It seems that every week there are British soldiers getting killed in Afghanistan, how come its the British who are suffering all the casualties.? i thought the Americans had taken charge of the most dangerous parts of the country, if i remember correctly they thought the British were not up to the job :huh:

Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country as of February 14, 2011

USA: 1,402*
UK: 356

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

It seems that every week there are British soldiers getting killed in Afghanistan, how come its the British who are suffering all the casualties.? i thought the Americans had taken charge of the most dangerous parts of the country, if i remember correctly they thought the British were not up to the job :huh:

If your information is right then our troops need to come home and let the Americans continue.

The British casualties get coverage in our media, whereas the American ones don't so much, so it probably seems that we've getting more.

Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country as of February 14, 2011

USA: 1,402*
UK: 356

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

The British casualties get coverage in our media, whereas the American ones don't so much, so it probably seems that we've getting more.

Ok i understand now...but i am sure they used to tell us if there were any American, British, or any other nationals killed..i guess there must be that many that they just dont think its news any more

If your information is right then our troops need to come home and let the Americans continue.


Why? If the Taleban take over then all the Afghan asylum seekers will be coming to Britain.
In the best interest they stay and help that from happening.

[/B]


Why? If the Taleban take over then all the Afghan asylum seekers will be coming to Britain.
In the best interest they stay and help that from happening.

Afghan asylum seakers can go to Pakistan. Its next door.

Afghan asylum seakers can go to Pakistan. Its next door.

They dont want to go to Pakistan. They want to go where the free hand outs are

They dont want to go to Pakistan. They want to go where the free hand outs are

And how are they going to get here, on AirTaliban?

And how are they going to get here, on AirTaliban?

Usual way. Across Turkey, the Balkans and then to a camp on the coast of Calais where the Froggies will take care of them while they petition for permanent asylum status in the UK :D

Afghan asylum seakers can go to Pakistan. Its next door.

Most of them do.

Only 4% of the world's refugees end up in Britain, despite us being the fifth richest country in the world and responsible for the destabilisation of Afghanistan in the first place.

Most of them do.

Only 4% of the world's refugees end up in Britain, despite us being the fifth richest country in the world and responsible for the destabilisation of Afghanistan in the first place.

I thought the Soviets were responsible for that back in the late 70s

[/B]

I thought the Soviets were responsible for that back in the late 70s

Yes, when Britain and the US was arming, funding and arming the Taliban.

The fundamentalists only took power after the CIA arranged the coup against Najibullah, the old communist ruler who led a progressive, tolerant regime that saw female students at Kabul university attend classes in mini skirts!

Western meddling saw the rise of the zealots, with the results we see today.

Yes, when Britain and the US was arming, funding and arming the Taliban.

The fundamentalists only took power after the CIA arranged the coup against Najibullah, the old communist ruler who led a progressive, tolerant regime that saw female students at Kabul university attend classes in mini skirts!

Western meddling saw the rise of the zealots, with the results we see today.

I think the words you are looking for are "Yes, when the US was arming, funding and arming the Taliban".

I think the words you are looking for are "Yes, when the US was arming, funding and arming the Taliban".

Did you know the SAS secretly fought with the taliban?

Tom Carew, a former British SAS soldier who secretly fought for the mujaheddin told the August 13, 2000, British Observer, “The Americans were keen to teach the Afghans the techniques of urban terrorism — car bombing and so on — so that they could strike at the Russians in major towns ... Many of them are now using their knowledge and expertise to wage war on everything they hate.”

Did you know the SAS secretly fought with the taliban?

Tom Carew, a former British SAS soldier who secretly fought for the mujaheddin told the August 13, 2000, British Observer, “The Americans were keen to teach the Afghans the techniques of urban terrorism — car bombing and so on — so that they could strike at the Russians in major towns ... Many of them are now using their knowledge and expertise to wage war on everything they hate.”

Is that a quote spindrift?

I thought the Soviets were responsible for that back in the late 70s

We started the trend.

During the nineteenth century, Afghanistan was invaded twice by Britain, first during the First Anglo-Afghan War of 1838–1842, and again in the Second Anglo-Afghan War of 1878–1880. Both times with the intention of limiting Russian influence in the country, and quelling local tribal leaders.

