now make the streets of Europe our new frontline " they will shriek . I do wish the democratic governments would recognise this but it's seemingly beyond them :x
Don't be so dramatic! Let's look at the purely hypothetical case that NATO, by some bizarre co-incidence, manages to "win" in Affers. So what's going to happen then? Are the "Jihadists" then going to gather round and say: "OK, fellas, they've beaten us. Let's all go home now"?

The totally unnecessary, illegal wars in both Affers and Iraq served to radicalise whole generations of "Jihadists" who, before that, had not the slightest interest in Europe or the US.

Why ever do folks think that repeating the simplistic Bush/Cheney bollix about "fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here" makes it any truer?

MsG
 
#8
The only way the Nazis were defeated was when they wiped out . Do you think the Taliban with the British passports are going have a ticker tape parade in Kabul then tour the country giving out Korans if they defeat NATO ? Of course not

And can people stop coming out with rubbish that it's the Western intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan that's causing terrorism . Take a look at this forgotten terrorism case :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6195914.stm

They were going to bomb The Ministrey Of Sound nightclub because " It was full of slags " . Jihadists don't give a toss about Iraq or Afghanistan . Indeed they're murdering people there right now because they're the wrong sort of muslims . What inspires them is their hatred of the western lifestyle , you know " evil " things like people having sex outside of marraige , or enjoying an occasional alcoholic drink or even people having an opinion of their own on anything . Democratic civilisation didn't wake up to Hitler until it was almost too late so lets not make the same mistake with international terrorism
 
#9
This is the trouble with wishy-washy strategic intentions and discretionary deployment policies; the results, which are also invariably wishy-washy, can often be presented to further the political aims of any stakeholder.
 
#10
The trouble is the Koran tells the true believer that the word of Allah must be spread at any cost
 
#11
tropper66 said:
The trouble is the Koran tells the true believer that the word of Allah must be spread at any cost
No it isn't. The trouble is in the interpretation of the Koran - exactly the same trouble that any other faith has. A moderate interpretation of anything is successful and has been for thousands of years and the vast majority of any religion - when extreme factions use it for their own gain is when we have trouble. Don't just quote guff you have heard.
 
#12
Mr_C_Hinecap said:
tropper66 said:
The trouble is the Koran tells the true believer that the word of Allah must be spread at any cost
No it isn't. The trouble is in the interpretation of the Koran - exactly the same trouble that any other faith has. A moderate interpretation of anything is successful and has been for thousands of years and the vast majority of any religion - when extreme factions use it for their own gain is when we have trouble. Don't just quote guff you have heard.
It's not guff, I have read it £9.95 in Waterstones, but your average illiterate muslim, only get the interpretation that his Mullah gives him, as long as there is a lack of education in muslim countries there will be a problem. One of my Somali friends only the other day, pointed out to me that that most true believers interperat the Koran much like a Roman Cathlic did the Bible about five hundred years ago
 
#13
Bugsy said:
Spanny said:
If NATO fails in Afghanistan it will be seen , RIGHTLY , by the Jihadists as total military and political failure to combat terrorism and will be a red rag to a bull . " The infidels have been defeated in the battlefields of Afghanistan . Now to complete our victory we shall now make the streets of Europe our new frontline " they will shriek . I do wish the democratic governments would recognise this but it's seemingly beyond them :x
Don't be so dramatic! Let's look at the purely hypothetical case that NATO, by some bizarre co-incidence, manages to "win" in Affers. So what's going to happen then? Are the "Jihadists" then going to gather round and say: "OK, fellas, they've beaten us. Let's all go home now"?

The totally unnecessary, illegal wars in both Affers and Iraq served to radicalise whole generations of "Jihadists" who, before that, had not the slightest interest in Europe or the US.

Why ever do folks think that repeating the simplistic Bush/Cheney bollix about "fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here" makes it any truer?

MsG
The fact remains that if we withdrew from Afg, the Jihadists WOULD up the ante, they already use the withdrawal of the soviets as proof that they are able to beat the West.

We will not beat them with diplomacy or concessions, we will beat them by putting hundreds of thousands of them into body bags.. then they will get the message.

This is a war of attrition, the sooner the politicos grasp that simple fact and deal with it accordingly the better.

Half arrsed efforts against them will only result in more deaths in the long term.

Death is their currency, we need to make their Jihad prohibitevly expensive.
 

Command_doh

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
Spanny said:
If NATO fails in Afghanistan it will be seen , RIGHTLY , by the Jihadists as total military and political failure to combat terrorism and will be a red rag to a bull
Nothing has changed since the 1970's and 80's when the Muj/Jihadi's (most of whom were not domestic Afghan's, as now) fought and 'won' against the mighty Russian machine. They hated the infidel U.S. then, but happily took their vast sums of cash, weapons (how many Stingers are still unaccounted for?) and Intel as it achieved their goal. Nothing will change, we are just p1ssing money down the toilet, only to pull out in abject failure 10 years down the road, in a 'phased withdrawal, having achieved marked success in the war on terror'. Which means fcuk all, as its not quantifiable, and there is no end game to this scenario. If Washington, Whitehall and the like bothered to read the Qu'ran and the doctrine that drives these fighters, they would understand that there is NEVER any end to the Dar al Harb until there is nothing else but Islam. Worldwide. They are fighting a just cause in their eyes, happily sacrifice their lives for the jihad, often going out deliberately to die in battle to secure modest financial security for their impoverished families.

