British Fatalities in Afghanistan

DubMedic

Since the beginning of operations in October 2001 314 British forces personnel have died serving in Afghanistan.

Click on the pictures for details.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/british+fatalities+in+afghanistan/3344457

R.I.P.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Thanks.

Kinda sorry I clicked on the link, its hard to drag yourself away once you start browsing the photos.

God rest the poor lads.

Fratton Fred

I was at the Runnymede Air forces Memorial yesterday and someone had left a small memorial to Corporal Jonathan Horne, Rifleman William Aldridge, Rifleman James Backhouse, Rifleman Joseph Murphy and Rifleman Daniel Simpson. I guess it was there because it is 12 months since they died.

What struck me most, was that three of the five were only 18.

RIP brave young men.

iceage

RIP to all of them. Stand easy lads.

Wicklowrider

There is a reason they are being killed - it isn't like they are saints.
210 civilians have died in Afhganistan in the past six months as a result of Nato-led airstrikes, shootings and raids:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10598764.stm

No one can put a figure on how many have died since the invasion.

Fratton Fred

Wicklowrider wrote: »

There is a reason they are being killed - it isn't like they are saints.
210 civilians have died in Afhganistan in the past six months as a result of Nato-led airstrikes, shootings and raids:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10598764.stm

No one can put a figure on how many have died since the invasion.

You obviously missed this bit

Most of the deaths documented by the report were caused by insurgents, the report notes, with the widespread use of roadside bombs particularly deadly, killing almost 300 civilians

shaneybaby

Wicklowrider wrote: »

There is a reason they are being killed - it isn't like they are saints.
210 civilians have died in Afhganistan in the past six months as a result of Nato-led airstrikes, shootings and raids:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10598764.stm

No one can put a figure on how many have died since the invasion.

That report also notes that "Most of the deaths documented by the report were caused by insurgents,". Seems like those fighting afhgan "freedom" aren't really too interested who they kill. "invasion" or not.

edit:snap

Wicklowrider

shaneybaby wrote: »

That report also notes that "Most of the deaths documented by the report were caused by insurgents,". Seems like those fighting afhgan "freedom" aren't really too interested who they kill. "invasion" or not.

edit:snap

Please read it again - it states very clearly that 210 civilians died from NATO actions.
Thats civilians not insurgents, killed by NATO.

Fratton Fred

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Please read it again - it states very clearly that 210 civilians died from NATO actions.
Thats civilians not insurgents, killed by NATO.

I think you're not reading it very closely. It says that over 1000 civilians have been killed, the majority by insurgents.

There is a war on, tragically, in a war civilians get killed. The big difference is that the Taliban are deliberately targeting civilians, whereas Nato are not.

shaneybaby

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Please read it again - it states very clearly that 210 civilians died from NATO actions.
Thats civilians not insurgents, killed by NATO.

yes it does. Re-read my post again. If the guys trying to win back the country are killing more of their own people that the "invaders" i don't really see what your point is.

troubleshooter

shaneybaby wrote: »

yes it does. Re-read my post again. If the guys trying to win back the country are killing more of their own people that the "invaders" i don't really see what your point is.

They are not fighting to "win back their country", the insurgents loyalty is to their religion, tribe and faction, many are not even Afghan. There are many complex factors at play, and loyalties switched depending on local politics/agendas etc. They are not fighting for nationalism, rather religious ideology and local agendas.

NATO is there with the backing of the UN and Afghan govt.

Seems to me some will take the opposite side no matter how bad it is, just to be on the opposite side of the US/UK.

shaneybaby

troubleshooter wrote: »

They are not fighting to "win back their country", the insurgents loyalty is to their religion, tribe and faction, many are not even Afghan. There are many complex factors at play, and loyalties switched depending on local politics/agendas etc. They are not fighting for nationalism, rather religious ideology and local agendas.

NATO is there with the backing of the UN and Afghan govt.

Seems to me some will take the opposite side no matter how bad it is, just to be on the opposite side of the US/UK.

I said the country not their;) but yeah it was something i'm aware of. Strange how the insurgents are never referred to as invaders though.

Read a great article before regarding how the russians divided up the administrative areas of the country to split the tribes into pieces. If they were fighting each other they wouldn't have bothered the russians was the things i suppose.

The unfortunate thing for the afghans is that they're stuck in the middle of everyone elses war.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Wicklowrider wrote: »

There is a reason they are being killed - it isn't like they are saints.

They're soldiers, some of us here are soldiers. We don't question the politics behind our service, we serve.

Some of us here have also losts friends & comrades on active service. We've also served alongside British soldiers in The Balkans, and believe it or not ISAF in Afghanistan!.

