Anyone respect/admire the Afghan fighters ?

McArmalite

Watching an episode of Ross Kemp in Afghanistan, one thing that I took from the programme is that say what you like about some of their extreme political beliefs, these men are hard bast@rds and are certainly no pushover for the brits and the Yanks. I know as mountainous tribesmen their certainly going to be no pushover for the self confident, arrogant west, but they certainly can soldier tatcically against all the hi tech might, cluster bombs, helicopter gunships etc. Their far from being the brainless Islamic kamikazee's we're led to believe in the west.

I'm not for a second legitimising Al-Qaeda and as stated the Taliban's extreme political beliefs and actions when they did control Afghanistan, but I can see why they are fighting what they believe to be the foreign invader. I mean it's the fourth time in a century and a half the brits are coming to bring ' peace ' and ' civilisation ' to them. And it should also be noted , that when these fellows who are now referred to as the terrorist Taliban were fighting the Soviets, they were of course the Mudjahadeen freedom fighters with America and britian among others sending arms and expolsives and training to them.

So, what's your opinion, do you begrudgingly admire/respect them or do you totally dislike them ?

Melange

McArmalite wrote: »

Watching an episode of Ross Kemp in Afghanistan, one thing that I took from the programme is that say what you like about some of their extreme political beliefs, these men are hard bast@rds and are certainly no pushover for the brits and the Yanks. I know as mountainous tribesmen their certainly going to be no pushover for the self confident, arrogant west, but they certainly can soldier tatcically against all the hi tech might, cluster bombs, helicopter gunships etc. Their far from being the brainless Islamic kamikazee's we're led to believe in the west.

I'm not for a second legitimising Al-Qaeda and as stated the Taliban's extreme political beliefs and actions when they did control Afghanistan, but I can see why they are fighting what they believe to be the foreign invader. I mean it's the fourth time in a century and a half the brits are coming to bring ' peace ' and ' civilisation ' to them. And it should also be noted , that when these fellows who are now referred to as the terrorist Taliban were fighting the Soviets, they were of course the Mudjahadeen freedom fighters with America and britian among others sending arms and expolsives and training to them.

So, what's your opinion, do you begrudgingly admire/respect them or do you totally dislike them ?

I can understand their desire to see their country free from what they see as a foreign occupation, but this really does not make up for their crazed, deeply oppressive and religiously fanatical beliefs. The kind of society that they would wish to turn Afghanistan into makes me shudder, quite frankly. So no, I neither admire or respect them.

McArmalite

Melange wrote: »

I can understand their desire to see their country free from what they see as a foreign occupation, but this really does not make up for their crazed, deeply oppressive and religiously fanatical beliefs. The kind of society that they would wish to turn Afghanistan into makes me shudder, quite frankly. So no, I neither admire or respect them.

I totally agree with what you say about their " crazed, deeply oppressive and religiously fanatical beliefs ". Still, the guys can fight back I'll give them that.

PapaQuebec

Plenty of them have claimed and been given asylum here - just wait till some poor irish peacekeeper in some Godforsaken faraway place has to shoot a jihadi to protect himself or his comrades - then the chickens'll come home to roost!!!

Melange

McArmalite wrote: »

I totally agree with what you say about their " crazed, deeply oppressive and religiously fanatical beliefs ". Still, the guys can fight back I'll give them that.

Oh, I'm not doubting their ability to fight - it's pretty impressive. It's what they're fighting to ultimately obtain that disturbs me.

Overheal

McArmalite wrote: »

Watching an episode of Ross Kemp in Afghanistan, one thing that I took from the programme is that say what you like about some of their extreme political beliefs, these men are hard bast@rds and are certainly no pushover for the brits and the Yanks.

Who are themselves hard bastards compared to the Irish. But that seems like a gross understatement, forgetting the accomplishments of the Allied Forces in WWII. That makes us pushovers? The London City Bombings? The War in the Pacific? Oh yes, we're pushovers, the Brits and We.

I know as mountainous tribesmen their certainly going to be no pushover for the self confident, arrogant west, but they certainly can soldier tatcically against all the hi tech might, cluster bombs, helicopter gunships etc. Their far from being the brainless Islamic kamikazee's we're led to believe in the west.

