Who is the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Terrorizing?

Now that the Lieberman-Kyl amendment has passed designating a branch of a soveriegn nation's army as a terrorist organization we have to ask ourselves who the Revolutionary Guard is terrorizing and how they're doing it so that we can effectively stop them.

The Islamic Revolution's Guards Corps (IRGC) is the largest branch of Iran's military, and participated in Iraq's war against Iran. We are possibly breaking international law by selectively targeting an individual function of a sovereign government, but when have we ever heeded international law when we're scared half to death of our enemy?

Due to the size of Iran's armed forces, we're going to need a big ass deck of cards with the faces and names of IRGC members. Rather than using a traditional 52 card deck we should probably move up to an UNO deck. Generals would be Wild Draw Fours, officers would be Skips, Reverses and Draw Twos, etc. It is unknown how far soldiers will be grandfathered into the Specially Designated Global Terrorists list, but if the grandfathering goes as far back as the Iran-Iraq war, then Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will also be a target as he served in the Army during that war. I propose, though, that we wait to start pasting faces on those cards until we can determine who the biggest perpetrators of IRGC terrorism are. What targets have they taken out? Who have they bombed? What are their demands? The list of questions goes on and on.

Are we going to tell the IRGC to "bring it on"? Are we going to get 'em "dead or alive"? Are we going to chase them into a complex system of caves and then ignore them while we go into Syria? Can we (ooh please) proclaim that our mission is accomplished after we kill only a few of the evildoing terrorists? And um, really, what did the members of the Guards do that qualifies as terrorism? I wasn't really filled with terror (or even the least bit scared of them) until the Senate told me I should be widdling my pants whenever I think of them. (Oh, but believe you me, I'm terrorized good and proper now.)

You know, now that I really start thinkin' about it, isn't it really Leiberman and Kyl who are making me scared? Doesn't Iran just really care about stability along its borders? Isn't our government really the party engaging in skullduggery rather than the Iranian army? Can't we persuade our damn Democratic senators to cut this jingoistic bullshit and focus on either a) getting our people home, b) fixing our economy (by soaking the rich, of course), c) health insurance for poor kids, or d) all of the above?

Apparently, no, we can't get them to focus on anything except being the most cautious, mealy-mouthed bunch of politicians who've ever served this nation of ours. Fuckers.

•  I think a standard prerequesite

  is that terrorists should have a history of actually terrorizing something or someone. Is the supply clerk a terrorist? Is the head of the secretary pool is also a terrorist? Is every damn single member of the freakin' Iranian army a damn terrorist, and if so, aren't we going to need a bigger freaking Guantanamo so we can interrogate those evil bastards?

  by Andy30tx on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 01:59:20 PM PDT

  •  Generally speaking...

    They do. And it's flexible. The IRA's been on there for decades. Yet it took a while for someone to actually add the Loyalist paramilitary groups like the UDA and the UVF onto the list.

    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:17:35 PM PDT

•  I thought it was terrorism when nonmembers

  of the military did the sorts of things only the military are supposed to do.

  How can it be terrorism when a part of a country's military does it?

  by lysias on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:00:32 PM PDT

  •  And what the hell is the "it" they did?

    Is it really JUST going to be the unsubstantiated claim that Iran somewhere, somehow is supplying Iraqi militias? Doesn't that make our Army terrorists too since they're doing the same damn thing?

    by Andy30tx on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:03:04 PM PDT

    •  No it isn't. Iran is arming the militias.

      This is to kill Americans and keep them from withdrawing so they can kill more Americans.

      Of course most of whom they kill are innocent Iraqis.

      by YoursTruly on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:08:48 PM PDT

      •  Hate To Break The News To You But The U.S.

        has been arming and training the militias for over 4 years now.

        by MO Blue on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:22:43 PM PDT

        •  not intentionally they haven't.

          and the bastards stealing the weapons are traitors to the Iraqi people.

          by YoursTruly on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:35:51 PM PDT

          •  Not intentionally as far as you know...

            What about disbanding the iraqi army and letting them take their guns with them?

            Incompetence or... worse?

            by lettuce kucinich on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:47:03 PM PDT

            •  Worse.

              What about disbanding the iraqi army and letting them take their guns with them?

              Incompetence or... worse?