Those guys killed are only different to us in the uniform they wear, and I hope they can rest in peace.

**Kinda sorry I took the trolls bait**.

Wicklowrider

Referring to British casualties without acknowledging civiliian casulaties isn't very objective and use of emotive language is very one sided.Lamentng 310 British dead since 2001 pales in comparsion to the amount of civilians being killed daily. Nowhere can I find a definite figure for civilian deaths as a result of NATO actions - yet they want me to believe they can accurately report civilian deaths as result of insurgents?
I'd just rather see a an unbiased view of casulaties. If you enter someone elses country carrying arms you can reasonably expect to be fired at. If you are minding your own business, unarmed and proven good person you can reasonably expect not to. Anyone trying to imply I support the taliban/insurgents is completely misrepresenting my concern.

BlaasForRafa

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Referring to British casualties without acknowledging civiliian casulaties isn't very objective and use of emotive language is very one sided.Lamentng 310 British dead since 2001 pales in comparsion to the amount of civilians being killed daily. Nowhere can I find a definite figure for civilian deaths as a result of NATO actions - yet they want me to believe they can accurately report civilian deaths as result of insurgents?
I'd just rather see a an unbiased view of casulaties. If you enter someone elses country carrying arms you can reasonably expect to be fired at. If you are minding your own business, unarmed and proven good person you can reasonably expect not to. Anyone trying to imply I support the taliban/insurgents is completely misrepresenting my concern.

You most certainly are not unbiased when it comes to the british army and your posts on this thread are pretty disingenuous.

Fratton Fred

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Referring to British casualties without acknowledging civiliian casulaties isn't very objective and use of emotive language is very one sided.Lamentng 310 British dead since 2001 pales in comparsion to the amount of civilians being killed daily. Nowhere can I find a definite figure for civilian deaths as a result of NATO actions - yet they want me to believe they can accurately report civilian deaths as result of insurgents?
I'd just rather see a an unbiased view of casulaties. If you enter someone elses country carrying arms you can reasonably expect to be fired at. If you are minding your own business, unarmed and proven good person you can reasonably expect not to. Anyone trying to imply I support the taliban/insurgents is completely misrepresenting my concern.

What you must also accept then, is that the majority of the civilians killed were going about their daily business and were directly targeted by the very people ISAF are fighting. It then begs the question, how many civilians would ne dead if the Taliban had a free reign?

There is a democratically elected government (of sorts) in Afghanistan and the NATO led forces are there supporting them and the Afghan army.

Wicklowrider

Amalia Curved Flood wrote: »

They're soldiers, some of us here are soldiers. We don't question the politics behind our service

You aren't the only soldier here.
I didn't mention politics once.

Amalia Curved Flood wrote: »

Some of us here have also losts friends & comrades on active service.

Unfortunately, again you aren't the only one.

Amalia Curved Flood wrote: »

Those guys killed are only different to us in the uniform they wear, and I hope they can rest in peace.

No arguement on this - but those civvies are no different to your or my relatives either - don't know why you can't recognise that.

Amalia Curved Flood wrote: »

Kinda sorry I took the trolls bait**.

Sorry you think that. If someone posts a view on a public forum they should expect other views - thats not trolling.

Wicklowrider

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What you must also accept then, is that the majority of the civilians killed were going about their daily business and were directly targeted by the very people ISAF are fighting. It then begs the question, how many civilians would ne dead if the Taliban had a free reign?

There is a democratically elected government (of sorts) in Afghanistan and the NATO led forces are there supporting them and the Afghan army.

the 210 people I posted about were targetted by the NATO forces and I merely posted this because I respect their right to rememberance alongside the british soldiers ( or any other soldier) Your point is accurate and I am not argueing it in the slightest.

DubMedic

Wicklowrider wrote: »

There is a reason they are being killed - it isn't like they are saints.
210 civilians have died in Afhganistan in the past six months as a result of Nato-led airstrikes, shootings and raids:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10598764.stm

No one can put a figure on how many have died since the invasion.

Seriously, if you want to discuss the civilian death toll then start another thread.

This thread is discussing the fatalities suffered by British Armed Forces.

I Respectfully ask that you don't comment on the local civilian aspect in this thread anymore, and if you would like to please start a new thread.

Manic Moran

Actually, I'm going to let this one run a bit.

As long as there's no gloating over the deaths, then the philosophical reasons as to why we make particular note of British soldiers dead and not Afghan civilians is a valid topic.

Taking the moderator hat off for a moment, I quote a comment by someone else.

It then begs the question, how many civilians would ne dead if the Taliban had a free reign?

