Iraqi protesters storm U.S. embassy in Baghdad

[Vanoi]

Surely you must be trolling more than I am.

When was MEK's last known terror attack?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nour_a...Zenki_Movement

Recent. 5 to 6 years ago isn't recent. The group hasn't been supported by the US either for years. What terror attack is al-Zenki known to be involved in?

Last time i checked i asked for you to name US supported groups that have committed terror attacks recently. Meaning groups the US still supports in the year 2020. I'm waiting

[Cookiegod]

Ah cool. So the two examples you mentioned from 2012 and 2009 are irrelevant.

[Vanoi]

Ah cool. So the two examples you mentioned from 2012 and 2009 are irrelevant.

Iran does still support them unlike Al-Zenki which the US stopped supporting years ago. I'll ask again since you have ignored both of my questions now.

When was the last known MEK terror attack?

What terrorist attacks have al-Zenki been involved in?

[Love Mountain]

Recent. 5 to 6 years ago isn't recent. The group hasn't been supported by the US either for years. What terror attack is al-Zenki known to be involved in?

Last time i checked i asked for you to name US supported groups that have committed terror attacks recently. Meaning groups the US still supports in the year 2020. I'm waiting

Mmm even if al-Zenki did commit a terror attack it wouldn't support the conclusion that U.S. is directly involved in terrorism. Regime change is the purpose of supporting such groups, not terrorism. In my opinion though, seeking regime change in the Middle East is an even graver offense than terrorism. Not morally of course, but in terms of how offensive it is to said regimes. Can't exactly offend Iran through terrorism when their top priority is regime survival, not protection of their people. Well I don't mean "can't offend" but my point is that trying to get rid of Assad is far more disturbing to Iran than a terrorist attack on Assad by US proxies.

So, how is this relevant to the Quds Force? As I mentioned in my previous reply, guilt by association is a logical fallacy. Otherwise, every regular army and sovereign state, including the US, could have been legitimately labelled as a terrorist force. Still waiting for a terrorist attack which Soleimani or his organisation actively participated in or orchestrated.

For the sake of clarity, the alleged bomb plot in Paris is not of a terrorist nature, even if we accept the claims of the French authorities. The alleged target, which the New York Times euphemistically and misleadingly describes as dissidents were not civilians, but members of the People's Mujahideen of Iran, a terrorist organisation with a long history of mass-murdering Iranian civilians and elected officials, as well as invading Iran under the auspices of Saddam's Iraq.

Secondly, I managed to read the entirety of Byman's somewhat edgy article, but I failed to find any terrorist attack. For example, somewhere in his diatribe, the Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution even brings up the Beirut barrack bombings, which, as their name suggests, was the epitome of an operation against a military, not a civilian as the definition of terrorism requires, target. Moreover, the fact that Byman laments over the American casualties during the failed Eagle Claw operation, but avoids to add that the victim list also included an fleeing Iranian lorry driver, who was murdered in cold-blood by the US rangers, makes me suspect that the author is rather biased. In my opinion, it's a bit racist from Byman to focus exclusively on the accidental deaths of Western soldiers, while not even bothering to mention the intentional killing of an unarmed, innocent Easterner.

I mean the entire premise of of condemning Iran because they sponsor terror is highly flawed in my opinion. Hypocrisy isn't anything new, but I think we need to constantly remind ourselves why Iran is sponsoring terrorism in the first place. As a low-tech regional power, it's one of the only ways it can project its power in the region. They don't enjoy US patronage and they don't have the conventional forces necessary to deter United States, thus they resort to irregular forces. Certainly, one can criticize Iran for the "audacity" to pursue its interests and for having geopolitical ambitions, but U.S. interests in the middle east aren't exactly altruistic or in line with the spirit of international law.

[Cookiegod]

Iran does still support them unlike Al-Zenki which the US stopped supporting years ago. I'll ask again since you have ignored both of my questions now.

When was the last known MEK terror attack?

What terrorist attacks have al-Zenki been involved in?

So two main points you keep pushing is that 1) al-Zenki in your opinion is not a terrorist movement AND 2) none of the groups armed by the US in e.g. Libya and Syria are terrorist organisations. On both of those points: Wow. Just wow.

