My enemy's enemy is my friend... - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 4 (permalink) Old 04-29-2003, 11:34 AM Thread Starter
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
My enemy's enemy is my friend...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/in...957ee936671217

American Forces Reach Cease-Fire With Terror Group
By DOUGLAS JEHL with MICHAEL R. GORDON


ASHINGTON, April 28 American forces in Iraq have signed a cease-fire with an Iranian opposition group the United States has designated a terrorist organization, and expect it to surrender soon with some of its arms, American military officials said today.

Under the deal, signed on April 15 but confirmed by the United States Central Command only today, United States forces agreed not to damage any of the group's vehicles, equipment or any of its property in its camps in Iraq, and not to commit any hostile act toward the Iranian opposition forces covered by the agreement.

In return, the group, the People's Mujahedeen, which will be allowed to keep its weapons for now, agreed not to fire on or commit other hostile acts against American forces, not to destroy private or government property, and to place its artillery and antiaircraft guns in nonthreatening positions.

The accord is apparently the first between the United States military which in early April was bombing the group's Iraqi camps and a terrorist organization, and it raises questions about how consistently the Bush administration intends to apply a policy that had vowed to crack down on terrorist groups worldwide.

The Iranian group, which is led by a woman and has an estimated 10,000 members in Iraq, has no known ties to Al Qaeda, but its members killed several American military personnel and civilian contractors in the 1970's and supported the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

It has carried out dozens of bombings that were aimed at Iranian military and government workers, but that also killed civilians.

It was added to the State Department's list of terrorist organizations in 1997.

An American military official said the group could provide intelligence regarding Iranian government activities both in Iraq, and in Iran itself.

A spokesman for the Central Command, in Doha, Qatar, who was responding to a reporter's inquiry, issued a three-sentence statement today that provided the basic outlines of the cease-fire.

A senior military officer said he expected the accord to be followed in the next few days by a formal capitulation agreement, and he indicated that the group would eventually have to give up some of its arms.

The accord with the People's Mujahadeen reflects a pragmatic approach to a security problem for an American military that already has its hands full trying to stabilize Baghdad and other areas of Iraq. But it raises the issue of how to square the accord with the administration's antiterrorism policy.

A State Department official said tonight that the deal was not inconsistent with the broader effort against terrorism. The official said the agreement with the group, which operated with support and protection from Saddam Hussein's government, would help the United States learn more about Iraq's ties to terrorism and the nature of its former government.

"You can't get information out of a dead man," the official said. He said the decision to call a halt to American bombing and other attacks against the group did not reflect any change in its terrorist status. "It's a cease-fire," he said, "that's all it means."

As recently as last week, senior Pentagon officials described the group as a vicious entity that had served as a de facto security organization for the Iraqi government. At the same time, however, supporters of the People's Mujahadeen, including dozens of members of Congress, have portrayed the decision to label the group as terrorist as one that was taken by the Clinton administration largely as a positive gesture to the Iranian government, which regards the People's Mujahadeen as a serious foe.

A senior American officer said several approaches, or "courses of action" were being considered by the United States government as to what to do about the group and its weapons over the long run.

Asked why American commanders would sign a cease-fire with a terrorist organization, a Central Command spokesman, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Owens, said he had no further information. He noted that the State Department was responsible for decisions about the status of terrorist groups.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 4 (permalink) Old 04-29-2003, 11:58 AM
The Janitor
 
32VfromHell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sacred Heart Hospital
Posts: 16,424
This *is* cracking down on terrorism. If we have a chance on striking a deal with al queda this week, with them laying down their arms, exposing all their plans, the only point being is we dont blow their shit up, i would find it crude that we dont accept. Pasification of our enemy is "cracking down" in my terms.

One of the key (short term) joining of causes was the US and Russia during WWII on the german front. The russians didnt want to get caught up with japan again after their rather brutal lesson learned, though. This however has different curcumstances, but if key deals can be reached at "minor" factions, they can help us immensely if they help us learn the ways of the terrorist and offer intel on other groups, it would be stupid to anger these potential allies at this point.

What do you say?
32VfromHell is offline  
post #3 of 4 (permalink) Old 04-29-2003, 12:03 PM
Pushed to the limit
 
PWTRTXSS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In the shadow of a big mountain
Posts: 4,510
I agree with you but that's not how it has been presented to the American people... especially with part of the war justification being about getting rid of terror, not cracking down. Cracking down falls short.


Quote:
Originally posted by 32VfromHell
This *is* cracking down on terrorism. If we have a chance on striking a deal with al queda this week, with them laying down their arms, exposing all their plans, the only point being is we dont blow their shit up, i would find it crude that we dont accept. Pasification of our enemy is "cracking down" in my terms.

One of the key (short term) joining of causes was the US and Russia during WWII on the german front. The russians didnt want to get caught up with japan again after their rather brutal lesson learned, though. This however has different curcumstances, but if key deals can be reached at "minor" factions, they can help us immensely if they help us learn the ways of the terrorist and offer intel on other groups, it would be stupid to anger these potential allies at this point.

What do you say?

Buying dogs kills.
PWTRTXSS is offline  
 
post #4 of 4 (permalink) Old 04-29-2003, 12:52 PM Thread Starter
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
I say, first, the war in Iraq is not anything close to WWII. See Hook 'em's insistance on the "joyful crowds" that will occur in Iraq after the regime fall, similiar to Germany. You can not draw any parallels to WWII and this war.

Secondly, the war on Iraq was partly justified by Iraq's willingness to break UN resolutions. The US, the European Union and Iran have all officially labeled this group a terrorist group. Resolution 1373 states that no state shall support terrorism. Is the administration breaking this rule? The US allowed them to keep their weapons, stay in Iraq and continue its armed stuggle against Iran. This group had close ties to Saddam (another enemy of my enemy scenario).

Not to mention this group's members killed several military and civilian personnel in the 70s and supported the takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran.

Sorry, this is very inconsistent with hard line "The War On Terrorism"'s philosophy of not dealing with terrorists or states that provide them haven.

Last edited by 01WhiteCobra; 04-29-2003 at 02:23 PM.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome