15 British soldiers dead in 10 days

RedPlanet · 13-07-2009 1:10pm

self delete

Fratton Fred · 13-07-2009 1:28pm

Biggins wrote: »

Background info to the above pipeline debate found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/oil.html?q=oil.html

http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm

I love the last one.

The whole thing, 9/11, the attacks on USS cole, the whole lot, were staged simply as an excuse for the US to enter Afghanistan. It even claims that Bin Laden was selected by the Saudis on behalf of the US government.

All that so a pipeline could be built from Turkmenistan to India.

isn't the comedy forum that way somewhere>>?

Biggins · 13-07-2009 1:33pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I love the last one...

I provided the above links without comment either way.
There is the more accurate reporting and then there is the conspiracy stuff.
Its down to the individual what to believe.

Fratton Fred · 13-07-2009 1:48pm

Biggins wrote: »

I provided the above links without comment either way.
There is the more accurate reporting and then there is the conspiracy stuff.
Its down to the individual what to believe.

that is what i had presumed.:)

it doesn't stack up. The link with oil/Gas is just too tenuous. why go to all that hassle when you can just bypass the country? as i showed in my link, there are plenty of pipelines in that area already, why start a war just to build one more, that isn't even pointing in your direction?

sovtek · 13-07-2009 2:00pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

maybe you could show us where the pipeline is on the map then?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5121394.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8147053.stm

Right about....here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

asdasd · 13-07-2009 2:38pm

Right about....here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

you can read? He asked you to show the pipeline on the map, not a report from the BBC from 2002 about a proposed pipeline which clearly has not been built.

And what exactly do you believe here. Are you a troofer? Is 9/11 and all that caused by the desire to build a pipeline in the future, one which was never actually built, and would be of little benefit to the US anyway. What a weird ruling class, huh, they can carry out 9/11 and other false flags to get a war started, to get a pipeline built. They just cant get a pipeline built.

Conspiracy forum that way <

they think it was the lizard men.

Manic Moran · 13-07-2009 5:26pm

I know people who went to Afghanistan, and some who are out there right now. They haven't a f*cking clue to be honest, outside of vague patriotic notions (usually jingoistic to be honest), they couldn't tell you the first thing about the reasons why they've been sent to fight and die for an oil pipeline and geo-political strategy.

OK, this should be interesting. Where have I posted any jingoistic patriotic notions about my presence in Afghanistan?

NTM

AbusesToilets · 13-07-2009 8:15pm

That's because you're in denial, serving under a blanket of ignorance and military propaganda. You should open your mind and accept the views and opinions of people who have never been tainted by actual experiencing life on the ground.

Fratton Fred · 13-07-2009 8:30pm

Or own up to being a pipe fitter :-)

conchubhar1 · 14-07-2009 3:34am

if they were not in afghanistan - they most likely would be alive

its a sad reality but you live by the gun, you die by it too

Manic Moran · 14-07-2009 4:35am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That's because you're in denial, serving under a blanket of ignorance and military propaganda. You should open your mind and accept the views and opinions of people who have never been tainted by actual experiencing life on the ground.

Ah. Fair point.

if they were not in afghanistan - they most likely would be alive

See bizarre statistics on death rates on roads vs war zones. The method of death may be different, but the deaths themselves continue. By way of example, after a quick two-minute search for incidents in the last month:

http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_12654752

Iraq veteran killed in quarry accident: Authorities say an Iraq war veteran has died after hitting his head on rocks while swimming at a Quincy quarry.
Norfolk District Attorney William Keating says 21-year-old Patrick Coughlin's body was recovered at about 6:20 a.m. yesterday, after his friends reported him missing at about 2 a.m.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12822204?source=rss

Fort Carson veteran killed in car crash: Mark Ecker, 23, of East Longmeadow, Ma., was ejected from the Pontiac Sunfire when it went out of control and rolled on Interstate 93 near Lawrence on Friday, according to The Associated Press.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/suffolk/ny-libowe2312907847jun22,0,4545076.story

Robert Bowen, 34, of Ronkonkoma, an Iraq war veteran and a seven-year Suffolk police officer, died Monday after a car crash on the LIE.

I recall at one incident last year where a soldier was killed in a mugging in California the day after he got back from Iraq. Can you imagine that? Spending a year in a war zone, only to be killed by some thug who wanted your wallet.

NTM

conchubhar1 · 14-07-2009 6:02am

most likely

anyway - my main point they should not be there

and since they are and they chose it - im sad for their deaths - but you live by the gun you die by the gun

Fratton Fred · 14-07-2009 8:57am

conchubhar1 wrote: »

anyway - my main point they should not be there

Why?

if you make a point, surely you should back it up with some logic.

FTA69 · 14-07-2009 11:52am

asdasd wrote: »

Thats because the Indymedia view of the world is not the correct one. The West is there to stop the Taleban running the place. Bugger all to do with a non-existant oil pipeline.

Back to the point I was making, do you think the youngfellas out there give a sh*t about that position, or understand it even? They're motivated by "serving your country innit?" and the other youngfellas next to them in the foxhole.

If the Taleban run the place then there will be hell to pay across Europe and America in the next few years, possibly a nuclear attack. There were well documented reports of British born muslims going to Afghanistan for training, and the 9/11 goobers went there. Osama lives in a cave there. If he is not dead. Allowing a whole country, awash with drug money, to stay in Taleban control would be a nightmare.