Interestingly it's been revealed that the CIA was supplying arms to Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet invasion of 1980.

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

LINK (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html)

If the Americans were trying to destabalize the then pro-Soviet Afghan government, it puts a whole new spin on the Soviet decision to invade.

Indeed at the time, the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan.

Of course, they were not believed by most in the West.

Poor Afghanistan, it does seem to have suffered from a lot of backroom political shenanigans over the centuries. Can't think why they're pi$$ed at us.

Of course, to the average cabbage man in the street, it's a simple story of "our boys" versus the Mad Mullahs.

We started the trend.

During the nineteenth century, Afghanistan was invaded twice by Britain, first during the First Anglo-Afghan War of 1838–1842, and again in the Second Anglo-Afghan War of 1878–1880. Both times with the intention of limiting Russian influence in the country, and quelling local tribal leaders.

Interestingly it's been revealed that the CIA was supplying arms to Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet invasion of 1980.



LINK (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html)

If the Americans were trying to destabalize the then pro-Soviet Afghan government, it puts a whole new spin on the Soviet decision to invade.

Indeed at the time, the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan.

Of course, they were not believed by most in the West.

Poor Afghanistan, it does seem to have suffered from a lot of backroom political shenanigans over the centuries. Can't think why they're pi$$ed at us.

Of course, to the average cabbage man in the street, it's a simple story of "our boys" versus the Mad Mullahs.
Why are our troops there now and what are our real aims ?

Yes, when Britain and the US was arming, funding and arming the Taliban.

The fundamentalists only took power after the CIA arranged the coup against Najibullah, the old communist ruler who led a progressive, tolerant regime that saw female students at Kabul university attend classes in mini skirts!

Western meddling saw the rise of the zealots, with the results we see today.

It was all payback in return for the Russians arming the VC and North Vietnamese a few years previously. That's politics.

The Taleban should have handed over Bin Laden and his crowd after 9/11 but they didnt want to. If they had then there would have been no war except among themselves which has always been a fact of life in Afghanistan.

My old dad served five years in the British army in India and Pakistan. Saw the Kybrer Pass, Karachi, Peshawar and all around that area. He said many times it was a very dodgy place to be even back then. Ambushes of convoys either military or civilian were commonplace.

Afghan asylum seakers can go to Pakistan. Its next door.

They dont want to go to Pakistan. They want to go where the free hand outs are

Pakistan has over 1.7million Afghan refugees already. :roll:
Link here= http://www.unhcr.org/4c6e55cc9.html

Most of them do.

Only 4% of the world's refugees end up in Britain, despite us being the fifth richest country in the world and responsible for the destabilisation of Afghanistan in the first place.

so maybe when we beat the germans twice we should have just let them all come over :loopy::loopy::loopy::loopy::loopy::loopy:

It seems that every week there are British soldiers getting killed in Afghanistan, how come its the British who are suffering all the casualties.? i thought the Americans had taken charge of the most dangerous parts of the country, if i remember correctly they thought the British were not up to the job :huh:

The americans are doing the invading bit we are just clearing up the mess, sercure the area and defusing bombs, ( not very well if you read the papers ) Britiah are not fighting all they are doing to falling into traps lay by farmer turn solders and getting hurt by bombs on street, Watch the film ' hurt locker' to see they are not fighting just clearing up and clear bombs

so maybe when we beat the germans twice we should have just let them all come over :loopy::loopy::loopy::loopy::loopy::loopy:

what about the latest, they beat us 4-1, is no good just remember the good times and not recently

Yes, when Britain and the US was arming, funding and arming the Taliban.

endlessly repeating this garbage will never make it true.

so maybe when we beat the germans twice we should have just let them all come over :loopy::loopy::loopy::loopy::loopy::loopy:

The Germans are free to come to Britain, just as we are free to go there. We're in the EU, remember?

Lets see. What's happening over there?

Troops are getting killed by Taliban using weapons paid for by selling drugs to Americans.

So who wants to point out the ironies, stupidity and double standards.
Plenty to go at.

endlessly repeating this garbage will never make it true.

It's still going on:

http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/how-the-us-funds-the-taliban-1

The American executive I talked to was fairly specific about it: "The Army is basically paying the Taliban not to shoot at them. It is Department of Defense money." That is something everyone seems to agree on.

