# Afghanistan Koran Protest Leaves At Least 8 Dead At U.N. Compound



## High_Gravity (Apr 1, 2011)

Same shit, different day in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan Koran Protest Leaves At Least 8 Dead At U.N. Compound









> KABUL, Afghanistan -- Eight foreigners were killed Friday after demonstrators protesting a reported burning of the Muslim holy book stormed a U.N. office in northern Afghanistan, opening fire on guards and setting fires inside the compound, a top Afghan police official said.
> 
> The topic of Quran burning stirred outrage among millions of Muslims and others worldwide after a small American church in Florida threatened to destroy the holy book last year. The Florida pastor had backed down but purportedly went through with the burning last month, prompting protests in three Afghan cities.
> 
> ...



Afghanistan Koran Protest Leaves At Least 8 Dead, 2 Staffers Beheaded


----------



## Vel (Apr 1, 2011)

The more I look at the situation in Afghanistan, the more convinced I am that we've made a tremendous and costly error in trying to bring that nation into this century. We should have leveled the cursed place.


----------



## Ropey (Apr 1, 2011)

Nothing new here. 



> UN Staffers Beheaded As Afghans Protest Quran-Burning





> Eight United Nations workers were killed --at least of which were beheaded-- in a northern Afghan city during a protest against a Florida pastor's Quran-burning. ... Afghan National Police said five of the dead were guards and two were people ... Death to Israel" after Friday prayers before storming the compound.








> Eight United Nations workers were killed --at least of which were beheaded-- in a northern Afghan city during a protest against a U.S. pastor's Quran-burning. The protest started peacefully but turned violent when demonstrators stormed the office in Mazar-e Sharif on Friday, shooting at guards and setting fire inside the compound. The violence was triggered by reports that Florida pastor Terry Jones--who halted plans to set fire to a Quran on last year's 9/11 anniversary-- supervised a burning of the Islamic holy book on March 20. Afghan National Police said five of the dead were guards and two were people employed at the complex. Later, a foreigner died of their injuries. The BBC reported that protesters chanted "Death to the USA, Death to Israel" after Friday prayers before storming the compound.



More...


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 1, 2011)

Ropey the sad thing is you are right, this is nothing new and there are going to be many more incidents like this to come in that country.


----------



## Vel (Apr 1, 2011)

I sit here and realize that we lost 6 members of The Screaming Eagles yesterday in order that some ignorant Afghani, that isn't smart enough to realize that it was fucking paper and ink, can go on a killing spree in the name of a God that is so weak that he can't smite the infidel on his own. So sad.


----------



## Ropey (Apr 1, 2011)

Vel6377 said:


> I sit here and realize that we lost 6 members of The Screaming Eagles yesterday in order that some ignorant Afghani, *that isn't smart enough to realize that it was fucking paper and ink*, can go on a killing spree in the name of a God that is so weak that he can't smite the infidel on his own. So sad.



The madrassas teach this Vel. This is what they teach. It's not that they are not smart enough to see that this is only paper and ink, they are taught from babyhood to take a victim stance any time they see their belief system denigrated. Then they can perform jihad and kill pretty much anyone.

This is what they are taught instead of moderation.


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 1, 2011)

Ropey said:


> Vel6377 said:
> 
> 
> > I sit here and realize that we lost 6 members of The Screaming Eagles yesterday in order that some ignorant Afghani, *that isn't smart enough to realize that it was fucking paper and ink*, can go on a killing spree in the name of a God that is so weak that he can't smite the infidel on his own. So sad.
> ...



Well I'll tell you one thing, if the madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan are allowed to be open for business, events like this will continue to happen, with or without US Troops on the ground. Pakistan and Afghanistan are not going to turn into Sweden once the Allies leave.


----------



## Vel (Apr 1, 2011)

And yet there are people that think that this religion can somehow be meshed into and become compatible with American life. I just can't see how that's possible. 

( cue up the " it's only the radical fringe" excuses.. in 5..4...3.. )


----------



## Ropey (Apr 2, 2011)

> Bloody protests over Qur'an burning spread to Kandahar City





> Saturday's bloodshed in the city, regarded as the spiritual home of the Taliban, followed by 24 hours the deaths of 12 United Nations workers and Afghan civilians during the sacking of the UN compound in the normally peaceful northern city of Mazir-i-Sharif. The Afghan government also attributed that violence  in which three Europeans including a Norwegian woman died  to the Taliban.








> Business districts in Kandahar City were under a self-imposed lockdown Saturday after nine men died and scores were injured during bloody protests over the burning of a Qur'an by a Christian fundamentalist clergyman in Florida.
> 
> The crackle of gunfire could still be heard in the city hours after the protest was quelled by Afghan security forces. The demonstration involved about 150 men who attacked shops and set tires alight, according to a Reuters reporter.



Bloody protests over Qur'an burning spread to Kandahar City


----------



## Caroljo (Apr 4, 2011)

So much for the "Religion of Peace" crap they try to convince us of!! They can burn the American Flag, they can burn the Christian's Bible...but heaven (or Hell?) forbid that we do the same to them!


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 4, 2011)

And it goes on and on.

Afghan Policeman Kills 2 NATO Soldiers 








> JALALABAD, Afghanistan (Reuters) - A "rogue" Afghan border policeman shot dead two foreign soldiers on a training mission on Monday, and hundreds of people turned out on the streets for a fourth day of protests against the burning of a Koran by a fundamentalist U.S. pastor.
> 
> Up to a thousand angry residents in eastern Jalalabad city blocked the main highway to Kabul and set alight effigies of the pastor who presided over the Koran burning, said Ahmad Zia Abdulzai, spokesman for the provincial governor.
> 
> ...



Afghan Policeman Kills 2 NATO Soldiers


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 7, 2011)

Aren't Muslims fun? And they're so tolerant & peaceful too...Yea lessons learned here: Don't become a Muslim and never ever live in a Muslim Nation. Class dismissed.


----------



## Malcom X (Apr 7, 2011)

We invade their country, we set up a puppet government, we excercize colonialism, mercantalism, and militarism against their people, then we insult their culture, their religion, their way of life.

What do we expect?


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 7, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Aren't Muslims fun? And they're so tolerant & peaceful too...Yea lessons learned here: Don't become a Muslim and never ever live in a Muslim Nation. Class dismissed.


----------



## Peter Dow (Apr 12, 2011)

*Afghan mob kills UN workers. *

On Friday, April 1st 2011, an angry mob was incited to attack a UN compound in Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan. The mob stormed the base and 7 UN workers were killed.

4 British-trained Nepalese soldiers or "Gurkhas", 
Lt. Col. Siri Skare, a 53-year-old Norwegian military attaché&#8212;a former fighter pilot&#8212;seconded to the U.N., along with 
Joakim Dungel, a 33-year-old Swede who had been working in the human-rights office for less than two months, and 
Filaret Motco, a 43-year-old Romanian who headed the mission's political section.
Too much internet comment has been posted elsewhere debating the pretext, excuse or perceived insult which was used by the mob's ringleaders to incite the mob to attack. My posts are intended to leave that subject well alone.

I reject that other discussion as irrelevant to the real needs here which are a discussion of how and why UN workers were vulnerable, undefended and left to die and who is responsible.


----------



## Peter Dow (Apr 12, 2011)

*How it went down*

_The Wall Street Journal:_ *Inside the Massacre at Afghan Compound*



*The failures point by point*



> Only about 60 police were deployed, and they appeared uncertain how to respond. Initial attempts to disperse the crowd by firing warning shots appeared only to inflame the demonstrators.


Useless policing. Civil police need to keep protesting crowds or mobs intent on attack (hard to tell the difference initially) at an agreed protest line, which if passed without permission, especially in large numbers who can't be arrested then the attacking mob should be shot. It is up to the civil police to control the crowd. If they don't hold the crowd back it is the civil authorities fault when a mob gets shot down.



> They phoned for help from the nearby military bases of German and Swedish forces, according to a person briefed on the situation.


Useless. Nearby is not near enough. The UN base or compound should be embedded within ISAF bases so an attack on the UN looks like an attack on ISAF, which it is.



> The U.S.-led military said the situation "escalated rapidly" and that a swift-reaction team didn't arrive until after rioters were gone.


Useless. If the UN were depending on "swift" being swift enough to save them, they were wrong and misled. The UN should have leadership which tells them - you are not safe being "nearby" you need to be surrounded by a competent military defence.



> Once demonstrators flooded the compound,


Useless compound defence architecture. It should be impossible for a crowd to breach a secure compound and if they try there should be fire power to kill those attempting to breach the compound or base.



> a dozen Afghan police guards&#8212;the first line of defense&#8212;dropped their weapons


Useless guards. A dozen professional loyal soldiers manning 4 machine guns could probably have saved the day even at that stage.
The Afghan police are neither professional nor loyal to the UN so the UN should never have put their lives in the hands of Afghan police.



> Inside the compound, a small contingent of Nepalese Gurkha guards working for the U.N. faced a conundrum: They were under U.N. orders not to open fire on demonstrators. The videos show one guard feebly trying to wave an elderly demonstrator out of the compound.


Gurkhas are not useless man for man. But 4 to 6 Gurkhas is not enough to hold off such crowd who by this time are armed with guns taken from the police.

When a mob breaches a secure compound they are clearly an attacking mob not "demonstrators". The senior members of the UN should have made that clear. If the Gurkhas had been better led they would have been able to put up more of a fight, but expecting so few of them to make up for failings everywhere else is unrealistic.



