Originally Posted by dr325i
WOW, I expected better from you.
But just like your idol...when cannot answer, then pretend you did not really understand the analogy...
In the eyes of Iran's Gov't we're providing aid and training to combatants against their regime (actually, we openly even say that in fron t of the World). Therefore, what they are doing is just protecting themselves, and dealing with the enemy, but NOT on enemy's territory.
Therefore, I am not sure what International Law is not clear.
Again, back to your great knowledge:
Kosovo, KLA, killing Serbian Policeman and Military Border patrols (before the full escalation of the whole thing) -- why did the US oppose Serbian forces shooting back at the KLA (initially proclamed as a terrorist organization clearly equipped by the fraction of Al Qaeda)?
When have we ever said we are training or equipping anti-Iranian groups? We barely provide them moral support.
Are you saying that if the explosives used in IED's come from Iran with the knowledge and consent of the Iranian regime, we cannot interdict those explosives on the Iranian side of the border?
If we find out that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is training the forces that are fighting Iraqi and coalition forces inside Iran, we have not justification for destroying the training sites?
Do you have any actual education in the field of international law?
I do not know that the US opposed Serbian police and military forces defending themselves and if they did I do not know why.