Has the USA Compromised by Negotiating with a Designated Terrorist Group?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dissident Dan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Usa
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of the USA negotiating with the People's Mujahideen, a group designated as a terrorist organization by the US State Department in 1997. Participants explore the historical context, motivations behind such negotiations, and the nature of the group itself, including its activities and classification as a terrorist organization or a civil war faction.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the USA's negotiation with the People's Mujahideen raises questions about the consistency of US foreign policy regarding designated terrorist groups.
  • Others argue that the classification of groups as terrorists can be politically motivated, as seen in the case of the People's Mujahideen, which some believe is fighting a civil war rather than committing terrorist acts.
  • A participant mentions that the People's Mujahideen has targeted Iranian government facilities but is uncertain about their attacks on civilians or outside Iran.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that the USA may reverse its stance on the group when it no longer serves its interests, reflecting a pattern in US foreign policy.
  • Some participants assert that the People's Mujahideen has a history of violent actions, including bombings and assassinations, and question the validity of their classification as a legitimate resistance group.
  • There is a discussion about the political dynamics in Iran and the potential influence of the USA on Iranian politics through its dealings with the People's Mujahideen.
  • Participants express differing opinions on the nature of the group's ideology, with some labeling them as communists and others as pro-Western, leading to further debate on their classification.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the People's Mujahideen, with no clear consensus on whether they should be classified as terrorists or legitimate fighters. The discussion remains unresolved, with competing perspectives on the implications of US negotiations with the group.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the definitions of terrorism and civil war, as well as the historical context of US foreign policy. Participants rely on varying interpretations of the group's actions and motivations, which are not universally agreed upon.

Dissident Dan
Messages
244
Reaction score
1
The USA has made a deal with the People's Mujahideen, which was labeled as a terrorist organization by the US State Department in 1997.

http://www.rediff.com/us/2003/apr/29iraq4.htm

In other news, in the Philipines (I think that it's the Philipines), the SARS paranoia has REALLY gotten out of hand...

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/abs_news_body.asp?section=Metro&oid=21493

[PLUG]
Brought to you by http://www.villagevoice.com
[/PLUG]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
In other news, Ashcroft is at it again...

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/5711187.htm
 
I also read the America and Britain are going to do a deal with Tariq Aziz gets new life in Britain if he spills the beans on Saddam Hussein. If it's true, the plan sucks. Aziz is a criminal and should be locked away. He can keep his secrets and in no way deserves a new lifetsyle, no doubt subsidized by taxpayers.
 
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
The USA has made a deal with the People's Mujahideen, which was labeled as a terrorist organization by the US State Department in 1997.

http://www.rediff.com/us/2003/apr/29iraq4.htm

Lol, I had to read this twice, for a minute I had a flash back to the USA the first time they started dealing with the Arafat and the PLO.
 
These deals are part of the game.
 
The nations (France I think) who recognised it as a legitimate country give USA the authority. Any nation can declare whoever they want as a terrorist - no one complained when Iraq called the US that... officially, at least. But making it a legal definition is tougher, and even more so on the international level.
 
I’m not very familiar with the People's Mujahideen. I gather it consists entirely of Iranian citizens and wishes to overthrow the oppressive Islamic regime of Iran. In 1997 President Clinton added them to the list of terrorist groups. This was done to appease the newly elected, and perceived to be enlightened, president of Iran. For certain this group has targeted and attacked Iranian Government facilities. I’m not sure whether they have targeted civilians or attacked outside Iran. I’m inclined to think they are fighting a civil war rather than committing terrorist acts.

Regards
 
Originally posted by GENIERE
I’m not very familiar with the People's Mujahideen. I gather it consists entirely of Iranian citizens and wishes to overthrow the oppressive Islamic regime of Iran. In 1997 President Clinton added them to the list of terrorist groups. This was done to appease the newly elected, and perceived to be enlightened, president of Iran. For certain this group has targeted and attacked Iranian Government facilities. I’m not sure whether they have targeted civilians or attacked outside Iran. I’m inclined to think they are fighting a civil war rather than committing terrorist acts.

Regards

When we don't need them anymore, aAmerica will pull its usual flip-flop and declare them terrorists again. When is the government going to learn?!?
 
I’m not very familiar with the People's Mujahideen. I gather it consists entirely of Iranian citizens and wishes to overthrow the oppressive Islamic regime of Iran. In 1997 President Clinton added them to the list of terrorist groups. This was done to appease the newly elected, and perceived to be enlightened, president of Iran. For certain this group has targeted and attacked Iranian Government facilities. I’m not sure whether they have targeted civilians or attacked outside Iran. I’m inclined to think they are fighting a civil war rather than committing terrorist acts.
EEEEEH! Wrong.

The MEK are terrorists, of the kind that have been around hundreds of years. They typically blow up buildings and assassinate people, especially in Tehran -- yknow, your usual terrorist activities.

If you're inclined to like them because they're pro-West, don't -- they're Communists. They supported the Islamic Revolution in '79, but disagreed with Khomeini on whether Iran should institute Marxist "reforms." Result: Khomeini had their leaders killed; they then fled to Iraq, allied with Saddam, and starting blowing up Iranian citizens. If you want to support a Persian reform movement, try these guys: http://www.iran-daneshjoo.org/

My family in Iran tells me it's "common knowledge" there that the USA/Iran struck a deal where Iran wouldn't cause problems during the war, in exchange for the USA treating MEK as enemy combatants. This matched up with the news I heard during the war; perhaps this newest development is a result of Iran exerting its influence in trying to shape Iraqi politics.
 
  • #10
Damgo:

Thanks for the link. From what I’ve read in the Daneshjoo site, I can whole-heartedly support it. Perhaps you could further educate me ?

The movement supports:

- - - A secular, multiparty republic?
- - - Freedom of religion, press, and speech?
- - - Executive, representative, and judicial form of government?
- - - Or a Parliamentary form of government?

I noted you used “Persian” in your post. Which is correct Persian or Irani?

Can “Daneshjoo” be translated to English?

If you choose to answer, do you support the movement?

Is the populace pro west? Pro US? Pro Afghan war? Pro Iraqi War?

Re: the MEK:

Can you cite an objective source for a terrorist act committed by MEK i.e., something that could not be construed as part of a civil war?

Lastly, it disgusts me to write this, just being a communist does not make one a terrorist although I personally equate the terms.

Regards
 
  • #11
>>Which is correct Persian or Irani?
lol, Irani is certainly incorrect -- it's Persian or Iranian, they're pretty much interchangeable. Though technically I suppose Persian is more of a cultural/ethnic term; you would always refer to Iranian Kurds, never Persian Kurds, which would be sort of an oxymoron.

Daneshjoo means something like "Students Alliance" I think... not sure of the exact translation, it's been a while. I support them in theory, but seeing as I'm a starving grad student in the USA, my "support" doesn't count for much. The populace of Iran is like 50 million people, of widely varying opinions... if I had to make a horribly stereotypical blanket statement, I would say the general feeling is very negative re leadership and policies of the USA/west but positive towards their people and the countries themselves. The feeling in the villages is a lot more conservative than that of the educated class in Tehran (including my relatives) or the LA Iranian community.

You can google and find plenty of refs for MEK (also called MKO) bombings etc... it can't be part of a civil war, as there is no civil war. They are more of a guerrilla group that uses terrorist tactics, like Hezbollah, I suppose, but most people are perfectly willing to call Hezbollah a terrorist group.