I'm not for a second legitimising Al-Qaeda and as stated the Taliban's extreme political beliefs and actions when they did control Afghanistan, but I can see why they are fighting what they believe to be the foreign invader. I mean it's the fourth time in a century and a half the brits are coming to bring ' peace ' and ' civilisation ' to them. And it should also be noted , that when these fellows who are now referred to as the terrorist Taliban were fighting the Soviets, they were of course the Mudjahadeen freedom fighters with America and britian among others sending arms and expolsives and training to them.

So, what's your opinion, do you begrudgingly admire/respect them or do you totally dislike them ?

My opinion is maybe you should go and fight with them if you love them so much and quit calling the people defending your rights arrogant pushovers.

Its a terrorist run nation. We helped them in the Cold War out of a need to fight Communism. It had nothing to do with agreeing with them.

/you could have easily written this post without attacking England and the USA.

book smarts

Sending teenage boys as suicide truck bombers or using villagers as human shields are not tactics that deserve respect. Neither is trading heroin to fund it.

InFront

I don't know who I respect less. I can understand the Afghan vehement opposition to what are undoubtedly self-obsessed political invaders especially given previous British and American involvement and abandonment of that country. Somebody needs to do something about that country but who? The Arabs and the Russians are previous offenders that can't be trusted either.

The British were up to this rubbish in Afghanistan a hundred years ago and going by their current attitudes and outlook, there's no reason to think they won't be back again in fifty or another hundred.
I think the first part of my sig is a little bit appropriate here!

McArmalite

Overheal wrote: »

Who are themselves hard bastards compared to the Irish. But that seems like a gross understatement, forgetting the accomplishments of the Allied Forces in WWII. That makes us pushovers? The London City Bombings? The War in the Pacific? Oh yes, we're pushovers, the Brits and We.

My opinion is maybe you should go and fight with them if you love them so much and quit calling the people defending your rights arrogant pushovers.

Its a terrorist run nation. We helped them in the Cold War out of a need to fight Communism. It had nothing to do with agreeing with them.

/you could have easily written this post without attacking England and the USA.

I'm sure they are very hard bast@rds compared to the Irish, ( which wouldn't be difficult considering how many parents brought their kids up as spoilt brats during the celtic tiger era ). As for America, any country that produces UFC fighters like Chuck Liddell, Matt Hughes, Brock Lesner must have plenty of hard bast@rds !!!!

As for the cold war and fighting Communism, understandable obviously, the enemy of my enemy etc. But I still see how these bearded warriors beleive they are fighting the foreign invader and have to give them their due for their tenacity. And as for bringing England and the USA into it, well, the programme was with british soldiers and America has by far the largest number of soldiers there.

Overheal

I mean basically OP you're defending the Taliban here. They don't quite fully represent the people of Afghanistan. We overthrew them. They are out of power. They are now fighting an Insurgency war to get back their sandbox where they used to beat their women and grow opium. Hardly a romantic notion. The reason they see it as a foreign invasion is because their sense of reality is so sensationally warped. Read that full article on the Taliban and get back to me.

book smarts

They are not self obsessed political invaders, they are there legally. They helped the Northern Alliance win their campaign and installed an Afghani government. They've given millions in aid and helped rebuild the country and create infrastructure that wasn't there previously, like schools for girls. They've taken nothing from the country and in fact many locals hated the Taliban and welcomed the west. It's not just the US and Britain, but troops from around the world.

Instead of criticising the west, why not those imams in Pakistan who effectively are the Taliban and profit from pouring heroin into Europe and Russia?

Poccington

Lads, this thread is open again because it has the makings of a good discussion. Keep it civil.

Any acting the flute is gonna result in infractions and/or bannings.

RMD

I don't admire them nor respect them as people, but as soldiers considering what they have at their disposal, I most definitely admire them.

piby

RMD wrote: »

I don't admire them nor respect them as people, but as soldiers considering what they have at their disposal, I most definitely admire them.

+1

At this stage its in their blood and it always will be, which I think will always thus be the problem in Afghanistan. Some of these guys know nothing but war and violence its just what they grew up in.

AARRRGH

Overheal wrote: »

Who are themselves hard bastards compared to the Irish. But that seems like a gross understatement, forgetting the accomplishments of the Allied Forces in WWII. That makes us pushovers? The London City Bombings? The War in the Pacific? Oh yes, we're pushovers, the Brits and We.

My opinion is maybe you should go and fight with them if you love them so much and quit calling the people defending your rights arrogant pushovers.

