NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401662_pf.html
The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.

The Bush administration has chosen to move against the Revolutionary Guard Corps because of what U.S. officials have described as its growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East, the sources said. The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran, as well as U.S. frustration with the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions against Iran's nuclear program, officials said.

They just designated the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation. Now, this is the largest branch of the Iranian military. As far as we know, they haven't been bombing anyone (though in all likelihood there are contacts between branches of the Iranian secret service and military intelligence and Shi'ite groups in Iraq).

I'm not a fan of the Iranian government or its actions. I'm certain there are a lot of assholes in the Revolutionary Guards, and I'm sure it has some questionable contacts.

But in my opinion, that is not enough to call it a terrorist organisation. It hasn't actually done any terrorising!

How exactly is this helping in the effort to make terrorism unacceptable as a tool for political or social change? It just makes the State Department's list more of a farce.

I'd be surprised if anyone disagreed with me, but I'll still ask for opinions.

Doesn't the CIA have a growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and a history of supporting extremists?

All "terrorist" is starting to mean is "armed crimethinkers and Goldsteins", really.

President George W Bush said at a news conference last week: "The American people should be concerned about Iran. They should be concerned about Iran's activity in Iraq, and they ought to be concerned about Iran's activity around the world."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6947616.stm

Personally I'm rather more worried at the role of America in Iraq and around the world, as are indeed most of us....

This is ridiculous. The IRG is a legitimate branch of the Iranian military, not to mention the largest of Iran's armed forces. It has it's own uniforms, doctrines, ground, naval and air forces. It practices asymmetric warfare, of course, but on the modern battlefield it is now a necessity, not that asymmetric tactics are synonymous with terrorism in the first place.

This is of course what the White House wants people to believe, that all armed forces that use asymmetric tactics are "terrorists". Just as the Russians like to brand all Chechen armed resistance as "terrorism". Not that what happened at Beslan wasn't terrorism. Anyway.

I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. The IRG is a legitimate, regular armed force. Not a terrorist group.

Asymmetric tactics =/= Terrorist tactics

The CIA has a better claim as a terrorist group.

They are not terrorist in the classical sense and should not be put on a list of "terrorist" organizations. They are a army attached to a established nation. Seems to me they are trying to punish Iran for various reasons without actually having to go to blows with them. Calling a branch of their military a terrorist organization is a dumb way to go about it.

Now if the administration believes they are responsible for attacks against US troops then they have a right to defend themselves. Instead of declaring Iran's military a terrorist organization they should be warning Iran of open warfare. I know that doesn't sound popular but that is what they should be doing instead.

Now if the administration believes they are responsible for attacks against US troops then they have a right to defend themselves. Instead of declaring Iran's military a terrorist organization they should be warning Iran of open warfare. I know that doesn't sound popular but that is what they should be doing instead.

Don't you see? Without having to obey no pesky rules of war for "terrorist organization" IRG, they can do stuff like unilaterally bomb Iranian barracks ala Israel and declare "Oh, we were just going after terrorists".

The IRG can hardly be considered a terrorist organization for the primary reason that they are not a civilian group. They are part of the Iranian state, a uniformed military force, and though they may be involved in actual terrorist groups, and though they may use terrorist style tactics, it is impossible, by the definition of the word, for them to be terrorists.

All "terrorist" is starting to mean is "armed crimethinkers and Goldsteins", really.

Hardly.

Still, the appelation of the term "terrorist" is being done poorly by this administration, and with wanton disregard for the important elements of the word.

Which raises a question: Isn't US DoD a terrorist organization as well, funded by an isolationist nation, ignoring international law and UN, and known for massive acts of violence against various nations?

Blatant set up to go to war with Iran.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401662_pf.html


They just designated the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation. Now, this is the largest branch of the Iranian military. As far as we know, they haven't been bombing anyone (though in all likelihood there are contacts between branches of the Iranian secret service and military intelligence and Shi'ite groups in Iraq).

I'm not a fan of the Iranian government or its actions. I'm certain there are a lot of assholes in the Revolutionary Guards, and I'm sure it has some questionable contacts.

But in my opinion, that is not enough to call it a terrorist organisation. It hasn't actually done any terrorising!

