When the Americans invaded Iraq they disarmed the Mujahadeen, but now it's believed the Americans are considering taking them off the terrorist list, re-arming them and using them against Iran

this is one of the worst ideas, in the history of bad ideas....

I think this move is a incorrect move and will lead to more headaches then solutions.

The US really needs to get out of this 'police the world' policy before it seriously hurts us more so than it is doing now.

regards
seekerof

It's not a decision yet.........
........but the fact that it is even being considered says alot.

which means right now, we have "technical advisors" there....i.e. trainers...

John this is an article about the group that is setting themselves on fire over French conclusions they were going to commit a terrorist act against Iran's pro cleric
Embassies.

These people are setting themselves on fire John that in and of itself does present the conclusion they are not taking up arms.

To be honest the contrast between your words and the article made drinking a cup of coffee earlier today unnecessary. If this group at present was planning terrorist acts, asking its most loyal members to set themselves on fire is hardly the smart thing to do.

Rather is seems the Mujahadeen al Khalq have made a decision about the course there protest will take opposite to past behavior. That may have something to do with why the US has considered not calling them terrorist (I mean common these people are setting themselves on fire).

You keep mentioning oil John so I will keep mentioning Ethanol it could replace oil in a heartbeat if were not for the problem of world hunger increasing.

All options are taken into consideration John even the idea of dropping several nuclear bombs on Afghanistan was probably brought up and rejected after what happened in 9/11. What is means is that all options on the table gives the person in charge what things can be considered within the framework of what is possible.

There is really no need or justification to arm the Mujahadeen al Khalq they have in the past responded as a terrorist group and arming them would probably bring about similar problems.

The fact of the matter is though that a cause of them setting themselves on fire may be due to the fact we are not rearming them. But as far as what they are doing in France that is something they decided to do.

Personally I think it goes beyond simple coincidence and enters into that area of "they know something about France we only consider."


Its strange you state the Iranians do not like them as what they are doing would imply they feel differently.

I guess America's political and military analysts want another 9/11. Otherwise they would observe the fact that these people we may end up supporting HATE AMERICA. How much more evidence does one need to realize the threat there???

Basically this is just another example of the hypocratic american way. We do this type of stuff all over the world in ever way possible. This nation is two faced. Why??? Well because we are captialists. Capitalism is all about profit. So as long as we can profit who cares what the outcome may be, right???

Well that is the wrong road to take and that is why the world depises and spites us so. What America needs to learn to do is to fight it's own fights. If we want to take on the corruptors in Iran then let our own people do it. Why give credit to anyone else???

Oh wait, I know why, because that is where the money is at. Show me the money is the new motto of the American system. That is why we are the 'Great Satan'. Only Satan and pawns of him are so corruptable. They say money is the ruler of all evil. Well maybe for some but not for all. Satan is the ultimate ruler of the evils this world knows.

I have some websites about this terror group but I haven't gone back to check them out as of yet. I really don't need to. I understand that they are terrorists. I don't need some analyst group to tell me so. I know what is going on. Satan is teasing the weapons contractors with profit just praying for his payoff in innocent souls to be taken by the corruptors with no eyes, hearts, or souls.

America needs to wake up. The people need to take to the streets and the court houses and show their disgust with this policy. Otherwise we will see more Bin Ladens and more Mohammed Attas.



Abraham

[Edited on 20-6-2003 by Abraham Virtue]

This group is a weapon. If the US can use that weapon and achieve it's aims then why shouldn't they arm them?

You could compare to Osama Bin Laden, but the comparison is vague. OBL was helping the US fight the Cold War - a very many of the circumstances were different. Hopefully the US has learnt from it's mistakes and will be able to use this weapon more wisely.

Lastly these people are going to return to Iran one day anyway. Why shouldn't they be given the chance to help themselves to freedom? Though it should be made clear to them that if they step out of line, the consequences will be dire.

Fair enough. Even still it sets a bad example. These are terrorists we are speaking of. I still don't see what is so bad about using our own men and resources. We shouldn't be taking the position that these terrorists could be used as a puppet from our hidden hand. We shouldn't treat people like weapons. We should treat them like people. If it comes down to it and we have to use them(Don't see that happening or how that is possible) then yes we should give them rules and they should follow them or else.


Abraham

Seeing these people as a weapons is probably the wrong thing to do. Give them weapons and they will attack, take away there weapons and they will set themselves on fire.

Supporting extremism is not the answer no matter what political context it takes.

This is not to say I define protesting and rioting as defined as extremist, rather setting oneself on fire and suicide bombing seem clear.

I think a lot would depend on whether the attitude of this particular group has changed since the Iraq invasion before it is deployed.

It is quite possible that they have become less radical with the fall of Saddam.
Remember how the West's perception of the Kurds has changed?

"Weapon" is a harsh word, nevertheless, I believe that would be what the US government would use them as.

The question is whether the US administration would load that weapon with live ammunition or rubber bullets and where they would aim it.

There would also obviously have to be plans to fit them somewhere into the jigsaw of a new Iranian political regime.

Morally the US would be treading a very fine line if it uses these people, but sometimes in times of conflict, morals are the first casualty.

Yes,The article in question is about the people who set themselves alight.

"To be honest the contrast between your words and the article made drinking a cup of coffee earlier today unnecessary."Quote Toltec.

Toltec,I explained in the original post that the quotes I've taken are near the bottom of the article.There is no contrast between the words and article.It is a direct quote.

The story that fanatics are setting themselves on fire is not as important,I believe,as the story that the US are thinking about arming and training a terrorist outfit.

This group have not become less radical.They are terrorist who are considered by most muslims as an extreme religious cult.
They can not be used as a weapon.They are unreliable.
They are not the same people who have protested in Tehran.Those want more democratic reforms,these want less reforms.

I am flabbergasted at the views of Toltec and AV on this issue.

You think my comparison with OBL are wrong??Then you are blind to the obvious.

It is wise to learn from the mistakes of the past not repeat them.

The message this sends out is the wrong message.Either all terrorism is wrong and it should be eliminated as a foreign policy tool by all civilised nations or you must except terrorism on your own soil as an equally legitimate tool and stop whinging when it is your country that is being attacked.

Living in a country(Britain)where the USA's ambiguous position on terrorism cost the lives of many innocent people over 3 decades,I would welcome a clear position against all terrorism.

I would have to concur with the 'all or nothing'/'black and white'/'wrong or right' issue of terrorism.

IF the war is against terrorism then it should be applied across the board and have no divergence from it. To say one group isn't when they actually are is opening a debate as to the exact meaning of terrorism.....and as such, leaves the term crediablity also up for a re-defining.

regards
seekerof

I am flabbergasted at the views of Toltec and AV on this issue

Supporting extremism is not the answer no matter what political context it takes

We shouldn't be taking the position that these terrorists could be used as a puppet from our hidden hand. We shouldn't treat people like weapons. We should treat them like people.

Exactly what are you flabbergasted about?

The story that fanatics are setting themselves on fire is not as important, I believe, as the story that the US are thinking about arming and training a terrorist outfit.

The idea that the US had considered rearming these people was discussed about a month ago on meet the press. A respondent (can't remember who it was) stated they had absolutely no plans to that effect. John to be honest that you use these types of tactics to get what you think is a point across.

Who thinks the US government plans of rearming them?

What source is it based upon?

Are we to react to this article as credible based upon the words of C4's diplomatic correspondent Lindsey Hilsum??

It is the proven ambiguity of the French Government that has this problem John Bull with respect to not only terrorism but as well mass murder.