Taliban - Has UK gone completely mad?

[highcirrus]

Telegraph, Sunday 18 Oct 09

Full story here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6359719/British-soldier-attached-to-special-forces-faces-war-crimes-probe.html)

British soldier attached to special forces faces war crimes probe

A British soldier serving with the special forces is facing war crime charges after threatening to shoot dead a Taliban prisoner during interrogation unless he co-operated.

Sean Rayment, Defence correspondent
Published: 9:30PM BST 17 Oct 2009

The alleged offence took place in the Helmand province of Afghanistan in August, during a two-month period of high intensity combat which left 37 soldiers dead and more than 100 injured.

Officers from the Royal Military Police's special investigation branch are now attempting to discover whether the alleged prisoner abuse was an isolated incident or part of a wider covert policy of using mental torture techniques to extract information from Taliban detainees.

A file on the offence is now with the Army Prosecuting Authority, the military equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service, and is part of a wide ranging Royal Military Police (RMP) investigation.

If charged, the soldier, who was serving with the special forces support group (SFSG), will be tried by court martial. If found guilty of either war crimes or assault with a weapon, he could expect to receive a custodial sentence.........

............The latest incident took place in a forward operating base in Helmand after members of the special forces captured several suspected Taliban gunmen believed to have been responsible for carrying out improvised explosive device attacks against British troops.

The suspect, described as a "high value target", was being interrogated by a member of the special forces unit specially trained in "tactical questioning", with a British military interpreter and an Afghan interpreter present.

It is understood that at one stage during the interview, when the suspect was refusing to answer questions, the British interpreter drew his pistol, cocked it and pushed the prisoner's head down on to the table. He then pressed the gun into the back of the suspect's head and said in Pashto – "answer the questions or you're dead...........

..........A source close to the inquiry said: "The police will try and establish whether there are any mitigating circumstances which would warrant such action – but it seems unlikely that there are. We are now in the arena of war crimes or assault with a deadly weapon – either way it is very damaging. We thought that after Baha Mousa this sort of thing was history."

War crimes are defined as "violations of the laws of war" and these include the ill-treatment of prisoners of war, which includes death threats during interrogation and mental torture."

[Neptunus Rex]

Seems to me it's all down to the 'British Military Interpreter.' If he says he didn't see it happen, case closed. However, if he is the one who grassed up the Special Forces, he should be certified!

Another great blow for morale.

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/deadly.gif

[Jackonicko]

I am often taken as being a bit of a bleeding heart liberal, and certainly I don't condone torture, water-boarding, wiring up prisoner's danglies to the national grid, etc.

But anything that we might do to our own people in SERE training would seem like fair game, and there's the world of difference between putting a prisoner in fear of their life, and actually taking it, in my view.

The tactical interrogation of prisoners is surely an area where fluffies, bleeding hearts and health and safety should largely butt out?

And surely sleep deprivation, the use of stress techniques, and even mock executions are techniques that can be justified in certain circumstances.

I would congratulate the individual concerned, with just a slight nagging worry as to what would have happened had the weapon discharged into the prisoner, when he would have stepped over the line into the world of war crimes and criminal behaviour.

[Donkey497]

Sometimes I wonder why they bother to send in the armed forces if all they are allowed to do is act like lollypop men & women at a school crossing. Then again the powers that be are presently persecuting a lollypop man who has committed the crime of high fiving the kids he knows on his crossing when they've done well in tests, exams etc..

The lunatics took over the asylum in '97. Will the next lot be any better? We can only hope & pray....

[A and C]

Has some one at the MoD forgotton that there is a war on?

[Torque Tonight]

Time to pull the troops out of the Stan and send in the :mad: social workers instead - let them sort it out their way.

Perhaps they can conquer the Taliban through the medium of street theatre, hip-hop dance classes, group therapy sessions and talking about their 'issues'. Reinforce positive behaviour with tickets to gigs, Alton Towers, some compensation or a nice benefits handout.

I guess you'll have to give these murderous bastards a nice cup of tea before you can 'chat' with them from now on. Mustn't hurt their feelings or infringe their rights.

[Mr C Hinecap]

Either we have rules and we abide by them, or we don't. We have rules. Someone may have overstepped the mark and is being duly investigated.

