Leading US conservatives openly support Terrorist group

[Thanas]

Link.

Imagine if a group of leading American liberals met on foreign soil with -- and expressed vocal support for -- supporters of a terrorist group that had (a) a long history of hateful anti-American rhetoric, (b) an active role in both the takeover of a U.S. embassy and Saddam Hussein's brutal 1991 repression of Iraqi Shiites, (c) extensive financial and military support from Saddam, (d) multiple acts of violence aimed at civilians, and (e) years of being designated a "Terrorist organization" by the U.S. under Presidents of both parties, a designation which is ongoing? The ensuing uproar and orgies of denunciation would be deafening.

But on December 23, a group of leading conservatives -- including Rudy Giuliani and former Bush officials Michael Mukasey, Tom Ridge, and Fran Townsend -- did exactly that. In Paris, of all places, they appeared at a forum organized by supporters of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) -- a group declared by the U.S. since 1997 to be "terrorist organization" -- and expressed wholesale support for that group. Worse -- on foreign soil -- they vehemently criticized their own country's opposition to these Terrorists and specifically "demanded that Obama instead take the [] group off the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations and incorporate it into efforts to overturn the mullah-led government in Tehran." In other words, they are calling on the U.S. to embrace this Saddam-supported, U.S.-hating Terrorist group and recruit them to help overthrow the government of Iran. To a foreign audience, Mukasey denounced his own country's opposition to these Terrorists as "nothing less than an embarrassment."

Using common definitions, there is good reason for the MEK to be deemed by the U.S. Government to be a Terrorist group. In 2007, the Bush administration declared that "MEK leadership and members across the world maintain the capacity and will to commit terrorist acts in Europe, the Middle East, the United State, Canada, and beyond," and added that the group exhibits "cult-like characteristics." The Council on Foreign Relations has detailed that the MEK has been involved in numerous violent actions over the years, including many directed at Americans, such as "the 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by Iranian revolutionaries" and "the killings of U.S.military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran in the 1970s." This is whom these Guiliani, Ridge, Townsend and other conservatives are cheering.

More at the link.

[Shroom Man 777]

Those traitorous un-patriotic anti-American pieces of shit. How dare they betray our nation and side with these Islamic extremist terrorizers and sell our nation out? More over, it was the government of the most patriotic George W. Bush who declared these guys terrorizers in the first place, and now these enemies of the state have flip-flopped, and are supporting these guys? The "Religion of Peace" strikes again, indeed.

They are guilty of treason. I would've voted for Rudy Giuliani if he was pro-nuclear power and ballistic missile defense... but this? This is just... this is so conflicting. How dare they betray America and the values of truth, freedom, and democracy that it stands for? I mean, those terrorizers are supported by Saddam Hussein, the leader of Al-Quaeda! For all we know, Saddam could've given them all his WMDs - which was why none were found in Iraq, leading those goddamn liberals to crow about their "victory" when in fact the Mission was indeed Accomplished - and they could now be plotting an attack on the USA that would be like... like... It will be 9/11 times 2356.

My God, that's... I don't even know what that is.

Nobody does.

Fucking Zeroguilianimanimacaroni, fucking Zeromukaseyfriccase, fucking Zerotownsend, fucking Zeroridgebridge. We should call them all Barry on the hill.

[Sarevok]

No surprise there. America supported religious fanatics before in Afganistan in 80s...As long it suits their purpose America will support anyone !

[Alyeska]

No surprise there. America supported religious fanatics before in Afganistan in 80s...As long it suits their purpose America will support anyone !

That would not be entirely accurate. The United States supported Afgans who wanted independence from the USSR. Their religious beliefs were irrelevant.

[Shroom Man 777]

Maybe a better example, though sadly it doesn't include religious fanatics, is how the USA supported Saddam in gassing the Iranians in the 1980s before the same guys - Rumsfeld, and Bush Sr.'s kid - ended up going ZOMG WMDs in the 2000s (while Bush Sr. had to deal with Desert Storm in the 90s). It's hilarious how they supported Saddam in gassing the Iranians, and yet afterwards America ended up having to invade Saddam not once, but twice, and waste countless monies and lives on two wars. But hey, American foreign interests, am I right?

It's interesting that the taste of blood is kind of irony.

[HarrionGreyjoy]

Exactly, Sarevok; I was kind of hoping we'd learned to at least mitigate that shit after getting our own weapons shot at us in hilarious quantity.