Its a terrorist run nation. We helped them in the Cold War out of a need to fight Communism. It had nothing to do with agreeing with them.

/you could have easily written this post without attacking England and the USA.

I think you've misunderstood his post. He never said he loves the Taleban or agrees with their politics, and the only negative thing he said about the west (the UK/US/etc.) is that they are arrogant, which is true, as they strolled into Afghanistan and Iraq expecting to kick ass.

Look up the phrase "straw man". That's what you're doing.

twinytwo

McArmalite wrote: »

Watching an episode of Ross Kemp in Afghanistan, one thing that I took from the programme is that say what you like about some of their extreme political beliefs, these men are hard bast@rds and are certainly no pushover for the brits and the Yanks. I know as mountainous tribesmen their certainly going to be no pushover for the self confident, arrogant west, but they certainly can soldier tatcically against all the hi tech might, cluster bombs, helicopter gunships etc. Their far from being the brainless Islamic kamikazee's we're led to believe in the west.

I'm not for a second legitimising Al-Qaeda and as stated the Taliban's extreme political beliefs and actions when they did control Afghanistan, but I can see why they are fighting what they believe to be the foreign invader. I mean it's the fourth time in a century and a half the brits are coming to bring ' peace ' and ' civilisation ' to them. And it should also be noted , that when these fellows who are now referred to as the terrorist Taliban were fighting the Soviets, they were of course the Mudjahadeen freedom fighters with America and britian among others sending arms and expolsives and training to them.

So, what's your opinion, do you begrudgingly admire/respect them or do you totally dislike them ?

Son if by "hard" you mean planting an explosive in the ground and waiting at a safe distance to detonate it when a convoy goes by then you need you head examined... most of these guys are dopped up to their eye balls and probally dont have a clue whats going on. The guys in charge are fighting to keep control of the opium simple as....

Soldier tatically?:rolleyes: a total of <800 Uk and US killed in Afghan mostly by IED's and not through direct contact compared to the 21000+ Taliban Al Qeada etc

Dozen Wicked Words

I think the Rules of Engagement the NATO (because that's what they are) troops fight under make it difficult.

The Taliban are able to fight for as long as they feel capable, then, when the tide is turning, drop their weapons, walk out unarmed and either be questioned and released or simply left to go home.

Whatever the merits of their fight, I don't see that tactic, or using IEDs as particularly brave.

Manic Moran

"Acting the flute?" There's a turn of phrase.

I don't underestimate them. They're the world's greatest survivors, more or less, and there's a phrase that says an Afghan isn't happy unless he's fighting someone. Usually the neighbouring tribe, but foreigners will do quite nicely too. On a related note, another local saying is that a man without a gun isn't a man. They've been basically training to fight since they were kids. Certainly on a different level than tactical maneuver such as the Western militaries train to, but they're absolutely not stupid.

Ultimately, if these guys are moving around some of the world's most rugged terrain in sometimes abysmal weather, when Western soldiers generally won't go too far from their automotive transportation or aircraft (With the weight of armour, don't be surprised) it's worth some acknowledgement.

NTM

piby

twinytwo wrote: »

Son if by "hard" you mean planting an explosive in the ground and waiting at a safe distance to detonate it when a convoy goes by then you need you head examined... most of these guys are dopped up to their eye balls and probally dont have a clue whats going on. The guys in charge are fighting to keep control of the opium simple as....

Soldier tatically?:rolleyes: a total of <800 Uk and US killed in Afghan mostly by IED's and not through direct contact compared to the 21000+ Taliban Al Qeada etc

You're right it is cowardly but thats the only way they can fight. If they went toe to toe against ISAF they'd be crushed and they know that full well. As other posters have said the Rules of Engagement need to be revised!

Manic Moran

Even then, there are two different types of fighters. Those who will conduct direct attacks against the NATO forces, and those who conduct slightly less ethical ones. For example, hiring a poor family to relocate a vehicle from one town to another, without bothering to tell them that the car was loaded with explosives, on a remote control trigger.

NTM

iceage

hmmm yeah, age old tactic of kid pushing wheelbarrow bomb etc. Sneaky bastids and probably a remote trigger.

seanybiker

RMD wrote: »

I don't admire them nor respect them as people, but as soldiers considering what they have at their disposal, I most definitely admire them.

Thats all the thread starter was asking and now some people think he is sticking up for them lol.
Yes they are doing alright for what they have.

