US Openly Supports Iranian Terrorists MEK

The U.S. Government is now openly supporting the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, an Iranian resistance movement designated as terrorist organization by the US State Department. On June 20th of this year, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq held a conference at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, which is where many foreign journalists stay and is under the full protection of the U.S. Army. I was in the area of the hotel that day, and saw at least 10 U.S. tanks heading in the direction of the hotel to provide additional security. I knew of the conference in advance, because of a report issued to all NGO's working in Iraq, which mentioned that the conference would take place. The report warned of an increased danger of attacks against the hotel, as anti- U.S. insurgents were likely to attempt to disrupt the conference [1].

The Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) is a Marxist oriented Iranian resistance organization founded in the 1960's to topple the pro- western regime of Reza Shah. Since that time, MEK has carried out scores of attacks and assassinated a number of Iranian government officials. MEK killed several American military and civilian personnel in Iran during the 1970's, and assisted in the occupation of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 where American civilians were held hostage. Though MEK participated in the 1979 revolution, which toppled the Shah, once the Ayatollah Khomeini consolidated power in Iran, MEK moved their headquarters to Paris and continued resistance activities against the Islamic Republic. In 1981, MEK bombed the offices of the Islamic Republic Party, killing 70 high-ranking Iranian officials. MEK established its military headquarters in Iraq in 1986, where Saddam Hussein became their main source of funding and protection. In return, the MEK fought alongside Iraqi forces during the war against Iran in the 1980's, and assisted Saddam's security forces in putting down the Kurdish and Shiite revolts after the first Gulf War in 1991. The majority of Saddam's recently discovered mass graves are filled with the Shiite and Kurdish dead from this uprising. MEK military operations against Iranian targets continued through the 1990's. The U.S. Department of State added the MEK to its official list of terrorist organizations in 1997, and shut down the organization's Washington, DC office in 2003 [2].

During the U.S. invasion of Iraq, MEK forces in Iraq surrendered to U.S. forces and turned over their military hard wear, including several thousand tanks, armored personnel carriers, anti-aircraft guns, and other vehicles. Despite denying suspected terrorists from Afghanistan and elsewhere prisoner of war status under the Geneva conventions, the US granted this status to detained members of MEK in Iraq [3].

Support for the MEK reveals one of the advantages the U.S. has acquired by occupying Iraq. The country can now be used as a staging post for carrying out attacks against regimes hostile to U.S. interests in the region, whether through proxy organizations such as MEK, or by attacking such countries directly by dispatching U.S. forces based on Iraqi soil. U.S. planners are currently somewhat constrained from using the latter option due to the difficulty they face in pacifying Iraq, so the first option, namely supporting terrorist organizations that are trying to destabilize the Iranian regime, will likely be their preferred course of action until U.S. control of Iraq is fully consolidated.

So when Paul Wolfowitz promised Iraqis in 2003 that the US would hunt down the "monsters" that assisted Saddam in digging the mass graves in 1991 [4], the Bush administration was in fact just beginning its support for some of the direct perpetrators of these crimes. Also revealing is U.S. criticism of the new Iranian president elect, due to his alleged involvement in holding U.S. embassy personnel hostage in 1979. Though the U.S. admits the MEK was involved in the same incident, White House support for this terrorist organization continues. This kind of hypocrisy reveals much about what the global "war on terror" is really about. It's not a war against terror as such, but rather a war of terror to subdue resistance to the US designs in the region.

[1] The organization which provides these security reports does not allow them to be cited publicly, and thus I cannot indicate the name of the source. The report for June 19th, 2005 stated the following: "A large conference involving the mujahadeen kalk and sponsored by the Iraqi Government is scheduled to take place in the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad 20th June, this may lead to insurgent attempts to disrupt the conference, HOM are advised to advise their staff to avoid this area."

[2] US State Department, Patterns of Global Terrorism 2002 (pdf). See specifically Appendix B: Background Information on designated foreign terrorist organizations, pg. 115 for information on the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq

[3] Why the US granted 'protected' status to Iranian terrorists, The Christian Science Monitor, 07/29/2004.

