Withdraw from Afganisthan

SLUSK

I think we should all withdraw from Afghanistan, it is a waste of taxpayers money. Why should we help to "spread democracy" in Afghanistan? The practical consequences of this is that people probably are worse of there now than they were before. Sucks being a woman in Afghanistan since raping your wife now has been legalized. http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3613 Why should EU taxpayers money be given to a government that has legalized rape?

Kev_ps3

We? Since when has Irish troops been in Afganistan?
btw the foreign troops should be removed because they do not belong in that country, not because "its a waste of taxplayers money":rolleyes:

dublincelt

SLUSK wrote: »

I think we should all withdraw from Afghanistan, it is a waste of taxpayers money. Why should we help to "spread democracy" in Afghanistan? The practical consequences of this is that people probably are worse of there now than they were before. Sucks being a woman in Afghanistan since raping your wife now has been legalized. http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3613 Why should EU taxpayers money be given to a government that has legalized rape?

WE?????!!!

What a curious post.

Are you from a NATO country?

mega man

'we' what are you talking about? You've been reading too much of the Irish Sun

SLUSK

A quick google search on Irish troops in Afghanistan:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/80106
http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/epub/pdf/placemat.pdf
There are not many Irish soldiers there but you have irish soldiers in Afghanistan. I presume their salaries and material they used are paid by tax payers in Ireland, which would include me.

Kev_ps3

SLUSK wrote: »

A quick google search on Irish troops in Afghanistan:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/80106
http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/epub/pdf/placemat.pdf
There are not many Irish soldiers there but you have irish soldiers in Afghanistan. I presume their salaries and material they used are paid by tax payers in Ireland, which would include me.

wow 7 troops.. we prob have more troops on the north pole

Manic Moran

I think we should all withdraw from Afghanistan, it is a waste of taxpayers money

Considering Ireland only has seven people here, who would be paid the same to sit in the Curragh and drink tea, I don't think it's really stretching the Irish taxpayer's budget.

Personally, I think the average Afghan is better off now than they were ten years ago.

NTM

OS119

does it not frighten anyone else that so many posters had no idea that the Republic of Ireland contributes troops (in whatever number or role) to a UNSC mandated, NATO-run operation?

the RoI voted for the UNSCR, then contributes troops to its military and political success, regularly mentions the policy and deployment in its published foreign policy documents, announced it and sought permission in the Dail, and you people didn't know?

i'm not slagging anyone down - well, ok, i am - but does that not say something very disturbing about the level of political knowledge even amongst those who profess to be interested on Irish politics and would therefore be assumed to be reasonably well informed about them?

the deployment is 7 soldiers of Officer/SNCO rank who are specialists in particular areas of staff/planning ranging from Civil infrasructure provision, through to EID analysis. they operate under ISAF/NATO chain of Command and work in Kabul - a bomb went off outside one of the places they work last week.

Euro_Kraut

This is interesting. I never knew there was any Irish deployment in Afganistan. I presume this falls under the Partnership for Peace Program. I see that other non-Nato countries like Austria and Finland also have small deployments there.

Mark200

SLUSK wrote: »

I think we should all withdraw from Afghanistan, it is a waste of taxpayers money. Why should we help to "spread democracy" in Afghanistan? The practical consequences of this is that people probably are worse of there now than they were before. Sucks being a woman in Afghanistan since raping your wife now has been legalized. http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3613 Why should EU taxpayers money be given to a government that has legalized rape?

Well the point of the American/British war there is to defeat the Taliban and remove the safe haven they and Al Qaeda had in Afghanistan. The method they are using is to introduce democracy and effective police forces. It's not so much a "spread democracy" crusade, but more a "eliminate terrorism" crusade.

OS119 wrote: »

does it not frighten anyone else that so many posters had no idea that the Republic of Ireland contributes troops (in whatever number or role) to a UNSC mandated, NATO-run operation?

the RoI voted for the UNSCR, then contributes troops to its military and political success, regularly mentions the policy and deployment in its published foreign policy documents, announced it and sought permission in the Dail, and you people didn't know?

i'm not slagging anyone down - well, ok, i am - but does that not say something very disturbing about the level of political knowledge even amongst those who profess to be interested on Irish politics and would therefore be assumed to be reasonably well informed about them?

the deployment is 7 soldiers of Officer/SNCO rank who are specialists in particular areas of staff/planning ranging from Civil infrasructure provision, through to EID analysis. they operate under ISAF/NATO chain of Command and work in Kabul - a bomb went off outside one of the places they work last week.

So they're there to build stuff...?

philologos

Definitely not. We need to stay there until Afghanistan is cleared up or else it will remain as it was a huge security threat to the region, and a huge supplier of heroin to the Western market.

OP: That law was scrapped due to Western pressure on Karzai.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/05/afghanistan-shia-rape-law-scrap

OS119

Mark200 wrote: »

.