This is an interesting question. For example, one of the indirect effects of the removal of the taliban is an increased infrastructure. I ran the figures once of how many children died under the heading of 'infant mortality' in 2009 vs 2001 (About 24% decrease), and the figures were astounding. And a hell of a lot higher than the amount of people killed by combat action by both sides. That's before taking in other factors like deaths due to TB dropping some 50%. So you do have to ask yourself, if the only thing that you want to worry about is 'number of people who died earlier than they should have', and ignoring things like quality of life, is it really such a bad thing for the average Afghan who just wants to raise his family that the Taliban were kicked out?

And that brings us back to 'why we care about the British dead.' The British arguably could just pull out at this point and let the country fester. It certainly isn't as good a place for Al Qaeda to hang out any more, they've lost most of their credit with the Taliban. Much of the West's goal has been achieved. At worst, they can pull out and let the Americans deal with it. Now we're just trying to build the country, the benefits at this point are probably more for the Afghans than it is for the West. The British deaths are 'optional' and they're culturally close to us, of course we're going to take note.

NTM

iceage

I reckon what your saying Manic is that we can all deal with the topic as long as nobody takes the piss. Of course I'm not suggesting anyone has done that yet, but lets be honest the whole Brit thing raises hackles understandably. History has a knack of doing that.

As for the civilian deaths yes they are a tragedy and not to be overlooked for a second and I'm sure they are not, I'll give you that Wicklowrider but they are recorded we all know this and this is not an excuse, but War has a habit of carrying a heavy price on the civilian population in any Warzone. You of all people should at least be able to acknowledge this.

The OP at a guess is a mention of how many guys the British have lost in this...operation to try and stabilise the lot of the Afghan people. I'm sure there are many other threads on many other forums discussing Canadian, German, American etc losses and civilan loss of life in this fcking mess.

Wicklowrider

DubMedic wrote: »

I Respectfully ask that you don't comment on the local civilian aspect in this thread anymore, and if you would like to please start a new thread.

Fair enough.

Manic Moran wrote: »

As long as there's no gloating over the deaths
NTM

You won't ever get a post from me gloating over anyone's death.
Thanks for the remainder of your post - it is well informed and educational.

Manic Moran

FYI, I did a little hunting around. This article does the calculations for us, although the improvement was 18% at the time, a few years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/world/asia/26iht-kabul.5.5458699.html?_r=1

KABUL — Infant mortality has dropped by 18 percent in Afghanistan since 2001, in one of the first real signs of recovery for the country five years after the ouster of the Taliban regime, health officials said Thursday.

"Despite many challenges, there are clear signs of health sector recovery and progress throughout the country," said Muhammad Amin Fatimi, the minister of health.

The infant mortality rate - the number of children who die before their first birthday - has dropped to 135 per 1,000 live births in 2006 from 165 per 1,000 in 2001, according to a countrywide survey by Johns Hopkins University, he said. By comparison, the infant mortality rate in France in 2005 was 5 per 1,000, according to Unicef.

That represents a drop of 18 percent and means that 40,000 to 50,000 infants who were dying annually during the Taliban era, are alive today, Fatimi said.

The USAID website currently shows 22% as the improvement figure.

NTM

iceage

I'm starting to wonder whats the point..


Renegade ANA Soldier kills 3 from 1RGR.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Three-British-Soldiers-Have-Been-Killed-In-An-Attack-In-Southern-Afghanistan-By-Renegade-Afghan/Article/201007215664356?lpos=World_News_Second_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15664356_Three_British_Soldiers_Have_Been_Killed_In_An_Attack_In_Southern_Afghanistan_By_Renegade_Afghan__

Cowardly bastard.:mad:

BlaasForRafa

iceage wrote: »

I'm starting to wonder whats the point..


Renegade ANA Soldier kills 3 from 1RGR.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Three-British-Soldiers-Have-Been-Killed-In-An-Attack-In-Southern-Afghanistan-By-Renegade-Afghan/Article/201007215664356?lpos=World_News_Second_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15664356_Three_British_Soldiers_Have_Been_Killed_In_An_Attack_In_Southern_Afghanistan_By_Renegade_Afghan__

Cowardly bastard.:mad:

RIP

It shows what kind of people the taliban are that they can celebrate a sneak attack on sleeping soldiers by a turncoat. I hope the Gurkhas catch up with this guy and gut him with a kukri.

Scots Iwish

Once a year, the proud British nation will claim that at the going down of the sun, they will remember them.
The rest of the year, the average Brit could not even name the regiments in any specific action, let alone the names of those who will have foolishly risked or given their lives for the wealthy elites and big business.