> Inside the building, other attackers targeted one of the safe rooms. The door proved little protection against the mob.


Useless. Defence architecture needs to be more secure areas within secure areas. Those inside a safe room or bunker within a compound or base need to be able to kill those trying to enter the safe room.



> The attackers searched the darkened bunker with a lamp and discovered Lt. Col. Siri Skare, a 53-year-old Norwegian military attaché&#8212;the former fighter pilot&#8212;seconded to the U.N., along with Joakim Dungel, a 33-year-old Swede who had been working in the human-rights office for less than two months, and Filaret Motco, a 43-year-old Romanian who headed the mission's political section.


Useless. Any defence attache worth their salt would know they were sitting in a death trap and would have refused to be responsible for such a poorly defended UN compound and would have ordered everyone out and relocated to the ISAF base.

Norway is a sick monarchy with a King of Norway who thinks it is funny or cute to appoint a penguin in Edinburgh zoo as one of his senior officers. I am not kidding.

The Norwegian military is not right in the head to have allowed UN staff into that suicidal UN compound. 

Norway is responsible for the Nobel Peace prize and that is what happens to those who trust the Norwegian King, his peace prize or his military attaches. The Norwegian King gets you killed. Remember that.


----------



## Peter Dow (Apr 12, 2011)

This is a primarily a problem of lame security at the UN compound: badly constructed, probably poorly located, insufficiently guarded, guards insufficiently armed. Poor organisation from start to finish.

All that is needed is to be better armed and trained than the attacking mob, as this video from the movie "Zulu" illustrates.

Zulu - Final Attack (YouTube)

_You need to have enough defensive fire power to stop as many as keep attacking_


----------



## Peter Dow (Apr 12, 2011)

It is missing the point entirely to consider what the mind-set of the attacking mob might have been. Who cares what their motives for attacking are? It matters not when you are defending. What matters is to be armed and prepared to stop and repel their attack.


*Ban Ki-Moon to blame.*

Yes you can break this down into individual failures but the failure is one of leadership at the very top of the UN organisation.

If anyone is to be held responsible over this, it should be Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary General.

This importance of this story is the shocking fact that UN bases in Afghanistan are practically undefended and a mob could easily storm a base and kill those inside.

UN security is a joke.

*The UN needs to sack the UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon for his gross incompetence in failing to defend UN personnel.* 

Ban Ki-Moon: totally useless. 

The UN has a lot of great principles to uphold - universal human rights etc, but these need to be upheld at the point of gun, with proper military organisation, which the UN should be able to do, in principle, but with the wrong leadership, like Ban Ki-Moon's wrong leadership, fails to do.

The world's dictators don't want UN principles imposed upon their countries - they'd rather lock up or kill their political opponents - so these dictatorial governments would rather the UN was ineffectual, defenceless and impotent, like Ban Ki-Moon is.

That is why so many of the rotten governments of the world get to together at the UN to appoint such useless "hearts and flowers" types like Ban Ki Moon or Kofi Annan.

The UN leadership must prevent UN workers being killed as they go about the UN's business - by for example, making sure that UN compounds are properly defended with a robust military not afraid to shoot violent attacking mobs like that Afgan mob who killed the 7 UN workers in Mazar-e-Sharif.

We need to get some good military, security and safety advisors in position with orders to defend UN workers' lives using all means necessary, including machine-gunning attacking mobs no matter how many attack.

I want the UN leadership to defend our guys, to take sides, to realise this is war and to fight it to win.

I want the life of one loyal UN worker to be valued more by the UN high command than the lives of all in an attacking mob because we need those UN workers to achieve the UN's long term goals and we don't need any of those in such attacking mobs.


----------



## Peter Dow (Apr 12, 2011)

*The right to protest, but not the right to kill *

I am the last one to suggest machine-gunning protesters or demonstrators, having been a protester or demonstrator myself on a number of occasions.

A mob incited to lethal violence is a different thing from a crowd of peaceful demonstrators and our soldiers need to know the difference and react differently in both cases.

The mob attack on the UN compound was not a case of spray painting "Go home infidels" and smashing a few windows. This was a determined attempt to enter a "secure" (supposedly) base wherein people are being defended to inflict mob violence on those inside.

This was not an attack on property or vandalism but a murderous mob, there is a difference, and everyone has the right of self-defence in such circumstances.

The chances of reasoning with or negotiating a peaceful outcome with such an enraged mob are slim. You should always have the fire-power available to kill such a mob and be prepared to fight to survive.

The defence architecture of a military or diplomatic base - that means - security barriers, fences, walls, gates, guard posts etc - needs to be carefully designed so that only welcome guests, in good order, can enter with permission.

It is the responsibility of the civil authorities on the outside to hold any angry mob back outside the exterior defence barrier.

An angry, violent mob which breaches the defence barriers must expect to be shot.