Furthermore it's funny to see you constantly shift the frame of reference in the hopes of excluding anything that doesn't support your claim, then changing it again once the sophistry didn't work.

On the last point, as to when the MEK last committed a terror attack, there are conflicting statements depending on who you ask. If you ask the US, then they've become a group of angels since the 80s and 90s when they were at their zenith and declared a terrorist organisation by the US respectively. If you ask the Iranians, they're still doing it. Unlike you I do not blindly believe in unsupported claims made by a warrying party with an agency, so I'll have to give a pass on that question. The fact is, when we ignore your silly timeframe-sophistry (which is the actual thing without relevance), the MEK were declared a terrorist organisation by the US, which then nevertheless proceeded to ally with them. Even if we decide to be so naive that they *poof* just magically stopped doing what they did, the string of assassinations et al evidently have not.

---

---

Since you guys have called me "unfair", I'll finish on the following note: I have a multinational family. All branches have a proud tradition to resist and say no when regimes came and did injustice. Even if these regimes were supposedly their own. So my family hid jews and politically prosecuted people, worked in the resistances, and were sent to several concentration camps and gulags.

Lucky for us, that bravery isn't necessary today. But at the end of the day, the Hitlers, Stalins, Boltons, Netanyahoos, Pompeos and co are only possible because there are enough of you choosing a misguided form of patriotism over morality and actually wanting their country to be the best it can be. Even going so far, in Vanoi's case, to defend groups the likes of the al-Zenki movement.

So have I been unfair to you guys? No, I am being remarkably friendly. And I am not defending Iran. I don't live there, my country isn't aiding and abetting them, so I don't give a flying f as to what they do. It all comes down to cleaning your own room before bombing the out of others.

[irontaino]

More words from Trump that haven't aged well.



You're right mr. President, only a weak and ineffective leader with no negotiating skills would try and start a war with Iran to get reelected.

[Love Mountain]

I mean there's literally a subreddit r/TrumpCriticizesTrump. Hard to believe Trump did something like this. Even harder to believe that people are defending this escalation.

[conon394]

Mmm even if al-Zenki did commit a terror attack it wouldn't support the conclusion that U.S. is directly involved in terrorism. Regime change is the purpose of supporting such groups, not terrorism. In my opinion though, seeking regime change in the Middle East is an even graver offense than terrorism. Not morally of course, but in terms of how offensive it is to said regimes. Can't exactly offend Iran through terrorism when their top priority is regime survival, not protection of their people. Well I don't mean "can't offend" but my point is that trying to get rid of Assad is far more disturbing to Iran than a terrorist attack on Assad by US proxies.



I mean the entire premise of of condemning Iran because they sponsor terror is highly flawed in my opinion. Hypocrisy isn't anything new, but I think we need to constantly remind ourselves why Iran is sponsoring terrorism in the first place. As a low-tech regional power, it's one of the only ways it can project its power in the region. They don't enjoy US patronage and they don't have the conventional forces necessary to deter United States, thus they resort to irregular forces. Certainly, one can criticize Iran for the "audacity" to pursue its interests and for having geopolitical ambitions, but U.S. interests in the middle east aren't exactly altruistic or in line with the spirit of international law.

Good Post. What we have here is a doubling down on a geopolitical rivalry that neither side is Lilly white on in terms of legality nor likely to note the costs to the locals all that much. As Nations do. both will act in their own perceived interests first and figure out how make a case legal or emotional afterward and the one their own citizens and close allies buys is most important.

For the US I not sure Trump really thought through how much low level pain Iran can inflict that I am so far not seeing the US planed for in the region. Also if Iraq expels the US I will say Suleimani won at the cost of own life.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Surely you must be trolling more than I am.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nour_a...Zenki_Movement

I mean, you could try reading the article.

The group also received financial aid from the United States, in a CIA run program to support US-approved rebel groups,^[56] reportedly via the Turkey-based Military Operation Centre (MOC).^[57] However, by October 2015, the group claimed that it was no longer supplied by the MOC

On 19 July 2016, during the Aleppo offensive, a video emerged that appeared to show al-Zenki fighters recording themselves taunting and later beheading a Palestinian boy named Abdullah Tayseer Al Issa.

The event in question took place after the US stopped supporting Zenki.

