Afghanistan deaths

I have just been reading about another 2 soldiers that have been killed in the Afghanistan war
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19683348
It says they are both seperate shootings and are not to be though from hostile action...does that mean they were shot by Afghan police?...Im a bit confused.

 

How can a shooting not be 'hostile action'? A gun is built for only one purpose, its impossible to use one in a non hostile way.

 

That is also my view. Officially speaking, it probably means that they were not two sides instructed to open fire one against the other, but it could have been for example a passer by or another accident.

 

http://news.sky.com/story/985600/afghan-attack-two-uk-troops-shot-dead

Had a look on sky news just now it seems it was Afghan police...i would class that as hostile action too!! And the BBC dont see it fit to tell us that why?? Also i noticed it said that 6 harrier jets were destroyed during the attack on camp bastion, im pritty sure the BBC did not mention that either when they reported that one. its just says on the BBC website they "damaged aircraft and buildings"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19608561

I dont know about anyone else but i really cant imagine the entire operation in Afghanistan making any difference what so ever once NATO forces leave?

 

NATO should never have gone into Afghanistan. It was a daft idea. Granted, it was horrendous when the twin towers were destroyed, leading to war in Afghanistan, but it wasn't a country that attacked, it was a group. I don't remember hearing it on the news that NATO levelled parts of Ireland after Canary Wharf.

But the past is the past. You can't change it. There's no much point dwelling on what might have been. The best we can do is learn from it. NATO should have learned that, for example, wars in Asia don't work because you can never be sure where the boundaries are or whose side anybody is on. The best outcome I reckon now is if NATO eases out, handing power to the locals, and letting them take the blame if things don't go to plan.

As an aside, I was slightly amused by something on the news the other day. It was the US naivety that amused me. In response to some protest against Americans in Libya, someone in the US government (can't remember who it was) made some remark about how only a few months ago they (the US) and helped the Libyans, and he seemed utterly surprised that Libyans didn't appear to feel eternally indebted. This is why we should never intervene unless we're under direct threat. We've seen over and over again how you can't change a nation, you can only stir it up for a while.

 

An arab news websites says that 51 NATO troops have been killed this year by Afghan police. Apparantly we are just misunderstood though.

"NATO attributes around 75 percent of the attacks to grudges, misunderstandings and cultural differences. The Afghan defense ministry this month published a brochure for the Afghan army with advice on how not to misunderstand Westerners."

Its the same with Egypt, the US have gave them billions and billions of dollars in aid, i think it was 30 billion they said (more than the rest of Africa put together), and what do they have to show for it...people burning the US flag in the streets and attacking theirs and our embacies!

 

A few weeks ago I had a misunderstanding with my boss at work. Neither of us tried to shoot the other though.

 

I`d check under your desk then for an IED

 

We should get out immediately, the place will return back to "normal" once we are gone.

You cant take over a country and impose the government you want in power, things dont work that way.

Lets face it, we cant even get a decent government here, so why are we trying to impose one in Afghanistan.

 

There will always be problems when, what is considered a Western "superpower" intervenes and tries to impose western ideas and ideals into a culture which is so ingrained in ancient practices, ideas and ideals and, incredibly tribal at the heart of it. A clash of cultures.

 

I am, and have always been, very uneasy about our meddling with the Desert dwellers. They are too different and we should leave well alone. Hate to think how much fruitless dosh has been wasted out there and as for the loss of life. Its abhorrent and I know I mustn't dwell on it - I cannot change the way the First World thinks. Very few dark patches in my comfy life but this is one of them.
Jenny namaste

 

I don't follow wars and guerrillas on tv (I just change channels), but as somebody above mentions, I imagine it very possible that allies intervening during a conflict, can have problems effectively integrating with the local mentality, culture, way of life etc expecially in the space of a few days and under pressure.

Just to make an example: adhering to agreed plans from higher authorities is very hard to ask to people which don't plan even from one day to the next (sometimes they don't even know if they will eat one day to the next) as well as you never know what to expect from those that don't fear death because they believe in a wonderful afterworld or they are ready to die for their country.

To me if it was possible to improve standard of life in the countries of origin would be the best way forward, because a lot of conflicts exist because of poverty, and a lot of those citizen that live abroad hate every moment of it, and would glady return to their homeland and families if it was the decent thing to do.

Useful would be also to stop productions of weapons a stop broadcasting about wars for the next ten years.