Just Say No To MKO

by Dan Darling at May 9, 2005 07:53 PM
windsofchange.net

Dr. Zin over at Regime Change Iran has already done the lion's share of the work on this, but I just want to reinterate my opposition to the Mujahiden-e-Kalq (MEK, MKO, or People's Mujahideen) becoming the official US-backed Iranian opposition for a whole host of reasons that I hope this rant will make clear.

First of all, I want to make it quite clear that the vast majority of people in Washington who support the MEK in some capacity or another are not malicious, nor do they agree with the organization's objectives or ideology. Instead, MEK and its various front groups have been able to very successfully obfuscate or dissimulate around what they actually believe when dealing with Western officials and lobbying groups. This is classic cult behavior, where prospective converts are not informed as to the true nature of the sect until they're already thoroughly imbedded and the MEK very much exhibits the characteristics of a cult when one takes into account Massoud Rajavi's secular Marxist interpretation of the Qur'an and the rather bizarre cult of personality centered around the deification of Massoud's wife Maryam. As a result, when dealing with Westerners the MEK or its front organizations tend to focus almost exclusively on the very pressing issues of human rights and in particular women's rights as far as Iran is concerned. Also, before anybody starts trying to turn this into a partisan issue, it should be understood that various levels of support for MEK exist on a bipartisan basis on Capitol Hill, in large part due to the group's ability to successfully adopt rhetoric designed to win the favor of both conservative and liberal legislators.

One of the problems with the debate over the MEK is how it is framed. The usual manner in which debate occurs is that the MEK is to be condemned because it's on the US State Department's list of designated foreign terrorist organizations, whereas the MEK and its supporters argue that it was placed on the list in 1997 as part of an effort by the Clinton administration to reach out to the then newly-elected Iranian President Khatami. The group then points out that it has not attacked or attempted to attack US interests for more than 20 years, that the only attacks it ever did carry out against US citizens (usually the murder of US military advisors and defense contractors in pre-Revolution Iran) occurred within the context of its war against the Shah and it has long since repudiated those actions. All of this is arguably true and the MEK criticism that they are being blacklisted while the US is giving money to the Palestinian Authority even as the armed wing of the ruling Fatah party (al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades) continues to engage in activities that have resulted in the killing of US nationals in Israel is pretty hard to rationally refute. I myself must admit being rather agnostic as to whether MEK should be on the terrorist list, but whether or not they belong on the list has nothing to do with whether or not they should be the US choice for the recognized face of the Iranian opposition.

As I hope the reference to the belief in the deification of Maryam Rajavi above helped to demonstrate, the MEK is not an organization or a movement that is going to be all that appealing or even tolerable to the vast majority of Iranians. There are other reasons beyond simple matters of theology, however, as to why the MEK is so hated by the majority of Iranians. After their falling out with Khomeini, they went over to Saddam Hussein's side during the Iraq-Iran War and assisted the Baathists in killing tens of thousands of their own countrymen. Nor was this assistance merely limited to the Iraq-Iran War, for as p. 321 of the SSIC report on pre-war Iraq intelligence makes crystal clear, the Iraqi regime provided bases, training, protection, and funding for Saddam Hussein as well as helping Saddam with his internal security. In other words, the MEK were Quislings for the former Iraqi regime, helping Saddam to perpetrate his reign of terror. Do these really sound like people who should be trusted with sharp objects, let alone the composition of a post-Khomeinist Iran?

Any kind of US support for the MEK as an organized Iranian opposition would be a complete and utter disaster for any kind of movement for democratic revolution inside Iran. It would give the mullahs a propaganda victory that they would relish for years to come and completely discredit any legitimate pro-democracy groups that accepted US support. In absence of such support, it seems to me to be highly unlikely that current Islamic Republic will fall and anything that prolongs the life of the Khomeinist experiment is to be avoided like the plague in my view.

Another context that needs to be noted in amidst the current MEK publicity campaign (as Dr. Zin stated in his piece on the subject) is that a number of Iranian opposition groups have been seeking to organize in the hopes of presenting a "united front" against the regime. Most of this has been happening pretty much under the radar (unless you read Regime Change Iran, of course), but my guess is that the MEK has been watching these efforts with great interest and is seeking to move as quickly as possible to position itself to claim the mantle of "the official US-backed Iranian opposition group" before the pro-democracy forces can set aside their differences and unite under a shared set of beliefs. I would also note that even with some at the Pentagon pushing for rearming the MEK and sending them back across the border to carry out tit-for-tat attacks against the Iranians in retaliation for harboring the al-Qaeda leadership and supporting the Iraqi insurgency, none of them in their wildest dreams have contemplated using the MEK or its various front groups as the official "government-in-exile" because they know what an absurd move it would be to begin with.

