Reply With Quote
Yep. You do it to others all the time, but you cry like a baby when it happens to you.
if I don't hold with your gloss of my words that doesn't necessarily make me a coward or a hypocrite, it just means we disagree about what I meant, but whatever. Your approval means nothing to me.
Yep. You do it to others all the time, but you cry like a baby when it happens to you.
just like a bully
the flipside:
For the MeK to be re-designated absent any terrorist activity or terrorism, the State Department has to demonstrate that the group has both the capability and the intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism and that it either threatens U.S. national security or the security of American citizens.
In the Department of State Country Reports on Terrorism (CRT) 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, a CRT 2006 accusation that the MeK has “capacity and will” to commit terrorist activities or engage in terrorism does not recur, and there are no terrorist activities or terrorist events cited during the legally relevant period of two years prior to the last re-designation decision of January 2009. In fact, no such actions are listed since 2001.
In view of the convergence of historical cir stances and the law in favor of delisting, consider the political origins of the MeK designation. The roots are in the Iran-Contra affair of the mid-1980s: In exchange for release of American hostages held in Lebanon by one of Tehran’s proxies, Hezbollah, the State Department alleged without evidence that MeK members used terrorism and violence as “standard instruments of their politics.” Thus began the use of that designation primarily as a tool to achieve foreign-policy aims rather than an errorism goals.remember the INC? where is it today?Because law and facts converge for removing the designation of the MeK, those who oppose delisting fall back on political grounds buttressed by vague factual allegations for a continuation of the terrorist tag. There is an unfounded claim that the MeK is unpopular within Iran because of “numerous terrorist attacks against innocent Iranian civilians.” Then there is an invalid policy conclusion: “Removing the MeK from the Foreign Terrorist Organization [sic] list and misconstruing its lack of democratic bona fides and support inside Iran will have harmful consequences on the legitimate, indigenous Iranian opposition.” The allegation of MeK unpopularity is false. Support within the expatriate Iranian community suggests popularity in Iran; no other dissident organization can mobilize similar numbers of expat supporters.http://nationalinterest.org/commenta...on-5889?page=2Some who believe delisting would limit Washington’s ability to reach out to the Iranian street are wrong; the disproportionate number of protestors arrested and hanged because of association with the MeK indicates the organization’s significant presence on the Iranian street. Those who oppose delisting the MeK and hold a dim view of the effectiveness of Iranian dissidents to bring about regime change weaken their opposition to removal of the tag on the MeK. An argument in support of delisting on foreign-policy grounds is that it would reinforce the democratic opposition in Iran.
In most of the arguments opposed to delisting the MEK, no statutory fact is presented. So opponents of removing the terrorist tag resort to irrelevant non-legal arguments to overshadow lack of evidence of its engagement in terrorist activities or terrorism. In effect, those in favor of maintaining the MeK listing want Secretary Clinton to disregard the facts and the law entirely. With a simple signature delisting the group, Secretary Clinton would not only bring her Department in line with law and facts; she also would help empower the Iranian people to change the regime and open a political option between failed engagement and ineffective sanctions, on one hand, and problematic military action on the other.
Last edited by Winehole23; 05-18-2012 at 12:36 PM.
http://www.thenational.ae/news/world...ans-oppositionThe MEK, dedicated to overthrowing Iran's Islamic regime and considered a terrorist group by Iran as well as the US, is despised by ordinary Iranians because it fought alongside Saddam's forces in the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG871.htmlDuring Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces classified the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK), an Iranian dissident group dedicated to the violent overthrow of the Iranian government, as an enemy force. The MeK had provided security services to Saddam Hussein from its camps in Iraq and had been listed as a foreign terrorist organization by the Secretary of State. After a cease-fire was signed, the U.S. Secretary of Defense designated this group's members as civilian “protected persons” rather than combatant prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. A RAND study examined the evolution of this controversial decision, which has left the United States open to charges of hypocrisy in the war on terrorism. An examination of MeK activities establishes its cultic practices and its deceptive recruitment and public relations strategies. A series of coalition decisions served to facilitate the MeK leadership's control over its members. The government of Iraq wants to expel the group, but no country other than Iran will accept it. Thus, the RAND study concludes that the best course of action would be to repatriate the majority of its members to Iran, which in 2003 granted amnesty to the MeK rank and file and appears to have upheld its commitment. The coalition's experience with the MeK also offers lessons for dealing with unusual militias in future military actions and for providing better training for field commanders and enlisted personnel.
weird assignment: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.co...-goes-missing/
my gloss
the forced hilarity is completely in character. also, completely unconvincing.
there's more topical material recently posted if you want to comment on that
As if you would admit to being convinced at any point. You have been posturing this entire time. Why would I think you would change at any point?
You are cliche.
Its a violent, authoritarian, pseudo religious fringe group that conservative think tank types supported primarily because they are a political group that opposes an enemy state. Keep up with the pretentious outrage discussion which will amount to the same amount of nothing as before.
Oh and make sure to throw another tantrum about me being mean soon after i talk of my agnosticism in declarative terms.
nice tantrum
You should know by now that when I rant, I include lots of expletives. It was certainly derisive but hardly a tantrum.
crying about not crying is doubly funny
you constantly about the low quality of posting and the grievous lack of depth and "thinking" here, but from the trend of your posts it's hard to resist the conclusion you actually prefer the petty flame war.
(not that there's anything wrong with that)
Um, no I don't. I call people out for saying stupid things or lying. Complaining about low quality threads or whatnot is a measure of futility.
I would prefer that people do something about it rather than just certainly but that's hardly been a calling card.
Quit projecting yourself on me, wannabe moderator.
Hypocritehole
feeding the flames, as usual
Now all you need to do is play the martyr card. Introspection is a good thing.
Nah, I don't.Now all you need to do is play the martyr card.
whatever you say, Marcus AureliusIntrospection is a good thing.
I am not into stoicism especially when it smacks of false humility and hypocrisy. Rousseau otoh...
Compared to the suite of ancient wisdom LazyLumpkins sorts into wheat and chaff with slaps, what are we?
(went camping)
We are all independent en ies capable of thought. This is not zero sum and sorry if my self-confidence makes you feel insecure. It was irony anyway, Dr. Nuance. You apparently missed it.
slapping has nuances? you'd about have to be a connoisseur to know it, bro.
anyway, I hope you have a nice afternoon.
See ya!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions