PDA

View Full Version : US support "good" terrorist



revelarts
10-28-2011, 01:28 PM
We don't really have a problem with "terror" tacits if they are used against an enemy state or enemy in general.
In Iran we support the terrorist org called Jundallah have been for years.

ABC News
Apr 3, 2007 5:25pm

ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran




A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News. The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran. It has taken responsibility for the deaths and kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials. THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS Blotter Exclusive: Iran Nuclear Bomb Could Be Possible by 2009 World News Video Iran’s Nuclear Program on the Fast Track Click Here to Check Out Brian Ross Slideshows U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight. Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to its youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states. Jundullah has produced its own videos showing Iranian soldiers and border guards it says it has captured and brought back to Pakistan. The leader, Regi, claims to have personally executed some of the Iranians. "He used to fight with the Taliban. He’s part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist," said Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant who recently met with Pakistani officials and tribal members. "Regi is essentially commanding a force of several hundred guerrilla fighters that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera," Debat said. Most recently, Jundullah took credit for an attack in February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard riding on a bus in the Iranian city of Zahedan. Last month, Iranian state television broadcast what it said were confessions by those responsible for the bus attack. They reportedly admitted to being members of Jundullah and said they had been trained for the mission at a secret location in Pakistan. The Iranian TV broadcast is interspersed with the logo of the CIA, which the broadcast blamed for the plot. A CIA spokesperson said "the account of alleged CIA action is false" and reiterated that the U.S. provides no funding of the Jundullah group. Pakistani government sources say the secret campaign against Iran by Jundullah was on the agenda when Vice President Dick Cheney met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February. A senior U.S. government official said groups such as Jundullah have been helpful in tracking al Qaeda figures and that it was appropriate for the U.S. to deal with such groups in that context. Some former CIA officers say the arrangement is reminiscent of how the U.S. government used proxy armies, funded by other countries including Saudi Arabia, to destabilize the government of Nicaragua in the 1980s.


http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/25/top-jundallah-figure-says-us-ordered-attacks/



<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xy0DY6D9-uI?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>


but the gov't denys it so none of it is true,
thought it was interesting fiction though.


--------------
Frontline PBS
Is there any truth to Iran's allegations against the U.S. and Britain? The mainstream media here has been dismissive of Iran's charges. One unfortunate result of Iran's rigged June 12 presidential election is the loss of legitimacy. Even when there is truth to what the Iranian government says, the world is inclined to dismiss it, simply because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government has proven to be highly untrustworthy.
But there is evidence to suggest under the recent Bush administration, the U.S. was deeply involved in funding Jundallah terrorists. It is unclear what the policy of the Obama administration is regarding Jundallah. Both Britain and the U.S. State Department flatly rejected Iran's accusations and condemned the terrorist attacks. But there is more than meets the eyes.

The Bush Administration and Terrorist Groups
In February 2007, Dick Cheney traveled to Pakistan and met with then Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf. Pakistani government sources said at the time that the secret campaign against Iran by Jundullah was on the agenda when the two met. In an interview later that month, Cheney referred to the Jundallah terrorists as "guerrillas" to give them legitimacy.
But despite Cheney's efforts to present them as legitimate fighters, Jundallah is a sectarian terrorist organization. It is made of Sunni extremists who hate the Shiites and its goal is to foment a conflict between the two sects of Islam. Because of its Sunni Salafi roots, it is likely that Jundallah is also supported by Saudi Arabia. I will return to this point shortly.
On Feb. 25, 2007, the London Telegraph reported that (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1543798/US-funds-terror-groups-to-sow-chaos-in-Iran.html#) "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 program. Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the northwest, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the southeast. 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."
According to the Telegraph, Fred Burton, a former U.S. State Department counter-terrorism agent, supported the assertion by saying, "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilize the Iranian regime."
In April 2007, ABC News reported that (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html#), according to Pakistani and U.S. intelligence officials, the Jundallah group, which is "responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005."
According to the report, "U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight. The money for Jundullah was funneled to its leader, Abdelmalek Rigi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states." The Iranian exiles are the Mujahedin-e Khalgh (MKO).
In an interview with the National Public Radio on June 30, 2008, distinguished American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh explained (http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=92025860&m=92028303) how the Bush Administration's policy of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" led the U.S. to support the Jundallah and MKO (the MKO is listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department).
A week later, in his July 8, 2008, article in The New Yorker, Hersh quoted (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh) Robert Baer, a former CIA clandestine officer who worked for nearly two decades in South Asia and the Middle East. "The Baluchis are Sunni fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda. These are guys who cut off the heads of nonbelievers -- in this case, it's Shiite Iranians. The irony is that we're once again working with Sunni fundamentalists, just as we did in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties," Baer was quoted as saying.
Baer was referring to the CIA providing arms, and Saudi Arabia supplying funds to the Afghan Mujahedin in the 1980s, who were fighting the occupying forces of the Soviet Union. After Soviet forces pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, the Afghan Mujahedin branched out into Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
In a symposium on U.S.-Iran relations that the author co-organized in October 2008 at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, Baer repeated his assertions about Jundallah.
Former Pakistani Army Chief, retired General Mirza Aslam Baig, also said (http://www.infowars.com/former-pakistan-general-us-supports-jundullah-terrorists-in-iran/#) that "the U.S. supports the Jundullah terrorist group and uses it to destabilize Iran. Baig was deeply involved when the Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) created the Taliban."
In his July 2008 article Hersh also said that the MKO received arms and intelligence, directly or indirectly, from the U.S., and that the Kurdish party, PJAK (Party for Free Life of Kurdistan), "which has also been reported to be covertly supported by the United States," has been operating against Iran from bases in northern Iraq for at least three years. PJAK, the Iranian branch of the Kurdish PKK group active in Turkey, has used Iraq's side of Kurdistan as its base to carry out many raids into Iran which have killed many civilians, as well as soldiers and policemen.

