The British ask US to bomb a town in Afghanistan.

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5182368.stm

British forces in Afghanistan have defended their decision to call in US planes to drop 500lb bombs on Taleban fighters in a town in Helmand province.

Witnesses say there were many civilian deaths and injuries but UK forces said there was no evidence of any.

Civilians in Nawzad told the BBC that aircraft dropped at least three bombs, destroying shops and a school.
It is an interesting method. Our American friends would say that we bombed proposed targets on a demand. The British could say that they themselves haven't killed even one civilian by own hands.

Much of the town's market of 150 shops has been reduced to rubble and there are deep craters where the bombs struck.

The newly built two-storey school received a direct hit, causing its concrete roof to collapse.

British troops said the school was being used by the Taleban to launch mortars.
...
British forces have been protecting the district government headquarters in Nawzad for a month./quote]

I propose a radical method - demolish the whole town except the headquoters and the Taleban would never use any building. There is another proposition - to replace the headquoters somewhere in the desert. In this case at least Afghani children could attend the school and position of the headquoters would be more defendable.
 
#2
Typical Taleban technique, fighting from non-military targets such as schools and hospitals as it is 'un-ethical' to attack them. B0llocks. Just nuke the place and let our lads get home.
 
#3
stabandswat said:
Typical Taleban technique, fighting from non-military targets such as schools and hospitals as it is 'un-ethical' to attack them. B0llocks. Just nuke the place and let our lads get home.
Why not simply let the British get home? If "democratically elected" Afghani government is unable to defend own local headquoters by own army then it is unviable. So British military presence is rather an attempt to cure a cadaver.
 
#4
stabandswat said:
. Just nuke the place and let our lads get home.
Sounds like a plan. Are you a Septic by any chance?

MsG
 
#6
KGB_resident said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5182368.stm

British forces in Afghanistan have defended their decision to call in US planes to drop 500lb bombs on Taleban fighters in a town in Helmand province.

Witnesses say there were many civilian deaths and injuries but UK forces said there was no evidence of any.

Civilians in Nawzad told the BBC that aircraft dropped at least three bombs, destroying shops and a school.
It is an interesting method. Our American friends would say that we bombed proposed targets on a demand. The British could say that they themselves haven't killed even one civilian by own hands.

Much of the town's market of 150 shops has been reduced to rubble and there are deep craters where the bombs struck.

The newly built two-storey school received a direct hit, causing its concrete roof to collapse.

British troops said the school was being used by the Taleban to launch mortars.
...
British forces have been protecting the district government headquarters in Nawzad for a month./quote]

Do you really expect us to take any form of criticism from a Russian about justifying our actions in Afghanistan? Your implied crticisms are unwanted and smack of double standards You can come back and drip about us when we booby trap childrens toys. Haven't you got to go and queue for some beetroot?

I propose a radical method - demolish the whole town except the headquoters and the Taleban would never use any building. There is another proposition - to replace the headquoters somewhere in the desert. In this case at least Afghani children could attend the school and position of the headquoters would be more defendable.
 
#7
KGB_resident said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5182368.stm

British forces in Afghanistan have defended their decision to call in US planes to drop 500lb bombs on Taleban fighters in a town in Helmand province.

Witnesses say there were many civilian deaths and injuries but UK forces said there was no evidence of any.

Civilians in Nawzad told the BBC that aircraft dropped at least three bombs, destroying shops and a school.
It is an interesting method. Our American friends would say that we bombed proposed targets on a demand. The British could say that they themselves haven't killed even one civilian by own hands.

Much of the town's market of 150 shops has been reduced to rubble and there are deep craters where the bombs struck.

The newly built two-storey school received a direct hit, causing its concrete roof to collapse.

British troops said the school was being used by the Taleban to launch mortars.
...
British forces have been protecting the district government headquarters in Nawzad for a month./quote]



I propose a radical method - demolish the whole town except the headquoters and the Taleban would never use any building. There is another proposition - to replace the headquoters somewhere in the desert. In this case at least Afghani children could attend the school and position of the headquoters would be more defendable.
Do you really expect us to take any form of criticism from a Russian about justifying our actions in Afghanistan? Your implied crticisms are unwanted and smack of double standards You can come back and drip about us when we booby trap childrens toys. Haven't you got to go and queue for some beetroot?
 
#8
Speaks volumes of the state of our armed forces at the minute.
Bliar sends troops in to head the NATO precence, to show he's
a great leader and statesman, only to discover we cant provide
our own air cover.

Especially considering that A10 pilots prefer to attack British targets
than enemies.
 
#9
the_guru said:
Do you really expect us to take any form of criticism from a Russian about justifying our actions in Afghanistan?
Why not?

the_guru said:
Your implied crticisms are unwanted and smack of double standards
Unwanted? But why?

Double standards? Where do you see double standards?
 
#10
KGB_resident said:
the_guru said:
Do you really expect us to take any form of criticism from a Russian about justifying our actions in Afghanistan?
Why not?

the_guru said:
Your implied crticisms are unwanted and smack of double standards
Unwanted? But why?

