Our terrorists

[mburbank]

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.

[arg_zombies]

... 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

[El Blanco]

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.

[Abcdxxxx]

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.

[derrida]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

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?

[Big Papa Goat]

Would that be that surprising?

[Preechr]

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.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

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.

[Abcdxxxx]

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

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.

[derrida]

Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat

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.

[Geggy]

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.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Geggy...focus! Your presence is needed in another thread.

[mburbank]

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.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by Geggy

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.

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.

Originally Posted by mburbank

hope you won't think I'm being Geggy...

Whoa...

[mburbank]

Hey, I calls as I sees 'em, and sometimes I agree with 'em.

[Abcdxxxx]

Why is Burbank still calling them a Pakistani organization?

[mburbank]

Who are you asking?

That's how ABC identified them. Not abcdxxxxx, ABC news. A Pakastani Tribal group.

[Abcdxxxx]

oh now the mainstream media in an unimpeachable source?

i've explained to you who this organization is.... like always, i encourage you to not just take my word for it, but to follow up and do the research yourself...

...but instead you just keep repeating the same lazy shit like the difference doesn't matter. THEY ARE A BALUCHI ORGANIZATION based out of Iran AND Pakistan.

I guess it's your turn to Geggy it up around here.

[mburbank]

Oh, so now you're an unimpeachable source?

You've 'explained it to me', so I have to value your take over ABC news? See, I just thought you'd made statements.

Listen, It's not that I hold television news in such high esteem. It's that I think your analysis of events is plagued by tunnel vision. In addition, If I felt moved enough to delve into ABC's website, I might even find descriptions of staff, previsious work and methodology that could lend a little credence to their reporting. Admittedly, only a little, but since you at every opportunity have refused to pony up even a shred of info on what gives you your near God like infallability, for now I'll take the ABC everybody knows over the abc known for posting at I-mockery.

Forgive me. It's probably my blind, knee jerk hatred of you and not the fact that you're not an actual news outlet, but just some annonymous guy with a hard on for typing.

Not that this means the ABC that people sometimes pay attention to is right and the abc poised lovingly over the reflecting pool isn't right. That could well be. I'm just not inclined to see you as a 'source'. Maybe if you were less shy about whatever professorial chairs you hold and all. Until then, I 'encourage' you to site, or quote sources.

I'm not sure how the fact that they are a sub group of Al-Quaeda or that they are banned by Pakistan and Iraq impacts the article, or my point, which is that we are happy to work with 'evil doers' as long as the 'evil' they are 'doing' coincides with our interests. Somehow I missed the relevance of your 'explanation'.


Now you type "Whatever", add some poorly concieved insult and insist as always that someone needs to 'look up' what you tell them to and that when they do they will automatically come to the same conclusions you did, because people hold opinions, but Pope abc reveals The Word.

[Abcdxxxx]

or you could just do the research yourself?

[Preechr]

Yes, Max, fetch.

[Geggy]

Originally Posted by mburbank

So: Cognitive dissonance, ill advised, failure to learn from the past. Those would be my objections.

How many more times would the US have to continue to support the terrorists to fight for their interest before anyone start to realize its doesn't lead to failure but a deliberate effort to expand the global war on terror that "would not end in our lifetime" so says cheney? Nobody makes the same mistake twice, thrice or how ever many times they've done so in the past.

I think the fact the US may be currently supporting foreign terrorists is too much for the americans to complement but "whatever".

[mburbank]

Alright, abc, I'll tell you what. How familiar are you with the Nixon administration, most speciffically the secret war in Cambodia? I think it has a great deal of bearing, as many of our foreign policy decision makers cut their teeth their and I think made a very ugly mess. I think you'd find the book "Sideshow" by William Shawcross enlightening and it might really inform your thought process on proxy wars and the way the current administration is gearing up to use them. Once you've read it (and I'd suggest reading a few books of the bibliography as well) and can demonstrate you underatand Shawcross's main thesis and can argue we are either doing the same thing again or are not, I think you need to concider that I've 'explained' it to you and simply take everything I have to say about the matter as given.

When you've done that, I might feel motivated to cut into the time I take reading sources I find enlightening and start reading ones you find enlightening instead. I will understand if you don't want to give up your reading list for mine, because it's kind of an absurd request. But that's the big difference between you and I. You have the meglomaniacal emotional develpement of a three year old or a Donald Rumsfled, and you literally incapable of imagining a viewpoint that doesn't originate inside your own head.

I know, I know, you think your relevant. Do me a favor and at very least look up what at very least Rumsfeld and Cheney were doing and thinking during the Nixon administration, and see if you don't find any useful information. But that's just for you to thnk about. I can't see your thoughts on the matter coming up to par with my 'explanation' of it until you've finished "Sideshow".

[Abcdxxxx]

you posted a flawed article which misslabled the organization it was reporting on.

i made the correction, and suggested you research the matter.
Instead of doing that, you went on some diatribe about your distrust for me, and tried to write off the relevance of how we identify this dissident group. I again, suggested you do the research rather then take my word for it.

What's your response? "Read a book about the Nixon administration."

Max, there is no discussion unless you can figure out the importance of differentiation between a Persian, a Baluchi, or a Pakistani. If that sounds like an inconvenience to you, then you really are aiming to win the Geggy of the year award.

[mburbank]

I would say the main point that interests me is not their national origin, per se, but their methedology and our willingness to overlook it if they serve our needs.

There in lies the relevance to the Nixon administration, which I 'explained' to you, so I don't understand why you haven't cknowledged it yet.

You want to see ethnic origin as trumping kidnapping, murder, and our use of it in importance. It is of course your right to discount the entire article based on what you feel is a missues of the word Pakistani in referring to a group many of whose members were born in and are located in Pakistan. While I understand the merit of your speciffic point, I disagree with your miopic focus on it.

Alphaboy, ( and I'd call you by your name, but like everything else about you, you don't share it)there is no discussion unless you can figure out that since the administration doesn't care about their ethnic origin, only that they can be useful as a delivery system for violence, it's really no where near as important to this particular discussion as is our relationship with them . If that sounds like an inconvenience to you, then you really are aiming to win the Alphaboy award of the year award.

You seriously can't accept that people outside your head might be drawn to other things than what you immediately think of first, can you? And you really can't see how my demanding you read stuff I've read in the belief that you'd then think as I do isn't a serious demand, it's pointing out why you are insufferable and why 'arguing' with you is beyond pointless?

Why debate with someone who honestly believes he has direct access to truth and has never shown the capacity for doubt? I'd much rather poke you. It would only be a waste of time if I was waiting for you to get it, but I know you can't.

I've 'explained' it to you. That makes it true. It's frustrating that you are still arguing after it's been 'explained'. There is no discussion until you agree that I'm right and you are wrong. Once you hold only my opinions, then we can talk.