So they're there to build stuff...?

some are there to facilitate the reconstruction element, some are there to support combat operations - for example to IED Analysis cell looks at the technical issues, patterns and doctrine behind the use of IED's against NATO/ISAF troops: that information is then used both to protect NATO/ISAF troops against those IED's throgh the use of denial/avoidance and ECM - and to kill those who are undertaking that IED campaign through the use of Ambushes of IED teams, ECM to detonate the IED's in 'own goals' and the use of 'signatures' to identify, then trace (and kill) those who control the campaign.

SLUSK

So you support this "war on terror" even though it has proven to be an epic fail?

The heroin trade has surged after the Taliban were toppled. Now this war has spread and destabilized Pakistan. There will be no victory in Afghanistan only bloodshed. Obama has the same neoconservative agenda like George W. Bush?

How much "collateral damage" do you think is acceptable?

mike65

Pakistan is the real reason to stay in Afganistan. (bloody Stans are such trouble)

FlutterinBantam

SLUSK wrote: »

So you support this "war on terror" even though it has proven to be an epic fail?

The heroin trade has surged after the Taliban were toppled. Now this war has spread and destabilized Pakistan. There will be no victory in Afghanistan only bloodshed. Obama has the same neoconservative agenda like George W. Bush?

How much "collateral damage" do you think is acceptable?

Just enough to ensure the mad mullahs in that part of the world can't have free rein to ferment their particular brand of ideals on the world and that I can go about my business in a normal manner.

SLUSK

How many "terrorists" do you think are created when you slaughter innocent villagers?

Sounds like you are dying to put on the jack boots yourself and stomp on people's faces like the "heroes" in the american and british armies.

OS119

SLUSK wrote: »

So you support this "war on terror" even though it has proven to be an epic fail?

The heroin trade has surged after the Taliban were toppled. Now this war has spread and destabilized Pakistan. There will be no victory in Afghanistan only bloodshed. Obama has the same neoconservative agenda like George W. Bush?

How much "collateral damage" do you think is acceptable?

any idea who your comments were directed at?

if you want top persuade people that Afghanistan is a disaster and the whole 'WOT' idea is mince, is there a chance you could prove it - or at least try to?

as for 'colateral damage' - dreadful term, but there you go - if the sh*it really hits the fan i'll accept the deaths of 6 billion other people if it keeps my family alive.

DoireNod

This thread might be of interest to some of you.

FlutterinBantam

SLUSK wrote: »

How many "terrorists" do you think are created when you slaughter innocent villagers?

Sounds like you are dying to put on the jack boots yourself and stomp on people's faces like the "heroes" in the american and british armies.

I'll assume that "reply" was directed at my post.

I certainly would not support the slaughter of any innocents, however I can understand why the US and the UK and others would seek to prevent and relatively small band of seriously unstable people and regimes from threatening the stability of the whole world.

I have no problem about the way they live or anything like that but don't start interfering with my way of life and livelihood.

philologos

SLUSK wrote: »

So you support this "war on terror" even though it has proven to be an epic fail?

The heroin trade has surged after the Taliban were toppled. Now this war has spread and destabilized Pakistan. There will be no victory in Afghanistan only bloodshed. Obama has the same neoconservative agenda like George W. Bush?

How much "collateral damage" do you think is acceptable?

Of course he doesn't.

Neoconservatism goes much further than foreign policy. As for "this war" destabilising Pakistan, that might have been a useful argument if Pakistan wasn't already destabilised before the war began.

Do you really think the Taleban in Government is better than having an Government accountable to the international community?

SLUSK

Maybe not, the Taliban were of no threat to us in the EU so why should we have troops there?

philologos

SLUSK wrote: »

Maybe not, the Taliban were of no threat to us in the EU so why should we have troops there?

Do you not think the importing of heroin into the European Union a threat? Increased assistance in the curbing of heroin importation into the European Union could very much save lives in Europe.

As for the Taleban not being a threat in the European Union, it is curious then why people who have been involved in terrorist action in the UK, including many of the 7/7 bombers were trained in either Pakistan or Afghanistan. Indeed, Abu Hamza who has since been deported from the UK had lost his arm in Afghanistan while training mujahideen. Infact recent investigation has found that he had trained teenagers in the use of AK47 rifles at a school near London in 1998.

To say that these groups do not serve as a threat to life within the European Union is absurd.

I personally would have much preferred the use of diplomacy in relation to Afghanistan but it is not an option to pull out now. Much more lives will be affected by the decision to pull out than continuing the operations towards peace and security.

It wasn't me!

To withdraw from Afghanistan would leave a vaccuum in terms of authoritative control and it would crumble. I'd be more in favour of another Irish deployment to the region than withdrawal.

OS119

SLUSK wrote: »

Maybe not, the Taliban were of no threat to us in the EU so why should we have troops there?

the Taleban posed a direct threat to the EU for two reasons - while in power/government in Afghanistan their ideology allowed/required them to play host to Al-Quiada and they therefore knowingly provided material support for terrorism against western European interests, and secondly they supported, and still do - politically and militarily - the Pakistan Taleban who pose, and have done for donkeys years, a very serious threat to the stability of nuclear-armed Pakistan - as well as providing their own support for Al-Quiada and its fellow travellers.

so yes, the Taleban, past and present, present a significant threat to European lives and their interests.

