Five British soldiers killed

UK Soldiers Killed By Policeman Are Named


David Williams, Sky News Online
Five British soldiers shot dead by a rogue Afghan policeman they were training have been named by the Ministry of Defence.


The victims were Warrant Officer Darren Chant, Sergeant Matthew Telford, Guardsman James Major, Acting Corporal Steven Boote and Corporal Nicholas Webster-Smith.
The Taliban have said they were behind the killings inside a military compound in Helmand province.
A spokesman said the police officer, who fled the scene and has yet to be found, was a member of their rebel organisation.
"It's a new Taliban tactic," he said. "We have more Taliban who have infiltrated into the police and army."
Warrant Officer Chant, Sergeant Telford and Guardsman Major were from the Grenadier Guards, while Acting Corporal Boote and Corporal Webster-Smith were from the Royal Military Police.


Guardsman James Major was one of the victims



They were fatally injured in an attack following a patrol in the Nad-e'Ali district.
Six soldiers wounded in the incident are being treated at Camp Bastion, the Army's main Afghan base.
Sergeant Telford, from Grimsby, leaves a wife, Kerry, and two sons aged nine and four.
His uncle, William Ferrand, said he died doing the job he loved.
"It was his job and he absolutely loved it. Everybody knows what a wonderful lad he was," he said.
"His two sons are going to be devastated and will miss their father.
"We're a military family, but he was the first one to join at the age of 16."

I'd like to express my condolences to the families of all these British soldiers, killed just doing a job.

To 'beat' the Taliban would require a major military occupation of the country, at great cost to the Occupiers. Most Afghans will resent that, and popular resistance can be expected to rise- such as incidents of this nature. Meanwhile, the Karzai government we are propping up is a corrupt crock of shit, with no legitimacy. All infrastructural and aid projects in Ghan are accompanied by bribe money paid to the Taliban anyway- amazingly, 'We' are one of the main sources of funding for the Taliban. It also turns out a CIA study has shown that a lower portion of funding for the Tali comes from drug cultivation & smuggling than was previously thought- but Karzai's brother (on the CIA's payroll) is one of the biggest drug Warlords of all.

The current tack sounds like a no win situation to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabang

The current tack sounds like a no win situation to me.

---

It's most certainly a complete mess:

Quote:

---

Five soldiers slaughtered by Afghan 'ally'
8:47AM Thursday Nov 05, 2009
By Kim Sengupta



The Afghan security forces are the key in the West's exit strategy from this bloody and increasingly unpopular war. The police, in particular, are supposed to be the lynchpin of a safe civic society.

As part of his grand strategy to turn the tide of this war, the US general commanding Nato forces, Stanley McChrystal, has called for the size of the force to be increased from the current 82,000 to 160,000.

But the police are poorly equipped and paid, badly trained with many members steeped in corruption using their uniforms and guns for extortion of the local population. Many deal in drugs or are themselves addicts.

Now it is the rising prevalence of police officers taking part in attacks against Western troops and officials which has raised deep worries about just how much the force has been infiltrated by the Taleban.

Four weeks ago a policeman in Wardak province opened fire on American soldiers out on patrol, killing two of them before fleeing. Last year, over a period of less than a month, Afghan police twice attacked US forces, killing two soldiers and wounding three others.

Last week men in police uniforms forced their way into a guest house in Kabul and murdered five UN election workers. They were not members of the force, but had police issue radio transmitters and detailed information on the target of their attack, which, say investigators, could only have come from official sources.

It is in the Helmand frontline, in areas like Nad-e-Ali, that there is the most apprehension that police officers may switch sides - either due to intimidation or money or religious and ideological commitment.

Unlike the Afghan army, which deploys its members away from home areas, the police have to live and work in communities which has its share of Talibs. At the same time, the police have access to the camps of their mentors, British and other Nato forces and share accommodation at checkpoints.

Sitting in the UK headquarters in Nad-e-Ali, Lieutenant Mohammed Shakir said "I do not care if they try to frighten me. But in some cases the terrorists will threaten them with doing harm to the children, to the parents, and say you must help us if you want them to be safe. And sometimes you see this is working.

"There has been a problem with opium, but that is the case in many parts of the country. We have a strict policy against drugs, but whether it is enforced or not depends on the commander. We have a good commander here."

On average an Afghan policeman gets $120 a month. Due to corruption and inefficiency in the system they often go unpaid, or have some of their wages taken by senior officers.

Private Ghour Khan said " It is not a lot of money for risking your life every day and then sometimes other people take their cuts or you have to wait a long time to get the money. The Taleban pay their fighters and they pay them on time, so there is temptation. What we need to do is get rid of the corruption."

- THE INDEPENDENT

---

RIP, and my deepest condolences to their family's :(, but this was one of the things, that it is almost impossible to avoid when you are interacting with and training Afghan military and police, there will be 5th. columnists here and there, nevertheless it was a very sad way to loose 5 good soldier's life's.

The situation in Afghanistan is difficult, but that is no reason to give up, If the Brits in WW2 had been as defeatist as some members of this board, Hitler would have received a surrender after Dunkirk.

It is after all better to fight on Afghan soil, than to scoop up dead body's in the London underground, Madrid train stations or from the rubble of New York high rises, as long as the swine's are under severe pressure in their heartland, they have less time, energy and resources to contemplate major terror act's, and to carry them out in a successful way, as the last few years is testament to.

The 5 dead young Soldiers where part of that, on their part heroic, effort to keep us all safer back home, and an effort to give the Afghan people a brighter and more enlightened future, by giving up now, their death's will have been in vain.

Luckily even Obama has pledged himself to the long haul in Afghanistan, with increased troop numbers as gradual withdrawal from Iraq progresses, something quite a few of his otherwise weak-kneed supporters conveniently seems to forget, just as he has decided to carry on with the CIA rendition/kidnapping programs that Clinton another Democrat in fact started, and Bush is criticised for.

It might be a new foot, but it is in many ways the same trusted old boot, and that at-least might in the end be a deciding factor, in ultimately giving purpose and justice for the 5 young Heroes absolute and final sacrifice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by larvidchr

It is after all better to fight on Afghan soil,.

---

yeah, all 100 AQ members in afghanistan. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by larvidchr

RIP, and my deepest condolences to their family's :(, but this was one of the things, that it is almost impossible to avoid when you are interacting with and training Afghan military and police, there will be 5th. columnists here and there, nevertheless it was a very sad way to loose 5 good soldier's life's.

The situation in Afghanistan is difficult, but that is no reason to give up, If the Brits in WW2 had been as defeatist as some members of this board, Hitler would have received a surrender after Dunkirk.

---

I agree with you. This is a terrible tradgedy for the soldiers families and nothing is going to compensate them for their loss. Nonetheless, if you choose soldiering as a career and have to go on active service then there is always a risk you might get killed carrying out your duties. I feel that the international effort that is being put in to put Afghanistan on its feet was never going to be an easy task. It is even more difficult when our soldiers are having to do the job on a shoestring. Once the govournment had decided to commit troops to Afghanistan it should not then allow them to be at greater risk than necessary by giving them inadequate equipment to provide for their security.
At the moment things don't look good and the Americans seeing this , have called for a ' surge '. IMO they are correct. The alternative is to pull out and give terrorists a safe haven. This would only lead to more terror attacks on unarmed civilians on our own streets. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bangyai

The alternative is to pull out and give terrorists a safe haven.

---

Terrorists. One has to wonder whom the terrorists are. Historically and presently, still most can't figure it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Terrorists. One has to wonder whom the terrorists are. Historically and presently, still most can't figure it out.

---

They were all in Iraq, hence the invasion. Problem solved now.

Quote:

---

Five British soldiers killed

---

That's what can happen when you volunteer to fight for an army at war.

They'd be pretty stupid to have signed up without realising this result was highly possible.

Next...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chairman Mao

Quote:

---

Five British soldiers killed

---

That's what can happen when you volunteer to fight for an army at war.

They'd be pretty stupid to have signed up without realising this result was highly possible.

Next...

---

Yep that is what can happen when you do things voluntarily..

It can happen when you get in an airplane and end up still strapped to your seat in a small Scottish town instead of your destination..

It can happen when you get in an airplane and the last thing you see is a secretary leaning over her bosses desk in NYC..

All of these things are done voluntarily..but you expect somebody else to prevent it for you...

You were hit on the head as a child, weren't you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chairman Mao

You were hit on the head as a child, weren't you.

---

Yep..and I licked my teenager sister's pussy when I was 10 years old ( lick my pip ooooh lick my pip) ..and I was beaten up at school and I served with UK Special Forces....

But I refuse to take the bait..

click click...

It's ironic that a battle between a hegamon and one of the poorest states on earth will end in a truce. The Taliban's unique ideology will only doom Afghanistan to poverty and all they have to do is stay and live as the sons of the soil; the buminputra which Malays's speak of. The U.S and the British need to find more and more poor people to send and kill poor people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mad_dog

It's ironic that a battle between a hegamon and one of the poorest states on earth will end in a truce. The Taliban's unique ideology will only doom Afghanistan to poverty and all they have to do is stay and live as the sons of the soil; the buminputra which Malays's speak of. The U.S and the British need to find more and more poor people to send and kill poor people.