How exactly is this helping in the effort to make terrorism unacceptable as a tool for political or social change? It just makes the State Department's list more of a farce.

I'd be surprised if anyone disagreed with me, but I'll still ask for opinions.


They have had no more contacts with terrorists and had no more operations of a clandestine nature than the CIA. Is the CIA a terrorist organization? They had strong ties to Al Quaeda too. *nod*

While the tactics of the Quds Force could certainly be considered terrorist activities, most of the Revolutionary Guard is just a regular military force. What worries me most about the IRG is the autonomy they seem to have from the Iranian government and their attempts to force Iran into a war.

I think that the biggest problem is that when you start calling a country's army a terrorist group, then you kinda totally change the meaning of a terrorist group and make it more legitimate for people to call your army a terrorist group.

I think that the biggest problem is that when you start calling a country's army a terrorist group, then you kinda totally change the meaning of a terrorist group and make it more legitimate for people to call your army a terrorist group.
Another issue is that if there was a conflict between the IRG and US forces, the US (or rather the Bush admin) would use the "terrorist org" label to justify ignoring totally the Geneva Convention - much the way they did with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
It sets a dangerous precedent and would certainly do no favours to international opinion and relations with the US.

Bush admin seems set on totally isolating the US and destroying what little international goodwill there is left.

Another issue is that if there was a conflict between the IRG and US forces, the US (or rather the Bush admin) would use the "terrorist org" label to justify ignoring totally the Geneva Convention - much the way they did with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
It sets a dangerous precedent and would certainly do no favours to international opinion and relations with the US.


So what happens if a terrorist organization captures US soldiers...and calls them terrorists?

So what happens if a terrorist organization captures US soldiers...and calls them terrorists?
exactly. which is what I meant by a dangerous precedent. Doesn't even have to be a terrorist org. With this the US is basically saying any regular armed force can now be considered a terrorist org and thus not covered by the Geneva Convention - including themselves if some other country decides to call it.
Like Iran for example.

exactly. which is what I meant by a dangerous precedent. Doesn't even have to be a terrorist org. With this the US is basically saying any regular armed force can now be considered a terrorist org and thus not covered by the Geneva Convention - including themselves if some other country decides to call it.
Like Iran for example.

I have his odd image. Of one day where Bush is kidnapped off his ranch, along with the rest of his cabinet to some banana republic. Where they get declared illegal combatants and given life in jail.

I have his odd image. Of one day where Bush is kidnapped off his ranch, along with the rest of his cabinet to some banana republic. Where they get declared illegal combatants and given life in jail.

Or just being summarily executed. Might even do the US a favor. :p

Seriously, this is the most ridiculous piece of shit I have ever heard - it's a blatant set-up for an invasion of Iran without needing a declaration of war (thus allowing Bush to bypass Congress). After that, one would hope Congress would have the balls to stop all military funding, necessitating a military takeover attempt by Bush, and one hopes that such an action would finally anger the American people enough to kick his corrupt ass out of office.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401662_pf.html


They just designated the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation. Now, this is the largest branch of the Iranian military. As far as we know, they haven't been bombing anyone (though in all likelihood there are contacts between branches of the Iranian secret service and military intelligence and Shi'ite groups in Iraq).

I'm not a fan of the Iranian government or its actions. I'm certain there are a lot of assholes in the Revolutionary Guards, and I'm sure it has some questionable contacts.

But in my opinion, that is not enough to call it a terrorist organisation. It hasn't actually done any terrorising!

How exactly is this helping in the effort to make terrorism unacceptable as a tool for political or social change? It just makes the State Department's list more of a farce.

I'd be surprised if anyone disagreed with me, but I'll still ask for opinions.

The Revolutionary Guards is not just a military organization, and a trainer of terrorists (it's who trains Hezbollah).

They are a going concern as a major international corporation. They own a lot of companies in Iraq who do a lot of business overseas.

This categorization will punish any company that does business with any company owned by the Revolutionary Guards.

It will probably hurt them in their wallet.

This really is almost a new level of idiocy for the bush administration.

The moment "terrorist" starts to mean "member of a foreign armed forces" then we've effectively given up our 'war on terror' as it relates to fighting actual terrorists.

