[goMac]

The U.S. is assisting Mujahedeen-e-Khalq in Iraq. Mujahedeen-e-Khalq is classified as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department, and therefore no U.S. citizen is allowed to assist them. The best part is that Iraq doesn't even want them there. The Iraqi government is demanding this group leave.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...sts/index.html

I'd like our conservative friends to explain to me why the Republicans get their panties in a wad when Pelosi talks to Syria, yet they have no problem tasking the U.S. army with protecting this terrorist group.

[Sky Captain]

It pisses off Iran.
It's a good thing.

[OldManMac]

It's politically expedient. It's "do as I say, not as I do" politics. Our government supports non-democratic governments in other parts of the world, when it's politicially or economically expedient, such as Azerbaijan, so why wouldn't they do it in Iraq? It's just not well known to the average American, because they don't really care where their oil comes from, and who dies to get it to them.

[Warren Pease]

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace. We know that oppressive governments support terror, while free governments fight the terrorists in their midst. We know that free peoples embrace progress and life, instead of becoming the recruits for murderous ideologies.

Originally Posted by KarlG 

It's politically expedient. It's "do as I say, not as I do" politics. Our government supports non-democratic governments in other parts of the world, when it's politicially or economically expedient, such as Azerbaijan, so why wouldn't they do it in Iraq? It's just not well known to the average American, because they don't really care where their oil comes from, and who dies to get it to them.

Sadly, I'm quoting this for truth.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Yeah sure, but lets give the same dysfunctional nitwits a direct pipeline into our wallets and make them the rationers (and deniers) of our personal healthcare and weath.

If it isn't obvious by now that it's IMPOSSIBLE, literally IMPOSSIBLE to do ANYTHING in the Middle East without dealing in some way with someone who is/was/will be a terrorist group, then you simply haven't been paying attention. One is either allied with one side that can in some way be called a terrorist group, or another, OR you simply can't deal with ANYONE in the Middle East.

There's doesn't seem to be any way past that fact, because far too many people anf groups in the Middle East consider terrorism a legitimate tactic to resort to.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

It pisses off Iran.
It's a good thing.

Apparently you've forgotten where Al Quada came from.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Yeah sure, but lets give the same dysfunctional nitwits a direct pipeline into our wallets and make them the rationers (and deniers) of our personal healthcare and weath.

If it isn't obvious by now that it's IMPOSSIBLE, literally IMPOSSIBLE to do ANYTHING in the Middle East without dealing in some way with someone who is/was/will be a terrorist group, then you simply haven't been paying attention. One is either allied with one side that can in some way be called a terrorist group, or another, OR you simply can't deal with ANYONE in the Middle East.

There's doesn't seem to be any way past that fact, because far too many people anf groups in the Middle East consider terrorism a legitimate tactic to resort to.

"OR you simply can't deal with ANYONE in the Middle East."

I'd like to suggest we follow option C and do everything in our power to minimize our need for involvement in the Middle East. While we probably can't ever eliminate our need for Middle East oil I think we could get to the point where we can tell the Saudis to bugger off. In a couple more decades (probably centuries in some cases) the peoples of these countries will rise up and over-throw their dictatorial theocratic rulers. But until they do, we should leave them all to fester in their own primitive ways.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

But until they do, we should leave them all to fester in their own primitive ways.

And hopefully, they'll leave you to fester in yours.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

It pisses off Iran.
It's a good thing.

The same "good thing" when Osama "pissed off" the Sowjets??? Huh?
Some of you guys will never learn.

PB.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

It pisses off Iran.
It's a good thing.

Translation:
"Terrorism is O.K. "

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by goMac 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...sts/index.html

I'd like our conservative friends to explain to me why the Republicans get their panties in a wad when Pelosi talks to Syria, yet they have no problem tasking the U.S. army with protecting this terrorist group.

Why don't you read the article you posted? Your answers are in there...

The U.S. considers the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or MEK, a source of valuable intelligence on Iran.

The group also is credited with helping expose Iran's secret nuclear program through spying on Tehran for decades.

Coalition forces regard MEK as protected people under the Geneva Conventions.

The group also enjoys the protection of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The State Department said Friday the Geneva Conventions protections apply only to MEK residents of Camp Ashraf, and the organization as a whole and its members elsewhere are subject to prosecution for terrorist or criminal acts.

"We still regard them as a terrorist organization," former U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Why don't you read the article you posted? Your answers are in there...

The U.S. considers the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or MEK, a source of valuable intelligence on Iran.

The group also is credited with helping expose Iran's secret nuclear program through spying on Tehran for decades.

Coalition forces regard MEK as protected people under the Geneva Conventions.

