British soldiers shot dead by Afghani officer

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

No way for a man to go...

From BBC news:

A British soldier and Royal Marine have been shot dead by an Afghan army soldier, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.

The shootings, which injured a third UK serviceman, took place at the British military HQ in Lashkar Gah in Helmand province, southern Afghanistan.

The soldier was from the Adjutant General's Corps (Staff & Personnel Support). Next of kin have been told.

Nato said the attacker was then shot dead by its soldiers.

'Assailant killed'

A total of 407 British troops have been killed in Afghanistan since military operations began in 2001.

Announcing the deaths in a statement to the Commons, Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond said: "Our thoughts, as ever, are with their families, for whom this will be a deeply personal tragedy.

"Details of the incident are still emerging but it appears that a member of the Afghan National Army opened fire at the entrance gate to the British headquarters in Lashkar Gar city, killing the two British service personnel.

"The assailant was killed by return fire."
Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said the victims were in the "thoughts of all of us".

Spokesman for the UK's Task Force Helmand, Maj Ian Lawrence, said: "The thoughts and condolences of everyone serving in the Task Force are with their families and friends."

Earlier a spokesman for the governor of Helmand said the shooting followed a "verbal clash" between Afghan and Nato soldiers, and the Afghan involved was from Kunar province.

The Taliban have claimed that the gunman was "their man".

The attack appears to be the latest in a number of "green on blue" incidents - where members of the Afghan security forces turn their weapons on their international colleagues or trainers.

Fifteen Nato military personnel, including eight Americans, have been killed in this way so far this year.

The number of these incidents has risen since the burning of Korans by US troops at base in February, which President Obama said was a "genuine mistake".

Tensions were inflamed further by the killing of 17 Afghan civilians earlier this month.

US Staff Sgt Robert Bales, 38, has been charged with killing nine Afghan children and eight adults in their homes in Kandahar province on 11 March.

**purplefood**

Time to leave...
It was that time a long time ago but now...

**Morathi's Darkest Sin**

purplefood wrote:Time to leave...
It was that time a long time ago but now...

Aye.

Its pretty much a given its going to collapse again the moment we go regardless, so if Obama and Dave are serious about the exit strategy asap, they might as well go now as its going to take way more than the months they are talking about.

The longer we stay the more bodybags that will be coming home with absolutely no benefit to anyone.

**Medium of Death**

I'm surprised more of our soldiers aren't getting jumpy and shooting them first.

Time to leave...

**purplefood**

Medium of Death wrote:I'm surprised more of our soldiers aren't getting jumpy and shooting them first.

I did think that...

**Warrior Squirrel**

Seems the Taliban won if you look at the defeatist comments here

**Mr Hyena**

This should be considered as a Declaration of War.

**Frazzled**

I think you should invade and occupy Afghanistan...oh wait!

**Warrior Squirrel**

Well soldiers are supposed to die in war, no? Unless it is believed that soldiers just sit in their bases lobbing candy at kids while women offer them tea. No offence to all brave soldiers that have died. No pain, no gain right?

**Mr Hyena**

Warrior Squirrel wrote:Well soldiers are supposed to die in war, no? Unless it is believed that soldiers just sit in their bases lobbing candy at kids while women offer them tea. No offence to all brave soldiers that have died. No pain, no gain right?

They aren't supposed to be shot by the people they are training to improve the country. That is terrorism.

If it was upto me I'd have shot the officers family. Teach the rest a lesson.

**purplefood**

Mr Hyena wrote:
Warrior Squirrel wrote:Well soldiers are supposed to die in war, no? Unless it is believed that soldiers just sit in their bases lobbing candy at kids while women offer them tea. No offence to all brave soldiers that have died. No pain, no gain right?

They aren't supposed to be shot by the people they are training to improve the country. That is terrorism.

If it was upto me I'd have shot the officers family. Teach the rest a lesson.

That's too far...
I'd just leave the country altogether...
It'd fall apart soon enough...

