I approve of the British Army being used to stop suicide bombing.
So if the Taliban commit suicide bombing is it fair to consider those committing such an act as evil?
And if British soldiers prevent some of them from killing innocent civilians, whilst putting their own lives at risk, is it fair to consider them heroes?
So if the Taliban commit suicide bombing is it fair to consider those committing such an act as evil?
And if British soldiers prevent some of them from killing innocent civilians, whilst putting their own lives at risk, is it fair to consider them heroes?
The British soldier would be justified in doing so.
However, I would not call a Taliban soldier "evil" simply because he shot at a British soldier, in the same way I would not call a British soldier "evil" for shooting at a Taliban soldier. This works the same way that no sensible person wanted every German arrested at the end of WW2 simply for "shooting at soldiers"
both groups of soldiers are allowed to shoot and kill each other without being charged at the end of the war purely for "shooting and killing". Talk about a smear campaign.......
Stop calling the Taliban soldiers, they are terrorists, NOT soldiers.
The Taliban do not follow the Geneva conventions on warfare, as you know well.
Stop calling the Taliban soldiers, they are terrorists, NOT soldiers.
The Taliban do not follow the Geneva conventions on warfare, as you know well.
And why would the Taliban soldiers agree to a British/American made "law"? Obviously you must have evidence of taliban commanders agreeing to it? If the Taliban made their own "Geneva convention" and declared that all uniformed officers were illegal, would the British Army be terrorists?
To go back to the French Resistance - If Hitler had declared all resistance to be illegal, would you call them terrorists? You know fine well you wouldn't.
Do the 9-11 Truthers here who think OBL and AQ had nout to do with it also believe that WTC 1993, the Embassy bombings in 1998 and the USS Cole were inside jobs too?.
And why would the Taliban soldiers agree to a British/American made "law"?
The Geneva conventions arent signed by the UK and USA alone, and you really are ill informed if you believe it so.
Here is a simple link for you to digest the fact that people around the world accept the Geneva conventions as the acceptable standard of conduct during warfare.
The Geneva conventions arent signed by the UK and USA alone, and you really are ill informed if you believe it so.
Here is a simple link for you to digest the fact that people around the world accept the Geneva conventions as the acceptable standard of conduct during warfare.
I will if you first provide proof that David Cameron was involved.
What are you on about now?
If you can provide proof that the law is applicable to Taliban soldiers (and for that you would need to state that Taliban commanders had been consulted and had ratified the proposed bill) then I will retract.
And so were Afghanistan's otherwise the country wouldn't have been a signatory.
BTW, if you are going to edit out parts of your posts then please inform.
Yes - So this "law" as you call it can be considered applicable to the Afghan group who agreed to it. I don't recall the Taliban commanders agreeing to it though, so why you'd assume they had is rather puzzling......
Yes - So this "law" as you call it can be considered applicable to the Afghan group who agreed to it. I don't recall the Taliban commanders agreeing to it though, so why you'd assume they had is rather puzzling......
It's not a law (you keep calling it that not me) but an agreement and f#ck whether the Taliban commanders agreed or not, it is an International agreement which Afghanistan signed to, the Taliban are not in power and disregard it.
It's not a law (you keep calling it that not me) but an agreement and f#ck whether the Taliban commanders agreed or not, it is an International agreement which Afghanistan signed to, the Taliban are not in power and just disregard it.
So if the French government signed an agreement with the Nazis, would the French Resistance be illegal? You know - Given that the French Resistance was not in power.
Of course, that contradicts your viewpoint so you'll no doubt attempt to dodge the question yet again by claiming that two scenarios are "completely different"......
Of course, the Taliban could create their own law declaring uniformed soldiers to be illegal and claim it was "international law", yet you'd probably claim it was wrong. So why the hell should it be any different when it works in Britain's favour?
So if the French government signed an agreement with the Nazis, would the French Resistance be illegal? You know - Given that the French Resistance was not in power.
Of course, that contradicts your viewpoint so you'll no doubt attempt to dodge the question yet again by claiming that two scenarios are "completely different"......
Comments
Any chance of an answer yet.........?
As I've said, if you have asked me something I must have missed it, so if you would be so kind as to copy the question, I will take a look at it.
For the second time Gwrx, post # 151. Nestled gently 'twixt post # 150 and post # 152.
You're welcome:).
I approve of the British Army being used to stop suicide bombing.
So if the Taliban commit suicide bombing is it fair to consider those committing such an act as evil?
And if British soldiers prevent some of them from killing innocent civilians, whilst putting their own lives at risk, is it fair to consider them heroes?
The British soldier would be justified in doing so.
However, I would not call a Taliban soldier "evil" simply because he shot at a British soldier, in the same way I would not call a British soldier "evil" for shooting at a Taliban soldier. This works the same way that no sensible person wanted every German arrested at the end of WW2 simply for "shooting at soldiers"
Stop calling the Taliban soldiers, they are terrorists, NOT soldiers.
The Taliban do not follow the Geneva conventions on warfare, as you know well.
And why would the Taliban soldiers agree to a British/American made "law"? Obviously you must have evidence of taliban commanders agreeing to it? If the Taliban made their own "Geneva convention" and declared that all uniformed officers were illegal, would the British Army be terrorists?
To go back to the French Resistance - If Hitler had declared all resistance to be illegal, would you call them terrorists? You know fine well you wouldn't.
They probably do.
Amazing what the tinfoil brigade come up with...
Hold on - Are you making accusations based on what someone hasn't actually said yet?
The Geneva conventions arent signed by the UK and USA alone, and you really are ill informed if you believe it so.
Here is a simple link for you to digest the fact that people around the world accept the Geneva conventions as the acceptable standard of conduct during warfare.
http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con_sp.html
Also, your French restistance delusion isnt worth comment.
But why should a law in a foreign land be forced on someone who has had no say in the decision making process?
You won't discuss the French Resistance similarity because it won't suit your argument. That's the explanation for it.
Read the list of signatories to the Geneva conventions and work it out for yourself, the first one should make it easy for you.
BTW, it is an International agreement and not a law in a foreign land ... ie Switzerland
Please present proof that Taliban commanders were involved in the decision making process.........
I will if you first provide proof that David Cameron was involved.
What are you on about now?
If you can provide proof that the law is applicable to Taliban soldiers (and for that you would need to state that Taliban commanders had been consulted and had ratified the proposed bill) then I will retract.
And so were Afghanistan's otherwise the country wouldn't have been a signatory.
BTW, if you are going to edit out parts of your posts then please inform.
Yes - So this "law" as you call it can be considered applicable to the Afghan group who agreed to it. I don't recall the Taliban commanders agreeing to it though, so why you'd assume they had is rather puzzling......
It's not a law (you keep calling it that not me) but an agreement and f#ck whether the Taliban commanders agreed or not, it is an International agreement which Afghanistan signed to, the Taliban are not in power and disregard it.
So if the French government signed an agreement with the Nazis, would the French Resistance be illegal? You know - Given that the French Resistance was not in power.
Of course, that contradicts your viewpoint so you'll no doubt attempt to dodge the question yet again by claiming that two scenarios are "completely different"......
Of course, the Taliban could create their own law declaring uniformed soldiers to be illegal and claim it was "international law", yet you'd probably claim it was wrong. So why the hell should it be any different when it works in Britain's favour?
Oh and failing winning in factual debate, you will possibly resort to personal attacks. Well done - You must be proud
Gwrx. you reply to my post with a complete load of unrelated boll#x and not only that, you add another paragraph to your post once I've replied.
Now either you've been drinking or its way past your bedtime, which is it?
EDIT, what ever the reason I'm off, I can't handle silly games this time of the morning so have fun on your own.
Unrelated?
Taliban soldiers not an "official" army in the eyes of the UK - French Resistance not an "official army
Foreign military power occupying Afghanistan - Foreign military power occupying France
Taliban do not wear military uniforms - French resistance did not wear uniforms.
Your complete unwillingness to discuss the obvious similarities suggest you are aware of it and are simply trying to dodge the issue.