Illuminating

[achilleus]

Newsweek Article.

Here's a disturbing excerpt:

The new report by chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer contains evidence that Saddam Hussein allegedly used the United Nations-managed Oil-for-Food program to provide millions of dollars in subsidies to a group the U.S. State Department has branded a foreign terrorist organization.
...
The State Department designated terrorist group in question, is the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK)—an Iranian opposition group that was long backed by Saddam’s regime as a counterweight to the Tehran government. Not only does the MEK have no connection either to September 11 or Al Qaeda, in the past, it has had strong support from members of Congress—including leading Republicans in both chambers and a current Bush cabinet member, Attorney General John Ashcroft.

In other words, we only condemn terrorism against us or our allies, but we'll support it when it suits us.

Perhaps the war on terror should start from within.

[S. Hunter]

The MEK really DO sound more like a resistance movement. Not defending Bush, but I seriously think that ANY internal threats to the mullah's in iran are good and should be backed as much as possible.

[Inquartata]

I wonder exactly what sort of terrorist acts it has carried out?

[Philistine]

I wonder exactly what sort of terrorist acts it has carried out?

According to the State department (as of June, 2004):

The group’s worldwide campaign against the Iranian Government stresses propaganda and occasionally uses terrorism. During the 1970s, the MEK killed US military personnel and US civilians working on defense projects in Tehran and supported the takeover in 1979 of the US Embassy in Tehran. In 1981, the MEK detonated bombs in the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Premier’s office, killing some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials, including chief Justice Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei, and Premier Mohammad-Javad Bahonar. Near the end of the war with Iran during 1980-88, Baghdad armed the MEK with military equipment and sent it into action against Iranian forces. In 1991, it assisted the Government of Iraq in suppressing the Shia and Kurdish uprisings in southern Iraq and the Kurdish uprisings in the north. In April 1992, the MEK conducted near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian Embassies and installations in 13 countries, demonstrating the group’s ability to mount large-scale operations overseas. In April 1999, the MEK targeted key military officers and assassinated the deputy chief of the Armed Forces General Staff. In April 2000, the MEK attempted to assassinate the commander of the Nasr Headquarters—Tehran’s interagency board responsible for coordinating policies on Iraq. The normal pace of anti-Iranian operations increased during the “Operation Great Bahman” in February 2000, when the group launched a dozen attacks against Iran. In 2000 and 2001, the MEK was involved regularly in mortar attacks and hit-and run raids on Iranian military and law-enforcement units and government buildings near the Iran-Iraq border, although MEK terrorism in Iran declined throughout the remainder of 2001. In February 2000, for example, the MEK launched a mortar attack against the leadership complex in Tehran that houses the offices of the Supreme Leader and the President. Coalition aircraft bombed MEK bases during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the Coalition forced the MEK forces to surrender in May 2003. The future of the MEK forces remains undetermined with Coalition forces.

Patterns of Global Terrorism-2003--App. B.

--Philistine

--

[Inquartata]

So it was against both the Shah and the current theocracy. Odd. What sort of government is it for? Or is it simply against for its own sake?

However, I notice that all of the acts cited are attacks on the military and political leadership of the state it opposes. This to me does not constitute terrorism properly, but mere conduct of a partisan war. I would not hold nearly so low an opinion of, say, the Palestinian paramilitary groups if they attacked Israeli soldiers and state officials and installations. That would be a sort of war as it is commonly understood. It is the random bombings and killings of univolved civilians which tips the scale into terrorism IMO...and I do not see any of those attributed to the MEK. ( Though I understand the self-interest in the wish of government functionaries to expand the definition of terrorism to include acts against them. )