---

But the thread is about the soldiers killed not why they are there....if it was then I agree with with any post that says we shouldn't be .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mad_dog

It's ironic that a battle between a hegamon and one of the poorest states on earth will end in a truce. The Taliban's unique ideology will only doom Afghanistan to poverty and all they have to do is stay and live as the sons of the soil; the buminputra which Malay.s's speak of. The U.S and the British need to find more and more poor people to send and kill poor people.

---

But the thread is about the soldiers killed not why they are there....if it was then I agree with with any post that says we shouldn't be .

---

You are right. Poor lads fighting to maintain a government which massively abuses democratic elections. As well as that that both the U.S and the U.K troops wouldn't be able to tell what they are fighting for. The Talib have blind faith; a weapon more powerful than any bomb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mad_dog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mad_dog

It's ironic that a battle between a hegamon and one of the poorest states on earth will end in a truce. The Taliban's unique ideology will only doom Afghanistan to poverty and all they have to do is stay and live as the sons of the soil; the buminputra which Malay.s's speak of. The U.S and the British need to find more and more poor people to send and kill poor people.

---

But the thread is about the soldiers killed not why they are there....if it was then I agree with with any post that says we shouldn't be .

---

You are right. Poor lads fighting to maintain a government which massively abuses democratic elections. As well as that that both the U.S and the U.K troops wouldn't be able to tell what they are fighting for. The Talib have blind faith; a weapon more powerful than any bomb.

---

Almost right..

Poor lads fighting for a government which massively abuses democratic elections etc would be more correct.

A soldier fights for the existing government it doesn't fight TO maintain the existing government....governments are maintained by a democratic election...now whether proportional representation would be better is a different discussion...and nothing to do with 5 soldiers being killed..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mad_dog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mad_dog

It's ironic that a battle between a hegamon and one of the poorest states on earth will end in a truce. The Taliban's unique ideology will only doom Afghanistan to poverty and all they have to do is stay and live as the sons of the soil; the buminputra which Malay.s's speak of. The U.S and the British need to find more and more poor people to send and kill poor people.

---

But the thread is about the soldiers killed not why they are there....if it was then I agree with with any post that says we shouldn't be .

---

You are right. Poor lads fighting to maintain a government which massively abuses democratic elections. As well as that that both the U.S and the U.K troops wouldn't be able to tell what they are fighting for. The Talib have blind faith; a weapon more powerful than any bomb.

---

Almost right..

Poor lads fighting for a government which massively abuses democratic elections etc would be more correct.

A soldier fights for the existing government it doesn't fight TO maintain the existing government....governments are maintained by a democratic election...now whether proportional representation would be better is a different discussion...and nothing to do with 5 soldiers being killed..

---

fighting to maintain/ fighting for seem pretty synonymous to me. And I am sure that the men who were killed didn't define their mission so accurately. The news from the front is boredom, feelings of pointless strugle and waiting for Obama to a to deliver the bold new strategy for the just war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mad_dog

The news from the front is boredom, feelings of pointless strugle and waiting for Obama to a to deliver the bold new strategy for the just war.

---

I seems to me that politics is involved in this decision to add more troops.

Of course, I don't know for sure.

He's "being tough," and "standing up" to the Taliban and the "terrorists."

As noted in previous posts, many are operating out of Pakistan now, as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milkman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mad_dog

The news from the front is boredom, feelings of pointless strugle and waiting for Obama to a to deliver the bold new strategy for the just war.

---

I seems to me that politics is involved in this decision to add more troops.

Of course, I don't know for sure.

He's "being tough," and "standing up" to the Taliban and the "terrorists."

As noted in previous posts, many are operating out of Pakistan now, as well.

---

I respect him for taking the time to create a workable plan with clear objectives. What constitutes a "win" for America in Afghanistan.

As MM noted Pakistan is far more important if the Afghan "state" collapses not much changes.The Pakistani state falls and you have the 8 or 9th most populus country ITW sliding and causing mayhem across the whole of the mid East, sub continent and central asia. And the risk of Pakistans nuclear weapons being grabbed and stashed by various factions. Pakistan has faced four weeks of major suicide attacks in the Punjab and in the FATA in the street and at army headquarters. There have been around 15 attacks in the last month and they haven't recieved the attention they surely deserve. Pakistan has a wide range of Jihadi groups several of which have a symbiotic relationship with the state (Jihad groups carry out state services such as policing and education where P. Gov can't)

Terror groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba carried out the commando style assult on Mumbai. LeT is respected by the people and the government. It is very well for America to give Pakistan 5 billion in aide but you must except that a good proportion of that money will go into supporting LeT and the Harkat groups... and their ultra violent attacks on enemies near and far...US Tax spending at it's best.