It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US funds terrorists in Iran

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   

America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.

....

The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.

In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials.

.....

Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."

Full Story


This is so ironic. We are fighting this massive war on terror against enemies we formerly supported in their struggle against the Soviets, (e.g. Bin Laden) and now we are making exactly the same mistake in Iran, all to weaken the Iranian regime. How retarded can one be, they must be under the impression that those ''resistance'' fighters really like Mc Donalds like Bin Laden liked Starbucks.



[edit on 25-2-2007 by Mdv2]




posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I believe the correct term is “freedom fighters”

Anyway what is it that Iran (or our left wing people) are complaining about?
Iran sponsors terrorism, so we do it them; and if they didn’t do it us, then we would do it to them, and this is because it is they who declared themselves an anti America nation.
In my humble opinion the bulk of Iran’s reasons for being anti American are ideological and ideologically self serving. It is they who are responsible for much of the trouble in the Middle East e.g. being against Israel’s very existence, and being pro terrorist groups who murder within it.

I would have a big problem with America supporting terrorists (or whatever) inside ether a pro western nation, or a western neutral one. But when it’s one that supports the likes of Hezbollah (yep even if it is in U.S banknotes), and has violently hated us ever since the Iranian revolution; then retaliating against it is well within the definition of “playing ball”.
Therefore we should be proud of those CIA agents (and policy makers) who support the Iranian peoples struggle against this anti western regime.

Negotiations…
How about America says “we won’t support so and so, if you won’t support so and so?”
Or (because this is unlikely to honoured and once done could irreplaceably weaken trust with our anti Iranian terrorist, freedom fighters) we might instead decide to keep the pressure on Iran until it has made some more diplomatic progress regarding the likes of it’s nuclear programme, verses the international community.

It’s a fact of reality that terrorism, and rebellion are two of the most powerful tools that can serve our current foreign policies-concerns. Not one current sponsor of terrorism has yet signed a treaty with us against sponsoring terrorism. If they think sponsoring terrorism is such a bad thing then perhaps they might?

To Iran I say “it with sadness that this is a taste of your own medicine. Yet guess what? We’ve got more gold bullion bars, U.S dollars, and undercover agents than you could ever hope to have; we even print us dollars, and mine gold in the first place. If you don’t like it, then perhaps for the future of a better world we can both abandon it together?”

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Not really suprised.

If the US government can fund terrorists inside Iran, then why would they beging to negotiate with Iranian leadership? They can quite happily keep their 'zero tolerance' attitude with countires developing nuclear programs. These countires can be isolated from outside resources and aid.

But because the US government is funding these terrorists, some of the money is going into neighbouring Iraq, which then kills coalition soldiers, which means that the coalition isn't going to leave, because the job isn't done.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
I believe the correct term is “freedom fighters”

Anyway what is it that Iran (or our left wing people) are complaining about?
Iran sponsors terrorism, so we do it them; and if they didn’t do it us, then we would do it to them, and this is because it is they who declared themselves an anti America nation.

Have they? I do not see them as having done so (at least publicly).

As a kid, I always believed that America was better because it was morally superior (heh...that's propaganda working for you). So America was better than all that scum in [insert name of warzone] because America was against torture, while [insert warzone] was not. America was better because they were against terrorism while [insert warzone] was not, etc. I've been hugely disillusioned since then
. Anyhow, now that I look at it, it doesn't really make any difference, except that it made me realise that America isn't fighting for peace, morality and justice in a free world. It's fighting for it's own survival and existence. Now, technically, that's not such a bad goal, but then I wish they'd lay off all that "liberation" propaganda.

By the way, why on earth would America support terrorists inside a pro-western or western neutral nation? That doesn't make sense! It's like saying that America will only fight with it's enemies, not with it's friends.


Originally posted by Liberal1984
Negotiations…
How about America says “we won’t support so and so, if you won’t support so and so?”

Hahahahah...that puts a whole new spin on "We do not negotiate with terrorists!



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   
It is really sad very few people picked up on this discussion. I think terrorism in Iran is the most likely scenario in 2007, with an air strike by the US the least likely.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Well, I would say it's kind of old hat, they were certainly financing al queda when it was fashionable to do so. Could we go so far as to say we were financing the bombings and hijacked airplanes, I feel as such. I also wonder if the communists we were so worried about spreading power felt like they were "liberating"?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Well, I would say it's kind of old hat, they were certainly financing al queda when it was fashionable to do so. Could we go so far as to say we were financing the bombings and hijacked airplanes, I feel as such. I also wonder if the communists we were so worried about spreading power felt like they were "liberating"?



