Iran to Join Other Nations in Alliance Against The West.

Originally posted by jsobecky
What "aggressive American foreign policy"? The fact that we went into Afghanistan to get those responsible for 9/11?

What aggressive American foreign policy? I do hope you are kidding. Pre-emptive wars are the epitome of aggressive American foreign policy. You can deny, spin, spruik, finesse, finagle and ignore what ever you like about American foreign policy. I am not going to waste my time stating the glaringly obvious to some one who is hell bent on ignoring it.

Originally posted by jsobecky
What facts do you have to support your contention that NATO countries are more worried about America than terrorism?

How eager were the French, Germans or the Nordic countries to get into Iraq with Dubya? How many are now eager to get into Iran with Dubya? Christ even Britain has said you're on your own in Iran. Nuf' said.

[edit on 21/6/06 by subz]

It's too bad you can no longer vote "no" for bias...

Originally posted by Muaddib
Well, noone has made any comments as to what this is all about. Let me refresh people's memories. I will put in bold the statements which have to do with this thread in specific.

Golitsyn maintains that the goals of the master plan were to provide a more profound political stabilization of individual communist regimes by developing wider mass support, the rectification of economic weakness of the bloc by increased international trade and the acquisition of credits and high technology from the West, the creation of a substructure for an eventual world federation of communist states, political isolation of the US from its allies, developing influence among socialists in Western Europe and Japan, the dissolution of NATO, and an alignment between the Soviet Union and a neutral, preferably socialist, Western Europe; concerted action with nationalist leaders in the Third World to eliminate Western influence as a preliminary to absorbing them in a communist federation, shifting the balance of power in favor of the Communist world, and the ideological disarmament of the West to create favorable conditions for convergence of East and West on communist terms.

www.umd.umich.edu...

This article is from November 14th, 1990. Gorbachev resigned on December 25th 1991 and the Soviet Union officially fell December 31st 1991. I think you can see where I'm going with this...

In any case-- not only does the time period in which this article was published cast doubt as to it's relevance today, you also mischaracterized your quote by leaving out the preceding paragraph:

More recently, Anatoliy Golitsyn, a Soviet defector of high status, has suggested that the Soviet Union is capable of disinformation on such a massive scale that even the Borkenau system is no longer viable.2 In a book first published in 1984, and of necessity written before then, Golitsyn argues that the leadership of the whole Communist bloc came to an agreement in 1958 in which it established a long range program, a master plan, which it would realize through a large scale deception of the West, a monumental scam. [emphasis added]

Golitsyn maintains that the goals of the master plan were to provide a more profound political stabilization of individual communist regimes by developing wider mass support, the rectification of economic weakness of the bloc by increased international trade and the acquisition of credits and high technology from the West, the creation of a substructure for an eventual world federation of communist states, political isolation of the US from its allies, developing influence among socialists in Western Europe and Japan, the dissolution of NATO, and an alignment between the Soviet Union and a neutral, preferably socialist, Western Europe; concerted action with nationalist leaders in the Third World to eliminate Western influence as a preliminary to absorbing them in a communist federation, shifting the balance of power in favor of the Communist world, and the ideological disarmament of the West to create favorable conditions for convergence of East and West on communist terms.

So in a book written before 1984 a communist defector argues that the soviet leadership came to an agreement in 1958 "in which it established a long range program, a master plan, which it would realize through a large scale deception of the West..." There is little doubt in my mind that in 1958, during the height of the cold war, such a plan existed. What you are trying to say (or at least imply) however, is that this plan which was created during the cold war by the soviet leaders is being carried out today in the form of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation.

If only India or Pakistan were communist or former soviet countries. You might have an argument then, albeit a very dubious one. Speaking of which...

India and Pakistan signed the agreement!

Two countries that hate one another signed a declaration which they agree upon.

What was that declaration again?

Originally posted by Muaddib
A joint declaration signed by all those present, appears to back the Iranian president...

...Here we have it folks, finally they are showing what the SCO is really for, all those countries which are members, or are seeking full membership on the SCO, have one goal in common as can be read from the article, and I quote..

Iranian President said that the SCO could “ward off the threats of domineering powers to use their force against and interfere in the affairs of other states”.

The rest of the nations attending this meeting, signed a joint declaration backing what the Iranian president said in the meeting.

Oh wait, you didn't even quote the declaration in your post.

The summit was also attended by the leaders of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mongolia, India and four Central Asian former Soviet republics. A joint declaration signed by those attending appeared to back the Iranian President.

“Differences in cultural traditions, political and social systems, values and models of development formed in the course of history should not be taken as pretexts to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs,” the joint declaration said. [emphasis added]

Hmmm...