Now, it is different if it is an essentially peaceful crowd of demonstrators. If, for example, it is some disarmed students occupying their administrative headquarters to protest education cuts, that is different. I don't know of any occasion in Britain anyway when the students' union has killed university administrators.

However, we are talking about Afghanistan where the locals often are armed and there is a war going on, don't you know?

The defence architecture of this UN compound in Mazar-e-Sharif, was inadequate in the extreme and the numbers, quality, loyalty and arming of the guards was also inadequate in the extreme.

This is not a case of being "wise after the event". This is basic military tactics. The UN secretary general and his senior security advisors should not have put UN staff in the hands of such poor military experts as are advising them.

The failure for appointing people who don't know what they are doing is the responsibility of the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon who the UN should sack forthwith.


----------



## Peter Dow (Apr 12, 2011)

Ban Ki-Moon is useless, he is failing to properly organise the military defence of UN workers in Afghanistan and elsewhere and UN workers are being killed like the 7 killed in Mazar-e-Sharif on Friday, 1st April 2011.

*If not Ban Ki-moon then who for UN Secretary General?*

Condoleezza Rice for UN Secretary General


I am hoping that Condi as UN Secretary General would find the weaknesses in the UN secretariat and administration and purge the incompetents whoever they are.

We need Condi as UN Secretary General, and I'll be her head of security, if she'll have me.

*What would Condi do?*

All I can say for sure is what I would do if I were responsible for UN security.

I can't promise that Condi would appoint me as her Under-Secretary-General for Safety and Security or that she would even give me a second thought. She has always seemed to ignore me.

So I can't even promise that if Condi was made UN Secretary General she would instruct her Under-Secretary-General for Security and Safety to take expert advice from me.

In fact the guy that Ban Ki-moon appointed to that job, Gregory B. Starr



> SECRETARY-GENERAL APPOINTS GREGORY B. STARR OF UNITED STATES AS UNDER-SECRETARY-GENERAL FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY[/url]
> 6th May 2009
> 
> United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced today the appointment of Gregory B. Starr of the United States as Under-Secretary-General for Safety and Security.  Mr. Starr will replace David Veness.



used to work as US Director of Diplomatic Security responsible for the security of US diplomats.



> Gregory B. Starr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Gregory B. Starr is the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Safety and Security. He was selected by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon on May 6, 2009.[1]
> 
> Prior to his appointment with the United Nations, Starr was the Director of the U.S. Diplomatic Security Service (DSS), and the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary within Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) from March 1, 2007.



So Starr was the guy watching Condi's back as secretary of state. He may even have got his job at the UN working for Ban Ki-moon with a reference from Condi. I don't know.

This guy Starr might not be up to his job at the UN but maybe it is because he is not getting the support he needs from the UN Secretary General? Maybe if Condi was his boss he would perform better?

I am certainly not going to vouch for Starr. If Starr is the problem I would advise Condi to sack or demote him. If that was the right move to take I feel Condi would take the right move, if not on my advice then on the advice of her other supporters.

Condi has a lot of clever friends and supporters and we would not see her fail just because she has inherited someone in the staff who is not up to the job.


----------



## Peter Dow (Apr 12, 2011)

*How to get Ban Ki-moon out and Condi in*

The UN Secretary General must be nominated by the UN Security Council.

Every country has a right to change its mind and change its vote. None of us signed away our freedom to Ban Ki-moon.

We are not now all slaves of Ban Ki-moon with no right to reject our imposed master.

Every permanent member of the security council - the USA, GB, France, Russia & China has a veto over the nomination of the UN Secretary general - and so if any of them change their mind about the incumbent UN Secretary General and want him out, their veto is available to withdraw the nomination of the Security Council.



I would say the way to go would be to take advantage of the UN head quarters being in New York.

The UN is administered from 5 main buildings in the world - New York, Geneva, Vienna, The Hague and Nairobi.


The US President should take short-term control of UN HQ in New York, dismissing Ban Ki-moon. 
The US President should appoint Condi as acting UN Secretary General (New York)
The Swiss government could also appoint Cond as acting UN Secretary General (Geneva)
The Austrian government could also appoint Condi as acting UN Secretary (Vienna)
The Dutch government could appoint Condi as acting UN Secretary General (The Hague)
The Kenyan government could appoint Condi as acting UN Secretary General (Nairobi)
Condi should appoint appropriate representatives from countries with dictatorships - so for example, the UN representative for Burma, (oops, "Myanmar" ) , would be Aung San Suu Kyi or her representative in New York, the UN representative for Libya would be the rebel leaders in Benghazi, new representatives for the Arab countries representing the "Arab Spring" revolutions and so on. 
The new UN should then hopefully confirm Condi as permanent UN Secretary General.
In other words, kick out the dictatorships and make the UN what it is supposed to be - an organisation of nations, rather than an organisation of governments some of whom oppress their own nations.

