Skip Navigation


Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Author
Thread New Thread / Reply to Thread
the wierdo
i before e, except after...wtf?
TeamWarfare Vet
04-12-2012 12:03 AM / profile

http://harpers.org/archive/2012/04/hbc-90008551

Just how serious is Washington about battling terrorism? The airwaves fill regularly with sanctimonious declamations about terrorist threats and with vows to pursue the war against them to its ultimate conclusion—a war without territorial limits, and with ill-defined opponents and no clear time horizon. A forever war. But to insiders, it is evidently a laughing matter. Developments the past week suggest that for some prominent Washington figures, rubbing elbows with a scheduled terrorist organization and taking money from its front groups is a no-brainer. It may be that they know something most of us don’t about the intelligence community’s dealings with these terrorists.

The State Department scheduled the Mujahideen-e Khalq, or People’s Mujahideen of Iran (MEK) as a terrorist organization in 1997. Regularly described as a cult, the group mixes Shia Islam, Marxism, and rituals venerating its charismatic leaders. While these leaders claim to have renounced terrorist violence, they have a history of advocating violence to accomplish religious and political objectives. The MEK earned its place on the State Department’s list based largely on an assassination campaign that targeted American military personnel in Iran in the mid-Seventies. Three military officers and three defense contractors were murdered in MEK-linked attacks: Lieutenant Colonel Louis Lee Hawkins (USA), Colonel Paul Shaffer (USAF) and Lieutenant Colonel Jack Turner (USAF), as well as William Cottrell, Donald Smith, and Robert Krongard, who were in Iran working with Rockwell International on the NSA’s Ibex System.

It is unlawful to accept funds from the MEK or to support the group materially, yet its supporters managed to stage a conference in Washington this past week. Among those appearing were Mitchell Reiss, a senior adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and former attorney general Michael Mukasey. Both Reiss and Mukasey openly joked that they were potentially committing a criminal offense by aiding a scheduled terrorist group.

Why would Washington political figures publicly associate themselves with a terrorist organization? It might be because they know that the United States itself shelters, arms, trains, and supports the same group—and that prosecutors would therefore face a quandary in going after them. The covert relationship between the MEK and the U.S. military and intelligence communities has not been very covert. The official U.S. account is that following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the MEK was disarmed and confined to a former Iraqi military base, Camp Ashraf.

American intelligence figures familiar with the arrangement paint a different picture, noting that U.S. forces housed, armed and protected the MEK in Iraq. After the American withdrawal, Iraqi forces raided Camp Ashraf. American officials scrambled to find new lodgings for the MEK, ultimately placing them at the U.S.-maintained Camp Liberty, near Baghdad Airport. American officials are now said to be arranging the relocation of MEK forces to a new facility constructed for them in Kurdish northern Iraq, close to the Iranian border.

*more*
Coba|t
TeamWarfare Vet
04-12-2012 12:15 AM / profile

Good read, working through the article now that I finished everything in quotes...
the wierdo
i before e, except after...wtf?
TeamWarfare Vet
04-12-2012 12:16 AM / profile

Specifically, he backs an Islamic Marxist terrorist organization that has assassinated American military officers and contractors. I wonder what would be said if Barack Obama's advisors had similar ties.

Although the Mitt Romney thing I don't care that much about. I posted because one article like this does more for your knowledge than a decade of cable news. You actually get a glimpse into how things work instead of the endless partisan nonsense.

Glad you're enjoying it.
Post edited by the wierdo at 4/12/2012 12:22:01 AM
Coba|t
TeamWarfare Vet
04-12-2012 12:22 AM / profile


Hersh notes that the Obama Administration halted the MEK training programs. Since Obama’s team came to office, however, the organization has ramped up its efforts to move the president’s policies back into line with George W. Bush’s. This explains the aggressive outreach, including generous speaking fees and trips abroad, to political figures in both parties. The MEK plainly wants to align itself with the United States in a coming war against Iran, by establishing itself as a source of intelligence and perhaps as an instrument of black operations.

Indeed, with the United States waging a covert war against Iran, the MEK may already be in the thick of things. NBC News recently reported that the MEK is collaborating in a carefully orchestrated and remarkably effective Israel- run campaign to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists. Former CIA senior analyst Paul Pillar recently wrote a blog post indicating that he considers the report credible. He notes, moreover, that the assassination campaign can be considered classic terrorism, applying the definition used by the U.S. government.


