Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Soldiers' lives thrown away by politicians, Clegg claims

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 10 July 2009
LIBERAL Democrat leader Nick Clegg yesterday called for a change of strategy in Afghanistan as he warned that soldiers' lives were being "thrown away" by politicians.
Amid growing concern about the rising British death toll in the conflict, he said troops were being set an impossible task.

Not only were they lacking in equipment and manpower, Mr Clegg claimed, there was no co-ordinated international political
action to underpin military efforts. His intervention follows the deaths of seven British soldiers in seven days.

Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth acknowledged on Wednesday that there was "gloom and worry" about the fatalities and also admitted "more lives will be lost".

Mr Clegg said recent events made him question the cross-party consensus on Afghanistan for the first time. "I am concerned we are simply not giving our troops the means to do their difficult job," he said. "We must not will the ends without being prepared to will the means."

He said two of the recent British fatalities died while travelling in a vehicle "unable to withstand a roadside bomb".

"I am appalled that so many of our soldiers have been killed because of inadequate equipment, and disturbed to hear from experts that we don't have enough forces to hold and rebuild territory once it has been won," he said.

A total of 176 British service personnel have died in Afghanistan since operations began in 2001. There are about 8,300 British troops in the country.

Mr Clegg went on to insist that a co-ordinated political strategy was essential to run alongside the military campaign.

"Britain's lukewarm support for European co-operation in defence and security planning has contributed to the fragmented nature of operations," he said. "Our soldiers' lives are put at risk because our politicians won't get their act together."

However, the head of British forces in southern Afghanistan later insisted that his troops were winning the battle against the Taleban.

Addressing journalists in Helmand's provincial capital, Lashkar Gah, Brigadier Tim Radford said: "Yesterday I was on the ground in the Green Zone with my own soldiers and their brothers from the Afghan National Army. I was humbled by the experience. They are fighting with extraordinary skill and courage.

"Their morale and dedication are high, and that is because, hour by hour and day by day, they can feel they are winning."

About 3,000 British troops are currently involved in Operation Panchai Palang, aimed at clearing insurgents out of the central Helmand river valley ahead of next month's Afghan elections.

Trooper was aiming for place in 2012 Olympics

A YOUNG British soldier killed in Afghanistan had hoped to compete in the 2012 Olympics, his comrades said yesterday.

Trooper Christopher Whiteside, 20, of The Light Dragoons, died in a roadside blast near Gereshk in Helmand province on Tuesday. He was the seventh UK serviceman to be killed in Afghanistan in as many days.

Trooper Whiteside was a talented swordsman who had hoped to train for a place in the GB fencing team for the 2012 Olympics in London on his return from Afghanistan.

Known to his friends as "Norm" after former Manchester United footballer Norman Whiteside, the soldier was taking part in Operation Panther's Claw. His commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Gus Fair, described him as hard-working, selfless and "blessed with a great sense of humour".

Lt-Col Fair said: "Norm had been tested in some of the most intense fighting ever experienced in Afghanistan for four days prior to his death and had never been found wanting."







The full article contains 596 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 09 July 2009 11:47 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Afghanistan
 
1

CRAGman,

10/07/2009 00:30:05
I think Nick Clegg needs to be careful here - the BBC correspondent on the frontline in Helmand province certainly didn't seem to agree that equipment failures were all that important a cause of the tragic deaths of our troops. For instance, he made the point that vehicles able to withstand roadside bombs simply couldn't navigate the narrow paths that less robust vehicles being used in the current offensive can.
2

redcliffe62,

10/07/2009 04:33:31
being anti iraq war got the squibs votes, and in pomgolia at this time they need to differentiate themselves from the tory and labour parties. they need column inches and public support on issues to become aviable alternative.
3

steve 1511,

aberdeen 10/07/2009 06:02:48
clegg speaks the truth,truth a word that sticks in labour partys throat,a helicopter shortage since our service men were sent by john reid and still a shortage,we have a total of eight chinooks in helmand a uttter disgrace that our toops have to beg help from the yanks for heavy air lifts another disgrace from brown a man with no morals and a mealy mouth
4

donald,

glasgow 10/07/2009 06:35:02
Equip them better so as they can bomb more civilians?
5

Angoos,

Baku, Azerbaijan 10/07/2009 06:51:51
#3 The armed forces that are in Afghanistan don't want "total control". They have been sent there by their respective governments to try and bring stability to the region by ousting the Taliban from power and trying to bring democratic rule to the region. Given the centuries of tribalism in that has existed in that area then their chances of success are slim to say the least.

#5 There has been a drastic reduction in the defence budget almost every year since the end of the Falklands Conflict. The Armed Services of the UK are probably the best trained in the World but a succession of UK governments have continually deprived them of the funds to have the equipment that their expertise demands.

#6 I think you'll find that the bombing of civiliians in Afghanistan is a result of gung ho Americans !!
6

,

10/07/2009 07:50:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

Martinh,

10/07/2009 08:19:50
There is a nobility of cause in Afghanistan, despite the overtones of another Vietnam. In the areas where the Taliban have been thrown out, most children now go to school, women can and do pursue careers as teachers doctors and lawyers etc, and these are some of the many reasons why Afghanistan cannot be abandoned now. The dangers are however all too apparent, the serious risk to soldiers from roadside bombs and suicide bombers, who target civilians too as deliberate acts of terrorism like the head teacher also murdered by them recently for simply being a teacher. The terrible toll on our troops lives are not in vain, and in the liberated areas, unlike Vietnam, where the Imperialist army of the US forces was seen as an occupying force propping up a corrupt puppet regime, the people do not want the allied forces to leave them to an unspeakable fate if the Taliban ever took over again.

8

Martinh,

10/07/2009 08:24:07
#6. You are dancing on the graves of dead Scottish soldiers. Shame on you.
9

,

10/07/2009 08:25:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

Lianachan,

Highlands 10/07/2009 08:36:45
I think politicians have been throwing soldiers lives away for thousands of years.
11

Martinh,

10/07/2009 09:13:52
#11. Even the US has a right under International law to defend itself, and following the 9/11 attacks, it was not illegal for them to pursue Bin Laden who was being protected by the Taliban.

The motives of the US over the years are indeed dubious, and had 9/11 not happened and their creation Osama bin Laden trained by the United States to conduct a war against the previous Russian occupying forces, and then retired to run a private dictatorship, then I suspect that the US would indeed have conspired to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan and to hell with the people. But that was then, and the current occupying International forces are NOT conducting an illegal war. War is legitimate on the grounds that the al qaeda sponsored Taliban represent a real threat to many Nation states including the UK and that is recognised under International Law as a valid reason for the engagement.

Are you happy to see the Taliban take over in Pakistan too and take possession of their nuclear weopons? I however agree that the deteriorating authority of Karzai and the growing corruption in his Government is worrying. However he was elected democratically, the Taliban are another version of the Maoist inspired
Khymer Rouge, and there is no end to the brutality they are prepared to mete out to civilians, specialising in torture, maiming, raping and murder of women for the slightest perceived misdemeanor under their interpretation of sharia law.
12

The Saltire,

10/07/2009 09:17:38
1 You Moron.

If the only vehicles "available" to the British Army cant cover the ground they are required to cover then its about time they were given vehicles that could or stop them being sent into that ground in the first place.
Are we still willing to put our troops into battle with the WW1 mentallity? I thought we had progressed past that death and glory for the crown cr*p?
13

The Saltire,

10/07/2009 09:30:52
14 Moron No.2

Bin Laden is a Saudi not an Afgan nor an Iraqi. All but one of the 9/11 highjackers were Saudis not Afgans nor Iraqis. So why is the US "defending" intself against Iraq and Afganistan and not Saudi Arabia?

