3 British Soldiers in Afghanistan (by Afghan Soldier)

[B Whale]

Source: BBC

Three British soldiers have been killed by an Afghan soldier in Helmand Province in Afghanistan.

An Afghan defence ministry spokesman said the attack was carried out with a rocket-propelled grenade, and that four other British soldiers were also injured in the attack. He said an Afghan soldier was being sought following the incident.

The incident will re-awaken memories of last November, when an Afghan policeman shot dead five British soldiers in their compound, and seriously wounded six others, our correspondent added.

She also said this latest tragedy will again intensify debate over the human costs of the mission in Afghanistan - and over whether the West's exit strategy, which relies on training the Afghan army and police, can hope to succeed.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10610068.stm

[Turborama]

1. FYI You need to use the actual title of the article in LBN

The actual title is: Three British soldiers killed in Afghanistan

You can add "by Afghan Soldier" in brackets at the end, though.

Like this: Three British soldiers killed in Afghanistan (by Afghan soldier)

You've still got time to edit...

:hi:

[B Whale]

2. ta very much

;)

...actually turns out it was an officer that did it as well, not just a regular soldier...

[Lasher]

3. But you still didn't correct your title in the OP.

:shrug:

[B Whale]

9. Thanks. I did alter it, but altered it to something

else that is also innacurate

two reasons, i' was in a rush and i'm a complete moron ;)

[legin]

4. british troops do have an unfortunate habit of getting killed

british troops in afghanistan approx 10,000
deaths in 2009 = 108
which works out 1 in 100 chance of getting killed (in a year) which is high

u.s. troops killed in 2009: 317, and I believe the u.s have more than 3 times the number of british troops (more like 6 times at a guess)

The simple version:
british troops are twice as likely to get killed than u.s. ones

[legin]

5. troop numbers: u.s. 78,430, u.k. 9,500

from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

ok so not all the u.s. troops are going to be in the front line in Helmand province,
but still the british rate of death sucks and you would have thought it would be regularly commented upon by the british media but then pigs could fly too.

[B Whale]

11. It is commented on a lot ...and funeral marches in

Wooton Basset are filmed and live on News, and every PMQs the Prime Minister names those who have died in the past week in Parliament.... but it has only recently been having an affect on the mindset of the population at large.

Prior to, i would say, the last year, there was still a lot of support for the purpose of the mission, however the directionless nature of the whole thing has swung a lot of people against it recently, and pressure is growing to get out!

I also think the history of Britain as a warring nation and its war casualities throughout the centuries, particularly WW1 and WW2, still makes the numbers, even though each death is horrific, still feel relatively small for an army that is in a war zone, and if the nation at large supports the aim of that war (which everyone invariably did) it won;t lead to outcry when that number are killed. Although as i say, its changing somewhat!

[Soylent Brice]

6. why do you suppose that is? n/t

[B Whale]

8. They've been fighting almost exclusively in Helmand and Sangin, which is the strongest

taliban heartland and most violent part of Afghanistan for the last few years. US troops cos there is more have been spread out more i would say.

However that is operationally ending and US forces will be moving into Sangin and UK troops rotating elsewhere in Helmand!

So, numbers may go down for Brits and up for US next year...

[Soylent Brice]

12. numbers up, numbers down,

numbers at all are bad.

thanks for the info. did a quick search, i see what you're talking about now:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7875855/Afghanistan-British-troops-to-hand-over-northern-Helmand-to-US-Marines.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/07/201077115742572738.html

[B Whale]

13. True n/t

[B Whale]

14. Its also due to being in Sangin. the most violent part of afghanistan and because almost all UK

troops are combat troops i think. As well (counterintuitively) because there is less of them, so are more thinly spread when taking on the taliban in firefights etc

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/07/201077115742572738.html

[Soylent Brice]

7. .

K&R

[saigon68]

10. More wasted lives for Karzai's Drug Empire