McArmalite

twinytwo wrote: »

Son if by "hard" you mean planting an explosive in the ground and waiting at a safe distance to detonate it when a convoy goes by then you need you head examined... most of these guys are dopped up to their eye balls and probally dont have a clue whats going on. The guys in charge are fighting to keep control of the opium simple as....

Soldier tatically?:rolleyes: a total of <800 Uk and US killed in Afghan mostly by IED's and not through direct contact compared to the 21000+ Taliban Al Qeada etc

Hi kid, if you had seen the programme and heard the british soldiers on it, they thought that the Taliban were far from " dopped up to their eye balls and probally dont have a clue whats going on. " VERY FAR FROM IT - but sure what would those fighting them know compared to an expert like you ??

Whether most of those killed by the Taliban were killed bi IED's or gun fire I'm not sure, certainly if you had seen the programme these fellas were far from been afraid of a gun fight. As for the " 21000+ Taliban Al Qeada " alleged killed ( maybe someone could produce the figures of innocent civilians killed by ' smart bombs ', collateral damage etc maybe it's even greater than 21000+ ? ). It's conjecture by me, but I don't think you would have to be a millitary genius to suggest that most the the Taliban's deaths can be attributed to IED's of a sort - 500lb bombs, cluster bombs and helicopter gunships than rifle fire from the US and british army.

And i state again, I have no time for these Islamic nutcases, but, well as the british soldiers in the programme inferred or to quote Manic Moran " Certainly on a different level than tactical maneuver such as the Western militaries train to, but they're absolutely not stupid."

pmg58

McArmalite wrote: »

IED's of a sort - 500lb bombs, cluster bombs and helicopter gunships

IEDs are Improvised Explosive Devices. Those weapons are not (generally) IEDs.

McArmalite

pmg58 wrote: »

IEDs are Improvised Explosive Devices. Those weapons are not (generally) IEDs.

pmg58 wrote: »

IEDs are Improvised Explosive Devices. Those weapons are not (generally) IEDs.

I know what IED's are, what I said was - IED's of a sort - 500lb bombs, cluster bombs and helicopter gunships. Maybe the Taliban call them Infidel Explosive Devices Besides, whatever you want to call them, IED's or just Explosive Devices or whatever, I still stand over my point that most Taliban fighters have probably been killed due to explosive devices like 500lb bombs, cluster bombs, rockets fired from aircraft etc than killed by rifle fire in man to man combat.

neilled

McArmalite wrote: »

I know what IED's are, what I said was - IED's of a sort - 500lb bombs, cluster bombs and helicopter gunships. Maybe the Taliban call them Infidel Explosive Devices Besides, whatever you want to call them, IED's or just Explosive Devices or whatever, I still stand over my point that most Taliban fighters have probably been killed due to explosive devices like 500lb bombs, cluster bombs, rockets fired from aircraft etc than killed by rifle fire in man to man combat.

There is nothing improvised about the airdropped munitions used by NATO, ISAF etc in afghanistan. They're developed and tested for years on end as part of a massive arms industry.

There is a logic behind using air dropped weapons such as these. Rifle fire and man to man combat mean exposing yourself to the enemy thus making losses more likely generally speaking. Air dropped munitions, bombs etc can be delivered without ground troops having to stick their heads out and as a general rule, the taleban have no method of engaging the aircraft (as opposed to slow and low flying helicopters) doing the bombing.

Local-womanizer

McArmalite,I can't understand your point regarding IEDs from the Taliban and Munitions from ISAF aircraft.

You are suggesting that the planting of IEDs and the use of them is ok where using aircraft to bomb the taliban is'ent?

When the 2 sides go toe to toe the ISAF forces win.The taliban know this so they are not as willing to show themselves for the sake of a few "infidel" deaths.They sit at a safe distance and IED people,thats not brave(granted that the fighters are tough in other aspects)So why grumble when the ISAF play them at their own game.

I don't respect the Taliban,as they are fighting for a stupid cause.They wan't all islamic states to be brought back to the old ages.The sooner they are wiped out as a group the better.

twinytwo

McArmalite wrote: »

Hi kid, if you had seen the programme and heard the british soldiers on it, they thought that the Taliban were far from " dopped up to their eye balls and probally dont have a clue whats going on. " VERY FAR FROM IT - but sure what would those fighting them know compared to an expert like you ??

