US War with Iran

[Dr. Shane]

ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran

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 leader, Regi, claims to have personally executed some of the Iranians.

"He used to fight with the Taliban. He's part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist," said Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant who recently met with Pakistani officials and tribal members.

"Regi is essentially commanding a force of several hundred guerrilla fighters that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera," Debat said.

Most recently, Jundullah took credit for an attack in February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard riding on a bus in the Iranian city of Zahedan.

Last month, Iranian state television broadcast what it said were confessions by those responsible for the bus attack.

A CIA spokesperson said "the account of alleged CIA action is false" and reiterated that the U.S. provides no funding of the Jundullah group.

Pakistani government sources say the secret campaign against Iran by Jundullah was on the agenda when Vice President Dick Cheney met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February.

[bevin]

Who believes the CIA's denials?

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Well it could be a good move. If this group can be effective enough it could give the US a little negotiating tool. If Iran stops allowing terrorists to enter Iraq, the US stops its support of Jundullah.

[Bravus]

So... state support of terror is OK if it's the US doing it. Wonder which other country will put the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive attacks on state supporters of terrorism into effect?

[Dr. Shane]

Perhaps I misread the article, I thought Jundullah was targeting Iranian soldiers and officials, not unarmed, innocent civilians. I will have to read that again. If they are targeting soldiers and officials, than of course that is acceptable to support. If they are targeting unarmed, innocent civilians, that is not acceptable.

[Bravus]

Hmm, maybe I didn't read carefully enough. I guess as long as there were *only* military members on the bus, then it's guerilla action, not terrorism. Sounds like a pretty unsavoury guy to be supporting, though... drug smuggler and Taliban?

[bevin]

Ah, since when is it okay for the USA to target soldiers and officers of a country we are not at war with?

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

since when?

[Putting on history teacher hat]

"I will not send American boys halfway around the world to do a job that Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." LBJ, 1964.

[lazarus]

Its this kind of stuff that shows the "values" crowd is morally bancrupt. The double standards under which the US operates is evidenced here. I guess we'll see the blowback from all this in a decade when this new Bin Laden turns against the US.

What's that quote about learning from history and repeating stuff?

[Dr. Shane]

I don't see the double standard. We allegedly are helping some guerrillas fight against a government we oppose. Now if they were targeting innocent, unarmed civilians it would be a different. While I suspect innocents do get killed in the process of targeting military and other government officials, I didn't see anything there about them targeting civilians.

Actually, this is what the American people want. If Bush the elder had followed this tract, the Kurds may have overthrown Saddam without a single ounce of American blood being shed.

[lazarus]

Quote:

He used to fight with the Taliban. He's part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist," said Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant who recently met with Pakistani officials and tribal members.

Tabilan, drugs, Sunni activist. You don't see it. This war on terror stuff is nonsense. Its the "war on terror on terrorists we don't like right now who don't do what we want today". If you don't believe the hype you would be surprised by the blowback in a few year time.

[Dr. Shane]

I am not making assumptions based on past details of his life that I don't have. What exactly did he do for the Taliban? What kind of a Sunni activist was he?

As I have already stated, if he is targeting civilians we shouldn't support him. If he is going after military and government targets than our support is acceptable.

[bevin]

Perhaps, Shane, you would define exactly who you think are legitimate targets of un-uniformed combatants...

Where abouts in the following list do you draw the line.

• A uniformed soldier shooting a gun at an enemy soldier
• A uniformed soldier passing him loaded guns
• A uniformed soldier loading the guns
• A Haliburton employee driving the truck carrying the ammo
• A uniformed soldier loading the truck
• A Haliburton employee selling this loader a glass of water
• A uniformed soldier guarding the Haliburton employee
• A Haliburton employee maintaining the payroll program for the guard
• A Washington software contractor writing the payroll program
• The uniformed soldier guarding the software contractor
• The senator who voted to pay for the above
• The uniformed soldier guarding the senator
• The wife of the senator's guard
• The police officer watching the traffic outside the wife's place of employment

Presumably you have no problem with going after the Senator or his guard - but what about his wife, who is cooking for him?

/Bevin

[Planey]

If they are targeting soldiers and officials, than of course that is acceptable to support. If they are targeting unarmed, innocent civilians, that is not acceptable.

So I take it from this statement that you do not believe the attack on the USS Cole was a terrorist activity?

[Dr. Shane]

That is correct. The attack on the USS Cole was done by terrorists but the attack itself cannot be considered a terrorist attack. The same is true of the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing by Hezbollah.

Looks like I am making some progress here.

[lazarus]

So when they attacked the cole what were they? Middle Eastern gentlemen, freedom fighters, soldiers......Shane come on!

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

So when they attacked the cole what were they?

The attack on the USS Cole was done by terrorists but the attack itself cannot be considered a terrorist attack.

Any more questions?

[lazarus]

One more.

Ok So what kind of attack was it?

[Woody]

Some times terrorists attack military targets and some times they just inflict terror on innocent people. There IS a difference.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

what kind of attack was it?

A guerrilla attack. It doesn't have anything to do with monkeys either. It comes from the Spanish word for war - guierra.

[lazarus]

Ok sorry

Here's another....so why not call them guerrillar's and not terrorist. I get it now, I always wondered wy they would have monkey fighting in a war.

[Dr. Shane]

Guerrillas typically fight against a government in an attempt to overthrow it. Their targets are typically military, police and other government targets. Civilian targets may be such things that also have government uses like airports, railroads and telecommunications.

Terrorists typically target civilian targets in an effort to change government policy. Terrorists are not typically trying to overthrow the government like guerrillas are. In Iraq, for example, the terrorists are trying to influence the US. They are trying to get us to pull out. If we do that, they may then become more like guerrillas so as to overthrow the government.

While technically the attacks on the Cole and the US Marines were guerrilla attacks, because they were on military targets, their purpose was to influence US policy and not to overthrow the US government. So they were more consistent with the terrorist attacks of the groups that did them.

[Neil D]

Guerrillas typically fight against a government in an attempt to overthrow it. Their targets are typically military, police and other government targets. Civilian targets may be such things that also have government uses like airports, railroads and telecommunications.

[Dr. Shane]

That is pretty much consistent with what I have been saying. In Iraq we have both guerrilla and terrorist attacks. The attacks on our troops, Iraqi troops and police are guerrilla attacks devised to drive us out and prevent the local government from becoming established. The attacks on Iraqi civilians are clearly terrorist attacks.

From this article it is hard to determine if this is a group of guerrillas or terrorists. More information is needed to determine that. If they are just guerrillas, I see no conflict in supporting them. If they are terrorists, we should not support them.

[Neil D]

So, the question that comes to mind is thus-

Is terrorism a police problem or a military problem?

If a subversive is attempting to change civil policies, by using bombs and such, then isn't this sort of thing a police problem and shouldn't police be involved in rounding up the terrorists or finding them?

And where does the US draw the line in sending in our military into another country? Do we need to be involved in a civil war where terrorist activities are rampant and are used to change PUBLIC POLICY?

I guess where I am leaning is that military force doesn't wage war against a terrorist who uses bombs and such against the civil population. That seems to me to be a civil war, something that we need to get out of ASAP. We had experience in this sort of thing before, and we didn't need to be there either...