Terrorism is caused by hate. There doesn’t even have to be a reason, although useful reasons can sometimes present themselves.
We don’t make excuses for the KKK or our own fundamentalists. Why do we make excuses for their hate groups and fundamentalists?
My point is-in the past, when we did sponsor groups like this, it came back to bite us on the ass.
And the attitude, “My country, right or wrong,” to me, is dangerous.
We will have to sponsor the groups that are not planning on killing us. We have no other choice. Again what is your solution other than to blame America.
Ok let’s invite terrorists all over the world to come kill us. We have such a bad country that it is only fitting thousands more of us die. Is that what you want? I still waiting for your idea on how to stop terrorism toward the USA. The USA has made mistakes what is done has been done. This is a time for action not negitive feelings.
The MEK is not a great group of people. The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE has listed this group as a terrorist organization. There are other things to do to fight terrorism besides sponsoring other terrorist groups.
How can we be sure that they won’t turn on us like the Afghan mujahadeen or Saddam Hussein? You said it yourself, the USA has made mistakes. Don’t you think we should actually try to learn from them instead of repeating them?
Your posts sem to imply that the United States can either:
There’s no other option for you? No ability to learn from our mistakes?
Machiavelli’s instructions in regards to mercenaries and auxiliaries come to mind. If there is dirty work to be done, it is always best done with one’s own forces.
Yes, very good point, barton.
'Nuff said.
“The proposal, which would include covert sponsorship of a group currently deemed terrorist by the U.S. government, is not new, and has not won favor with enough top officials to be acted upon.”
I am now completely convinced that crack is being smoked in the oval office.
Who are these loons and why haven’t they been laughed out of town long ago?
If we want to depose the Iranian regime, we should do it the old fashioned way with good old military intervention.
The historical lessons of Afghanistan seem to be utterly lost upon Shrub and his gang on the hill.
He must not be (s)elected again. He is a nutjob.
I have a good idea. Instead of covert military ops against Iran (and anybody else) how about covert psi ops? How about some well-funded programs to find out where the social structives in Iran are that would make it less of a threat, and start secretly funnelling money into programs that would make it less of a threat? Do we HAVE to make our first option in neutralizing every threat FORCE? Sure, force is sometimes necessary and good, but most of the time, it’s what you use because you didn’t do things right in the first place.
True, but Saddam was notably more deadly in dealing with rebellion than any Ayatollah.
Iraq death count in Shia rebellion of 1991 Note- about 30,000 dead.
Death count of Iranian repression since 1979 Note- about 10,000 dead.
Daoloth,
Ah. 10,000 people killed by the Ayatollah. So please explain how this differentiates our different responses to Iraq and Iran?
10,000 isn’t anything to shake a stick at, btw. It’s pretty disturbing to see tragedies being compared to justify policies.
The Nazis killed 12 million people, and Stalin killed over 50 million. Does that mean we should have overtly attacked the USSR but only covertly tried to subvert Hitler?
Of course not. You can’t compare tragedies to try to justify policies of one over another. That was my original point.
So tell me, why have two different policies for Iraq and Iran?
I don’t know why you’re asking me any of this. My sole participation in this debate was providing two statistics demonstrating the number killed under the regimes, under various aspects. I’ve yet to take a stance of any sort in here.
:eek:
Ack! Sorry about that, I should have looked above. Thanks for the info.
Humblest apologies.
:o - That guy’s supposed to look embarrassed.
Wow! Those terrorists are more resourceful than I had previously thought. Downing passenger jets with our spy agency’s sewing machines. Them’s some dangerous and evil fiends! [insert monster winking smilie >here<]
I am waiting for your third option which is…
Okay, more options:
3 - Funding and broadcasting of propaganda.
4 - Funding and support for anti-Ayatolla groups in Iran that aren’t terrorists.
5 - Covert attacks on WMD production facilities using missiles or bombs.
6 - Protection of opposition group leaders
7 - Disinformation campaigns
8 - Economic disruption
9 - Overt activities
Is that enough for you? Do they involve either of your two options?
Oh, and don’t forget the covert use of sewing-machine technology! :smack:
Fortunately, I doubt Bush will be very interested in this. He’s not, despite what some of you assume, ignorant or stupid, although he does have different goals from a number of you. Simply put, such actions in Iran would void his primary principle, which is the protection of American interests and persons. Also, unlike Iraq, Iran has a strong and growing counter-revolution, wich would not be aided. Given time and containment, they will likely fall apart. In any event, while they are still supposters of terrorism, they are less likely to be directly involved in it. Plus, they’ve seen what happens when the US is PO’s - Afganistan and Iraq are right on their doorstep, and the Ayatollahs probably don’t want to be next on the hit parade. They aren’t friendly, but they are rational.
So THAT’S why we invaded Iraq. First it was the WMDs then it was freeing the Iraqis, now this. Got it. Right.
In any event, while they are still supposters of terrorism, they are less likely to be directly involved in it. Plus, they’ve seen what happens when the US is PO’s
[/QUOTE]
Yes, when a terrorist group led by a Saudi Arabian national, and which is funded mostly by Saudi Arabian money and fuelled by Saudi Arabian wahhabism, gets a bunch of fellow terrorists who are mostly Saudi Arabian nationals to do something terrible to the U.S., Bush invades … wait for it … IRAQ!!!
Obviously, you haven’t read a single word of the State Department’s annual report that describes what bad characters the MEK really are. The MEK were funded by Saddam Hussein, they’re Marxist/Islamist, and share responsibility for taking Americans hostage in 1979. What’s more, some of their leadership first chose to spend their exile in… FRANCE!! (gasp!) Still think we should support them? Read on.
From the 2002 Patterns of Global Terrorism:
Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO) a.k.a. The National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA, the militant wing of the MEK), the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI), National Council of Resistance (NCR), the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), Muslim Iranian Student’s Society (front organization used to garner financial support)
Description
The MEK philosophy mixes Marxism and Islam. Formed in the 1960s, the organization was expelled from Iran after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and its primary support now comes from the Iraqi regime. The MEK’s history is studded with anti-Western attacks as well as terrorist attacks on the interests of the clerical regime in Iran and abroad. The MEK now advocates a secular Iranian regime.
Activities
The worldwide campaign against the Iranian Government stresses propaganda and occasionally uses terrorist violence. During the 1970s, the MEK killed US military personnel and US civilians working on defense projects in Tehran and supported the takeover in 1979 of the US Embassy in Tehran. In 1981, the MEK detonated bombs in the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Premier’s office, killing some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials, including chief Justice Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei, and Premier Mohammad-Javad Bahonar. Near the end of the 1980-88 war with Iran, Baghdad armed the MEK with military equipment and sent it into action against Iranian forces. In 1991, it assisted the Government of Iraq in suppressing the Shia and Kurdish uprisings in southern Iraq and the Kurdish uprisings in the north. Since then, the MEK has continued to perform internal security services for the Government of Iraq. In April 1992, the MEK conducted near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian Embassies and installations in 13 countries, demonstrating the group’s ability to mount large-scale operations overseas. In recent years, the MEK has targeted key military officers and assassinated the deputy chief of the Armed Forces General Staff in April 1999. In April 2000, the MEK attempted to assassinate the commander of the Nasr Headquarters—the interagency board responsible for coordinating policies on Iraq. The normal pace of anti-Iranian operations increased during the “Operation Great Bahman” in February 2000, when the group launched a dozen attacks against Iran. In 2000 and 2001, the MEK was involved regularly in mortar attacks and hit-and-run raids on Iranian military and law-enforcement units and government buildings near the Iran-Iraq border, although MEK terrorism in Iran declined throughout the remainder of 2001. Since the end of the Iran-Iraq war, the tactics along the border have garnered almost no military gains and have become commonplace. MEK insurgent activities in Tehran constitute the biggest security concern for the Iranian leadership. In February 2000, for example, the MEK launched a mortar attack against the leadership complex in Tehran that houses the offices of the Supreme Leader and the President. Assassinated the Iranian Chief of Staff.
Strength
Several thousand fighters are scattered throughout Iraq, and most are organized in the MEK’s National Liberation Army (NLA). Some NLA units possess tanks, armored vehicles, and heavy artillery. The MEK also has an overseas support structure.
Location/Area of Operation
In the 1980s, the MEK’s leaders were forced by Iranian security forces to flee to France. Since resettling in Iraq in 1987, almost all of its armed units are currently stationed in fortified bases near the border with Iran. In the mid-1980s, the group did not mount terrorist operations in Iran at a level similar to its activities in the 1970s, but by the 1990s the MEK had claimed credit for an increasing number of operations in Iran.
External Aid
Beyond receiving all of its military assistance, and most of its financial support, from the Iraqi regime, the MEK uses front organizations to solicit contributions from expatriate Iranian communities.
Hey Beaten Man-ever heard of Manuel Noriega?
I don’t believe he ever gave 9/11 as a reason for invading Iraq. Come to think of it, I’ve heard a lot of leftists say this, but I’ve never seen a damned one of you back it up.
Regardless, Bush invaded Iraq, for which I don’t care whether they had soda pop or anthrax, and good riddance to an unholy abomination o’er the land. That said, there is still strong evidence that Saddam was pursuing a small, but nasty chemical weapons program.