U.S. funding terrorist groups?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Feb 26, 2007.

  1. US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran

    By William Lowther in Washington DC and Colin Freeman, Sunday Telegraph
    Last Updated: 12:30am GMT 25/02/2007

    America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.

    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime is accused of repressing minority rights and culture

    In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions.

    The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.

    In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials.

    Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran's 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan.

    Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

    His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."

    Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces. Last Monday, Iran publicly hanged a man, Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, for his involvement in a bomb attack that killed 11 Revolutionary Guards in the city of Zahedan in Sistan-Baluchistan. An unnamed local official told the semi-official Fars news agency that weapons used in the attack were British and US-made.

    Yesterday, Iranian forces also claimed to have killed 17 rebels described as "mercenary elements" in clashes near the Turkish border, which is a stronghold of the Pejak, a Kurdish militant party linked to Turkey's outlawed PKK Kurdistan Workers' Party.

    John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: "The activities of the ethnic groups have hotted up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity."

    Such a policy is fraught with risk, however. Many of the groups share little common cause with Washington other than their opposition to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose regime they accuse of stepping up repression of minority rights and culture.

    The Baluchistan-based Brigade of God group, which last year kidnapped and killed eight Iranian soldiers, is a volatile Sunni organisation that many fear could easily turn against Washington after taking its money.

    A row has also broken out in Washington over whether to "unleash" the military wing of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), an Iraq-based Iranian opposition group with a long and bloody history of armed opposition to the Iranian regime.

    The group is currently listed by the US state department as terrorist organisation, but Mr Pike said: "A faction in the Defence Department wants to unleash them. They could never overthrow the current Iranian regime but they might cause a lot of damage."

    At present, none of the opposition groups are much more than irritants to Teheran, but US analysts believe that they could become emboldened if the regime was attacked by America or Israel. Such a prospect began to look more likely last week, as the UN Security Council deadline passed for Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme, and a second American aircraft carrier joined the build up of US naval power off Iran's southern coastal waters.

    The US has also moved six heavy bombers from a British base on the Pacific island of Diego Garcia to the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which could allow them to carry out strikes on Iran without seeking permission from Downing Street.

    While Tony Blair reiterated last week that Britain still wanted a diplomatic solution to the crisis, US Vice-President Dick Cheney yesterday insisted that military force was a real possibility.

    "It would be a serious mistake if a nation like Iran were to become a nuclear power," Mr Cheney warned during a visit to Australia. "All options are still on the table."

    The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany will meet in London tomorrow to discuss further punitive measures against Iran. Sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear technology and know-how were imposed in December. Additional penalties might include a travel ban on senior Iranian officials and restrictions on non-nuclear business.

  2. US has funded destabilizing groups aka terrorists for decades all through the world. Remember, why weapons were sold to the Iranians by the reggie administration? We have a history of supporting death squads in Latin America in the name of preventing the spread of communism. Terrorists by any name is still a terrorist.
  3. http://www.slate.com/id/2102243/

  4. Sam321


    What a snore... Bombers by any name are still bombers. Any military tactic by any name is still a military tactic. You still don't get it: Terrorism is nothing more than a military tactic. Get over it. If "terrorists" commit "terror" to aid the interests of the U.S. in particular and the West in general, then I’m all for it. If you don’t like it, then screw your whiny self-loathing and live out your life as an ex-patriot in Costa Rica.

    So what if we have a history of supporting death squads in Latin America. Communist countries have death squads too. What is your point?

  5. It makes you a spiritually bankrupt and abhorrent individual.
  6. Sam321


    When your country loses its ability to protect you and provide affordable food and energy, as your enemies gain power and influence, let’s see how you maintain your arrogant spiritual superiority when you suddenly realize you must fend for yourself.
  7. Then we can't complain about terrorists killing innocent US civilians, because we will have lost the moral superiority.
  8. The neoklans think the end justifying the means is moral superiority...

  9. harmless


    ZZZZZzzZZZZZ boy

    you are both right and wrong

    do we (US) need to kill by most foul means YES

    do we need to kill as much as we do...NO
  10. Don't ever forget who created, armed, funded and trained Al-CIAda.

    Its been going on so long it even has a name. People living in free countries have always known this.

    #10     Feb 27, 2007