Britain and Terrorist Groups

There is still more. In the fall of 2005, there was a series of bombings in Iran's oil-rich province of Khuzestan, which borders southern Iraq, which was occupied by British forces. The bombings killed many innocent people. The Iranian government accused Britain and the U.S. of being behind the terrorist attacks. In his article, Hersh also mentions possible U.S. support for the so-called Khazestan separatists (who exist only in the imagination of some U.S. policy makers).
"Arabization" of Khuzestan and separating it from Iran has always been a goal of Britain (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GK03Ak02.html), going back to the 1940s. British Arabists have always supported Arab "nationalist" activities against Iran, and in particular in Khuzestan.

For example, in September 1980 when Iraq invaded Iran, Saddam Hussein's declared goal was to annex Khuzestan. The BBC news network, as well as Western mainstream media, provided full overage of the Iraqi invasion in the first week. For several days, the United States and Britain prevented the UN Security Council from convening an emergency session to look into the possibility of calling for a ceasefire.
Their goal was twofold: (a) to show that Iran's resistance would collapse quickly. In fact, the U.S. was hoping that the invasion and rapid advances of the Iraqi army into Khuzestan would provoke a coup in Tehran by the remnants of the Shah's army; and (b) to show that the Arabs of Khuzestan fully support the invasion and can act as a fifth column.
Neither scenario materialized. In fact, not only did the vast majority of the Iranian Arabs not support Saddam, but were at the forefront of resistance to the Iraqi invaders. By spring of 1982, Iraq had been driven from almost all of Khuzestan.
Clearly, the Bush administration and Britain tried very hard, through covert programs, to destabilize Iran by inciting its ethnic and religious minorities.
The policy of the Obama administration toward the program is not clear. But President Obama has always stated that when it comes to Iran, "All options are on the table." So, why should anyone believe that this particular option has been taken off the table?

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/10/jundallah.html#ixzz1c6SHX5Is

revelarts
10-01-2012, 08:08 PM
.........




The US supporting the crazy Muslim terrorist we like.
You Know, the GOOD kind.
Today the Gov't likes the MEK. Thinking of taking them OFF the terrorist list. Because why? Well they are against the evil boggie man Iran-Aminaja-hid.




The Fuzzy Line of Terrorism
September 27, 2012

...
By Coleen Rowley

And what kind of mind-boggling corruption — of the worst kind – influence-peddling by a “foreign power” (as defined by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to include foreign terrorist groups) — lies hidden behind the curtain?

Could some members of the MEK “foreign terrorist organization,” their murderous history magically erased, be sent to a nice suburb somewhere to live as your next door neighbor as happens with the organized crime “witness protection program?”

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey

Or will the soon-to-be-legalized “terrorism” of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (or mojahedin-e khalq, usually referred to as MEK) find more utilitarian function in the mode of how U.S. neoconservative officials plotted with and used convicted con artist Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraqi expatriate group to gin up the false “intelligence” that served to launch the unjustified and counter-productive war on Iraq? Even worse, might this new MEK operation end up resembling the sequel to “Charlie Wilson’s War”?

Since we cannot seem to learn from history and therefore seem doomed to repeat our mistakes, all of the above could be true. In any event, the old movie script will require few changes.




From MAK to MEK

The popular 2007 movie “Charlie Wilson’s War” found a way to glorify a rather derelict Texas congressman’s exploits and secret appropriations to fund CIA covert assistance to Mujahedeen “rebels” in Afghanistan (one faction recruited and trained by Osama Bin Laden himself), based on the repeatedly discredited notion that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Hollywood and Tom Hanks also found a way to edit out the real truth:

“That the U.S.-aided Mujahedeen’s ouster of the Soviets in 1989 ultimately led to civil war and the ultra-orthodox Islamic Taliban coming to power in 1996, an event that also enabled anti-Soviet fighter Osama bin Laden and his fledgling al Qaeda to set up a base from which to plan the 9/11 attacks.”

Or as Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed wrote in an article, “Our Terrorists,” for the New Internationalist Magazine: “Osama bin Laden arrived in the country … sent by then-Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal, where he set up the Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) which helped finance, recruit and train mujahidin fighters.

“Bin Laden, the MAK, and the Afghan mujahidin in total received about half a billion dollars a year from the CIA, and roughly the same from the Saudis, funneled through Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). … Continued US sponsorship of the al-Qaeda-Taliban nexus in Afghanistan was confirmed as late as 2000 in Congressional hearings.

“Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on South Asia, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher – former White House Special Assistant to President Reagan and now Senior Member of the House International Relations Committee – declared that ‘this administration has a covert policy that has empowered the Taliban and enabled this brutal movement to hold on to power’. The assumption is that ‘the Taliban would bring stability to Afghanistan and permit the building of oil pipelines from Central Asia through Afghanistan to Pakistan’”

In other words, Charlie Wilson’s War seriously backfired and was a significant factor that gave rise to the 9/11 attacks. (Incidentally — and a big reason why there’s so little hope of anyone having learned from this sordid history — is that Dana Rohrabacher happens to be one of the main congressmen who has now taken big sums of money from the MEK front groups!)

An October 2010 report (“Restoring Afghanistan’s Tribal Balance”) for the New World Strategies Coalition described U.S. covert support of the Mujahedeen as follows:

“During the ‘jihad’ against the Soviets, the Judeo-Christian West teamed up with violent Islamic radicals of the worst sort, against the Soviets, because they shared a common hatred for the godless communists.

“The same people American leaders once called ‘freedom fighters’ throughout the 80′s are now [in the current war] violent extremist jihadist terrorists who commit immoral acts and heinous human rights violations that all Americans should find deplorable.

“Of course, before 9/11 when these ‘terrorists’ were fighting against the Soviets, they were ‘our terrorists’ and such human rights violations and war crimes hardly ever made the press. Today, people aren’t really supposed to remember nor point out this interesting historical irony, especially within the media.”

By fast-forwarding 30 years and changing one vowel, (MAK to MEK) we see history repeating almost exactly. There’s ample evidence that Iranian MEK terrorists, “our new terrorists,” are responsible for conducting assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.

U.S. officials confirmed the charges leveled by Iran’s leaders as well as the fact that the killings and bombings in Iran were financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service. In an exclusive report, NBC reported that:

“The group, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, has long been designated as a terrorist group by the United States, accused of killing American servicemen and contractors in the 1970s and supporting the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran before breaking with the Iranian mullahs in 1980.

“The attacks, which have killed five Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007 and may have destroyed a missile research and development site, have been carried out in dramatic fashion, with motorcycle-borne assailants often attaching small magnetic bombs to the exterior of the victims’ cars.” [From NBC Rock Center exclusive report, February, 2012]

Last April, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker article “Our Men in Iran” that members of MEK were also being trained in Nevada by U.S. Joint Special Operation Command for covert actions to topple the Iranian government.

The following comments are from former U.S. security experts Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett’s excellent analysis of the highly politicized flip-flop, “By Delisting the MEK, the Obama Administration is taking the Moral and Strategic Bankruptcy of America’s Iran Policy to a New Low“

“We have seen too many times over the years just how cynically American administrations have manipulated these designations, adding and removing organizations and countries for reasons that have little or nothing to do with designees’ actual involvement in terrorist activity. … Yet, precisely because we know how thoroughly corrupt and politicized these designations really are, we recognize their significance as statements of U.S. policy.