To start the process the US in particular needs to come to its senses about Condi and stop pretending that having her out of power is in some way "a good thing".


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 13, 2011)

Peter you are spot on about everything you posted, the UN is a useless organization and I wouldn't be caught dead in one of their "bases" overseas, the UN headquarters is probably easier to over run than the girl scouts.


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 13, 2011)

As far as the security at UN compounds, if finding competent soldiers is so hard for them why not hire out? there is a shitload of civilian contractors in Afghanistan right now, the US Military is stretched thin so I don't want them responsible for guarding UN Compounds.


----------



## Peter Dow (Apr 13, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Peter you are spot on about everything you posted,


Thanks HG. I often have "spot-on" scathing criticism of the rotten leadership we suffer from but my outspokenness rarely gets me any thanks and more often gets me banned from places here in Aberdeen and from internet forums too.

"Everything" I posted? So you agreed with my dig at the King of Norway's Nobel peace prize too? You know Obama got that, right?

Condi doesn't want to "chirp" at Obama but I don't see why not. I mean, the elected President of the United States (Obama) bowing to the Saudi King - that is just plain wrong! Perhaps, that is as bad as President Bush holding hands with the Saudi King. 



High_Gravity said:


> the UN is a useless organization


Under Ban Ki-moon the security of this UN compound was pretty useless but I am not saying there is no use ever for an improved UN organisation. I have discussed how to improve the UN organisation.

The thing is, HG, the people of the world can't afford to have a useless UN. We actually need the UN to be doing a good job. There is plenty for the UN to do. There are plenty of countries, like Afghanistan, whose national governments are very weak and they need the UN to back them up, but doing so competently, not incompetently as now under Ban Ki-moon.

So I don't think writing the whole UN off is the way to go. There is much in the principles of the UN which is worth building upon and trying to make work as it should.

I think we need to see how we can fix the UN, starting with replacing Ban Ki-moon with someone a lot better, such as Condi.



High_Gravity said:


> and I wouldn't be caught dead in one of their "bases" overseas,


It doesn't take rocket science to build a secure base. This should be basic military engineering but it looks like they got a "cowboy builder" in to build it.

This UN compound had a "watch tower" which looked like it was made out of plywood and one of the Afghan mob climbed onto the compound wall and simply pushed the watch tower over!



High_Gravity said:


> the UN headquarters is probably easier to over run than the girl scouts.


Hmm. The UN HQ is where Ban Ki-moon and all the representative of the rotten regimes hang out. The dictators of the world want an ineffectual UN abroad but they want their own representatives safety assured.

I bet the UN HQ base in New York, with UN security guards, backed up by NYPD is probably one of the safest UN bases anywhere. Safe enough for rotten dictators like Gaddafi and Mugabe to visit anyway.

The Taliban could certainly host an Al Qaeda training camp that could train for an assault on the UN HQ in New York. They have attacked New York before as we know.

So I don't say the UN HQ is 100% safe but for Ban Ki-moon, the safety of the people who appointed him and who work in the UN HQ is likely to be his priority. Ban Ki-moon wants to save his own ass - it is other people's ass in Afghanistan he is not so good at saving.

There are scouts in Afghanistan but I am not sure whether they are targeted by the Taliban. I would not put it past the Taliban to target the scouts, especially if they were educating girls on how to look after themselves.

My point would be we should not ask civilian scouts to do the military job of defending the UN workers and their bases.


----------



## Peter Dow (Apr 13, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> As far as the security at UN compounds, if finding competent soldiers is so hard for them why not hire out? there is a shitload of civilian contractors in Afghanistan right now,


The 4 Gurkhas who were killed were competent soldiers, at least at the non-commissioned level. The Gurkhas are well trained soldiers, who know how to fight, are good fighters when they are ordered to fight.

It is not hard to hire more Gurkhas or other competent soldiers if you have the money to spend and the willingness to spend it on hiring more professional soldiers. Clearly the UN didn't do it, didn't want to do, didn't think they needed to do it. Fools!



			
				The BBC said:
			
		

> *Gurkha who repelled Taliban attack gets bravery medal*
> 
> _Acting Sgt Pun's father and grandfather were both Gurkhas too _
> 
> ...



The Gurkhas also follow orders so when they were ordered by the UN senior staff not to open fire on "demonstrators" and there is confusion in the UN senior staff as to who is a demonstrator and who is an attacker, the Gurkhas delayed opening fire. They were badly led at the senior officer level, specifically they were badly led by the Norwegian military attache who was the senior military officer at the compound. Like I said, she should have ordered everyone out on the first day she inspected the compound and found out it was not well constructed nor sufficiently professionally defended.

Man for man, Gurkhas might be smaller than your average US marine but they are very good fighters.

