A Declaration of War?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by OSLO, Aug 15, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. heres the list if this is really a war on terror are they gonna go through the whole list
    1. Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
    2. Abu Sayyaf Group
    3. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
    4. Ansar al-Islam
    5. Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
    6. Asbat al-Ansar
    7. Aum Shinrikyo
    8. Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
    9. Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA)
    10. Continuity Irish Republican Army
    11. Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group)
    12. HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
    13. Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)
    14. Hizballah (Party of God)
    15. Islamic Jihad Group
    16. Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
    17. Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed)
    18. Jemaah Islamiya organization (JI)
    19. al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad)
    20. Kahane Chai (Kach)
    21. Kongra-Gel (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Workers' Party, PKK, KADEK)
    22. Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LT) (Army of the Righteous)
    23. Lashkar i Jhangvi
    24. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
    25. Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)
    26. Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM)
    27. Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK)
    28. National Liberation Army (ELN)
    29. Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
    30. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
    31. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLF)
    32. PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC)
    33. al-Qa’ida
    34. Real IRA
    35. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
    36. Revolutionary Nuclei (formerly ELA)
    37. Revolutionary Organization 17 November
    38. Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)
    39. Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC)
    40. Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)
    41. Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) (al-Qaida in Iraq) (formerly Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad, JTJ, al-Zarqawi Network)
    42. United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)
     
  2. As the BBC says, this would be the first time a national armed force is placed on the list. It would be equivalent of putting the Red Army on the list, in the "good ol' days".
     
  3. Hi ETME, nice list, but by my counting supported by 'Jane's World Insurgency and Terrorism publication your figure of 42 is about 250 organisations short...And thats only the declared ones.
     
  4. Looks like US is preparing to get the ball rolling for war with Iran...

    *sighs*
     
  5. Not a declaration of war, more a tightening of the screws.
     
  6. Classing the IRG as terrorists has a couple of big advantages for Bush. If they are terrorists then he doesn't have to gain Congressional approval to attack Iran. It simply becomes part of The Chimp's "War On Terra". Plus as an added bonus he gets to ignore the Geneva Conventions [again].....waterboarding and electric shocks anyone??? Remember that according to this US Administration it's not torture unless it kills the victim or permanently incapacitates them. :thumright:

    RM
     
  7. Can I assume that the US Administration does not accept that thir own forces if captured can be treated in anyway providing it does not kill or permamently incapacitae them. Or do they claim a different status for their forces. Such as refusing to let them testify at a Corners Cour after a Blue on Blue incident.

    Nutty
     
  8. If you notice, the US will not allow any of it's troops to be tried as war criminals by any other nation,(they get them out of Iraq on the double to try them at home) this is their way of supposedly protecting it's own troops however they may abuse and massacre at whim..but on the other hand the US will be the first to insist other's be tried for war crimes (which in most cases is the right thing to do...Bosnia comes to mind).

    Double standards... :tp:
     
  9. It is not overly bright calling a Regular armed force, reporting directly to the Iranian President, terrorists. As Oslo implied, as daft as calling the Red Army terrorists.

    This might be a test of how up to the job Brown the Humourless is.
     
  10. (sorry, first post, not trying to be controversial...)

    In fairness to everyone's favourite superpower, the IRG is (apparently) active in Iraq and Afghanistan, supporting militias whose aim is to attack US, UK (and anyone else's) forces.

    For some time now both we and the US have made it clear that if we find IRG forces in those theatres, assisting our opposition, then we'd take action against those forces (tho not against Iran).

    By adding the IRG to the list the US is effectively increasing the diplomatic pressure. If the IRG is not in Iraq then US forces are not going to come into contact with them. If they are, and our troops have to give them a going over, then Iran has a very difficult time trying to explain just what they were doing there. If anything, its a way of increasing pressure on Iran and the IRG without having to go to war. Which is a good thing.
     
  11. Ok, let#s continue the USSR anaology. The KGB and GRU supported anti-NATO/anti-US/anti-UK actions, such as PLO (and the other groups therein). They helped the enemy against the UK/US in Vietnam, Korea, etc. However, they were not placed on a terrorist list.

    Now, fast forward to this latest idea. If the IRG is attacking US/UK interests, such as kidnapping UK sailors in Iraqi waters, or supplying anti-UK forces in Basra, or supplying Taleban and AQ in Afghanistan, then they are doing so on the orders from Tehran. That is a causus belli, something which the UK media seems to have ignored (they'd rather call for the resignation of the Defence Secretary over 2 malelots who got paid some dosh by the less scupulous of their bretheren than call for the PM to declare war over the kidnapping of our forces - incredible!).

    We all know of the reasons why Bush/Blair and now Brown don't want to open the Iranian can of worms (e.g. we're overstretched as it is). So why precipitate the situation now? I agree that the IRG has been stirring (to put it diplomatically), but either go in and beat the cr*p of them or wait until we are re-armed and recuperated from our current endeavours. I can't see Ahminajad suddenly going "oh dear, we're now seen as terrorists by the Great Satan, let's stop giving our guys in Iraq their bombs". Makes me wonder what kind of muppetry there is in the White House advising the Chief Chimp.
     
  12. Weren't they already considered part of the triad of Axis of evil anyway? you know Iraq/North Korea and Iran.

    IMHO, we should have taken a sharp right turn outside of Kuwait in 1991 and headed straight for Tehran, actually we should have left Saddam alone and let him handle Iran, which by the by he was doing splendidly until he made a tactical error in judgement and invaded Kuwait which with it's umbilical cords firmly tied to Saudi Arabia whose own cords firmly tied to US oil interests was a big no no...

    That being said, I can agree with the latest declaration of naming the IRG (who really aren't any sort of army anyways, even if they and the Iraq Guard fought each other for ten yrs at a stalemate...pathetic really) a terrorist org and putting Tehran on notice, there are a few things happening this Month which may tie in with all of this, one is the latest round of sanctions against Iran for it's Nuclear program...stay tuned in for further developments...
     
  13. That is working on the assumption that the IRG are illegally in Iraq. A large body of the Worlds legal opinion consider that the US/UK and other forces in Iraq are also illegally in the country having invaded a Sovereign State with no legal justification. Just as our Politicians have a difficult time trying to explain what we US/UK are doing there what difference is it for the IRG to pop along and join in.

    Yes it is controversial.

    Nutty
     
  14. I'd like to add the CIA to that list, bearing in mind their role in assisting Pinochet to topple the democratically elected government of Chile on 11 Sept 1973. Then there are all the other examples of US State terrorism against non-US/non-Capitalist friendly, democratically elected states!

    Just think, had Kinnock beaten Major in that general election, we might have been next.... just before that last Sun journo left the country and blew out the candle illuminating their office... :)
     

  15. Shrub, just like the Red Sea Pedestrians in Lebanon last Summer, is going to get a big shock if he goes toe to toe with the Iranians.

    Not arabs who run away if you shout 'BOO!' at them, but tough and resourceful fighters with a warrior ethos going back 3,000+ years
     
  16. Another sick attempt by Bush Buffoon and the Neo Cons to sidetrack the fact that the Iraq 'venture' is an unparalleled catastrophe.
     
  17. I seem to recall the Iraqi Republican Guard being described in similar terms not a million years ago. Time for one of my favourite Bill Hicks quotes:

    "Yeah, we're doing really well, but we have yet to face the elite Iraqi Republican Guard." In hushed tones, like these guys were ten feet tall desert warriors who shat bullets and had never lost a battle. Well after a month of carpet bombing and not one peep from these motherfuckers, they went from being the elite Iraqi Republican Guard to merely the Iraqi Republican Guard, not quite as elite as we may have led you to believe. After another month of bombing, they went from the elite Iraqi Republican Guard, to the Republican Guard, to the Republicans made up this shit about there being any guards out there in the first place, we hope you enjoyed the fireworks show.
     
  18. For a 1st Post, I think P2000 makes a very good point. If we do have contacts with them in the sandpit, treating them as common terrs and not Iranian Regulars would avoid setting off a war; unless the Iranians want to use it as an excuse. Either way, publicising that we know they are there does seriously risk kicking off an extra war.
     

Share This Page