“Today, the Obama administration made a truly horrible statement about U.S. policy toward Iran. … Just this year, U.S. intelligence officials told high-profile media outlets that the MEK is actively collaborating with Israeli intelligence to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists. …; Iranian officials have made the same charge.

“Since when did murdering unarmed civilians (and, in some instances, members of their families as well) on public streets in the middle of a heavily populated urban area (Tehran) not meet even the U.S. government’s own professed standard for terrorism? …

“Here, the Obama administration is taking an organization that the U.S. government knows is directly involved in the murder of innocent people and giving this group Washington’s ‘good housekeeping seal of approval.’… Count on this: once the MEK is formally off the FTO list — a legally defined process that will take a few months to play out — Congress will be appropriating money to support the monafeqin as the vanguard of a new American strategy for regime change in Iran.:....

more...
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/09/27/the-fuzzy-line-of-terrorism/


Both Rs & Ds Dood it. Supportin terrorist around the globe. Does that make us a terrorist nation?http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/smilies/eek.pnghttp://www.debatepolicy.com/images/smilies/eek.pnghttp://www.debatepolicy.com/images/smilies/eek.png

Don't they know that ALL muslims terrorist are evil and must be destroyed like the subhuman boggie men they are before they get a chance to Sharia us to death?!!?
But we keep giving them Money and Guns and WHOLE countries!!!
But only when good Muslim hatin americans backs are turned. Because somehow we've never seen a good American (Brit) leaders help a terrorist ever evah. no no.

gabosaurus
10-01-2012, 08:14 PM
It's been done before. The Reagan administration armed and financially supported the Taliban for years while they were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. The CIA taught many of the same leaders that currently run Al Qaeda.
Margaret Thatcher funneled millions of pounds to Saddam Hussein while Iraq was battling Iran.
Terrorists only become that when our governments decides so.

jafar00
10-01-2012, 08:47 PM
The US supporting the crazy Muslim terrorist we like.
You Know, the GOOD kind.
Today the Gov't likes the MEK. Thinking of taking them OFF the terrorist list. Because why? Well they are against the evil boggie man Iran-Aminaja-hid.


It's interesting to note that many high profile Americans and politicians have taken bribes from MEK to speak in their support, while still listed as a terrorist organisation. Isn't that illegal? Imagine the scandal if a US politician took money from Al Qaeda to speak in support of them? The scandal should be the same if they speak for MEK who kill civilians (including US citizens) and officials alike.

revelarts
10-01-2012, 09:01 PM
It's interesting to note that many high profile Americans and politicians have taken bribes from MEK to speak in their support, while still listed as a terrorist organisation. Isn't that illegal? Imagine the scandal if a US politician took money from Al Qaeda to speak in support of them? The scandal should be the same if they speak for MEK who kill civilians (including US citizens) and officials alike.

Jafar say it aint so.
You're are obviously a US hating Muslim person who just hates America.
What are the names of the lying liars , book writers most likely, who said U.S. politicians are TAKING MONEY:eek:, Sharia tainted money at that?!!


seriously you got a link for that?

gabosaurus
10-01-2012, 11:20 PM
U.S. politicians (both parties) have never met a bribe they didn't approve of. That is why our government has paid groups to destabilize foreign countries for more than a hundred years. That is why oil companies bitch about not being able to drill in protected areas. They want to be able to sell the excess oil to China and Japan for twice what they could get for it here. That is why our pharmaceutical products cost more here than in other countries. That is why we pay subsidies to tobacco farmers to produce a product that kills people.
I am quite sure we pay "good" terrorists to fight "bad" ones.

jafar00
10-02-2012, 01:41 AM
Jafar say it aint so.
You're are obviously a US hating Muslim person who just hates America.
What are the names of the lying liars , book writers most likely, who said U.S. politicians are TAKING MONEY:eek:, Sharia tainted money at that?!!


seriously you got a link for that?


Prominent among the members of Congress who have received fund is Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chair of the House of Representatives foreign affairs committee. She has accepted at least $20,000 in donations from Iranian American groups or their leaders to her political campaign fund.

Other recipients include Congressman Bob Filner, who was twice flown to address pro-MEK events in France and has pushed resolutions resolutions in the House of Representatives calling for the group to be unbanned. More than $14,000 in expenses for Filner's Paris trips were met by the head of an Iranian American group who also paid close to $1m to a Washington lobby firm working to get the MEK unbanned.