As well there were not enough Gurkhas hired in the first place. 4 only against a one thousand strong mob armed with AK47s taken from the police. Gurkhas are good but they should not be expected to be that good, not if they are told not to open fire first anyway.

If it had been 12 Gurkhas with orders to shoot-first-ask-questions-later to stop an attacking mob, my money would have been on the Gurkhas.



High_Gravity said:


> the US Military is stretched thin so I don't want them responsible for guarding UN Compounds.


It would also have been foolish of the UN to choose to live in such a poorly constructed compound even if they had hired more troops. They needed more troops *and* they also needed a base or compound with a more secure defence architecture. They needed a fort not a walk-in centre.

What I suggested as a first secure move would be to embed the UN base within an existing NATO-ISAF base in the area in and around Mazar-i-Sharif, where 500 Swedish troops and 150 Finnish troops are already based.

The Scandinavian-staffed NATO-ISAF base was I guess what was meant in the report that the UN staff under siege telephoned a nearby base in the desperate hope that they would be rescued by a swift-reaction force.

So in the first instance, the UN workers should have found a spot inside the ISAF base and been protected by 650 Swedish and Finnish troops where they would have been a lot safer.

US troops, as I am sure you know HG, are in Afghanistan serving with NATO-ISAF as well but the US forces were not nearby on this occasion, being based elsewhere in Afghanistan, although if any military expert, from any country, had told the UN workers they were sitting in a death trap that would have been good advice.

The mission which is the most that could ever be expected from the Afghan civil police in circumstances of a well-defended UN or NATO-ISAF base would be to stop the mob attacking the base because if the Afghan police didn't stop the mob then the mob would be wiped out by the military professionals who should be guarding the base.

In other words, the Afghan police might shoot a few Afghans in the mob to deter the rest of the mob to avoid what comes next if they don't - the UN or NATO-ISAF forces being required to kill as many hundreds in a mob as it takes to stop the mob - but no-one should depend on the Afghan police shooting hundreds in an Afghan mob just to save the lives of a few foreigners.


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 14, 2011)

Peter Dow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Peter you are spot on about everything you posted,
> ...



Welcome to the boards Pete, you should be quite at home here the board is quite lenient and as long you don't personally attack people you will be fine here. Personally I agree 100% on everything you said about the UN, I do think the UN can still be useful but the thing about it is, the UN is basically as useless as tits on a punching bag if the UN isn't backed up with adequate Military force. China and Russia have good Militaries but they do nothing on the UN but bitch and moan, veto resolutions and refuse to do anything, I can't remember the last time Russia or China sent in troops on a UN mission, China and Russia only go to war when it serves their interests. Basically for a UN Military effort to be effective you have to give it some teeth, basically troops from countries like the UK, US, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia etc. these countries to me seem to have the finest Professional Militaries out there capable of combat. Countries like Germany, Italy, France, Denmark etc. never send their Military into Combat Operations so when they end up in those situations, they struggle with it. In Afghanistan Germany, Italy and France have specific orders in place that prevent their Soldiers from engaging in Combat, which is ridiculous, this is Afghanistan not Disney World! A Humvee full of French Soldiers was ambushed in Afghanistan a few years ago and they were all killed and the Taliban stripped their uniforms, took their guns and paraded around taking pictures with them, you can see them on the internet its disgusting, thats what happens when you have a whole lot of inexperienced troops left alone in a combat zone. I know France sent in troops to the Ivory Coast recently and from what I hear their Military isn't so bad and they are highly trained, but I need to see more from them before I put them up there with combat capable troops like the US, UK, Australia etc etc

I was being sarcastic about the UN headquarters being less secure than the girls scouts camp, but I bet you the girl scouts headquarters was more secure than that shanty town UN compound in Afghanistan! I am sure the UN headquarters in New York is secure, the big wigs and head honchos always make sure they are squared away.You are right I saw the footage of the Afghan protestors pushing down the watch tower, that was pathetic and it shows the structure was extremely lacking and completely inadequate to be a secure compound of any kind. I don't have much experience with the Gurkhas myself but I will take your word for it, the thing is their hands are tied with the ridiculous rules that UN has them chained down with, the UN forbids them from firing on protestors of any kind, violence or not, so the security detail could basically do nothing as the Afghan mob destroyed the compound. I wouldn't mind Condoleeze running the UN or maybe Tony Blair, the UN needs to be able to slap people around if it needs to and the pacifists running the show now don't have the will to do that.