Buffy the bitch

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you not think the importing of heroin into the European Union a threat? Increased assistance in the curbing of heroin importation into the European Union could very much save lives in Europe.

Just so you know troops do nothing about all the poppies over there, they're fighting a war against people, not drugs.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the Taleban not being a threat in the European Union, it is curious then why people who have been involved in terrorist action in the UK, including many of the 7/7 bombers were trained in either Pakistan or Afghanistan.

That's crap. A few guys decided to make bombs and go on a suicide and all of a sudden they're the Taliban :rolleyes: to be honest I thought 7/7 would be happening every week over there, you can't go and bomb the hell out of another country and expect not to be hit back.

Jakkass wrote: »

To say that these groups do not serve as a threat to life within the European Union is absurd.

No it's not. 7/7 is a good example you might say but then again would 7/7 have happened if Britain wasn't bringing their war hungry country to parts of the world that's none of their business. But then again 7/7 wasn't the Taliban. If the IRA were bomging were London they would be saying that they have close links to Al-Qaeda.

philologos

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Just so you know troops do nothing about all the poppies over there, they're fighting a war against people, not drugs.

The Helmand province distributes 42% of the worlds opium. If the Helmand were in the complete control of the Afghanistan goverrnment it is clear that they would be able to have more control over the output of opium from the Helmand province. I thought this would have made sense. Currently the opium trade helps the Taleban, with 20% going in tax to them each year from it. Although the war is primarily against the Taleban, there is a net effect when it comes to heroin too.

I would prefer if troops never went in, but once they are in they need to create stability before leaving. It's ridiculous to suggest that the level of death would just decrease if the troops were pulled out today. No doubt it would become a vacuum for militant activity as it was before.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

That's crap. A few guys decided to make bombs and go on a suicide and all of a sudden they're the Taliban :rolleyes: to be honest I thought 7/7 would be happening every week over there, you can't go and bomb the hell out of another country and expect not to be hit back.

It's clear that these groups have contact with each other. Islamic extremism in Afghanistan has been exported to the UK rather simply put. Likewise Islamic extremism in Pakistan.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

No it's not. 7/7 is a good example you might say but then again would 7/7 have happened if Britain wasn't bringing their war hungry country to parts of the world that's none of their business. But then again 7/7 wasn't the Taliban. If the IRA were bomging were London they would be saying that they have close links to Al-Qaeda.

My point is that the radicalism for these attacks by and large is exported from overseas. Afghanistan has had it's fair share of involvement. I never said it was directly the Taliban, but it wouldn't be reasonable to say that the Taliban and other groups in Afghanistan do not contribute to the attitudes that exist elsewhere.

The Afghans need to be trained and effectively to ensure that all of Afghanistan is under their sovereign control. This isn't happening at the minute. Hence why the Helmand is an absolute mess.

OS119

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

l

That's crap. A few guys decided to make bombs and go on a suicide and all of a sudden they're the Taliban :rolleyes: to be honest I thought 7/7 would be happening every week over there, you can't go and bomb the hell out of another country and expect not to be hit back.

your post is contradictory. firstly you say that they weren't Taleban/AQ, then that its no surprise that Taleban/AQ hit back and that the London bombings were an example of that.

given that at least two of the four had been to Pakistan in the 12 months before the attacks and had received bomb-making and operational training from the Pakistani Taleban, and then made videos in which they described themselves as Taleban/AQ, its not that great a leap of imagination to say 'they were a Taleban/AQ franchise'.

you also kind of miss the point - deliberately perhaps? - that Taleban/AQ were supporting and waging war on the west long before a US bomb landed on Afghan soil (under President Clinton) and while western policy towards Afghanistan in particular and Political Islamic Militantism general could only be described as 'utter indifference'.

Manic Moran

SLUSK wrote: »

So you support this "war on terror" even though it has proven to be an epic fail?

Has it?

It certainly can't be put down as a 'win', but I don't see it as a 'loss' either. Right now, in public at any rate, it's something of a stalemate.

The heroin trade has surged after the Taliban were toppled.

Terry is nothing but pragmatic, it must be said. When they were running the country and had access to whatever financial wealth the entire country had, they were more than willing to crack down on poppy production. Now, to finance their war, they find themselves open to any source of funding they can find and one of the more lucrative for them is opium.

How much "collateral damage" do you think is acceptable?

The minimum possible. This is rarely 'zero'.

NTM

Poccington

SLUSK wrote: »

Maybe not, the Taliban were of no threat to us in the EU so why should we have troops there?

Depending on how A'Stan goes over the next few years, the Taliban and as a result AQ could be a much larger threat to the West than it is at the moment.

As it stands, I don't feel we're contributing enough to A'Stan but that's what happens when you've a Government like ours.

gurramok

Manic Moran wrote: »

Considering Ireland only has seven people here, who would be paid the same to sit in the Curragh and drink tea, I don't think it's really stretching the Irish taxpayer's budget.

Personally, I think the average Afghan is better off now than they were ten years ago.

NTM

Are you really there? (as in Methar-Lam, Afghanistan). Had to google that place

What is the mission and in what order..

