Senior Brit officer killed in Afghanistan.

[lapsedmethodist]

[quote=merle haggard;1840512]

the modern jihadist phenomenon was actively sponsored , funded , trained and armed by the US . Not just in afghanistan but in pakistan , syria and bosnia . From the late 70s right up to the late 90s . It most certainly would not exist in the form it does today without direct US assistance .

The modern jihadist movement draws its sustenance from the Deobandist movement which was formed as part of the Indian freedom movement around 1850 ; the Indian Mutiny as it was known. During 1947 it was responsible for formenting attacks on Hindus and Christians before partition - in Calcutta - and during partition in Delhi and the Punjab.
In what became known as Pakistan it led attacks against Kashmir in 1948.
From the '70's on it began, through Jaamat- i- Islam, a programme of class based ethnic cleansing aimed at the Pandit Brahmins who are about the only educated or sophisticated group in Kashmir. The Deobandis organised on behalf of the Mujahadeen against the Russians.

And that's where the U.S.A. comes in. But these particular jihadis were NOT born of American interference.

[mr_anderson]

oops

[Dr Qasim Afridi]

The US has consistently built up and used islam to undermine nationalism and communism. The jihadist radical movement wouldn't exist without them.

Communism yes Nationalism not really... But its interesting that the Americans recognized Islam as a force that could cripple communism in Afghanistan... They dont seem to realize the same force could easily cripple capitalism in that country too...

It remains to be seen what the Americans are really doing in Afghanistan... Most indications are that its not about Afghanistan itself... but rather its neighbor Pakistan against which it has definitive designs...

the modern jihadist phenomenon was actively sponsored , funded , trained and armed by the US . Not just in afghanistan but in pakistan , syria and bosnia . From the late 70s right up to the late 90s . It most certainly would not exist in the form it does today without direct US assistance

Correct...

It was the Saudis who funded the jihdadists out of ideological grounds rather than political. The worst the Americans can be blamed for is neglecting Afghanistan after the Soviets left.

The Saudi leaders were never ideological rather they were and always have served the American interests (since the second world war anyway)... So it would be political...

Moreover the Americans did not neglect Afghanistan after the Soviet left... They okayed the deployment of a militia called the Taliban with help from Pakistan...

Well, no, cos it was an inside conspiracy, not muslim one. Check out this site for non-tinfoil hat-wearing opinions

The facts are that the American government was forewarned that there was an attack in the planning... why they did nothing to stop it is a question that needs to be asked... most probably to get an excuse to destroy Iraq, control its oil and promote the neocon agendas... as for the Muslim role in 9/11... most certainly it was a group of Muslims who hijacked the planes... but then who was pulling the strings... Osama? Whos pulling Osama's strings?

[bobbysands81]

Why is anyone even "debating" with Clanrickard?

He has stated erarlier on this thread that the Taliban has killed more innocent people than the British Army.

Now anyone who makes a claim such as that is obviously deluded and not able to debate properly.

[Aindriu]

Can I just point to yis who are gloating over the deaths of these 2 lads that it isn't just the USA and Britian who have forces in Afghanistan. Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France (The Foreign Legion), Slovakia and Estonia all have units there.

Don't hear the criticisms of those countries do we??? They are all there at the express desire of the Afghan government who have no wish to see their country plunged back into the dark ages again by the Taliban - most of whom are Pakistanis and have been 'educated' in Pakistani madrashas.

[mutley]

So do you think it is the policy of the US and UK millitaries to deliberately kill civilians? Do you really think that in your crazy fecked up little left wing galaxy? Those bombings occured because the Taliban hide amongst the civilian population because they know that A) NATO forces won't fire on civilians unless they are fired at from the same civilian areas and B) if NATO make a mistake and kill civilians far left idiots and their friends in the Islamofacist movement will make a song and dance about it to demonise NATO.

Think about your justification for Civilian deaths here, and put it in a Northern Ireland Context

The IRA kill a few soldiers, then hide out in Castle Court Shopping centre, The brits bomb the shopping centre and thousands of shoppers are killed.

The end doesn't always justify the means

[Aindriu]

Think about your justification for Civilian deaths here, and put it in a Northern Ireland Context

The IRA kill a few soldiers, then hide out in Castle Court Shopping centre, The brits bomb the shopping centre and thousands of shoppers are killed.

The end doesn't always justify the means

All coalition forces in Afghanistan are bound by an engagement of enemy policy when ordering airstrikes, artillery strikes etc. They MUST know the exact location where the taliban are and MUST know if civilians are in the area. Both facts are reported when the request is made and it is high level staff who then decide if the strike goes ahead. There have been many, many cases when the troops on the ground have been denied supporting airstrikes BECAUSE there were civilians in the area. Sorry to disappoint those amongst you who think that bombings etc are carried out willy nilly.

[cactusflower]

All coalition forces in Afghanistan are bound by an engagement of enemy policy when ordering airstrikes, artillery strikes etc. They MUST know the exact location where the taliban are and MUST know if civilians are in the area. Both facts are reported when the request is made and it is high level staff who then decide if the strike goes ahead. There have been many, many cases when the troops on the ground have been denied supporting airstrikes BECAUSE there were civilians in the area. Sorry to disappoint those amongst you who think that bombings etc are carried out willy nilly.

I've previously posted photographs on these threads of the women and children who have been killed and maimed by coalition bombing in Afghanistan. There have been apologies from Clinton and Karzai, that horrible drug dealing quisling, has been repeatedly forced to complain to the US. As you clearly know nothing about what is going on, why post as though you are issuing holy writ ?

[cactusflower]

Can I just point to yis who are gloating over the deaths of these 2 lads that it isn't just the USA and Britian who have forces in Afghanistan. Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France (The Foreign Legion), Slovakia and Estonia all have units there.

Don't hear the criticisms of those countries do we??? They are all there at the express desire of the Afghan government who have no wish to see their country plunged back into the dark ages again by the Taliban - most of whom are Pakistanis and have been 'educated' in Pakistani madrashas.

And as I'm sure you know, so does ireland. A disgrace. Most of the countries you name have small numbers of troops in less active areas.

[Clanrickard]

Why is anyone even "debating" with Clanrickard?

He has stated erarlier on this thread that the Taliban has killed more innocent people than the British Army.

Now anyone who makes a claim such as that is obviously deluded and not able to debate properly.

I meant within Afghanistan you mug. That is what we are talking about.