Thread: Tom Tancredo Loves Islamic Terrorists

Yoo Hoo Tancredo Boosters! :waving: This is the guy you endorse???

He supports Islamic Terrorists from the State Department list of banned groups. They have a long and violent history including many actions against Americans and participation in Saddam's genocide against the Kurds and Shias.

An Interview With Congressman Tom Tancredo (R - CO) - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)


John Hawkins: Let me ask you another question, it's Iran related. I heard that you support the National Council of Resistance (NCR), a political arm of the Mujahedin-e Kalq (MEK)...

Tom Tancredo: Yes, I do.

----

John Hawkins: Now I'm just asking, have they made any sort of attacks on civilians or US troops?

Tom Tancredo: Back in the 1970s, right around the time of the takeover of our embassy and that sort of thing, they were accused of launching attacks against Americans. They deny it, but whether it's true or not, it was more than twenty years ago and they metamorphosed into the most significant threat to the present regime in Iran that exists today.


His support has been public and well know for some time:

Right Web | Analysis | Tom Tancredo—Christian Crusader, Cultural Nationalist, and Iran Freedom Fighter
Tancredo advocates U.S. support for the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), a cult-like group that is cultivating a broad base of support among Iranian expatriates around the world. Mujahedin e-Khalq means “people's freedom fighters.” MEK affiliates are the Iraq-based National Liberation Army of Iran and the National Council of Resistance in Iran. MEK calls itself the People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI). The public face of the MEK is Maryam Rajavi, who has been designated by the MEK as the president-elect of Iran's government in exile.

Although identified as a terrorist organization by the State Department and accused of a pattern of human rights abuses, Tancredo says “We should be aiding them, instead of restricting their activities. We can use the MEK, they are in fact warriors. Where we need to use that kind of force, we can use them.”



This group was one of Saddam's personal pet projects. He funded, armed and trained them for years. Pages 65-69 of this state department report detail just what kind of violence they have been responsible for including killing and kidnapping Americans, taking part in the Iranian embassy hostage taking and helping Saddmm commit his genocide againt the Kurds and Shia:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/29722.pdf



Here is the banned terrorist list from the State Dept website on the MEK. Nice company they have on that list:

Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs)

Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations

1. Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
2. Abu Sayyaf Group
3. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
4. Ansar al-Islam
5. Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
6. Asbat al-Ansar
7. Aum Shinrikyo
8. Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
9. Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA)
10. Continuity Irish Republican Army
11. Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group)
12. HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
13. Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)
14. Hizballah (Party of God)
15. Islamic Jihad Group
16. Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
17. Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed)
18. Jemaah Islamiya organization (JI)
19. al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad)
20. Kahane Chai (Kach)
21. Kongra-Gel (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Workers' Party, PKK, KADEK)
22. Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LT) (Army of the Righteous)
23. Lashkar i Jhangvi
24. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
25. Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)
26. Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM)
27. Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK)
28. National Liberation Army (ELN)
29. Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
30. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
31. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLF)
32. PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC)
33. al-Qa’ida
34. Real IRA
35. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
36. Revolutionary Nuclei (formerly ELA)
37. Revolutionary Organization 17 November
38. Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)
39. Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC)
40. Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)
41. Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) (al-Qaida in Iraq) (formerly Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad, JTJ, al-Zarqawi Network)
42. United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)

In the words of Berl Ives "When will we ever learn?"

Now now DA, I can specifically remember an article you posted months ago on the same topic. In that article Tancredo was not the only Congressman that showed support for MEK, there were democrats that supported them as well. If Tancredo was the only one, I would agree that the information should be brought out to attack him, but he is not alone. I would expect anyone who desired any level of credibility would at least mention that.

Originally Posted by Dispondent

Now now DA, I can specifically remember an article you posted months ago on the same topic. In that article Tancredo was not the only Congressman that showed support for MEK, there were democrats that supported them as well. If Tancredo was the only one, I would agree that the information should be brought out to attack him, but he is not alone. I would expect anyone who desired any level of credibility would at least mention that.

No others are running for president are they?

No others have followers here do they?

It is perfectly legitimate to go after the beliefs of presidential candidates that people here are advocating for.

Originally Posted by Distressed American

No others are running for president are they?

No others have followers here do they?

It is perfectly legitimate to go after the beliefs of presidential candidates that people here are advocating for.

