Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US considers helping terror group to stop Iran's nuclear programme

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US considers helping terror group to stop Iran's nuclear programme

    http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news...1/ixworld.html

    US considers helping terror group to stop Iran's nuclear programme
    By Julian Coman in Washington and Damian McElroy in Istanbul

    Senior Pentagon officials are proposing widespread covert operations against the government in Iran, hoping that dissident groups will mount a coup before the regime acquires a nuclear weapon.

    The controversial plan involves offering financial and military backing for a terrorist organisation that is outlawed by the US State Department, as well as intelligence collaboration and other support for dissident student bodies and resistance groups.

    Influential Pentagon figures are arguing that the terrorist status accorded by the US to the armed Mujahideen e Khalq group (MEK) in 1997 should be removed, allowing the group - which has been based in Iraq - to play a similar role to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.

    "There are some who see the overthrow of the regime as the only way to deal with the danger of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon," said one government official with close links to the White House. "But there's not going to be another war. The idea is to destabilise from inside. No one's talking about invading anywhere."
    *shakes head*
    "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

    – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

  • #2
    more conspiracy theories. its never going to happen. For one thing, mko are marxist commie scum. no thanks.
    "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by kid kool
      more conspiracy theories. its never going to happen.
      I suppose we could completely and utterly ignore historical precedents and pretend like the US is above this kind of behaviour.

      Or we could look at the most recent precedent, when the Pentagon signed a cease-fire with a state-department declared terrorist organization because they had a common enemy all of 2 months ago.

      If I told you 2 decades ago that the US was going to train and arm hundreds of thousands of radical, Islamic fanatics in the art of terrorism you'd call it a conspiracy theory too. No wait, you'd have called it training "freedom fighters". .

      The CIA rigging elections, assasinating/toppling elected governments, running drugs and arms - conspiracy theori... oh wait. That all happened.
      "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

      – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by kid kool
        more conspiracy theories. its never going to happen. For one thing, mko are marxist commie scum. no thanks.
        It's already happened. Over and over again throughout US history.
        Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by MikeJ


          I suppose we could completely and utterly ignore historical precedents and pretend like the US is above this kind of behaviour.

          Or we could look at the most recent precedent, when the Pentagon signed a cease-fire with a state-department declared terrorist organization because they had a common enemy all of 2 months ago.

          If I told you 2 decades ago that the US was going to train and arm hundreds of thousands of radical, Islamic fanatics in the art of terrorism you'd call it a conspiracy theory too. No wait, you'd have called it training "freedom fighters". .

          The CIA rigging elections, assasinating/toppling elected governments, running drugs and arms - conspiracy theori... oh wait. That all happened.
          And you think the US acted alone. Halting the spread of Communism was once generally seen as vital to ensuring peace and freedom. The US wasn't running abour like a chicken with it's head cut off. At the very least, our European allies turned a blind eye to our actions, if not directly support them.

          Having said that, I don't think this is a conspiracy theory. The report appears to be based on internal policy debates. The author just left out enough information so it appeals to popular opinion.

          I highly doubt the reporter knows what the Decision-making process is, let alone interpret the content of such a effort. The President expects, and should be informed of "any" option, no matter how outrageous. Just because the ideal is floating around doesn't mean it will get farther than internal memos. It's not uncommon, and this reporter should have emphasized that.

          A friend of mine from Israel once told me I had no ideal what it was like to have your (government) every action questioned and interpreted only for it's bad. I told him at the time, Israel wasn't helping it's image too much.

          In part I still feel that way, but now I know what he was talking about. Europe is looking for plots where none really exists. I recall everyone freaking out over Syria. When that didn't pan out, the media returned to Iraq, and now they are focused on Iran. Maybe if these reporters would bother to attend classes on politics and national security, they'd realize just how the system works.

          A coup can be considered, but acting on it is whole other story. In all likelihood, a coup in Iran would not achieve our strategic purpose, no matter who carries it out. It would likely fail. Coups are very dangerous politically. I doubt Bush would take such a risk.

          As for working with terrorists, that process is determined by the level of threat an organization posses to America. If they are no longer interest in blasting America to the moon, we can say they are no longer terrorists.

          The agreement with the Iraqi terrorist group does cause me some alarm. However, again, our decisions should be based on an assessment of a particular organization. I don't believe it was the right move. Yet, bringing peace and stability to Iraq is an important objective of the US.