And the only evidence of Al Queada being sponsered show the sponser to be the CIA not the Taleban.
The only evidence of direct contact the Taleban have had with the US was to visit the Bush family in the US to discuss business. All of this is a matter of public record now why dont you show us the evidence linking Al Queada the Taleban and Saddam Hussain to 9/11?
14

Jimmy Le Pie,

10/07/2009 09:38:07
And while Comrade Broon waffles a load of drivel at the G8 in Italy another 2 soldiers are killed in Afghanistan bringing the total to 9 in 9 days.

What an utter waste!
15

The Saltire,

10/07/2009 09:39:27
11

Liberated areas? now they live in areas controlled by warlords with private armies cultivating the poppy trade. But right enough its still a form of capitalism which of course is always much much better than trying to live a spiritual life with moral values.
I suppose they can always look forward to having their first brothels, illegal drug infested night clubs and alcoholism problems soon enough eh?
16

The Saltire,

10/07/2009 09:44:15
10

Those graves are the acceptable "sacrifice" our troops make to the likes of ignorant morons like you who would support any illegal act by our governments if it fitted in nicely with your own biggotry and predudice.
Jewish by any chance?
17

Martinh,

10/07/2009 09:56:39
#16. So why are you defending the Saudi Bin Laden to be instrumental in the al qaeda sponsored wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Are you happy for the Taliban with their commander in chief the Saudi Bi Laden to defeat the Pakistan army and take control of their nuclear weopons?

No there is no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al qaeda and the Taliban. That was an illegal war according to most International legal experts.

#19. Insults, the first refuge of the intellectually challenged. Anti semitic by any chance? Try again I am an atheist. Only one g in bigotry and the same in ignorance.
18

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/07/2009 09:58:09
Barrett Bonden
I notice that you still refer to the NATO operation in Afghanistan as illegal even though it was approved by the UN. You stated yesterday that the UN was a puppet of the NWO epitomised by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Are you saying that China, Russia and France (all permanent secuity council members) were puppets of Cheney and Rumsfeld? If they were why did they vote against Cheney and Rumsfeld's idea of invading Iraq?

Do you not recognise the inconsistencies in your conspiracy theories?
19

Lianachan,

Highlands 10/07/2009 10:04:01
#17 Indeed. More blood on the hands of Blair and Brown.
20

Luigiana,

Aberdeen 10/07/2009 10:19:12
#21

Yes, the NATO operation in Afghanistan was on far more stable legal ground than the invasion of Iraq. The Russians may well have supported the UN resolution because they were also badly bitten in Afghanistan and knew exactly what the UK and US were in for. Many powers and superpowers have tried and failed to control that region. With the Russians and Chinese stance, it was probably a case of "ok, if you think you can do better, you have a go (but don't say we didn't warn you)"!
21

The Saltire,

10/07/2009 10:25:03
20

I dont even know if a character calling himself Osama Bin Laden actually exists. I dont even know for sure that an organisation calling itself the Taliban exists anymore and whats more neither do you. All I know for sure is that our governments lied through their teeth before committing our forces to wars in Iraq and Afganistan and that Oil and gas resourses are at the centre of it.
If there are fundamentalist Islamic organisations attacking the US and the UK then they can justify it on the grounds that the US and the UK declared war on them first by supporting Israelli foreign policy by arming and funding them.

I only asked if you were Jewish because these threads are infected with Jewish and Zionist anti islamic biggots. No I am not anti semitic I would be complaining just as loud if the US and UK instigated an illegal war against Israel and Judaism. Who knows that day may even come when they cant find another boogy man to frighten us all with.
Right wing extreme Christianity and Zionist Judasim are very strange bedfellows and it cant last.
22

The Saltire,

10/07/2009 10:30:28
21

The war in Afganistan was vetoed by Russia and China Ugly and the UN resolution for the war in Afganistan was never ratified. The majority of UN members are against both wars and have expressed this many times only to be ignored by the right wing governments of the UK the US and France.
There is no legal justification for the US and the UK to be in Afganistan anymore than there is for them to be in Iraq. There is simply nobody available to police the world police.
23

Martinh,

10/07/2009 11:11:52
#24. You've really lost me now. The actual existence of Osama Bin Laden (even if now dead) and the Taliban? If you are not sure about this then you cannot be sure about 9/11 either-was that propaganda film footage inspired by Zionists?