1 - Destroy the Taliban and then the Western troops go home
2 - Beef up the Afghan military to such an extent it would be very powerful and then the Western troops go home even without a defeated Taliban.
3 - A bit of both depending which comes first?

Are the Western troops and Afghan military really tackling the opium trade seriously?(why has the supply continued when troops are everywhere at point of entry at borders)

Buffy the bitch

OS119 wrote: »

your post is contradictory. firstly you say that they weren't Taleban/AQ, then that its no surprise that Taleban/AQ hit back and that the London bombings were an example of that.

Did you even read my post? I said the 7/7 bombers were not the Taliban. These guys were Muslims making a stand becasue people of their religion were been murdered / still are.

OS119 wrote: »

given that at least two of the four had been to Pakistan in the 12 months before the attacks and had received bomb-making and operational training from the Pakistani Taleban, and then made videos in which they described themselves as Taleban/AQ, its not that great a leap of imagination to say 'they were a Taleban/AQ franchise'.

Oh yeah because there isn't a muslim out there who can travel to any country like Pakistan for any other reason than go there and learn how to make bombs :rolleyes:

No they didn't say they're the Taliban, here is what Khan said:

I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation doesn't come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger. Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.

Here is what Tanweer said:

What have you witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq. And until you stop your financial and military support to America and Israel.

OS119 wrote: »

you also kind of miss the point - deliberately perhaps? - that Taleban/AQ were supporting and waging war on the west long before a US bomb landed on Afghan soil (under President Clinton) and while western policy towards Afghanistan in particular and Political Islamic Militantism general could only be described as 'utter indifference'.

And Clinton sending missiles into Afghanistan would have nothing to do with that? By the way the topic is about Irish troops in Afghanistan not American troops.

Manic Moran

What is the mission and in what order..

1 - Destroy the Taliban and then the Western troops go home
2 - Beef up the Afghan military to such an extent it would be very powerful and then the Western troops go home even without a defeated Taliban.
3 - A bit of both depending which comes first?

None of the above, and I think that's part of the reason there is any significant opposition to the ongoing operations.

I'm going to copy from the thread linked to earlier. Read it, and tell me how close this is to what you envision the Afghan war to be like.

We're the 'Battlespace owners' of Laghman province. It's between Kabul and the Pakistani border, so fairly important and not exactly the quiet, out of way NorthWest countryside that the Germans are mucking around in.

Twenty minutes ago, I watched two helicopters leave our base with a cargo of government officials and sling-loaded humanitarian aid. They're going up to one of the district centres, where our units have spent the last two days driving around from town-to-town advertising a 'shura', a sort of town-hall-meeting. We did exactly the same thing on the 10th, and the same thing on the 4th before that, in different parts of the province.

Also departing the base today were the Agricultural Development Team, consisting of a bunch of about 60 soldiers and experts from the Kanasas Army National Guard. They run an agricultural academy at the provincial capitol. Wheat production in the area has increased 50% in the last two years, increasing local wealth and providing viable alternatives to opium or mercenary work.

The Provincial Reconstruction Team is another unit to have left the base today. This is a joint US Air Force/US Army 80+man organisation which tends to spend its time building roads, school, micro-hydro projects, and otherwise attempt to build the quality of life for the people of Afghanistan.

Lastly, we have our Military Police platoon going out and about. Their job is to train up the local police.

[Edit: Afghan police called. Said they found a roadside bomb, likely targeting the people coming back from the Shura. We've dispatched a patrol to take the bomb squad out]

The figures for Laghman province came across my desk earlier this week, for the period 01APR - 31JUL.

Number of verified insurgents killed 6.

Number of civilians killed by US forces 0.

Number of civilians murdered. 10

Number of civilians killed in motor vehicle accidents. 17

Number of sexual assaults reported 1. (Apparently described as the man promising to marry a woman before having sex, then reneging).

That's what our war is like. We're not afraid to accept battle, if the opposition gives us an excuse then we'll blow the crap out of them, and we'll use every weapon we have to do it. We had quite the fight one evening last month. That's why the lads advertising the Shura brought their artillery along with them: The insurgents around here don't like it when the government talk to the people. On occasion, there will be a pitched fight the likes of which you will see on the news. We will call in an airstrike or artillery or whatever, but they really are the exception more than the rule. Of course, "American army opens agricultural academy" isn't the sort of thing to make headline news on CNN, so nobody tends to know about it. Except for the Afghans, who are the people who count. Too many people think we're just out here slinging high explosives around, using the following very discriminating method of identifying the enemy: We go up to someone, and ask "Are you a muslim?" If they say "Yes", we shoot them. In reality, we realise that the centre of gravity is not killing the insurgents, it's making them irrelevant by focusing on the populace.

Destroying the Taliban is never going to happen. You can't destroy what is effectively an ideology. I note you use 'defeat' instead of 'destroy' in option 2, the two words have different meanings. You can defeat someone without destroying them, and even if you destroy them, that doesn't mean they're defeated.

The secret to getting out of Afghanistan actually has very little to do with the Taliban, or HiG or any of the other groups out there. The secret is stability, a lack of power vacuums. Let's say we were to kill off every Taliban person there, and pull out. If there isn't a capable and somewhat supported central government, all you're doing is leaving a vacuum for the next group of people to take over. Maybe they'll be benevolent dictators, maybe they'll be nutters. The secret is not in firepower, but in getting the people to trust that the best course of action is not an unstable collection of rival tribes but a system of peace and stability with all the benefits which accompany a government. We are introducing people to the concept of 'roads.' A pretty fundamental piece of infrastructure: With it comes an economy and government services. However, as long as a large portion of the population doesn't have something that you can at least drive a Toyota Hilux over, you will have instability. As long as there is instability, there is a need for stabilising influences. It's a sort of a vicious circle: To have stability you need to have governance and development. To have governance and development, you need to have security. To have security, you need stability. That's where the military forces come in: By providing the security by military means you can break the cycle caused by what would otherwise be the lack of security.

Are the Western troops and Afghan military really tackling the opium trade seriously?(why has the supply continued when troops are everywhere at point of entry at borders)

Fairly low priority, I would guess. It's a source of financing for the opposition, but it doesn't actually contribute anything much that I can think of to the instability of the country outside of that. We are trying to get them to move to even more profitable crops, but we're starting with the people we can reach. (See comments about 'roads')

There are not troops everywhere, and you certainly can't seal the borders. The US can't seal an open desert with Mexico, there's no way to seal a country as rugged as Afghanistan.

NTM

gurramok

Not close is answer to your question. Its economic as well to show the Afghans the fruits and potential wealth from their own means.

I don't see in your post how the afghan govt are doing what the US are doing in all of this, where are their edcuation/economic programs?

Will there be a point that the Afghan security forces will be so powerful to contain and destroy/defeat the Taliban that there be no need to have US troops there?

philologos

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Did you even read my post? I said the 7/7 bombers were not the Taliban. These guys were Muslims making a stand becasue people of their religion were been murdered / still are.

Are you seriously justifying the butchering of innocent Londoners on the the way to work? Londoners who had nothing to do with the Blair Government apart from being merely British, bear in mind British from all ways and walks of life. They even butchered some of their fellow Muslims. I find it a bit uneasy that someone could make such an argument.

In the Western world, we encourage civil liberties and rights in our countries and we allow for freedom of practice of religion. Can we really say the same about Pakistan and Afghanistan under the Taliban regime?

I held reservations towards going into either of these wars. However to say that it is justified to blow yourself up on a bus because of the Afghanistan war when you live in a free society like Britain is really out of line.

We are all humans first and foremost. You say that these people stood up because Muslims were being killed in Afghanistan. However, at the end of the day, we are all born, we all will die, we all feel, we all love. This goes beyond whether or not you are Muslim, Christian, Jew, and so on.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Oh yeah because there isn't a muslim out there who can travel to any country like Pakistan for any other reason than go there and learn how to make bombs :rolleyes:

That isn't the point. Of course Muslims go to Pakistan to meet their families and the like. The point is in this case 2 people went to Pakistan, and actually did learn how to make bombs.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

No they didn't say they're the Taliban, here is what Khan said:

Here is what Tanweer said:

I don't think acknowledging what they argued makes it any more justified.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

And Clinton sending missiles into Afghanistan would have nothing to do with that? By the way the topic is about Irish troops in Afghanistan not American troops.

It's all a related surely?

Buffy the bitch

Jakkass wrote: »

Are you seriously justifying the butchering of innocent Londoners on the the way to work? Londoners who had nothing to do with the Blair Government apart from being merely British, bear in mind British from all ways and walks of life. They even butchered some of their fellow Muslims. I find it a bit uneasy that someone could make such an argument.

Yes I am. These brave men gave their lives for something they believed in. Fair enough innocent people but how many slaughtered in Iran/Afghanistan/Palestine and many other countries. You see you see it from one end and I see it from another. Just think about it if bombings like this were happening everyday would Britain still they have their murderer troops in the likes of Iraq? The answer to that is no, it might be hard for someone liek you to except that but it's the truth. Why is it someone who sticks on a suicide belt willing and knowing he about to end his life regarded a terrorist when infact the biggest terrorism on this world is state terrorism but sure what hell it's the good guys so it doesn't count as terrorism.

Jakkass wrote: »

In the Western world, we encourage civil liberties and rights in our countries and we allow for freedom of practice of religion. Can we really say the same about Pakistan and Afghanistan under the Taliban regime?

You sound like George Bush.

Jakkass wrote: »

I held reservations towards going into either of these wars. However to say that it is justified to blow yourself up on a bus because of the Afghanistan war when you live in a free society like Britain is really out of line.

No it's not, may god greet these men with open arms.

Jakkass wrote: »

We are all humans first and foremost. You say that these people stood up because Muslims were being killed in Afghanistan. However, at the end of the day, we are all born, we all will die, we all feel, we all love. This goes beyond whether or not you are Muslim, Christian, Jew, and so on.

Unfortunately the world is not like that. If it was as simple as that there would be no wars.