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Babloyi Do you, or do you not agree that as long as Iran sponsors acts of terrorism-“freedom fighting” then so can we?

Do you agree that in pragmatic terms supporting acts of sabotage-resistance against a state is in terms of effectiveness up there with sanctions; but no where near in terms of numbers of people who end up getting hurt?
(To set what I mean look at Iraq U.N sanctions which caused the deaths of at least a million Iraqis in the 12 years they were imposed) (This figure includes effects like the absence of chorine in tap water, or lack of electricity causing sewage to spill onto the streets because pumps can’t work, or even be fixed).

I too have been very disillusioned with America and the West.
I wish the propaganda about spreading freedom could be true, if not in order to provide democracy; then at least to provide “normal people” freedom from authoritarian religious fundamentalism. See, I do not believe in democracy in many areas of the world because I “observe” that in these (same areas) the people would elect an anti-western or authoritarian religious fundamentalist government. This wouldn’t be a problem if it didn’t create so many problems.
Of it does create problems, and they range from terrorism (which to be honest I myself aren’t that scarred of) to ideological things like millions of people living under near medieval conditions, where women everyday somewhere get stoned to death for adultery, and homosexuals are shot. By living in this way these people not only fail to contribute to global GDP but also harm the GDP of places like Israel as involvement in this issue by foreign governments is a necessary implement of popular state popularity and therefore also mindset control.

As for Iran declaring itself anti American here are some links…
meria.idc.ac.il...
www.jcpa.org...
The first article is very good as it explains why the Iranian people were very pro America because it was very anti their government.
Now ask yourself Babloyi: If you were Iranian would you prefer…
a. Liberation & liquidation “Baghdad Style”?
b. Another revolution against the current regime, one which promises to be as ideologically liberal as it is backed by the U.S.
c. Or no change at all?

I live in a dictatorship called Great Britain, ruled by a single political entity known as ConLab (it’s not too dissimilar to DemoRep which runs America). Now as much as I hate it I do not want my country to be invaded, nor do I want no change at all.
Instead I want reform from within (if possible) or if that’s not possible then a revolution against those holding the seats of power responsible.
The idea of seeing Chinese (or God forbid French) tanks roll down Oxford really doesn’t appeal to me, I would have to be in North Korea to want that to happen, and if I was, then I probably wouldn’t know life was better outside anyway.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Hey Liberal!

I concede that we (you? me? the west? Because I'm not from the US, and you don't seem to be either) CAN sponsor acts of terrorism, whether Iran is doing so or not. It has done this before anyhow (and do you notice how it came back to haunt them later on?).

I'm not so sure that in terms of effectiveness, sponsoring terrorism is any better/worse than sanctions. They both can very easily misfire onto innocent unfortunates.

Now the question is, SHOULD the US be sponsoring acts of terrorism in Iran (I speak in moral, ethical and political terms)? In spite of any feelings of animosity Iran has against America, does this in any way affect America? Has Irani terrorism ever been targetted at America? I wouldn't know, but I don't think so. Does this mean that America should "step up" and assist it's friends in the region?

Doesn't this stance negate the validity of the War on Terrorism? Can America still condemn others who sponsor acts of terrorism? Will America put itself on it's own list of terrorist sponsoring nations?

I too am somewhat disillusioned with the application of democracy being the "Standard of Quality" of a country. As you say, the majority of a country may very well wish something that is morally(?) wrong. The move from "Country just newly created out of the ravages of war or colonialism" to "Full functioning democracy of incredibleness" doesn't seem very credible to me. Most western countries had centuries and centuries of building up their democracies. Is it reasonable to assume that a new country can so easily and speedily learn from others?
Unfortunately, I cannot think of any other alternative. Should a dictatorship be imposed for a while that does it's best to "educate"
the masses before moving on? What if the dictatorship doesn't want to leave? What if it pretends to get itself re-elected continuously? What if there is IMMENSE foreign pressure to remove the dictatorship before it can do anything? What if the concept of a dictatorship is just not right?