Past readers may note that I have expressed tepid support on my own blog for the MEK assisting the US in gathering intelligence on Iran and in particular its nuclear program. This is true, in large part because MEK has the HUMINT assets in-country that it cultivated at Saddam's behest, HUMINT assets that are currently quite lacking to US intelligence. However, there is a marked difference between using the MEK for the purposes of intelligence collection and recognizing the MEK as the official face of the Iranian opposition. What the MEK needs to understand, however, is that if they do assist us on intelligence matters that they will be working for us, not the other way around.

One additional point I want to make is that a number of bloggers, eager to score political points, have attempted to assert that Dr. Ledeen supports the MEK even while ignoring the very real support for the organization expressed by former Democratic Senator Toricelli. Often, these charges against Dr. Ledeen are made simultaneously with the accusations that he is a monarchist and supports the restoration of the Pahlavi dynasty. How exactly he is supposed to manage these dual affinities is beyond me, but then my own impression is that most of the people making these charges are usually too shrill or partisan to clarify. In either case, Dr. Ledeen supports neither the Pahlavis restored or the MEK running Tehran in large part because, regardless of the merits or lack thereof of either party, his whole idea of democratic revolution as far as US intervention is concerned is based around the principle (and I'm articulating it rather crudely) that by helping to empower the existing pro-democracy forces. That's it and the actual composition and particulars of a future Iranian government will be decided by the Iranian people, not imposed from on high by the United States.

Now I want to go on the record as saying that I like Frontpage Magazine, I've taken part in one of their symposiums, and I'm pretty good friends with one of their writers. But you ask anybody with any knowledge of the MEK from AEI, Heritage, Brookings, Carnegie, Hudson, RAND, Jamestown, ad infinitum whether or not the MEK should be the official US-backed Iranian opposition group, they will you down the line "No!" with more unanimity than you'll get on just about any other issue I can think of off-hand. The whole point of the US supporting an Iranian opposition group is to help lay the groundwork for Iranian democracy when the mullahs crumble. Support the MEK and you'll end up with a People's Republic in place of an Islamic Republic - Mrs. Rajavi's "temporary interim presidency" would end up being like the "temporary state of emergency" that Egypt implemented in the wake of the Sadat assassination that has allowed Hosni Mubarak to remain in power almost unchallenged for the last 20 years.

Anybody contemplating US support for the MEK needs to ask themselves the following questions:

1. Can we really trust people who betrayed their country and served as one of Saddam's secret police forces to keep their word when they say they'll give up power after an interim period?

2. Do we really want the successor regime to the mullahs in Iran to look something like North Korea or Pol Pot's Cambodia?

http://www.windsofchange.net

Nasty Things MEK has done since 1960s

* Support for the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by Iranian revolutionaries

* The 1970s killings of U.S. military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran

*Assistance to Saddam Hussein’s suppression of the 1991 Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish uprisings

* The 1999 assassination of the deputy chief of Iran’s armed forces general staff, Ali Sayyad Shirazi

What is Mujahedeen-e-Khalq?

Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) is the largest and most militant group opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Also known as the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, MEK is led by husband and wife Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. MEK was added to the U.S. State Department’s list of foreign terrorist groups in 1997 and to the European Union’s terrorist list in 2002 because its attacks have often killed civilians. Despite MEK’s violent tactics, the group’s strong stand against Iran—part of President Bush’s “axis of evil”—and pro-democratic image have won it support among some U.S. and European lawmakers.

What are MEK’s origins?