Jakkass wrote: »

That isn't the point. Of course Muslims go to Pakistan to meet their families and the like. The point is in this case 2 people went to Pakistan, and actually did learn how to make bombs.

And you know this how? Oh because you might have seen this on the news. What just like the Guildford four or even the Birmingham six were guilty!! Don't believe everything you read on the news. If they were so high up in the Talibhan why make homemade bombs? Don't forget these were just homemade bombs whiich police later said they learned how to make off the internet.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think acknowledging what they argued makes it any more justified.

Like I said they weren't the Taliban.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's all a related surely?

Yes it is but who attacked who first? At least you're clever enough to know this war didn't start on 9/11.

irish_bob

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Yes I am. These brave men gave their lives for something they believed in. Fair enough innocent people but how many slaughtered in Iran/Afghanistan/Palestine and many other countries. You see you see it from one end and I see it from another. Just think about it if bombings like this were happening everyday would Britain still they have their murderer troops in the likes of Iraq? The answer to that is no, it might be hard for someone liek you to except that but it's the truth. Why is it someone who sticks on a suicide belt willing and knowing he about to end his life regarded a terrorist when infact the biggest terrorism on this world is state terrorism but sure what hell it's the good guys so it doesn't count as terrorism.



You sound like George Bush.



No it's not, may god greet these men with open arms.



Unfortunately the world is not like that. If it was as simple as that there would be no wars.




And you know this how? Oh because you might have seen this on the news. What just like the Guildford four or even the Birmingham six were guilty!! Don't believe everything you read on the news. If they were so high up in the Talibhan why make homemade bombs? Don't forget these were just homemade bombs whiich police later said they learned how to make off the internet.




Like I said they weren't the Taliban.



Yes it is but who attacked who first? At least you're clever enough to know this war didn't start on 9/11.

may i ask you what experiences have so radicalised your outlook that you admire the 7-7 bombers , are you yourself iraqi

Poccington

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Yes I am. These brave men gave their lives for something they believed in. Fair enough innocent people but how many slaughtered in Iran/Afghanistan/Palestine and many other countries. You see you see it from one end and I see it from another. Just think about it if bombings like this were happening everyday would Britain still they have their murderer troops in the likes of Iraq? The answer to that is no, it might be hard for someone liek you to except that but it's the truth. Why is it someone who sticks on a suicide belt willing and knowing he about to end his life regarded a terrorist when infact the biggest terrorism on this world is state terrorism but sure what hell it's the good guys so it doesn't count as terrorism.

How many innocent people were slaughtered on 9/11?

The Brits aren't in Iraq anymore by the way.

Buffy the bitch

Poccington wrote: »

How many innocent people were slaughtered on 9/11?

Small bit under 3,000, I know nothing compared to the innocents murdered in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Poccington wrote: »

The Brits aren't in Iraq anymore by the way.

That's right. They go there, bomb the **** out of the place, take their oil then leave for Afghanistan. Like I stated the war is bigger than just Iraq it is a war on Muslims.

may i ask you what experiences have so radicalised your outlook that you admire the 7-7 bombers , are you yourself iraqi

It takes some balls to go out and willing to give your life for a cause you believe in.

100% Irish...

philologos

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Yes I am. These brave men gave their lives for something they believed in. Fair enough innocent people but how many slaughtered in Iran/Afghanistan/Palestine and many other countries. You see you see it from one end and I see it from another. Just think about it if bombings like this were happening everyday would Britain still they have their murderer troops in the likes of Iraq? The answer to that is no, it might be hard for someone liek you to except that but it's the truth. Why is it someone who sticks on a suicide belt willing and knowing he about to end his life regarded a terrorist when infact the biggest terrorism on this world is state terrorism but sure what hell it's the good guys so it doesn't count as terrorism.

I don't consider blowing yourself up to be brave. You don't get to live with the consequences of your own actions.

I already told you, I wasn't originally supportive of the Iraq or Afghanistan war, but now that the troops are there, I feel the troops are obliged to clean up and secure the region before leaving.

As for "bombings like that happening every day". Nobody could orchestrate bombs like that every day in Britain given CCTV and policing infrastructure.

However to consider that people who may have disagreed with the war. Even Muslims who they claim to be standing up for on the London Underground and on London's buses is detestable.

As for Palestine, I have to ask you something:
Do you think the increase in anti-Semitic attacks during the period of the Gaza war in Britain was acceptable yes or no?

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

You sound like George Bush.

I sound like George Bush for saying the truth?

We have a better standard of human rights in our countries than there is in Pakistan. I thought that was obvious. I regret the civilian lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, but at least their Governments are more accountable to the international community and they are on the road to providing a better quality of life for their current citizens.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

No it's not, may god greet these men with open arms.

I'd like to think that God would hold them to account for their actions.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Unfortunately the world is not like that. If it was as simple as that there would be no wars.

You advocate the view that they were right to blow themselves up because Muslims have died in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I brought up the point that humanity is one, and that even if they believed they were doing it to defend Muslims they killed Muslims on 7/7. I have yet to see how this is okay.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

And you know this how? Oh because you might have seen this on the news. What just like the Guildford four or even the Birmingham six were guilty!! Don't believe everything you read on the news. If they were so high up in the Talibhan why make homemade bombs? Don't forget these were just homemade bombs whiich police later said they learned how to make off the internet.

