Afghan refugees. Sorry but Britain is full up.

[cromwell]

Sorry Cromwell, but life is to short for this.
Air Cover is protection against Enemy Air Attack specifically
Air Support or Close Air Support is the use of Aircraft to Attack Enemy Ground or Navel Units.

Aircraft used to provide Air Cover are Fighters
Aircraft used in Air Support or Close Air Support are Ground Attack or Bombers.
Even where planes can be used for either mission, they will be armed and otherwise configured differently depending on whether it is a Air Defense Mission (Air Cover) or a Ground Attack Mission (Air Support).

If you request Air Cover, you will be provided with an Air Supremacy Fighter, armed primarily with Air to Air Missiles.
If you request Air Support you will get a Ground Attack Aircraft for Close Air Support Missions or Heavier Bombers for more general or Strategic Support.
In combat where there is Enemy Air Power to contend with, Air Support or Close Air Support Missions, will be accompanied by Fighters providing Air Cover

In Afghanistan there was no Air War so no need to send out regular Air Cover missions beyond at a Strategic Level to protect Major Installations against a theoretical intervention by a third country with an Air Force.
All air missions in Afghanistan were either Air Support (B52's) or Close Air Support to include Ground Attack Aircraft and Attack helicopters and other Helicopter Gunships.

Yes life is too short (but you've posted a dissertation on why I'm wrong  ) but you pulled me on Air cover so I just gave you the Oxford English dictionary meaning which just supports what I posted.

To protect against enemy air forces you really need air superiority but anyway whatever version is accepted the coalition forces or whatever you wanted to call them had aircraft to take out taliban forces,the Afghan army didn't.

[Sampanviking]

noun
noun: air cover

    protection by aircraft for land-based or naval operations in war situations.
    "they provide air cover for United Nations convoys of relief supplies"
From the Oxford English dictionary

Sorry Cromwell, but life is to short for this.
Air Cover is protection against Enemy Air Attack specifically
Air Support or Close Air Support is the use of Aircraft to Attack Enemy Ground or Navel Units.

Aircraft used to provide Air Cover are Fighters
Aircraft used in Air Support or Close Air Support are Ground Attack or Bombers.
Even where planes can be used for either mission, they will be armed and otherwise configured differently depending on whether it is a Air Defense Mission (Air Cover) or a Ground Attack Mission (Air Support).

If you request Air Cover, you will be provided with an Air Supremacy Fighter, armed primarily with Air to Air Missiles.
If you request Air Support you will get a Ground Attack Aircraft for Close Air Support Missions or Heavier Bombers for more general or Strategic Support.
In combat where there is Enemy Air Power to contend with, Air Support or Close Air Support Missions, will be accompanied by Fighters providing Air Cover

In Afghanistan there was no Air War so no need to send out regular Air Cover missions beyond at a Strategic Level to protect Major Installations against a theoretical intervention by a third country with an Air Force.
All air missions in Afghanistan were either Air Support (B52's) or Close Air Support to include Ground Attack Aircraft and Attack helicopters and other Helicopter Gunships.

[cromwell]

Providing Air Support, which is totally different. Ground Attack work to do as much as the heavy lifting as possible, so infantry can advance over ground no longer contested, or at least against defenses which have been significantly degraded..

Very nice I am sure to have, but it should not be a basic requirement for ground forces to be able to operate. It is no excuse for them to run away, simply because they do not have it.

noun
noun: air cover

    protection by aircraft for land-based or naval operations in war situations.
    "they provide air cover for United Nations convoys of relief supplies"
From the Oxford English dictionary

[Sampanviking]

Explain why the western air forces were there then.

Providing Air Support, which is totally different. Ground Attack work to do as much as the heavy lifting as possible, so infantry can advance over ground no longer contested, or at least against defenses which have been significantly degraded..

Very nice I am sure to have, but it should not be a basic requirement for ground forces to be able to operate. It is no excuse for them to run away, simply because they do not have it.

[cromwell]

Back to the old "he said she said diversion trick cromwell.



You posted to refresh your selective amnesia..

and my clear reply to what you said...

and follow the echange from there , and anyone can see who is diverting and wriggling and who is clearly responding to what was said.

You are merely regurgitating the media narrative , you dont know anything about these afghans and merely assume because the media told you that they worked for the uk armed forces , you havent proved this , and must be sheltered for no other reason than you naively feel sorry for them and tell me in your opinion based on the media narrative its the right thing to do.

well i disagree.

can't you think up your own original comemnts instead of using others?

You accuse me of drive by posting and pat accuses me of posting over the top 690 word answers. which is it?

