Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: So I guess the USA does deal with terrorists After all!

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,648
    Post Thanks / Like

    So I guess the USA does deal with terrorists After all!

    [QUOTE][B]U.S. protects Iranian opposition group in Iraq[/B]


    From Michael Ware
    CNN

    BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An [B]Iranian opposition group based in Iraq, despite being considered terrorists by the United States, continues to receive protection from the American military in the face of Iraqi pressure to leave the country.[/B]

    It's a paradox possible only because the United States considers the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or MEK, a source of valuable intelligence on Iran.

    Iranian officials tied the MEK to an explosion in February at a girls school in Zahedan, Iran. (Full story)

    The group also is credited with helping expose Iran's secret nuclear program through spying on Tehran for decades. And the group is considered an ally to America because of its opposition to Tehran.

    [B]However, the U.S. State Department officially considers the MEK a terrorist organization -- meaning no American can deal with it; U.S. banks must freeze its assets; and any American giving support to its members is committing a crime.[/B]

    The U.S. military, though, regularly escorts MEK supply runs between Baghdad and its base, Camp Ashraf.

    "The trips for procurement of logistical needs also take place under the control and protection of the MPs," said Mojgan Parsaii, vice president of MEK and leader of Camp Ashraf.

    That's because, according to U.S. documents, coalition forces regard MEK as protected people under the Geneva Conventions.

    "The coalition remains deeply committed to the security and rights of the protected people of Ashraf," U.S. Maj. Gen. John D. Gardner wrote in March 2006.

    The group also enjoys the protection of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

    "The ICRC has made clear that the residents of Camp Ashraf must not be deported, expelled or repatriated," according to an ICRC letter.

    [B]Despite repeated requests, neither Iran's ambassador in Baghdad nor the U.S. military would comment on MEK, also known as Mojahedin Khalq Organization, or MKO.[/B]

    But former U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said, "What we have here is a policy that described the people here from the MEK as a protected group, and one of our coalition partner countries is actually protecting them in the camp where they mostly are, but there is no change in our policy that the MEK, we still regard them as a terrorist organization."

    When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, Green Berets arrived at Camp Ashraf to find gardens and monuments there, along with more than 2,000 well-maintained tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, anti-aircraft guns and vehicles.

    All 3,800 camp residents were questioned by Americans -- including, interestingly, a female tank battalion. No arrests were made, and the camp quickly surrendered under a cease-fire agreement -- an agreement that also guaranteed its safety.

    "Everyone's entry to the camp and his departure are controlled by the U.S. military police force," Parsaii said.

    The MEK denies it is a terrorist group. [B][SIZE=3]Both[/SIZE] Iran and the Iraqi government, however, accuse the group of ongoing terrorist attacks, and the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government wants it out.[/B]

    "We gave this organization a six-month deadline to leave Iraq, and we informed the Red Cross," said Shirwan al-Wa'eli, Iraq's national security minister. "And presumably, our friends the Americans will respect our decision and they will not stay on Iraqi land."

    For now, however, the United States continues to protect MEK.

    "There are counter-pressures, too," Khalilzad said. "There are people who say, 'No, they should be allowed to stay here.' And as you know, around the world there are people with different views toward them."
    [/QUOTE]

    Talk about sending mixed signals!
    So its ok to work with this terrorist group but not others.
    We will actually work with and protect these terrorists but wont talk with Assad.
    Funny how once again Iraq is united with Iran on this issue! And not with the USA. I thought the Iraqi democracy would stand with us side by side on the WOT. Seems like they have been standing more with Iran than with us.

    How long do you think it will be before supporting this terrorist group turns around and bites us in the A$$???

    When will we learn?

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Talk about sending mixed signals!
    So its ok to work with this terrorist group but not others.
    We will actually work with and protect these terrorists but wont talk with Assad.
    Funny how once again Iraq is united with Iran on this issue! And not with the USA. I thought the Iraqi democracy would stand with us side by side on the WOT. Seems like they have been standing more with Iran than with us.

    How long do you think it will be before supporting this terrorist group turns around and bites us in the A$$???

    When will we learn?[/QUOTE]

    no different than working with Stalin in WWII....amazing CNN does not describe exactly why they are classified as a terrorist group...
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 04-06-2007 at 08:38 AM.

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,648
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]no different than working with Stalin in WWII....amazing CNN does not describe exactly why they are classified as a terrorist group...[/QUOTE]
    No but the Iraqi government we are sending tons of cash and troops to support calls this group terrorist and wants them thrown out of Iraq. Yet we want them protected. What kind of mixed signals does that sent the Iraqi government. And what kind of mixed signals are they sending us when they continue to side with Iran instead of the USA in these issues related to the WOT. I thought they were going to stand side by side with the USA in the fight against terror.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

    from the perspective of England in the late 18th century, George Washington was a terrorist too..

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    I guess the "Enemy of my Enemy is My Friend," rule applies.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,648
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sourceworx]I guess the "Enemy of my Enemy is My Friend," rule applies.[/QUOTE]

    What if the enemy of my enemy is also an enemy of my friend. Or supposed friend.
    In this case an enemy of Iraq, a nation we are spending billions of dollars on and asking our boys to risk their lives for.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us