http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/03/fran_townsend_terrorism
I wonder how many of them will be arrested? :thumbsdown:
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."
As long as it is in the name of America's profits or "our interests" (same difference) it is progress, thus a blind eye is turned upon itself.
Dune kitty knows
It this thread supposed to be taken seriously? This group is in opposition to a regime(Iran) we want changed.
So we are to just buy into the "The enemy of my enemy is my ally" philosophy wholeheartedly without considering that the enemy of my enemy was and is still my enemy too?
Ahh, fighting terrorism with terrorism.
That's pretty much the mindset of most scumbag neo-cons like Genx. Which is why waterboarding and other forms of torture isn't such a big deal to them as long as it's only done to 'our enemies', even if the tortured turn out to be innocent.
That certainly has got us into trouble. How many US allies have turned into US enemies?
This volume documents the foreign policy of the Nixon administration towards Iran and Iraq, 1969-1972, during a period when the United States viewed Iran as its staunchest friend in the Persian Gulf region and Iraq as a potentially dangerous opponent.
Speaking of Torture and a little off topic, has anyone seen the movie "Unthinkable"?
Iraq - We sold them freaking biological weapons to use against Iran for christ's sake!
Syria - was part of the coalition in the first gulf war....I'm sure that they're still real chummy with us...amirite?
It this thread supposed to be taken seriously? This group is in opposition to a regime(Iran) we want changed. Of course people within this country and former members of our govt will offer support even if our govt designates them a terrorist organization. Where have you people been the last 60 years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujaheddin-e_Khalq
The funny part is tell me how many lefties on this board would oppose this group?
And
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122203666.html
They are trying to get the state dept to take them off the terrorist list. Like this group has been taken off the EU terrorist list.
On September 14, 1981, Time Magazine published an article about PMOI and reported: "The Mujahedin platform focused on anticapitalist, anti-Western slogans. It demanded the nationalization of all foreign businesses run by Iranians and continuation of the anti-imperialist struggle, especially against the U.S. Western intelligence sources doubt that the Mujahedin, though superbly organized, have as many followers as they claim. "They are not a popular movement," one analyst asserts. "Their ideology is not understood by the masses. They are capable, of carrying out terror operations but not of governing Iran."
On August 28, 1988, New York Times published an article that after CHEMICAL ATTACKS by PMOI against western Iranian cities, Alireza Jafarzadeh as then public spokesman for PMOI in the United States said:
"Mujahedeen have learned to take PROPER TACTICS when and if necessary. We have always adjusted tactics in our fighting. The form of fighting is SECONDARY."[68]
The Mujahedeen claimed to have inflicted 40,000 Iranian casualties.[68]
On July 13, 2003, New York Times published an article that in 1991 when Saddam Hussein used the PMOI and its tanks as advance forces to crush the Iraqi Kurdish people in the north and the Iraqi Shia people in the south, Maryam Rajavi as then leader of PMOI's army forces commanded:
"Take the Kurds under your tanks"[69]
On December 14, 2006, Time Magazine published an article about PMOI and reported: "By the mid-1980s, the group (PMOI) had cozied up to Saddam Hussein, who provided them with funds and a compound, Camp Ashraf, north of Baghdad. The U.S. government has accused the group of helping Saddam brutally put down Iraqi Kurdish people in the early 1990s, and of launching numerous attacks inside Iran."[65]
I find it absolutely hilarious the responses I'm getting from people in this thread. Instead of actually read what I wrote. Attack attack attack!
ahh I get it another Muslim terrorist.....they are coming out of the woodwork!!!Mujaheddin-e Khalq
The bolded is blatantly untrue, just another example of progressive lies. An American university sent to Bahgdad University a sample of anthrax which MAY have been used as a basis for Iraq's weaponized anthrax. (It also may not have been used for that; anthrax is bloody omnipresent in our environment and scarcely hard to find or to purify.) Bahgdad University was at one time a well respected institution, and there is no reason to morph one American university supplying a sample of a common bacteria into lies that America sold biological weapons for use against Iran. We also sent some samples of botulism - again, a common toxin. But in any case, Iraq never used biologicals against Iran, it used chemical weapons. Specifically it used mustard gas, which is laughably easy to manufacture. America's assistance to Iraq consisted of some demilitarized helicopters (which were immediately remilitarized with rocket pods), a lot of dual use technology, and satellite intelligence. In turn we prevented Iran from taking over Iraq and blunted the fundamentalist revolution for a new Caliphate, at almost no cost to ourselves. Pretty smart, I'd say.Let's look no further than the Middle East itself:
Iran - was a strong US ally during the late 60's and early 70's
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76ve04
Here's the description of what is at that link:
Let's also not forget the puppet regime that we put in place after the 1953 coup where our hand-picked shah ruled for over a decade
Iraq - We sold them freaking biological weapons to use against Iran for christ's sake!
Syria - was part of the coalition in the first gulf war....I'm sure that they're still real chummy with us...amirite?
ahh I get it another Muslim terrorist.....they are coming out of the woodwork!!!
None of the people listed in the article are office holders. They're merely private citizens etc.
I have trouble thinking Guiliani and/or Ridge would support a terrorist group etc.
I'll wait to hear/read more before forming an opinion.
Fern
Amazingly, Fran Townsend, on CNN, hailed the Supreme Court's decision in Humanitarian Law -- the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the DOJ's view that one can be guilty of "material support for terrorism" simply by talking to or advocating for a Terrorist group -- and enthusiastically agreed when Wolf Blitzer said, while interviewing her: "If you're thinking about even voicing support for a terrorist group, don't do it because the government can come down hard on you and the Supreme Court said the government has every right to do so." Yet "voicing support for a terrorist group" is exactly what Townsend is now doing -- and it makes her a criminal under the very Supreme Court ruling that she so gleefully praised.