Afghanistan

17 Mar 2010

Two more soldiers blown to pieces today and the total killed creeps ever upwards towards 300 and who knows where it will end.
Is anyone accountable for the successes and failures of the campaign in Afghanistan? It would be interesting to actually know what the strategy is in that country - rather than just hear every day of further casualties.
Is it too much to ask for someone to be accountable? I remember in the Falklands, the MOD gave daily accounts of what was going on and at least we had some notion of the progress of the campaign. With Afghanistan, nothing at all - just daily reports of more and more shattered and decimated bodies of young soldiers.

17 Mar 2010

The press are not interested in publishing good news stories from Stanners, and to be honest, I rather they didn't publish anything...
The truth is we are doing things, and things that make a huge difference. However, if it was broadcast all over the press, it would render those tasks useless. The point is this is a military campaign, not a soap opera. The fact that those back home can watch what is going on is a privilege, not a right.
We are at WAR, and as such, military tasks, missions, aims etc.. should not be compromised for the need to keep the spectators up to speed.

17 Mar 2010

Quote by Suffolk-cpl
The press are not interested in publishing good news stories from Stanners, and to be honest, I rather they didn't publish anything...
The truth is we are doing things, and things that make a huge difference. However, if it was broadcast all over the press, it would render those tasks useless. The point is this is a military campaign, not a soap opera. The fact that those back home can watch what is going on is a privilege, not a right.
We are at WAR, and as such, military tasks, missions, aims etc.. should not be compromised for the need to keep the spectators up to speed.

You obviously have faith in the MOD and Generals who are prosecuting this campaign. I seem to remember an expression that has been used very aptly in many conflicts but originated in the Great War.
"Lions, led by Donkeys."
I am not convinced and as we were taught in the Army - a little cynicism is a good thing.

17 Mar 2010

I didn't say there were no idiots in charge wink

I just believe that we should let the army/military get on with the job in hand, and not hamper that already difficult task by pandering to the armchair generals who need a day by day drip feed of what the plans are!
I'm sure with your time in green you can appreciate how much work went on in various ops that jo public knew nothing about, and that made doing that job easier.
lol

17 Mar 2010

Quote by Suffolk-cpl
I didn't say there were no idiots in charge
I just believe that we should let the army/military get on with the job in hand, and not hamper that already difficult task by pandering to the armchair generals who need a day by day drip feed of what the plans are!
I'm sure with your time in green you can appreciate how much work went on in various ops that jo public knew nothing about, and that made doing that job easier.

I think that the daily digest from the MOD during the Falklands conflict helped maintain public support for that campaign.

17 Mar 2010

I think you will also find that a task was almost blown when a paper printed the details of what was going to happen before the guys on the ground could put it into effect (gonna look up the task and the paper, but I'm pretty sure i'm right on this one).
Not a fan of the press in wars, and never will be.
If you want to get a feel of what is going on to keep spirits up, log onto ARRSE or read Soldier lol

17 Mar 2010

Quote by Too Hot
Two more soldiers blown to pieces today and the total killed creeps ever upwards towards 300 and who knows where it will end.
Is anyone accountable for the successes and failures of the campaign in Afghanistan? It would be interesting to actually know what the strategy is in that country - rather than just hear every day of further casualties.
Is it too much to ask for someone to be accountable? I remember in the Falklands, the MOD gave daily accounts of what was going on and at least we had some notion of the progress of the campaign. With Afghanistan, nothing at all - just daily reports of more and more shattered and decimated bodies of young soldiers.

Of course people are accountable....the Government or the PM of the day.
A lot of what happens in war situations has to stay secret or away from the press....somethings have to, so as to protect the military operations.
It will reach 300 and go much higher than that.
Where will it end is a thing nobody can predict. Until such time when the Government of the day realise it cannot be won,or public pressure becomes too hot, and they pull out. Neither will happen in my opinion.
There is plenty to find out about it, just a lot of the good bits are not as reported as the bad bits.

17 Mar 2010

Quote by Too Hot
Two more soldiers blown to pieces today and the total killed creeps ever upwards towards 300 and who knows where it will end.
Is anyone accountable for the successes and failures of the campaign in Afghanistan? It would be interesting to actually know what the strategy is in that country - rather than just hear every day of further casualties.
Is it too much to ask for someone to be accountable? I remember in the Falklands, the MOD gave daily accounts of what was going on and at least we had some notion of the progress of the campaign. With Afghanistan, nothing at all - just daily reports of more and more shattered and decimated bodies of young soldiers.

In my view, the Falklands was a just war as I believe the islands were uninhabited when we discovered them and consequently the residents have always been British.
I cannot say the same for Afganistan, I don't think that we should even be there and I suspect that a lot of others feel the same way and these feelings have been taken out (by some) on the soldiers - quite unjustifiably!
Reverting to the other point in the thread, I suspect that one reason we are not told so much, is that we might not agree with it all.
Plim :sad:

17 Mar 2010

Its a different time to when the falklands were fought. Back then there was no 24 hour news coverage or internet, if we were supplied with daily updates as to what was happening, that information would be very easily spread to the opposition. Its a war not reality tv.
The War followed on ITV2 by The War: Behind the scenes

17 Mar 2010

Quote by jdwxxx
Its a different time to when the falklands were fought. Back then there was no 24 hour news coverage or internet, if we were supplied with daily updates as to what was happening, that information would be very easily spread to the opposition. Its a war not reality tv.
The War followed on ITV2 by The War: Behind the scenes

Don't agree with that. Secrecy has all too often been at the heart of cover ups. No one appears to be able to question the tactics and progress of this campaign and no-one can possibly think that it is absolutely normal for a couple of soldiers a day to get blown up and that this is acceptable. IED's have been the chosen weapon of the insurgents since the early days of the IRAQ occupation and still service men and women are getting blasted across several grid references. These tactics need to be investigated, but they can't be, because of "secrecy." Sorry, I don't buy it and I don't think either do an increasing number of journalists. It is time for more to be made of the results of the Coroners enquiries into these deaths and for the MOD to stand up and be accountable.

17 Mar 2010

Rubbish kit and inadequate vehicles.

17 Mar 2010

eurasia has 4 fifths of the worlds known oil and gas reserves under its soil.
halliburton and unical are building a 1500 mile long pipeline fron ukraine and the caspian sea down through afghanistan and pakistan to the sea.
the war and occupation of afghanistan has nothing to do with the bogus existence of al qaeder, the ever youthful osama bin liner, the taliban, international terrorism, the bringing of democracy, shortages of troops or equiptment or any other bullshit we are fed on by the government, m.o.d. or their compliant cronies in the corporate owned and serving media.
the war and occupation of afghanistan and any other stan in this area forms part of a geostrategic plan to control the worlds energy supplies exclusive of china, russia, india and the far east.
it may well lead to a nuclear confrontation in the not too distant future.

18 Mar 2010

Quote by Too Hot
Two more soldiers blown to pieces today and the total killed creeps ever upwards towards 300 and who knows where it will end.
Is anyone accountable for the successes and failures of the campaign in Afghanistan? It would be interesting to actually know what the strategy is in that country - rather than just hear every day of further casualties.
Is it too much to ask for someone to be accountable? I remember in the Falklands, the MOD gave daily accounts of what was going on and at least we had some notion of the progress of the campaign. With Afghanistan, nothing at all - just daily reports of more and more shattered and decimated bodies of young soldiers.

Unlike the Falklands, Afganistan is a UN Reolution (55/174, 46/23, 49/140, 55/119 and 55/243) to supply an ISAF (International Security Assistance Force)to the Afgan Government and reconstruction of the infrastructure, the reinstatement of Human Rights and the protection of cultural property.
As a member of the Security Council of the UN, the UK is oblidged to provide such resources as are 'necessary' to the Afgan Government to implement the UN resolutions.
So, to answer 'who is accountable' the answer is the UN.
To answer the 'strategy' question is a bit more difficult as each Resolution requires a different strategy and the success or failure is determined by a 'personal' view (eg. The restoration of demoracy in Afganistan one could say this is complete as they have an elected government', however how legitimate that is, is open to question and is definately NOT accepted by the ex-Taliban party in Afganistan and they see this a both a 'religious' and 'civil' war to restore the traditional Afgan system of Government ie - feudal/tribal. The strategy of rebuilding the country's infrastructure after both the Russian invasion and neglect by the Taliban cannot complete until it is safe to do so (the religious/civil war is ended).
As we are there (rightly or wrongly depending on personal thoughts), the are a number of pertinant questions regarding the military intervention (1) are the troops we supply correctly equipped for the role? (no, but getting there) (2) is the UK still capable of playing a role at this level? (3) is the MOD procurement system adequate to support such operations?
For our Forces deployed to Afganistan and those of the other 'partners' (Dutch, Danish, German, Italian, et al.) total 'Respect' for working in difficult conditions with incorrect or sub-standard kit - the military will always 'make-do' with whatever is to-hand and try and get the job done.
We should also remember that any death is regretable - civilian, blue-on-blue, insurgent or military but such is the 'nature' of an armed conflict. Unfortuately these days we're more and more productive at achieving it.
History is not in our favour in Afganistan - we got our butts kicked there in Victorian times - the 'Kyber Pass' is still in the national conciousness, the Russians failed miserably and the current operations in support of a democratic government will also fail until one of the political parties 'breaks ranks' and pulls our forces out.

18 Mar 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Rubbish kit and inadequate vehicles.

And now, as admitted to at long last by Broon, imaginary funding...

18 Mar 2010

Quote by GnV
Rubbish kit and inadequate vehicles.

And now, as admitted to at long last by Broon, imaginary funding...
How true is that one?
He should be FORCED to go back into that enquiry to explain why he lied. He was Chancellor for ten years and then PM, so if anyone should know the score....he should.
He should be forced to sit in that enquiry and to be told he lied to it, and then they should ask for his reasons as to why he had.
The man is a liar and a fraud. Him and that other tosser Blair, took us to war without the proper funding or the proper tools for the job. Soldiers have died because of this, and both of them should be facing war crime trials. They have the blood on their hands of many dead and seriously injured soldiers.
Brown is a fraud as he was not voted by the public to be PM, and he is a liar because he stated that spending on the armed forces had risen year on year....a fecking lie.
The top military said they were short on supplies and the proper kit, yet the weasle cowards who sit in Parliament said otherwise....now we all know the truth.
The man is everything I hate about New/Old Labour....spin , lies,spin ,lies, and then after all that bollocks he then decides to bring back Mandelson. How desperate is he ffs?
Send him to prison, lock him up and throw away the key forever, on this dispicable liar of a man!! Let him share the same filthy cell with that other smug evil liar of a little toad....Blair.

18 Mar 2010

Afghan will recover much quicker if we pull out,we seem to loose an average of a soldier a day and thats not suggesting daily outcomes of war to be published is just mad the enemy will predict your next move and death toll will sky rocket.

18 Mar 2010

Quote by Phuckers
....,we seem to loose an average of a soldier a day and thats not acceptable.

Not a dig at Phuckers, just using the quote to highlight a point lol

Falklands war lasted 74 days and we lost 255 soldiers/sailors/airmen. That's an average of 3.5 men a day.
World War 2 lasted 6 years roughly, and was about 2137 days long. We lost about 300000 British military (under-estimate), meaning we lost on average 140.3 men a day.
World War 1 lasted for 4 years and 14 days, or 1438 days. We lost over 750000 (not including Empire soldiers). Giving an average of 521 men a day.
Korea lasted 3 years or 1068 days (For accuracy it never really ended, just the fighting lasted 3 years). We lost 1109 men KIA and over 1000 MIA or POW. Just using the certified dead alone it is an average of men a day.
Operation Herrick started in Oct 2001, so is now at 8 years 5 months (about 3000 days) , and we have lost 275 personnel (only 242 of which we due to hostile action). This is an average of men per day!
I would say, when we look at the numbers this War is going very well in terms of casualties. (Clearly it would be better if we lost no one!)
Now I am not belittling the sacrifices being made, just trying to address the balance from all the negative spin being put on by the armchair Generals who think we are losing, and it is all hopeless.
Getting killed in war is a risk we all take when we sign on. And this is a war, people seem to forget that, and in war soldiers die. Sorry to be blunt about that, but that's the way it is.
When History judges our actions only then will we truly know if the price we are paying is truly worth it. Until then, we can only do our duty, and crack on with the job in hand.

18 Mar 2010

Quote by Suffolk-cpl
....,we seem to loose an average of a soldier a day and thats not acceptable.

Not a dig at Phuckers, just using the quote to highlight a point lol

Falklands war lasted 74 days and we lost 255 soldiers/sailors/airmen. That's an average of 3.5 men a day.
World War 2 lasted 6 years roughly, and was about 2137 days long. We lost about 300000 British military (under-estimate), meaning we lost on average 140.3 men a day.
World War 1 lasted for 4 years and 14 days, or 1438 days. We lost over 750000 (not including Empire soldiers). Giving an average of 521 men a day.
Korea lasted 3 years or 1068 days (For accuracy it never really ended, just the fighting lasted 3 years). We lost 1109 men KIA and over 1000 MIA or POW. Just using the certified dead alone it is an average of men a day.
Operation Herrick started in Oct 2001, so is now at 8 years 5 months (about 3000 days) , and we have lost 275 personnel (only 242 of which we due to hostile action). This is an average of men per day!
I would say, when we look at the numbers this War is going very well in terms of casualties. (Clearly it would be better if we lost no one!)
Now I am not belittling the sacrifices being made, just trying to address the balance from all the negative spin being put on by the armchair Generals who think we are losing, and it is all hopeless.
Getting killed in war is a risk we all take when we sign on. And this is a war, people seem to forget that, and in war soldiers die. Sorry to be blunt about that, but that's the way it is.
When History judges our actions only then will we truly know if the price we are paying is truly worth it. Until then, we can only do our duty, and crack on with the job in hand.
The figure that is not clear, is the tragedy to human life measured in terms of those horribly injured who are returned to their loved ones in all but a flag draped box...

18 Mar 2010

Quote by GnV
....,we seem to loose an average of a soldier a day and thats not acceptable.

Not a dig at Phuckers, just using the quote to highlight a point lol

Falklands war lasted 74 days and we lost 255 soldiers/sailors/airmen. That's an average of 3.5 men a day.
World War 2 lasted 6 years roughly, and was about 2137 days long. We lost about 300000 British military (under-estimate), meaning we lost on average 140.3 men a day.
World War 1 lasted for 4 years and 14 days, or 1438 days. We lost over 750000 (not including Empire soldiers). Giving an average of 521 men a day.
Korea lasted 3 years or 1068 days (For accuracy it never really ended, just the fighting lasted 3 years). We lost 1109 men KIA and over 1000 MIA or POW. Just using the certified dead alone it is an average of men a day.
Operation Herrick started in Oct 2001, so is now at 8 years 5 months (about 3000 days) , and we have lost 275 personnel (only 242 of which we due to hostile action). This is an average of men per day!
I would say, when we look at the numbers this War is going very well in terms of casualties. (Clearly it would be better if we lost no one!)
Now I am not belittling the sacrifices being made, just trying to address the balance from all the negative spin being put on by the armchair Generals who think we are losing, and it is all hopeless.
Getting killed in war is a risk we all take when we sign on. And this is a war, people seem to forget that, and in war soldiers die. Sorry to be blunt about that, but that's the way it is.
When History judges our actions only then will we truly know if the price we are paying is truly worth it. Until then, we can only do our duty, and crack on with the job in hand.
The figure that is not clear, is the tragedy to human life measured in terms of those horribly injured who are returned to their loved ones in all but a flag draped box...
Here here.:thumbup:

18 Mar 2010

Quote by GnV
The figure that is not clear, is the tragedy to human life measured in terms of those horribly injured who are returned to their loved ones in all but a flag draped box...

Agreed. And it will most likely be much higher than those KIA. The question is how much will society help those VSI, and those PTSD casualties re-adjust and integrate back into society?
And not just those who are injured... There will be a cost in lives when it comes to veterans leaving all that behind.
A long term campaign such as Herrick is a time bomb waiting to go off when it comes to soldiers leaving the army to go back into "normal" society. They will have seen so much, and done so much that the "normal" life becomes so difficult to adjust to.
Just look at the amount of ex soldiers who are homeless, or have criminal records for violence. It's depressingly high.
And that is the problem. War is tragic.
IMHO the mark of what is acceptable is not where or why we send our soldiers to fight, but how we deal with them after the fighting.

18 Mar 2010

The soldiers are well trained in all aspects of fighting and war. Granted nothing is like the real thing.
But Mrs777's son has even had to take out his own private insurance, well they all have. I do not know if that is compulsory but they were all advised too when they were at the Army Foundation place.
I was rather angry about that as I would have thought they would have been well looked after IF they were injured, but obviously not well enough if even the army are advising them to take out their own insurance. Also it is rather high which is understandable from the insurance companies point of view, but an expense that I did not think a soldier fighting for their country would have had to do.
This Government have let our troops down in a big way, and Brown has admitted not telling the whole truth, well he would not..would he? As a compulsive liar himself.

18 Mar 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
But Mrs777's son has even had to take out his own private insurance, well they all have. I do not know if that is compulsory but they were all advised too when they were at the Army Foundation place.
I was rather angry about that as I would have thought they would have been well looked after IF they were injured, but obviously not well enough if even the army are advising them to take out their own insurance. Also it is rather high which is understandable from the insurance companies point of view, but an expense that I did not think a soldier fighting for their country would have had to do.

Sorry to hear that you are upset that your lad took out extra insurance. I believe you are on about PAX which indeed most squaddies do take out. It is not compulsory, and most of think, is a good idea.
Medical care and rehabilitation is second to none in the army, and what with free and good dental care, I would say we do get looked after if we pick up an injury. However, the ability to also get a bit of cash from PAX helps cover some of the non work related costs too.

19 Mar 2010

there's no point looking aboout for scapegoats, whoever seems the most convenient to appoint to that role. the fact is its something we all have to acknowledge as being there to maintain and/or improve our standard of living. and subsequently must accept some responsibility for. although we don't actually get our hands dirty we are the 'force at home', supporting our army. which at some point may change from supporting to discouraging, but none the less doing our bit to make it worthwhile for those who serve.
The Middle East would not have problems if we didn't need it for our own purposes. we are using it in a way that we want. We benefit from that. If we didn't have those extra resources our life would recede backwards quite rapidly.
This means that every few generations there will be conflict. either side feels equally justified in doing so. its irrelevent who organises it or for what causes sets it off again.
Out of all this at some point the Middle East will find someone similar to Saddam Hussein. Who will set an example by cooperating with the west and bringing some sense of order throughout the regions. Then for a while trade and prosperity will resume.

19 Mar 2010

Quote by Kaznkev

But Mrs777's son has even had to take out his own private insurance, well they all have. I do not know if that is compulsory but they were all advised too when they were at the Army Foundation place.
I was rather angry about that as I would have thought they would have been well looked after IF they were injured, but obviously not well enough if even the army are advising them to take out their own insurance. Also it is rather high which is understandable from the insurance companies point of view, but an expense that I did not think a soldier fighting for their country would have had to do.

Sorry to hear that you are upset that your lad took out extra insurance. I believe you are on about PAX which indeed most squaddies do take out. It is not compulsory, and most of think, is a good idea.
Medical care and rehabilitation is second to none in the army, and what with free and good dental care, I would say we do get looked after if we pick up an injury. However, the ability to also get a bit of cash from PAX helps cover some of the non work related costs too.
Suffolk, i was going to say what you said,the guys i know consider PAX to be a sensible add on, tho there is an amusing story in this weeks eye bout it being misread on someones gear lol

Eye?? Not the Public Eye? :lol:

21 Mar 2010

Quote by GnV
....,we seem to loose an average of a soldier a day and thats not acceptable.

Not a dig at Phuckers, just using the quote to highlight a point lol

Falklands war lasted 74 days and we lost 255 soldiers/sailors/airmen. That's an average of 3.5 men a day.
World War 2 lasted 6 years roughly, and was about 2137 days long. We lost about 300000 British military (under-estimate), meaning we lost on average 140.3 men a day.
World War 1 lasted for 4 years and 14 days, or 1438 days. We lost over 750000 (not including Empire soldiers). Giving an average of 521 men a day.
Korea lasted 3 years or 1068 days (For accuracy it never really ended, just the fighting lasted 3 years). We lost 1109 men KIA and over 1000 MIA or POW. Just using the certified dead alone it is an average of men a day.
Operation Herrick started in Oct 2001, so is now at 8 years 5 months (about 3000 days) , and we have lost 275 personnel (only 242 of which we due to hostile action). This is an average of men per day!
I would say, when we look at the numbers this War is going very well in terms of casualties. (Clearly it would be better if we lost no one!)
Now I am not belittling the sacrifices being made, just trying to address the balance from all the negative spin being put on by the armchair Generals who think we are losing, and it is all hopeless.
Getting killed in war is a risk we all take when we sign on. And this is a war, people seem to forget that, and in war soldiers die. Sorry to be blunt about that, but that's the way it is.
When History judges our actions only then will we truly know if the price we are paying is truly worth it. Until then, we can only do our duty, and crack on with the job in hand.
The figure that is not clear, is the tragedy to human life measured in terms of those horribly injured who are returned to their loved ones in all but a flag draped box...
Very well but last time i checked this previous events happened donkeys of years ago,we are in a decade when it cost more per day to maintain soldiers in the battlefield and the armchair generals,soldiers are more equipped and protected while living in green zones yet the people they went to protect are beheaded for associating with the "occupiers" now tell me again that lossing a soldier a day is justified in this satilite era,the people we are up against will NEVER surrender till the last man drop(am slighty more than tipsy ill review my reply in the morning)