MEK was founded in the 1960s by a group of college-educated Iranian leftists opposed to the country’s pro-Western ruler, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The group participated in the 1979 Islamic revolution that replaced the shah with a Shiite Islamist regime led by the Ayatollah Khomeini. But MEK’s ideology, a blend of Marxism and Islamism, put it at odds with the postrevolutionary government, and its original leadership was soon executed by the Khomeini regime. In 1981, the group was driven from its bases on the Iran-Iraq border and resettled in Paris, where it began supporting Iraq in its eight-year war against Khomeini’s Iran. In 1986, MEK moved its headquarters to Iraq, which used MEK to harass neighboring Iran. During the 2003 Iraq war, U.S. forces cracked down on MEK’s bases in Iraq, and in June 2003 French authorities raided an MEK compound outside Paris and arrested 160 people, including Maryam Rajavi.

How is MEK funded?

When Saddam Hussein was in power, MEK received the majority of its financial support from the Iraqi regime. It also used front organizations, such as the Muslim Iranian Student’s Society, to collect money from expatriate Iranians and others, according to the State Department’s counterterrorism office. In 2001, the Justice Department accused seven Iranians in the United States of funneling donations—between $5,000 and $10,000 per day—collected at Los Angeles International Airport to MEK. The money allegedly was for starving children in Iran; according to the FBI, it was used to buy arms.

Did MEK have ties to Saddam Hussein?

Yes. Iraq was MEK’s primary benefactor. Iraq provided MEK with bases, weapons, and protection, and MEK harassed Saddam’s Iranian foes. Experts say MEK’s attacks on Iran traditionally intensified when relations between Iran and Iraq grew strained. Iraq encouraged or restrained MEK, depending on its Baghdad’s interests.

When did MEK target Americans?

In the early 1970s, angered by U.S. support for the pro-Western shah, MEK members killed several U.S. soldiers and civilians working on defense projects in Iran. Some experts say the attack may have been the work of a Maoist splinter faction operating beyond the Rajavi leadership’s control. MEK members also supported the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, in which 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days.

Do some U.S. lawmakers support MEK?

Yes. MEK—or at least its political wing, the National Council of Resistance—has enjoyed the support of some members of Congress for several years. In August 2001, 30 U.S. senators asked the Bush administration to reconsider MEK’s designation as a terrorist group. Since September 11, some U.S. lawmakers have withdrawn their support; others have reiterated it. The European Union added MEK to its roster of terrorist organizations in May 2002, despite some support for the group among European lawmakers.

Is MEK a cult?

Perhaps but we don’t know, and it has some of the trappings of a cult. Members reportedly deify Maryam Rajavi; her photographs are found throughout MEK camps, and followers staged public self-immolations to protest her arrest. Members are said to undergo regular self-criticism sessions. They also reportedly are required to divorce; children are separated from their parents and sent to Western nations for adoption by Iranian families. When they reach 18, some of them return to join MEK, because “from the day they were born, these girls and boys were not taught to think for themselves but to blindly follow their leaders,” according to a New York Times Magazine account.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1204618/posts

http://www.ghandchi.com/343-MKO-plus.htm

MKO (Mojahedin Khalgh Organization), sends their agents to various people's gatherings, and Internet discussion forums, and the agents make all kinds of *personal* attacks against the leaders and forces of the pro-democracy movement, while as in the past, Mariam Rajavi, in her press conferences, smiled to reporters and claim not knowing anything about these works of their agents, and of course this is not a new thing either.

OK F14, I want you to know that I’m really enjoying this discussion so keep your spirits up… I put down my normal reading this evening and I’ve dug into your posts. This is worth my time because I bet these open discussion blogs drive the MOIS crazy. BTW, Is FR banned in Iran? Kashayar keeps EU hours so I’d be surprised if he’s in Tehran as he suggests… What’s important is that FR is read by some interesting, influential and important people in Washington DC and this debate is going to be read by some great, democratic minds.

F14, I wish you had posted your own intellect, but for the moment Dan Darling’s will do. I think you and Dan should read the constitutions of the U.S., China, Iran, NCRI and then read the International Declaration of Human Rights respectively. When you’ve done that, read the constitutional amendments of the U.S., China and Iran and compare them. Now ask yourself, what do I as F14 believe? Then ask what documents and what activism would be good for Iranians and Americans in terms of U.S. Iran relations and global progress…

If you can support what you believe when you come to the conclusion that you actually believe in something, I would like to share with Freepers the discrepancies between your politics and mine. At this point we disagree on whether or not U.S. Army personnel should murder non-combatants. In my opinion, having served with the DOD, I believe U.S. military strength is too vast to suggest it should be used illegally to murder non-combatants. How can US personnel murder non-combatants as you suggest and maintain moral credibility? But before you answer, get with Dan and do some constitutional reading, debating and discussing… I’m looking forward to reading your valuable opinions. Death to this and down with that isn’t going to get us anywhere…

"They should not be given any air time or any credibility any where any how."

