US Trained Anti-Iran Terrorists in 2005 and Beyond

[Ghostbear]

If a group decides that they want to use terrorism to further their goals, we don't really have any significant incentives (other than the threat of killing them) to discourage them. When you have a group that is using tactics similar enough to terrorism that they're officially designated as terrorists, there is a very real worry that they're just going to become another in the long list of US backed groups that eventually became an enemy. If they do go down that path, there is very little that we can practically do to prevent it, and yet we will have made them better at it through our training. It's a very real problem and can't be solved with threats of being defunded.

[sourmìlk]

The defunding suggestion wasn't so much a stick to use as negative reinforcement as it was a practical solution to directly fix the problem. Terrorists will less effectively be able to commit acts of terror without funds.

[induction]

Sourmìlk, I think the way you're viewing this is that we are giving these groups military training, and then they decide to pervert that training by engaging in 'terrorism'. My take on addams' response (read it again) is that terrorism is what we trained them to do in the first place, because that's what we wanted them to do. The morale lowering/terror spreading (that you find more objectionable than military action) furthers our goals, not just theirs. Furthermore, it's a trick that we regularly use ourselves, even against our own people. Your defunding suggestions are well-intentioned, but they miss the bigger picture.

If you teach a dog to bite, and then it bites, who's to blame? If it then decides to bite you, should you be surprised?

[sourmìlk]

I'm not sure how this is a response to what I said. Where did I say I was okay with training groups to commit acts of terror?

[induction]

I'm not sure how this is a response to what I said. Where did I say I was okay with training groups to commit acts of terror?

I don't think you are okay with that. Which is why I'm saying that your defunding suggestion misses the point and leads me to believe that you might be confused about what color our hats are in this situation.

Spoiler:

David: I do not, for one, think that the problem was that the band was
down. I think that the problem may have been...that there was
a Stonehenge monument on the stage that was in danger of being
crushed by a dwarf. All right? That tended to understate
the hugeness of the object.
Ian: I really think you're just making a much too big thing out of it.
Derek: Making a big thing out of it would've been a good idea.
Ian: Nigel gave me a drawing that said eighteen inches. All right?
David: I know he did, and that's what I'm talking about.
Ian: Now, whether he knows the difference between feet and inches is not
my problem. I do what I'm told.
David: But you're not as confused as him are you? I mean it's not your
job to be as confused as Nigel is.
Ian: It's my job to do what I'm asked to do by the creative element of
this band. And that's what I did. C'mon...
Jeanine: The audience were laughing.
Ian: So it became a comedy number.
David: Yes it did! Yes it fucking well did, and it was not pleasant to
be part of the comedy on stage. Backstage, perhaps, it was very
amusing.
Derek: Maybe we just fix the choreography. Keep the dwarf clear.
David: What do you mean?
Derek: So they won't trod upon it.
David: I don't think that's the issue.

I also submit that you are confused about what negative reinforcement means.

[sourmìlk]

I'm sorry, I have absolutely no idea what your point is.

[addams]

Yeah, you'd have to provide some incentive to get them not to commit terrorism and immediately defund them if they do. I get that this isn't clean and cut and dry.

What about backing up and stop teaching people to overcome what innate human decency they come in with?

Are you suggesting that we teach people to terroize others, then, don't pay them, if we catch them doing what we taught them to do?

To me the better answer is to stop teaching inhumanity.

Defunding the schools? Sounds so easy. It is not easy.
I was broken hearted when I saw this kind of training with my own eyes. What I saw was light weight stuff. It was enough to allow me to listen to others with a more open mind.

I watched two of my superiors sink into a funk over the deaths of good people that had been their friends by mindless thugs. The thugs had been trained to be thugs. They had uniforms and everything.

So; The US is a shining light on a hill? Really?
The US is a beautiful place. The Police are dangerous. The Military has turned on its self. The people are poor and getting poorer, both in mind and in money.

It is Dickweilan.

What can be done?
It is a state that does not meet its responsibilities as a state to its own people.
It is a state that dictates what other states can and can not do.
It is a state that has bankrupted its self with war.
It is a state that has as ugly an underbelly as we have seen for 75 years.
It is a state that still has the rest of the world shaking in its boots.
It is a state that has secrets lots and lots of ugly secrets.

Not proud.

[sourmìlk]

Are you suggesting that we teach people to terroize others, then, don't pay them, if we catch them doing what we taught them to do?

No, I juist got done saying this. I'm fine training foreign elements to perform covert military operations. Having allies isn't wrong. I am against teaching them to commit acts of terror.

It is a state that does not meet its responsibilities as a state to its own people.
It is a state that dictates what other states can and can not do.
It is a state that has bankrupted its self with war.
It is a state that has as ugly an underbelly as we have seen for 75 years.
It is a state that still has the rest of the world shaking in its boots.
It is a state that has secrets lots and lots of ugly secrets.

This is kind of hyperbolic. Nobody's going to suggest that the US is perfect or, indeed, that any place is. Comparatively, though, the US is one of the freest and wealthiest nations in the world. Noam Chomsky will also do this shit, where he will fixate on and hyperbolize one or two horrible things America has done and then say that Iran isn't much worse, or is even better. If that's the case, why doesn't he go live there?

[addams]

Are you suggesting that we teach people to terroize others, then, don't pay them, if we catch them doing what we taught them to do?

No, I juist got done saying this. I'm fine training foreign elements to perform covert military operations. Having allies isn't wrong. I am against teaching them to commit acts of terror.

It is a state that does not meet its responsibilities as a state to its own people.
It is a state that dictates what other states can and can not do.
It is a state that has bankrupted its self with war.
It is a state that has as ugly an underbelly as we have seen for 75 years.
It is a state that still has the rest of the world shaking in its boots.
It is a state that has secrets lots and lots of ugly secrets.

This is kind of hyperbolic. Nobody's going to suggest that the US is perfect or, indeed, that any place is. Comparatively, though, the US is one of the freest and wealthiest nations in the world. Noam Chomsky will also do this shit, where he will fixate on and hyperbolize one or two horrible things America has done and then say that Iran isn't much worse, or is even better. If that's the case, why doesn't he go live there?

I don't think that it is hyperbolic.
I do think that the nation is large and that you may be insulated.
Lucky, you.

Freedom is complicated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty

If, you feel free, then, you are free.
Many of your fellow countrymen and women do not feel free.

It is not your responsibility to do anything about that.
Who's responsibility is it to do something about what a Government does?
Other Governments?

Who is to blame? A nation that is offered special training for its best and brightest;
Hand picked by the respected US Military Intelligence?
Or; The guys that wrote the syllabus?

There is some responsibility that goes to the men and women that are acting agents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War
It is not so complicated. The rules of war.
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm

Thoreau said that it is bound in us from our insect ancestors.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=ps ... 7ac29a3901

To study war is like a fish contemplating water.

I got yelled at for standing around with the Quakers. This man walked up to me he was one of those kind of guys.
He said, "So, you are not going to study war no more? Did you ever study it in the first place?" Damn. He 'got' me.

I had done some reading. It is not possible to do ALL the reading. I am still with the Quakers. I am not a Quaker. I, just, agree with most of them in an off hand way. Peace is harder and more fun.

Well; It does depend upon your job.
Bush II got a pretty good job.

Who is afraid of whom?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

That is a bunch of reading. To what end?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_ ... man_Rights

It is a war of fear or a war on fear?
Fear is such an easy emotion to trigger.
So, much scary stuff, both real and imagined.

Some people like to be frightened. Personally, I don't.

Hey! I am in the middle of this thing and it sucks. You would not believe.

[sourmìlk]

I'm pretty sure you didn't address what I said there.

[gorcee]

I suppose most people who had thought about the possibility assumed that this is what was happening, but this article manages to compile all the evidence for the conclusion pretty well: its increasingly clear that the US and Israel are state sponsors of terror, specifically the anti-Iranian Mujahideen-e-Khalq.

I actually didn't see a single shred of evidence in that article at all, just unsubstantiated claims from "high-level sources".

[addams]

I suppose most people who had thought about the possibility assumed that this is what was happening, but this article manages to compile all the evidence for the conclusion pretty well: its increasingly clear that the US and Israel are state sponsors of terror, specifically the anti-Iranian Mujahideen-e-Khalq.

I actually didn't see a single shred of evidence in that article at all, just unsubstantiated claims from "high-level sources".

It is like a nightmare that repeats and repeats with small changes each night. Small changes, but, the theme remains the same.

It is a nightmare. We create the world around us. We are doing War on a Large Scale, again.

The winners are the ones that do not end up in the History Books. The Losers do not end up in the History Books, either.

Most people want to live joyful and content lives. Many find that kind of life, boring. So; We end up with this. This is not a new thing. Typing into an internet forum will not make one difference one way or the other.

So, fucking unimportant. That is what all that Left leaning, Bleeding Heart stuff is about. It is recognition of self in others. Something that is more than skin deep.

Are we taking sides? Is it time to vote?

A. Is the US a state that has, is and will continue to break both international law and bounds on human decency?
Or;
B. Is the US a shining light on a hill that all other nations must turn to?

[sourmìlk]

That is a false dichotomy. The US occasionally (too often) behaves inappropriately, and is also substantially better than most other nations. And is a potential example for them.

[addams]

That is a false dichotomy. The US occasionally (too often) behaves inappropriately, and is also substantially better than most other nations. And is a potential example for them.

Example? O.K. I would like a list of one.

It is not fair to use Natural Wonders. That is like saying that the cute girls get to make all the rules, because, they are cute.

Something with more intellectual substance. NASA was a good example. But; I hear she is on the Ropes.

Institutes of Higher Learning? Where?
I, just, made your point. Didn't I?

It is that whole Institute of Higher Learning thing that we seem to be arguing about.

Do they exist? What is taught?

[sourmìlk]

I'm not sure what you're asking for.

[LaserGuy]

That is a false dichotomy. The US occasionally (too often) behaves inappropriately, and is also substantially better than most other nations. And is a potential example for them.

Most other nations don't have the power and resources to behave anywhere near as inappropriately as the US does. I'd rather not have most other nations use the United States as an example for how to deal with their foreign policy objectives, to be honest.

I'm fine training foreign elements to perform covert military operations. Having allies isn't wrong. I am against teaching them to commit acts of terror.

I think the point is that the people who you might want to train to perform covert military operations are invariably the same people who would use terrorism. And many covert military operations use similar, if not the same methods, as you would expect a terrorist to. I'm not sure how you would ever hope to go about separating them. And I certainly don't think there's any argument that, from the other guy's point of view, you are very clearly training terrorists.

[sourmìlk]

Most other nations don't have the power and resources to behave anywhere near as inappropriately as the US does. I'd rather not have most other nations use the United States as an example for how to deal with their foreign policy objectives, to be honest.

Well I'm not saying we're particularly good, but relatively? We haven't tried to complete annihilate another nation, we haven't tried to commit genocide, we don't target civilians, and we don't tend to commit acts of terror. That's a lot better than most countries who a) have or have had a military and b) aren't in the first world.

I think the point is that the people who you might want to train to perform covert military operations are invariably the same people who would use terrorism. And many covert military operations use similar, if not the same methods, as you would expect a terrorist to. I'm not sure how you would ever hope to go about separating them. And I certainly don't think there's any argument that, from the other guy's point of view, you are very clearly training terrorists.

The other guy's point of view is wrong so long as the people being trained aren't (and won't be) committing incidents of terror. And I don't really know the specific differences between training for covert operations and training for terrorism, so I really couldn't say.

[jestingrabbit]

we don't target civilians

Hiroshima, Nagasaki: discuss.

[Princess Marzipan]

I will give you yet another topic. Nagasaki is neither a naga nor made of sake. Discuss.

[sourmìlk]

we don't target civilians

Hiroshima, Nagasaki: discuss.

70 years ago. If our tactics hadn't been dramatically different from those in WWII for quite a while, then sure, that's a valid criticism. And even despite that, for the era, the Americans were somewhat more moral than the opposition. Yeah there was Dresden, but that wasn't exactly the Rape of Nanjing or the Holocaust.

[LaserGuy]

Most other nations don't have the power and resources to behave anywhere near as inappropriately as the US does. I'd rather not have most other nations use the United States as an example for how to deal with their foreign policy objectives, to be honest.

Well I'm not saying we're particularly good, but relatively? We haven't tried to complete annihilate another nation, we haven't tried to commit genocide, we don't target civilians, and we don't tend to commit acts of terror.