Get over it you great big burly internet warriors.

[TEEEJ]

The Iranians are currently spinning the following news story in relation to the Taliban.

The story is quickly gaining momentum on the conspiracy nutjob websites.

'UK army 'providing' Taliban with air transport'

UK army 'providing' Taliban with air transport (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=108923&sectionid=351020403)

'The British army has been relocating Taliban insurgents from southern Afghanistan to the north by providing transportation means, diplomats say.

The diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said insurgents are being airlifted from the southern province of Helmand to the north amid increasing violence in the northern parts of the country.

The aircraft used for the transfer have been identified as British Chinook helicopters.

The officials said Sultan Munadi, an Afghan interpreter who was kidnapped along with his employer, New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell, was killed by a “British sniper” as commandos executed a rescue operation to free Farrell.

They said Munadi was targeted for possessing documents and pictures pointing at the British military's involvement in the transfer operation.'

[anotherthing]

Mr C Hinecap


Either we have rules and we abide by them, or we don't. We have rules.
Britain abides by the Geneva Convention.

Part of the 'rules' state that prisoners will not be executed. If the UK went to war with another Convention signatory, any members of UK Armed Forces caught by said opponent would expect to be treated in accordance with the Convention.

Due to training, both in R2E and RoE our captured troops would know that the threat was a bluff. Maybe due to confusion/disorientation of being in enemy hands, there might be a slight doubt, but ingrained deep in the grey matter is the fact that the threateniong enemy was a Convention signatory.

The Taliban is not a signatory, has no RoE and couldn't give 2 hoots about the Geneva Convention. The fact that whilst fighting them we still play by the rules despite their ignorance of the rules is not our problem... if they, through ignorance, perceive the 'threat' as real and cough up info that saves just one coalition life, then IMO it is a valid practice.

'Sticks and stones may break my bones'... and all that.

Some people might even argue that if fighting a terrorist enemy that has no regard for the pleasantries of war, we should rip up the rules ourselves...

[VinRouge]

Total war. Take no quarter and expect none. As long as it doesnt get in the way of the tennents of fighting an insurgency, I say sod it.

We cant win this fighting off an uneven keel. Geneva Convention is fine during a conventional fight, this is a war that is far from it. knowing personally if we ever go down and get caught that the best I can expect is to have my nuts cut off and be skinned alive, I dont have particular issue with the above.

If you think you can only win wars through humane means you are delluding yourself. If you dont intend to win, what is the point in engaging in warfare? And dont give me crap about being sat on the higher moral ground. Read Machiavelli and see what he suggests about conquering lands of a differing culture.

[airborne_artist]

Another way of looking at it is to ensure immediate (or asap) handover of prisoners to specialist handling/questioning teams. The capturing force may well have been in a contact with the captive and his mates, and could have sustained losses on the blue side. The blue side will not be at their most objective when questioning etc., and may even be trying to punish for firing back, laying the IED etc.

Clearly in the heat of battle, and without a clear front-line it's hard to ensure that prisoner handling teams are close enough to those taking the prisoners, but IMHO it's the best way of ensuring that things don't get out of hand.

[VinRouge]

If that was enforced, your going to lose shock of capture.

[Pontius Navigator]

During WW2 The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations which was why the treatment of British and Russian POWs differed. Russia was not a signatory.

After 1949 The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not bound by it. By 1949, the treaty was becoming viewed less as a reciprocal contract and more as an agreement on fundamental human rights. Ratifying the treaty binds the nation to uphold these rights regardless of the behavior of the opposing nation

Afghanistan and Iraq are both signatories to the 1949 Convention. It would follow that Afghan army troops are thus bound by the convention and we are also bound even against non-State actors such as the Taliban.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Afghanistan and Iraq are both signatories to the 1949 Convention. It would follow that Afghan army troops are thus bound by the convention and we are also bound even against non-State actors such as the Taliban


God, Allah, or the little green jelly man in the moon give me srength!
Yes, the idiots in charge have really lost the plot.

[Two's in]

The suspect, described as a "high value target", was being interrogated by a member of the special forces unit specially trained in "tactical questioning", with a British military interpreter and an Afghan interpreter present.

Nice use of quotation marks to add speculation to fact for a better story, but they forgot to put the word "suspect" in quotes as well. If you have no legal due process for getting from "suspect" to "convicted" other than torture and interrogation, you are on a very slippery slope. Kangaroo courts, despotic dictators, random milita that shoot civilians on sight - let's make sure these are all things that happen in third world countries or totalitarian regimes.

[BEagle]

Whilst the BNP appear to have infiltrated PPRuNe, judging from some of the more infantile posts on this thread, it is only Mr C Hinecap and airborne_artist who have any real idea of what's being discussed here regarding prisoner handling.

[barnstormer1968]

Many varied comment in this thread, and airborne artist is very right in his attitude
(are you sure you are feeling OK, as that almost sounded like a positive plug for
the green slime:E:E).

What stood out for me, was that the chap in question was a SUSPECT, not guilty.
If he later turned out to be guilty, then as Taliban he would also be guilty of war
crimes, and we could try (in the criminal sense) and execute him for those
(under Afghan law).
Once this trial had been completed, then the SFSG lad could go on trial. If it then
transpired there was no one from the Taliban able to go into the witness box
(seems unlikely once executed), then drop the case.
Whatever our ROE are, then we must stick to them (or things tend to go very
wrong). Whether are ROE are in any way sensible is a completely differing matter


I must stress that I have not been there, and these are my thoughts from the
comfort of my living room. But from past experience, there are many ways to
skin a cat, and threatening to kill someone who believes he will be martyred and
off to a better life may not be the best persuader.

[Jackonicko]

Does that mean that you would go further than me, BEags, and wouldn't allow or condone sleep deprivation, stress positions, threat of harm, and that to condone such tactics renders one as some kind of BNP supporting lunatic?

Is there not some sensible middle way, in which applying extreme psychological pressure is acceptable, while physical violence and physical torture is not?

Should there not even be any discussion as to whether the rules that forbid psychological torture and death threats during interrogation are entirely appropriate against this particular type of enemy? (An enemy who would cut your gonads off with a rusty knife, stitch them into your mouth, and stake you out in the sun to die, given half a chance, if there was no video camera handy to film you as they cut your head off....)

Is there not a danger that if the British Army is required to treat captured terrorists in the way that the Surrey Constabulary treat a suspected shoplifter, then they will inevitably (and quite rightly) go a little too far - with the danger of really over-stepping where the line should have been drawn in the first place.

Airborne/C Hinecap,

Do you think that things 'got out of hand' in this particular instance?

and:

Did it work?

[airborne_artist]

Do you think that things 'got out of hand' in this particular instance?


If the SFSG guy did as reported, then yes, and quite clearly. Not only did the SFSG guy screw up, but so did the the senior officer/NCO present.

No idea whether it worked or not, but I'd not expect it to - Terry is a tough enemy, and he's unlikely to bubble his brothers-in-arms.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Sorry Beags, you're way off mark with any BNP associations. I'm too old to fight, and when I was in it was as aircrew and not in harms way as the guys fighting on the ground. I cannot bide the interferrence of any bleeding heart sentiments when the war is against the lawless mindless cretins we face in the present conflicts. The Geneva Convention is as meaningless as the Human Rights Bill( or whatever it's officially called) and acts only as a sign of weakness to our enemies. I do know what it is like to undergo imaginative interrogation, and if that is what is required then so be it. Certainly police the masochists etc but do not deny the front line the protection they deserve by being soft on the extremists.:*

[BEagle]

Jacko, ICATQ.

Or rather, I won't.

[Jackonicko]

I don't mean to offend anyone, I just have that feeling of disquiet that if we apply the same rules as we applied when fighting conventional enemies to fighting the Taliban, we may be fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.

I don't know what the answer is - I'm sure that it isn't Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib type solutions, and I'm sure that actual physical torture, beatings, etc. are absolutely NOT any part of the answer.

I'm sure that we must have, and abide by rules. But are these rules fit for purpose?

Would being just a bit more robust than the Geneva Convention would have us be against Johnny Russian or Juan the Argentine really be so unthinkable......?

[airborne_artist]

we may be fighting with one hand tied behind our backs

Since our forces are not laying landmines/IEDs, not using civilian vehicles, are wearing uniform and don't melt in/out of the civpop then it's already pretty obvious that we are playing to a different set of rules. The Geneva convention is just another of those rules and nothing more.

Whether you call it fighting with one hand behind our backs or not doesn't really matter. It's what we are doing, and it's not changing.

[Pontius Navigator]

I think BEagle is being a little narrow here in his assessment of fellow ppruners.

There are many ways of skinning a cat. Threatening extreme and immediate brutality is but one. I recall a training film, US Army Air Corps, in Italy, essentially the prisoners were divided into two groups and treated differently. The suggestion was that those who had 'talked' were given better treatement and it was to reinforce a divide between the prisoners.

Another film, more relevant, was of the Korean war where the Turkish troops relished the improvements in conditions now that they were POWs whereas for US troops it was a severe culture shock.

May be they should try tea and sympathy? :}

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

It's what we are doing, and it's not changing

So that's OK then?
Change the rules and hit them where it hurts,,, and yes f**k the so called moral high ground!
The word "suspect" has been rightly highlighted, so take the measures necessary to establish guilt or otherwise, and if the former take the appropriate action.

[airborne_artist]

So that's OK then?

I'm not really commenting on the rights/wrongs of it, but we knew what were letting ourselves in for at the outset, and we can't really change the rules we play to without leaving our seat on the UN Security Council.

[Blacksheep]

I keep hearing the activities of our troops in Afghanistan described as a "WAR" :confused:
This puzzles me, because when British troops were first committed to Afghanistan, we members of the United Kingdom electorate were informed by our Prime Minister that our troops were to be engaged in action in support of the civil power.

Unless the situation has changed and the Taliban are now the legitimate government of Afghanistan and I also missed the Declaration of War by both sides, it seems that our troops ought not to be interrogating captured terrorist suspects at all. Any suspects apprehended in suspicious circumstances by our soldiers should be handed over to the Afghanistan authorities for questioning. Information obtained from those assisting the Afghan authorities in their inquiries that might be useful to those acting in support of the authorities would no doubt be provided as soon as it was available. The means by which the such information may be acquired is not a matter of concern to those providing the assistance.

[drustsonoferp]

Regardless of whatever may be argued in any direction as to rights, wrongs, and legitimate circumstances, the conflict in Afghanistan is fought by those who have a reason to fight. Every time the wrong person is killed, accidentally, legitimately or wrongly we do a brilliant job for the opposition.
Every time we dip beneath a perceived moral line, whether it is endorsed as a right or not, we will do the same. All of those detained at Guantanamo may have been conveniently labeled, the Geneva convention may not have applied, but that didn't make them anything less of an icon against the US.

[Jolly Green]

What is the right thing to do? What is the legal thing to do? Certainly the Taliban and AQ can fit nicely under the definition of unlawful combatants. Even if they don't then the Geneva conventions allow reciprocity and retribution. In other words, if one side violates the rules the other side can violate the same rules. If the Taliban have made a habit of torturing and executing prisoners, then we can. But should we?

[Manuel de Vol]

Should our troops be in Afghanistan anyway?

I heard the one eyed man from Kathmandu (fat Gordie) say that the real reason the UK needed people in Afghanistan is because 'they have a problem with their governance'.

I'm getting old and my hearing isn't as good as it used to be (jet engines?)

El Gordo might've said: "govern-nonces".

Either way, he pointed his little fat finger at the problem.

According to the one-eyed little fat man from Caledonia, the Afghanistanis (specifically, his friend Mr Khazi and his brother (General poppy-sap-dealer) have a problem.

So if the Afghans need 'Govern-nonces' why are we sending them soldiers?

The Brits are renowned for their generosity. I appreciate that it would involve huge sacrifices (lost 3 month hols and all that) but why - If the Afhanistani people need help in setting up a feasible form of government - haven't we volunteered (say) 400 of our MPs (they are, after all, doing bugger-all else) to be govern-nonces to help fill the void identified by El Gordo?

According to the fat Caledonian, the Afghans need govern-nonces. Not soldiers.

The Brits are renowned for their generosity. Suerly they could spare 400 or so MPs to rectify the problem identified by Fat Gordie?

WE (or rather you) could surely offer up 400 MPs (fair trade...you could bring back about 10 times as many soldiers) as an interim measure.

The problem wont be solved overnight. The Afghans will still need political nonces for many years ... but there's an answer!

At the next general election, the candidate who scores the highest number of voted would take his/her place in the Palace of Westminster. The runner-up would be detached to Afghanistan to be a political nonce (advisor) to assist that country.

Problem solved.

Bring the troops home and let the pols solve the problem ... after all, they've got to do something for the money.

AAAH! I hear you say... Our pols aren't interested in getting their arses shot off.

But when did our servicemen join to get their arses shot off?

If Gordie has got it right (and he is, after all, the Prime Minister) why aren't we sending to Afghanistan the people they so sorely need?

They don't need soldiers. - That's apparent (if you think about it) and the argument is reinforced by the numbers of young, fit men of military age one sees in videos broaching the ironwork (wire, etc) in an attempt to enter the UK illegally. - If the Fghanistani people need soldiers to free their country, why are so many of those potential soldiers legging it to the UK?

No shortage of soldier material in Afghanistan. - They're all coming to the UK.

But there IS a shortage of political nonces in Afghanistan. The least you could do is send them some.

Support Gordie! Send an MP to Afghanistan.

[Manuel de Vol]

If you sent more politicians, you'd have to send more helicopters ... you could hardly expect pols to travel by road... not because it's dangerous (of course) but because you can't have pols bruising their bums in less-than-limos on bumpy roads.

Not a problem!

Contract it out.

[Caspian237]

The treatment of prisoners is a very sensitive issue. The severity of the incident is often decided by the media based on their own agenda. However this story seems to be quite insignificant at the moment. The soldier involved hasn't even been charged so I don't see how anyone can come to conclusions on the sanity of the "UK" or lack of.

I do see in this thread however a degree of uninformed, knee jerk reactionism and some infantile language to boot.

Ask yourself if their are international laws covering such scenarios and what the consequencies of ignoring them would be. Ask yourself if the media would much rather present this as one of their favoured "cover up" head Line reports. Also ask yourself how this would affect not only the morale of our troops but also their safety.

And please for goodness sake can some of you get an understanding of the kind of language that is used in reasoned debate.

[Manuel de Vol]

The treatment of prisoners is a very sensitive issue. ...

I disagree. the treatment of prisoners is laid down quite clearly in the Geneva Convention and in the 'Rules and Articles of war'.

If you -as a prisoner - were handed to me - an interrogator, behind the front line - then I would do my best to extract information from you and I would (I hope) do so within 'the rules' - irrespective of what those rules were. I would rely on my skills to do my job.

If I -as a prisoner - was to be interrogated immediately upon capture, then I would hope to receive the protection of the Convention and of the 'Rules and articles', but that might not be the case.

The report suggests that the interrogators acted outside their remit. If that is proved to be the case, then those interrogators should be punished - but the punishment he (or they) receive should be mitigated by the stress under which he (or they) were placed at the time. The commanding officer of the interrogator(s) would also (IMO) be culpable.

There is going to be an inquiry. Perhaps we should wait until that inquiry has submitted its report before we pass judgement and apportion blame?

[Caspian237]

the treatment of prisoners is laid down quite clearly in the Geneva Convention and in the 'Rules and Articles of war'.

Agreed. But clearly this is a sensitive issue otherwise the politicians, the press or our goodselves wouldn't be discussing it. But I guess it's in the semantics so lets not disagree.


Perhaps we should wait until that inquiry has submitted its report before we pass judgement and apportion blame?


Absolutely. Then we can only hope that punishment, if any, is measured and sensible. I don't think anyone is oath bound to screw over the soldiers involved and I don't see any political capital doing so either. Will there be further press interest and what will their attitude be? Heck the Pruners could each pick a paper and write their varying take on the issue now in anticipation.

[PTT]

and yes f**k the so called moral high ground!
Lose that and you lose any validity for being there in the first place.

[Blighter Pilot]

Years ago I seem to remember a nasty gator cocking a weapon and putting it to my head to extract information - during training!

Something about point of duress??

What's the difference then? As a TQ he should be able to use means to get vital information asap - not wait until the 'suspect' is handed over. Information that is 24/48 hrs old is no use against an insurgency.

