http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122205180.html
QuotePARIS - A group of prominent U.S. Republicans associated with homeland security told a forum of cheering Iranian exiles here Wednesday that President Obama's policy toward Iran amounts to futile appeasement that will never persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear projects.
The Americans - former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former secretary of homeland security Tom Ridge, former White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend and former attorney general Michael Mukasey - demanded that Obama instead take the controversial Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) opposition group off the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations and incorporate it into efforts to overturn the mullah-led government in Tehran.
ad_icon
"Appeasement of dictators leads to war, destruction and the loss of human lives," Giuliani declared. "For your organization to be described as a terrorist organization is just really a disgrace."
The four GOP figures appeared at a rally organized by the French Committee for a Democratic Iran, a pressure group formed to support MEK.
For double the fun, it should be recalled that MEK were also close allies of one Saddam Hussein.
No one will remember that. This is about the 2012 election.
Err.... Isn't this how we get ourselves into every mess that occurred since 1945?
Also, appeasing dictators? kinda like how the Reagan administration cavorted with Saddam so that he could be a buffer against Iran?
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but you know....
MEK terrorists also killed American soldiers and civilians working in Iran in the 70s.
They're sorry? :evil:
From 2009
Founded in Iran in the 1960s on an ideological platform merging Marxism and Islamism, the MEK worked alongside followers of Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini to overthrow the shah in the 1979 Islamic revolution, and assisted in the ensuing U.S. embassy hostage crisis. But they clashed with Khomeini in the years that followed, leading to the killing, imprisonment and exile of thousands of the group's members. In 1986 the MEK set up a base at Camp Ashraf, located in Iraq's eastern Diyala province, and began receiving funding and protection from Saddam to launch attacks over the border into Iran.
Despite its position on the U.S. terrorist list since 1997, and reports by former members of abusive and cultlike practices at Ashraf, the MEK has gathered support from some surprising places abroad — especially since the U.S. invasion — by pitching itself as a viable opposition to the mullahs in Tehran. "They have been extremely clever and very, very effective in their propaganda and lobbying of members of Congress," says Gary Sick, a Persian Gulf expert at Columbia University's Middle East Institute and the author of All Fall Down: America's Tragic Encounter With Iran. "They get all sorts of people to sign their petitions. Many times the Congressmen don't know what they're signing." But others, Sick adds, "are quite aware of the fact that this is a designated terrorist organization, and they are quite willing to look the other way for a group that they think is a democratic alternative to the Iranian regime."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1869532,00.html#ixzz1A09U2ETb
So they're not only terrorists but communist terrorists? :lulz:
Republicans supporting an islamist communist group in Iran would have been very interesting, but the MEK has drifted significantly towards the right lately, and was taken off the EU's list of terrorist organizations two years ago. Now they're more like social democrats (think Bernie Sanders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders), but a little more conservative on social issues). :boring:
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on January 03, 2011, 10:12:24 PM
Republicans supporting an islamist communist group in Iran would have been very interesting, but the MEK has drifted significantly towards the right lately, and was taken off the EU's list of terrorist organizations two years ago. Now they're more like social democrats (think Bernie Sanders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders), but a little more conservative on social issues). :boring:
Maybe you want to trust them with nukes, I chatted with Israel and we agree it's probably not a good idea.
I'm not so sure about that. If this is link is to be trusted, the Israelis and the MEK are almost friends: http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Mujahideen-e_Khalq#Israeli_Support (http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Mujahideen-e_Khalq#Israeli_Support) :?
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on January 03, 2011, 10:12:24 PM
Republicans supporting an islamist communist group in Iran would have been very interesting, but the MEK has drifted significantly towards the right lately, and was taken off the EU's list of terrorist organizations two years ago. Now they're more like social democrats (think Bernie Sanders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders), but a little more conservative on social issues). :boring:
This happens with
all a lot of left leaning revolutionary groups. Sinn Fein was originally an Irish socialist party, but you don't really hear that about them anymore, and I think the Baath Party's original intent was Pan-Arabic socialism, but I could be wrong on that. Not that I'm conflating Socialism with Communism.
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on January 03, 2011, 10:12:24 PM
Republicans supporting an islamist communist group in Iran would have been very interesting, but the MEK has drifted significantly towards the right lately, and was taken off the EU's list of terrorist organizations two years ago. Now they're more like social democrats (think Bernie Sanders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders), but a little more conservative on social issues). :boring:
Ha ha ha ha ha no.
I mean, unless Bernie Sanders was assassinating major figures in the Iranian administration up until quite recently, and also got his compounds in Iraq bombed by the USAF. MEK just realized being an openly vocal Islamist terrorist organization in the post 9/11 world was a bad PR move and made the external propaganda a little less obvious, and then rebranded themselves as an "exiled movement", while trying desperately not to mention they were exiled for murdering people.
And did you, in your vast research on the MEK, notice when the EU took them off their terror list? Did you ever think that the EU's negotiations at the time had any impact on this decision? That maybe the EU was using the existence of their organization in several European capitals as a bargaining chip, sweetening the deal for a halt to the Iranian nuclear program?