A Texas Congressman, Ted Poe, received thousands of dollars in donations from the head of a pro-MEK group in his state at a time when he was a regular speaker on behalf of its unbanning at events across the US, describing the organisation as the ticket to regime change in Iran.

Mike Rogers, chairman of the House of Representatives intelligence committee, has also received the backing of individuals and groups that support the unbanning of the MEK. Rogers has been among the strongest supporters in Congress of delisting the group, sponsoring resolutions and pressing other members of Congress to support the cause.

A leading advocate of unbanning the MEK and chairman of the foreign affairs committee's oversight subcommittee, congressman Dana Rohrabacher, has received thousands of dollars in donations from supporters of the banned group this year alone.


The former Pennsylvania governor, Ed Rendell, has accepted more than $150,000 in speaking fees at events in support of the MEK's unbanning. Clarence Page, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, was paid $20,000 to speak at the rally. Part of the money has been paid through speakers bureaus on the US east coast.

Others accepted only travel costs, although in some cases that involved expensive trips to Europe.

In June, Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the US House of Representatives and Republican presidential candidate, flew to Paris to address a pro-MEK rally and meet its co-leader, Maryam Rajavi. He was criticised for bowing to her.

Congressman Rohrabacher has described the lobbying campaign as one of the most effective (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/22/iranian-terror-group-lobbies-capitol-hill) he has seen on Capitol Hill. It has galvanised powerful support for delisting the MEK far beyond those receiving political contributions, lobbying fees or other payments.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/21/iran-mek-group-removed-us-terrorism-list

I wonder how much in bribes Al Qaeda needs to get themselves off the list too?

logroller
10-02-2012, 01:54 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/21/iran-mek-group-removed-us-terrorism-list

I wonder how much in bribes Al Qaeda needs to get themselves off the list too?
What was the aggregate cost of 9/11, $3 trillion?

revelarts
10-02-2012, 08:39 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/21/iran-mek-group-removed-us-terrorism-list

I wonder how much in bribes Al Qaeda needs to get themselves off the list too?

As long as Al Qaeda agrees to blow up, murder, assassinate, kidnap, torture, saw the heads off of, and generally terrorize mostly the folks that aren't playin' ball with us the way we like, some portions of the U.S. gov't will pay THEM and protect them.
See Libya and Syria for recent reference.
Afghanistan above for more historical.

aboutime
10-02-2012, 03:59 PM
The title of this thread is FALSE. When you say US Support "good" terrorist.

As A U.S. Citizen....."I DO NOT SUPPORT OBAMA!"

revelarts
09-15-2013, 08:31 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/23/iran-usa

<time itemprop="datePublished" datetime="2012-09-23T15:25EDT" pubdate="">Sunday 23 September 2012 15.25 EDT</time>
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/23/iran-usa

The Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), or People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (http://www.theguardian.com/world/iran), is an Iranian dissident group that has been formally designated (http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm) for the last 15 years by the US State Department as a "foreign terrorist organization". When the Bush administration sought to justify its attack on Iraq in 2003 by accusing Saddam Hussein of being a sponsor of "international terrorism", one of its prime examples (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html) was Iraq's "sheltering" of the MEK. Its inclusion on the terrorist list has meant that it is a felony (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339B) to provide any "material support" to that group.

Nonetheless, a large group of prominent former US government officials from both political parties has spent the last several years receiving substantial sums of cash to give speeches to the MEK, and have then become vocal, relentless advocates for the group, specifically for removing them from the terrorist list. Last year, the Christian Science Monitor thoroughly described (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0808/Iranian-group-s-big-money-push-to-get-off-US-terrorist-list) "these former high-ranking US officials - who represent the full political spectrum - [who] have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK." They include Democrats Howard Dean, Ed Rendell, Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, and Lee Hamilton, and Republicans Rudy Giuliani, Fran Townsend, Tom Ridge, Michael Mukasey, and Andrew Card. Other prominent voices outside government, such as Alan Dershowitz and Elie Wiesel, have been enlisted to the cause (http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/02/28/3091892/iranian-dissident-group-enlists-jewish-voices-in-bid-to-get-off-us-terror-l) and are steadfast MEK advocates.
Money has also been paid to journalists such as The Washington Post's Carl Bernstein (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/carl_bernstein_mek.php) and the Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/03/clarence-page-mek-speech-fee_n_1645795.html). Townsend is a CNN contributor and Rendell is an MSNBC contributor, yet those MEK payments are rarely, if ever, disclosed by those media outlets when featuring those contributors (indeed, Townsend can go on CNN to opine on Iran (http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/28/townsend-on-iranian-plot-to-kill-americans-should-be-consider-an-act-of-war/), even urging that its alleged conduct be viewed as "an act for war", with no disclosure whatsoever during the segment of her MEK payments). Quoting a State Department official, CSM detailed how the scheme works:

