Gallowglass

Pipes’ argument seems to be that the MEK isn’t really a terrorist group because it kills “specific regime targets” rather than civilians. There are legitimate definitions of terrorism that make that distinction, but it does strike me as a slippery slope at best. We supported the mujahadeen in Afghanistan in 1979 and had to fight these same people in 2001, so it seems more likely that there is no such thing as a “good” terrorist group.

The MEK is, or was, Marxist — not fundamentalist Islamic. It was a principal non-Islamic opposition group against the Shah, and then continued the struggle against the new Islamic regime. Cole’s point against Pipes is not as obviously right as one might think. I met lots of Mujahidin supporters in the 1980s. Back then, at least, they were nothing like al-Qaeda supporters now. I don’t think these Mujahidin are relevantly like their namesakes in Afghanistan. These folks were fighting against Islamic fundamentalism.

Hi Ted

congrats on making the jump from blogspot. I think that the main target of Cole’s argument is Pipes on terrorism rather than Pipes on Islam. I’m with James here - whether the MEK is or is not Islamist is less important to me than whether it does, or does not, support terrorism. If it does, then I think that Pipes is clearly being hypocritical. And if the US wants to prosecute its war on terrorism by providing succour to terrorists (as it may start to do now that the Pentagon is winning the argument), then the US too is behaving hypocritically - and is likely to be called on it.

Fair enough. I don’t want to defend Pipes, or for that matter Cole (with whom my Iranian ex-wife studied when we were at UM). So I’ll sit this one out — except to note that hypocrisy is as tricky a concept to apply as terrorism. (In each case, it’s the trickiness of individuating actions.)

I am a hobo in the house of the lord.