Terrorism is terrorism no matter who's the target
Reader comment on item: [Mujahedeen-e Khalq:] A Terrorist U.S. Ally?

Submitted by Mike Rudwian (Canada), May 21, 2003 at 17:32

I do not find Dr. Pipes' argument in favour of working with MEK convincing for the following reasons:

1. The United States government has worked in the past with radical groups whose target of those times were not Americans. Examples are Taliban and other Afghan Mujahedin. This policy has failed clearly.

Does not Dr. Pipes agree that MEK follows a radical, totalitarian Marxist-Islamist ideology? The fact that the MEK was put on the list of terrorists actually helped and strengthened the other Iranian opposition groups who are more democratic. Any stamp of approval from the US will make the MEK stronger at the cost of the truly democratic Iranian groups who oppose the Iranian regime. There is no reason to make the same mistakes that eventually cost over 2500 American lives.

2. The list of foreign terrorist organizations include those who are engaged in terrorist activities, not just those who are merely dangers to American security. An example is the Tamil tigers organization. The fact is that MEK's involvement in terrorism is not limited to kidnapping and murder of Americans in 70s, but also acts of bombing that targeted both civilians and regime officials and murder of ordinary Iranians throughout 80s.

3. Dr. Pipes implies that the MEK is not terrorist because most of its targets are regime officials and institutions. Is there a double standard here? Does Dr. Pipes consider the attack on American marines in Beirut in 1983, the attack on Cole in 1998 or the plan to assassinate former president Bush as terrorist activities or not?

3. President Bush made it clear that terrorism is wrong and should be fought by all government across the globe. Now if the US fights his terrorist enemies, while supporting other countries' terrorist enemies, other countries will be able to do the same. That sets a dangerous, immoral precedent.

Regards
Mike Rudwian
Toronto, Canada

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.