There was police intelligence performed between British and Pakistani authorities on the issue. The Pakistanis are attempting to clamp down on their own terror problem at the minute.

We can assess their guilt by the very fact that they lay dead many taken with them on 7/7.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Like I said they weren't the Taliban.

I have already clarified that there are quite a lot of interlinks with this group. Following the attacks on London a video was released by Al Queda with Khan featured.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Yes it is but who attacked who first? At least you're clever enough to know this war didn't start on 9/11.

If you think that the first attacks started on 9/11 I would advise you to do some research on the 1993 WTC attacks.

Sand

It takes some balls to go out and willing to give your life for a cause you believe in.

100% Irish...

My, youre so shocking and out there.

Is that enough attention or do you want more?

Buffy the bitch

Jakkass wrote: »

I already told you, I wasn't originally supportive of the Iraq or Afghanistan war, but now that the troops are there, I feel the troops are obliged to clean up and secure the region before leaving.

And how long would that take? Until worlds end. Let's just install a puppet government to do the job.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for "bombings like that happening every day". Nobody could orchestrate bombs like that every day in Britain given CCTV and policing infrastructure.

Of coursr they could if they wanted too. Countries cannot stop people like them if they really did want to attack. I'm sure you've heard the term we have to be lucky once, you have to be lucky all the time.

Jakkass wrote: »

We have a better standard of human rights in our countries than there is in Pakistan. I thought that was obvious. I regret the civilian lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, but at least their Governments are more accountable to the international community and they are on the road to providing a better quality of life for their current citizens.

Don't forget China, you know the country that has one of the worse humman rights record in the world but sure they loan America money so everything is ok. Well why don't they go and attack Pakistan then?

Jakkass wrote: »

You advocate the view that they were right to blow themselves up because Muslims have died in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I believe people have a right to resist.

Jakkass wrote: »

I brought up the point that humanity is one, and that even if they believed they were doing it to defend Muslims they killed Muslims on 7/7. I have yet to see how this is okay.

But are you so sure it even was the men? Maybe you should honestly wach this it's about an hour long but have a look http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8756795263359807776

Jakkass wrote: »

There was police intelligence performed between British and Pakistani authorities on the issue. The Pakistanis are attempting to clamp down on their own terror problem at the minute.

Pakistan trying to get rid of the Taliban :eek: are you joking me, sure many Pakistan officials are high up in the Taliban. I bet the Pakistan government are sorry they told Osama a missile was on the way well before 9/11.

Jakkass wrote: »

I have already clarified that there are quite a lot of interlinks with this group. Following the attacks on London a video was released by Al Queda with Khan featured.

That video is edited and has been proven to be a fake, look it up.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you think that the first attacks started on 9/11 I would advise you to do some research on the 1993 WTC attacks.

Like I said at least you know the war didn't start on 9/11

Manic Moran

gurramok wrote: »

Not close is answer to your question. Its economic as well to show the Afghans the fruits and potential wealth from their own means.

Sometimes the problem can be convincing them to change their ways. "Road? I don't need a road. My father had no road. His father had no road. Neither did anyone before me. I need to work my fields, sod off with this 'road' business" Once their neighbouring village has one, though, and they see the benefits of being able to transport their goods to market, then they become converted.

I don't see in your post how the afghan govt are doing what the US are doing in all of this, where are their edcuation/economic programs?

I just said what we were doing at our base, I didn't cover anything that the Afghans are doing on their own. (Actually, one of our problems is that they often don't tell us what they're doing. Getting information on how they're going to run their election this week is like pulling teeth). The Afghans have plans of their own, sometimes they just need more resources than they can provide. That's where we help out. But even in those cases, we're sure to make it a partnership event, giving credit to the Afghan government for their wisdom in their suggestions and guidance, or whatever.

Will there be a point that the Afghan security forces will be so powerful to contain and destroy/defeat the Taliban that there be no need to have US troops there?

I certainly hope so. I would change 'powerful' to 'capable' though.

NTM

philologos

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

And how long would that take? Until worlds end. Let's just install a puppet government to do the job.

Both governments have been elected by the people. Infact Afghanistan will be voting in the next few weeks, but unfortunately they've been threatened with death by the Taliban if they do so.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Of course they could if they wanted too. Countries cannot stop people like them if they really did want to attack. I'm sure you've heard the term we have to be lucky once, you have to be lucky all the time.

I'm pretty sure if they attacked every day, the security arrangement would be a lot different. We still have to discuss whether such attacks on civilians are legitimate.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Don't forget China, you know the country that has one of the worse humman rights record in the world but sure they loan America money so everything is ok. Well why don't they go and attack Pakistan then?

Simply because the Pakistani government is attacking the Taliban at the minute in Swat Valley. The Pakistanis are on the receiving end of support from the United States.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

I believe people have a right to resist.