We arent all retired with feck all to do but read the media narrative  and give ourselves a pat on the back about saving afghans.

you are getting desperate cromwell. Read my synopsis of our previous interaction in this thread above. It isnt difficult .
heres what you said..

Sheltering them isnt the right thing to do.

Errr yes cromwell.

when you said this cac...

i didnt claim you said any of this or did support the afghan adventure.

clearly you are losing the plot cromwell and now reduced to inventing lies i havent said. When i post made up comments about people , i at least try and do it humourously.

Your posts so far about afhganistan , with the exception of us agreeing on the likes of blair , have been utter rubbish and pure led by the nose media cac regurgitated without a single bit of thought .

So you've been in the garage and dug out your old diversion signs and can't dig a quote up where I said anything resembling your post.

As for rubbish Thomas tell me where anyone beat the Afghans in a modern conventional war.

[cromwell]

Why would they need Air Cover? The whole term of Air Cover means protection from enemy air craft. I dont think the Taliban operated an Air Force.
The Afgan Army, we were told numerically superior, were well trained, very well equipped, mechanised, armoured and in parts air mobile.
The Taliban with his AK47 and RPG, traveled either by foot, donkey, motorbike or Toyota Pick up.
The Taliban never had air cover either, but these Afghan fighters managed to stand their ground and endure against the Aerial onslaught of some of the worlds most modern Air Forces.

In addition the Afghan Army were also Afghan Nationals, just like the Taliban and not homesick overseas forces. They should have been able to give a very good and very effective account of themselves.

Why they did not, after so much training and investment is the real story that people should be demanding answers too. No surprise that these questions are being ducked and instead we are being force fed refugee anguish instead

Explain why the western air forces were there then.

[Sampanviking]

exactly sampan. We have cromwell crying over the poor afghan children those nasty islamics have killed , borkie putting a brave face on another ten thousand shoplifters and crack dealers being welcomed into saddos paradise , while all ignoring the fact the british have killed more afghans than russia america the taliban or isis combined.
As for a lot of the rest of what you are saying , im not knowledgable enough to comment , but it will be interesting to see if the uighur story does disappear as you say.

Selective faux outrage when it suits , lapped up by all the ususal suspects thought the usual channels.

I couldn't agree more Thomas.
Its the fact that this attack was so expected on that day, that has drawn my attention. Why that day and why so precise in the warning? A random suicide bomber could have come at any time and without warning, as a suicide vest is hardly a technical challenge or need materials of the sort that sounds international terrorist alarms.

No the US knew this was coming and something about it seems really personal! Revenge against betrayers rather than random attack on the Infidel!
For many Uighur activists, the US asking China for help may well have been the last straw, many may have suspected that they may even have been the problem they were asking the Chinese to help with!

[Thomas]

Well I have been saying (not sure if here but definitely elsewhere) that now the Afghan operation is over and the US is no longer able to fund and manage destablisation projects in Xinjiang, expect the very rapid and very total disappearance of Uighur genocide from the media.

exactly sampan. We have cromwell crying over the poor afghan children those nasty islamics have killed , borkie putting a brave face on another ten thousand shoplifters and crack dealers being welcomed into saddos paradise , while all ignoring the fact the british have killed more afghans than russia america the taliban or isis combined.

The East Turkmenistan Islamic Movement was always the Uighur franchise of Al Qidea and many other Uighurs joined Islamic State as well. If it the case, as claimed, that AL Qidea and ISIS have merged in Afghanistan, then it is a sure bet that Uighurs will be one the main groups within it.

Hell! I would not be surprised to learn that the suicide bombers yesterday were Uighur's letting it be known how less than delighted they are to learn that have been unceremoniously dumped in the crapper!

US local allies have not earned the nickname "Condoms" for nothing.

As for a lot of the rest of what you are saying , im not knowledgable enough to comment , but it will be interesting to see if the uighur story does disappear as you say.

Selective faux outrage when it suits , lapped up by all the ususal suspects thought the usual channels.

[Thomas]

Tommy, for a couple of centuries illiterate peasants swarmed into America and built the most powerful nation the world has ever known.

No they didnt. More historical revisionism from borkie.

Start a thread on it and give us a laugh , so we can put it in their with "england gave the empire back as they were fed up with it" cac.

but Scotland needs to move forward. And that means accepting immigrants.

back to krankie and scotland as you have no answers to anything i have said.

We will deal with immigration in our own country one day , but meanwhile , you have a large and rather growing problem with the core vote in your own country , who arent too happy .

[Sampanviking]

Meanwhile im reading the yanks are demanding China accept their share of islamic afghan refugees ....the same china we were told by the americans who are mass slaughtering and commiting genocide on the islamic uyghurs??

Well I have been saying (not sure if here but definitely elsewhere) that now the Afghan operation is over and the US is no longer able to fund and manage destablisation projects in Xinjiang, expect the very rapid and very total disappearance of Uighur genocide from the media.

The East Turkmenistan Islamic Movement was always the Uighur franchise of Al Qidea and many other Uighurs joined Islamic State as well. If it the case, as claimed, that AL Qidea and ISIS have merged in Afghanistan, then it is a sure bet that Uighurs will be one the main groups within it.

Hell! I would not be surprised to learn that the suicide bombers yesterday were Uighur's letting it be known how less than delighted they are to learn that have been unceremoniously dumped in the crapper!

US local allies have not earned the nickname "Condoms" for nothing. 

[Borchester]

Tommy, for a couple of centuries illiterate peasants swarmed into America and built the most powerful nation the world has ever known.

Now you can dress yourself up in frocks designed by George IV and sing songs about the defeat of one of England's less successful bum bandits, but Scotland needs to move forward. And that means accepting immigrants.

[Thomas]

Oh dear borkie , i fink boris and the inept patel are upsetting the core vote over immigration.

Despite the pandemic, immigration is Conservative voters' number one concern

Tory concern about immigration has been on an upward trend since the spring, with only around a third having put it in their top three from January to late March.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/08/11/despite-pandemic-immigration-conservative-voters-n

[Thomas]

Ignore him Tommy. Swayne is a Scot and thus comes from a nation with plenty of geniuses but little common sense.

thats elected to represent an english constituency? What does that say about his consituents borkie?

Or could it be sir desmond is reading the anti immigration mood of his constituents while borkie talks cac about immigration as ever.

About half the population of London comes from somewhere else and most want a better life. Some spend their lives in shitholes such as Tower Hamlets, but most want a better life and move on when they get a chance. This makes London rich, powerful and easy with it.

is this story finished yet borkie?

Mr bollocks talks bollocks.

I tell you borkie , i like the cockneys. After a while though , all that gangster talk gets a bit boring  , reggie and his mum and del boy and rodney.

London is a shithole , a financial square mile full of other peoples money , a few parks for the tourists and the palace , and the rest surrounded by slums and million pound bedsits.

Every feckin londoner  i have ever met  is looking for a way out.

[Thomas]

Ignore Tommy.

He knows that extending a welcome to refugees makes political, social and economic sense, but Wee Krankie and her woke mates think the same way and right now he would rather piss razor blades than agree with them.

Send the refugees to London.We have the space, if they need housing Streetwalker and his mates can build it and the main effect will be a few more Afghan restaurants to challenge the Uyghur ones springing up on the Finchley Road.

.

LMFAO.

Borkie talking cac as ever.

welcoming refugees makes political sense? We now have two political parties , both tory and labour who are supportive of mass immigration against the wishes of the majority in the uk nations.

We are now seeing another brexit fantasy demolished and reality bite.  Swapping mass eu immigration of like minded people from our own continent with hordes from the third world. I hope the electorate give you tory bastards a right kicking at the next general election .

a welcome to refugees makes political, social and economic sense,

Social sense?

The austrian prime minisnter is telling the world he is having major problems integrating afghans he took in in 2015 , and we are hearing the same from other nations.

more borkie cac.

welcome to refugees makes political, social and economic sense

economic sense? Hordes of illiterate uneducated peasants to work in low paid jobs to feed the never ending demographic ponzi scheme? The very thing brexit was supposed to stop?

paaaarp!

more borkie cac.

but Wee Krankie

dont divert onto krankie. Krankie can grandstand all she likes about immigration knowing  full well its a reserved to westmisnter issue. This is all down to mass immigration tories in your city , not krankie.

Send the refugees to London.We have the space,

Londoners are living in a city that is ten times more crowded than the next most densely populated region of the county, official figures revealed today.

The Office for National Statistics said that there are 5,701 people per square kilometre on average in the capital.

That is 24 times more crowded than the least heavily populated rural area, the South West, and ten times greater than the North West region around Manchester.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-population-density-crowded-uk-statistics-a4433496.html

one of the most densely populated cities in the world , with a severe shortage of housing and space , major infrastructure problems and congestion , and borkie says  we have the space?

Paarp.Borkie talks acac again.

I fink you tories are in big trouble with all this mass immigration borkie among the core vote.

[Borchester]

Desmond Swayne

I see tory mp sir Desmond Swayne doesnt agree with you borkie.?

Ignore him Tommy. Swayne is a Scot and thus comes from a nation with plenty of geniuses but little common sense.

About half the population of London comes from somewhere else and most want a better life. Some spend their lives in shitholes such as Tower Hamlets, but most want a better life and move on when they get a chance. This makes London rich, powerful and easy with it.