Options
Forces in Afghanistan Face New Threat From Iran
“Coalition forces face a new threat as Iran steps up covert support for terrorist operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan”
“In a move that would further complicate efforts to bring peace in the region, Iran is also directly supporting Taliban militants in southern Afghanistan.”
Could Iran be supplying weapons and supporting Taliban fighters for attacks on British and American troops if so is it a act of war against the coalition?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/24/forces-afghanistan-face-new-threat-iran/
“In a move that would further complicate efforts to bring peace in the region, Iran is also directly supporting Taliban militants in southern Afghanistan.”
Could Iran be supplying weapons and supporting Taliban fighters for attacks on British and American troops if so is it a act of war against the coalition?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/24/forces-afghanistan-face-new-threat-iran/
0
Comments
A recommendation for you, by all means post the story but don't use fox news as a link. People won't discuss your story, they'll discuss the fact you used fox news. Find a different media source that stands up as credible and then debate it.
By the way, may I ask if you were Netnut from C4?
Why "militants"? - Well, you called the Taliban soldiers "militants", so perhaps you are saying that all soldiers should be referred to as "militants". Unless of course yo are reserving the name "militants" for soldiers with whom you disagree, in which case I'd suggest that doing so shows a lot of bias in your logic.
Do the Taliban wear a uniform?
Does any other bona fide Army hide amongst the civilian population?
Does any other Bona Fide Army set IEDs without care or consideration to the local populace?
Does any other bona fide Army, employ these tactics;
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Pakistan-Suicide-Blast-Kills-At-Least-41-People-In-Northwest-Of-The-Country/Article/201012415870544?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15870544_Pakistan%3A_Suicide_Blast_Kills_At_Least_41_People_In_Northwest_Of_The_Country
Calling the Taliban soldiers, "shows a lot of bias in your logic"
Not only that it shows a total lack of knowledge about what being a soldier entails.
First of all I think we can say that Iran, being a close neighbour of Afghanistan, has a vested interest in there being peace in the region. I mean it's not like they are from a country at the other side of the world with an entirely different culture and a vested interest in there being trouble in the region.
Iran has always been there but I don't remember reading reports of suicide bombers till after we arrived.
That's right Fred, it's all our fault. Everything that happens in the world, is all our fault :rolleyes:
You raise a valuable point about the legitimacy of the Taliban (despite the cack handed approach). If we start negotiating with them, (which is very likely to the point we may allow them to open a pseudo embassy in a neutral country) they will become legitimised and the answers to your question of them being army above become "yes"
And what happens to the Afghan Army?
btw: "Cack Handed approach?" These are the only hands I've got!!
Wearing a uniform is only one of the requirements to be called a "soldier" under UN, UK, American laws. The Taliban are not American or UK citizens. They are also not signatories to the UN charter, so they are not obliged to follow its rules.
To demonstrate why: If the Taliban made a "universal declaration" that all uniformed soldiers were no longer "bona fide soldiers" as you call them, would you feel compelled to follow that law? No - Because you are not a signatory to it, nor are you a citizen of the sovereign state (if any) that made it.
I am obliged to follow British laws. If I move to France, I am no longer obliged to follow British laws. I would then only be obliged to follow French laws. The Taliban are not obliged to follow the British "rules of engagement", because they are not citizens of Britain.
Sounds to me as though you support the tactics of hiding within civilians, laying IEDs where civilians traverse and suicide bombings. :eek:
Interestingly, their international terrorism started right after their Islamic revolution. Seems odd for such a peaceful religion :rolleyes:
They killed British troops in Iraq and they're killing them now in Afghsnistan.
Payback for Iran's decades of terrorism and thousands of victims is nearing.
They will pay a dear price.
I don't understand how you would come to a conclusion as offensive as that.
What I am saying is logical. The Taliban are not obliged to follow British rules, because they are not British citizens. I presume you are in agreement so far, please let me know if this is not the case.
Taking the example of two nations, I don't expect anyone in France to obey British rules, but that doesn't mean I support France. I simply accept that they are not obliged to follow our rules. In the same way, I don't expect Taliban soldiers to obey the British Army's "rules", but that doesn't mean I support them. It's just logic that you don't need to obey the laws of a country of which you are not a citizen.
the Afghan army are a joke and will never be able to secure the country on their own. The Taliban will almost certainly run the country in some form or other if the Americans and Brits are to get out. This will also, unfortunately spell defeat.
And what if they then take revenge against your "terrorism" of killing them? An eye for an eye and the world goes blind.
But it is not Afghan rules, nor British rules, it is the international rules governing the conduct of armies and soldiers.
Now if the Taliban don't wish to follow the internationally accepted rules then they cannot at the same time claim the protection which is afforded to soldiers.
Hence why I cannot understand your insistence in calling them soldiers.
They are not by any stretch of any reasonable imagination soldiers. They are terrorists.
Were you not in support of their tactics, then surely you wouldn't be endeavouring to class them as soldiers.
If I have offended, please excuse me, it is not my intention. I merely like a good robust debate.
Confused what you mean by "international rules". No organization has the power to create laws that all nations must follow. Putting aside the power-grab issues, can you imagine the administrative nightmare that would happen if two organizations created conflicting "international rules"? For example, maybe the Taliban's "international rules" would conflict with the UN's "international rules".
The UN have been known to publish "international law" that signatories can chose to abide by (It's more of a treaty theme - Nations can chose to sign the treaty or not, if they sign it, they are bound to follow the rules). Is that what you mean?
I'm all for spirited debate. I'd like you to retract your suggestion that I support the Taliban though, it is untrue.
Yeah kind of.
If the Taliban wish to be seen/treated/accepted as soldiers, then the must follow the international rules governing the conduct of war/soldiers.
If they do not accept such rules which is their right, then they cannot be deemed to be soldiers. They are terrorists.
Can I just add, that the Taliban are not a nation, they are no longer a government (if they ever were) and as such they have no standing in the International arena to make laws, rules or codes of practice.
Sounds a bit less cowardly than using unmanned drones to fire hellfire missiles into civilian homes from thousands of miles away.
But they probably are following their version of "international rules" ducky. As I've said, there is no such thing as an "international rule" that everyone must obey. There is an optional "UN International Law" treaty nations are legally bound to follow until they leave the UN, or officially announce their removal from the treaty. To the best of my knowledge, the Taliban have not opted-in to that treaty. If they have, I do apologize. I will concede that the Taliban do not appear to follow the UN's version of "international rules". Balanced against that however, the UN probably don't follow the Taliban's version of "international rules".
I would argue that such an organization that had the power to introduce laws which it then forced onto every country, ignoring national sovereignty, would be a much bigger threat to humanity than the Taliban.
I would still like you to retract your suggestion that I support the Taliban. It is untrue, and offensive.
The resistance movement in Nazi occupied France didn't wear uniforms.
Are you saying they were terrorists?
You would prefer a flight of B-52s from Barksdale to just give the entire area the good news? You would prefer that troops on the ground were placed at risk of capture?
If you can strike a target without placing your own guys at risk, then I don't see a downside.
Even with troops on the ground, there's a risk of civilian casualties, because of the tactics involved. Why put our own troops at unnecessary risk?
George S. Patton
I already apologised for the post, don't milk it.
Pretty sure that's the logic the Taliban use when planting explosive devices.
It wasn't much of an apology, I'm a bit concerned if your idea of "good robust debate" is accusing people who disagree with you of "supporting the Taliban".