Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17

 ... 434

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

MAY 25, 2008 01:17 AM

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.



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 Balochi tribe and operates out of the Balochistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



In another sign of growing tensions with the United States, Pakistan is threatening to turn over to Iran six members of a tribal militant group Iran claims are "spies" for the CIA.



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



U.S. officials tell ABC News U.S. intelligence officers frequently meet and advise Jundullah leaders, and current and former intelligence officers are working to prevent the men from being sent to Iran.



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!

LostLucy

LostLucy

USA
December 2006

MAY 29, 2008 06:25 AM

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

PLEASE keep the truth coming... skull

RudieCantFail

RudieCantFail

Intercourse, PA
January 2006

MAY 29, 2008 07:06 AM

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

DhD_No_Pants

DhD_No_Pants

Katy, TX
May 2006

MAY 29, 2008 07:16 AM

This really really frightens me.

defaultx

defaultx

I'm lost
February 2006

MAY 29, 2008 09:18 AM

lol , the circle of life !

ericwine

ericwine

Charlotte Hall, MD
January 2007

MAY 29, 2008 09:20 AM

People never learn, do they? whatever

alaric

alaric

I'm lost
June 2005

MAY 29, 2008 09:22 AM

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.

IDGAS

IDGAS

Jackson Heights, NY
March 2004

MAY 29, 2008 09:38 AM

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?

Ed_Earl

Ed_Earl

Laramie, WY
January 2006

MAY 29, 2008 11:13 AM

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

Tubesound

Tubesound

United Kingdom
October 2003

MAY 29, 2008 12:49 PM

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

JekyllAndHyde

JekyllAndHyde

Nottingham, MD
April 2005

MAY 29, 2008 01:28 PM

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?

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

MAY 29, 2008 01:41 PM

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.

JekyllAndHyde

JekyllAndHyde

Nottingham, MD
April 2005

MAY 29, 2008 02:08 PM

motorfirebox said:
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.

OhSoOrdinary

OhSoOrdinary

New York, NY
July 2006

MAY 29, 2008 04:30 PM

America. Fuck yeah.

bald_eagle

bald_eagle

Indianapolis, IN
November 2006

MAY 29, 2008 04:40 PM

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.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

MAY 29, 2008 04:48 PM

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

401kboy

401kboy

Woodbridge, NJ
May 2007

MAY 29, 2008 06:56 PM

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.

livertarian

livertarian

Fairfax, VA
February 2008

MAY 29, 2008 07:58 PM

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

lavenir

lavenir

Turlock, CA
June 2007

MAY 29, 2008 08:27 PM

ericwine said:
People never learn, do they? whatever

Mostly people who attain high office.

FlipsideReport

FlipsideReport

USA
October 2007

MAY 29, 2008 09:00 PM

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



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

livertarian

livertarian

Fairfax, VA
February 2008

MAY 29, 2008 09:12 PM

KeepYouVague said:

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



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



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

Necia

Necia

San Francisco, CA
August 2005

MAY 29, 2008 09:54 PM

DhD_No_Pants said:
This really really frightens me.



Me too.

VivaHST

VivaHST

Milwaukee, WI
July 2005

MAY 29, 2008 10:01 PM

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

FlipsideReport

FlipsideReport

USA
October 2007

MAY 29, 2008 11:00 PM

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



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.

malkav11

malkav11

Saint Paul, MN
July 2003

MAY 29, 2008 11:07 PM

Tubesound said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

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



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.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next