If I was an Irani, I have no idea what I would do. I have little idea what it would feel like to live as an Irani. Would my main fears/troubles come from the zealous ruling order, or from zealous outsiders? People say "revolution" very easily, but do not realise the trauma (and blood, and loss of morale) that comes with it. When some American friends of mine kept complaining about the "illegal" and "undemocratic" way that the current government came into power, I said "Why not have a revolution?". They stared at me like I was crazy and said "And what, ruin 200+ years of history? He'll be gone soon!". It was probably the same in Nazi Germany. When people nowadays make thinly veiled insults at lowly civil servants, members of the Nazi youth, etc. who didn't rebel or didn't emmigrate, they probably don't realise that they probably thought the same thing: "Why damage our country, why leave our homeland? They'll be gone soon!"

[edit on 7-3-2007 by babloyi]



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Machiavelli meet Mr. Bush - Mr Bush - Machiavelli.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Babloyi Do you, or do you not agree that as long as Iran sponsors acts of terrorism-“freedom fighting” then so can we?


Which is the reason why you also support torture in Guantanamo Bay, isn't it? Perhaps we should also start beheading Iranians and sell the tapes to Hollywood.

They do it so we can do it as well, what a poor excuse.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   
This is hilarious - the newest weapon in the "War on Terrorism" is... wait for it... ...Terrorism!

How totally rich.

Pretty much exposes all our moral posturing over the last six years as total bunk.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 03:00 AM
link   
remember, everything reported in the news is true.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
1. Because terrorism attacks the state
2. Needn’t kill civilians just infrastructure and bad politicians
3. Is cheap
4. Is being used against us
5. Isn’t as ball baric as war, or as nasty as brutal sanctions
6. We can stop being sponsors of terrorism if or when they agree to do the same.

Originally Posted by xmotex

This is hilarious - the newest weapon in the "War on Terrorism" is... wait for it... ...Terrorism!

How totally rich.


I would argue: War is not always a game of politics, it is primarily a game of regime change, achieved by compromises or fall. And it is game that should played at an affordable cost, with results that cover a worthwhile period. Terrorism can do both because…

If a new regime was to rise in Iran, and also last long enough; then “terrorism” (freedom-fighting) could save more lives by ending the Iranian regime, than lives it absorbs by overthrowing it.
And whatever the case our soldiers lives won’t be put at risk. This is how I address the political side of the argument.


I suppose if ether the U.S, or world community has no intention of doing anything with it’s military against Iran; then use of terrorism may not be justified.
However if it will use these things anyway; then terrorism may be a more useful, and long lasting solution than constant military action, or at least in comparison to engineered Iranian civilian suffering through United Nations sanctions.

Originally posted by MDv2

Which is the reason why you also support torture in Guantanamo Bay, isn't it? Perhaps we should also start beheading Iranians and sell the tapes to Hollywood.

They do it so we can do it as well, what a poor excuse.


Nah; you’re trivialising my argument. I advocate terrorism of a certain kind because in humanitarian terms it is a heck of a lot better than other things done to e.g. Iraq-Vietnam, and which we may do again to Iran.
Because terrorism (regime change from within) is probably better than some of the other consequences that come with dealing with Iran (e.g. global financial meltdown because of a disrupted flow of oil to the global market).

In contrast beheading Iranians and selling the tapes in Hollywood would only extend the crimes of America, not reduce them.
It would in fact make Americans about as proud of their government as most Iranians seem to be of theirs.

You don’t copy your enemy for behaving like a monkey; you copy him behaving like a human being. (Same logic applies to Iran).

P.S When have I ever supported torture at Guantanamo Bay?
I have always being against it, and I have always wanted people to be tried faster, using a system of better justice (i.e. a public jury that’s signed the official secrets act).
I also want Guantanamo closed for being a bit of an Al Qaeda recruitment advert. It kind of adds something called “logic” to phrase the “anti American”.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   


This is so ironic.


Not really. Our history of switching sides in the region is EXACTLY why we're in this mess in the first place. Initially, we supported a regime in Iran that put it's people in the poor house. Then, when the Iranians overthrew him and installed someone we didn't like, we switched gears and then backed Iraq. Then, we swooped in and changed Iraq's government.... It's really little wonder they despise us so....either of them.

And you thought Kerry "flip-flopped"???


Not saying either decision was wrong at the time, but in hindsight, it's part of what got us here....



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join