Up the road, the older soldiers who also fought in such vital and just wars, are now living in their modest little house, that they can often not afford to heat, and which they will soon be forced to sell. Sell the family home, to pay for a old age home, where total strangers will *if they are very lucky* show some moments of care for them.
Onto death they slowly sit and wait, marching in the mind a boring waffle of some forgotten battle in a now totally irrelevant war, that no one cares about unless Tom Hanks is directing.
Group sentimentality for someone you do not actually know, is like a box of chocolates from Aldi. The cheap ones.

On the plus side

Trillions and Trillions of mineral wealth has been found in Afghanistan.
It was worth it after all.

BlaasForRafa

Scots Iwish wrote: »

Once a year, the proud British nation will claim that at the going down of the sun, they will remember them.
The rest of the year, the average Brit could not even name the regiments in any specific action, let alone the names of those who will have foolishly risked or given their lives for the wealthy elites and big business.

Up the road, the older soldiers who also fought in such vital and just wars, are now living in their modest little house, that they can often not afford to heat, and which they will soon be forced to sell. Sell the family home, to pay for a old age home, where total strangers will *if they are very lucky* show some moments of care for them.
Onto death they slowly sit and wait, marching in the mind a boring waffle of some forgotten battle in a now totally irrelevant war, that no one cares about unless Tom Hanks is directing.
Group sentimentality for someone you do not actually know, is like a box of chocolates from Aldi. The cheap ones.

On the plus side

Trillions and Trillions of mineral wealth has been found in Afghanistan.
It was worth it after all.

How profound! :rolleyes:

Scots Iwish

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

How profound! :rolleyes:

Thanks Bla.
It is worthy of repeating.
Once a year, the proud British nation will claim that at the going down of the sun, they will remember them.
The rest of the year, the average Brit could not even name the regiments in any specific action, let alone the names of those who will have foolishly risked or given their lives for the wealthy elites and big business.

Up the road, the older soldiers who also fought in such vital and just wars, are now living in their modest little house, that they can often not afford to heat, and which they will soon be forced to sell. Sell the family home, to pay for a old age home, where total strangers will *if they are very lucky* show some moments of care for them.
Onto death they slowly sit and wait, marching in the mind a boring waffle of some forgotten battle in a now totally irrelevant war, that no one cares about unless Tom Hanks is directing.
Group sentimentality for someone you do not actually know, is like a box of chocolates from Aldi. The cheap ones.

On the plus side

Trillions and Trillions of mineral wealth has been found in Afghanistan.
It was worth it after all.

Scots Iwish

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

RIP

It shows what kind of people the taliban are that they can celebrate a sneak attack on sleeping soldiers by a turncoat. I hope the Gurkhas catch up with this guy and gut him with a kukri.

This poster thinks she/he is a smart ass, BUT! she/he is clearly encouraging - enciting murder.

Is this allowed on boards.ie.

I thought it was a serious offence.

Manic Moran

Mmm... I think it was more a hyperbolic statement than anything else. Somehow I doubt this board is frequented by particularly many members of the Gurkha regiment.

NTM

ynotdu

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Please read it again - it states very clearly that 210 civilians died from NATO actions.
Thats civilians not insurgents, killed by NATO.

Hi Wicklowrider,I honestly get confused about where You stand regarding the English army over a few threads You have posted in.
I sense hostility and when You are challenged over a post seem to back down.I fully accept that no deaths give You pleasure.

My background should leave Me in theory with anti-English sentiment but i have accepted the vote in favour of the good Friday agreement which on the Island of Ireland amounted to roughly an 90% yes vote.

I suppose really what i am trying to understand is what exactly do You think America should have done after 9/11?
It could hardly have left Afghanistan as a breeding ground and training camp for every Looney bent on destroying the west.

It is a fact that Europe tends to stand by when even its neighbours are being slaughtered e.g ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.
It was only Bill Clinton and Tony Blair that had the balls to do the morally correct thing and intervene{no votes or Oil to be won there}

The fact is that England was the first to jump in with offers of substantial Military help When the US needed all the friends it could get.

You seem to always be ready to jump in to criticise Countries that have the Weapons to minimise their own loss's,and yes that unfortunate phrase 'Collateral damage' to describe innocents is sickening.

In some less strictly Moderated threads on boards i would be branded a Traitor to Ireland for supporting any actions by the English army.

Where exactly do You stand

Regards

BlaasForRafa

Scots Iwish wrote: »

This poster thinks she/he is a smart ass, BUT! she/he is clearly encouraging - enciting murder.

Is this allowed on boards.ie.

I thought it was a serious offence.

Ah come on now, get a grip. I hope this traitorous little scrote is killed, I hope I win the lotto at the weekend, I hope Ireland win the next six nations, I hope for a lot of things, some are more likely to occur than others.

Its not like I'm speaking in a gurkhas ear saying "kill him, go on, go on, kill him"