U.S. Funds Attacks in Iran

[jdobbin]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/0...ews_exclus.html

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.

I wonder how this will affect negotiations for the British sailors.

[Figleaf]

All in the name of the New American Century, right?

[jdobbin]

All in the name of the New American Century, right?

The U.S. is a sponsor of international terrorism. It certainly should be a bitter taste to some in the U.S.

[BubberMiley]

The U.S. is a sponsor of international terrorism. It certainly should be a bitter taste to some in the U.S.

It's amazing the moral acrobatics the muslims-are-all-evil-terrorists crowd will go through to try and make U.S. terrorist actions appear justifiable by comparison. Personally, I think killing innocent people is bad when either side does it, and the ends never justify such means.

[DogOnPorch]

This group is known as Jundullah and has apparent past ties to Al-Qaeda. It should be said though that these fellows would be raiding Iran with or without encouragement from American sources...in this case apparently routed through American-Iranian associations.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundallah

The Iranian government has accused the United States of supporting the Sunni group as a destabilizing element against Ahmadinejad's regime. The Jundallah deny any link with the United States, which contradicts new information revealed by ABC News in April 2007.

Smells like Central America...

------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought using the Ayatollah's money to support the Nicaraguan resistance was a neat idea.

---Lt Col. Oliver North

[myata]

Every time, it's the same old adage again: "quod licet Jovi non licet bovi".

We're liberators when we come for you, but you're a terrorist when you attack us (or resist us, even in your own land).

[BC_chick]

Something seems to be missing on this thread.

Oh yeah, counter-arguments!

LOL

[BubberMiley]

Bush-defenders are nearly extinct.

[bush_cheney2004]

President Bush's job approval ratings hover at around 33%.....about the same as support for Grits or Tories in Canada! But Bush's 33% is for a nation of 300 million people.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

[jdobbin]

Bush-defenders are nearly extinct.

Well, there is one. But he is hiding in Canada to avoid going to Iraq.

[moderateamericain]

Bush-defenders are nearly extinct.

Well, there is one. But he is hiding in Canada to avoid going to Iraq.

I wonder who in the CIA, NSA or any other Acronym agency thought this was a good idea. Not exactly helpful to our cause of Liberators

[M.Dancer]

Bush-defenders are nearly extinct.

Well, there is one. But he is hiding in Canada to avoid going to Iraq.

I wonder who in the CIA, NSA or any other Acronym agency thought this was a good idea. Not exactly helpful to our cause of Liberators

Unless of course you are a baluchstani living under the fist of the ayatollahs

[moderateamericain]

Bush-defenders are nearly extinct.

Well, there is one. But he is hiding in Canada to avoid going to Iraq.

I wonder who in the CIA, NSA or any other Acronym agency thought this was a good idea. Not exactly helpful to our cause of Liberators

Unless of course you are a baluchstani living under the fist of the ayatollahs

But here in lies the skinny, why descend to that level? We (civilized Nations) should be better than that.

[Guthrie]

civilized politicians should know better than to say while shopping in a Bagdad market with 4 helicopters, 200 armed guards and a bullet-proof vest, "Things are better and there are encouraging signs."

[geoffrey]

Should we not be trying to stimulate regime chance in Iran? I keep hearing from leftist types that Iran has a massive educated population dying for democracy, and we shouldn't invade for this reason.

A few attacks against the Iranian government must just get them off their couches and into the streets to end their oppression?

Who knows?

The details of this 'terror sponsorship' type arrangement isn't clear. The Liberal Party of Canada was associated with an international terrorist organization in the Tamil Tigers for quite some time, money exchanging hands (Martin even speaking at their fundraisers). We don't know all the details, so we're willing to let it slide a little.

I'd like to hear more on this one before I'm more critical. We all seem so up in arms that the US is sponsoring a terrorist group attacking political targets in a brutual theocracy. On this forum I don't see many of this crowd expressing the same concern about their former Liberal leader activity promoting and fundraising for a terrorist group that employs child soliders in their quest to slaughter massive amounts of civilians.

I happen to be someone equally concerned about both. Ideally, I see that Iranians likely have the power to change from within, so let's leave them to their own devices, as long as they don't keep pulling stunts like nuclear development and kidnapping in Iraqi waters.

[jdobbin]

Should we not be trying to stimulate regime chance in Iran? I keep hearing from leftist types that Iran has a massive educated population dying for democracy, and we shouldn't invade for this reason.

A few attacks against the Iranian government must just get them off their couches and into the streets to end their oppression?

Who knows?

The details of this 'terror sponsorship' type arrangement isn't clear. The Liberal Party of Canada was associated with an international terrorist organization in the Tamil Tigers for quite some time, money exchanging hands (Martin even speaking at their fundraisers). We don't know all the details, so we're willing to let it slide a little.

The Tories had a Tamil running in this last election who was supportive of the Tamil organizations that were eventually listed as terrorist organizations. Does that link Harper directly to Tamil terrorism?

As far as looking to make regime change in Iran, the U.S. government has shown a propensity to back the wrong horse and undermine the right horses.

If Rightists continue to think every country should be invaded, we're going to see a lot more Iraqs.

[myata]

No we should not "stimulate" regime change anywhere most of all because we have no way of knowing that it won't turn worse than it was (i.e. e.g in an all out war, dictatorial marionette regime a la Shah or like), but also maybe because we've spent so much time perching in a high place and beating our chests as chief champions of peace and moral justice.

And if we do "stimulate" such changes we should be honest and prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of our actions.

[Guthrie]

No we should not "stimulate" regime change anywhere most of all because we have no way of knowing that it won't turn worse than it was (i.e. e.g in an all out war, dictatorial marionette regime a la Shah or like), but also maybe because we've spent so much time perching in a high place and beating our chests as chief champions of peace and moral justice.

And if we do "stimulate" such changes we should be honest and prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of our actions.

like in Iraq?

[moderateamericain]

No we should not "stimulate" regime change anywhere most of all because we have no way of knowing that it won't turn worse than it was (i.e. e.g in an all out war, dictatorial marionette regime a la Shah or like), but also maybe because we've spent so much time perching in a high place and beating our chests as chief champions of peace and moral justice.

And if we do "stimulate" such changes we should be honest and prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of our actions.

like in Iraq?

I believe the best way to ought a dictatorship of any stroke. Be it an oppressive communist Regime or a religious nut is to create a successful economy. As soon as the citizens of a country realize they can make a great standard of living if they move this nut out of the way, the sooner it happens. China is a great example, I would guess that in then next 40 years (I know thats a large time frame) A form of Democracy will come to China. Communism cannot survive this economic boom. When people realize, as a whole, that they can make a better society for their children no ideology in the world can stand up against that.

[M.Dancer]

All in the name of the New American Century, right?

The U.S. is a sponsor of international terrorism. It certainly should be a bitter taste to some in the U.S.

...aside that's there is no indictation in the article that there has been any acts of terrorism......

....oh so close!

[myata]

I believe the best way to ought a dictatorship of any stroke. Be it an oppressive communist Regime or a religious nut is to create a successful economy. As soon as the citizens of a country realize they can make a great standard of living if they move this nut out of the way, the sooner it happens. China is a great example, I would guess that in then next 40 years (I know thats a large time frame) A form of Democracy will come to China. Communism cannot survive this economic boom. When people realize, as a whole, that they can make a better society for their children no ideology in the world can stand up against that.

To that I subscribe completely. People themselves should make this choices and work to make it happen. To think that it can somehow be "given" or imposed from outside, is the same kind of lunacy as the communism itself.

[jdobbin]

...aside that's there is no indictation in the article that there has been any acts of terrorism......

....oh so close!

Guerrillas killing Iranian soldiers is not terrorism?

That's in the article.

[geoffrey]

The Tories had a Tamil running in this last election who was supportive of the Tamil organizations that were eventually listed as terrorist organizations. Does that link Harper directly to Tamil terrorism?

When Harper speaks at a Tamil Tiger fundraiser, then yes, I'd be concerned. Fortunately, the last PM that allowed political expediency at the cost of child soliders and terrorism is no longer the PM. I hope the same would come of Harper if he ever sunk that low.

As far as looking to make regime change in Iran, the U.S. government has shown a propensity to back the wrong horse and undermine the right horses.

I disagree. The US has picked the right man a few times. In Central America, only a socialist would see more good in the leaders the US puppets were up against.

If Rightists continue to think every country should be invaded, we're going to see a lot more Iraqs.

Meh. There's better ways of doing things. One thing we shouldn't do though is needlessly let people be oppressed and killed. Fortunatley, I side on the intervention in most humanitarian things, so I don't feel like I'm too large a hypocrit. Those that say we should intervene in Sudan, but not in Iraq, or in Rwanda but not in Yugoslavia make no sense.

Should we have invaded Germany at the first sign of human rights abuses against the Jews? Absolutely.

[jdobbin]

When Harper speaks at a Tamil Tiger fundraiser, then yes, I'd be concerned. Fortunately, the last PM that allowed political expediency at the cost of child soliders and terrorism is no longer the PM. I hope the same would come of Harper if he ever sunk that low.

I disagree. The US has picked the right man a few times. In Central America, only a socialist would see more good in the leaders the US puppets were up against.

Meh. There's better ways of doing things. One thing we shouldn't do though is needlessly let people be oppressed and killed. Fortunatley, I side on the intervention in most humanitarian things, so I don't feel like I'm too large a hypocrit. Those that say we should intervene in Sudan, but not in Iraq, or in Rwanda but not in Yugoslavia make no sense.

Should we have invaded Germany at the first sign of human rights abuses against the Jews? Absolutely.

Harper recruited a Tamil who supported the Tamil Tiger organizations. Somehow this is different? We're not talking ancient history. We're talking the last election.

As far as bonehead plays for backing the wrong horse, the U.S. has done it for quite a few decades and not just in Central and South America.

As far as supporting intervention, I think I can honestly say that we can't be everywhere all the time. It helps to be in a place for the right reasons. It also helps to have an exit strategy.

Perhaps we should invade Quebec for the bomb they had go off by the Jewish Center today.

[M.Dancer]

...aside that's there is no indictation in the article that there has been any acts of terrorism......

....oh so close!

Guerrillas killing Iranian soldiers is not terrorism?

That's in the article.

Yes exactly, guerillas killing soldiers is not terrorism. That's called a guerilla conflict (war, insurgency etc etc etc)

Terrorists, planting bombs in commuter train stations...that's terrorism.

Get back to me if the situation changes....