Situation in Afghanistan Watch

laurennobvsftw
Badges: 0
#1
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#1
When you turn on the news, there is always something about 'the situation in Afghanistan'.

With my Dad being in the army and having served in Afghan, I don't like the coverage the news gives it.

SO do you think that the media coverage on Afghanistan is good or bad?
If it is bad, how would you change the coverage? Would you even get rid of it?
0
quote
reply
AndroidLight
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 8 years ago
#2
It's rubbish, the only time you hear anything is when say a bomb explodes killing masses or a brit dies. What about all the times when the afghans die? Ask a Brit to name the main areas of Afghanistan, or even try to show afghanistan on a map, many would not be able to. Why? Personally I think they learnt the lessons of Vietnam. All current wars hide the details of the war from mainstream to avoid the public to get involved, which would inevitably lead to mass demonstration against the war.
0
quote
reply
Suetonius
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#3
Report 8 years ago
#3
(Original post by AndroidLight)
It's rubbish, the only time you hear anything is when say a bomb explodes killing masses or a brit dies. What about all the times when the afghans die? Ask a Brit to name the main areas of Afghanistan, or even try to show afghanistan on a map, many would not be able to. Why? Personally I think they learnt the lessons of Vietnam. All current wars hide the details of the war from mainstream to avoid the public to get involved, which would inevitably lead to mass demonstration against the war.
Conspiratorial nonsense. In fact, the 'War Logs' leak has conclusively demonstrated that most of what the government is keeping as "secret" is generally common-knowledge anyway. For example, the Pakistan ISI - and Iranian - funding and arming of the Taliban has been something consistently referred to in books and articles on the subject, as have some of the 'friendly fire' issues. The leak hasn't shown evidence for any 'My Lai' type of occurrence in Afghanistan at all, so your point about a "detail" that would "inevitably lead to a mass demonstration" is grounded in absolutely nothing.

This Chomsky-esque rubbish of the media being controlled by government opinion is nothing more than paranoia with an intellectual face. First of all, the media has very little access to the full goings-on in Afghanistan and sometimes has to rely on relaying stories of British soldiers being killed. I highly doubt SkyNews or the BBC would, if they had any concern for the wellbeing of their reporters, send a man behind enemy lines to report on damage the NATO forces have inflicted. They'd be the first to be taken hostage by the "insurgency" (a word that gets on my nerves so much; no serious person in their right mind would ever consider the Taliban to be a kind of liberation front).
0
quote
reply
ElNormo91
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 8 years ago
#4
(Original post by AndroidLight)
It's rubbish, the only time you hear anything is when say a bomb explodes killing masses or a brit dies. What about all the times when the afghans die? Ask a Brit to name the main areas of Afghanistan, or even try to show afghanistan on a map, many would not be able to. Why? Personally I think they learnt the lessons of Vietnam. All current wars hide the details of the war from mainstream to avoid the public to get involved, which would inevitably lead to mass demonstration against the war.
Very true, when are ever going to hear "A Tailban fighter/several Taliban fighters has/have been killed in an explosion/gunfire in Afghanistan/Helmand Province by British/NATO/Coalition soldiers" instead of "A British soldier/x British soldiers has/have been killed in an explosion in Afghanistan, he/she/they is/are from nth <insert regiment here>, his/her family/their families has/have been told"?

Everytime I hear of casualties on the news it's always deja vu to me. I know the situation there is dangerous, but we have to be fighting them, or else we'll have more terrorists threatening our freedoms, and hearing of more British/NATO casualties is just lowering our morale. It's just a matter of time before we eventually win, or else more annoying security at airports and privacy intrusions than ever. It is a war worth fighting for, and we will always have NATO and America by our side
0
quote
reply
AndroidLight
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 8 years ago
#5
(Original post by Suetonius)
Conspiratorial nonsense. In fact, the 'War Logs' leak has conclusively demonstrated that most of what the government is keeping as "secret" is generally common-knowledge anyway. For example, the Pakistan ISI - and Iranian - funding and arming of the Taliban has been something consistently referred to in books and articles on the subject, as have some of the 'friendly fire' issues. The leak hasn't shown evidence for any 'My Lai' type of occurrence in Afghanistan at all, so your point about a "detail" that would "inevitably lead to a mass demonstration" is grounded in absolutely nothing.