"'Your speech agent calls, and says you get $20,000 to speak for 20 minutes. They will send a private jet, you get $25,000 more when you are done, and they will send a team to brief you on what to say.' . . . The contracts can range up to $100,000 and include several appearances."
On Friday, the Guardian's Washington reporter Chris McGreal added substantial information (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/21/iran-mek-group-removed-us-terrorism-list) about the recipients of the funding and, especially, its sources. As he put it, the pro-MEK campaign "has seen large sums of money directed at three principal targets: members of Congress, Washington lobby groups and influential former officials", including the GOP Congressman who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers.
What makes this effort all the more extraordinary are the reports that MEK has actually intensified its terrorist and other military activities over the last couple of years. In February, NBC News reported (http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/02/08/10354553-israel-teams-with-terror-group-to-kill-irans-nuclear-scientists-us-officials-tell-nbc-news), citing US officials, that "deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by [MEK]" as it is "financed, trained and armed by Israel's secret service". While the MEK denies involvement, the Iranian government has echoed these US officials in insisting that the group was responsible for those assassinations. NBC also cited "unconfirmed reports in the Israeli press and elsewhere that Israel and the MEK were involved in a Nov. 12 explosion that destroyed the Iranian missile research and development site at Bin Kaneh, 30 miles outside Tehran".
In April, the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh reported (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/04/mek.html) that the US itself has for years provided extensive training to MEK operatives, on US soil (in other words, the US government provided exactly the "material support" for a designated terror group which the law criminalizes). Hersh cited numerous officials for the claim that "some American-supported covert operations continue in Iran today." The MEK's prime goal is the removal of Iran's government.
Despite these reports that the MEK has been engaged in terrorism and other military aggression against Iran - or, more accurately: likely because of them - it was announced on Friday (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/21/169369/us-to-remove-mek-from-terrorist.html) the US State Department will remove MEK from its list of terrorist organizations. This event is completely unsurprising. In May, I noted (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/15/likely_victory_for_mek_shills/) the emergence of reports that the State Department would do so imminently. ..



http://rt.com/news/iran-mek-us-military-237/

revelarts
09-15-2013, 10:01 PM
on the terrorist off the terror list, depends on who your working for...


Moreover, organizations are labeled as terrorists, then de-listed, and then re-listed … depending on ever-changing American policy objectives.

For example, two-time Emmy award-winning 20/20 news producer Danny Schecther writes:

Question: When is a terrorist a terrorist?

Answer: When the US government says so.

When the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan were assassinating members of their government and the Russian troops dispatched to support it, they were, in Washington’s view, freedom fighters, even as their enemies branded them terrorists.

When they turned against an Afghan government imposed by the United States or revolted against a US invasion, they were once again branded terrorists.

When armed groups battling Gadaffi’s govermment were supported by NATO, they were called freedom fighters. When some recently and allegedly turned violently against the United States which is now dominating Libyan politics, they are once again castigated as terrorists.

***

One day they were feared terrorists, the next day they were not. The “bad guys” became “good guys” [and back again] with the swipe of a pen...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/when-is-a-terrorist-no-longer-a-terrorist/


The history of the US list of designated terrorist organizations, and its close cousin list of state sponsors of terrorism, is simple: a country or group goes on the list when they use violence to impede US interests, and they are then taken off the list when they start to use exactly the same violence to advance US interests. The terrorist list is not a list of terrorists; it’s a list of states and groups which use their power to defy US dictates rather than adhere to them.

The NYU scholar Remi Brulin has exhaustively detailed the rank game-playing that has taken place with this list: Saddam was put on it when he allied with the Soviets in the early 1980s, then was taken off when the US wanted to arm and fund him against Iran in the mid-1980s, then he was put back on in the early 1990s when the US wanted to attack him.
http://www.salon.com/2010/03/14/terrorism_20/


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/u-s-government-embraces-the-same-iranian-terrorists-that-bush-cited-to-allege-that-saddam-was-sponsoring-international-terrorism.html