It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Death takes UK Afghan toll to 200

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Death takes UK Afghan toll to 200


news.bbc.co.uk

A British soldier has died from wounds suffered in Afghanistan, taking the number of UK troops killed since operations began in 2001 to 200.
The soldier, from the 2nd Battalion the Royal Welsh, died in hospital in Birmingham. Family have been informed.
The soldier was injured in an explosion while on patrol in Helmand on Thursday.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown described the death as "deeply tragic news", but said the only way to make Britain safer was to make Afghanistan more stable.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Utter nonsense..

This 'news' has been listed as 'Breaking News' on the BBC web site.

How is this breaking news? Why is this so different from any other news?
How many soldiers died every day in WW2 or WW1?

What is the purpose of releasing this 'news' in such a manner?

If it is so bad to hear or read then why do we not just pull out of Afghanistan and bring the boys back home?

200...200... such a small number after 8 years of occupation..

Let's recall a bit of history shall we.. Let's remember the 300 who stood against many... the 300 who stood strong for three days... who lst their lives fighting against such tyranical systems as we now live in..
300 who cried "This is Sparta"...

Freedom comes at a price..but not in the way we see it ... not as breaking news for 200 over 8 years..

The UK is part of this tyranny and they are using innocent lives to support a tyranical agenda that nobody really wants to be a part of...

and 200 dead over 8 years is suddenly breaking news..

Dropping a nuke on Hiroshima is breaking news.. the thousands that died that day is breaking news..

The BBC is just propping up its pages to those who keep the pay cheques coming.. keeping up its appearance as a supporter of the tyranical overseers who run this absurd programme of war and death for profit..



news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I agree with extralien.
Canadians have lost 127.
to be honest i thought britian would've lost more by now.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 


I think the BBC line is more 'A soldier has died(the breaking news part) - taking the toal to 200'

I see where you're coming from, but those British, Canadian , US, etc, troops died for their country.

Ok, we know it is misguided and wasted loyalty, but they don't know that. You trivialise their deaths and compare them to a story from Greek History! Mate, that is such poor form.

I know the BBC is a NWO mouth piece, I know they we (the West) is involved in an unjust war, designed to enslave us, but respect these young men and women.

One death is too many, don't dismiss their passing because it pales in comparison to past wars.

I bet it is breaking news for the family of the poor guy who died, even if it is a futile waste of a life.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
In world war 1/2 I'd likely bet that British soldiers would be killed 200 by the HOUR. having 200 killed in 8 years is pretty good odds considering. Just another Propoganda tactic to rally support for the troops for the war on terror (should it be war OF terror) in Iraq and Afghanistan.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Its really sad whats going on in iraq and afghanistan. America should have there army in mexico instead, or just staying out of war



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I forgot to mention though if any of you knew the actual reason for this recent offensive in Helmand?

The current offensive started on the 1/2 July, on the 28th June the US reversed it's policy of trying to destroy Afghani opium fields. They did this very quietly ( I could only find one mention in MSM, a UK paper). They have elected to use the opium for legit medical morphine instead.

So they turn the opium crop into a legal commodity worth billions, then a few days later they launch a massive ofensive in Helmand, the area with the most opium(by a factor of 10), under the pretext of election security.

A couple of weeks after that, they produce a list of fifty drug lords (the owners of their new cash crop) and are going after them now.

I put this in a thread (with sources) here.

So you are right in about the futility and sham of a war.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


I starred and flagged the thread you linked. Good work!

Er... can anyone tell me why we (the UK) are in Afghanistan in the first place?

Oh, yeah, figleaf for US imperialism.

What's odd is that in UK reporting on the subject, the whys and wherefores are glossed over to such an extent you get the feeling that they think it's better just not to mention why we're there because it's too embarrassing to try and BS.

It's obscene, using our troops for this stuff, not least because it means filling their heads full of rubbish about the situation and our role in it.


originally posted by kiwifoot
I bet it is breaking news for the family of the poor guy who died, even if it is a futile waste of a life.


I couldn't agree more.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
The number 200 resonates more strongly than 199 in the MSM, I don't really get why. Every one of those soldiers died while serving their country, even though I think this war is pointless and politically driven those people serving on the front lines have my complete respect.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


Cheers for that!

It kinda got lost in the throng of ATS but the more stories I hear coming out of Afghanistan the more it rings true.

I know what the OP was trying to say, just we have to remeber that when we get mad at TPTB, there's usually someones son/daughter/husband etc paying the price.

I learned that early on ATS, got a tongue lashing from a few members for an insensitive thread!

All the best!



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Extralien


Utter nonsense..

This 'news' has been listed as 'Breaking News' on the BBC web site.

How is this breaking news? Why is this so different from any other news?
How many soldiers died every day in WW2 or WW1?

What is the purpose of releasing this 'news' in such a manner?

If it is so bad to hear or read then why do we not just pull out of Afghanistan and bring the boys back home?

200...200... such a small number after 8 years of occupation..

Let's recall a bit of history shall we.. Let's remember the 300 who stood against many... the 300 who stood strong for three days... who lst their lives fighting against such tyranical systems as we now live in..
300 who cried "This is Sparta"...

Freedom comes at a price..but not in the way we see it ... not as breaking news for 200 over 8 years..

The UK is part of this tyranny and they are using innocent lives to support a tyranical agenda that nobody really wants to be a part of...

and 200 dead over 8 years is suddenly breaking news..

Dropping a nuke on Hiroshima is breaking news.. the thousands that died that day is breaking news..

The BBC is just propping up its pages to those who keep the pay cheques coming.. keeping up its appearance as a supporter of the tyranical overseers who run this absurd programme of war and death for profit..



news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)


yeah , in 8 years theyve lost 200 men... big deal... the 4,000 some men the us lost in iraq in 5 years... big deal... the last real war i guess would be iran-iraq war in the 80's... or the soviet-afghan conflict..



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Needless to say there isnt a death toll for the number of civilians killed needlessly in this war, but I forget that the life of a British soldier is worth the lives of 100 Afghan civilians in MSM eyes.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ROBL240
Needless to say there isnt a death toll for the number of civilians killed needlessly in this war, but I forget that the life of a British soldier is worth the lives of 100 Afghan civilians in MSM eyes.


We are really really good and they are really really evil.Get with the program,those were not civilians they were insurgents!



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   
If people defending their country from invaders are now classed as terrorists, then I guess we were terrorists back in World War 2 aswell then.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   
I would have thought after 8 months of Obama America would be out of both countries..... I knew it was hype and lies of course..

But I am truly surprised so many nations are still in Afghanistan.. The UK and every one else needs to get out of that ** hole of a country and leave it to America.. we will reap what we sow..

I don't see the UK in Afghanistan as "protecting the UK's freedom" ..

Sad news the poor lad had to die in such an operation..



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ROBL240
If people defending their country from invaders are now classed as terrorists, then I guess we were terrorists back in World War 2 aswell then.


lol

Interesting perspective:

Assuming the "terrorist" are the same age as our soldiers over there.. 18 years, 19 years old what ever.....

The average age of that terrorist when the war began: 10 years old.

Really out to get us.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
200 dead? LOL Russia lost 7.5 MILLION alone in WWII and that's not even counting civilians. THAT is sacrifice.

War is hell, people die. It's not supposed to be clean and pretty.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by ChrisF231]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join