Iran 'leading terrorism sponsor'

[AzH]

This from The BBC.

Iran remains the "most active state sponsor of terrorism" in the world, a report by the US state department says.

It says Iran's role in the planning and financing of terror-related activities in the Middle East and Afghanistan threatens efforts to promote peace.

Al-Qaeda remains the biggest danger to the US and the West, the annual report states, noting that terror attacks are rising in Pakistan.

Iran rejected the report, saying the US was guilty of double standards.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the US had no right to accuse others in light of its actions at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

'Existential threat'

The BBC's state department correspondent, Kim Ghattas, says the new US administration may be trying to engage Tehran, but, just like last year, Iran is still described as the most active state sponsor of terrorism.

The report charges that Iran's involvement in countries like Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and in the Palestinian territories threatens efforts to promote peace, economic stability in the Gulf and democracy.

The report singles out the Quds force, an elite branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as the channel through which Iran supports terrorist activities and groups abroad.

The report also takes to task Syria, an Iranian ally in the region.

Of equal concern, our correspondent notes, is the advance of al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan where terrorist attacks are sharply on the rise while the rest of the world, including Iraq, has seen terrorist attacks decrease.

The acting coordinator for counter-terrorism for the state department, Ronald Schlicher, told journalists that al-Qaeda was using border areas of Pakistan to regroup.

"Al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda associated networks remain the greatest terrorist threat to the US and its partners," he said.

Mr Schlicher said they were using the Afghan-Pakistan border area "as a safe haven where they can hide, where they can train, where they can communicate with their followers, where they can plot attacks and where they can make plans to send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan".

Washington is worried that the government in Islamabad might collapse, and last week US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the Taleban fighters posed an existential threat to Pakistan, which is a nuclear power, our correspondent adds.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

However, I ask a question which I imagine will bring about a series of differing responses.

Terrorism is defined as:

"the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear"

So I ask, who is the true terrorist? Iran, or the United States of America.

[MrFancypants]

I wouldn't be surprised if it is true that Iran sponsors terrorists (sounds like a smart move if your neighbours are invaded by the US), but since Iraq the US lost its credibility as far as such reports are concerned.

I wouldn't say that the US uses terrorism (at least not abroad), but I'd say that the distinction between violence directed against civilians and violence that accidentally affects civilians doesn't make much sense. In either case the civilian is hurt/dead and that should be the important factor, not the intention that was behind killing him or her.

[Nemmerle]

The threat of violence is ever present in all societies. Step too far out of line and get smacked down.

[Tenno Aang]

The definition of terrorism is the act of committing "politically motivated atrocities". I am not sure if it is possible to answer this question objectively, but you can make a distinction between the USA who try to fight their enemies while civilians can be involved as "collateral damage" and the islamist terrorists who either don't care about or even aim at hurting / killing persons who are not even remotely connected to their enemies.
Well, of course, in their belief everyone who does not follow their way is doomed, they shall be struck down, yada-yada-yada.
Who is the terrorist and who is right in the end is determined by "he who stands victorious" anyway.
Both parties see themselves as "liberators". And that's it.
(Tipp: Check out Shakespeare's "Macbeth" and the real guy and you'll see what Churchill meant when he said "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.")

[Jeffro]

Reasons why America isn't considered a sponsor of terror:

Willful ignorance
Rationalizations (i.e. We need to torture/invade in order to secure the homefront)
Preconceived notion that all western nations are "the good guy".
Nationalist brainwashing over the years
Manifest destiny gives us the right to cipher resources, land, ideology, and commercial property.
The mass consumption of rose-colored pharmaceuticals keeps the general population in a clueless, docile stupor.
You're British and acknowledge that we learnt from the best.


---------------

Just to think how many skeletons we have in the closet juxtaposed to the ones that have already been exposed...

[AzH]

Originally Posted by DarthZipacna

The definition of terrorism is the act of committing "politically motivated atrocities".

No it's not.

1. It doesn't have to be politically motivated
2. It doesn't have to be an atrocity

See first post:

"the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear"

Now there is no set, agreed, accepted definition, but it's more far reaching than 'politically motivated atrocities'.

[Afterburner]

When has the U.S. used calculated threats of violence against civilians? We've gone to war certainly, we've accidentally killed civilians certainly, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a situation where the U.S. as a whole (and not a couple soldiers acting on their own) willfully attacked civilians. If you go all of the way back I'd say back in the day we did, just as everyone else did during WWII with our bombing campaigns and the atomic bomb, but today that is no longer the case.

The only time the U.S. uses coercion or fear against civilians is in the justice system, just as every country does. So unless you want to call punishing criminals terrorism than no the U.S. is not a terrorist.

Doesn't mean we are always right or perfect or haven't done anything wrong. You don't have to be a terrorist to be an imperialist.

[MrFancypants]

Originally Posted by Afterburner

When has the U.S. used calculated threats of violence against civilians? We've gone to war certainly, we've accidentally killed civilians certainly, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a situation where the U.S. as a whole (and not a couple soldiers acting on their own) willfully attacked civilians. If you go all of the way back I'd say back in the day we did, just as everyone else did during WWII with our bombing campaigns and the atomic bomb, but today that is no longer the case.

The only time the U.S. uses coercion or fear against civilians is in the justice system, just as every country does. So unless you want to call punishing criminals terrorism than no the U.S. is not a terrorist.

Doesn't mean we are always right or perfect or haven't done anything wrong. You don't have to be a terrorist to be an imperialist.

The US has high standards if it comes to "collateral damage" compared to other countries, but still, if you have a 50% chance (I know the actual chance is much lower, it is just an example) of killing civilians with an airstrike and you plan on doing more than two attacks then you're pretty much intentionally killing civilians.

[Karst]

The word terrorism itself is so overused, and so often misused or used only to demonize opposition that it has little meaning left.

Even if the definition you mentioned were universally accepted, it still leaves plenty of room for interpretation.
Ok, so no armed force in the world would admit to killing civilians or deliberately spreading fear among civilian populations to achieve political goals. But at the end of the day, if civilians are terrorized and/or killed and political goals achieved, what really is the difference?

Basically, terrorism is used or abused to describe what "the others" do, even if the results are the same.
Lists of terrorist organizations, reports by official or unofficial institutes are just international finger-pointing. It seems the definition of the word terrorist contains the unspoken condition "is not wearing a military uniform".

[evildude]

I love how they act as if Iran is doing something not normal, The U.S did stuff like this in the cold war, Support the "freedom fighters" or terrorists to put in a goverment that agree with you, Or to push a invading force out of a country.Nothing new here just a different country doing it. Iran is on Americans "bad list" so of course they will spin the story to look bad.