21 Mar 2010

I don't want to sound harsh, but a fire-fight is never going to be a safe place. Health and Safety can only go so far. So it is pretty unlikely that a soldier will get through a career in various war-zones unscathed. The army medical people's only job surely is to get soldiers back to work. If they are too injured to do that I can see why the arnmy would lose interest in them. Soldiers are like the rest of us workers - a commodity of value only while we are doing the job - after that we are all drains on potential profit/resources.
So it's sensible for each soldier to consider external/extra support for if he cannot work.
I can't comment whether the army 'should' do more for the soldiers - the fact is they have no reason to and they would rather spend the money they have on equipment (including men) that can do the work they want done.
It's a hard world - every man for himself. The army is no different.

21 Mar 2010

Soldiers are like the rest of us workers -This has to be the understatement of the century!

21 Mar 2010

Quote by Phuckers
Soldiers are like the rest of us workers -This has to be the understatement of the century!

I'm not being rude about their skills or the risks they take. I know I ccouldn't (and wouldn't) do their job. But just describing how they are likely to be seen by their employers.

21 Mar 2010

Quote by Too Hot
Two more soldiers blown to pieces today and the total killed creeps ever upwards towards 300 and who knows where it will end.
Is anyone accountable for the successes and failures of the campaign in Afghanistan? It would be interesting to actually know what the strategy is in that country - rather than just hear every day of further casualties.
Is it too much to ask for someone to be accountable? I remember in the Falklands, the MOD gave daily accounts of what was going on and at least we had some notion of the progress of the campaign. With Afghanistan, nothing at all - just daily reports of more and more shattered and decimated bodies of young soldiers.

iraq/afghanistan/iran/pakistan/georgia/south ossetia/ukraine/uzbekistan/caspian sea.
this area known as eurasia contains the largest deposits of known oil and gas reserves on the planet and afghanistan and pakistan the pipeline land route to the sea.
this pipeline being built by unical and halliburton is 1500 miles long and is under construction.
accountability :- is anyone accountable, yes but it aint your government and if any member of them breath disagreement they will go the same way as dr. david kelly and robin cook.
strategy :- is there a strategy ? yes. to divide, conquer, control those resources and deny any other potential interests getting their hands on it.
in this geostrategic economic plan a few hundred or thousands of dead young economic refugee cannon fodder soldiers is irrelevent as is the death of millions of local inhabitants.
this plan was developed in the mid nineties (about the time islamaphobia was created particularily in europe and america) and was finely tuned by the council for foreign relations, the trilateral commision and pnac.
it has nothing to do with the mythical al qaeder, the un-aging osama bin liner or his mythical, international, fantastically advanced, all seeing, cloaked, stealthy, wealthy, suicide training group holed up in a cave in tora bora and everything to do with profit and we and our sons and daughters are just pawns in "THE GRAND CHESSBOARD"!

22 Mar 2010

Quote by gulsonroad30664
it has nothing to do with the mythical al qaeder, the un-aging osama bin liner or his mythical, international, fantastically advanced, all seeing, cloaked, stealthy, wealthy, suicide training group holed up in a cave in tora bora and everything to do with profit and we and our sons and daughters are just pawns in "THE GRAND CHESSBOARD"!

If I was you I would move sharpish... they can trace you, you do know that? They may have bugged your phone. You alone could unravel governments with you evidence and inside knowledge. Your tinfoil hat will not save you from the men in black..... wink

Buddy, when you have done tour then your views may well be take more seriously...
Nothing mythical about Al Qaeder. There are enough dead and captured members to establish they exist.
Osama does get older, maybe he uses "products" in his hair that 8 out of 10 terrorists say makes them look better on video.
Mythical international fantastically advanced all seeing cloaked stealthy wealthy suicide training group.... FFS, of course suicide bombers are trained. Without proper training they may cockup on their first time out. They might bomb without killing themselves! How rubbish would that be?
Pakistan and Afghanistan make it international, they can DF (direction find) mobile phone signals (fairly advanced). They have int from villagers, so that makes them all seeing on the ground. They dress like locals, stopping us just dropping them on sight, which makes em bloody stealthy, and they can afford to maintain this campaign for years, so I would say there is some wealth there!
You may be right, the grand plan is more than likely oil, or drugs or what ever, but the reality day to day is not the plot of some conspiracy movie. It's bad guys on the ground, doing bad things. And to stop them, there are the good guys. And while that goes on, good guys, bad guys, and those caught in between will die, and be maimed.