Mike Hanna is the project manager for a trucking company called Afghan American Army Services. The company, which still operates in Afghanistan, had been trucking for the United States for years but lost out in the Host Nation Trucking contract that NCL won. Hanna explained the security realities quite simply: "You are paying the people in the local areas--some are warlords, some are politicians in the police force--to move your trucks through."


End quote.

Mujhadeens, Taliban, Al-Qaeda were recruited as a figting force to crush communism and defeat Soviets in Afghanistan.

Over 100,000 Muslim fighters then called Jehadis by Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr were created, bred, nurtured, financed, armed and trained by the USA and Europe during the cold war.

They were recruited by CIA, MI5 and European intelligence services from all over the Muslim countries and sent to Pakistan to fight against Soviet Union to liberate Afghanistan from Evil Soviet imperialism and infidels ideology-Communism, as called by Ronald Reagan.

USA then financed, funded and encouraged Islamic parties, to recruit freedom fighters, sympathisers and paid dollars to build madrassas and camps in Pakistan to house these freedom fighters until they were ready to fight in Afghanistan.

80s-90s, Pentagon in had over two million Qurans printed and distributed freely in the Middle East and Muslim countries encouraging millions of Muslims to fight communism as it was threatening Islam.

Soon after these Muslim warriors defeated and expelled the Soviets, they were abandoned by the West and called terrorists, insurgents etc, and that has made these men virulently against the West.

Over sixty five thousand Muslim fighters died fighting to crush Soviet empire. Those who survived were abandoned, discarded as nobodies by the West and one of them was Osma-bin laden, once a close buddy of USA were refused entry into their countries by their own governments and took refuge any where they could and 75% of them disappeared in Pakistan.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/16/pakistan.usa

'the west armed the Taliban' is just a complete misconception.

it has its roots in a curious inability to distinguish between the anti-Soviet mujahideen, which was backed by the US and others in the 1980s, and the Taliban, which wasn't even formed until 1994 and which never received any backing at all from anybody except the Pakistani ISI and the Saudis.

US never funded the Taliban but the Mujahideen, through the ISI - the overwhelming majority of them were anti Taliban and who in many cases sacrificed their lives in the fight against Taliban and Arabs like Bin Laden for the sake of the Afghan people and their land.

Mujahideen was an umbrella organization which mainly included Afghan warriors, fighting the oppressive Soviet Union who went about raping Afghan women, ******* on Afghan mosques and planting mines to decapitate the children, including cheap tactics like placing bombs in toys so that they wouldn't grow up and join the Jihad against the communists.

the Mujahideen was a joint effort by all the Afghan ethnic groups with the aim of defeating what they saw as the the godless communist barbarians. These were :

1. Pasthuns (majority)

2. Tajiks

3. Uzbeks

4. Hazaras (Shias,funded by Iran).

Once the Soviets left with the fall of Kabul suddenly a civil war breaks out between these ethnic groups.

Out of these ethnic groups a fanatical Pasthun dominated ISI funded group, the Taliban, emerged the winner after having formed in 1994, though the civil war started in 1992. Some, but only a very few of the Mujahid leaders, gravitated towards this new Taliban outfit who were also supported by Osama and KSA.

Ahmad Shah Massoud, The Lion of Panjshir was a major pain in the ass to the Soviets and later instrumental in resisting the Taliban. He was assassinated by two Arab assholes in a suicide bombing incident just two days before 9/11.

Abdul Haq, was another hero who fought and died for Afghanistan. Widely loved all over the world, appreciated by the Americans and others as a leader who could have united Afghanistan, he was executed by the Taliban. He had ties with CIA with the aim of overthrowing the Taliban.

when I see people on the web claiming that the US funded or even worse 'made' the Taliban, it makes me mad because the Taliban are a totally different kettle of fish to the Mujahideen like Massoud and Haq, who were their enemies and who were both ultimately killed by them. Unlike the Taliban, they didn't target women and children, and stone people on football grounds like the cowards of Taliban did and will do again if they are given the chance. They were true Afghan heroes and it is a total insult to them and the thousands of people like them to lump them together with the Taliban.