Other countries are obligated by reason, if not in practice, from divorcing their own terrorism lists from ours, since ours will cease to be a list of terrorists and become instead a list of political enemies.

We can only hope the democratic congress will find some way to reverse this, perhaps making it a deal breaker on military funds, but I have deep doubts they will.

Doesn't the CIA have a growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and a history of supporting extremists?

You're confused.

It's not terrorism if America does it.

The Revolutionary Guards is not just a military organization, and a trainer of terrorists (it's who trains Hezbollah).

They are a going concern as a major international corporation. They own a lot of companies in Iraq who do a lot of business overseas.

This categorization will punish any company that does business with any company owned by the Revolutionary Guards.

It will probably hurt them in their wallet.

And the the US government has repeatedly funded terrorist organizations in the past.

Ergo-The US government is a terrorist organization.

exactly. which is what I meant by a dangerous precedent. Doesn't even have to be a terrorist org. With this the US is basically saying any regular armed force can now be considered a terrorist org and thus not covered by the Geneva Convention - including themselves if some other country decides to call it.
Like Iran for example.

No, no, no.

Only America gets to decide who is a terrorist. No other country gets that power. Because we are teh greatest!!!!!!111!!!One!!!Eleven!

Where were you in your high school government class?

This really is almost a new level of idiocy for the bush administration.

The moment "terrorist" starts to mean "member of a foreign armed forces" then we've effectively given up our 'war on terror' as it relates to fighting actual terrorists.

Other countries are obligated by reason, if not in practice, from divorcing their own terrorism lists from ours, since ours will cease to be a list of terrorists and become instead a list of political enemies.

We can only hope the democratic congress will find some way to reverse this, perhaps making it a deal breaker on military funds, but I have deep doubts they will.

While Democrats appear to disfavor continued war in Iraq, they don't seem to be willing to give up the "war on terror" any more than the Republicans do.

It's a matter of showing who is "tougher" on terror...

They just designated the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation. Now, this is the largest branch of the Iranian military. As far as we know, they haven't been bombing anyone (though in all likelihood there are contacts between branches of the Iranian secret service and military intelligence and Shi'ite groups in Iraq).

Proof was found that the Iranians supported Iraqi insurgents, and this may be why they got on the list. I don't think it was the Revolutionary Guard who was helping though, so there's no reason they should be on it.
I said "somewhere in between". Iran is already on the Axis of Evil. Maybe it could have it's own list?

Other countries are obligated by reason, if not in practice, from divorcing their own terrorism lists from ours, since ours will cease to be a list of terrorists and become instead a list of political enemies.
The history is a downward spiral. This has happened already.

After the Revolution, in the Soviet Russia, certain people, responsible for WWI participation and oppressive acts, were quite fairly declared enemies of the people.
As the civil war was going on, this term was more and more commonly used to justify executions of the enemies. By 1930s, it was already a long spoiled one, used to refer to all political enemies, which led to the well-known repressions with over half a million politically active people sent to labor camps, most as "enemies of the people".

The history is a downward spiral. This has happened already.

After the Revolution, in the Soviet Russia, certain people, responsible for WWI participation and oppressive acts, were quite fairly declared enemies of the people.
As the civil war was going on, this term was more and more commonly used to justify executions of the enemies. By 1930s, it was already a long spoiled one, used to refer to all political enemies, which led to the well-known repressions with over half a million politically active people sent to labor camps, most as "enemies of the people".

Yup, which is exactly why opposition is so important to any special, illegal classification as "terrorist" or "enemy combatant," because once the precedent is set, it always creeps into other areas.

While Democrats appear to disfavor continued war in Iraq, they don't seem to be willing to give up the "war on terror" any more than the Republicans do.

It's a matter of showing who is "tougher" on terror...

Too bad it's not about showing who's "smarter"...

Ugh, the Bush admin fails at English. "Terrorist" does not mean "someone we don't like".

Like the Iranians care.

So what happens if a terrorist organization captures US soldiers...and calls them terrorists?

They already have and killed them.

Like the Iranians care.

They will care once the bombs start flying. Truthfully if they were not scared they would be stupid. The US can put a world of hurt on them even if we are so called over extended.