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 14, 2011)

Peter you are correct, the Afghan POLICE ARE not going to go balls to the wall and kill dozens of protestors to save the lives of foreigners in their country. From what I heard, the Afghan police stood idly by while this happened and the Afghan mob even stripped them of their weapons! From what I hear the Afghan police are more useless and corrupt than the Afghan Army, and that saying something because the Afghan Army is maybe 1 level above useless. So yes Afghans guarding the UN headquarters is out, they have no vested interest in and are not going to turn guns on their own people to defend the UN. I was in the Military for 7 years, US Air Force, I was trained in force protection and how to properly protect a base overseas, I never had to use my training but its pretty straight forward and its not rocket science. Typically guards at a US Military installation overseas are armed with M-16 rifles, there are watch towers where there are more guards with M-16S and M-60S, Machine guns basically and even more guards with Military assault shot guns. If a protest breaks out, the protestors have to stay a certain distance back from the entrance gate, I forgot how far that is exactly, if the protestors try to breach the entrance or turn violent, you have permission to open fire. If this Afghan mob tried this at a US Base, they would have got lit the fuck up point blank. Mobs in Afghanistan and Iraq have tried to sieze US Military bases for years and they haven't been able to do it once, this Afghan mob knew that and they targeted the UN compound because they knew the security there was severely underequipped and tied down the bullshit UN rules where they could not fire on them, they knew if they tried this with a US or NATO Base it would have been a failure. The UN needs to toughen up, this compound was in Afghanistan for fucks sake, not Hollywood Boulevard, the whole country is basically a war zone. The UN is so worried about offending the Afghans, that they are ok with their own people getting beheaded instead of protecting them, thats fucking sick.

It was good talking to you Pete if you reply to this I will be out of town until Tuesday on vacation, I will get back with you on my return.


----------



## Peter Dow (Apr 14, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Peter Dow said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


Thanks for the welcome HG.

What about personally attacking Queen Elizabeth and family, is that allowed? That's got me more bans and warnings than anything.

Some boards have strict rules like you can't quote this, or you can't link to that. Here I need 15 posts before I can link to anything. I'm nearly up to 15 and if I make a few short posts in reply to yours, I will probably get to 15 today.


----------



## Grace (Apr 14, 2011)

Oh my. Why would you be banned for bashing QE? Everyone is pretty much free game here. 

Dont know ya. 
Dont know if Ill regret it later.
But.
Welcome to USMB.


----------



## Peter Dow (Apr 14, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Peter Dow said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


In a war zone like Afghanistan there is a need for military force for sure.

There are some UN missions in some parts of the world which are not war zones where the risks are much less and the need for military force protection is less, and where civilians can manage themselves OK perhaps where a military attache and 4 professional soldiers would be plenty protection.

The thing is, the UN as an organisation ought to be sure it has competent military and security experts advising them who need to be able to know the difference between the two different kinds of missions - war zone missions or peace zone missions - and plan accordingly.

It just is unacceptably poor performance when the UN leaders don't seem to appreciate the extreme dangers of war zones.

This is by no means the first time the UN have gone unprepared for likely attacks.

In 2003, there was a UN base in Baghdad which was bombed and many killed including the UN's chief envoy to Iraq.

How can they not know about the likely dangers?

I mean, if it had been 7 innocents who were naive aid workers working for a small civilian charity with no military or security role who went to Afghanistan and got themselves killed, that is not too surprising.

But this is the United Nations, the great global organisation, with an important role in world security matters, combining the expertise of the governments of the world, supposedly.

The UN has every advantage of funding and high profile to able to recruit the very best staff in the world.

Is this the best the world can do? It can't be!
So why have we got such useless people running the UN?


----------



## Peter Dow (Apr 14, 2011)

Peter Dow said:


> This is a primarily a problem of lame security at the UN compound: badly constructed, probably poorly located, insufficiently guarded, guards insufficiently armed. Poor organisation from start to finish.
> 
> All that is needed is to be better armed and trained than the attacking mob, as this video from the movie "Zulu" illustrates.
> 
> ...


OK now that I have 15 posts, can I now link to that video?

*[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1csr0dxalpI"]Zulu - Final Attack (YouTube)[/ame]*


----------



## Peter Dow (Apr 14, 2011)

Peter Dow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Peter Dow said:
> ...





			
				Moderator said:
			
		

> NO promotion or advertising in signature.


There you go HG. There's the land of the free for you.


----------



## Peter Dow (Apr 14, 2011)

US message board - where your views count, but links in your signature are not allowed.

Oh gas me now mein fuhrer, it is the waiting I can't stand.


----------



## Peter Dow (Apr 14, 2011)

That's right 7 UN workers dead but if you can save 7 others with a link in your signature, too bad because US message board cares nothing about anything but its petty little rules.


----------



## Peter Dow (Apr 14, 2011)

Funny country the USA. I have seen videos of Nazis, yup Nazis, in full Nazi uniform marching in Washington, with swastika flags, sieg heils, the lot.

So that's allowed. Nazis are no problem.

What is a problem in the good old US of A's messageboard is a link in your signature to a freedom fighters website.


----------



## Peter Dow (Apr 14, 2011)

Hey USA, your messageboard is rigged!