Under a dictatorship or heavy handed monarchy your suggestion makes sense. But in the world we live in, a free world that Iraq has thankfully joined, credibility is earned not given. Democracy facilitates the process of earning credibility. To your point about air time - Air time is like the air its self... Who owns the air and who could reasonably prevent another person from breathing? I'll answer for you... Murderers can.

Murderers will always be at odds with democracy. They must be fought if society is to create and or defend freedom. Now, how to fight is an interesting question... Every news article you copy and paste is like a thorn in the side of the mullahs. As you raise awareness, the global community becomes conscious of their responsibilities and will eventually act.

What happens next F14? "Ctrl c" "Ctrl v" isn't going to win the war on terror. Protecting the civil liberties and rights of Iraqis and even the MEK is winning this war! What is disappointing is that there are many who use freedom to destroy freedom. Namely, suggesting the U.S. Army should be a tool of mass murder instead of a protectorate of U.S. national security and the values Americans hold sacrosanct.

NOTE * The members of the MEK who were investigated could not be charged with committing acts of terror. It could not be clearer now that NO evidence was found linking any of the MEK's members investigated to the murder of Americans in Iran thirty years ago. The MEK were put on the FTO list in 1997… You and Dan should watch this 1998 clip and read this 1988 article if you think the Clinton administration had reason to believe the MEK/NCRI or the thousands of Iranians who support them were a threat to Americans around that time… They were put on the list because they were and are a threat to the Iranian government. Period!

###

Americans, Iranians party together

AP Online 06-22-1998 LYON, France (AP) _ Frenzied Iranians spilled out of the stadium into the streets Sunday, turning their 2-1 World Cup soccer victory against the United States into a jubilant rally for dissident leaders. But Iranians in Tehran took a more traditional approach as thousands poured into the streets to celebrate a game that had obvious ramifications beyond the field because of two decades of tense relations between Iran and the United States. Thousands in Lyon removed their red and green football jerseys to reveal white T-shirts bearing photos of Maryam Rajavi, wife of Massoud Rajavi, who heads the Mujahadeen Khalq resistance movement. Dissidents want her to be the president of a new Iran. Dancing to pounding drums and bellowing jubilation, they chanted, ``Iran Rajavi, Rajavi Iran.'' An overwhelming majority at the rally were Iranians living in Europe and elsewhere abroad. ``This is the first time in 18 years we've had a chance to express our view like this,'' said a member of the resistance. ``A lot of these people have lost family members to repression; for them this is life and death.'' French police confiscated many of the shirts before the game, enforcing a FIFA rule against mixing politics and soccer. But organizers claimed 25,000 got through security checks.

The politics abruptly pushed aside soccer after a day of partying between Iranians and Americans, which began as groups from both sides tied together the tips of their national flags and danced the linked colors through the streets. Amazed Americans beamed to hear their supposed foes chanting, ``U-S-A,'' and not adding ``Down With'' before it. ``We've never really stopped being friends, whatever the governments did,'' said Afsaneh, a London architect who withheld her last name for fear of reprisals to her family. She held aloft a huge heart, with ``Iran'' and ``U.S.'' sharing equal space. Police outside the stadium opened every bag and bundle. Mothers lifted babies from strollers for a careful search. As the game ended, riot police filed out to block off the field. Banners unfurled at the game read, ``Iran Rajavi.''

Security police pulled them down and hauled at least one Mujahadeen out of the stands. During Iran's national anthem, new banners appeared, and police poured over the railings to seize them, often by fierce tug-of-war. The Mujahadeen Khalq has accused France of keeping Iranians out while allowing in secret agents from Tehran to scan the crowd for people they wanted to punish. French officials confirmed they turned back hundreds of Iranians at the border. Bearded men, identified by exiles as Iranian revolutionary guards, filmed faces among the revelry. But much of the noise was about soccer. At each goal, Iranians went wild all together, banging drums, blaring horns and yelling in frenzy. In unison, they chanted, ``I-ran, I-ran.'' On a sunny afternoon before the game, it was party time. French municipal police watched indulgently as cheering Iranians spilled out of convertibles on the Place Bellecour, the main square. Riot police standing by stayed well out of sight.

A few Iranian women wore black headdresses to cover their hair. But others with slashes of red and green - the colors of the Iranian flag - on their bare shoulders wore skimpy clothes that pushed the lower limits of modesty, even for France. Thousands of Iranians living in Europe, North America, Asia and Australia came to the game, far outnumbering those traveling from Iran. But almost all insisted that a different place of residence did not dilute their claim to a beloved identity. ``I went to school in Berkeley, I work in London, but I worship Iran,'' Afsaneh said. ``Of course, I'd like to go back, but that is not possible. For now.'' Hatif Abedi Jam, 15, left Iran for Germany when he was 2, and also wants to go back. ``I can't go now, but maybe things will change.'' He was painted and clothed in bright Iran colors, but a small U.S. flag flew from his hat. Americans were far fewer, but some were just as exuberant. Andy Romhanyi, 33, a warehouse manager from Phoenix, painted his face as Old Glory and wore a U.S. flag as a scarf over a flamboyant red, white and blue outfit. His friend, Nicky Carter, wore a sequined vest and elaborate hat in the same colors. ``We don't give a stuff about politics,'' said Romhanyi, who wanted a win so the U.S. team would advance to the next round. ``It would be a huge, huge shame if we lost, but not because it is Iran.'' He heaved a large arm around two Iranian fans and posed for photographs.

Mostly, Americans stayed to themselves and talked soccer strategy. Rob Ramsay, 27, an accountant from Atlanta, plays the game and is dead serious about it. ``Most of our players are about my age, and they don't know about the politics,'' he said. ``They say, like, `Great Satan what? But it's got to be in your head if your government is all over you about it. There's no point in putting this on them.'' Like many Americans, he was surprised to see an Iranian crowd that was so far from the standard stereotypes. As a result, the game might end up being about more than soccer. ``One guy came up to me and said in clumsy English that he was working for world peace,'' Ramsay said. ``Who knows? I hope this all has some effect. Everything starts somewhere, so it might as well start here.''

###

In terms of political science... your suggestion that you are for "anything but MEK crap" is not helpful. Forget about the MEK, what do you WANT the future to look like and what are you willing to do to get there?

"MEK is/has been a Terrorist Group!"

How do you define terrorism?

"You can praise them or support them but I don't!"

I have neither praised nor supported the MEK in this thread. I am simply sharing the reasons why I disagree with your point of view on this subject. I think both you and Dan make an interesting, albeit weak case for your point of view. Yours and his logic hinges on the idea that you and or Dan know the hidden truths about a secretive and cultish organization. How could you know these intimate and closely guarded secrets without you yourself being a part of, or extremely close to the organization? In your posts you are essentially suggesting that you know these things better than trained investigators who spent 16 months interrogating the MEK. But in fact the opposite is true. You have distanced yourself so far from the MEK and their politics that your claims of cultish secrets and diabolical Marxist ambitions would be imposable for you to know.

Just by reading the news you post and the news you don’t, I believe that your distain for the organization has rendered you incapable of sound judgment. You find yourself doing foolish things like posting left wing conspiratorial garbage like the article you posted here. But it doesn’t stop there does it? When it comes to the MEK you even use your nemesis’s [the Iranian Regime] propaganda to attack them. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior, but what’s worse is that you consider it good analytics...

"To me, they are better to be dead! I don't think any terrorist has a right to live!"

But only if the U.S. Army is killing non-combatants you have a problem with... You are reminding me of the story of the disgruntled Afghan neighbor who used his contacts to call in a U.S. air strike on a Wedding Party going on next door. He apparently claimed it was a base about to mount an attack. Celebratory AK fire is tough to distinguish from aggressive fire at night from the cockpit of an C130.

Hey, a petty land dispute felt like terrorism to him!

If you are an American citizen, the U.S. Army exists to protect and serve you/us. Don't ask them to break the law and murder non-combatants, just to satisfy your thirst for vengeance.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.