Secretary of State Clinton was speaking out strongly against any links between the US government and the attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists, claiming to have absolutely no involvement. If this articles point about distancing ourselves from this group is true it would support the claims of the article that the administration has indeed avoided using terrorist groups as a tool for foreign policy. If not, it could be damaging to the administrations credibility.
Post edited by Coba|t at 4/12/2012 12:23:57 AM
the wierdo
i before e, except after...wtf?
TeamWarfare Vet
04-12-2012 12:54 AM / profile

They are an organization declining in size and influence compared to the past and looking to align themselves with the west (U.S., Israel, E.U.) by leaving behind their militaristic past, except for when militaristic actions are in line with our desires, and then they seem to have no problem jumping back into assassination sprees. If we accept their help, then we are stepping into the shoes of Saddam Hussein, the previous main backer of their war to overthrow Iran.

http://www.cfr.org/iran/mujahadeen-e-khalq-mek-aka-peoples-mujahedin-iran-pmoi/p9158
During the Iraq war, U.S. forces cracked down on the MEK. About 3,400 people were disarmed at Camp Ashraf, surrendering two thousand tanks, armored personnel carriers, and heavy artillery pieces, according to the 2006 report. Those living at Camp Ashraf are designated as “protected persons” under Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which prevents extradition or forced repatriation to Iran as long as the United States maintains a presence in Iraq. The Unites States has no plans to charge and prosecute people living in this camp. The “protected persons” designation applies solely to those living at Camp Ashraf, not other members of the group, nor does it affect the MEK’s listing on the State Department terrorist list.


Notice the number of tanks. I think it's probably true that the U.S. has shifted away from that style of fighting through unreliable proxies. But sometimes, if you know Israel is just going to pick up the slack, and assassinate nuclear scientists themselves, it's not an incredibly bold shift. I still support that general drift, even though it's not seismic.

The New Yorker article looks good too. But I haven't read it. Really, there's an endless amount of reading. Their main source of funding is a network of Iranian expatriates in Los Angeles and Washington D.C., but that started to dry up when they were designated a terrorist organization. I don't know. I could keep going.
the wierdo
i before e, except after...wtf?
TeamWarfare Vet
04-12-2012 12:59 AM / profile

National security is almost impossible for me to research. It's endlessly complex. I do more out of personal curiosity than Fox News or MSNBC will cover in a year of professional coverage, but I have no illusions that there is always another set of documents that I just don't have the time or will to read.

Still, there's a nice sense of reality when you do dive into it.
Cocytus
TeamWarfare Vet
04-12-2012 01:58 AM / profile

It's interesting how "you people" can be so observant and discuss things intelligently, yet completely fail in the same regard toward our current President.

BTW - Romney is exactly the same as Obama, so rubber glue.
Stryk
TeamWarfare Vet
04-12-2012 05:54 AM / profile

Because a dinner holds a candle to this

Triumphant Tuareg rebels fall out over al-Qaeda's jihad in Mali

As one group of rebels proudly proclaimed the independent state of Azawad in the "liberated" north of Mali last week, their allies were preparing for jihad by cutting off the hand of a "criminal" and forcing women to wear the veil.

The rebels, armed with weapons stolen from Muammar Gaddafi’s formidable arsenal, took over an area of the Sahara as big as France in an astonishing 72 hours, taking advantage of the chaotic aftermath of an army coup.

Few of the people they promised to free waited to find out what freedom would be like. Instead, an estimated 250,000 people left their homes, terrified families fleeing with their children and possessions. Many told tales of looting and rape by rebels who now control a vast area in the heart of Africa.

Foreign governments were left scrambling to find out exactly who the rebels were, amid fears that a base for al-Qaeda will now be set up in the Sahara similar to ones in lawless parts of Pakistan and Somalia.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/mali/9191760/Triumphant-Tuareg-rebels-fall-out-over-al-Qaedas-jihad-in-Mali.html

net result of removing Gaddafi and helping the 'rebels', Islamists take over a formerly secular African Country and create the possiblity for an Al Queda safe haven.
the wierdo
i before e, except after...wtf?
TeamWarfare Vet
04-12-2012 12:18 PM / profile

Thanks Cocy

Stryk, we'll see what happens with that.
RedBeards
Competition Manager
NA Game Operations
Battlefield Series

04-12-2012 05:26 PM / profile

The relationship between groups like these and nations is infinitely complex.