How, pray tell, do our career soldiers just doing their best (in an impossible situation and with sub - standard equipment) win against that?
 
#15
Spanny said:
And can people stop coming out with rubbish that it's the Western intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan that's causing terrorism . Take a look at this forgotten terrorism case :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6195914.stm

They were going to bomb The Ministrey Of Sound nightclub because " It was full of slags " .
You do actually realise that the link you've provided is dated 30 April 2007? That would be just short of six years after things banged off in Affers, and around four years after the initial invasion of Iraq.

So, it might be just me, but I believe that's called an own goal, is it not?

MsG
 
#17
Bugsy said:
Spanny said:
And can people stop coming out with rubbish that it's the Western intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan that's causing terrorism . Take a look at this forgotten terrorism case :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6195914.stm

They were going to bomb The Ministrey Of Sound nightclub because " It was full of slags " .
You do actually realise that the link you've provided is dated 30 April 2007? That would be just short of six years after things banged off in Affers, and around four years after the initial invasion of Iraq.

So, it might be just me, but I believe that's called an own goal, is it not?

MsG
What about all the attacks well prior to 9/11? There was an ever increasing tempo to the attacks.

You imply that if we leave the Islamists alone they will simply go away?

Maybe if we had left poor mr Hitler alone he would have gone away too? My God, all those lives that could have been saved by not having WW2.

Oh if only you were in charge of defence, we could all sleep safely in our beds at night, safe in the knowledge that the religion of peace would let us get on with our lives.

:roll:
 
#18
how many Stingers are still unaccounted for?
As an aside, I doubt very much a 20 year old Stinger would be serviceable (as one of the last to be delivered). The electronics would be U\S unless they were stored in a decent controlled atmosphere facility, and even then many would suffer unit failures, and (ammo techs please feel free to contradict me here) the chemical propellent in the missiles themselves would have broken down or become unstable a long time ago.
 
#19
The_Coming_Man said:
Bugsy said:
Spanny said:
If NATO fails in Afghanistan it will be seen , RIGHTLY , by the Jihadists as total military and political failure to combat terrorism and will be a red rag to a bull . " The infidels have been defeated in the battlefields of Afghanistan . Now to complete our victory we shall now make the streets of Europe our new frontline " they will shriek . I do wish the democratic governments would recognise this but it's seemingly beyond them :x
Don't be so dramatic! Let's look at the purely hypothetical case that NATO, by some bizarre co-incidence, manages to "win" in Affers. So what's going to happen then? Are the "Jihadists" then going to gather round and say: "OK, fellas, they've beaten us. Let's all go home now"?

The totally unnecessary, illegal wars in both Affers and Iraq served to radicalise whole generations of "Jihadists" who, before that, had not the slightest interest in Europe or the US.

Why ever do folks think that repeating the simplistic Bush/Cheney bollix about "fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here" makes it any truer?

MsG
The fact remains that if we withdrew from Afg, the Jihadists WOULD up the ante, they already use the withdrawal of the soviets as proof that they are able to beat the West.

We will not beat them with diplomacy or concessions, we will beat them by putting hundreds of thousands of them into body bags.. then they will get the message.

This is a war of attrition, the sooner the politicos grasp that simple fact and deal with it accordingly the better.

Half arrsed efforts against them will only result in more deaths in the long term.

Death is their currency, we need to make their Jihad prohibitevly expensive.
Let's recall history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan

The Soviet occupation resulted in the killings of between six hundred thousand and 2 million Afghan civilians. Over 5 million Afghans fled their country to Pakistan, Iran and other parts of the world.
So hundreds thousands were killed, millions fled and ... it did not work. Only total extermination and/or deportation (that is impossible for humanitarian, moral reasons) would be effective to resolve the problem with insurgency in Afghanistan.

Soviet military used tough methods, heavy bombings. What NATO could do in Afghanistan that Soviet forces did not?

And note, there was puppet regime in Kabul, quite doable with own army and police forces. 2 years pro-Soviet government in Kabul was able to be at power after the withdrawal of the Soviet army.

By contrast current pro-American puppet regime does not have anything that could be called as an army. The police is a rather a band of gangsters.

So Taliban knows that the West will have to quite Afghanistan and it is a matter of time.

Fighting with Taliban is like pushing a spring. You think that making it smaler is a progress but at one moment you realise that you are unable to remove you hand without a damage. In our case a damage to reputation.

The Soviet union removed the Hand but it was too late.
 
#20
Speedy said:
how many Stingers are still unaccounted for?
As an aside, I doubt very much a 20 year old Stinger would be serviceable (as one of the last to be delivered). The electronics would be U\S unless they were stored in a decent controlled atmosphere facility, and even then many would suffer unit failures, and (ammo techs please feel free to contradict me here) the chemical propellent in the missiles themselves would have broken down or become unstable a long time ago.
The US made serious efforts to recover them, most are accounted for, the bottom line is, if they were servicable, they would use them.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Redmon1 The NAAFI Bar 28
Arfur The Intelligence Cell 6
eye_spy Infantry 8

Similar threads

Latest Threads