**Mr Hyena**

purplefood wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
Warrior Squirrel wrote:Well soldiers are supposed to die in war, no? Unless it is believed that soldiers just sit in their bases lobbing candy at kids while women offer them tea. No offence to all brave soldiers that have died. No pain, no gain right?

They aren't supposed to be shot by the people they are training to improve the country. That is terrorism.

If it was upto me I'd have shot the officers family. Teach the rest a lesson.

That's too far...
I'd just leave the country altogether...
It'd fall apart soon enough...

Yes, then we can laugh as they go back to shooting each other and realise what chance they missed out on.

**Huffy**

Mr Hyena wrote:
purplefood wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
Warrior Squirrel wrote:Well soldiers are supposed to die in war, no? Unless it is believed that soldiers just sit in their bases lobbing candy at kids while women offer them tea. No offence to all brave soldiers that have died. No pain, no gain right?

They aren't supposed to be shot by the people they are training to improve the country. That is terrorism.

If it was upto me I'd have shot the officers family. Teach the rest a lesson.

That's too far...
I'd just leave the country altogether...
It'd fall apart soon enough...

Yes, then we can laugh as they go back to shooting each other and realise what chance they missed out on.

Well if they're shooting our people, I must come to the conclusion that they don't want what we have to offer

**Medium of Death**

I can understand why some Afghans do this though.

It's not hard to imagine Angry Young men in a piss poor and war torn country being easily manipulated by the Taliban.

That doesn't account for all of these incidents, but it would certainly explain why the Taliban can keep up its fight after so long.

**CT GAMER**

Warrior Squirrel wrote:Seems the Taliban won if you look at the defeatist comments here

They won as soon as we agreed to go.

I'm sure they are praying we stick around a while longer to burn some more Korans and murder some more civies. It helps drive up their recruitment numbers.

**Amaya**

Has a guerrilla/terrorist force ever been defeated without using means that modern westerners would consider unacceptable?

I agree it is time to go and has been for some while. I'm not sure if the invasion was a mistake, but I think the occupation has been.

**Mannahnin**

Nobody has ever done well by staying in Afghanistan. It made sense to do in hunting for Bin Laden and shutting down the training camps. It would have made more sense to go in faster instead of giving him a head start on going to ground.

Once we got in there, we had multiple obvious humanitarian crises there desperately in need of help. It's tough to turn your back on people that badly in need.

**Amaya**

There's people badly in need in Africa, I don't see America launching invasions and occupations over there.

In all honesty, I don't think the government really cares a great deal about the Iraqi people. Establishing secures bases in Iraq gives the American military to put pressure on Saudi Arabia and Iran, which may have been the intent.

In regards to Afghanistan, I think an expeditionary force led by special forces units and supported by other elite infantry units (such as the Ranger, select Army and USMC units) with the MO to destroy and shut down Taliban training camps would have been wiser than a full scale invasion.

**Albatross**

Amaya wrote:Has a guerrilla/terrorist force ever been defeated without using means that modern westerners would consider unacceptable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaya_Emergency
That's the only one I can think of off the top of my head, as most people wouldn't count The Troubles.

**Mannahnin**

Amaya wrote:There's people badly in need in Africa, I don't see America launching invasions and occupations over there.

That's a non sequitur. We obviously went into Afghanistan for military reasons. We stayed there for a mix of military (keep it from sliding back into chaos and having even more terrorist training camps), humanitarian (help the people, particularly the kids and oppressed women), and selfish (oil) reasons.

**Amaya**

Albatross wrote:
Amaya wrote:Has a guerrilla/terrorist force ever been defeated without using means that modern westerners would consider unacceptable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaya_Emergency
That's the only one I can think of off the top of my head, as most people wouldn't count The Troubles.

Interesting, I had never heard of that event. The forced relocation part is interesting, especially the part about the refugees eventually adjusting and liking their new towns.

This part strikes me as extremely important. "Britain never approached the Emergency as a conventional conflict and quickly implemented an effective combined intelligence (led by Malayan Police Special Branch against the political arm of the guerrilla movement)[19][20] and a "hearts and minds" operation."

Also very important. "In purely military terms, the British Army recognized that in a low-intensity war, the individual soldier's skill and endurance was of far greater importance than overwhelming firepower (artillery, air support, etc.) Even though many British soldiers were conscripted National Servicemen, the necessary skills and attitudes were taught at a Jungle Warfare School, which also worked out the optimum tactics based on experience gained in the field.[21]"

I wonder what American forces could have done better. Their is the problem that nations other than Afghanistan and Iraq are training and harboring terrorists, which is detrimental to the war effort.

**Mannahnin**

Guerillas having a neutral or nominally friendly country to retreate to/operate from is huge, of course. As in Vietnam.

**Johnny-Crass**

Warrior Squirrel wrote:Seems the Taliban won if you look at the defeatist comments here

**Mannahnin**

He's probably not.

**d-usa**

Mr Hyena wrote:
Warrior Squirrel wrote:Well soldiers are supposed to die in war, no? Unless it is believed that soldiers just sit in their bases lobbing candy at kids while women offer them tea. No offence to all brave soldiers that have died. No pain, no gain right?

They aren't supposed to be shot by the people they are training to improve the country. That is terrorism.

If it was upto me I'd have shot the officers family. Teach the rest a lesson.

I do find that apperantly anything done to one of us by somebody we don't like now qualifies as terrorism.

Stupid neighborhood kids playing their music too loud while riding on their scooters? Terrorists!

**Amaya**

I think Patton would say a soldier's job is to make sure the other poor bastard dies for his country.

**Hazardous Harry**

Amaya wrote:I think Patton would say a soldier's job is to make sure the other poor bastard dies for his country.

Since full-scale engagements with other countries isn't what the situation is in Afghanistan, this quote might not be worth a lot.

Don't get me wrong, Patton was a great general. But his opponent was a recognisable army, not an insurgent force with an apathetic/hostile populace.

**Mannahnin**

Amaya wrote:I think Patton would say a soldier's job is to make sure the other poor bastard dies for his country.

Which is exactly right, but predicated on the idea that the other guy is fighting for his country.

**Battle Brother Lucifer**

Nuke em

**notprop**

Amaya wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Amaya wrote:Has a guerrilla/terrorist force ever been defeated without using means that modern westerners would consider unacceptable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaya_Emergency
That's the only one I can think of off the top of my head, as most people wouldn't count The Troubles.

Interesting, I had never heard of that event. The forced relocation part is interesting, especially the part about the refugees eventually adjusting and liking their new towns.

This part strikes me as extremely important. "Britain never approached the Emergency as a conventional conflict and quickly implemented an effective combined intelligence (led by Malayan Police Special Branch against the political arm of the guerrilla movement)[19][20] and a "hearts and minds" operation."

Also very important. "In purely military terms, the British Army recognized that in a low-intensity war, the individual soldier's skill and endurance was of far greater importance than overwhelming firepower (artillery, air support, etc.) Even though many British soldiers were conscripted National Servicemen, the necessary skills and attitudes were taught at a Jungle Warfare School, which also worked out the optimum tactics based on experience gained in the field.[21]"

I wonder what American forces could have done better. Their is the problem that nations other than Afghanistan and Iraq are training and harboring terrorists, which is detrimental to the war effort.

I believe they did get their own chance in Vietnem, not quite the same situation. It was certainly treated very differently (I think B52s count as overwhelming firepower) and produced allot more and better war films.

@ Alb - I would count the Irish troubles. It takes a special sort of person to glad hand terrroists that you have comprehensively on the backfoot, we had Phoney Tony. I'm semi-serious there, I really do welcome the political settlement I'm pretty sure I couldn't do that myself I'm glad he could.

Being a Londoner I certainly welcome the lack of distruption from alerts and bomb hoaxes (cerainly for a while anyway, bloody Al-Queada) with the biggest welcome change being the return of bins to Central London which went missing or had a tendancy to blow up for a while there.