Double standards? Where do you see double standards?
I can't see any double standars either, guru! Our Sergey may be provocative at times, but he always has the good grace to cede a point if he's wrong and he also listens and reacts to arguments.

I also can't see why he shouldn't be able to voice an opinion or bring forward criticism simply because he's an Ivan. After all, we (Irish, Brits, Welsh, Scots) feel free to criticise Russia (Chechnya, Iran, China), America (just about everything the Septics do), Zimbabwe (dictatorship) etc. Or are we allowed to do that but nobody else?

MsG
 
#11
Bugsy7 said:
Or are we allowed to do that but nobody else?

MsG

There's a difference though, we're British and Commonwealth, the rest of the World are just foreigners :eek: :eek:
 
#12
Thing is, why are the press banging on about what we are doing when the Taleban and causing mayhem and ambushing us?
 
#13
I think I've lost the plot on this thread already.

Sergey, do you object to British Forces being supported by US air power (Why the fcuk not) or is it the civilian casulaties that "witnesses" claim they saw (The UK military says there wasn't any) The military claim the school was being used to conceal / launch mortars. Its an acknowledged terrorist tactic. Whats the problem??

Oh, good result on BASAYEV by the way.
 
#14
The implied criticism "150 shops reduced to rubble" and "huge craters" sticks in my throat. The craters might still be there since the Soviet forces commited heinous war crimes against the Afghan people, indiscriminately bombing and killing countless thousands of civillians. At least when the Allies see it fit to bomb, we try to limit collateral damage as much as possible, with legal oversight on all missions. Not presenting medals for more kills. I repeat that I will not accept any criticsm of NATO policy there from any Russian.
 
#15
KGB_resident said:
stabandswat said:
Typical Taleban technique, fighting from non-military targets such as schools and hospitals as it is 'un-ethical' to attack them. B0llocks. Just nuke the place and let our lads get home.
Why not simply let the British get home? If "democratically elected" Afghani government is unable to defend own local headquoters by own army then it is unviable. So British military presence is rather an attempt to cure a cadaver.
To coin a phrase, 'We broke it, so we own it'.
 
#16
One of the lessons of the vietnam was a conflict run by politics and/or public opinion is doomed to failure. Being 'nice' to armed groups, giving the cease-fires and limiting your targets, only serves to prolong the conflict and consequently do even more harm to the non-combatants (civilians).

If the taliban are using a building as a base, blow it up. It is irellevant what its former purpose was.

If we are going to 'win' in afganistan, against an armed and commited group who are willing to hide behind civilians, then civilians are going to be killed. deal with it. Or, if civilian deaths are unacceptable, we must leave as the mission could only result in failure. judging by what the taliban have done in the past, the civilian population would suffer more if we left than if we 'bite the bullet' and let the military get on with it and accept the short term consequences.

I certaily take the point raised that having to use US air-power highlights the state of resources of our armed forces that we cannot provide our own air assets. Unfortunately, the government is paying for the Afganistan and Iraqi missions out of the MODs' normal operating budget, meaning that they have to reduce expenditure on other things, like providing air cover.
 
#17
Topics like always infuriate me, at the end of the day the British and US Armies, are engaged, in operations to rid Afghanistan of Terrorists, who after the help of the US and British SF ensured Russian withdrawal, have systematically destroyed the countries infrastructure beyond repair ”without Billions of US dollars”.

A third of the countries main income is opium, which destroys the lives of millions of stupid idiots who take it.

With countries like Afghanistan left un-checked, then the world for you our children and me will be a very unstable one indeed.

So what’s my fcuking point? Well it is this, if the TalieTubbies set up positions on top of schools, churches, hospitals etc, then they become legitimate targets, if destroying concrete saves flesh and blood “of our guys” then its always the right thing. If civilians are injured or killed in these actions then it is unfortunate, but this happens during conflict, and it going to get a lot worse for both sides, before it starts even looking like there is some improvement in that country.

Commanders used to ask themselves the 7 questions, now they have ask what will this cnut think or that cnut think what will this arsse say or that one. Soldiers “ who are human “ have enough pressure without people criticising them at every turn.

As far as I am concerned if our lads felt an Air strike was required, then they probaly left it to the last minute.
 
#18
TT, it seems we are in agreement. as you say, it's sad, but if it has to be done to do the job, then we have to let the guys get on with it and not let the ignorant 'do-gooders' push us into a situation which would be much worse for everyone.

sc
 
#20
I have recently come back from Helmand and know the very strict ROE that the guys have to operate under. Any airstrike in a built up area must be a legitimate target and be called in by a ground observer (a UK one at that). As I understand it from the statement from Col Charlie Knaggs, the UK/Afghan base in Nawzad was under fire and at risk of being over-run. All the strikes would have been observed and considering that the troops are living in the town, might have some idea of how many civilian casualties were taken.

The Taliban propaganda machine will want to push the line that hundreds were killed so as to make firing in built up areas absolutely taboo for coalition forces, thus giving the insurgents freedom of manoevre.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top