Against Iran or not, it still doesn't justify terrorism. There shouldn't be a double standard between "freedom fighters" and terrorist. If freedom is what you are fighting against, why isn't the Ghandi option isn't available? Besides, my defination of terrorism is those who attack against civilians purposely indiscriminately.

Rajan,

Ghandi's approach worked because the British were, at heart, principled and could be shamed.

I have serious reservations about its effectiveness against a regime that is willing to use harsh measures to stamp out any dissent and to impose strict control of people's behavior and speech.

No way we should allow the Peoples Mujahedeen to operate in Iraq at ALL. Imagine how that would tarnish our credibility. And it's simply wrong - terrorism is about tactics and strategies, not objectives. It doesn't matter that we also don't like the clerics running Tehran. Terrorism is wrong, period.

some one want to post some links to reports of terrorism perpatrated by this group?

if all they are doing is fighting iranian military forces that can hardly be called terrorism.

if thier targeting iranian civillians, thats terrorism,

not saying one way or another what thier about, I have never heard of them or thier "struggle"

Ghandi's approach worked because the British were, at heart, principled and could be shamed.

What a crock! Don't take this wrong but if you don't know anything about the history of Britian, India and Pakistan, please don't just guess, and guess wrong.

After World War Two, Britain was bankrupt. It could not hold its territories, colonies and mandates in places with a 100th the polulation of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. You are talking about a country controling a population the size of China's, when it had to scram out of the tiny Palestine mandate and Cyprus.

Gandi was heroic and a beatiful example to the world, but there was also increasing violence against British toops and their quisling authorities. they left because they were thrown out, not because of "non-violence."

Please read some British press and political statements at the time. NO ONE was talking about "shame" or "principles." They were talking about the lack of military resources needed to control India.

Please this is like saying the civil rights movement success was based on the average american looking at Martin Luter King and saying, you are right, we are ashamed, let's change it. The real impetus came from many major US cities burned by riots, and US troops having to escort school kids.

if all they are doing is fighting iranian military forces that can hardly be called terrorism.

The "People's Mujahadeen" (PMOI) listing by State as a terrorist group was often sited as an example of gray area when the listings really widened. Quite a number of groups with the same operational history and structure were not listed. Something like half of the Congress, indeed a bipartisan group, objected to PMOI being listed as terrorist.

PMOI's web site is here: www.iran.mojahedin.org
They belong to the largest umbrella group of anti-Mullah Iranian opposition who has a pretty good site here: www.iran-e-azad.org/english/ncri.html

PMOI has a few problems with the US:
1) a few of their leaders were part of the overthrow of the Shah (I would have been part of that too if I was there) and the initial part of the hostage crisis (before it became drawn out Iranian government policy).
2) Under the universal tactic of "the enemy of my enemy" they received support from Saddam.
3) While they have not targeted civilians, and almost all of their acts are against Iranian military and security forces in Iran, they have assassinated a couple of representives of the Iranian government abroad.

In terms of political vs operational definitions of terrorism, it doesn't look like we cared much about their tactics until Saddam became an issue, which does seem to imply that politics are at least a small part of our "terrorism" definions.

They are kind of like the Kurdish PKK in Turkey. They conducted a broad-based conventional military insurrection in Turkey in response to decades of government oppression and massacres. But because Turkey was an ally, the fact that actors within the group also conducted a few bombings, even though they were 99% conventional, was cited, and they got listed as well.

thanks I will surf it so I can formulate an opinion.

It appears that the MEK's current activities fall into both categories: rebel attacks on Iranian military targets and terrorist attacks against Iranian civilians. In addition, prior to the fall of the Shah, the MEK claimed responsibility for terrorist attacks against U.S. personnel in Iran, both military and civilian.

See:

http://www.iran-pars.com/english/English042.htm

and

http://www.iran-pars.com/english/English057.htm

If the People's Mujahadeen agree to target Iran's Islamofascist regime and not the people of Iran, I say let them do it. I personally have had enough of the crazed mulla's. Fuck 'em.

Please this is like saying the civil rights movement success was based on the average american looking at Martin Luter King and saying, you are right, we are ashamed, let's change it. The real impetus came from many major US cities burned by riots, and US troops having to escort school kids.

Bullshit. The first major riot was in Watts in LA in 1965 after just about all of the major legal and legislative civil rights battles were already won. Brown vs. Board of Education and the 1964 Civil Rights Act did more to effectively end institutional racism than all of the riots in the 1960s put together.

I've always felt that when Sheriff Bull Connor in Birmingham, Alabama turned firehoses and dogs on peaceful marchers, many white Americans recoiled in horror and tilted towards the civil rights movement, making the passage of the CRA possible. Remember, it was Everett Dirksen and the congressional Republicans who got the 64 CRA passed.

I love this place. Thanks to all.

Re: Ghandi and British principles

Were the British not principled, they would have simply killed Ghandi. Does anyone claim to believe that he would have succeeded in a similar campaign against, say, Stalin's USSR? Saddaam's Iraq?

The list of countries he could have prevailed against would be quite short, compared with the list where he would have disappeared or been publically executed.

A terrorist by any other name is ........................?

" the civil rights movement success was based on the average american looking at Martin Luter King and saying, you are right, we are ashamed, let's change it. The real impetus came from many major US cities burned by riots, and US troops having to escort school kids."

Funny this all took place 100 years after the Yankee troops liberated the South. I hope it won't take 100 years in Iraq for liberation to sink in, but I won't be around to watch.