Half the drug money was held in the hands of the allies the "West" was supporting for years, the Northern Alliance. The fact you think the "West" is motivated solely by a desire to maintain peace in the area is laughable, especially considering it was they who armed and trained the Taliban in the first place.

asdasd · 14-07-2009 12:53pm

The fact you think the "West" is motivated solely by a desire to maintain peace in the area is laughable, especially considering it was they who armed and trained the Taliban in the first place.

You need to actually learn to read. Seriously. you are responding to this comment.

If the Taleban run the place then there will be hell to pay across Europe and America in the next few years, possibly a nuclear attack. There were well documented reports of British born muslims going to Afghanistan for training, and the 9/11 goobers went there. Osama lives in a cave there. If he is not dead. Allowing a whole country, awash with drug money, to stay in Taleban control would be a nightmare.

Its hard to argue with people who are arguing with shadows, I said nothing about peace in the region ( the Taliban could win and bring peace) . Nor do I care that some of the Northern Alliance also controlled the drug supply. I said nothing about that either. If there are going to be drugs, let them have it, not the Taliban. I am not going to bother writing what I wrote again, but you should try and actually read what I said.

As for the comment about the soldiers, I am sure some of them are motivated by mere soldiery and would go anywhere. I dont see how that is relevant either.

AS it happens this war is getting bad press int the shires. So the Governments of the West should come out and say what I said: nothing about peace, justice, democracy - all about not having a failed State run by religious lunatics with stated aims to get nuclear bombs next door to a comprimsed nulcear power.

14-07-2009 1:15pm

gurramok wrote: »

Pakistan are fighting them.

I think its an exaggeration that there is a terrorist threat from an impoverished nation like Afghanistan.

Where will they get a nuclear bomb from? It certainly ain't Pakistan!!

N Korea is impoverished but they at the very least have enough for a dirty bomb. I think the Al Qaeda folk would be more likely than the Koreans to mess up a city in the West. Im no fan of the war in Afghanistan but this scenario isnt that far fetched.

I cant seem to find a proper strategy or direction for the Wests war in Afghanistan they are there nearly a decade and still parts of the country are lawless. I will say however that a peaceful non Taliban run Afghanistan would be far better for the West. If the West somehow pulls this one off and Afghanistan develops to the point of being able to ditch the poppy crop then it could be worth it just for that alone!

RedPlanet · 14-07-2009 2:06pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I will say however that a peaceful non Taliban run Afghanistan would be far better for the West. If the West somehow pulls this one off and Afghanistan develops to the point of being able to ditch the poppy crop then it could be worth it just for that alone!

Ironically it was the lawlessness and barbarity of the tribal-run post-Soviet war Afghanistan which gave rise to the Taliban in the first place.
I think you're dreaming if you actually imagine Afghanistan ditching the poppy.
Karzai certinaly knows the limits of his influence in that respect.

conchubhar1 · 14-07-2009 9:01pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why?

if you make a point, surely you should back it up with some logic.

it is not the streets of britain.......

this is why i dislike this forum - there is also a few who ask for proof of a bleedin obvious statement

Fratton Fred · 14-07-2009 10:54pm

conchubhar1 wrote: »

it is not the streets of britain.......

this is why i dislike this forum - there is also a few who ask for proof of a bleedin obvious statement

So UN sanctioned intervention in countries is wrong? Are you lobbying your TD to bring the Irish troops back from Chad?

oncevotedff · 15-07-2009 5:38pm

gurramok wrote: »

No. Britain should be able to protect itself internally from these matters instead of going to a long distant country...

Then the fighting would be taking place in Britain. Any country with a realistic defence policy choses to do the fighting on their enemy's patch.

Fratton Fred · 15-07-2009 6:06pm

Just forgetting Al Qeada and their threat to the west, imagine if they got control of Pakistan.......

oncevotedff · 15-07-2009 6:16pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Just forgetting Al Qeada and their threat to the west, imagine if they got control of Pakistan.......

It seems virtually inevitable to me, sooner or later.

Sand · 15-07-2009 6:25pm

It is only inevitable if they are not resisted. The people of the Swat valley got a taste of life under the Taliban & Al Queda and did not welcome it.

Bob Z · 16-07-2009 12:21am

Biggins wrote: »

90% of the worlds Heroine drug trade comes from the Helmand province.
This is why the area is of strategic importance to Taliban/AlQueda. By going in now while they still can, the troops are helping the cut off an absolutely HUGE source of funding for Taliban/AlQueda.

But opium production in Afganistan became WORSE after the taliban was ousted

Manic Moran · 16-07-2009 4:14am

Bob Z wrote: »

But opium production in Afganistan became WORSE after the taliban was ousted

Realpolitik in effect. Now they no longer control the country, they need money to conduct a war. The more money the better, and I don't think they're in a position to be too picky over where it comes from. Opium is a fairly high-profit product which a lot of 'reputable' people and places won't deal with. If they're pariahs anyway, what have they to lose by dealing with it?

NTM

Victor · 16-07-2009 6:51am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Just forgetting Al Qeada and their threat to the west, imagine if they got control of Pakistan.......

Won't happen. Too many other factions will get there first.

Bob Z · 16-07-2009 6:12pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Realpolitik in effect. Now they no longer control the country, they need money to conduct a war. The more money the better, and I don't think they're in a position to be too picky over where it comes from. Opium is a fairly high-profit product which a lot of 'reputable' people and places won't deal with. If they're pariahs anyway, what have they to lose by dealing with it?

NTM

So Britain has to stay in Afganistan because of the opium production which wasnt really happening before they got there?

Maybe its not the taliban thats selling it so much as Afganistan Allies?

15 British soldiers dead in 10 days

Comments