This Chomsky-esque rubbish of the media being controlled by government opinion is nothing more than paranoia with an intellectual face. First of all, the media has very little access to the full goings-on in Afghanistan and sometimes has to rely on relaying stories of British soldiers being killed. I highly doubt SkyNews or the BBC would, if they had any concern for the wellbeing of their reporters, send a man behind enemy lines to report on damage the NATO forces have inflicted. They'd be the first to be taken hostage by the "insurgency" (a word that gets on my nerves so much; no serious person in their right mind would ever consider the Taliban to be a kind of liberation front).
So tell me, how many 'Taliban' have died since 2000? The answer is you haven't a clue. Such is my point which you've missed. In bringing in the leaks, what they also show is that often when civilians are killed men are often classified as enemies or insurgents with the women/kids as civilians.

My point is simple. War is not pretty and if there was even decent media attention (which won't be allowed to happen), there would be serious outcry over the war. An example of what I'm talking about is Israel when it decided to bomb Gaza to the ground during January 2009 in the so called war. They immediately banned any journos from being anywhere near. Why? The answer is simple.
0
quote
reply
laurennobvsftw
Badges: 0
#6
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#6
Being on the military side of it, the soldiers do hear how many taliban soldiers have been killed however I do agree that the media coverage of Afghanistan is absolutely ridiculous. They find flaws in the army when they should be trying to tell people how much progress has been made which contrary to popular belief is a lot. The main problem is the Afghan Police Force who are ridiculously corrupt.

Personally, I do think that the deaths of soldiers should be mentioned as these men are heros but more emphasis should be on the progress and advances being made.
0
quote
reply
Suetonius
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#7
Report 8 years ago
#7
(Original post by AndroidLight)
So tell me, how many 'Taliban' have died since 2000? The answer is you haven't a clue.
No. And neither do our governments. Or our media. And I even doubt the Taliban do. What's your point?

In bringing in the leaks, what they also show is that often when civilians are killed men are often classified as enemies or insurgents with the women/kids as civilians.
To what 'leaks' do you refer? I've not come across one which has twisted civilian casualties to mean "insurgents", and I'd advise you to refrain from groundless comments such as this one.

My point is simple. War is not pretty and if there was even decent media attention (which won't be allowed to happen), there would be serious outcry over the war.
The only cases where there have been "serious outcries" over a major war was over the initiation of Iraq (where people were crazily protesting whether they knew Saddam had WMDs or not), and during Vietnam (which was right in my view) considering the atrocities of My Lai, 'Operation Speedy Express' and the unprecedented number of civilian and military casualities on both sides. As I said, nothing
like this has come to light through the War Logs. There have been no massacres, there have been no butcherings, there have not been hundreds of villages burned to the ground in a "no villages, no guerrilas" scheme, there has been no 'Agent Orange'. The conflict in Afghanistan is nothing special in terms of breach of war crimes. Every war will unfortunatley involve a few, but in Afghanistan they're minimal. If anyone even thought about protesting against the intervention in Afghanistan on such petty grounds they'd be actively promoting the resurgence of Afghanistan as the largest terrorist state on earth.

An example of what I'm talking about is Israel when it decided to bomb Gaza to the ground during January 2009 in the so called war. They immediately banned any journos from being anywhere near. Why? The answer is simple.
Yes, because there was - and still is - a blockade. Also, I repeat my point above. No state or media body could have thorough concern for their employees' wellbeing if they allowed them to go behind enemy lines. It's just not feasible.
0
quote
reply
AndroidLight
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 8 years ago
#8
(Original post by laurennobvsftw)
Being on the military side of it, the soldiers do hear how many taliban soldiers have been killed however I do agree that the media coverage of Afghanistan is absolutely ridiculous. They find flaws in the army when they should be trying to tell people how much progress has been made which contrary to popular belief is a lot. The main problem is the Afghan Police Force who are ridiculously corrupt.