They will care once the bombs start flying. Truthfully if they were not scared they would be stupid. The US can put a world of hurt on them even if we are so called over extended.
The US Military is not just "so called" overextended, it's overextended full stop.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401347.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2147052,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-25-old-equipment_x.htm

Anyways, no one is going to declare war on anyone. The US can't do it because of the links above and the Iranian response in Iraq. The Iranians can't do it because they'd get their arse kicked. And the Israelis won't do it because not even they are that irresponsible.

They will care once the bombs start flying. Truthfully if they were not scared they would be stupid. The US can put a world of hurt on them even if we are so called over extended.
Well, some of us aren't planning on starting World War Three simply because the US government wants to suddenly have a My Dick Is Bigger Than Yours competition with Iran.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401662_pf.html


They just designated the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation. Now, this is the largest branch of the Iranian military. As far as we know, they haven't been bombing anyone (though in all likelihood there are contacts between branches of the Iranian secret service and military intelligence and Shi'ite groups in Iraq).

I'm not a fan of the Iranian government or its actions. I'm certain there are a lot of assholes in the Revolutionary Guards, and I'm sure it has some questionable contacts.

But in my opinion, that is not enough to call it a terrorist organisation. It hasn't actually done any terrorising!

How exactly is this helping in the effort to make terrorism unacceptable as a tool for political or social change? It just makes the State Department's list more of a farce.

I'd be surprised if anyone disagreed with me, but I'll still ask for opinions.

Ah crap. I read this as Israeli and voted "Yes of course!" because I thought we were talking about the same organization that kills Palestinian kids for tossing rocks at them.

Proof was found that the Iranians supported Iraqi insurgents, and this may be why they got on the list. I don't think it was the Revolutionary Guard who was helping though, so there's no reason they should be on it.

They have more of a legitmate reason for interfering in Iraq than the Americans or British have.....

Well, some of us aren't planning on starting World War Three simply because the US government wants to suddenly have a My Dick Is Bigger Than Yours competition with Iran.

Iran seems to be bent on doing WW III. They're accumulating HEU in order to make bombs.

The number of centrifuges they're operating far outstrip any civilian reactor fuel need they have, or are bound to have in the next decade.

I'm not certain, but I am pretty sure that the Revolutionary Guard was made up of revolutionary militias that often used terrorism in gaining power.

Iran seems to be bent on doing WW III. They're accumulating HEU in order to make bombs.

The number of centrifuges they're operating far outstrip any civilian reactor fuel need they have, or are bound to have in the next decade.

Ah yes, the old "They're building an atomic bomb" crap.

Come back when the leadership, real and puppets, start fighting on the front lines. Until then, don't.

We know you're only doing this kind of thing cause you like killing Muslims Mr Hal Turner.

Anyways, no one is going to declare war on anyone. The US can't do it because of the links above and the Iranian response in Iraq. The Iranians can't do it because they'd get their arse kicked. And the Israelis won't do it because not even they are that irresponsible.
You confuse politics with common sense. The people in charge of declaring war are politicians separated from the troops. The people in charge of war are politician soldiers who rose through the ranks by kissing ass. Calling a legitimate armed force of a country already dubbed part of the 'axis of evil' is just set up to cajole people into supporting a war against "terrorist" Iran.

Iran seems to be bent on doing WW III. They're accumulating HEU in order to make bombs.

The number of centrifuges they're operating far outstrip any civilian reactor fuel need they have, or are bound to have in the next decade.

This is the kind of ignorant, armchair hawk I'm talking about.

I think the ship on devaluing the word "terrorism" set sail with this:
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_080307_news_paper_terror.db392fff.html

Trying your luck with bullshit tax deductions counts as terrorism. By that standard the Bush administration is stepping dangerously close to being sane and reasonable here.

I'd be surprised if anyone disagreed with me, but I'll still ask for opinions.

The one army that richly deserves being designated a terrorist organization is a "close ally".

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm

But noooooooo...the Iranians are the evil incarnate....cuz we don't like them being defiant to us in public.

Ah yes, the old "They're building an atomic bomb" crap.
Though, to be fair, you'd have to be pretty naive to think they didn't at least want to keep the option open just in case.