If you are not sure of the above how are you so certain about your conclusions that underpin the decisions to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan? Even though I might agree that control of the Middle East oil supply has always been central to US foreign policy you're 'certainty' doesn't inspire confidence, nor does it negate what I have previously referred to as a nobility of cause by the occupying forces in Afghanistan, which is recognised by the United Nations. If you don't believe that the United Nations (even with its many faults) has any credibility then say so, but until I am informed differently the UN remains the only credible international organisation representing nation states. They have not called for the immediate withdrawal, or even a timescale for withdrawal of International forces in Afghanistan.

Incidentally in the recent war in Gaza the UN condemned the Israeli actions as grossly disproportionate, or such words, and Amnesty International, which I recognise as the World's moral police force, not only condemned Israel for the indiscriminate use of cluster bombs, and civilian populated centres for carpet bombing, but significantly also Hamas for their indiscriminate shelling of Israeli civilians.

Nothing but nothing could justify the indiscriminate mass murder of thousands of people of all faiths and none in numerous countries throughout the world. Both nominally Christian countries such as the US and UK have suffered as well as majority Muslim ones. No country is actually immune from al qaeda terrorism,and support for the right of Israel to exist as a Nation state is not justification. Crimes against humanity can never be justified.

24

Observer,,

Glasgow 10/07/2009 11:34:11
Erm apart from Alexander the Great I can't think of anyone who has successfully subdued Afghanistan. Could those people who think this is a noble endeavour enlighten me please, cheers.
25

The Saltire,

10/07/2009 12:03:20
26

Now youre deliberately being obtuse. A sure sign youre not comfortable nor convinced by your own arguements.
9/11 as an act of terror happened thats a fact. The perpetrators are said to have been Saudi and Algerian hijackers but again it all comes from a media which is suspect at best. Irrespective of who the hijackers trully were or werent the FACT remains that only a relatively very few people know who they worked for and who was behind them and that list doesnt include you or me. We were told who they were we were told who they worked for we were told why they did it but we didnt see any evidence in support of these accusations we are expected to take it all at face value.

I am not the one posting surety about my convictions you are, you are "convinced" the official story is the true one or at least youre pretending youre convinced.
I keep telling you I dont know I have my doubts and my suspicions as do many people. Yet we have morons on these threads like you pushing the official line as if its cast in stone without a shred of doubt which is in itself is a bald faced lie.

The UN has no crediblity with me I know because I worked for them in Bosnia and have seen the corruption within the organisation first hand.

More people have died from US UK sponsered and active terrorist acts than by any act by the US created Al Queada organisation or indeed by the Legitimate Afgan government of the Taleban. Or are you going to tell us that US and UK governments dont sponser and arm terrorist organisations throughout the world?
26

The Saltire,

10/07/2009 12:04:52
27

He never subdued Afganistan either.
27

,

10/07/2009 12:06:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
28

,

10/07/2009 12:13:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
29

Observer,,

Glasgow 10/07/2009 12:19:34
31 Yes it did all die with him. Of course he married an Afghanistani Princess and had hundreds of his soldiers do the same thing in a mass wediing. I think that bought the peace. I don't think that tactic would work now.
30

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 10/07/2009 12:50:17
#25

There was no veto at the UN against the Iraqi invasion as a further resolution was not sought, leading to the arguemnent about whether the resolution in place allowed the Invasion or not. The UNSCR 1386 was unamimously adopted authorising force in Afghanistan.
31

The Saltire,

10/07/2009 12:53:49
33

The UNSCR 1386 was introduced AFTER the invasion of Afganistan there was no ratified UN resolution authorising the invasion itself.
Troll.
32

The Saltire,

10/07/2009 12:55:52
33

If all politicians are the same then why do you support the policies of a particular group of them?
33

Angoos,

Baku, Azerbaijan 10/07/2009 12:58:13
#27 Observer

I'm pretty sure Ghengis Khan and his hordes subdued the afghans for a while.
34

Angoos,

10/07/2009 12:58:35
Oops... Afghans !!!
35

Observer,,

Glasgow 10/07/2009 13:04:09
36 Aye you might be right - but only for a while eh ?
36

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 10/07/2009 13:06:46
#34/35

I do not support any one group but hate people posting such innacurate comments about non exsistent vetoes and never ratified resolutions as you have. A good case backed by facts acn be compelling, posting factual innacuracies to support an emotive and speculative point "you have never asked the majority of the Un how they feel" is not.
37

The Saltire,

10/07/2009 13:13:22
39

Inaccuracies according to who? you? prove anything I have posted today is inaccurate.
38

The Saltire,

10/07/2009 13:19:18
UNSCR 1386 is a resolution supporting the use of UN forces in Afganistan not an invasion force by individual members of the UN on a personal crusade.
You post inaccuracies and bald faced lies as a matter of course the biggest of course being your thread name. Youre not politically neutral youre just another cyber troll.
39

,

10/07/2009 13:25:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
40

,

10/07/2009 13:28:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
41

,

10/07/2009 13:58:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/07/2009 14:28:34
42 Barret Plonden
"Cheney and Rumsfeld are merely the public, (pubic?), faces of the banksters who actually run most of the world. Russia and France are most certainly under the thrall of these people, so will do as they are told."

So according to your own comments Putin has been under the "thrall" of Rumsfeld and Cheney. And what about China - was it under the thrall of of Rumsfeld and Cheney?

Who are the "banksters" who run most of the world?

Which US oil company wanted to build an oil pipeline in Afghanistan?

Why did Russia and France vote against the invasion of Iraq but for the intervention in Afghanistan if they merely "do as they are told" but vote against a war as it will "go ahead anyway"?

let's look at some of your other theories :

"The banksters didn't like them asking a real price, they wanted a cheapo price, so they determined to oust the Taleban regime. When the Taleban realised that they were going to get creamed, they tried a number of ways to appease the US, with whom they had always been cordial."

What did the Taleban do to appease the USA?

Which would have been cheaper - paying more for a pipeline or indulging in an 8+ year war?

If the "banksters" perpetrated 9/11 they will not have been too happy at the hammering bank share prices took the next market day. Did they all have short positions on these and airline stocks?

But most of all you assert that "we don't have all the information to make the picture clear."

If that is the case, how can you make your assertions and apportion blame with such certainty? Of course we can witness your proclivity for passing judgement without the necessary evidence. You state that the term "ugly" suits me. Perhaps it does, but how can you judge with no awareness of my appearance? Another conclusion with no evidence to support it.

I asked yesterday for some evidence to support your theories but I still haven't seen any - just accusations and insults.
43

Ugly George,

10/07/2009 14:44:25
45 barret Bonden
PS
Yes, we know Rumsfeld or Cheney(I can't remember which) is on record as saying several years ago that an oil pipeline through Afghanistan would be necessary to transport oil from Turkmenistan etc.

But if a US oil company built an oil pipeline on the cheap to take oil from Turkmenistan etc. to Pakistan and possibly beyond to the Indian Ocean would this not weaken the position of Russia as an oil supplier?

So why would Russia and Putin meekly accept the situation and "do as they were told"
44

The Saltire,

10/07/2009 15:12:21
46

So what do you think the price was for Putin's support? you do think there was a price dont you? or do you think Putin acted out of conscience?
Maybe the US UK governments agreed not to sanction Russia for its actions in Chechnya and its other satellite "dependencies" I havent seen much news on Chechnya lately nor any involvement in Russian foreign affairs.
And then of course we have China invading and suppressing Tibet. So all and all we have 4 of the 5 members of the permanant UN security council involved in illegal occupation of other UN members and youre telling us its all sanctioned and legal?
What is the difference between The US UK occupation of Iraq and Afganistan and Russias occupation of Chechnya and Chinas occupation of Tibet? with regards to the UN?
45

The Col. of Monte Cristo,

10/07/2009 15:28:01
The Israeli's have been condemned for using disproportionate force in response to "rocket attacks" from random Palestinian hobbyists.

The Afghanistan war is in retaliation for an attack on the USA, by two dozen men with a plastic stanley knife each...Total military hardware budget of around £40.00 and is being fought against hillbillies arrmed with replica's of 40 year old weapons, cobbled together in medieval blacksmiths shops.

The Iraq war was concocted from a crock of lies.

War these days seems to be never-ending and fought between self financing enthusiasts and professional soldiers armed and instructed by politicians with multi-billion dollar budgets.

Is it unreasonable to assume that the people who profit from these wars, play no small role in their instigation, continuation and proliferation?
46

The Saltire,

10/07/2009 15:30:26
Come on Ugly surely you can answer a few simple questions? you like to give the impression you know what youre on about but you never have been able to deal with any questions. You spout pro government rhetoric on nearly every story but you cant back it up with debate. You run like a rabbit when it gets too detailed for your lying garbage to hold any water. come on for once lets see some conviction lets see some flesh put onto your baseless rhetoric.
47

The Col. of Monte Cristo,

10/07/2009 15:39:06
Does anyone really believe that their are fiends living in caves in the mountains of Afghanistan...feverishlly plotting the downfall of the decadent Western Democracies?

How do you sleep at night?
48

The Saltire,

10/07/2009 15:53:53
50

We,re supposed to believe that a bunch of illiterate unsophisticated backward terrorists have managed to evade capture by the most sophisticated most financed most technological advanced forces the world has ever known because theyre hiding in the mountains. Not only that but they are organising world wide terror cells and plotting multi terror attacks everywhere without using so much as a cell phone which can be traced in milliseconds.
And the evidence for this is once in a while we get a video footage of some old coot from somewhere in these magical mountains where only fairies and Pixes can navigate.
This is the official line which is pushed by the cyber trolls on these threads either working for this excuse for a newsheet or by biggots with an anti islamic agenda. Although these phannies are harmless and gormless its the sentiment that our governments can put out this garbage and get away with it that really makes my blood boil.
49

captainscarlet,

10/07/2009 18:05:32
i saw an advert for people to enlist with the offer of £16k after training.

when i was a soldier you were lucky to get a pay rise, things are desperate, facto
50

captainscarlet,

10/07/2009 18:10:46
the soldiers only got £1 a day on top of their wages for service in the falklands, that was thatchers final offer.
51

Sgian Achlais,

10/07/2009 18:10:56
51The Saltire, 10/07/2009 15:53:53
50

We,re supposed to believe that a bunch of illiterate unsophisticated backward terrorists have managed to evade capture by the most sophisticated most financed most technological advanced forces the world has ever known because theyre hiding in the mountains. Not only that but they are organising world wide terror cells and plotting multi terror attacks everywhere without using so much as a cell phone which can be traced in milliseconds.

=============================

Saltire,

I see you are on a rampage today.

Firstly your point in the last comment #51 the answer is yes.

Bin Laden communicates via physical messages passed to runners who are known personally to his private guards usually from within same family to ensure total loyalty. Most illegal organisations operate a similar technique to avoid detection. Then using multiple people to read coded messages from fresh voice patterns to transmit the information. The also use draft emails that are never send but can be logged into by accomplices to read and comment. Govnt can only trace once sent.

He has been using this method of communication since the mid 1990's. The USA is often too dependent on technology.

Secondly he is in an area so vast and difficult to record from above which these folks have been living in for millennia and fighting superior forces from since the 1980's. Massive tunnel infrastructures.

Thirdly we are looking for a man in a full grown beard wearing traditional clothing that covers the face in an area when all men must have beards and wear traditional clothig.

9/11 Cost Bin Laden $500k and it cost the USA immediately billions on the Twin Towers and then more billions on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He is using the same tactics used to defeat the USSR and collapse the soviet system. Bankrupt them in battle. He has unlimited voluntee rpersonnel and lots of AK47's, RPG and ammo.

