Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Apr 6th, 2007, 11:47 AM        Our terrorists
Lets see. No officially declared war between Pakistan and Iran... Kidnappings, murders... Tell me how we aren't a state sponsoring terrorism.



The Secret War Against Iran
Brian Ross and Christopher Isham
ABC News
Tuesday 03 April 2007
A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News.
The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran.
It has taken responsibility for the deaths and kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials.
U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight.
Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to its youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states.
Jundullah has produced its own videos showing Iranian soldiers and border guards it says it has captured and brought back to Pakistan.
The leader, Regi, claims to have personally executed some of the Iranians.
"He used to fight with the Taliban. He's part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist," said Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant who recently met with Pakistani officials and tribal members.
"Regi is essentially commanding a force of several hundred guerrilla fighters that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera," Debat said.
Most recently, Jundullah took credit for an attack in February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard riding on a bus in the Iranian city of Zahedan.
Last month, Iranian state television broadcast what it said were confessions by those responsible for the bus attack.
They reportedly admitted to being members of Jundullah and said they had been trained for the mission at a secret location in Pakistan.
The Iranian TV broadcast is interspersed with the logo of the CIA, which the broadcast blamed for the plot.
A CIA spokesperson said "the account of alleged CIA action is false" and reiterated that the U.S. provides no funding of the Jundullah group.
Pakistani government sources say the secret campaign against Iran by Jundullah was on the agenda when Vice President Dick Cheney met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February.
A senior U.S. government official said groups such as Jundullah have been helpful in tracking al Qaeda figures and that it was appropriate for the U.S. to deal with such groups in that context.
Some former CIA officers say the arrangement is reminiscent of how the U.S. government used proxy armies, funded by other countries including Saudi Arabia, to destabilize the government of Nicaragua in the 1980s.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
arg_zombies arg_zombies is offline
Get Your Own Title >:(
arg_zombies's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: England
arg_zombies is probably a spambot
Old Apr 6th, 2007, 11:59 AM       
... And after the 'accidental' kidnappings of British navy personnel.. the first thing I said after watching that on the news was 'Wow, they're turning awfuly terroritical, aren't they?'

Unfortunately, my cat lacks a voice at the moment, so she couldn't come up with a logical, witty reply
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
El Blanco is probably a spambot
Old Apr 6th, 2007, 12:40 PM       
So, what has the US provided? We advise them but is that their fighting Iran or al queda? The article makes implications, but offers no evidence.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Apr 6th, 2007, 01:44 PM       
What makes them "Our terrorists"?

Like the PLO, Jundallah claims they're fighting for self determination and the creation of an independent Baluchistan. They're banned in both Iran and Pakistan.

That article doesn't mention they're a sub-group of Al Qaeda who most likely double deal and act as our foremost provider of intelligence against the group.

I just see this article as being only partially informed, and Burbanks response as being more then a bit knee jerk as a result. Yeah it's fucked up that the US, along with the UK, Russia, and China are all tangled up with a lot of trendy dissident causes, but look at Hamas if you want to know why. I keep saying it, in the near future, assymetrical warfare will be mainly fought with assymetrical aliances that will change weekly depending on the weather. To some extent you're seeing this happening already.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
derrida derrida is offline
Member
derrida's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
derrida is probably a spambot
Old Apr 6th, 2007, 05:26 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx View Post
What makes them "Our terrorists"?

Like the PLO, Jundallah claims they're fighting for self determination and the creation of an independent Baluchistan. They're banned in both Iran and Pakistan.

That article doesn't mention they're a sub-group of Al Qaeda who most likely double deal and act as our foremost provider of intelligence against the group. I just see this article as being only partially informed, and Burbanks response as being more then a bit knee jerk as a result. Yeah it's fucked up that the US, along with the UK, Russia, and China are all tangled up with a lot of trendy dissident causes, but look at Hamas if you want to know why. I keep saying it, in the near future, assymetrical warfare will be mainly fought with assymetrical aliances that will change weekly depending on the weather. To some extent you're seeing this happening already.
So is what you're saying that the only difference between policy now and policy for the past 40 years is the frequency of the alliance shifts?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Big Papa Goat Big Papa Goat is offline
Mocker
Big Papa Goat's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Missouri
Big Papa Goat is probably a spambot
Old Apr 7th, 2007, 03:17 AM       
Would that be that surprising?
__________________
Ibid
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Apr 7th, 2007, 10:41 AM       
Y'know, honestly, I can understand the unclean feeling you guys are associating with US "alliances" with people that are less than angelic. What's the option? Max, what's your feelings on Bush's refusal to talk with Syria as long as they support terrorism? Don't relate it to this and try to get out of the question by labeling it hypocrisy and jumping into the woods to hide. Just tell me straight out whether you think that's good policy on it's face.

In war torn regions, there really are no truly "good guys." Hell, Britain is our chief ally, and they used to be our own Imperial masters. France helped us defeat them in the revolution, but then helped the South in the Civil War. We helped them both in the World Wars against Germany, and so did Russia, but Germany wound up being our friend and Russia our enemy, at least for a while. China backed our enemies in Korea and Vietnam, yet now our economy hinges on peaceful trade with them.

In each of those situations, we have allied and called enemy those that have done terrible and unspeakable things. That's life. That's war.

In the War on Terror, we don't have the option of being too picky when it comes to backing local factions. Yes, it is incumbent upon us to a degree to pick the lesser of two evils in almost every situation, but surely you guys are recommending that we declare everyone in the region our enemy and supplant them all with American leaders that have never done anything wrong? Try to find one of those, while you're noodling this out, btw...

The goal here is to leave whatever leadership exists after stability and free government is established to the locals, not to establish colonies that we are in charge of.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Apr 7th, 2007, 12:23 PM       
Preech, I think you make a great point here.

When pressured to elaborate on how they might wage a better war on terror, war critics and (mostly) Democrats argue that they would use "diplomacy" and every liberal's favorite military option, "special ops."

If we try to support any kind of armed reform group in Iran, or on the Pakistani boarder, my guess is that we will find a lot of things about these groups that we don't like (aren't the war critics the ones who say you can't force Westernized ideals on other nations? Cultural relativity, people!). Ar we giving them money, or weapons? It was my understanding that we were only "advising" Jundullah, whatever that means.

No, this isn't a pretty practice. But is it better than pulling a Wesley and bombing Tehran back 10 years from afar? I think so.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Apr 8th, 2007, 09:50 AM       
This article belongs in this thread rather then the Nancy Pelosi one. The only difference is how openly brazen these politicians (in this case a Democrat) are being.


Democrat meets banned Muslim Brotherhood
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070407/..._brotherhood_3

Quote:
By NADIA ABOU EL-MAGD, Associated Press Writer Sat Apr 7, 7:05 PM ET
CAIRO, Egypt - A top U.S. Democratic congressman met a leader of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's most powerful rival, the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, U.S. officials and the Islamist group said Saturday.

ADVERTISEMENT

Visiting House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record) met with the head of the Muslim Brotherhood's parliamentary bloc, Mohammed Saad el-Katatni, twice on Thursday — once at the parliament building and then at the home of the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, said Brotherhood spokesman Hamdi Hassan.

U.S. Embassy spokesman John Berry would only confirm that Hoyer, who represents Maryland, met with el-Katatni at U.S. Ambassador Francis Ricciardone's home at a reception with other politicians and parliament members.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has refused in the past to meet with the Muslim Brotherhood, the country's largest opposition group.

But Berry said U.S. government policy does not bar meetings with Brotherhood members of parliament and Hoyer's talks with el-Katatni were not a change in U.S. policy toward the group.

"It's our diplomatic practice around the world to meet with parliamentarians, be they members of political parties or independents," Berry said.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
derrida derrida is offline
Member
derrida's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
derrida is probably a spambot
Old Apr 9th, 2007, 04:50 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat View Post
Would that be that surprising?
Of course it wouldn't. What would be surprising is the West allying itself with a movement that is not essentially fascist.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Geggy Geggy is offline
say what now?
Geggy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Peebody
Geggy is probably a spambot
Old Apr 9th, 2007, 08:51 AM       
I predict that in 5 to 10 years this Jundallah group will "turn against" the US just like osama and saddam "turned against" the us.
__________________
enjoy now, regret later
Reply With Quote
  #12  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Apr 9th, 2007, 11:32 AM       
Geggy...focus! Your presence is needed in another thread.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Apr 9th, 2007, 12:16 PM       
The 'option' Preech, isn't so much who we associatte, as hw much bullshit we slather on it.

The cognitive dissonance created from on the one hand W's 'moral clarity' and a US policy VS. Good guys vs. Evil Doers and on the other the embrace of terrorist groups ( not to mention our own use of kindapping and torture) is bad for the national mental health.

Also, our support of seriously bad actors and groups that lean toward terrorism hasn't worked out that well for us. I hope you won't think I'm being Geggy if I remind you that Bin Laden and Sadaam Hussein were people we backed when their agression was pointed in a direction we favored.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that down the road some future president will have to deal with the pakistani organization we're strengthening now.

I agree that the article is light on speciffics. I'd like to see more investigative journalism. But certainly this doesn't strike anyone as outside the realm of things we do, does it?

So: Cognitive dissonance, ill advised, failure to learn from the past. Those would be my objections.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Apr 9th, 2007, 12:30 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geggy View Post
I predict that in 5 to 10 years this Jundallah group will "turn against" the US just like osama and saddam "turned against" the us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
If I were a betting man, I'd bet that down the road some future president will have to deal with the pakistani organization we're strengthening now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
hope you won't think I'm being Geggy...
Whoa...
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Apr 9th, 2007, 02:06 PM       
Hey, I calls as I sees 'em, and sometimes I agree with 'em.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Big Papa Goat Big Papa Goat is offline
Mocker
Big Papa Goat's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Missouri
Big Papa Goat is probably a spambot
Old Apr 10th, 2007, 05:03 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by derrida View Post
Of course it wouldn't. What would be surprising is the West allying itself with a movement that is not essentially fascist.
Indeed it would be. Well, we've got to look out for our own I guess! And by our own I of course mean our fellow facists around the globe.
__________________
Ibid
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:38 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.