          Every option should be explored. You determine what each is worth, and make your decision. When you ignore options, it only hurts your cause.
          "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

          Comment


          • #6
            [QUOTE]Originally posted by MikeJ


            I suppose we could completely and utterly ignore historical precedents and pretend like the US is above this kind of behaviour.
            Or we could look at the most recent precedent, when the Pentagon signed a cease-fire with a state-department declared terrorist organization because they had a common enemy all of 2 months ago.
            Oh you mean when the mko surrendered. I suppose we should just kill anyone and not accept surrender of any kind.

            If I told you 2 decades ago that the US was going to train and arm hundreds of thousands of radical, Islamic fanatics in the art of terrorism you'd call it a conspiracy theory too. No wait, you'd have called it training "freedom fighters". .
            They weren't "radical islamic fanatics" they were all different types of afghans. Their country had been invaded and we helped them get it back. They fought a civil war later and determined their destiny which eventually became a threatening situation for the U.S. so we came back and took out the trash



            The CIA rigging elections, assasinating/toppling elected governments, running drugs and arms - conspiracy theori... oh wait. That all happened.


            those are all conspiracy theories. The CIA never ran drugs. That stuff is all nonsense. I can't believe the things that are considered fact in some leftist circles. Next thing you'll be telling me the U.S. faked the moon landing.
            "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Deltapooh


              And you think the US acted alone. Halting the spread of Communism was once generally seen as vital to ensuring peace and freedom. The US wasn't running abour like a chicken with it's head cut off. At the very least, our European allies turned a blind eye to our actions, if not directly support them.

              Having said that, I don't think this is a conspiracy theory. The report appears to be based on internal policy debates. The author just left out enough information so it appeals to popular opinion.

              I highly doubt the reporter knows what the Decision-making process is, let alone interpret the content of such a effort. The President expects, and should be informed of "any" option, no matter how outrageous. Just because the ideal is floating around doesn't mean it will get farther than internal memos. It's not uncommon, and this reporter should have emphasized that.

              A friend of mine from Israel once told me I had no ideal what it was like to have your (government) every action questioned and interpreted only for it's bad. I told him at the time, Israel wasn't helping it's image too much.

              In part I still feel that way, but now I know what he was talking about. Europe is looking for plots where none really exists. I recall everyone freaking out over Syria. When that didn't pan out, the media returned to Iraq, and now they are focused on Iran. Maybe if these reporters would bother to attend classes on politics and national security, they'd realize just how the system works.

              A coup can be considered, but acting on it is whole other story. In all likelihood, a coup in Iran would not achieve our strategic purpose, no matter who carries it out. It would likely fail. Coups are very dangerous politically. I doubt Bush would take such a risk.

              As for working with terrorists, that process is determined by the level of threat an organization posses to America. If they are no longer interest in blasting America to the moon, we can say they are no longer terrorists.

              The agreement with the Iraqi terrorist group does cause me some alarm. However, again, our decisions should be based on an assessment of a particular organization. I don't believe it was the right move. Yet, bringing peace and stability to Iraq is an important objective of the US.

              Every option should be explored. You determine what each is worth, and make your decision. When you ignore options, it only hurts your cause.
              I agree with much of this. Deltapooh, aren't you getting tired of "unnamed officials" being quoted as though it is official U.S. policy. So maybe there was ONE or TWO people in the whole pentagon or cia who argued to support mko for the purpose of realpolitik. That's not the same as it being official U.S. doctrine.

              There is all kinds of absurd legislation in congress that would never possibly come to fruition because they lack public support.
              "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

              Comment


              • #8
                Here is some information from an organization related to MEK:

                http://www.iran-e-azad.org/english/

                A brief search of Google turned it up.

                It would be interesting to learn who it is that has decided this organization is in fact terrorist. What kind of activities has it participated in to make it terrorist?

                I am relieved to hear that the US is sympathetic to subversives to the theocracy in the Islamic Republic of Iran. But you know that the word in the US is that the Iran is ... uh ... reforming. Yes, they wish to reform their theocracy. The US should be as enthusiastic in supporting the MEK as Iran is in supporting Shi'i Islamicists in Iraq who want to take that country over.
                Get the US out of NATO, now!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kid kool

                  They weren't "radical islamic fanatics" they were all different types of afghans. Their country had been invaded and we helped them get it back. They fought a civil war later and determined their destiny which eventually became a threatening situation for the U.S. so we came back and took out the trash
                  Yes there were many groups comprising the 'Muhajadeen' fighting against the Soviets. However, once the Soviets pulled out, the Taliban was singled out by the CIA as being more 'dependable' than the rest.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Deltapooh
                    And you think the US acted alone.
                    I didn't say that. You assumed it.