He feeds his troops and that is his costs
52

Observer,,

Glasgow 10/07/2009 18:50:51
''Does anyone really believe that their are fiends living in caves in the mountains of Afghanistan...feverishlly plotting the downfall of the decadent Western Democracies?''

Colonel - Yes!
53

Observer,,

Glasgow 10/07/2009 19:01:22
''Secondly he is in an area so vast and difficult to record from above which these folks have been living in for millennia and fighting superior forces from since the 1980's.''

They've been fighting superior forces since long before the eighties Sgian, I think we've established that apart from Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan no-one has subdued Afghanistan including the Soviet Union and the British Empire (twice), and Alexander and Genghis only managed it briefly.

I think it is possible to get a bit hung up on the Taleban thing, they are just the latest in a long line. You can call them the Taleban, you can call them the Mujahadeen, you could call them the Patridge Family if you wanted to, call them anything you want but they have always been there, and they have always killed the invader.


54

lulach mac gille coemgain,

10/07/2009 20:00:00
Nothin new in 10000 years here then eh ?
55

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/07/2009 20:39:47
49 the Saltire
It never ceases to amaze me how individuals such as yourself post comments on these threads not in response to what is written by others but in response to what they imagine is written. Please actually read my comments as opposed to imagining what I might or might not think.

If you do so you will discover (as any rational and objective person would) that I am merely asking questions and asking Barret Bonden to justify his conspiracy theories with evidence. Somehow, in your convoluted and contrived imagination this justifies an accusation that I "spout pro govt rhetoric" but your assertion is not sustained by any of my comments.

To clarify the position, I can assure you that I am just as sceptical of govt rhetoric (whether Scottish, UK or US) as I am of Barret Bonden's conspiracy theories.

Now, if you have a point to make, please make it in response to what I have actually said rather in response to what you imagine I may think.
56

Ugly George,

10/07/2009 20:59:44
42 barret bonden
As a further request for clarification of your conspiracy theories, please answer the following points:

If Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, CIA, various banksters etc. were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, how did they persuade people to commit suicide by flying planes into the twin towers. Surely the pilots could not have been "banksters" as they would wish to profit from the actions and it is hard to profit if you are dead. Or are you saying that all the TV companies which had footage of the planes flying into the towers were also part of the conspiracy and doctored live footage (all of them?)

How did they also persuade people to carry out the suicide bombings in London in 2005? And if these attacks were, as you claimed "false flag waving" to raise support of for interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan why did they carry out these attacks after the interventions took place - rather a bizarre approach to say the least.

Can you please answer the questions I put rather then resorting to abuse and insults or is your readiness to resort to abuse and insults merely a way of obscuring the fact that you cannot answer the questions with any degree of coherent credibility?
57

Observer,,

Glasgow 10/07/2009 21:15:26
59 George, I don't buy the whole conspiracy thing; I have no doubt that the plot was designed and executed by Bin Laden, I thought that the minute that I heard about it. But............don't dismiss the possibility that some of the spooks in particular the CIA may have known about it. I think they are a law unto themselves, so it's quite possible that it was akind of sub-division of the American government who at the least knew about it, and failed to act. There are too many anomolies when you look into it (and I am a realist not a conspiracy freak) not to think that there are some very legitimate questions that have spectacularly gone unanswered.

The suicide bombers in 2005 were not explicitly connected to the twin tower issue. They told us on film that their bombing was due to the fact that we had re-elected Blair after the invasion of Iraq. They had a damn good point, but the way they went about it was evil and wrong.
58

Observer,,

Glasgow 10/07/2009 21:25:53
When you look at what the CIA have done - in South America, in the Balkans, in Cuba, you've got to ask yourself was there some nutter in the CIA, or some mentalist Oliver North type creature that was playing a game, it's a realistic scenario. And there is evidence that points. I don't think the US Govt did it per se, but perhaps they didn't stop it.
59

The Saltire,

10/07/2009 21:32:33
54

Well I think we can safely award that post the bone-r of the week award. I doubt if even you take that guff seriously. Moron.
60

Observer,,

Glasgow 10/07/2009 21:35:43
62 I'm off now but although I agree with some of what you say I object to you using the word Jewish when you mean Zionist. Zionism is a political thing. George Bush was a Zionist and he wasn't a Jew. Many Jews are not Zionists. I think you need to be more careful in your choice of language.

