www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... mpage.html Shocking, and probably resets any of the good feeling some have worked hard to achieve. Does this make our soldiers even more of a target than they already were?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... mpage.html Shocking, and probably resets any of the good feeling some have worked hard to achieve. Does this make our soldiers even more of a target than they already were?

What work that's been done? Installing a government that still regards women as utterly dispensable when faced by fundamentalist imbeciles who want to treat them like dirt because of their stupid interpretation of their stupid book?

But yes, more innocent victims of an insane, batsh*t stupid, decade-plus of a totally f**ked up war.

And if this soldier really did go on a shooting rampage because he'd had some sort of breakdown, then he's another of the victims.

And in related news, [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17333275more reasons to be happy we liberated Iraq[/url.

I'm not saying i agree with invading countries based on jumped up motives, but to say that the cannon fodder that go over don't go over with honourable intentions is a bit dismissive, i have friends over there and they try their best even if they don't want to be there.

This possibility seems to be being ignored by just about everyone. They're all so quick to be seen to condemn the person responsible, they don't seem to have asked [iwhy[/i a soldier might suddenly start shooting civilians without provocation.

From what I've read and heard, this possibility is being investigated quite seriously.

That may well be the case now. I haven't read anything on it for a day or so. Initially though, there was a clamour (from the President down) to assure everyone that the perpetrator would be 'brought to justice', without even a mention of how something like this might have occurred.

During the Vietnam war there were several reports of "rogue" soldiers running amok culminating in the infamous My Lai massacre uncovered by Seymour Hersh. My Lai caused unprecedented outcry in the US and expedited America's withdrawal from the country. But what most people didn't know was that incidents such as My Lai were far from uncommon. Indeed, they were [ivery regular[/i events. And the press - as it does today - [usaid nothing[/u. There's a horrifying documentary called "First Kill" in which US soldiers talk openly about murdering thousands of innocent Vietnamese in cold blood, cutting off ears, rape etc.

Right now that toadying snot Jeremy Vine is doing his best (in true BBC tradition) to offer the most ridiculous excuses whilst trumpeting the virtues of British soldiers over American forces, who are assumed to be "out of control". I refuse to believe this propaganda guff. Soldiers operating under intense stress - regardless of flag - and armed to the teeth with an array of lethal weaponry are going to kill civilians - by accident or in cold blood. [uIt is inevitable. [/u

Seriously, if Jeremy Vine showed the same level of bigotry to almost any other minority group as he's currently levelling at US soldiers he'd be bounced off the air. I swear the man is a paid propaganda stooge for the government.

I can't listen to his show any more. It's like reading the comments section on the Daily Mail website.

No and no. I have every faith in the Afghan people. They will see this as an act of a lone person and not of the US or coalition forces.

I hope you're right, but can't see it tbh.

I don't want to be disrespectful to those people at all, but their best intentions don't count for squat. How they are perceived in that country, and the concrete results of their presence and actions are what count.

When some positive ones turn up I'd like to hear about them.

But will they, one guy accidently sticks a Koran in the rubbish that gets burned and there's mayhem, over a frickin book of fiction!

Why - because you think they are savages?

Excellent point, Dally. This will be good.

Is it more racist to think they're incapable of being brought to heel in the required manner? Or is it more racist to think that the inherent nature of their society without a Western military presence means that they ought to be?

Fight it out.

I haven't suggested that., HY.

Service personnel go out there because they're told to, but I'm sure that there's a wide range of personal feelings about doing that amongst them. And I wouldn't suggest others – and didn't.

But regardless of that, I would question how much has been achieved – and it's certainly not down to the ordinary soldiers to do the political/diplomatic stuff (what I touched on above).



Me neither.



Indeed.

No, because I've noted reports of reactions to other incidents there. This is a pretty horrific incident and in the light of reactions to less horrific ones, I don't expect there to be nothing happening this time.

Like I said, I hope you're right

Who are these apparent 'they' of which you speak? The majority? A few nutters? Who exactly?

I'm guessing it's the same "they" you were on about when you were ascribing to that entire population a single solitary opinion which you hope will be the ultimate outcome.



In fact, since Chris never used the word even once in the entire thread, I can only imagine this is the source of your confusion.

I haven't mentioned "they" in either post



The follwoing stories

February 2012: Deadly protests after US troops inadvertently burn Koran
January 2012: Video shows US marines urinating on dead Afghans

from the BBC website have both had responses in the form of protest, some violent, some not, some large, some not so. So as I said, I expect a "reaction" to the news.

I can't see this one going by without some major reprisals. There is going to be mayhem over the next few weeks, an any Westerner will be classed as fair game.

We went in there to get rid of Bin Laden, his AQA mates and the Taliban who were offering them safe haven. The job got done pretty quickly, and that was the time to hand power to local warlords and leave.

We then saw mission creep into reconstruction and 'democracy'. Reconstruction? There was nothing to reconstruct!

The sooner we pull out the better. The place has always been a hole and always will be. Even if there is some semblance of normality at the moment, it will go to rat poop when we leave.

It's worth making the point that in June 2010 the Indian/Pakistani journalist Fareed Zakaria quoting US and Afghan sources claimed Al Qaeda has been decimated fighting coalition forces and is now down to no more than 50-100 active members. As a fighting force it is finished.

Which means the overwhelming majority of attacks on occupying forces are by the people of Afghanistan.

[iMeanwhile in May of 2010 NATO lost over 100 troops![/i

I should mention that Fareed (who writes extensively on Middle Eastern affairs for Newsweek) [uSUPPORTED[/u the war in Iraq and can hardly be described as a liberal.

The problem was that Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and much of the core leadership escaped after Tora Bora. That left the West with a conundrum. They don't really want to be occupying Afghanistan at all but if they pull out the the Taliban would have been back in numbers and retaken power in no time, with the support of the ISI and foreign manpower, of course. Al-Qaeda would be back in a safe haven with all the freedom and training/recruitment capability that gave them.

So the only option was to carry on the hunt and keep striking at AQ and the Taliban while building Afghan security forces and infrastructure strong enough, professional enough, and militarily and politically capable of resisting the Taliban and their supporters.

I think you're absolutely right. Afghanistan has always been a powder keg of warlords and clan rivalries, where money above all else buys loyalty (a fact the CIA knew full well in 2001). It's likely things will disintegrate again within a couple of years should the West pull all support.


I think you're forgetting a rather major player in Afghanistan? The Taliban?

AQ as a ground fighting force have been insignificant for years despite their roots, and is been little more than a loosely linked network of 'cells' and other groups in various countries linked by a common ideology. Until 2001 Afghanistan their ground capability was stronger with the country acting as the central hub for training and recruitment bases, a financing operation, the figureheads in residence and the support of the Taliban and the ISI.

The fight at the moment is to prevent a Taliban resurgence and keep them out of power.

Why are we doing that again? I forget.

Didn't work out all that well last time.