Speaking of Iran, there have been a lot of suspicious assassinations there in recent years. Lots of the blame has fallen on Jundullah, but they're an ethnically Baloch group, who operate on the Iranian border. They kind of stand out in an urban environment like Tehran, with the large numbers of Persians and Azeri who typically live in those areas. Not MEK terrorists though. The MEK who has a history of targeted assassinations, and whose members recieved advanced paramilitary and urban warfare training from Saddam Hussein.
I'm sure this all just coincidence however, and we have nothing to worry about. Especially since you seem to know so much about the MEK and have concluded they are no longer a threat.
Quote from: The Poster With No Name on January 04, 2011, 09:39:17 AM
Ha ha ha ha ha no.
I mean, unless Bernie Sanders was assassinating major figures in the Iranian administration up until quite recently, and also got his compounds in Iraq bombed by the USAF. MEK just realized being an openly vocal Islamist terrorist organization in the post 9/11 world was a bad PR move and made the external propaganda a little less obvious, and then rebranded themselves as an "exiled movement", while trying desperately not to mention they were exiled for murdering people.
And did you, in your vast research on the MEK, notice when the EU took them off their terror list? Did you ever think that the EU's negotiations at the time had any impact on this decision? That maybe the EU was using the existence of their organization in several European capitals as a bargaining chip, sweetening the deal for a halt to the Iranian nuclear program?
Speaking of Iran, there have been a lot of suspicious assassinations there in recent years. Lots of the blame has fallen on Jundullah, but they're an ethnically Baloch group, who operate on the Iranian border. They kind of stand out in an urban environment like Tehran, with the large numbers of Persians and Azeri who typically live in those areas. Not MEK terrorists though. The MEK who has a history of targeted assassinations, and whose members recieved advanced paramilitary and urban warfare training from Saddam Hussein.
I'm sure this all just coincidence however, and we have nothing to worry about. Especially since you seem to know so much about the MEK and have concluded they are no longer a threat.
Well, thanks for putting me straight. No, my comparison wasn't very good. You make some very good points there, and I think I agree with what you're trying to say. And my "vast research on the MEK" wasn't really that vast, or that objective for that matter. An acquaintance of me is involved in the Iranian democracy movement, and now I understand why he doesn't trust the MEK. I'm loving your sarcasm, by the way. :P
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on January 04, 2011, 04:40:17 PM
I'm loving your sarcasm, by the way. :P
Welcome to Discordia. Wear a helmet.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 04:43:46 PM
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on January 04, 2011, 04:40:17 PM
I'm loving your sarcasm, by the way. :P
Welcome to Discordia. Wear a helmet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeoJam2ucLU
I prefer tinfoil hats. (http://www.thesquirrelboard.com/forums/images/smilies/tinfoilhatsmile.gif)
Or perhaps a Faraday burkha.
Republicans are now getting paid to talk on MEK's behalf:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cc6d5774-b23d-11e0-9d80-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1TsZZTAF9
QuoteAn Iranian exile group is spending millions of dollars in a lobbying effort to be removed from the US's list of foreign terrorist organisations, recruiting a group of US national security luminaries to be its advocates.
Dozens of former officials across the political spectrum – from conservative John Bolton to liberal Howard Dean – have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak at events organised by supporters of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or People's Mujahedin, in the US, the Financial Times has learnt.
http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/middle-east/us-move-to-delist-mek-as-terror-group-worries-irans-opposition?pageCount=2
QuoteIran specialists are baffled by the vocal backing the MEK enjoys among some heavy-hitters in Washington. Gary Sick, an Iran expert at Columbia University in New York, said: "Their [the MEK's] support inside Iran is very, very limited."
"The fact that they're against the government in Iran doesn't make them good," he added in a recent telephone interview. "The only thing that I can think of that would be worse than the present government of Iran is a government of the MEK."
This is also stupid and counterproductive because:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/iran-innuendo-secret-deals-5676
QuoteThe Treasury announcement also does not address Iranian motives in fooling around with al-Qaeda, notwithstanding the sharply different interests and objectives between the regime and the group. The motives have to do with shared antagonism from the United States. In particular, they have to do with the United States' own fooling around with the terrorist group-cum-cult known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq, which some in the United States foolishly believe should be accepted as a legitimate actor because it opposes the Iranian regime. Tehran is in effect saying, "If you are going to flirt with a terrorist group that is of particular concern to us, we will flirt with a terrorist group that is of particular concern to you." It is important to remember this amid the renewed push, backed by vigorous lobbying on Capitol Hill and the paying of fat fees to notables who will speak on the MEK's behalf, to get the group off the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations. If delisting were to occur, the harmful effects would include substantial damage to the pro-democracy movement in Iran. An additional effect would be to increase the incentive for Tehran to flirt even more with Sunni terrorists including al-Qaeda types, to the point that some actual secret deals might be struck.