Taliban behead ten Afgan Police

#1
Just seen a news article re above I would post a link but can't. I will leave that to a youngster. It was apparently in a fairly calm area. Makes me wonder what will happen when we lose in 2015 oh sorry I meant cease combat ops. I suspect we won't be able to move without stepping on a head.
 
P

pp0470

Guest
#4
(Reuters) - Taliban insurgents beheaded six Afghan police during a raid on government buildings in northern Baghlan province, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said on Wednesday.

Tuesday's attack by the Taliban targeted a police post and a district government building in a province where they have been largely absent until recently.


A spokesman for the Taliban confirmed the attack, but denied the alliance's report on beheadings.
While the Taliban has carried out beheadings before, the governor of Baghlan, Abdul Majid, said he was unaware of the mutilation report.
 
#5
Just seen a news article re above I would post a link but can't. I will leave that to a youngster. It was apparently in a fairly calm area. Makes me wonder what will happen when we lose in 2015 oh sorry I meant cease combat ops. I suspect we won't be able to move without stepping on a head.
Tut Tut, inform the local Taliban commander that his men have just offended the Police's rights as muslims and the perpetrators must be immediately returned home to face an inquiry!! Anybody would think they were GHURKAS!

FFS this is just typical of what Al Qaeda, the Taliban & other Islamic nutters have been doing in Iraq, Chechnya, The Yeman and Afghanistan all along, you cannot treat these animals as though they are "civilised" , they only respond to FORCE and any so called "Kid glove" tactics when dealing with them is looked upon as WEAKNESS on the West's part! By all means try not to harm non combatants, but hit the ones fighting as hard as possible with as much as possible!
 
#7
It's the nature of the beast to act like a beast. I wonder whether our genial Taliban Decapitator Squad are aware that this violates the 'Rules of Combat and 'Good Form,' what?
 
#9
I'm pretty sure OPTAG mentions that they're 'the baddies' and we're 'the goodies'.

Can anyone post the JSP that explains the difference? Subject to OPSEC, of course.
 
#11
I'd personally prefer that we're not judged the same standards as the Taliban. It winds up excusing most of what they do, in the end.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#12
I'd personally prefer that we're not judged the same standards as the Taliban. It winds up excusing most of what they do, in the end.
Most of what the multiple scum we fight do gets excused by our intellegensia anyway. Being the good guys has never delivered a war-winning advantage in any of the post-war coin ops I can think of. In fact, our only real success, Malaya, involved forced mass relocations among other measures.

The correct model for the effective pacification of Afghanistan is the Highland Pacification following the '45. Like the Afghans, the Highlanders were a deeply religious society, clannish, organised for fighting, bred to war and established in operationally challenging terrain. Peace and civilisation were finally established the only way they could be; through a combination of infrastructure improvement, economic dislocation and re-alignment, cultural suppression and ruthless brutality towards any signs of opposition. No-one's got the bottle for that in Afghanistan and, even if they did, we have no mandate, moral or political, to change their world, which is why we shouldn't even be trying. We'll continue to lose lives by dabbling in a politically correct way to salve those tender liberal consciences and then, when nobody's looking, we'll slink away, leaving Afghanistan to plunge back into the Middle Ages and the bereaved to wonder what it was all for. In a better world, Western leadership would have more direct experience of life and the realities of these Third World sh1t pits. Then perhaps they might be more cautious about launching under-resourced moral crusades with terms of engagement designed, not with victory in mind, but with the intention of reducing angst and indigestion within the walls of elite addresses in Islington and Hampstead.
 
#13
FF - not a bad post on the post '45 era. Missing shit loads mind and you forgot to mention forced emigration at the point of a hired bayonet. You also make it sound as though this was an enacted policy and whilst it was (to a certain extent) legal, there was no mandate from the government of the day. It was greedy landlords pursuing their own agenda, that has raped and shaped the highlands into what you see today. Where would you forcibly relocate these Afghan 'clansmen' to? - I'm pretty sure the US Canada and Australia wouldn't really want them at the moment!

Sorry to go off thread, but (I'm sure this has been mentioned before) the Islamic world is currently enjoying the year 1431(AH). If we look at our version of events in 1431AD we might see some comparrisons to our own behaviour. By that flawed recknoning, I reckon we might start seeing some success in Afghan by 2589AD - now about that Defence budget................
 
#14
Being the good guys has never delivered a war-winning advantage in any of the post-war coin ops I can think of.
vom Kriege said:
even the final decision of a whole war is not always to be regarded as absolute. The conquered state often sees in it only a passing evil, which may be repaired in after times by means of political combinations. How much this also must modify the degree of tension and the vigour of the efforts made is evident in itself.
Serving the political end would be a great deal easier if it had been decided what that end was in any concrete fashion, but malkying anyone who gets in our way is not the solution. We don't even know where our way leads, let alone what the step after and the step after that will look like.

To which I would add Mark 8:36.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
Serving the political end would be a great deal easier if it had been decided what that end was in any concrete fashion, but malkying anyone who gets in our way is not the solution. We don't even know where our way leads, let alone what the step after and the step after that will look like.

To which I would add Mark 8:36.
But it is at least a more coherent policy than any we're pursuing at the moment (my bold). I agree that stating clearly what we're trying to do and how things will look at the end of it would be an excellent starting point.
 
#18
But it is at least a more coherent policy than any we're pursuing at the moment (my bold). I agree that stating clearly what we're trying to do and how things will look at the end of it would be an excellent starting point.
If we haven't defined what 'our way' is, then we can't be sure that the malkying we're doing serves our purpose. It smacks more of activity to give the illusion of progress.
 
#19
Step away from the outrage bus, Sick as it may be, the Taliban and other insurgent groups have not signed the Geneva Convention so if they did lob the heads off they havent broken any conventions. Our country has signed the conventions therefore are bound by those laws.

I think that the whole 'disrespecting the muslim' thing comes from separating the head from the body and taking it with you, not the actual cutting it off bit. If the taliban did cut these heads off and they left the heads with the body then in their eyes its OK as the head and body can be buried together.
 
#20
Some very good posts, I liked "FF" 's particularly, "Smart as carrots" , I dont think we are trying to "gain the whole world", I ,think the original intention was to stop Afghanistan being a haven and training base for Islamic terrorism, Al Qaeda in particular!
"BPS666" is fairly accurate about the mediaeval mindset of most of the population, fairly common amongst most of the Islamic religious fanatics!
As I said on another post I watched a report on the BBC World the other night where they were interviewing various Pakistani & Afghan Journalists on the future of Afghanistan. The Taliban wouldn't be interviewed but sent a statement basically saying they would not negotiate whilst Foreign troops were on Afghan soil, and that they didn't need to as the West were already "de facto" beaten and talking of withdrawing!
One Afghani journalist also sounded to be very pragmatic when he commented " most Afghanis did not really want the Taliban to return to power, BUT the Taliban were heavily armed and TOTALLY RUTHLESS in getting their way"! In his opinion the Taliban would probably take over when Western troops left!
Unless the West is prepared to become as ruthless as the Taliban and TOTALLY change the mindset, culture, infrastructure & economy of the whole of that region, including parts of Iran & Pakistan, we are just wasting money and more importantly the lives of our troops!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads