Our terrorists

[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.

[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".

[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.

[Big Papa Goat]

Originally Posted by derrida

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.