[Pontius Navigator]

What is the right thing to do? What is the legal thing to do? Certainly the Taliban and AQ can fit nicely under the definition of unlawful combatants. Even if they don't then the Geneva conventions allow reciprocity and retribution. In other words, if one side violates the rules the other side can violate the same rules. If the Taliban have made a habit of torturing and executing prisoners, then we can. But should we?

When I first read your post I thought your post was nonsense. Then I rechecked what I had posted earlier Ratifying the treaty binds the nation to uphold these rights regardless of the behavior of the opposing nation

You said:

if one side violates the rules the other side can violate the same rules

Now I see lawyer speak wriggle room. Clealy AQ is a side and not a nation. How does the GC apply in what is a police action? our troops were to be engaged in action in support of the civil power.

Each unit should have a zampolit to whom all prisoners are handed.

[CirrusF]

Certainly the Taliban and AQ can fit nicely under the definition of unlawful combatants


What definition? There is no such thing under international law except in the warped minds of the likes of Donald Rumsfeld.

You could more accurately define the Taliban as civilians.

[Army Mover]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant) has a piece on it.

[Dengue_Dude]

I think this is all bollocks.

Obviously that nice Taliban gentleman just happened to be passing and obviously got mixed up with those hairy, aggressive army blokes - just look at what they wear, some don't even wash!

What should be done is, the whole of Doncaster's Social Services department is not very popular at the moment, so perhaps they could be loaned to the Army to offer their skills.

Such skills as counselling, (bereavement for example, since the alcohol counselling is not required), re-homing, grants for new furniture and household goods - they could even send these innocent civilians on outward-bound courses or holidays, as they're obviously under-privileged and oppressed.

Failing that shoot the bastards. Be a shame if something happened to the 'witnesses' wouldn't it?

Unbelievable . . . (what makes YOU think this government is resolved to leaving at the next election)?

[Roadster280]

Failing that shoot the bastards

A tad harsh I feel. Doncaster Social Services may be somewhat detached from reality, but shooting them seems a bit OTT to me.

[Gainesy]

It wouldn't if you'd ever been there.

[BEagle]

Gainesy, given that the RAF used to send its Untermensch to Finningl-eh (near Donn-eh) to be trained to occupy small holes in large aeroplanes, 'tis hardly surprising that Doncaster Social Services are a pretty busy bunch - because unfortunately some of the Untermensch managed to mate with a few 'Donn-eh' females, resulting in a significantly diluted gene pool for the Scargill Republic of South Yorkshire.

Through no fault of the females, of course, save that of having insufficent taste to reject the notion of mating with half-wing half-brains.......

[Wrathmonk]

BEags

Didn't you do a MEXO at

Finningl-eh (near Donn-eh)

prior to your extended stint at HMP Carterton?

Or did even the

'Donn-eh' females

reject you!;)

[BEagle]

Nope, I didn't do a MEXO.

Just a couple of weeks or so wasting time on an MER course. Went into that awful place Donn-eh once (fortunately during daylight whilst the local alleged-females were still snoring in their lairs) - then escaped asap!

[XV277]

If the SFSG guy did as reported, then yes, and quite clearly. Not only did the SFSG guy screw up, but so did the the senior officer/NCO present.



If I read the OP correctly, it was the British Interpreter and not the SFSG guy who did the deed.

[Dengue_Dude]

Be interesting if the scenario was reversed and the Taliban were 'interviewing' security forces person . . .

There would, of course, be no threats or coercion . . . much

[PTT]

D_D

That would be a hillock on the moral high ground :ok:

[Utrinque Apparatus]

Article from the "Taliban Times"

Officers from the Sharia Enforcement Branch are investigating reports of inhumane treatment of Prisoners of War, Women wearing make up, children going to school and suspected informants. Allegedly, before the universal ritual Allah Wu Akhbar throat cutting and / or shooting, some Taliban miscreants have been shouting, yes, shouting at captives in a cruel attempt to glean information from them. Abdul Al Sikkin Al Quebir, the Taliban spokesperson denied this vehemently stating that such behaviour was forbidden by the Koran.

Also, rumours of widespread Western Special Forces infiltration of the Taliban has been derided as propaganda. Taliban Times interviewed several of our brave fighters, Khalid Abdullah, Abdsul Mohsin, Abdul Karim, Chalky, Kevin, Bubbah and Ahmed Al Tariq to seek their views.

:hmm: