Talk:April 2012 Afghanistan attacks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion?[edit]

Why is there an article dedicated to this attack? There are many Taliban attacks in Kabul, this one is not particularly noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to make absurd statements, then at least make the effort to register an account. This represents the biggest and most sophisticated Taliban attack against the Afghan capital since the start of the war eleven years ago. It's also the second occasion that embassies and parliament buildings have come under attack - so if 5 diplomatic missions and a whole quarter of the most-heavily guarded place in the country being under siege for 18 hours seem "NOT PARTICULARLY NOTEWORTHY" then by all means go ahead and delete it. I personally think what you are saying is absolutely wrong and normally wouldn't even discuss it, but in this case I believe it's important to make the distinction early on. With that being said, as more information becomes available, we will need to update and organize the article into proper sections (background, causes, etc). Skycycle (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a noteworthy article. However, Skycycle, I don't feel the simple question deserves to be labeled as an absurd statement. Let's assume good faith here, please.204.65.34.168 (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that this event isn't particularly noteworthy as there are insurgent activities in and around Kabul regularly, however this one made the news and whilst a lot of the sources are circular reporting and different brands publishing the same syndicated product it probably meets the needs of the General Notability Guideline and a fairly superficial understanding of the Reliable Sourcing advice.
There has been an intensiication of indurgency activity in Kabul and the surrounding provinces in the last 18 months, although much of it is Haqqani rather than Taliban.
For skycycle, it's not the first time that Embassies and central government buildings have been attacked, it's a fairly regular event. What is unusual is the degree of co-ordination, which to me says Haqqani not Taliban. I wouldn't describe what happened as "under seige", the main reason that the whole thing took 18 hours is that once the threat is contained, there is then no rush to go in and get them. Seventeen of those eighteen hours the insurgents were defending themselves, not attacking anything.
ALR (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SBS Critical To Repelling Attacks[edit]

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16211388 82.31.236.245 (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done here. -- Luke (Talk) 23:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably complete nonsense. There is already an Afghan response company in Kabul mentored by another nation, why use Brits who happen to be in Kabul all tooled up?
Ill informed media speculation.
ALR (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's official, the Norwegians have issued a press release confirming the facts.Twobells (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article, they are based in Khandi but were in Kabul for other opertional reasons. however, after the ANA failed to resolve the issue by Sunday night they were brought in to '3xF' the central building. For the record you can quite clearly see a SAS attack dog being carried by a westerner in ANA kit. Finally, isn't Task Force 145's special remit is to Kabul security? 82.31.236.245 (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do appreciate that Military Working Dogs don't actually complete selection ;)
And are you on about SBS or SAS, they are different organisations.
ALR (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, seen the Norwegian article linked to it makes no mention of SBS, only identifies the CRU and Norwegian SF.
I still call bollocks on the SBS involvement.
ALR (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I call bollocks on your call of bollocks [[1]] Blackshod (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who appears to generally be pretty well informed I'm surprised that you'd uncritically accept that article, it's the same as the one at the head of this discussion and has a lot of inconsistencies.
For starters they claim Brits wearing Afghan uniform, that's fine but the Afghan force wears old style US Tigerstripe uniform, yet they have a picture of someone wearing either Multicam or MTP? And then we're not the only ones that use Multicam/ MTP. Kiwis, Aussis, all US Army although previously only US Army SF.
The picture isn't all that clear but the body armour appears to be Osprey not Blackhawk.
When a journo says "sources" they can mean anything from someone well informed and positioned all the way down to "something dreamt up whilst sitting on the toilet". I'd expect something better and some corroboration.
The dog in the picture might be an attack dog, but it's not clear whose it is. Whilst the UK uses gundogs and pastoral dogs for search and german shepherd types for attack the Kabul green zone has German Shepherd or similar at almost all of the checkpoints as search dogs. so it's not a clear indicator that the dog pictured is BritMil.
I'm not really clear on why a team from KAF might be in Kabul and used in preference to the existing ISAF SOF capabilities in the Capital.
ALR (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on April 2012 Afghanistan attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:April_2012_Afghanistan_attacks&oldid=1204916961"