[Lord Thesaurian]

For the sake of clarity, the alleged bomb plot in Paris is not of a terrorist nature, even if we accept the claims of the French authorities. The alleged target, which the New York Times euphemistically and misleadingly describes as dissidents were not civilians, but members of the People's Mujahideen of Iran, a terrorist organisation with a long history of mass-murdering Iranian civilians and elected officials, as well as invading Iran under the auspices of Saddam's Iraq.

Do you have a source for the claim that the thousands of people there were terrorists and that Tehran was therefore justified to plot a terror attack on French soil? Or are you relying on semantics to detract from the facts of what took place? Also, if you would consider MEK a terrorist organization, then by the same token, so is the entirety of the Ayatollah’s regime, given that the two are merely competing to assert whose version of radical Islamic theology is “correct.” MEK was part of the Revolution against the Shah, same as the Ayatollah and his supporters, and targets Iranian officials, military and civilians in its bid to dislodge the Ayatollah from power.

Secondly, I managed to read the entirety of Byman's somewhat edgy article, but I failed to find any terrorist attack. For example, somewhere in his diatribe, the Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution even brings up the Beirut barrack bombings, which, as their name suggests, was the epitome of an operation against a military, not a civilian as the definition of terrorism requires, target. Moreover, the fact that Byman laments over the American casualties during the failed Eagle Claw operation, but avoids to add that the victim list also included an fleeing Iranian lorry driver, who was murdered in cold-blood by the US rangers, makes me suspect that the author is rather biased. In my opinion, it's a bit racist from Byman to focus exclusively on the accidental deaths of Western soldiers, while not even bothering to mention the intentional killing of an unarmed, innocent Easterner.

The article factually discusses Tehran’s role in destabilizing the region through support for terrorism in the interest of spreading “global islamic revolution.” As you know, one of Tehran’s chief terror proxies, Hezbollah, is internationally recognized as a terrorist organization. They are also responsible for terror attacks throughout the Middle East and Europe, including attacks on US soil foiled just last year.

Dismissing the Beruit barracks suicide bomb attack, which killed hundreds of military and civilian personnel on an international peacekeeping mission (never mind the bombing of the US embassy that same year), as not technically “terrorist” based on a civilian kill ratio merely betrays the weakness of your position. Arguing semantics and accusations of racism to defend a terrorist theocracy which recently exterminated thousands of its own citizens to maintain power doesn’t impact the credibility of the article so much as it does your own. Iran’s track record on terrorism also stretches over the course of 40 years. The IRGC and Quds forces have financed and trained terrorists for the entirety of that time, and Tehran has been implicated in terror attacks from India to Argentina to Kenya.

[conon394]

You know I still think arguing over terrorism is pointless.

Iran is a relatively weak and isolated player and so prefers asymmetric means and ones where it can try to avoid direct responsibility for actions. The US as we can now see is neither and has made a significant play in the proxy war the US and Iran have been fighting. Interestingly one the that only a short while ago Trump pulled back from. The right and wrong or International law justification or history 10 years or 70 seem a bit pointless. I mean that will play in both side's rhetoric. But what will Iran do. I really doubt that they want a war since the US can immeasurable damage Iran without risking more than some downed airmen/women. China won't like the price oil that comes from blocking the Hormuz. But how can Iran save face without upping the response but not generate a full war.

[Aexodus]

The event in question took place after the US stopped supporting Zenki.

With all due respect, that’s pretty inconsequential. The USA supported this group and funded them, then stopped in 2015, then in 2016 the group beheaded a child.

[Abdülmecid I]

The alleged target of the plot was the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which is the unofficial front of the terrorist group MEK, according, until 2012, to United States as well. Regardless of MEK's chivalrous goal of overthrowing a democratically elected and popular government by murdering everyone on its path, there's little doubt that they employ terrorist methods and have allied with hostile and often genocidal foreign powers, like the America and Baathist Iraq. To be clear, I don't think that any attack in Paris would be justified, but describing said operation as a terrorist conspiracy is outright inaccurate. As for the Beirut bombings, it is unanimously agreed that army barracks are considered a military target. Unconventional warfare, suicide bombers included, does not imply terrorism.