It's still going on:

http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/how-the-us-funds-the-taliban-1

The American executive I talked to was fairly specific about it: "The Army is basically paying the Taliban not to shoot at them. It is Department of Defense money." That is something everyone seems to agree on.

Mike Hanna is the project manager for a trucking company called Afghan American Army Services. The company, which still operates in Afghanistan, had been trucking for the United States for years but lost out in the Host Nation Trucking contract that NCL won. Hanna explained the security realities quite simply: "You are paying the people in the local areas--some are warlords, some are politicians in the police force--to move your trucks through."


End quote.

Mujhadeens, Taliban, Al-Qaeda were recruited as a figting force to crush communism and defeat Soviets in Afghanistan.

Over 100,000 Muslim fighters then called Jehadis by Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr were created, bred, nurtured, financed, armed and trained by the USA and Europe during the cold war.

They were recruited by CIA, MI5 and European intelligence services from all over the Muslim countries and sent to Pakistan to fight against Soviet Union to liberate Afghanistan from Evil Soviet imperialism and infidels ideology-Communism, as called by Ronald Reagan.

USA then financed, funded and encouraged Islamic parties, to recruit freedom fighters, sympathisers and paid dollars to build madrassas and camps in Pakistan to house these freedom fighters until they were ready to fight in Afghanistan.

80s-90s, Pentagon in had over two million Qurans printed and distributed freely in the Middle East and Muslim countries encouraging millions of Muslims to fight communism as it was threatening Islam.

Soon after these Muslim warriors defeated and expelled the Soviets, they were abandoned by the West and called terrorists, insurgents etc, and that has made these men virulently against the West.

Over sixty five thousand Muslim fighters died fighting to crush Soviet empire. Those who survived were abandoned, discarded as nobodies by the West and one of them was Osma-bin laden, once a close buddy of USA were refused entry into their countries by their own governments and took refuge any where they could and 75% of them disappeared in Pakistan.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/16/pakistan.usa


Sour grapes from Mr Hanna which leaves the truth of his statemet very much in doubt

Lets see. What's happening over there?

Troops are getting killed by Taliban using weapons paid for by selling drugs to Americans.

So who wants to point out the ironies, stupidity and double standards.
Plenty to go at.

That's is a tired old argument of yours and completely inaccurate

Karzai is taking money both from the Taleban and the Iranians. By associating with the Taleban he is hoping that if the NATO forces decide to abandon the country and leave it to the Taleban he'll find some favour with the Taleban. Being the crook that he is, he's also open to accepting money from other enemies which is why he is receiving money from Iran, who incidentally are supplying arms to the Taleban at the same time.

observe how the Socialist Worker types like him are always quick to jump on anybody who, in the west, says that all Muslims are terrorists, and hate liberal democratic values, etc.

this pathetic Marxist line changes out in Asia when people are confronted with terrible living standards and poverty from which theocracy is the least equipped to deliver them. Suddenly, it's all about 'resistance'.

observe how the Socialist Worker types like him are always quick to jump on anybody who, in the west, says that all Muslims are terrorists, and hate liberal democratic values, etc.

Well spotted, after all, only the Israelis are supposed to enjoy the unyielding backing of their lickspittle supporters, isn't it?

x

Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country as of February 14, 2011

USA: 1,402*
UK: 356

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

War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

Troop numbers:
United States – 90,000
United Kingdom – 9,500

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

Deaths
US = 1/65 troops
UK = 1/27 troops

The British casualties get coverage in our media, whereas the American ones don't so much, so it probably seems that we've getting more.

Yes, probably. And unfortunately, when they do happne, they all seem to happen at once. Is it four British deaths in the last week? :(

x

The British casualties get coverage in our media, whereas the American ones don't so much, so it probably seems that we've getting more.


Say what? :huh:
Better get acqainted with the facts before posting statements like this

Say what? :huh:
Better get acqainted with the facts before posting statements like this

If you're criticising the perception we have in the UK, in that it seems to the UK population that more UK troops are dying, then the poster is correct.

US troop deaths in Afghanistan are rarely mentioned on UK news, neither are the deaths or Pakistani troops, who are also fighting the Taliban.

If you're criticising the perception we have in the UK, in that it seems to the UK population that more UK troops are dying, then the poster is correct.