Whether most of those killed by the Taliban were killed bi IED's or gun fire I'm not sure, certainly if you had seen the programme these fellas were far from been afraid of a gun fight. As for the " 21000+ Taliban Al Qeada " alleged killed ( maybe someone could produce the figures of innocent civilians killed by ' smart bombs ', collateral damage etc maybe it's even greater than 21000+ ? ). It's conjecture by me, but I don't think you would have to be a millitary genius to suggest that most the the Taliban's deaths can be attributed to IED's of a sort - 500lb bombs, cluster bombs and helicopter gunships than rifle fire from the US and british army.

And i state again, I have no time for these Islamic nutcases, but, well as the british soldiers in the programme inferred or to quote Manic Moran " Certainly on a different level than tactical maneuver such as the Western militaries train to, but they're absolutely not stupid."

You need to relax a little... kid:rolleyes:... I never said i was an expert... epic fail by you. If you look at the soldiers killed that all list a cause of death.... Also because im guessing you dont know this... the brits dont use cluster bombs... also because you again dont seem to realise the brits dont drop bombs on targets unless they are sure there are no civilians in or around the target area.. there have been numerous cases of them calling off air strikes because civilians have been present,...You must know.. i mean you did watch "a programme":rolleyes:.. that when the taliban move into an area the civilans leave..... "IED's of a sort" LOL

D-Boy

AARRRGH wrote: »

I think you've misunderstood his post. He never said he loves the Taleban or agrees with their politics, and the only negative thing he said about the west (the UK/US/etc.) is that they are arrogant, which is true, as they strolled into Afghanistan and Iraq expecting to kick ass.

Look up the phrase "straw man". That's what you're doing.

Dont be confusin the taliban with the Mujihadeen try to know what your talkin about before you post.
Taliban are POST mujihadeen

McArmalite

neilled wrote: »

There is nothing improvised about the airdropped munitions used by NATO, ISAF etc in afghanistan. They're developed and tested for years on end as part of a massive arms industry.

There is a logic behind using air dropped weapons such as these. Rifle fire and man to man combat mean exposing yourself to the enemy thus making losses more likely generally speaking. Air dropped munitions, bombs etc can be delivered without ground troops having to stick their heads out and as a general rule, the taleban have no method of engaging the aircraft (as opposed to slow and low flying helicopters) doing the bombing.

I know, neilled, I know, the yanks basically did the same in Vietnam.

Local-womanizer wrote: »

McArmalite,I can't understand your point regarding IEDs from the Taliban and Munitions from ISAF aircraft.

You are suggesting that the planting of IEDs and the use of them is ok where using aircraft to bomb the taliban is'ent?

When the 2 sides go toe to toe the ISAF forces win.The taliban know this so they are not as willing to show themselves for the sake of a few "infidel" deaths.They sit at a safe distance and IED people,thats not brave(granted that the fighters are tough in other aspects)So why grumble when the ISAF play them at their own game.

I don't respect the Taliban,as they are fighting for a stupid cause.They wan't all islamic states to be brought back to the old ages.The sooner they are wiped out as a group the better.

I don't know how anyone can think I suggested or implied that the Taliban's actions were ok and aircraft bombing was wrong. In almost every post I've said the Taliban are a bunch of nutters - but I reckon their still hardy nutters all the same. Though I have to say, the ISAF would be fighting the war in the present manner regardless of what the Taliban did or didn't do, as for the reasons given above by neilled. If I do grumble about the ISAF it's because they also are responsible for the deaths of many innocent civilians.

" According to UN figures, last year alone saw 2,200 civilians killed, over half in insurgent attacks and nearly 40 percent by foreign and Afghanforces. " http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/us-must-conduct-credible-transparent-investigation-aghanistan-air-strikes-20090508

McArmalite

twinytwo wrote: »

You need to relax a little... kid:rolleyes:... I never said i was an expert... epic fail by you.

Son, you came on preaching like you were an expert - but got a reply you weren't expecting, no failure by me

If you look at the soldiers killed that all list a cause of death.... Also because im guessing you dont know this...

Yes and I'm guessing you dont know ( or will surely fail to acknowledge ) that most of the alleged 21000+ Taliban Al Qeada that you say were killed, are not through direct contact for the but by the methods cited above by neilled.

the brits dont use cluster bombs...

Yes, but the yanks did.

also because you again dont seem to realise the brits dont drop bombs on targets unless they are sure there are no civilians in or around the target area..

Total Bollox though doubtless you'll blame all civilian deaths on the yanks ( I must say that's some statement given the history of the RAF, Dresden, Hamburg etc :rolleyes:...but lets not get off an historic tangent)

there have been numerous cases of them calling off air strikes because civilians have been present,...You must know.. i mean you did watch "a programme":rolleyes:.. that when the taliban move into an area the civilans leave.....

Yes, and obviously if you were to read Amnesty reports, their's been numerous cases off them not calling off air strikes when civilian causaulties were a definite possiblity, but they are of course reported as merely "collateral damage", " Taliban auxiliary's " etc, etc. but doubtless you'll swallow whatever lie is given by the brits PR, the Sun, Our fight to save the world by SAS Superheros etc, etc instead of reports by human rights organizations, renowned journalists such as Robert Fisk, Noam Chomsky .

"IED's of a sort" LOL

IED's of a sort - it was meant to be ironic

twinytwo

McArmalite wrote: »

Son, you came on preaching like you were an expert - but got a reply you weren't expecting, no failure by me

Yes and I'm guessing you dont know ( or will surely fail to acknowledge ) that most of the alleged 21000+ Taliban Al Qeada that you say were killed, are not through direct contact for the but by the methods cited above by neilled.

Yes, but the yanks did.

Total Bollox though doubtless you'll blame all civilian deaths on the yanks ( I must say that's some statement given the history of the RAF, Dresden, Hamburg etc :rolleyes:...but lets not get off an historic tangent)

Yes, and obviously if you were to read Amnesty reports, their's been numerous cases off them not calling off air strikes when civilian causaulties were a definite possiblity, but they are of course reported as merely "collateral damage", " Taliban auxiliary's " etc, etc. but doubtless you'll swallow whatever lie is given by the brits PR, the Sun, Our fight to save the world by SAS Superheros etc, etc instead of reports by human rights organizations, renowned journalists such as Robert Fisk, Noam Chomsky .

IED's of a sort - it was meant to be ironic

you must have selective reading or something.. did i mention the yanks?.. please point out where i was "preaching"... civilian deaths are a by product of war one that cannot be avoided.. i dont read the sun nor have i ever heard any british PR.. i dont really know where you are pulling most of this irrelevant tripe from

neilled

To be honest McArmalite, you just come across as gagging for a go at the brits by bringing in the RAF when they haven't been mentioned. For the record the 8th Airforce alternated around the clock with the RAF and done similar amounts of damage - ever more so because during the day they could bomb that bit more accurately and actually hit cities, whereas at night bomber command managed to hit fields, although on some occasions like dresden they were very effective. The yank's are doing proportionatly more in the air than the brits, mainly because they have more capacity and more available aircraft and helicopters.

Any kind of area weapon that isn't line of sight and produces fragmentation is liable to cause unintended casualties, with the likelyhood and severity of caustualties increasing with the munition size.
This is even more likely when dealing with forces that blend into the civilian population or actively use them as shields or somewhere between the two.
I wouldn't say its all been stand off weapons - there's apparenty been upclose nasty bayonet stuff going on as well.
I certainly agree that they are ingenious, hard as nails and suicidly brave, even if i find their political aims stomach churning.

marco murphy

McArmalite wrote: »

Watching an episode of Ross Kemp in Afghanistan, one thing that I took from the programme is that say what you like about some of their extreme political beliefs, these men are hard bast@rds and are certainly no pushover for the brits and the Yanks. I know as mountainous tribesmen their certainly going to be no pushover for the self confident, arrogant west, but they certainly can soldier tatcically against all the hi tech might, cluster bombs, helicopter gunships etc. Their far from being the brainless Islamic kamikazee's we're led to believe in the west.

I'm not for a second legitimising Al-Qaeda and as stated the Taliban's extreme political beliefs and actions when they did control Afghanistan, but I can see why they are fighting what they believe to be the foreign invader. I mean it's the fourth time in a century and a half the brits are coming to bring ' peace ' and ' civilisation ' to them. And it should also be noted , that when these fellows who are now referred to as the terrorist Taliban were fighting the Soviets, they were of course the Mudjahadeen freedom fighters with America and britian among others sending arms and expolsives and training to them.

So, what's your opinion, do you begrudgingly admire/respect them or do you totally dislike them ?

Yes, I do.