Iran's Parliament Signs Resolution to Label CIA, Army as 'Terrorist Organizations'

[Princeps]

The CIA targets civilians? That's news to me!

No, CIA doesn't only target civilians deliberately, it's mercenary armies has systematically slaughtered civilian concentrations in Nicaragua.

 

[amadeus]

No, CIA doesn't only target civilians deliberately, it's mercenary armies has systematically slaughtered civilian concentrations in Nicaragua.

The Sandinistas were a CIA mercenary army?

 

[Princeps]

The Sandinistas were a CIA mercenary army?

The Contras were a mercenary army and they killed some 30.000 people.

The Sandinistas were a successful popular movement. They tried to protect the population from aggression and compared to the US backed kleptocracy, they had ruled pretty well.

 

[Mandeville]

"... And what a bunch of gay CIA Agents too!"

 

[Stewbert 08]

Iran is just like the Republican Party...

...they don't have homosexuals, just a lot of men who like to sucensored by the Department of Homeland Security for your safety

 

[BasketCase]

Well, obviously I wouldn't recommed this sort of action; labelling the military of the US terrorist is bad for diplomacy. However, CIA is a terrorist organization, that's uncontriversial if we look at their own definition of terrorism.

When a CIA employee puts on an explosive belt and suicide-bombs a grocery store, then I'll believe you.

Not before.

It's not killing civilians that makes you a terrorist. It's attacking civilians intentionally. And when engaged in violent ass-whooping, the United States (usually) goes out of its way to avoid doing that. Naturally there are exceptions. But for you to be a terrorist, intentionally smacking innocent people must be the rule, not the exception.

That's the difference.

Want to convince me otherwise? Prove that the United States targets innocent people, frequently and intentionally. Nothing else will do. Pointing out one incident isn't going to cut it; you must prove that intentionally attacking civvies is the rule.

Not gonna hold my breath. Later.

 

[Princeps]

When a CIA employee puts on an explosive belt and suicide-bombs a grocery store, then I'll believe you.

So, uh, CIA mercenary armies attacking hospitals, schools, kindergardens and other "soft targets", isn't enough?

It's attacking civilians intentionally.

Which United States has done frequently. Have you heard of the bombing of Laos for example? US dropped more bombs on a defenseless civilian community then all the sides used in the second world war. Primarily for the reason because the US had all these bombers and nothing to do with them.

What about the Beirut bombing, where CIA operatives detonated a bomb in front of a mosque when the people were flocking out at the end of their prayers. The bomb killed 80 people, mostly women and children, and wounded 200.

But is there intention? That's irrelevant, no decent person talks about intetion when there is expectation that hundreds and thousands will perish. If you expect that hunderds will die, and yet you bomb the militant in middle of a civilian community, its the same as intentionally killing the civilians, who die as a result.

I could argue that Hamas doesn't intentionally kill civilians, they just want to wreck the busses.

And when engaged in violent ass-whooping, the United States (usually) goes out of its way to avoid doing that. Naturally there are exceptions. But for you to be a terrorist, intentionally smacking innocent people must be the rule, not the exception.

But the thing is that in almost every war US has been involved in, US has deliberately inflicted massive casualties on civilian populations... take the fire-bombing of Japan, the collosal crimes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bombing of North Korea, bombing of Laos, the secret bombing of Cambodia, the systematic destruction of civilian populations in Nicaragua, etc, and so forth. From latin America, we have plenty of examples of US backed death squads, the school of Americas, where they've trained the most fantastic mass murdereds and brilliant torturers. The recent war is no exception, the sanctions imposed on Iraq killed hundreds of thousands, the bombing of Iraq destroyed vital water infrastructure and so forth. Furthermore, there is a long list of tyrants backed by the US, either through deliberate state policy or something else. http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm Its quite a rogue gallery.

 

[Kozmos]

I said this was going to happen. CIA could well be considered a terrorist organization, but not the US Army.

Also Basket come on, secret prisons, the Family Jewels report, MKULTRA, drug trafficking? CIA has well deserved it's title.

 

[Princeps]

Also Basket come on, secret prisons, the Family Jewels report, MKULTRA, drug trafficking? CIA has well deserved it's title.

Hence the CIA (Cocaine importing agency).

 

[Che Guava]

Tit for tat indeed! All good an d everything symbolically, I wonder what exactly that means, pratically? That iranian citizens can't give money to organizations that support the CIA?

 

[sourboy]

I'd like to see them try to get the UN to act against the "terrorist" US Army,

 

[amadeus]

I'd like to see them try to get the UN to act against the "terrorist" US Army,

The UN? They just might do it.

 

[sourboy]

I could see the CIA, but the US Army? That will be followed by laughs. This guy sure sucks at diplomacy.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well, obviously I wouldn't recommed this sort of action; labelling the military of the US terrorist is bad for diplomacy. However, CIA is a terrorist organization, that's uncontriversial if we look at their own definition of terrorism.

I wouldn't consider them to be terrorists, but I do think their methods step outside the bounds of the law, and often. They walk the line, to quote the eternal Johnny Cash.

I think, had they only included the CIA in this, it would have held some more merit, but by throwing the US Army in there, it quickly becomes a "no you're a terrorist!" fight between children on the playground.

 

[amadeus]

So a meaningless body signs a meaningless resolution? I guess it's a step up from what they're used to doing; funding terrorist groups and stoning homosexuals.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So, uh, CIA mercenary armies attacking hospitals, schools, kindergardens and other "soft targets", isn't enough?

Eh? I'm not familiar with this.

Which United States has done frequently. Have you heard of the bombing of Laos for example? US dropped more bombs on a defenseless civilian community then all the sides used in the second world war. Primarily for the reason because the US had all these bombers and nothing to do with them.

I really hate it when you say that bolded part, it takes away so much from your credibility.

The Vietnam War was, a very, well, dirty war (it definitely warrants its own thread, or five, so I don't want to go into it in this one).

But is there intention? That's irrelevant, no decent person talks about intetion when there is expectation that hundreds and thousands will perish. If you expect that hunderds will die, and yet you bomb the militant in middle of a civilian community, its the same as intentionally killing the civilians, who die as a result.

I could argue that Hamas doesn't intentionally kill civilians, they just want to wreck the busses.

The establishment of intention is, I think, critical in situations such as this. To give an example, let's say there is a man in a room with a gun, a room otherwise populated by innocent people. I then walk into that room with a gun, and with the intention of shooting that man with a gun, and start shooting at him from across the room. Chances are that I will hit some of the other people in that room, but they are shot by my own carelessness, not because I intended to kill them. This is why the law distinguishes between First and Second Degree Murder charges. Now, I hope you can see how this is different from the next situation, where a man walks into that room and just lets fly, killing whomever the bullets find, with the sole intention of simply killing people. Neither is right, but the establishment of intention is what makes the first man a moron, and the second a monster.

But the thing is that in almost every war US has been involved in, US has deliberately inflicted massive casualties on civilian populations... take the fire-bombing of Japan, the collosal crimes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bombing of North Korea, bombing of Laos, the secret bombing of Cambodia, the systematic destruction of civilian populations in Nicaragua, etc, and so forth. From latin America, we have plenty of examples of US backed death squads, the school of Americas, where they've trained the most fantastic mass murdereds and brilliant torturers. The recent war is no exception, the sanctions imposed on Iraq killed hundreds of thousands, the bombing of Iraq destroyed vital water infrastructure and so forth. Furthermore, there is a long list of tyrants backed by the US, either through deliberate state policy or something else. http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm Its quite a rogue gallery.

What about The Firebombing of Dresden? The Massacre of the Poles at Volhinia? The Sook Ching Massacre? Hue? The Rape of Nanking? Any of the cleansing during the Spanish Civil War?

Everyone does stupid and horrible things in war. That doesn't make it right, nor am I condoning it, but don't act like the United States is a renegade among countries in this. Surely its record is no more tainted than any other country in history.

 

[luiz]

What about the Beirut bombing, where CIA operatives detonated a bomb in front of a mosque when the people were flocking out at the end of their prayers. The bomb killed 80 people, mostly women and children, and wounded 200.

It was never proven that they were under CIA orders. It is very probable that they had CIA training, but they were lebanese trying to exert revenge on the islamic cleric Sayed Hussein Fadallah.

Note that it is a possibility that the CIA ordered the attack, but they still deny it to this day and Bob Woodward failed to present conclusive proof.

 

[CartesianFart]

It is not that the CIA is really the substantial threat of Iran's current regime, but more likely a warning to Washington of the things that can be in the way backfire on US reputational standing with some elements of Iranian society (the middle-class professionals and young students who favors the idea of opening with the West).

 

[Princeps]

Eh? I'm not familiar with this.

Nicaragua. (and in other parts of Latin America as well, such as El-salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Colombia, etc, US has heavily supported such actons).

The establishment of intention is, I think, critical in situations such as this. To give an example, let's say there is a man in a room with a gun, a room otherwise populated by innocent people. I then walk into that room with a gun, and with the intention of shooting that man with a gun, and start shooting at him from across the room. Chances are that I will hit some of the other people in that room, but they are shot by my own carelessness, not because I intended to kill them. This is why the law distinguishes between First and Second Degree Murder charges. Now, I hope you can see how this is different from the next situation, where a man walks into that room and just lets fly, killing whomever the bullets find, with the sole intention of simply killing people. Neither is right, but the establishment of intention is what makes the first man a moron, and the second a monster.

Well, if you drop firebombs on densly wooden cities in order to kill of few soldiers, you're commiting a collosal atrocity, not any legimate military action against enemy soldiers. Or when you drop over a million tons of explosive devices on a defenseless peasant community to supposedly "cut off enemy supply lines", you're commiting a colossal atrocity, not a legimate act of war. If you pour weapons to genodical dictators and states (Turkey, Suharto etc) and you're fully aware of how those weapons will be used, you're commiting a colossal atrocity. And so forth.

I don't really like to defend terrorist organizations, and when I do, I'm usually somewhat of a devil's advocate, but what Hamas is doing, sort of pales in comparison to the oh-so holy and pure Reagan administration, for example.

What about The Firebombing of Dresden? The Massacre of the Poles at Volhinia? The Sook Ching Massacre? Hue? The Rape of Nanking? Any of the cleansing during the Spanish Civil War?

Yes, these were (state) terrorist actions, and United States is subject to the same standards. Therefore, similar acts commited by CIA and US military establishment, are (state) terrorist acts as well.

Everyone does stupid and horrible things in war.

True, but simply noting that will not suffice.

That doesn't make it right, nor am I condoning it, but don't act like the United States is a renegade among countries in this. Surely its record is no more tainted than any other country in history.

No, of course not. I'm not biased against what US does, even though you might think so. All empires, throughout history, Romans, Soviets, British, Germans, Greeks and so forth, always bragged about their benign intentions, their civilized and enlightened ways, and labelled their enemies as utterly evil, while at the same time, they (meaning usually the jingoistic elites) violently subjugated peoples for their own materialistic and various political needs.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well, if you drop firebombs on densly wooden cities in order to kill of few soldiers, you're commiting a collosal atrocity, not any legimate military action against enemy soldiers. Or when you drop over a million tons of explosive devices on a defenseless peasant community to supposedly "cut off enemy supply lines", you're commiting a colossal atrocity, not a legimate act of war. If you pour weapons to genodical dictators and states (Turkey, Suharto etc) and you're fully aware of how those weapons will be used, you're commiting a colossal atrocity. And so forth.

Sorry to jump off topic here, but does that mean you don't support Russia's development of the Iranian nuclear program?

I don't really like to defend terrorist organizations, and when I do, I'm usually somewhat of a devil's advocate, but what Hamas is doing, sort of pales in comparison to the oh-so holy and pure Reagan administration, for example.

How?

Yes, these were (state) terrorist actions, and United States is subject to the same standards. Therefore, similar acts commited by CIA and US military establishment, are (state) terrorist acts as well.

I think we're operating under different definitions of terrorism. You seem to regard war atrocities as being terrorist in nature, whereas I see them as two different, but equally evil, things.

True, but simply noting that will not suffice.

I didn't suppose it to.