Five British troops KIA in Afghanisatn :(
 

Just heard on the news, a member of the ANP turned against the troops training them at a check point, shooting them all dead.

I used to support the war in Afghantistan, blieving that eventually persistance would bring things under control. With everything thats happened lately, corrupt elections... and now five troops murdered by the police force they were trying to train.

Enough... leave them to kill each other, its the only thing they know obviously. The whole place is just so backwards and barbaric. They seem to be very eager to meet their beloved Allah, if they want we have some nukes that can speed up that process...

RIP guys, condolences to the families of those lost. :down:

The problem is if we pull out that place will be one huge training camp for terrorists again in a heartbeat. But to be honest I don't see a way to win that either.
RIP to those who died.

You already have that in Pakistan. Pakistan is far more dangerous than Afghanistan has ever been - even and especially regarding terrorist recruitment .

Afghanistan is just a distraction from the real problem. A symptom, so to speak.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees...hfa48119_0.HTM

It is a tough read as it is a congressional record, but it contains interesting information on why we need to stay in AF.

And note, this was written in 1998.

If we withdraw troops then the threat will be on the streets of London, Birmingham, Manchester, New York, Washington... anywhere they want it to be.

We've chosen our ground to fight on and the people who are fighting are volunteers. They know their risks and are highly trained to deal with them. If they don't want to fight then they are free to leave the Army and return to civilian life. Despite this many UK soldiers are on their third or fourth tour of Afghanistan.

Where do you want the IED threat to be? On the ground in Afghanistan against trained soldiers or against tou every time you take the kids to school, going shopping, go to a pub etc?

I read this whilst in London yesterday and not trusting The Times as much as some of those in the south I couldn't help feeling that the paper was sensationalising the story.

One question I would ask though, is how in heavens name could he exit a high security area so easily after gunshots were heard and an alarm must have been raised?

Statements like the one above have been made often since the beginning of the the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and, well, around in the name of "war against terrorism". Statements like "we have to send troops there to do things that shady people in the government, business and higher echelons of military and intelligence agencies tell them to do or bad things will happen to you when you sleep" are beginning to wear pretty thin after 8 years of the same.

Could you offer some concrete proof that the overall situation isn't instead being made progressively worse for the future by continuing the conflict? I'll settle for even the tiniest piece of concrete evidence.

'High security area'? The only thing between the high security area and the outside world might be a Hesco wall - about 8ft high and easy to get over from the inside as it's designed to keep people out but has fire steps on the inside to allow defenders to fire over the wall from the inside. A month ago the maize crops were over head height and you can disappear into them easily enough. If it was an urban base, within 50m you'll be around a corner and into the local community. The people who could potentially stop the bastard were probably still in shock at the attack or were dealing with the multiple casualties.

Plus, gunshots are ten a penny in that part of the world!

This is and can be no concrete proof that we're not inflaming the situation but there can also be no proof that we're not doing the right thing - only time will tell.

My comments are my personal opinion based on my experiences and the information that's available to me.