Skip to main content

Funding terrorism is a b-a-a-a-d thing, right?

Except, of course, if we're doing it.

From Anti-war.com:

Iranian officials vowed a “crushing response” today after a suicide blast in Sistan-Balochistan killed at least 49 people, including several high ranking members of the nation’s elite Revolutionary Guard forces.

Iran’s state media reported the Baloch separatist group Jundallah had claimed credit for the attack, and officials in the military accused the US and Britain of involvement, threatening to take revenge against those responsible.


Pure Iranian state-controlled media propaganda, right? Have something bad happen and claim the old Great Satan did it, huh?

Where do these guys come up with these whacky ideas, like the United States would fund suicide bombers?

What? The source is ... ABC News?

A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News.

The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran.

It has taken responsibility for the deaths and kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials.

Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to its youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states.


What? Oh. Don't worry. We've denied involvement so it all must be okay:

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The United States on Sunday condemned a suicide bombing that struck Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, and denied any involvement in the attack.

"We condemn this act of terrorism and mourn the loss of innocent lives," State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly said in a statement.

"Reports of alleged US involvement are completely false," he added.


What? Well, yes, you're right. We denied involvement in the suicide bombing. We didn't deny giving money to the organization that actually did the suicide bombing. Surely you understand that those are two completely different things. When you give money to a patriotic organization like Jundallah you can't be held accountable for what they do with it, can you?

What? The Patriot Act? Sending people to jail for contributing to terrorist groups?

Our government would never try to have it both ways.

Would it?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Playing devil's advocate here, you don't think that it's possible that it was Iranian dissidents themselves who did this? I mean, let's give the devil his due and not demean the Iranians as not being able to attack their own unpopular government. Isn't it very possible that an anti-government faction did this on it's own without American help? On the flip side, if we use the same line of thinking of there always being some form of government intervention when it comes to terrorism, then Timothy Mc Veigh must have had foreign help from either (pick a choice) the Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, Chinese, Russians, France, North Koreans, Colombians, Taliban, the Palestinians, Al-Qaeda, Israel or even Santa Claus when he bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City? Then again, people like to short change the Japanese and claim that there had to be government collusion in the bombing of Pearl Harbor too.

Truth be known, sometimes our enemies are smarter than we think they are and this goes for Iran's enemies too.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...