dagblog - Comments for "U.S. Reported to Have Trained Terrorist Group"

Well, hats off to Glenn

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 06:56:24 +0000

In reply to All I think it's evidence of

Well, hats off to Glenn Greenwald for trying to sustain outrage while everyone else has gone so blasé and accepting.

Of course Greenwald and Hersh have different roles - Hersh is an investigative reporter, while Greenwald is a thinker and blogger analyzing what we know.

But since outrageous revelations in the NY Tiimes disappear in 2 days, we need someone with a megaphone to be repetitive and remind us that all the crap didn't go away just because MSNBC stopped (or never was) talking about it.

The two ride reports are

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 04:52:27 +0000

In reply to I can't imagine that it could

The two ride reports are recent and both met quite a few other adventure riders as they went, so it is possible. Maybe more trouble with officials for an American in Iran but I would expect the same acceptance by the general population. It would be too much for this old fart but I did travel coast to coast and around the horn in southern India last February-March on a Royal Enfield. Great trip that I am trying to sort out how to write about.

As you go through the

jollyroger — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 04:18:32 +0000

In reply to That is a trip I think I

As you go through the mountains in your mercedes mini bus, and you notice a rusted out corpse of one half way down the mountain about every other turn, and the whole bus erupts with Allahu Ak bar's (which I took to be prayers for assistance but a friend says it's calling on ahead that another busload is on the way...) you don't see bikes.

What about that chick in

jollyroger — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 04:15:38 +0000

In reply to That is a trip I think I

What about that chick in Esfahan? Kinda "saucy".

I can't imagine that it could

jollyroger — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 04:13:37 +0000

In reply to That is a trip I think I

I can't imagine that it could be survived today- you'd have to cross the heart of Kurdish Turkey by train, then there's Iran (which was still under the shah at the time), and, of course, Afghanistan.

It was bandit ridden, at least the road from Herat to Kabul, but the king was still in power (zahir shah) and the Soviets hadn't come yet.

Actually, things were never better before or since, than when the soviets occupied, imho.

That is a trip I think I

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 03:34:54 +0000

In reply to Meshed (alt. Mashad) is the

That is a trip I think I would like to make. Scroll down for some great pictures.

http://advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=460274

http://advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=765235

Meshed (alt. Mashad) is the

jollyroger — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 03:08:46 +0000

In reply to Where, or what, is Meshed?

Meshed (alt. Mashad) is the last city you hit in Iran when you travel overland from London to Afghanistan.

Last time I was there, they were stonewalling anyone with a backpack at the hotels, and diverting us to a large campground, where tents were for rental at, IIRC, about 75cents/nt.

Anyway, it's also a big martyr center, (not modern martyrs, I am quick to add, but the one's from back in the day--way back, like Ali and Hussein, and them)

So it would be a good place for the MEK to set up...and might then appear on Dean's itinerary (yeah, it's a stretch...too high.....sue me,,,,,)

Where, or what, is Meshed?

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 03:00:40 +0000

In reply to Dean's involvement in this is

Where, or what, is Meshed? Sounds like I might want to go there, or get some, whichever. Yeeeahhhhwoo..., sounds like fun.

Dean's involvement in this is

jollyroger — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:15:25 +0000

In reply to There's really not much knew

Dean's involvement in this is both disappointing and a surprise to me

On to Meshed, Yeeeahhhhwoo...

There's really not much knew

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 20:35:26 +0000

In reply to All I think it's evidence of

There's really not much knew here. Anyone who followed the MEK story during the Bush years will not be surprised by any of this.

That, in an ironic way, is a pretty vivid description of why it is a pretty big problem. There is nothing new and nobody is surprised. The corrupt dealings by connected politicos that are obviously in violation of a law can go on for profit or any other motive while others are sent to jail, often on very shaky grounds, often on very subjective determinations whether they violated any just law. Add to that the fact that most U.S, citizens wouldn't care if they noticed and many support any such action.

It was clear from just facts about Camp Ashraf and similar dealing, their protection, that they were no longer considered a terrorist group.

Can you substantiate that?I don't come to the same conclusion at all, and certainly not based on the reason you give.

Just as most terrorism experts never considered the designation serious, based on a few attacks.

Most experts don't think that this kooky cult that committed terrorist activities was properly classified as a terrorist organization? Or just not one that we had to seriously worry about? At least for now, as you suggest, while we are protecting them and they are [probably] doing some dirty work for us.

What they are is a kooky, dangerous and untrustworthy cult, everyone in terrorism circles knows this and has said it, and knows the CIA has long known it too.

That is a broad statement, I'm referring to "everyone", not making a pun. I can easily imagine that some in the terrorism circle might downplay criticism of "our" terrorists but some of those who knew about such groups passed passed a law that made it illegal to help kooky, dangerous cults that committed acts of terrorism and then got put on a list of U.S. designated terrorist organizations. Everybody who paid attention, including Dean, definitely knew that.

The continued terrorist designation is no doubt partly continued for plausible deniability purposes, because: they're nuts--they might just decide to do some terrorism again, if spurned and angry, in a bigger way this time.

Yeah, I hope we don't piss anyone off too.

Funny how implausible most of the denials are that use the plausible deniability tag.
Dean's involvement in this is both disappointing and a surprise to me. Of the ones who had a chance, I still would pick him to have won the Presidency. To diverge a bit, have you ever offered up who your choice was then and who it would be now if that choice has changed?