The same people we armed in Libya were also shooting at American troops only a few years ago in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Look at the Taliban and Pakistan. Pakistan is the reason they were able to gain power in the mid 1990's, and then supposedly Pakistan has spent the last ten years trying to fight them. That stuff isn't unusual by any means.
Nathan Bedford Forrest
TeamWarfare Vet
04-12-2012 06:02 PM / profile

Originally posted by: Allen
The same people we armed in Libya were also shooting at American troops only a few years ago in Iraq and Afghanistan.


And we armed them before Iraq and Afghanistan too.

_________________
See through the propaganda. Stop empowering and enriching the state by cheering its wars. Set aside the television talking points. Look at the world anew, without the prejudices of the past, and without favoring your own government’s version of things. Be decent. Be human. Do not be deceived by the Joe Bidens, the John McCains, the Barack Obamas and Hillary Clintons. Reject the biggest government program of them all. Peace builds. War destroys.
-Lew Rockwell
Stryk
TeamWarfare Vet
04-13-2012 06:18 AM / profile

Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest
Originally posted by: Allen
The same people we armed in Libya were also shooting at American troops only a few years ago in Iraq and Afghanistan.


And we armed them before Iraq and Afghanistan too.
Because stopping the Soviets from seizing 2/3's of the world's oil supply seemed like a good idea at the time. And it was.
RomneyBot
TeamWarfare Vet
04-13-2012 09:26 AM / profile

At this point in time how do you you liberals discuss anything intelligently with obamas dick in your mouths?

I swear to god wierdo and cobalt are going to eiffel tower the president tonight. To post this thread yet be completely indifferent on obamas associations is down right pathetic.

~~Snake~~
On a 2 week vacation
04-13-2012 09:31 AM / profile

Originally posted by: Stryk
Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest
Originally posted by: Allen
The same people we armed in Libya were also shooting at American troops only a few years ago in Iraq and Afghanistan.


And we armed them before Iraq and Afghanistan too.
Because stopping the Soviets from seizing 2/3's of the world's oil supply seemed like a good idea at the time. And it was.
These kids don't grasp the gravity of that Styrk. Some idiot teacher said the US was bad and they bought into it.


_______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"
RomneyBot
TeamWarfare Vet
04-13-2012 09:34 AM / profile

Originally posted by: the wierdo
Specifically, he backs an Islamic Marxist terrorist organization that has assassinated American military officers and contractors. I wonder what would be said if Barack Obama's advisors had similar ties.

Glad you're enjoying it.


Van Jones...Apollo alliance...Jeff Jones...weather underground.

You post with an intelligent style but somehow I find you to just be fucking stupid.
samUwell
TeamWarfare Vet
TWL Contributor
04-13-2012 09:47 AM / profile

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: Stryk
Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest
Originally posted by: Allen
The same people we armed in Libya were also shooting at American troops only a few years ago in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And we armed them before Iraq and Afghanistan too.
Because stopping the Soviets from seizing 2/3's of the world's oil supply seemed like a good idea at the time. And it was.
These kids don't grasp the gravity of that Styrk. Some idiot teacher said the US was bad and they bought into it.
actually, from what i remember reading, Russia was more interested in acquiring a southern port because they dont have one.

most land mass of any nation yet they had shit for ports. this started in the 1800's in what was called, The Great Game and when the British lost out to being the most powerful nation on earth, and the US stepped up to replace it due to progressive politicians, we continued to play The Great Game against them.
Nathan Bedford Forrest
TeamWarfare Vet
04-13-2012 09:54 AM / profile

Originally posted by: samUwell
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: Stryk
Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest
Originally posted by: Allen
The same people we armed in Libya were also shooting at American troops only a few years ago in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And we armed them before Iraq and Afghanistan too.
Because stopping the Soviets from seizing 2/3's of the world's oil supply seemed like a good idea at the time. And it was.
These kids don't grasp the gravity of that Styrk. Some idiot teacher said the US was bad and they bought into it.
actually, from what i remember reading, Russia was more interested in acquiring a southern port because they dont have one.

most land mass of any nation yet they had shit for ports. this started in the 1800's in what was called, The Great Game and when the British lost out to being the most powerful nation on earth, and the US stepped up to replace it due to progressive politicians, we continued to play The Great Game against them.


This.

_________________
See through the propaganda. Stop empowering and enriching the state by cheering its wars. Set aside the television talking points. Look at the world anew, without the prejudices of the past, and without favoring your own government’s version of things. Be decent. Be human. Do not be deceived by the Joe Bidens, the John McCains, the Barack Obamas and Hillary Clintons. Reject the biggest government program of them all. Peace builds. War destroys.
-Lew Rockwell
Coba|t
TeamWarfare Vet
04-13-2012 12:28 PM / profile

Originally posted by: samUwell
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: Stryk
Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest
Originally posted by: Allen
The same people we armed in Libya were also shooting at American troops only a few years ago in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And we armed them before Iraq and Afghanistan too.
Because stopping the Soviets from seizing 2/3's of the world's oil supply seemed like a good idea at the time. And it was.
These kids don't grasp the gravity of that Styrk. Some idiot teacher said the US was bad and they bought into it.
actually, from what i remember reading, Russia was more interested in acquiring a southern port because they dont have one.

most land mass of any nation yet they had shit for ports. this started in the 1800's in what was called, The Great Game and when the British lost out to being the most powerful nation on earth, and the US stepped up to replace it due to progressive politicians, we continued to play The Great Game against them.


lawl, there's always vladivostok
Mockery
TeamWarfare Vet
04-13-2012 04:42 PM / profile

Originally posted by: Stryk
Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest
Originally posted by: Allen
The same people we armed in Libya were also shooting at American troops only a few years ago in Iraq and Afghanistan.


And we armed them before Iraq and Afghanistan too.
Because stopping the Soviets from seizing 2/3's of the world's oil supply seemed like a good idea at the time. And it was.


And it might have been........

But going to war with Afghanistan, which took them decades and bankrupted the USSR, seemed like a good idea at the time too.......and it wasn't.

Because it is doing the same thing to us that it did to the USSR.

Those who don't learn from history, learn from prior mistakes, are doomed to repeat them.

Mockery
TeamWarfare Vet
04-13-2012 04:45 PM / profile

Originally posted by: samUwell
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: Stryk
Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest
Originally posted by: Allen
The same people we armed in Libya were also shooting at American troops only a few years ago in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And we armed them before Iraq and Afghanistan too.
Because stopping the Soviets from seizing 2/3's of the world's oil supply seemed like a good idea at the time. And it was.
These kids don't grasp the gravity of that Styrk. Some idiot teacher said the US was bad and they bought into it.
actually, from what i remember reading, Russia was more interested in acquiring a southern port because they dont have one.

most land mass of any nation yet they had shit for ports. this started in the 1800's in what was called, The Great Game and when the British lost out to being the most powerful nation on earth, and the US stepped up to replace it due to progressive politicians, we continued to play The Great Game against them.


Also exactly what caused the Russo-Japanese War of 1904........
Mockery
TeamWarfare Vet
04-13-2012 04:49 PM / profile

Originally posted by: Coba|t
Originally posted by: samUwell
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: Stryk
Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest
Originally posted by: Allen
The same people we armed in Libya were also shooting at American troops only a few years ago in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And we armed them before Iraq and Afghanistan too.
Because stopping the Soviets from seizing 2/3's of the world's oil supply seemed like a good idea at the time. And it was.
These kids don't grasp the gravity of that Styrk. Some idiot teacher said the US was bad and they bought into it.
actually, from what i remember reading, Russia was more interested in acquiring a southern port because they dont have one.

most land mass of any nation yet they had shit for ports. this started in the 1800's in what was called, The Great Game and when the British lost out to being the most powerful nation on earth, and the US stepped up to replace it due to progressive politicians, we continued to play The Great Game against them.


lawl, there's always vladivostok


Ice free winter ports kind of help.......

Average temperature in January: −12.3 °C (9.9 °F)



They sure could go for some of that global warming we hear you talk so much about.
New Thread / Reply to Thread
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

advertisement



TWL® NA Time: 4/17/2014 8:24:00 PM
TWL® EU Time: 4/18/2014 2:24:00 AM

All content © TeamWarfare.com 2000-2014
TeamWarfare League™
Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions