Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Iranian claims about American backed Terrorists fighting the Islamists in power maybe true
It seems that both the United States and the Israelis have found a proxy group to fight the Iranian Islamists currently. This group which calls itself Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), is a very violent dissent group that has been engaging in attacking Iranian nuclear sites and murdering key scientists. Also, funding and supporting this group is a felony under US law because the State Department lists this group as a terrorist group.
Personally, we don't have to worry about the winner of the November US election declaring war on Iran because it seems the US and Israel have done so already
source:http://www.salon.com/2012/04/06/report_us_trained_terror_group/singleton/
"We fight the terrorists and we fight all of those who give them aid. America has a message for the nations of the world: If you harbour terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends."
Comments
It never stops does it?
Color me unsurprised.
I can honestly say that I'm surprised that the US military would hire someone else to commit terrorist attacks for them.
Same old, same old.
Heard of it some time ago, though without that last quote.
Thats because the last quote was said by one George Walker Bush on the 21st of November 2001
Some time being week or two.
The USA supporting and funding terrorist groups is old hat. If the government there doesn't fall directly under the definition of "supervillain" by now, it never will.
^Yeah, but at this point, I figured our military basically were terrorists, so I don't really get why they'd have to outsource.
So there's less or nothing to trace.
What, because their current reputation is so excellent?
So that'd be a good moment to bestow you with my fauxlosophical bullshit that was with me for some time. Basically, I more and more believe the idea that the 'States play the role of Rome.
Less risk of their own resources.
Right now, the USA doesn't war with Iran. Obviously, sending in actual US troops with violent intent would be a declaration. If they fund terrorists instead, though, they can claim no involvement while still having the required operations carried out.
Basically, it's already war -- merely an unofficial one.
And yes, the USA does seem more and more like Rome. If this means that it's ultimately self-defeating and likely to be attacked by antiquated tribesmen, then I'm okay with this.
I'd really prefer not to be attacked by antiquated tribesmen, no matter how much my government sucks.
Not that the deep woods of Alabama are much of a target anyway.
I figure the antiquated tribesmen are the Mexicans. They are many, they cross the river to get past the Empire's limes, they serve in large numbers in the legions, and so on.
Can't get rid of that mental image now.
Blame the Romans, I didn't name their borders.
Well they're taking their sweet time then! >
For further information, see Machete.
Were the Germanic tribes acting to destabilize the Empire? (edit: or did they just seek better place to live and it went on its own from there)
It seems that the EU de listed this organisation as a terrorist group in 2009, however it is a Marxist group claming to be "secular democrats".
Further more, it seems that Tehran offered to withdraw support for both Hamas and Hezbollah if the US withdrew support this group but Dick Chaney said no.
This is what Human Rights Watch had to say about these interesting characters:
I can honestly say that I'm surprised that the US military would hire someone else to commit terrorist attacks for them.
Heh. If you want, you can also pick up William Blum's Killing Hope, which details the actions taken by the CIA and other United States military operatives during the Cold War and beyond. Here's a list of the assassinations and attempted assassinations carried out by United States military personel in the last fifty years.
There are, of course, fundamental differences between Western powers such as the United States and terrorist groups. For example, while terrorist groups are sometimes fighting to preserve their way of life and culture, and other times fighting to exterminate other peoples, the United States uses its military power to fund further capitalist hegemony and ensure that nobody can ever fight them. In addition, terrorists are usually honest about their motives. And because of this:
What, because their current reputation is so excellent?
their motivation of preventing the United States from effectively crushing the non-oligarchical world under its heel is, at the least, understandable.
If you want to learn about more shit committed by the US, I warmly recommend this film:
You know, the sad part is that the world would probably be quite better if they succeded with a score of these assassinations.
What's even sadder is that this stealth war nonsense is preferable for PR-reasons and amount of money and lives lost, yet you have so many hawks in the governmental body clamoring for open warfare as if it is a necessity.
Three thoughts on this:-
1. On the basis of CountryPumpkin/William Blum's list, the CIA are actually not very good at assassinating people.
2. I seriously doubt that the US Government, even at the height of Cold War paranoia, would have wanted Charles de Gaulle dead. He was hostile to US influence over NATO, but he was right-wing and anti-communist. Also, all that would have happened if you'd killed de Gaulle in 1965 (a year he won re-election) would have been the election as French president of someone with similar views. There were a number of genuine plots to kill de Gaulle, but they were by people who opposed him over allowing Algerian independence.
3. As lrdgck says, the world would probably have been a better place without quite a few of those people, whatever you think of the morality of assassinations.
Eh. This happens all the time. I'm not surprised.
The CIA assassinating Omar Torrijos is the most prevalent theory, the funny thing though is that Noriega was a Rogue CIA operative that seized power. In other words, the invasion of panama with all of its unnecessary bloodshed was the US cleaning its own mess.
2. I seriously doubt that the US Government, even at the height of Cold War paranoia, would have wanted Charles de Gaulle dead.
The most likely explanation for that would be his granting Algeria independence. I agree that the evidence for that one is rather sketchy, but I don't think it would've been totally impossible for the CIA to have given the OAS covert support. They probably wouldn't have tried to kill him themselves, though.
The CIA assassinating Omar Torrijos is the most prevalent theory, the funny thing though is that Noriega was a Rogue CIA operative that seized power. In other words, the invasion of panama with all of its unnecessary bloodshed was the US cleaning its own mess.
United States involvement in Panama goes all the way back to the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt, who funded Panamanian independence rebels by giving them their first navy to break away from Colombia. The United States wanted to build the Panama Canal, but Colombia wanted at least partial sovereignty over the area. The United States wanted full sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone, so they funded the rebels to break away from Colombia. And to prove that this spirit of overturning civil rule was preserved in the family, Theodore Roosevelt's grandson, Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., spearheaded Operation Ajax, which deposed the democratically elected president of Iran in favor of a pro-Western shah. This is one of the major reasons as to why the United States is so hated in the Middle East, and is absolutely the reason Iran is one of the United States' major enemies.