It’s certainly a possibility, and worth considering.

I suspect that, as is so often the case, the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes.

I think so,too. Extremism never did anyone any good in the long run.

The Taliban almost certainly say that, too.

It’s so ironic you could stick a fridge magnet to it, honestly.

Or perhaps the “Front Office” – unlike the “Back Office” and one or two members of this forum – doesn’t have a vested interest in the perpetuation and proliferation of armed conflict?

Just a thought, like.

Or perhaps the “Back Office”, with years more experience than the “Front Office” better understands the nature of the perceived threat.

Just another thought, like.

I think the aircraft is real, however im doubting thats where it actually landed.
Someone said it could be a firing range? The large hits on the airframe would suggest this.

The “pilot” figure is definately a dummy and perhaps was put there simply to add “points” to anyone who is able to hit him while firing at the aircraft.

I am beginning to think that this is the best explanation so far……….

AFAIK, NATO concluded it was a training ground and support for terrorism. So Nato declared we must go in and stop them.

It was a NATO decision, not a US or UK one. A lot of people forget that. It’s not just the UK and US there. We’re just living up to our obligations to NATO by participating. Sometimes you gotta take to take the bad with the good.

This is the best response so far. Because this government are incapable of explaining what they are doing and why and have little or no interest in our committed and brave servicemen out there, the public are generally hostile and unsympathetic. And some of the flippant remarks in the forum are not helpful.

I don’t think that Obama’s dithering and indecisive last few months have helped, but I am sure that if NATO withdrew, as the Russians did, the Taleban would be back in complete control, in weeks rather than months.

Firefox and Chrome. Kicked Explorer into the bin!

I posted my tuppence worth earlier and with little technical knowledge found the whole set up did not add up. My suspicions have been confirmed by the wealth of information and detailed knowledge in these posts, which I have found fascinating.

On balance I incline to the view that it is a real plane but the picture is a “set-up” – for a film publicity still, perhaps. Whatever it is it isn’t worth much on ebay, surely.

Tks that! Agree the principle is the same. What seems to be bedevilling this discussion is the subtle semantic difference between “icon”, and “iconic”!!
Meaningless poll!
But, if we’re going to have one then – as I read the runes – me, Moggy, and Kev35 (a fairly ‘heavy mob’!), seem to have the majority of the weight of opinion on the side of our ERK. I might cavill with Moggy in that his bloke with his arms deep in a Lanc Merlin was clearly a promoted tradesman whereas my bloke was not long out of training and still catching up with how the Air Force worked (we’ve all been there!!!). Pity, ‘cos the SWO will now be looking for him!!
Nevertheless, Tangmere1940 is right to call attention to this. What good does it do?
HTH
Resmoroh

That’s a very good point. It is the adjective which is used in the title of the thread, not the noun. The difference is subtle but important. But it still does not detract from the point some of us are making which is that the whole exercise is pointless, in trying to place any single iconic figure above another.