If we're really that set on financing armed rebellion against Tehran, couldn't we at least pick a group that's A) Shiite (can swim in the sea of the peasantry, to hijack the words of another crazy asshole) and B) not bugfuck nuts religious fanatics?

Ugh.

Alyeska: actually, due to our close friendship with the ISI and need for their cooperation to funnel weapons westward, the religious beliefs of the mujahideen groups were EXTREMELY relevant. It wasn't Ahmed Shah Massoud who got the lion's share (heh) of our guns and missiles, it was such lovely folks as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. For those playing along at home, Hekmatyar is a leading advocate of disfiguring Afghan women for immodest behavior and is second only to the Taliban proper in "desire to blow up coalition troops and sympathizers".

[Shroom Man 777]

Well, Peace if America's Profession, so I guess it's lovely how they end up hand in hand with the advocates of the Religion of Peace.

[Bottlestein]

Well, Peace if America's Profession, so I guess it's lovely how they end up hand in hand with the advocates of the Religion of Peace.

Just the Sunni branch (Apparently - they are the most "peaceful" )

[Jaepheth]

Iran baaaaaad..... anything not current Iran leadership good.
[/idiot]

Is it just me, or do most of the world's problems seem to come from morons who can't think ahead at all?

[Metahive]

I must say now that I can't imagine german politicians of any major party pulling shit like that without getting collectively shunned by their peers or if not, causing the party to hemorrhage voters like crazy. Heck, I can't actually imagine any Democrat getting away with something like this without getting publically eviscerated. What is it about the GOP that no matter what outrageous crap they do, it somehow never has much effect on their reputation as the "tough, lawful and patriotic" party?

[Simon_Jester]

No surprise there. America supported religious fanatics before in Afganistan in 80s...As long it suits their purpose America will support anyone !

In this case, it doesn't suit America's purpose. These are just idiots supporting lunatics.

This isn't even American realpolitik in action. This is fake realpolitik, as practiced by people who are too fundamentally stupid to grasp that you do not want to throw something that predictably boomerangs back and hits you in the nose.

[Shroom Man 777]

No surprise there. America supported religious fanatics before in Afganistan in 80s...As long it suits their purpose America will support anyone !

In this case, it doesn't suit America's purpose. These are just idiots supporting lunatics.

This isn't even American realpolitik in action. This is fake realpolitik, as practiced by people who are too fundamentally stupid to grasp that you do not want to throw something that predictably boomerangs back and hits you in the nose.

But these aren't just some random shmucks. These "just idiots" supporting lunatics are key American politicians, presidential candidates, attorney generals, Homeland Security Advisor to United States President George W. Bush, and American politicians who served as a member of the United States House of Representatives (1983–1995), the 43rd Governor of Pennsylvania (1995–2001), Assistant to the President for Homeland Security (2001–2003), and the first United States Secretary of Homeland Security (2003–2005).

These are people in charge of your country, who you (Americans) vote for because they are tough on terror and do Giulianitanamo Time to POWs and whatever.

[Simon_Jester]

But these aren't just some random shmucks. These "just idiots" supporting lunatics are key American politicians, presidential candidates, attorney generals, Homeland Security Advisor to United States President George W. Bush, and American politicians who served as a member of the United States House of Representatives (1983–1995), the 43rd Governor of Pennsylvania (1995–2001), Assistant to the President for Homeland Security (2001–2003), and the first United States Secretary of Homeland Security (2003–2005).

These are people in charge of your country, who you (Americans) vote for because they are tough on terror and do Giulianitanamo Time to POWs and whatever.

Shroomy, we've talked any number of times now; have I ever said anything to make you think I believe that my country is not ruled by fools?

[Shroom Man 777]

Nope. But they're more than "just" idiots anyway. They're really powerful, really influential idiots. The most dangerous kind of idiot ever.

[Flagg]

Shockingly the mainstream media isn't covering this. At all. Shockingly, I say, shockingly!

[Straha]

If we're really that set on financing armed rebellion against Tehran, couldn't we at least pick a group that's A) Shiite (can swim in the sea of the peasantry, to hijack the words of another crazy asshole) and B) not bugfuck nuts religious fanatics?

MEK is Shiite, and supports the equality of women, a Marxist classless society, and a number of other remarkably moderate positions. They have a number of extreme views, but they tend to originate from the blending of Marxism and Messianic Shia Islam from the mid-70s and late 60s when MEK really took off.

