NEWS: Great. We Have To Torture Us

POLITICS: Great. We Have To Torture Us

We are in a bit of a quandary. For years now, the U.S. has been at war with terrorism - which is weird, because terrorism is a tactic, not a thing. But, whatever. Our war on terror has been going on since 9/11. We're losing. We've pretty much made every wrong move possible in this "global conflict" and the blow back will be severe and horrible. One only needs to look at 9/11, which was blow back for our involvement in the Russian-Afghanistan war and the first Iraq War, to see how it can come back on us. But today we find ourselves in a really terrible position. I think we actually have to bomb and torture ourselves. Why? Because we're terrorists.



A terrorist group called Jundullah operates in Balochistan. You may not have heard of Balochistan. I have. I remember reading about it in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq. Seems an odd connection, right? Balochistan is like Kurdistan - a people without a country. Bolachistan is in Iran, Afghanistan, but mainly Pakistan.



Balochis were a small part of the decade long, neo-con push to invade Iraq. According the propaganda I read, Balochistan was one of the most inhospitable places on Earth. People raised there were incredibly tough sons of bitches - which is why they were recruited by a certain Saddam Hussein to do very bad things. TO AMERICA!



Yeah, neo-cons created an almost comic book origin for a super breed of terrorists. It was pretty retarded, but they went ahead with it anyway. According to our right wing lunatic friends, Hussein recruited the Baloch to destroy America. It was a mysterious scary place and the men coming out of Balochistan were scary people.



Today, years after the Iraq War lies have been put to bed, Balochistan is back in the news. But this time, the terrorists aren't working against the U.S.; they're working for the U.S. Shocking, huh? When has the U.S. sponsored terrorism? I mean, besides forever.

Yeah. That's how we do.



Jundullah is responsible for many kidnappings and executions of Iranian soldiers. Their leader, Ragi, has admitted to killing Iranians with his own hand. Many of the executions are video taped for the world to see, which is pretty nice of them. There are several hundred Jundullah fighters, many of whom are ex-Taliban.



You may recall hearing about some of their recent work, a bombing in the Iranian city of Zahenda. A car bomb was detonated near a bus carrying Iranian soldiers. 18 people were killed. Jundullah took credit.



Now, this is where it gets fun. We support Jundullah the same way we supported the Contras in the '80s.

Well, that only led to shitloads of dead Nicaraguans and destabilized a region of the world, so why not?



Of course, much like the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan Administration, the president doesn't know anything about it.

Um. Yeah. So, we just tell someone else to give them money. "Hey, Saudi Arabia, while we're giving you all those planes and weapons, could you do us a favor?" We're aiding terrorists. It's just that they're our terrorists. So, now we have to change the name of the War on Terror to the War on Certain Terror.



Thankfully, things are starting to heat up with our terrorist buddies. Pakistani police arrested six members of Jundullah last week and they are planning to extradite them.

They would probably be executed. But don't worry, we're doing everything we can to help these terrorists.

Now the U.S. is actively trying to block extradition of terrorists. This means we have to put ourselves in Guantanamo and waterboard each other. What a fucking mess.



This should work out great! The last time we funded and aided Islamic guerillas in this region it ended up awesome. Go CIA! Go America!

Damnit! I hate waterboarding, it really freaks me out, man.

PLEASE keep the truth coming...

Fuck. These assholes are determined to start another war before they leave office, aren't they?

This really really frightens me.

lol , the circle of life !

People never learn, do they?

Good article.

It shows we're the same (worse actually) than the "terrorists."

These groups are ultimately a card for leverage against Iraqi shiites that support Iran, and even Hezbollah. Tit for tat. If the Iranian affiliated iraqi allies (aka: most of shiite iraq) get feisty, the US will fund more terrorism against Iran.

I'm sure the US will also invoke attacks upon iran in the event Hezbollah/Israel go at it again.

But it might also point to a US acknowledgment of its limited conventional military options against Iran. If a US invasion were planned then the US wouldn't necessarily need to foment this type of terrorism, the US might do it anyway buts its worth mentioning.

The only real US military option against Iran at this point is massive airstrikes (a potent one) but one that will increase mullah power and ultimately fail to achieve any goal other than pissing everyone off and turning more people against the US.

We are the good guys so whatever do to the bad guys is okay and approved by God.

If we have to waterboard each other can we have a wet t-shirt contest too?

Zakaria's analysis of statistics related to the rise in terrorism as reported by two US government agencies (not strictly a propos of FTR's article, just more to read on the subject generally): Fareed Zakaria

Just want to put a British Army P.O.V. (these are my views, not necessarily those of the British Army) in here. Terrorism isn't a tactic, it's the result of specific targeting on civilians with the main intention of causing terror and political upheaval, usually by groups using Guerrilla tactics. In that sense, we are similar and often use what Guerrilla tactics we can within the Geneva Convention, because it works. We have adapted this into a part of manoeuvrist warfare. The difference is that we only use these tactics against specific military targets with an aim of restricting damage to civilian life, buildings and infrastructure. I think it's important to note the difference as our enemy's tactics outside of the battlefield may look awfully familiar, the difference being intention, will, self restriction, timings etc., those things that can't easily be differentiated by the non-military, non acting observer.

But yes, this is a mess. Mostly the result of opportunistic operatives commanded by people with a short-term view.

The British war on terror has arguably been going on since the 1950's if not the beginning of history and we found in the 1950's in Malaya and 1970's in Northern Ireland that the best gains are not made by military action but by in-theatre parallel incentives and civilian interaction. Insurgent groups cannot operate without the support of the population. (I'm heavily abbreviating a link between international terrorism and insurgency) What we need to do is learn how best to apply these in current theatres, backed up by comprehensive and ACCURATE intelligence.

Sorry, I'm probably off topic by now, I love talking about this. Keep up the good work. Keep digging.

2nd Lieutenant J. RA

When America officially declares war, we usually do pretty damn well. When we unofficially declare war (Korea, Vietnam, drugs, terror) we kind of run around like recenty decapitated chickens. Coincidence?

except for McArthur and Truman plugging their ears and singing "la la la la" everytime someone brought up the possibility of a Chinese counteroffensive, we did pretty well in the Korean War.

True, when we stuck to our original mission of liberating South Korea. When we decided, "Gosh, that was so easy, let's just go ahead and take the North and have done with it," that's when things went to hell. A good point.

America. Fuck yeah.

Going to war for your own freedom, or even helping others fight for theirs can a reasonable course. Reprisal for an attack against you or a legitmate ally is defensible.

But going to war to force your own ideology on others is always questionable. It is too much like imperialism.

not that the US has ever been in short supply of imperialism.

this was a very informative and interesting article. I follow things pretty closely and hadn't come across this particular story. kudos for bringing it to my attention.

i guess it's only terrorism when you're the victim.

It's only terrorism when you're the little guy.

Mostly people who attain high office.

As long as I'm taller than 5'5", I'm not a terrorist, right?

That is correct. Most Asians, for example, are terrorists.

Me too.

So when Bush said, "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists" he should have said "Choose your terrorists."

If we get into another war, it'll be the coup de grace on an already nightmarish presidency. I almost think he's just getting his jollies out before he is forced to give up the office to the future incumbant...much like a kid playing a video game one last time before his parents find out about his report card and he knows it'll be taken away.

Perhaps. But actually training and funding terrorist groups, like this article is talking about, goes a little beyond using guerrilla tactics in our own military maneuvers.