              As the Republicans know, that piece of abysmal stupidity cost them permenent power.

              by YoursTruly on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 06:10:28 PM PDT

              •  Not like...

                there's anything wrong with that.  A great man once said permanent power corrupts permanently. I assume you mean permanent, that other word doesn't quite mean anything.  It was a very good stab at spelling though.  You go ahead and award yourself five (5) self esteem points.  

                by Tonedevil on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 10:10:14 PM PDT

                •  As the saying goes...

                  if you want to attack something you agree with, go after spelling.

                  by YoursTruly on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:21:27 AM PDT

                  •  Then I guess we agree...

                    the Republicans losing "permanent power" is a good thing.  

                    by Tonedevil on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:34:42 AM PDT

                    •  That's right.

                      here's a cookie.

                      by YoursTruly on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 05:09:35 PM PDT

                      •  This Browser is configured...

                        not to accept cookies.

                        by Tonedevil on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:01:40 AM PDT

          •  Yes, intentionally they have

            They first armed and trained Shiite militia forces in early 2004 in order to 'get tough' with the 'deadender Sunnis'.    

            by duha on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:52:14 PM PDT

          •  Even if your "not intentionally" were accurate ..

            ...(which it isn't), after 4+ years of doing it "accidentally" without stopping, it's hard to see how it doesn't amount to intentional.

            by Meteor Blades on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 03:11:39 PM PDT

•  Okay, how about women?

  Being a woman in Iran is practically a crime. Laws against women are numerous there and the Revolutionary Guard helps enforce them.

  Then there are religious minorities, Ba'hai, Yazidis, Christians, Jews, indegiounus Zoroastrians and Sunni Moslems are all second class citizens under law, and are subject to public humiliation for their beliefs, Yazidis and Ba'hai have been badly persecuted. Any Jew can be called a "zionist" and thrown in jail.

  Then there are people who listen to music, people who like to go to parties, people who listen the BBC...you name it. Iran is a fascist-like theocratic state ruled by unelected Mullahs. Amedinijad (sic) is for the most part a powerless flunky.

  The people of Iran--most of them are terrorized by the Revolutionary Guard.

  by YoursTruly on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:06:55 PM PDT

  •  So Uganda and Egypt are terrorists now too?

    And how is the army itself engaging in this and not the government? How does that make the IRGC more terroristic than the entire government?

    by Andy30tx on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:09:31 PM PDT

    •  Yup.

      Of course the rebels in each case are generally worse, especially the monsters in northern Uguands. Generally the Egyptian government has treated minorities like dirt, but not nearly as badly as Iran. After all, Egypt kicked out most of it's non-Coptic minorities when Nasser was alive.

      I'm not sure whether or not the IRGC is more terroristic than the vicious fascist-like monsters that are the real government of Iran, but then you have to remember, the IRGC is an arm primarily of the theocratic REAL government, rather than the quasi-democraticly elected TOY government headed by Amedenijad. It's the IRGC that owns Hizbullah and stocks it with weapons in order to force Israel to attack Lebanon, after all.

      by YoursTruly on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:18:47 PM PDT

      •  you selectively choose your evils

        if Israel decimates Palestinian family homes, it's "fighting terrorism" even if only children are killed

        if Iran sends weapons to the Shi'a in Iraq, or more to the point, to Hamas who are actually the Palestinians' elected government, then it's "terrorism"

        Granted, Mubarak's government's thugs could be named terrorists, and they actually discriminate more against Muslims, btw, than other groups. It's practically illegal to be a Muslim in Egypt except in the most inane possible way.

        Irans' leaders are not as fascist as Egypt's either. But the point is there are other ways to save the world than declaring other nations and their agents to be terrorists. That dehumanizes the populations within, who for the most part, actually hate terrorism, but haven't got the wherewithall to do anything about it.

        It's like sanctions. It hits the poor and frees the leaders to run their mouths and live in their fantasy.

        by thinkbridge on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:58:35 PM PDT

        •  Well, when you're fighting a defensive war

          against a weak oppressor, then the innocent, who live in Military bases, like the Palesinians, get hurt.

          Is it Hamas, who lets children play in active military areas, and teaches racism and war, who's the innocent ones? Is it Hamas, who has driven Christians from the Middle East, the tolarent one?

          It's like sanctions. It hits the poor and frees the leaders to run their mouths and live in their fantasy.

          Right, that's why we should have overthrown Saddam back in 1991.

          by YoursTruly on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 05:55:45 PM PDT

  •  this ain't our business

    or if it is, why don't we declare half the world terrorists because they don't, say, like gays? Lots of places discriminate against women. And that's not all. Look at Africa. Why aren't Lieberman et.al. declaring some of those governments' militia's "terrorists"?

    if we want to be moral police to the world, why don't we start at home? I don't see women's rights all that highly appreciated, let alone gay rights. Sure we've made strides, but we are not utterly guiltless either.

    let the innocent among us throw the first nuke.

    are the dems saying, "After you, Cheney?" Or are some of them leading the attack?

    What happened to leading by example? It went out with the first oil grab, and the AIPAC monopoly on what passes for "morality". Let Israel decide our affairs for us.

    is this foreign policy or lobotomy?

    by thinkbridge on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:53:58 PM PDT

    •  Actually, they have.

      Let Israel decide our affairs for us.

      is this foreign policy or lobotomy?

      It's a lie.

      by YoursTruly on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 05:49:48 PM PDT

  •  Women is your reason?

    Why are we giving billions of dollars to the terrorist countries of Saudi Arabia and Egypt then?  You know they also provided the people that attacked us on 9/11.  Religious minorities and political groups get thrown in jail, tortured, and worse there too.

    by duha on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:54:28 PM PDT

    •  so true

      but our oil interests in Saudi Arabia and our strategic interests in Egypt will never allow this kind of thing

      naming terrorists isn't a policy at all but a cheap trick, and it can't work, because it can't possibly be applied honestly or fairly and so will always oppress someone innocent

      by thinkbridge on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 03:00:19 PM PDT

    •  We are giving billions to

      terrorist countries like Saudi Arabia because we don't STEAL oil. We buy it. We've given no foreign aid to Saudi. NONE. They paid for all the military hardware we SOLD them.

      We didn't help the Shah back in 1978, and the blowback for our betrayal has been enormous. The Iranian people have suffered horribly because of it as well.

      We give aid to Egypt because we promised them. It keeps Al Qaeda-like rebels from taking over. You want that?

      by YoursTruly on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 05:48:23 PM PDT

      •  So if terrorists BUY weapons

        we should SELL weapons to them?  Be cause we sell 30 billion dollars to those terrorist nations.

        Giving Egypt billions of dollars to run a police state doesn't stop Egyptians from signing up to Al queda and killing 3000 people, did it?

        Al queda taking over egypt huh?  You really drink that FEAR koolaid.

        by duha on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 07:33:17 PM PDT

  •  that's

    
    called "persecution" at worst.

    I think your hate and resentment blinds you.

    by killjoy on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 03:33:28 PM PDT

•  Me.

  Every night, all night long, it's crank phone calls with this crew.

  "IRGC in Da House, Beeyatch!"

  by Cheez Whiz on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:07:41 PM PDT

  •  Stop calling me...

    I have enough problems with Danger Kitty waking me up hours before the alarm. The last thing I need is more of you crazy kids calling me at all hours of the night with your "Prince Albert in a Can" and "Do you want to hire a nude housekeeper?" pranks.

    (note: I really did get the nude housekeeper one.)

    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:20:53 PM PDT

    •  and you said no?

      I just don't get you people.

      by Cheez Whiz on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 08:21:10 PM PDT

      •  At 4 am?

        I might well say No to Johnny Depp. Well...maybe...maybe not...but it would be a real toss up.

        by kredwyn on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:50:36 PM PDT

•  They "follow or get out of the way".

  by irate on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:16:44 PM PDT

•  You missed...

  "I got nothin'...here have some pie" as an option.

  by kredwyn on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:18:59 PM PDT

•  the way

  the way the congress and admin "support" the troops, I hope to god they never support me.    crappy equipment, poor healthcare, no end game strategy, no strategy at all really, allies that resemble enemies, no indentifiable enemy, no frontlines, no leave, crappy pay, DU POISONING, and now a new war coming up,  Yeah they support the soldiers alright.

  My god, it takes a burned down village to save a village idiot mentality has overtaken our country.

  by pissedpatriot on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:42:07 PM PDT

•  Leiberman

  is a terrorist.

  I can't wait until he is apprehended.

  by NCrefugee on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 03:18:49 PM PDT