How is Iran doing anything wrong by suppling arms to Terrorists?
Question:
Afghanistan and the "Green Belt"
The US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski under President Carter developed the concept of the Green-belt theory which involved a plan to use Saudi Arabian money and CIA logistical support to train and arm Islamic radicals within the Soviet Union and in neighboring countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan as part of Operation Cyclone. These CIA-supported Islamic extremists fought against the Soviet Union in its Afghanistan war, and spurred a similar Muslim-world program which attracted Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan. According to Robert Dreyfus, the CIA also provided training and money to the Chechans during the Cold War to use them as guerrilla fighters in case of a Soviet invasion of Europe. This concept was modeled on Operation Gladio which involved training paramilitary organizations in Europe to serve as guerrilla units in case of a Soviet invasion.
Once the Soviet Union dissolved, these Chechen terrorists were to destabilize and weaken the post-Soviet Russia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/state_terro...
“ Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. --Noam Chomsky ”
Answer:
Well said - the hypocrosy in US foriegn policy knows no limits. How the government can say that they are the champions of peace and freedom with a straight face I do not know. And why would otherwise good people support them in this? because they do not know the facts.
You are doing a service to the world spreading this information, please continue, no matter what the haters say, the truth must get out...
mmm i wonder
wow where to begin... Do you live in fear everyday about getting blown up at work? The people in the middle east do. If you want car bombings everyday in your city, keep that attitude and it will come here,; as for me I would like to fight this war in their towns not ours.
At this point if you are in the government you can say whatever you want to justify whatever, apparently no one will verify the information and when they do you can say oops! to justify.
Nothing.
The US supplied weapons to both Iran and Iraq when they were battling each other. Then we supplied biological weapons to Saddam (who we installed into power) who used them on the Kurds.
I see you're fully aware of how CIA also trained Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban to fight the USSR in the 70's and 80's. And most lately, the latest terrorist group we fully sponor is Israel, yes our "best allies" sponsor routine terrorism against Palestine whom they consider a threat.
That's kind of like saying the Island of Bermuda is a threat to the US, or like Iraq is a threat to the US.
The entire middle east terrorism is a scam believe it and people that are getting worried about being "blown up" here are ridiculous cowards that have been watching too much FOX news.
Oh I see you watched Rambo III too!
Iran supplies arms that kill women and children. That is immoral, they do it because they hate the USA. Hopefully they kill you. It would be a benefit to this country. Also the goal of the rebels mentioned was to overthrow a government that controlled them, while the goal of terrorists is to overthrow a government that provides civil liberties to millions.
You asked "How is Iran doing anything wrong by supplying arms to Terrorists? Is the US and the CIA the real terrorists?"
Webster defines terrorism as " the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion."
Because it is administered by an official state agency, American foreign policy by definition cannot be terrorism. It is either a legitimate or illegitimate use of power. If it is illegitimate it could be viewed as an act of war against a sovereign state.
Since Iran is a sovereign state, their intervention in the Iraqi conflict (by supplying arms) is an act of war not terrorism. It should be treated as an act of war by the Iraqi government (and their allies). The phrase "sponsoring terrorism" is politically useful in this case but not entirely accurate.
For clarification, pick something more hypothetical. Imagine if the Canadian government was funneling arms to rebels in the U.S. Would that be terrorism or an act of war?
Obviously that would be an act of war.
When nations intervene in the affairs of other nations it is either legitimate foreign policy or an act of war. When radical fringe groups seek to impose their will on the majority through force or fear of violence it is terrorism.
The 64K Question is 'what is legitimate?' but that's a question to big for AnswersRoom.com.
Iran and the terrorists want to kill us all. That seems wrong enough to me.
More Questions & Answers...