US troop deaths in Afghanistan are rarely mentioned on UK news, neither are the deaths or Pakistani troops, who are also fighting the Taliban.

But the fact is that more US troops are dying aren't they

Maybe the poster doesnt have access to the range of news channels that are available in my part of the world.

From what I see the US News channels specifically mention American casualties as "US troops killed" but when members of other forces are killed thay are referred to as members of the Coalition or NATO forces with no details of nationality

On the other hand the BBC World News Service specifically detail the nationalities of all casualties

But the fact is that more US troops are dying aren't they

Yes, when we see the statistics, it is obvious that more US troops have been killed, but the nice, friendly, politically correct BBC News don't like to bombard us (poor choice of words!) with all these horrible deaths, so on the national BBC News at least, US troop deaths are rarely mentioned.

I think the UK has suffered four troop deaths in the last week in Afghanistan. And if most people rely on the BBC for their news, then the four publicised British troop deaths will be in the public mind far more than the unmentioned number of US troop deaths.

...

On the other hand the BBC World News Service specifically detail the nationalities of all casualties

Really? Now that is surprising, but I suppose their news stories would be intended at a world audience so may include those figures.

Yes, when we see the statistics, it is obvious that more US troops have been killed, but the nice, friendly, politically correct BBC News don't like to bombard us (poor choice of words!) with all these horrible deaths, so on the national BBC News at least, US troop deaths are rarely mentioned.

I think the UK has suffered four troop deaths in the last week in Afghanistan. And if most people rely on the BBC for their news, then the four publicised British troop deaths will be in the public mind far more than the unmentioned number of US troop deaths.

...



Really? Now that is surprising, but I suppose their news stories would be intended at a world audience so may include those figures.

You dont get the BBC News Service that we get. They provide a lot of American news but also a lot of world news.
An excellent news channel in my opinion.

You dont get the BBC News Service that we get. They provide a lot of American news but also a lot of world news.
An excellent news channel in my opinion.

I don't think that's available on UK Freeview, I've started watching the English Al Jazeera news channel instead. It's surprisingly good :D

I don't think that's available on UK Freeview, I've started watching the English Al Jazeera news channel instead. It's surprisingly good :D

Fair and unbiased right? :D

Free and unbiased right? :D

Believe me, it's more critical of despotic Arab dictators than many Western news channels are!

It's quite refreshing to watch, especially at a time when so many Western news channels are owned by the same corporations and present the same news stores.

:D

Al Jazeera is OK. Their Middle Eastern coverage is generally the best, though it was CNN that had the best coverage of the Cairo protests. BBC was hopeless that time. I also watch Fox, but only for entertainment, not for news. It has me in stitches.

Al Jazeera is OK. Their Middle Eastern coverage is generally the best, though it was CNN that had the best coverage of the Cairo protests. BBC was hopeless that time. I also watch Fox, but only for entertainment, not for news. It has me in stitches.

Bill O'Reilly says that his show is the "no spin zone" :D

I watch it occasionally as I do MSNBC Both channels poles apart politically. Keith Olberman was pulled off MSNBC recently which was a shame. He's probably not known in the UK.

War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

Troop numbers:
United States – 90,000
United Kingdom – 9,500

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

Deaths
US = 1/65 troops
UK = 1/27 troops

Wow...thats a very bad average, sitting with 26 other guys and knowing one of you is gonna get it:roll:

[QUOTE=Jason Bourne;7292796]Yes, when we see the statistics, it is obvious that more US troops have been killed, but the nice, friendly, politically correct BBC News don't like to bombard us (poor choice of words!) with all these horrible deaths, so on the national BBC News at least, US troop deaths are rarely mentioned.

I think the UK has suffered four troop deaths in the last week in Afghanistan. And if most people rely on the BBC for their news, then the four publicised British troop deaths will be in the public mind far more than the unmentioned number of US troop deaths.

...


I honestly cant remember the last time i saw any mention of American casualties on English TV, it did seem like the British were taking more than their fair share of the casualties.........wrongly as it turned out

Fox is like the UK tabloid newspapers. When there's a bunch of papers lying on the table, you always reach for the Sun or Mirror first, to get your blood up a bit, have a bit of a giggle, before proceeding to the more substantial.