                    Halting the spread of Communism was once generally seen as vital to ensuring peace and freedom. The US wasn't running abour like a chicken with it's head cut off. At the very least, our European allies turned a blind eye to our actions, if not directly support them.
                    If the ends justifies the means, then boy that makes the current US stance look awfully ridiculous.

                    Having said that, I don't think this is a conspiracy theory. The report appears to be based on internal policy debates. The author just left out enough information so it appeals to popular opinion.
                    The fact that it's being debated at all is the point. You know damn well if "internal papers" from Iraq were found that "debated" the development of chemical or biological weapons the US would be all over it saying "SEE? SEE?"


                    I highly doubt the reporter knows what the Decision-making process is, let alone interpret the content of such a effort. The President expects, and should be informed of "any" option, no matter how outrageous. Just because the ideal is floating around doesn't mean it will get farther than internal memos. It's not uncommon, and this reporter should have emphasized that.
                    Well then we have a glaring double standard, don't we.

                    As for working with terrorists, that process is determined by the level of threat an organization posses to America. If they are no longer interest in blasting America to the moon, we can say they are no longer terrorists.
                    Ditto for the above.

                    THe rationale for all of this is eerily contradictive with just about everything that has been going on lately.
                    "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                    – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by kid kool
                      Oh you mean when the mko surrendered. I suppose we should just kill anyone and not accept surrender of any kind.
                      Except the US let them go back to Iran, yes? It would have been funny if the US let Al Qaeda cells go back to Afghanistan after 9/11... weaopns and all.

                      They weren't "radical islamic fanatics" they were all different types of afghans. Their country had been invaded and we helped them get it back. They fought a civil war later and determined their destiny which eventually became a threatening situation for the U.S. so we came back and took out the trash
                      lol. Yep, of course. They weren't radical fanatics. All the calls for Jihad and whatnot were just my imagination. The fact that this same group of innocent, freedom-loving Afghans just spawned fundamentalist groups like the Taliban, Al Qaeda was because after the Soviets pulled out they suddenly all found god



                      those are all conspiracy theories. The CIA never ran drugs. That stuff is all nonsense. I can't believe the things that are considered fact in some leftist circles. Next thing you'll be telling me the U.S. faked the moon landing.
                      Wow, I bet to a resident of <insert basically any central or south american country here> you sound like a holocaust denier.
                      "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                      – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by MikeJ

                        I didn't say that. You assumed it.
                        It's more like you suggested that by not expanding on your post to mention the role other countries played in those efforts.

                        If the ends justifies the means, then boy that makes the current US stance look awfully ridiculous.
                        Don't know what you're talking about. However, at the time, we all thought the ends justified the means. Few people thought past the Cold War because it seemed like it would never end. The world was completely unprepared when the Iron Curtain fell.

                        The fact that it's being debated at all is the point. You know damn well if "internal papers" from Iraq were found that "debated" the development of chemical or biological weapons the US would be all over it saying "SEE? SEE?"


                        Iraq is not the US. Saddam couldn't consider WMD development after April 3 1991. That came along with the *sswhipping we gave him.

                        If the document said something like, "based on our analysis of test conducted 10/01/1999, the new strain of Anthrax should be pursued.........." one would have a problem just dismissing it.

                        The only fact that is apparent from the article is just how ignorant reporters are to the political Decision-making process. The author failed to discuss exactly what level the memo, or whatever originated at, or where it went.

                        Government leaders are trained to inspire off-the-shelf thinking. Ideals are not condemned, simply ruled out as viable. If you impede this process, you limit options.

                        lol. Yep, of course. They weren't radical fanatics. All the calls for Jihad and whatnot were just my imagination. The fact that this same group of innocent, freedom-loving Afghans just spawned fundamentalist groups like the Taliban, Al Qaeda was because after the Soviets pulled out they suddenly all found god
                        It's more like the Jihad was not against the US at the time. They were fighting the Soviets. I'm not going to say this was a good policy in Afghanistan. The US failed to appropriately weigh long term ramifications of our support for the rebels. When the Soviets pulled out, they didn't find god, they just developed a new enemy.

                        Wow, I bet to a resident of <insert basically any central or south american country here> you sound like a holocaust denier.
                        Some of it is true. Not all. However, MikeJ, again you give the impression America is solely responsible for these wrongdoings. Many of these actions were carried out the knowledge and approval of the various Western Powers. America provided the muscle. If you want to criticize American policy during the Cold War, you should consider expanding that to Europe. We're either all guilty or all innocent.
                        "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Deltapooh
                          It's more like you suggested that by not expanding on your post to mention the role other countries played in those efforts.
                          God forbid I fail to list dozens of countries everytime I mention US actions during the cold war in a response to a post by kid kool suggesting that the US would never do such things.