The factors you listed above are irrelevant unless of course it is merely one more prong in your assualt of misinformation with regards to anyone on the right. Again, if Tancredo was the only one, I would agree, but that is not the case, and the way you present such misinformation would make it appear it is the case. Too often you disregard anyone on the left for the same misdeeds of an individual on the right. Then you have the gall to be reactionary when you are called a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by Dispondent

The factors you listed above are irrelevant unless of course it is merely one more prong in your assualt of misinformation with regards to anyone on the right. Again, if Tancredo was the only one, I would agree, but that is not the case, and the way you present such misinformation would make it appear it is the case. Too often you disregard anyone on the left for the same misdeeds of an individual on the right. Then you have the gall to be reactionary when you are called a hypocrite.

There is absolutely no disinformation presented. Nor it there any hypocrisy. That weak argument is a total crock.

As soon as any other supporter of this group is running for president, I'll gladly start a thread on them. As soon as I seen anyone else post their open support for another supporter of this group, I'll start a thread on them.

He is the ONLY presidential candidate running that supports known Islamic terrorists. That is a simple and undisputable fact.

You cannot simply pretend like it is not true. You cannont act like we should not be able to discuss the beliefs of the candidates just because someone from the opposeing party that is not running shares them. That suggestion is laughable.

Tancredo should be held to account for his beliefs. He is a candidate for the most powerful office in the world. If you don't like me posting on what he believes. That is too bad.


Let me ask you, do you believe that ANY candidate for president should be an open supporter of a banned Islamic terrorist organization?

Originally Posted by Distressed American

There is absolutely no disinformation presented. Nor it there any hypocrisy. That weak argument is a total crock.

As soon as any other supporter of this group is running for president, I'll gladly start a thread on them. As soon as I seen anyone else post their open support for another supporter of this group, I'll start a thread on them.

He is the ONLY presidential candidate running that supports known Islamic terrorists. That is a simple and undisputable fact.

You cannot simply pretend like it is not true. You cannont act like we should not be able to discuss the beliefs of the candidates just because someone from the opposeing party that is not running shares them. That suggestion is laughable.

Tancredo should be held to account for his beliefs. He is a candidate for the most powerful office in the world. If you don't like me posting on what he believes. That is too bad.


Let me ask you, do you beleive that ANY candidate for president should be an open supporter of a banned Islamic terrorist organization?

What is a weak argument is that presidential candidacy is the only relevant factor to you. Any official support from this government to the MEK would require some form of Congressional approval, thus the relevance of the democrats involved is a factor.

Misinformation exists when only the factors you like are presented and the ommission of facts you don't like are left out. Though far more subtle than most of your attempts at misinformation.

Seeing as Tancredo has zero chance of winning I really don't care what his views are in terms of the presidency. His views as a Congressman should be judged by those that voted him in office.

Isn't Tancredo along with some other republicans and democrats, trying to have the MEK removed from the list? If they were removed from the list your point would be irrelevant, but that would only happen with the help of democrats.

Let me ask you, do any democrats support MEK?

Originally Posted by Dispondent

What is a weak argument is that presidential candidacy is the only relevant factor to you. Any official support from this government to the MEK would require some form of Congressional approval, thus the relevance of the democrats involved is a factor.

Misinformation exists when only the factors you like are presented and the ommission of facts you don't like are left out. Though far more subtle than most of your attempts at misinformation.

Seeing as Tancredo has zero chance of winning I really don't care what his views are in terms of the presidency. His views as a Congressman should be judged by those that voted him in office.

Isn't Tancredo along with some other republicans and democrats, trying to have the MEK removed from the list? If they were removed from the list your point would be irrelevant, but that would only happen with the help of democrats.

Let me ask you, do any democrats support MEK?

:blah:

Stop ducking the question Dispondent:

Let me ask you, do you beleive that ANY candidate for president should be an open supporter of a banned Islamic terrorist organization?

Originally Posted by Distressed American

:blah:

Stop ducking the question Dispondent:

Let me ask you, do you beleive that ANY candidate for president should be an open supporter of a banned Islamic terrorist organization?

I made my point, I could care less of the views of any candidate that has zero chance of winning. Are you suggesting candidates that could win support the MEK?

I see you haven't answered my question, Do any Democrats support the MEK?

Our country once supported the contras and Saddam. This support was both right and wrong at the same time.

Clearly Tancredo and some others (dems and reps) are supporting MEK in the sense that they want to detract from MEK's enemies and not in the sense that they want terrorism to continue. It would be wrong to try to smear his character, or the dems, on this issue when their intentions are good.

But have we learned nothing from contra and Saddam? Did our president not kick off the WOT by saying that no support of terror was justified (not in so many words)?

His support for MEK demonstrates that he is not qualified to be a president because he has failed to learn from our past mistakes.