Article

2006-03-20 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Only a fraction of Teheran's brutality has come to light

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2006-03-20 00:00|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Everything Rajavi and her MEK buddies say needs to be taken with a whole shaker of salt. The MEK beliefs concerning her and her husband border on deification (Mao-esque cults of personality at the very least) and putting them in charge of Iran would only serve to replace an Islamic Republic with a People's Republic - not much of an improvement, IMO. Remember, they shilled for Saddam and served as his toadies for more than 20 years - they deserve no pity and are certainly worthy of no alliance with the US against the mad mullahs.

Posted by Dan Darling">Dan Darling 2006-03-20 05:11|| http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com]">[http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2006-03-20 05:11|| Front Page Top

#2 Their info seems to be good. Their politics are screwed. Communism sucks and commies are vipers they are not trust worthy and belong on the Terror list.

Posted by SPoD 2006-03-20 06:09|| http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/]">[http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/] 2006-03-20 06:09|| Front Page Top

#3 The Rajavis are welcome to pour gasoline on themselves and light it. The MEK not only supported taking the 1979 US Embassy hostages, but were responsible for killing several US military and civilian personnel in the 1970's. Their only redeeming feature is that after their fallout with the mullahs, the MEK were able to kill quite a few of them.

Posted by ed 2006-03-20 08:09|| 2006-03-20 08:09|| Front Page Top

#4 "...regard the organisation's military wing as a terrorist group..."

What ever name they want to be called, they ALL have blood up to their armpits

The National Liberation Army of Iran
The People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI)
National Council of Resistance (NCR)
National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)
Muslim Iranian Student's Society

My question is, now that MEK recieved Geneva Convention "Protected" status does that allow for some of the State Dept.'s 75 million to go their way?

Posted by DepotGuy 2006-03-20 09:46|| 2006-03-20 09:46|| Front Page Top

#5 " would only serve to replace an Islamic Republic with a People's Republic - not much of an improvement, IMO"

Then I take it youre NOT one of the people who thinks the mullahs are irrational, and incapable of being deterred? The fact is that we HAVE managed Mutual Assured Deterrence situations with Marxist-Leninist regimes before, and while they will subsidize terror as a weapon, they can at least be deterred on that as well.

In any case, Leninism isnt real strong in the region, unlike Islamism, and so would have less potential appeal beyond Irans borders. In fact it probably would have less appeal WITHIN Irans borders than Khomeinism does - I think theyd have a hard time actually controlling the country.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-03-20 10:29|| 2006-03-20 10:29|| Front Page Top

#6 I dunno....an Iranian female figurehead would an excellent alternative to the Mad Mullahs. Maybe the US should court her away from the negative French influence, and I would hope she could see the true nature of the Maoist/Commie regimes. Functioning democracies have checks and balances, and the people must agree to be governed. Exchanging one tyranny for another is no longer acceptable with stakes this high.

Posted by Danielle 2006-03-20 12:07|| 2006-03-20 12:07|| Front Page Top

#7 DD: Remember, they shilled for Saddam and served as his toadies for more than 20 years - they deserve no pity and are certainly worthy of no alliance with the US against the mad mullahs.

We allied with Uncle Joe Stalin against the Nazis and Chairman Mao against the Soviets. People who have problems with alliances of common interest are stuck in the paradigm of permanent alliances like NATO. Most alliances in history have been ad hoc ones. We don't have to - and generally don't - give our alliance partners everything they want. We supported the Tibetan guerrillas right until the demands of the Cold War led to Nixon's rapprochement with China. Then we dropped the Tibetans like a hot coal. We had good relations with the Chinese until we realized that they were trying to replace us in the Pacific. That's the way it goes - it's known as getting one barbarian to fight another.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-03-20 20:47|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-03-20 20:47|| Front Page Top

#8 Danielle: Functioning democracies have checks and balances, and the people must agree to be governed. Exchanging one tyranny for another is no longer acceptable with stakes this high.

I am of the classic realist view that when large groups of Iranians slaughter each other, and the body count starts running up, it is not necessarily to the disadvantage of these United States. Especially if we can make it happen without a single American soldier having to risk his life occupying an inch of Iranian soil. Fact is that civil war will weaken the Iranian state, and that is all to the good.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-03-20 20:52|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-03-20 20:52|| Front Page Top

11:29 Thinemp Whimble2412
00:00 JosephMendiola
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:36 Zhang Fei
23:31 rjschwarz
23:31 JAB
23:21 JosephMendiola
23:19 Old Patriot
23:19 Frank G
23:16 Frank G
23:13 Frank G
23:11 Frank G
23:10 RWV
23:08 CrazyFool
22:45 macofromoc
22:38 3dc
22:26 Grunter
22:24 Matt
22:24 Allan Hu Akbar
22:21 Jogum Spailet6739
22:18 gromgoru
22:15 gromgoru