                          Absolutely ridiculous.


                          Don't know what you're talking about. However, at the time, we all thought the ends justified the means. Few people thought past the Cold War because it seemed like it would never end. The world was completely unprepared when the Iron Curtain fell.
                          I suppose it would be asking too much to understand the problem with the proposal noted in the article.

                          Iraq is not the US. Saddam couldn't consider WMD development after April 3 1991. That came along with the *sswhipping we gave him.

                          If the document said something like, "based on our analysis of test conducted 10/01/1999, the new strain of Anthrax should be pursued.........." one would have a problem just dismissing it.
                          sigh. Completely missed the point. Just forget it.

                          The only fact that is apparent from the article is just how ignorant reporters are to the political Decision-making process. The author failed to discuss exactly what level the memo, or whatever originated at, or where it went.
                          Or perhaps, it is also making apparent the extraordinary lengths some people will go to justify double standards.

                          Government leaders are trained to inspire off-the-shelf thinking. Ideals are not condemned, simply ruled out as viable. If you impede this process, you limit options.
                          I fail to see under what circumstances it should be permissable to support terrorist organizations, especially when the nation in question is, right now, invading soverign nations, eroding civil liberties and crusading all in the name of fighting terrorism. Am I just the only one who sees this? Granted, this (in the article) was only proposed, but as I pointed out we've seen this kind of behaviour before and many of you here are justifying actions, not proposals.

                          It seems most of your justification, not limited to this thread, for US actions are based on the idea that the US is above the law and damn the double standards.

                          It will be sufficient to say we're never going to see eye to eye. There is a fundamental clash of opinions here.

                          The rest is rehash, covered above.
                          "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                          – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Orginally posted by MikeJ[/i]
                            God forbid I fail to list dozens of countries everytime I mention US actions during the cold war in a response to a post by kid kool suggesting that the US would never do such things.

                            Absolutely ridiculous.
                            Never said you have to list all the countries. However, Allies only have seven letters.

                            I suppose it would be asking too much to understand the problem with the proposal noted in the article.
                            I'm not saying the ideal as acceptable. However, it was an ideal proposed as an option. You go through it. You are stopping just short of suggesting it was something the Bush Administration decided on.

                            Your position suggest a leader should impede the political Decision making process because some options might look bad. Most things our government does "look" bad. It's an ideal someone had. Stupid yes, but just an ideal. You don't fire the person, or tell him "that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard." You look at it, and explain why that's not going be acceptable.

                            Or perhaps, it is also making apparent the extraordinary lengths some people will go to justify double standards.
                            Nah. There is no real standard. You try to get a job done within certain boundaries. You men like myself are filled with ideals about how to fight this war. Some are extremely stupid. Others aren't. From a leadership standpoint, you don't defeat such ideals by placing restrictions are telling them how stupid they are. You sit down and provide a clear, factual explanation countering the ideal.

                            I fail to see under what circumstances it should be permissable to support terrorist organizations, especially when the nation in question is, right now, invading soverign nations, eroding civil liberties and crusading all in the name of fighting terrorism. Am I just the only one who sees this? Granted, this (in the article) was only proposed, but as I pointed out we've seen this kind of behaviour before and many of you here are justifying actions, not proposals.

                            It seems most of your justification, not limited to this thread, for US actions are based on the idea that the US is above the law and damn the double standards.
                            No one justified making deals with terrorists. I personally don't believe it's a good ideal. However, there are problems, and there are solutions. We might not like some of the solutions, but maybe
                            that's all you have. I'll admit Bush is all messed up. Some of his policies are outrageous. Others aren't.

                            The people here, as with the lower levels of our governments don't want to be on television nightly. They want to get the job done. You can't do that without at least considering doing bad things like killing people and breaking things. You live with that, and pray to god you don't screw up and make matters worse.
                            "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Martin Schenkel


                              Yes there were many groups comprising the 'Muhajadeen' fighting against the Soviets. However, once the Soviets pulled out, the Taliban was singled out by the CIA as being more 'dependable' than the rest.
                              The Taliban emerged in the mid to late 90s, more than a decade after America's involvement in Afghanistan ended. The CIA had nothing to do with its rise to power. It was largely due to the lawlessness in Afghanistan at the time and the need by the Afghanistan people to find some force to provide a modicum of security.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X