61

The Saltire,

10/07/2009 21:42:10
Ugly

My accusation regarding your adherence to govt rhetoric and your constant reference to government propaganda posted web sites to back up your drivel is based on your postings on many threads and articles not just this one.
You are full of p*ss and wind and incapable of posting anything resembling an objective view on any subject. Just another cyber troll poster with an agenda.
62

The Saltire,

10/07/2009 21:47:04
59

Why is it impossible for there to be no CIA conspiricy? why cant you even entertain the possiblity? can you honestly say they are totally incapable of such acts as turning on their own citizens for their own agenda?
Why do you pretend you have no doubts? why is it so important to you that official version is the only possible one? Like I said youre full of p*ss and wind.
63

The Saltire,

10/07/2009 22:00:06
59

How does anybody come to the conclusion they want to commit suicide? some people dont need any persuading at all.
Bankers highjacking planes? is that an effort at trying to mock the idea that powerful influential people dont involve themselves in criminal or terrorist activities in order to fulfill their ambitions and further their aims?
That powerful and influential people dont buy off politicians and political policy in order to further their personal ambitions and aims?
Is it so hard to believe that the possiblity exists that powerful and influencial groups or individuals are responsible for some terrorist acts attributed to others? are you claiming that it just isnt possible?
64

,

11/07/2009 00:48:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
65

,

11/07/2009 01:37:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
66

,

11/07/2009 02:19:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
67

,

11/07/2009 08:46:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
68

,

11/07/2009 08:48:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
69

Proximaking,

Dundee 11/07/2009 14:47:39
The powerful have for years used religion to cover up what they do and it is remarkable how easy it is to convince people they will get something in heaven for something they do here. Incidentally the Rothschilds are part of my family and what they do they do for everyone's good. Would you rather live in, God forbid, a democracy? Smoke and mirrors, yes you've hit the nail on the head Mr Bond en. The world won't get to where it is going by the random input of the votes of morons. What was 911 about? Twin towers, two sticks joined together, two rods, two nails, two candlesticks ....... who knows?

http://hackedgadgets.com/2007/02/02/how-is-the-fake-candle-power-trick-done/

How is the trick done Mr Bond en? It isn't a trick at all, it's all done with quite natural "smoke and mirrors". Everything you need to know is on this one section read the comments Mr Bond en, smoke (shadows) and mirrors. It was Tesla's birthday yesterday, make a wish then blow out the candles. Come with me and I will make you fishers of men and all you will need is a different form of NET. Two candlesticks, my two witnesses, yes religion comes in mighty handy sometimes. We just follow the script Mr Bond en does that really make us evil?

One thing will come at the end of this, ..... the meek shall inherit the earth, whether you or anyone else believes in this the fact is we do and that is all that matters but you can't bake a cake without breaking a few sacred eggs. Don't let them put you off Mr Bond en you are closer to the truth than you know but what sort of mess would the world be in if a sap ran it? A pretty boring one I would imagine and boredom is all you have left to fear in eternity. And the beauty of it all is I can tell you this here in public and you can understand and all the rest will simply think us fools, a neat trick, ....... how it has always been done. The best place to hide anything you value is in full view. And Clegg is quite right, they are dying now for absolutel
70

Proximaking,

Dundee 11/07/2009 14:48:06
The best place to hide anything you value is in full view. And Clegg is quite right, they are dying now for absolutely nothing, the point was made a very long time ago.
71

,

11/07/2009 16:45:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
72

,

12/07/2009 00:51:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.