These men didn't have anything to resist. They don't live in either Pakistan or Afghanistan, and even if they did these deaths were not of military personnel but of innocent civilians of whom many probably disagreed with this war.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

But are you so sure it even was the men? Maybe you should honestly wach this it's about an hour long but have a look http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8756795263359807776

I will do when I get time.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Pakistan trying to get rid of the Taliban :eek: are you joking me, sure many Pakistan officials are high up in the Taliban. I bet the Pakistan government are sorry they told Osama a missile was on the way well before 9/11.

According to whom. You would need to back that up. If they were it would be just stupid for the Pakistani military to be attacking the Taliban in Swat Valley.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

That video is edited and has been proven to be a fake, look it up.

Provide the sources, and I will consider them.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Like I said at least you know the war didn't start on 9/11

Of course it didn't. However I'm not convinced that the US are more guilty than any other country in this.

Lemming

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

I believe people have a right to resist.

Large jump between "resist" and "murder" my shockingly radicalised dear.

Pakistan trying to get rid of the Taliban :eek: are you joking me, sure many Pakistan officials are high up in the Taliban. I bet the Pakistan government are sorry they told Osama a missile was on the way well before 9/11.

Erm .. you DO know that the swat (sp?) region in northern Pakistan is in a state of violent anarchy right now right? Frequent gun battles between Taleban (and/or sympathisers) and the government forces? It has been for months and such that it's posing direct threat to Pakistan's stability? You know that thing called "the news". Ever heard of it?

irish_bob

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Small bit under 3,000, I know nothing compared to the innocents murdered in Iraq/Afghanistan.



That's right. They go there, bomb the **** out of the place, take their oil then leave for Afghanistan. Like I stated the war is bigger than just Iraq it is a war on Muslims.



It takes some balls to go out and willing to give your life for a cause you believe in.

100% Irish...

so thier is no reason for your repulsive views , your simply a lonney lefty

btw , the vast majority of people being murdered in iraq are by muslims killing other muslims , you know , the thousand year plus sunni , shiite rivalry

Bragadin

I don't know what the solution is in afghanistan. At differnt times i thought i did, but it is difficult. You can't convince a militant afghan that his government and the method of representation is legitimate if it were set up in such a way to bar extremists from leadership, however much sense that may make to a western observer. We can't leave afghanistan without the coutnry decending towards warlordism and the eventual return of the taliban (or somethign very much like it). If 'we' (in that i mean all participants) stay in afghanistan the cost in both money, time and most importantly human lives would be great. The solution would have to involve some quasi imperial strategy as well, which would decrease NATOs reputation further.

philologos

irish_bob wrote: »

so thier is no reason for your repulsive views , your simply a lonney lefty

btw , the vast majority of people being murdered in iraq are by muslims killing other muslims , you know , the thousand year plus sunni , shiite rivalry

Although the homocide rate per 100,000 has dropped significantly from 2006 - 2008 in Iraq.

It was 101 per 100,000 in 2006, it was 21 per 100,000 in 2008. There must be something right going on. I mean Trinidad and Tobago has a homocide rate of 45 per 100,000, Guatemala has a rate of 47 per 100,000.

There must be something right happening there.

Nodin

Manic Moran wrote: »

Considering Ireland only has seven people here, who would be paid the same to sit in the Curragh and drink tea, I don't think it's really stretching the Irish taxpayer's budget.

Indeed. Plus, we voted to support the whole thing.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Personally, I think the average Afghan is better off now than they were ten years ago.

NTM

True, though thats a relative thing.

Jakkass wrote:

Do you not think the importing of heroin into the European Union a threat? Increased assistance in the curbing of heroin importation into the European Union could very much save lives in Europe

Columbia has a "pro-western" government and yet is still the largest producer of cocaine.

Rather unfortunately, the idea that the military presence can or should reduce the export of opium has been used to "sell" the war. The fact is that its on the wishlist, somewhere down past opening the first Afghan disney world in Helmand.

Jakkass wrote:

The Afghans need to be trained and effectively to ensure that all of Afghanistan is under their sovereign control.

Yes, the "Afghans" - the Pashtuns, Uzbeks, Turkmen Nuristani and jaysus knows how many others, who are further subdivided by clan and tribe.....

Tricity Bendix

SLUSK wrote: »

So you support this "war on terror" even though it has proven to be an epic fail?

Actually, given that mainland USA hasn't suffered a major terrorist attack since 9/11, I think its going quite well.

wes

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

Actually, given that mainland USA hasn't suffered a major terrorist attack since 9/11, I think its going quite well.

What about the British? They were attacked on 7/7, and then there are the other allies of the US who were attacked. Not to mentioned all the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan and destabilizing huge chunks of the Middle East and South Asia.

So we measure success on whether American's are killed or not, and everyone else be damned?

Tricity Bendix

wes wrote: »

What about the British? They were attacked on 7/7, and then there are the other allies of the US who were attacked. Not to mentioned all the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan and destabilizing huge chunks of the Middle East and South Asia.

So we measure success on whether American's are killed or not, and everyone else be damned?

Alls Im saying is that if I were the president of the US, I wouldn't be in any major hurry to pull out of Afghanistan so that the Taliban can take over again.