And most other nations have not tried to do these things either. However, most other nations also haven't gone around randomly invading sovereign nations that have not done anything to harm them. The US has a laundry list of those. As far as targeting civilians goes, I'm sure the Vietnamese would beg to differ. Or the whole thing where we're blowing up people with drones in Lebanon and Libya. That's some pretty good terrorism right there.

The other guy's point of view is wrong so long as the people being trained aren't (and won't be) committing incidents of terror. And I don't really know the specific differences between training for covert operations and training for terrorism, so I really couldn't say.

I'm not sure what types of clandestine military activities you have in mind that could not be reasonably considered terrorism.

[sourmìlk]

I am not familiar with what incidents in Libya and Lebanon specifically you are referring to (if you're referring to specific incidents.)

As for non-terrorist clandestine military operations: basically, sabotage. Planting the Stuxnet virus, disabling military machinery or blocking / destroying routes of transportation, etc.

[LaserGuy]

I am not familiar with what incidents in Libya and Lebanon specifically you are referring to (if you're referring to specific incidents.)

As for non-terrorist clandestine military operations: basically, sabotage. Planting the Stuxnet virus, disabling military machinery or blocking / destroying routes of transportation, etc.

Sorry, my bad, got the countries wrong: US drone strikes have reportedly killed about 2000 people in Pakistan in the last six or so years. A similar, although smaller, campaign is going on in Yemen.

[addams]

I am not familiar with what incidents in Libya and Lebanon specifically you are referring to (if you're referring to specific incidents.)

As for non-terrorist clandestine military operations: basically, sabotage. Planting the Stuxnet virus, disabling military machinery or blocking / destroying routes of transportation, etc.

Sorry, my bad, got the countries wrong: US drone strikes have reportedly killed about 2000 people in Pakistan in the last six or so years. A similar, although smaller, campaign is going on in Yemen.

Holy Shit!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant

That word 'Militant' is spread with a broad brush. Not such a problem if it did not excuse murder.

Hey! You killed that guy!
Nah. Not really. He was a Militant.
Oh. Alright, then.

Jeeze. I know Militants are a difficult. I had a friend one time.
He was a Belligerent Militant Atheist.

I am not Militant. Are you?

I could be called a Militant. How could I prove the accusation wrong, at a distance, to a drone?

That is one scary world view. Deep breath.

Is it true? What can be done about it?

Do we, as a people, give one Rat's Ass? Why should we? Are we worried? Worried about what?

The Sour Milk Loop. That is frightening. Will it always be Sour Milk or will it turn into something else?

I once read seven internet pages of Sour Milk learning Truth Tables.

Sour Milk might not know Truth Tables, still. I don't like Truth Tables.

Militants? Don't like some of them, either. I like others. No accounting for taste.

[Nordic Einar]

Would "overthrowing South American Governments left and right" count as terrorism? Cuz there's been a fuck lot of that going on too.

Just sayin'.

[addams]

Would "overthrowing South American Governments left and right" count as terrorism? Cuz there's been a fuck lot of that going on too.

Just sayin'.

O.K. Now. What can be done about it?

We define 'it' as US trained and sponsored war.

1. We can't fight fire with fire. (I know it is possible. I know that stuff. The best outcome is a very large burnt area.)

2. We can't starve them out. (That is so 1500's.)

What can be done? For us all to know?

So? We know?

Demonstrations? Funny noise. That does not work. In the US going to demonstrations gets a person on lists, gets a person in jail, gets a person ignored and worse.

Demonstrations are so easy to ignore. There is open sex on bill boards, Big screen TV's, Police telling people that it is time to go home; Now!

The airwaves are used to frighten people. Any accountability in broadcast media is long gone. Do you want me to go to the CIA website, again, and get the citation? It was there two weeks ago. A part of the mission is to monitor and influence media of all kinds. The easiest is broadcast media.

Here: Have fun. https://www.cia.gov/index.html
(That website changes as fast as the xkcd word filters did. I kind of, miss the word filters. Don't you?)

Demonstrations do not work.

Violence against violence does not work. (It is satisfying to the individual and to spectators. It is, also, not a good idea.) Unarmed civilians can not bully well armed bullies.
Peace is hard.

Oh, I don't know. What do you think?

Education? Hey! There is an idea that this crowd might agree with.

What ya' going to teach?
What kind of classes do you take?