Personally, I do think that the deaths of soldiers should be mentioned as these men are heros but more emphasis should be on the progress and advances being made.
No, not heroes. No man is a hero for going into war with the job of killing enemies, whom also happen to be men.

And don't go on about freedom for the people or about politicians making the decision. There are other ways and more peaceful ways to ensure freedom. And in the end the soldiers are the ones that pull the triggers.

No heroes there. Just men who have grown up to live in a stupid world. Not meant to kill.
0
quote
reply
Diaz89
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report 8 years ago
#9
It's a repeat of history. Some of the poorest people in the world, driving out every Empire that came into their country.
quote
reply
AndroidLight
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#10
Report 8 years ago
#10
(Original post by Suetonius)
No. And neither do our governments. Or our media. And I even doubt the Taliban do. What's your point?

To what 'leaks' do you refer? I've not come across one which has twisted civilian casualties to mean "insurgents", and I'd advise you to refrain from groundless comments such as this one.



The only cases where there have been "serious outcries" over a major war was over the initiation of Iraq (where people were crazily protesting whether they knew Saddam had WMDs or not), and during Vietnam (which was right in my view) considering the atrocities of My Lai, 'Operation Speedy Express' and the unprecedented number of civilian and military casualities on both sides. As I said, nothing
like this has come to light through the War Logs. There have been no massacres, there have been no butcherings, there have not been hundreds of villages burned to the ground in a "no villages, no guerrilas" scheme, there has been no 'Agent Orange'. The conflict in Afghanistan is nothing special in terms of breach of war crimes. Every war will unfortunatley involve a few, but in Afghanistan they're minimal. If anyone even thought about protesting against the intervention in Afghanistan on such petty grounds they'd be actively promoting the resurgence of Afghanistan as the largest terrorist state on earth.


Yes, because there was - and still is - a blockade. Also, I repeat my point above. No state or media body could have thorough concern for their employees' wellbeing if they allowed them to go behind enemy lines. It's just not feasible.
Wikileaks mate, wikileaks. Civilian deaths being put as insurgent. Just watch the video I've linked below. And lol at "I'd advise you to refrain".

And there have been no massacres/butcherings? What planet are you on? Shall I refer you to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings, or this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 , amongst others?

Don't know why your trying to act like there's nothing wrong here. It's a war and people are dying. No evil monsters out to kill everyone. But humans. Just to try and hit a point lets say your family lived in Afghanistan. Or lets see how defensive of war you would be if the war was a global war fought with all kinds of *******ly weapons and there was not one point on the earth that was safe. The irony that you're against terrorism.
0
quote
reply
Cesare Borgia
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#11
Report 8 years ago
#11
It's too negative, yes report on the deaths, but I want to see positive news coverage not just summing major offensives up in the number of NATO casualties. More stuff like that awesome sniper who got the mental long range kill.
0
quote
reply
Suetonius
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#12
Report 8 years ago
#12
(Original post by AndroidLight)
Wikileaks mate, wikileaks. Civilian deaths being put as insurgent. Just watch the video I've linked below. And lol at "I'd advise you to refrain".
Provide me with a link, and then I might be able to judge. As it happens, I've not received any evidence of such a "twist" of words. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, so prove it, please.

And there have been no massacres/butcherings? What planet are you on? Shall I refer you to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings, or this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 , amongst others?
Haditha's in Iraq, not Afghanistan. :facepalm: You can't conveniently change the conflict when it suits you, you know. Furthermore, the Haditha killings were not kept secret, so I can't exactly follow your point. :indiff:

Don't know why your trying to act like there's nothing wrong here. It's a war and people are dying.
What? Did you think wars can be fought without people dying?

Just to try and hit a point lets say your family lived in Afghanistan. Or lets see how defensive of war you would be if the war was a global war fought with all kinds of *******ly weapons and there was not one point on the earth that was safe. The irony that you're against terrorism.
It is a global war. Al Qaeda and the forces of jihad operate globally. Withdrawing from Afghanistan will encourage the resurgence of a hub for terrorism and Islamic fascism. I am defensive of war because, rather than constantly sitting behind a computer screen criticising myself, I'm happy to praise those who'll protect the life I lead.
0
quote
reply
laurennobvsftw
Badges: 0
#13
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#13
(Original post by AndroidLigalso)
No heroes there. Just men who have grown up to live in a stupid world. Not meant to kill.
You have made me really angry now. My Dad is a hero. He was willing to lay down his life for other people - including you and people he does not know, including all the afghan citizens he also fights to protect.

Politicians should not make the decisions so don't expect me to go on about it either. Let the British Forces resolve this, this is what they are trained to do and they need the support of all the civilians, after all it is the taxpayers money that helps fund them.
0
quote
reply
Cybele
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 8 years ago
#14
(Original post by laurennobvsftw)
You have made me really angry now. My Dad is a hero. He was willing to lay down his life for other people - including you and people he does not know, including all the afghan citizens he also fights to protect.
Don't listen to these people who think they have the moral highground by criticising the armed forces and the tremendous things they do. Your dad is a hero in my eyes and so are the people he works with for the very reasons you said. :yep:

In answer to your original question - I wouldn't get rid of the coverage at all, the war in Afghanistan is a vitally important issue and it's right the public are kept informed. Like I also think it's right that each serviceman who dies gets an individual mention, as heartbreaking as it is to watch.
0
quote
reply
Bossa Nova
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#15
Report 8 years ago
#15
It's rubbish. It doesnt concentrate on the devastating effect this war has had on the average Afghan citizen. There needs to be more coverage and this whole war is wrong.
0
quote
reply
Bossa Nova
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#16
Report 8 years ago
#16
(Original post by laurennobvsftw)
Being on the military side of it, the soldiers do hear how many taliban soldiers have been killed however I do agree that the media coverage of Afghanistan is absolutely ridiculous. They find flaws in the army when they should be trying to tell people how much progress has been made which contrary to popular belief is a lot. The main problem is the Afghan Police Force who are ridiculously corrupt.

Personally, I do think that the deaths of soldiers should be mentioned as these men are heros but more emphasis should be on the progress and advances being made.
Hardly any progress has been made. How many schools, hospitals or other facilities have they built? How many teachers have been trained? Have the Afghan army been trained to a sufficient level? These are all questions that have not been answered or need to be addressed.
0
quote
reply
roots
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#17
Report 8 years ago
#17
(Original post by ElNormo91)
Very true, when are ever going to hear "A Tailban fighter/several Taliban fighters has/have been killed in an explosion/gunfire in Afghanistan/Helmand Province by British/NATO/Coalition soldiers" instead of "A British soldier/x British soldiers has/have been killed in an explosion in Afghanistan, he/she/they is/are from nth <insert regiment here>, his/her family/their families has/have been told"?

Everytime I hear of casualties on the news it's always deja vu to me. I know the situation there is dangerous, but we have to be fighting them, or else we'll have more terrorists threatening our freedoms, and hearing of more British/NATO casualties is just lowering our morale. It's just a matter of time before we eventually win, or else more annoying security at airports and privacy intrusions than ever. It is a war worth fighting for, and we will always have NATO and America by our side
It isn't a conflict you can win or lose unless something amazing happens. The truth is, if you're after a victory you'll be there for decades and you still might not get it.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?

Yes (21)
25%
No - I got the required grades (52)
61.9%
No - I missed the required grades and didn't get in (11)
13.1%

Watched Threads

View All