That was the first thing I was told when I said I was moving to Canada..... It didn't put me off.

What happened in Woolwich is awful, but the media have not exactly been helpful.

Which implies the soldier chooses who he fights and who he doesn't and/or is guilty of something?

I've never been a soldier but I'd imagine it doesn't work like that. I'd suspect (wild guess) the average soldier would far prefer to live in peace and not be in battles or wars.

It doesn't imply any of the above. The soldier signs up to fight whomsoever the government of the day wants fought. A risk of death or injury is part of the deal.

I don't think getting decapitated in a London street is a reasonable expectation to require of a budding recruit to be honest.

He wasn't a recruit, he was a soldier that had already done one tour of duty in Afghanistan.

So when the Brits and the US and NATO pull out of these countries all of this killing will suddenly stop and everybody will live in peace and harmony?

Why are "we" there?

Isnt that question better aimed at the Government/Politicians as Im sure they will give you a straight answer thereby alleviating any suspicions as to why you think they are there.

Given your previous statement you seem to hint at why foreign troops are in Afghanistan. Why not be more specific?

I was aware of that but I phrased my comments in terms of what would be reasonable to expect of a new recruit. I don't really think it matters that he has already served. I wouldn't expect to get cut to bits in the middle of London and then have it palmed off as "he's a soldier...knew what he was getting himself into".

Dead is dead, I don't see that death in London is greatly different than death in Kabul.

I don't think I said that it was different.

That said, given the choice between the soldier or the two nutters I'd know who I'd pick to get dispatched first.

Im sure the Govt will say something like we are assisting the citizens of Afghanistan by giving them a democratic voice and rights as opposed to being under a regime and having no rights. We have helped them with their infrastructure by building schools and allowing Afghani girls to attend schools. We have given them clean drinking water and empowered women in that country to be heard.

This is what the MOD says about UK troops in Afghanistan
UK forces are deployed to Afghanistan in support of the UN-authorised, NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission and as part of the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). Since 2003 UK operations in Afghanistan have been conducted under the name Operation Herrick.

A Guardian story said this
Yet at no time since Tony Blair sent thousands of British troops to Helmand province in 2006, have ministers or their top brass offered a coherent explanation of why they are there.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/defe...afghanistan-us

I guess it depends who you think is telling the truth.

I guess the more pertinent question is whether it was right/useful to be there as opposed to "why"

I took

I wouldn't expect to get cut to bits in the middle of London and then have it palmed off as "he's a soldier...knew what he was getting himself into".

to imply that it was different, that if he wasn't in the middle of London but in Kabul or on Hampstead Heath then it would be reasonable to say that, as a soldier, he knew what he was getting into.

Not that we should rejoice at the death of a soldier but it's not the same as the death of, say, a train driver or an asylum seeker.