The group also enjoys the protection of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The State Department said Friday the Geneva Conventions protections apply only to MEK residents of Camp Ashraf, and the organization as a whole and its members elsewhere are subject to prosecution for terrorist or criminal acts.

"We still regard them as a terrorist organization," former U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said.

Translation:
"Terrorism is O.K. "

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Translation:
"Terrorism is O.K. "

No, Iran is worse. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Flawed, but damned effective. Well, at least 'til 2020, then we'll have to worry about them.

[OreoCookie]

Why not do it right from the beginning instead of breading new Osamas?
Coz it seems more difficult in the beginning? There are plenty of sensible options on the table and this isn't one of them.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, Iran is worse. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Flawed, but damned effective.

Uh... Saddam was Iran's enemy. Why did we topple him using bogus "intelligence"?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, Iran is worse. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Flawed, but damned effective. Well, at least 'til 2020, then we'll have to worry about them.

Right, so terrorism is O.K. as long at it aligns with your goals.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, Iran is worse. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Flawed, but damned effective. Well, at least 'til 2020, then we'll have to worry about them.

"No, the Soviet Union is worse. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Flawed, but damned effective. Well, at least 'til 2001, then we'll have to worry about them."

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, Iran is worse. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Flawed, but damned effective. Well, at least 'til 2020, then we'll have to worry about them.

Perhaps, if you stop prepping future enemies today, you won't have to worry about anyone in 2020. But, then, maybe the US wants to have someone to worry about (scapegoat) in 2020.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by goMac 

The U.S. is assisting Mujahedeen-e-Khalq in Iraq. Mujahedeen-e-Khalq is classified as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department, and therefore no U.S. citizen is allowed to assist them. The best part is that Iraq doesn't even want them there. The Iraqi government is demanding this group leave.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...sts/index.html

I'd like our conservative friends to explain to me why the Republicans get their panties in a wad when Pelosi talks to Syria, yet they have no problem tasking the U.S. army with protecting this terrorist group.

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/80

Here is a more reasoned historical perspective with links to informed sources on the subject from 2003 through december 2006. By the way, everyone knows Michael Ware is a CNN hack with an ax to grind. He has no credibility is a now considered nothing more than a reporter with an undisguised point of view.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Osama is actually a PERFECT example of what I was talking about, IE: WILL BE a terrorist.

Of course the usual dimbulbs who only go by leftist tripe and thier "The US is responsible for everything" credo wouldn't know it, but Osama wasn't anything even close to resembling a terrorist at the time the US is accused of helping him. In fact, his resume just at that time- building infrastructure and roads for beleaguered and under-attack Afghanistan, would probably qualify him for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Osama wasn't even on anyone's radar as anything even close to a terrorist until long after every leftwinger's favorite prez, Clinton, was in office- and we all know how he botched that. And Osama's becoming a terrorist had virtually NOTHING to do with us helping the side he was on during the Soviet war- one doesn't even follow the other and just proves how leftists will blame EVERYTHING on the US. (If you HELP the same side as a terrorist, you "create" them? Gee, that's NOVEL!)

Like I said, you simply can't deal with the Middle East without dealing with people who were/are/will one day become terrorists. It's simply a tactic that's quite popular in the Middle East.

[voodoo]

Hehe, you make your case like your country knows nothing.

Perhaps you are right! More likely you are not, though.

V

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Osama wasn't even on anyone's radar as anything even close to a terrorist until long after every leftwinger's favorite prez, Clinton, was in office- and we all know how he botched that.

Are you suggesting Clinton was responsible for Osama becoming a terrorist?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Like I said, you simply can't deal with the Middle East without dealing with people who were/are/will one day become terrorists. It's simply a tactic that's quite popular in the Middle East.

I'm inclined to agree. Just don't say you're fighting terrorism when you're sponsoring it at the same time.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Hehe, you make your case like your country knows nothing.
Perhaps you are right! More likely you are not, though.
V

Is Spain part of Europe? From my post: Linked Article

Dec. 13, 2006 update: The MEK got a major boost towards its rehabilitation yesterday, when the European Court of First Instance, the second highest court, annulled a 2002 European Union decision that froze its funds, along the way raising doubts about the MEK being a terrorist organization

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Is Spain part of Europe? From my post: Linked Article

Dec. 13, 2006 update: The MEK got a major boost towards its rehabilitation yesterday, when the European Court of First Instance, the second highest court, annulled a 2002 European Union decision that froze its funds, along the way raising doubts about the MEK being a terrorist organization

I was replying to CRASH HARDDRIVE'S post, not your OP. I haven't got a clue what the ECoFI is thinking or doing.

V

[analogika]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Like I said, you simply can't deal with the Middle East without dealing with people who were/are/will one day become terrorists. It's simply a tactic that's quite popular in the Middle East.

True. Some Israelis are also now learning that (Rabin had understood years ago).

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Hehe, you make your case like your country knows nothing.

Perhaps you are right! More likely you are not, though.

V

ANYONE (and it helps to have a brain that functions correctly) can go look up the timeline of Osama Bin Laden. He wasn't a terrorist or in any way involved in terrorism before 1993. His efforts during the Afghan war (building roads, and helping the resistance there against the Soviets- which didn't by the way involve killing innocent Afghan or Soviet women and children, IE: TERRORISM) are actually quite commendable. It's merely a construct of the batshit insane left that says the terrorist Bin Laden was someone 'created' by the US.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are you suggesting Clinton was responsible for Osama becoming a terrorist?

No, I know it's a hard thing for some people to grasp, but Osama is responsible for Osama becoming a terrorist.

Clinton did play a role in not capturing him when he had the chance (and when Osama actually was a terrorist, unlike during the Soviet Afghan war when he wasn't) but everything Osama has done as a terrorist is his own responsibility.

I'm inclined to agree. Just don't say you're fighting terrorism when you're sponsoring it at the same time.

Likewise, you do fight terror when you destroy terrorist sponsors. It's a tough game to play, and one that apparently can't be done without getting ones hands dirty at some point or other.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

ANYONE (and it helps to have a brain that functions correctly) can go look up the timeline of Osama Bin Laden. He wasn't a terrorist or in any way involved in terrorism before 1993. His efforts during the Afghan war (building roads, and helping the resistance there against the Soviets- which didn't by the way involve killing innocent Afghan or Soviet women and children, IE: TERRORISM) are actually quite commendable. It's merely a construct of the batshit insane left that says the terrorist Bin Laden was someone 'created' by the US.

Ya OBL changed from being a freedom fighter to terrorist.

They're the same profession FYI. (and it helps to have a brain that functions correctly to figure that out)

V

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Ya OBL changed from being a freedom fighter to terrorist.

They're the same profession FYI.

No, they aren't. They aren't even remotely the same thing. Bin Laden's efforts to help the Afghans resist the Soviet takeover didn't including planting bombs in schoolyards, or crowded marketplaces with non-combatants.

That you can't figure out the difference between fighting to resist an invasion against an army (in which Bin Laden's primary role wasn't direct fighting, but building infrastructure and hospitals and the like), and slaughtering innocent civilians to terrorize them into submission, doesn't speak highly of your brain "functioning correctly".

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

No, they aren't. They aren't even remotely the same thing. Bin Laden's efforts to help the Afghans resist the Soviet takeover didn't including planting bombs in schoolyards, or crowded marketplaces with non-combatants.

That you can't figure out the difference between fighting to resist an invasion against an army (in which Bin Laden's primary role wasn't direct fighting, but building infrastructure and hospitals and the like), and slaughtering innocent civilians to terrorize them into submission, doesn't speak highly of your brain "functioning correctly".

If you can't take it, don't dish it sugartits.

V

[analogika]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

No, they aren't. They aren't even remotely the same thing. Bin Laden's efforts to help the Afghans resist the Soviet takeover didn't including planting bombs in schoolyards, or crowded marketplaces with non-combatants.

Neither did his efforts after the Afghan war.

The vast majority of what is called "al Qaeda" is a grass-roots movement that has as little to do with bin Laden as the Crusades did with Christ.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I was replying to CRASH HARDDRIVE'S post, not your OP. I haven't got a clue what the ECoFI is thinking or doing.
V

Sure, we'll plead ignorance while heaping bile and reproach on the US using a report by CNN reporter with an agenda as absolute truth. Nice play Voodoo.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Likewise, you do fight terror when you destroy terrorist sponsors. It's a tough game to play, and one that apparently can't be done without getting ones hands dirty at some point or other.

You aren't fighting terrorism if you are using terrorists to do so. You are only a not-easily-catch-phrasable war.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Sure, we'll plead ignorance while heaping bile and reproach on the US using a report by CNN reporter with an agenda as absolute truth. Nice play Voodoo.

"CNN reporter with an agenda"? Please explain.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

If you can't take it, don't dish it sugartits.

V

Lame. If you've got no argument that makes any sense (which you don't) then just keep your trap shut.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

You aren't fighting terrorism if you are using terrorists to do so. You are only a not-easily-catch-phrasable war.

This is kind of like claiming that you can't fight crime using criminals. And yet, you certainly can, and it's done all the time to great effect. The old adage, "it takes one to know one" often does apply. Things just aren't so easily corked and bottled, and as I've been saying, certainly not in the Middle East where dealing with people who either are, or can be linked to 'bad guys' is the case when dealing with virtually ANYONE.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Neither did his efforts after the Afghan war.

Right, but then I wasn't the one trying to link some picture of Bin Laden to a statement that doesn't remotely apply, given the actual facts.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Lame. If you've got no argument that makes any sense (which you don't) then just keep your trap shut.

Yep, that about sums up your posts. Although adding 'brainless' would seem appropriate.

V

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Yep, that about sums up your posts. Although adding 'brainless' would seem appropriate.

V

Nah, "lame" was enough in describing you. My adding "Brainless" would have just been stating the obvious.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

"CNN reporter with an agenda"? Please explain.

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

Ware is the only embedded reporter ever to have reported on the opposition's views, apparently.

Attempting to be fair and, well, balanced, apparently erodes a journalist's credibility in the eyes of Bush's believers.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

"CNN reporter with an agenda"? Please explain.

See here: Kesher Talk: CNN Correspondent Michael Ware continues to drink heavily on camera

A much more accurate assessment of his conduct and demotions.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Nah, "lame" was enough in describing you. My adding "Brainless" would have just been stating the obvious.

Oh my, how witty. Thanks for proving my point yet again, and probably not even realizing it.

V

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

See here: Kesher Talk: CNN Correspondent Michael Ware continues to drink heavily on camera

A much more accurate assessment of his conduct and demotions.

He goes on Bill Maher's show, cracks a joke about being drunk and drinking right now, and people actually believe him! No wonder you guys drink the Kool-Aid!

That made my day! Thank you!

Btw, how many times has he been demoted? Hahahahaha

p.s. It's called dark humor. It helps take the stress out of very tough situations. Wow. How bitter and sad you must be, to believe that.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Translation:
"Terrorism is O.K. "

Translation:
Kiss my ass.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

The same "good thing" when Osama "pissed off" the Sowjets??? Huh?
Some of you guys will never learn.

PB.

Yeah, like the last time a few countries sat idly by, what did you guys do?

[Powerbook]

John Miller: Many Americans believe that fighting army to army like what happened in Afghanistan is heroic for either army. But sending off bombs, killing civilians like in the World Trade Center is terrorism.

Bin Laden: ... After our victory over the Russians in Afghanistan, the international and the American mass media conducted fierce campaigns against us ... . They called us terrorists even before the mujahedeen had committed any act of terrorism against the real terrorists who are the Americans. On the other hand, we say that American politics and their religion do not believe in differentiating between civilians and military, between infants and animals, or among any human groups. ...

--
By 1984, with Azzam, bin Laden had established an organization named Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK, Office of Order in English), which funneled money, arms and Muslim fighters from around the world into the Afghan war. Through al-Khadamat, bin Laden's inherited family fortune paid for air tickets and accommodation, dealt with paperwork with Pakistani authorities and provided other such services for the jihad fighters. In running al-Khadamat, bin Laden set up a network of couriers traveling between Afghanistan and Peshawar, which continued to remain active after 2001, according to Yusufzai.

--
For a while Osama worked at the Services Office working with Abdullah Azzam on Jihad Magazine, a magazine that gave information about the war with the soviets and interviewed mujahideen. As time passed, Aymen Al Zawahiri encouraged Osama to split away from Abdullah Azzam. Osama formed his own army of mujahideen and fought the Soviets. One of his most significant battles was the battle of Jaji, which was not a major fight, but it earned him a reputation as a fighter.

Formation of al-Qaeda
By 1988, bin Laden had split from Maktab al-Khidamat because of strategic differences. While Azzam and his MAK organization acted as support for the Afghan fighters and provided relief to refugees and injured, bin Laden wanted a more military role in which the Arab fighters would not only be trained and equipped by the organization but also led on the battlefield by Arabic commanders. One of the main leading points to the split and the creation of al-Qaeda was the insistence of Azzam that Arab fighters be integrated among the Afghan fighting groups instead of forming their separate fighting force.

[Sky Captain]

AAHAHAHA!

Bin Laden: ... After our victory over the Russians in Afghanistan, the international and the American mass media conducted fierce campaigns against us ... . They called us terrorists even before the mujahedeen had committed any act of terrorism against the real terrorists who are the Americans. On the other hand, we say that American politics and their religion do not believe in differentiating between civilians and military, between infants and animals, or among any human groups. ...

Wow. "Their religion"
Hey Bin Laden, America is not under one religion. Idiot.

Hey when did Germany figure out the difference?