The Herald on Sunday had a deeply concerning story yesterday; check this out:
The Taleban says Kiwi troops are easier targets than other Coalition forces because of their inferior weaponry.After the New Zealand armed force's bloodiest month since November 1951, the Taleban's Zabiullah Mujahid promised more bloodshed for Kiwi troops."We will find them and kill them, there's no safety for them," the Afghan militia's spokesman said.The Taleban had extensive knowledge of New Zealand weaponry and movements, he said in an authenticated telephone interview with a Herald on Sunday correspondent in Kabul.
So we can't help but wonder; why is a major New Zealand newspaper running propoganda for the Taleban? Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman feels likewise; read on:
Dr Coleman said the Government would not be swayed by his words."There is a war of words and propaganda, and naturally the Taleban would want to unsettle the public and the Government of New Zealand with statements like this," he told TVNZ's Q + A programme today.
10 comments:
Might we not just focus on ths substantive issue? We have been hearing rumours for some time now that our forces are relatively ill-equipped, especially in terms of vehicles and some of the high-tech gadgetry with which modern wars are fought. It isn't that the Taleban knows this that matters as much as the fact that we suspect it yet have sent our troops there that strikes me as the main issue.
John Key was also criticised for revealing information on our troops to the media in New Zealand, and thereby endangering them. Do you think he did, Keeping Stock?
@ Robert - so you're admitting that Labour's running down of our air force was a mistake then?
Seriously though, there is a case that successive governments have not invested enough in the NZDF. But why would a local paper be giving the enemy publicity? That's the underlying issue here.
I think that an armed force should be equipped for the task for which it is strategically destined. Ours is a defence and peace-keeping role. Pretty much everything we've done politically for over a generation takes us in that direction.
The problem is, in my view,a military leadership, under some international goading, that wants a different role, and political adventurism such as has kept out troops in Afghanistan at a considerable human cost.
Seriously, the Taleban know our weaknesses already. We know them from public debate. And would you not expect a free press to tell us what the Taleban are saying? Or are you suggesting censorship?
And I go weak at the knees at the thought of the testosterone-driven Skyhawks.....
It doesn't matter how good your equipment is when you get hit by a 20kg bomb though! Also our troops aren't there in a direct combat role and this is reflected in the equipment they use. Perhaps it was unwise of the opposition to question the use of the S.A.S. over there as the Taleban are definitely afraid of them...
Key's comments, Keeping Stock?
Afraid to comment?
@ Steven - if there is one thing that I really dislike, it is people who nag.
We were turned into a peace keeping force under Helen Clark. This was a matter of simple economics. She found out that if we were peacekeepers she could hire us out to the United Nations for a lot more per day than we were being paid by the government of the day. This has never really changed.
New Zealand military forces headed into peace keeping roles under Helen Clark. Helen realised that if we were a peace keeping force, she could hire us out to the United Nations at a daily rate which was much higher than the government actually paid our servicemen and women.
People who try to avoid answering a fair question irritate me, Keeping Stock. It's a fair question, isn't it? You have been posting on the issue, haven't you? You pride yourself on being able to address questions from the people who visit your blog - you wouldn't have comments if you were not willing to interact with people. Why so coy about this question?
Post a Comment