Why do you live with such peanut brains in charge of your message board?

Is this why the UN sucks, because the Americans will put up with messageboard moderators who also suck?


----------



## Peter Dow (Apr 14, 2011)

I guess if you have half-wit fools in charge of your messageboard, it figures that you would be OK with similar half-wits in charge of the UN in New York, right?

You are ruled on the internet by clowns so why not have clowns ruling the UN? You don't know the difference, right?


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 19, 2011)

Peter Dow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Peter Dow said:
> ...



You should be able to personally attack the Queen all you want, people make fun of Barack Obama everyday here.


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 19, 2011)

Peter Dow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Peter Dow said:
> ...



I don't know much about the inner workings of the UN but I can tell you this, I work for the government here in the US and there is alot of red tape and checks and balances, so when you have an organization like the UN that consists of several different countries with such different views and policies, I can imagine it is a cluster fuck to get things done. I think the UN was a good idea at one point but its totally fucked now, I agree with you new leadership would be a good start, maybe Condoleeza Rice or Tony Blair.


----------



## Peter Dow (Apr 19, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> China and Russia have good Militaries but they do nothing on the UN but bitch and moan, veto resolutions and refuse to do anything, I can't remember the last time Russia or China sent in troops on a UN mission, China and Russia only go to war when it serves their interests.


Well of course the Chinese have fought the UN forces in the Korean War.
Korean War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Chinese back then and still do have a large conscript army which allows for massed infantry attacks but force of numbers alone is only very useful in attacking when the defenders are not equipped appropriately to repel an large infantry attack.

Even a seemly suicidal massed infantry assault against machine-gun position can overwhelm the defenders as the Chinese often overwhelmed UN forces in the Korean War if there are not enough machine guns or the defenders run out of ammunition or the machine gun barrels over-heat and can't be cooled or swapped fast enough.

Therefore although the Chinese many times defeated US forces in Korean War battles I do not think they were particularly "good" in those days, more that US forces were not properly equipped or didn't have the best leadership to defeat a very large infantry army which could afford enormous losses and still keep attacking.

In the olden days of the British Empire, the British army had some fearsome water-cooled machine guns, made by Vickers, which could keep firing all day. So no matter how many enemy infantry or tribes-people tried to assault those gun positions the attackers could all be cut down as long as the ammunition lasted.

Such a robust defensive attitude of being well-prepared to machine gun down any and all who attack a UN or NATO-ISAF position is the security, safety and military leadership we need in Afghanistan.

Some enraged mobs or armies can't be negotiated with, they can't be warned off with shots over their heads, they can't be stopped by killing a few to make an example. The only way to stop such fanatical attackers is to machine-gun them down in huge numbers.

I favour bases on higher steeply-sloped ground so that the dead bodies of attackers roll down the hill away from you clearing your firing line so you can keep shooting at the next wave of attackers.

Of course the Chinese military these days are increasingly well equipped and in combination with the large size of the Chinese military makes them useful friends or  dangerous foes.

You are right, HG, the Chinese like to keep out of wars these days. Perhaps they are biding their time until they are the most powerful army in the world? The Chinese are catching up fast.

The Chinese could overtake everyone else if the west doesn't get its economic and military strategy right.

With the US economy in its present shape, if the US wanted to build up its military by spending trillions of dollars to keep its sole military superpower position in the world into the future, the US might have to go to the Chinese to borrow the money to raise military spending that much.

Somehow, I don't think the Chinese bankers would be too happy to loan more money to the US to increase military spending. Rather I think the Chinese bankers will be asking the US to cut back on military spending to pay off the interest the US owes China.

If I was running the US I'd be tempted to tax the US rich and invest in a home-grown economy not dependent on Chinese loans and Arab oil and gas but that's just some friendly advice.


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 19, 2011)

Peter Dow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > China and Russia have good Militaries but they do nothing on the UN but bitch and moan, veto resolutions and refuse to do anything, I can't remember the last time Russia or China sent in troops on a UN mission, China and Russia only go to war when it serves their interests.
> ...



Well the Chinese are biding their time and slowly building up their arsenal so you are probably right, in a head to head battle between our Militaries right now all hell would break loose but I can tell you this, there is no substitute for experience. The US Military has been at war for the last 10 years and we have many combat hardened veterans who have been on Multiple deployments and can handle themselves in a battle, sometimes experience is better than numbers. Case in pointin West Africa the governments there reached out to a security contractor in South Africa called Executive Outcomes, and those Contractors went into those West African countries and basically man handled 1000+ armed rebels on their own, in some bases they destroyed hundreds of rebels when the contractors only numbered a dozen people, these contractors were all trained special forces from South Africa. I definently agree with you about the US needing to be self sufficient and not being reliant on Chinese money and Arab oil, I don't like owing people anything.


----------