Finally, many of the claims of your sources are spurious and rely exclusively on the partial testimony of anonymoys sources, but you miss the point. Supporting shady organisations does not make you a terrorist. This is a standard procedure for intelligence services and applying these requirements on a global scale would result into paradoxical conclusions, like CIA or Mossad also being terrorist groups. You're welcome to define an organisation as a terroristic one, according to its association, but, even by that extreme reasoning, Iran still does not hold the morally lower ground, because by maintaining such harsh criteria, we are obliged to assume that every other participant in the Middle Eastern affairs also employs and endorses terrorism, in order to achieve his own goals.

[Aexodus]

I’m not sure about that definition of terrorism Abdul. When the IRA blew up trucks of soldiers it was certainly terrorism.

[Cope]

Glad to see the usual apologism for a theocratic regime and its agents. Though I suppose we should just let senior terrorists/murderers act with impunity in case they *gasp* retaliate. Worse still, the Cheeto in Chief contradicted himself and might get re-elected!

[nhytgbvfeco2]

With all due respect, that’s pretty inconsequential. The USA supported this group and funded them, then stopped in 2015, then in 2016 the group beheaded a child.

You can't hold the US accountable for terrorism committed by a group that wasn't supported by the US at the time or after the act. Iran's support to terrorist groups meanwhile has been continuous and unwavering.

Glad to see the usual apologism for a theocratic regime and its agents. Though I suppose we should just let senior terrorists/murderers act with impunity in case they *gasp* retaliate. Worse still, the Cheeto in Chief contradicted himself and might get re-elected!

Suleimani was an austere religious scholar.

[Love Mountain]

I wouldn’t to be honest. I don’t consider attacks against military targets to be terrorism. Deliberate targeting of civilians on the other hand...

[Cohors_Evocata]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/militar...ttack-n1110081

WASHINGTON — The United States is sending approximately 3,000 soldiers to the Middle East after thousands of people stormed the compound of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, three U.S. defense officials and one U.S. military official confirmed to NBC News on Friday.
The news came hours after an American airstrike killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran's secretive Quds Force and one of the country's most powerful figures, but U.S. defense officials said the deployments were not in response to the strike.

[Love Mountain]

I will need more details and research to determine where these troops are going, but this seems... disturbing. It’s almost as if Trump is daring Iran to do something. These escalations are out of hand.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The alleged target of the plot was the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which is the unofficial front of the terrorist group MEK, according, until 2012, to United States as well. Regardless of MEK's chivalrous goal of overthrowing a democratically elected and popular government by murdering everyone on its path, there's little doubt that they employ terrorist methods and have allied with hostile and often genocidal foreign powers, like the America and Baathist Iraq. To be clear, I don't think that any attack in Paris would be justified, but describing said operation as a terrorist conspiracy is outright inaccurate. As for the Beirut bombings, it is unanimously agreed that army barracks are considered a military target. Unconventional warfare, suicide bombers included, does not imply terrorism.

This doesn’t really address my post. As I said, if MEK are terrorists, so is the Ayatollah’s regime. Using whataboutism and semantic arguments to downplay the planned bombing of civilians in Paris or Beruit or Argentina or anywhere is irrelevant to the facts. It’s also quite revealing that you apparently consider a terrorist theocracy which recently exterminated thousands of its own citizens to maintain power to be not only “democratically elected” but also “popular,” whilst referring to the US as “genocidal.”

Finally, many of the claims of your sources are spurious and rely exclusively on the partial testimony of anonymoys sources, but you miss the point. Supporting shady organisations does not make you a terrorist. This is a standard procedure for intelligence services and applying these requirements on a global scale would result into paradoxical conclusions, like CIA or Mossad also being terrorist groups. You're welcome to define an organisation as a terroristic one, according to its association, but, even by that extreme reasoning, Iran still does not hold the morally lower ground, because by maintaining such harsh criteria, we are obliged to assume that every other participant in the Middle Eastern affairs also employs and endorses terrorism, in order to achieve his own goals.

Iran doesn’t merely “support shady organizations,” and no, not everyone does what Tehran does. Your talking points border on facetiousness and don’t really address my post with anything of substance. If you’re not defending Tehran’s actions or positions, I fail to see the point of such broad whataboutist comparisons and casual dismissals of countervailing facts.