USA Makes Deal With Terrorists

  • News
  • Thread starter Dissident Dan
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Usa
In summary: 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?
  • #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 [Broken]

[PLUG]
Brought to you by http://www.villagevoice.com
[/PLUG]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
In other news, Ashcroft is at it again...

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/5711187.htm
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
These deals are part of the game.
 
  • #6
Who gave US authority to declare someone or some organization terrorist ? Is the world not moving back to uncivilized stone age and is US not playing central role in it?
 
  • #7
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.
 
  • #8
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
 
  • #9
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?!?
 
  • #10
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.
 
  • #11
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
 
  • #12
>>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.
 

1. What is the deal that the USA has made with terrorists?

The details of the deal vary depending on the specific situation, but in general, it involves the USA agreeing to certain terms or demands from a terrorist group in exchange for something they want, such as the release of hostages or the cessation of terrorist attacks.

2. Why did the USA make a deal with terrorists?

The decision to make a deal with terrorists is a complex one, and there are often multiple factors at play. In some cases, it may be seen as the most effective way to achieve a desired outcome, such as the safe return of hostages. Other times, it may be a strategic move to gain leverage or buy time in a larger conflict.

3. Is it ethical for the USA to make deals with terrorists?

This is a highly debated and controversial topic, as there are valid arguments on both sides. Some argue that making deals with terrorists only encourages them to continue their violent tactics, while others argue that it is necessary for the greater good and can potentially save lives.

4. Can the USA trust the terms of a deal made with terrorists?

There is always a risk involved when making deals with terrorists, as they are not known for their honesty or integrity. The USA and other governments will often closely monitor the situation and have contingencies in place in case the terms of the deal are not upheld.

5. What are the potential consequences of making a deal with terrorists?

The consequences of making a deal with terrorists can vary greatly and are often unpredictable. In some cases, the deal may be successful and lead to a resolution of the conflict. However, it can also backfire and result in further violence or embolden other terrorist groups. It can also have political and diplomatic repercussions, as it may be seen as negotiating with or legitimizing a terrorist organization.

Suggested for: USA Makes Deal With Terrorists

Replies
3
Views
558
Replies
0
Views
52
Replies
1
Views
751
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
802
Replies
1
Views
804
Back
Top