As for Pakistan supporting terrorists? It's undeniably true. The ISI has very very close ties with a number of organizations, including Al-Qaeda, and there was some pretty decent evidence that elements in the Pakistani government collaborated with Lashkar e Taiba and Jamaat ud-Dawa in regards to the '08 Mumbai attacks.

[HarrionGreyjoy]

If we're really that set on financing armed rebellion against Tehran, couldn't we at least pick a group that's A) Shiite (can swim in the sea of the peasantry, to hijack the words of another crazy asshole) and B) not bugfuck nuts religious fanatics?

MEK is Shiite, and supports the equality of women, a Marxist classless society, and a number of other remarkably moderate positions. They have a number of extreme views, but they tend to originate from the blending of Marxism and Messianic Shia Islam from the mid-70s and late 60s when MEK really took off.

As for Pakistan supporting terrorists? It's undeniably true. The ISI has very very close ties with a number of organizations, including Al-Qaeda, and there was some pretty decent evidence that elements in the Pakistani government collaborated with Lashkar e Taiba and Jamaat ud-Dawa in regards to the '08 Mumbai attacks.

...Huh. Apparently I'm terrible at keeping organizations straight. My mistake, sorry.

I can, however, chortle merrily that we've come full circle to supporting Communists against fundamentalist Muslims. (Yes, I know that's a bit of a simplification, but let me have my amusement.)

[SCRawl]

Nonsense split over to HoS, here. Let's stick to the original topic, shall we?

[Edi]

Nonsense split over to HoS, here. Let's stick to the original topic, shall we?

Thank you kindly, SCrawl. You just saved me a whole lot of aggravation by oppressing that tangent before I could even get started.

[Jaepheth]

After thinking about it, I think another possibility is that the politicians simply didn't do their homework and relied entirely on their aides to do the research, but who in turn also didn't do their homework. So they were given some basic information to go on, what the party line was, etc. but didn't really know who they were talking about. Then after the comments were made they won't issue a retraction or admit fault so they just shut up and hope it'll go away (and their friends in the media help with that)

So I guess they're either short sighted and petty, or lazy and incompetent (or employing such).

It'd be interesting to see the payrolls before and after these sort of shenanigans. (Are they public record?)

[Thanas]

C'mon, that is an extremely unlikely turn of events. You think the head of homeland security does not know about one of the most dangerous terrorist groups in the world?

They certainly knew that the USA considered the group to be terrorists, as they spoke at the event how wrong that term was.

[General Zod]

It's worth pointing out that Michael Mukasey thinks we should prosecute Assange, but not the Times because it's easier to go after Assange. I just don't think he understands the concept of ethical consistency, so it seems silly to invent excuses for him.

[fgalkin]

Shockingly the mainstream media isn't covering this. At all. Shockingly, I say, shockingly!

Wow, you really do have cunts for eyes.

But yeah, if the Democrats are smart (they're not), they should be trumpeting this at every corner. You can't make this shit up, it's a once-in-a-lifetime political opportunity.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Flagg]

Shockingly the mainstream media isn't covering this. At all. Shockingly, I say, shockingly!

Wow, you really do have cunts for eyes.

But yeah, if the Democrats are smart (they're not), they should be trumpeting this at every corner. You can't make this shit up, it's a once-in-a-lifetime political opportunity.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

You know I meant widely covering, the way they would if it were Democrats doing the same thing. Apparently hyperbole doesn't gel with you.

[K. A. Pital]

No surprise there. America supported religious fanatics before in Afganistan in 80s...As long it suits their purpose America will support anyone !

That would not be entirely accurate. The United States supported Afgans who wanted independence from the USSR. Their religious beliefs were irrelevant.

The United States supported a fundamentalist islamist rebellion against Afghanistan's legal government which "invited" Soviet forces, kinda like South Vietnam "invited" the USA. Blah blah blah. America even gave money to Pol Pot in Cambodia because he was against North Vietnam which was a Soviet client. And to Sukharto. And to a shitload of other people. America is an unscurpulous state which will support anyone as long as it fits geopolitical interests of America. End of story.

Religious beliefs were irrelevant, but Sarevok did not say they were important, in fact, the exact opposite. He said supporting religious fanatics suited America's purpose. Because they were anti-Soviet, America supported them (and they could've been the fucking Aum Shinrikyo, wouldn't have changed a thing). The MEK are a religious fanatic group, but it is against Iran, right? In this case, it once again suits America's purpose to support them. Geopolitics once again, religious beliefs are irrelevant. So your post was a strawman, and Sarevok was right.