“Differences in cultural traditions, political and social systems, values and models of development formed in the course of history should not be taken as pretexts to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs,”

I wonder why you would leave that part out...? Maybe because it destroys your thesis that the SCO meeting is part of a communist conspiracy to create a world federation of communist states? I think it's plainly obvious to anyone what your agenda is. If one of the moderators is reading this I'd ask that they fix your story to at least include the declaration that you're talking about; because as it is you're trying to make it seem like these countries have formed a nuclear armed communist military alliance hell bent on world domination.

[edit on 21-6-2006 by ShakyaHeir]

Originally posted by Jamuhn

I haven't seen any evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapon or plan on using it for offense. But, wouldn't your definition and position towards nukes make the US a terrorist nation.

Shall we go over some of the facts regarding this issue and why the west, not only the United States, thinks that the Iranian regime are working on getting their hands in nuclear weapons?

Apart from the secret nuclear research that the Iranian regime was conducting for at least 12 years, which for some reason some people still believe was only for "peaceful purposes"...there is also the following facts.

Iran plans secret 'nuclear university' to train scientists
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 20/03/2005)

The Iranian government has given approval for the establishment of a secret nuclear research centre to train its scientists in all aspects of atomic technology, The Telegraph can reveal.

Recent reports received by Western intelligence show that Teheran has recently approved the establishment of a faculty of applied nuclear engineering that will be attached to the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran (AEOI).

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/03/20/wiran20.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/03/20/ixportal.html

A university to train Iranian scientists in all aspects of nuclear technology...not for peaceful purposes only, as some would like to claim.

More recent news, which i haven't seen being posted here yet.

Iran accused of hiding secret nuclear weapons site
By Con Coughlin, Defence and Security Editor
(Filed: 12/06/2006)



Fresh evidence has emerged that Iran is working on a secret military project to develop nuclear weapons that has not been declared to United Nations inspectors responsible for monitoring Iran’s nuclear programme.

Nuclear experts working for the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna are pressing the Iranians to make a full disclosure about a network of research laboratories at a secret military base outside the capital Teheran.

The project is codenamed Zirzamin 27, and its purpose is to enable the Iranians to undertake uranium enrichment to military standard. Zirzamin means “basement” in Farsi, which suggests the laboratories are underground and 27 refers to the 27-year-old Iranian revolution.

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/06/12/wiran12.xml

Iran's 'nuclear university' conceals research
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 16/04/2006)

Iranian scientists are secretly conducting crucial nuclear research and development, using university laboratories as cover to avoid international scrutiny, according to highly placed opposition supporters within the Islamic regime.

Teheran's Imam Hossein University, which is run on military brigade lines by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, is the main centre for experiments on nuclear weapon technology, the exiled National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) reported.

www.telegraph.co.uk...;jsessionid=LTMNWT0RMI5QDQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/04/16/wiran16.xml

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Despite all that, Iran's speech takes a definitive defensive posture, and refers more to just threat of military force from the West, but other forces and influences as well, such as economic, cultural, ec.

The Iranian regime having a defensive posture?...

You mean like this?...

Israel will be annihilated in one storm, says Iran leader
By Tim Butcher, Middle East Correspondent
(Filed: 15/04/2006)

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran appeared to threaten Israel with a nuclear attack yesterday when he described it as a "rotten, dried tree" that would be annihilated by "one storm".

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/04/15/wiran15.xml

Yeah...that's the kind of "defensive posture" that the Iranian regime has...

BTW, yesterday i just happened to be talking to an engineer friend of mine who happens to be Irani, we were talking about the soccer game which Iran just lost to Mexico, he was explaining to me that the Iranian president bought all the tickets for that game because he knew that the mayority of the young people going to the game were going to wear the 25 year old revolutionary flag to protest against the Iranian regime. The president of Iran decided to buy all the tickets and to give them away to Mexicans.

i am not sure if what he said is true, but my friend told me that the Iranian team decided to lose in retaliation for what the Iranian president did. I can't verify this, but I am saying exactly what my Iranian friend told me.

If there are any Iranian members in the forums i would like to hear from them if what my friend told me is true.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Yea, sounds good until someone tries to rapidly force us, eh? Any benefits of such a move were outweighed heavily by all the consequences. See, the Cold War. As well, it sounds like you are saying that the US terrorized Japan.

[edit on 21-6-2006 by Jamuhn]

Nice try to change the topic.... Perhaps you would remember that the Japanese military all but exterminated our Pacific fleet, if Japan would have sent it's military forces on the Pacific shores of the United States, noone would have been able to stop them. Using the two atomic bombs were one of the worse chapters in U.S. history, but if it wasn't done the war would have been fought on United States soil.

But once again Jamuhn, nice try... i think you knew exactly what wondernut was trying to explain....but nice try.

[edit on 21-6-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
It's too bad you can no longer vote "no" for bias...

And you would have been wrong...buddy...and it shows your own bias in this thread...

First of all back when people could vote "no for bias" is if there was any bias in the introduction line.... i described in the introduction line what the article was all about...in the introduction line, nor when quoting excerpted parts on an article, you are not supposed to "excerpt the whole article"......but nice try....

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
This article is from November 14th, 1990. Gorbachev resigned on December 25th 1991 and the Soviet Union officially fell December 31st 1991. I think you can see where I'm going with this...

.... that link was from a professor of Soviet studies who was presenting his research in a paper from 1990, and in it's research he provided the account of Golitsyn, who wrote a book in 1984 and decades before that was providing evidence to western intelligence agencies about Russian spies, and their plans.....

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
In any case-- not only does the time period in which this article was published cast doubt as to it's relevance today, you also mischaracterized your quote by leaving out the preceding paragraph:

More recently, Anatoliy Golitsyn, a Soviet defector of high status, has suggested that the Soviet Union is capable of disinformation on such a massive scale that even the Borkenau system is no longer viable.2 In a book first published in 1984, and of necessity written before then, Golitsyn argues that the leadership of the whole Communist bloc came to an agreement in 1958 in which it established a long range program, a master plan, which it would realize through a large scale deception of the West, a monumental scam. [emphasis added] ............

Wrong again.... perhaps you are new to the how stories should be submitted but you are not supposed to excerpt large portions of articles, or papers.....

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
So in a book written before 1984 a communist defector argues that the soviet leadership came to an agreement in 1958 "in which it established a long range program, a master plan, which it would realize through a large scale deception of the West..." There is little doubt in my mind that in 1958, during the height of the cold war, such a plan existed. What you are trying to say (or at least imply) however, is that this plan which was created during the cold war by the soviet leaders is being carried out today in the form of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation.

He is only the highest Russian military defector, he wasn't just a "communist defector"...again you are trying to dismiss this by claiming he is just a regular Communist defector...

Here is a bit on the history on who you are trying to pass only as "another communist defector"...

In the midst of a blinding snow storm, a short stocky man, bundled in a heavy overcoat, arrived at the American Embassy in Helsinki, Finland. He matter-of-factly identified himself as a consul at the Soviet Embassy, and then asked to see Frank Friberg. The request, coming from a Soviet stranger, immediately set off alarm bells; Friberg was the CIA station chief.


The procedures for dealing with a potential defector were immediately put in effect. After escorting the Russian visitor to an isolated room, the marine guard alerted the desk officer at the embassy, who relayed the Mayday message to the CIA station. Within minutes, Friberg rushed down to meet this Soviet "walk in". The stranger came right to the point. He identified himself as Anatoli Golitsyn, a major in the KGB. To leave no doubt in the mind of his CIA counterpart, he handed over a sheath of secret documents from the files of the Soviet Embassy in Helsinki. He said he would make further information available about the Soviet espionage apparatus if the CIA immediately arrange his safe passage to the United States, along with that of his wife and daughter.

www.edwardjayepstein.com...

Again, here is another source.

Anatoliy Mikhaylovich Golitsyn (b. August 25, 1926 in Piryatin) was a high level KGB spy who defected to the United States via Helsinki in 1961.

Golitsyn was a figure of considerable controversy within the Western intelligence community, with a small faction (most prominently James Jesus Angleton) believing him to be a genuine defector but with others concluding that he was a disinformation agent. A few years after Golitsyn defected, Yuri Nosenko also defected, and the information provided by Nosenko contradicted Golitsyn on many points. Not surprisingly, those who believed Golitsyn to be genuine, believed Nosenko to be the fake; and vice versa.

Among other things, Golitsyn claimed that the USSR had long range plans to take over the USA that included taking down the Berlin Wall, faking the end of communism and lulling the USA into a false sense of security. He wrote his views in his books New Lies For Old and The Perestroika Deception which were published in 1984 and 1995 respectively. Perhaps Golitsyn's most notorious claim was that the Rt Hon. Harold Wilson (then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) was a KGB agent.


As history has now proven, about 94% of his predictions from his 1984 book "New Lies For Old", have happened; putting Golitsyn in a class of his own in this area of the intelligence community.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
If only India or Pakistan were communist or former soviet countries. You might have an argument then, albeit a very dubious one. Speaking of which...

Again, wrong....if you read what Golitsyn said, the plan was to unify as many countries as possible, including socialist, communist, and even neutral countries against the United States.

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
Hmmm...

“Differences in cultural traditions, political and social systems, values and models of development formed in the course of history should not be taken as pretexts to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs,”

I wonder why you would leave that part out...? Maybe because it destroys your thesis that the SCO meeting is part of a communist conspiracy to create a world federation of communist states? I think it's plainly obvious to anyone what your agenda is. If one of the moderators is reading this I'd ask that they fix your story to at least include the declaration that you're talking about; because as it is you're trying to make it seem like these countries have formed a nuclear armed communist military alliance hell bent on world domination.

no...i gave a direct link to that article....what I did was a summary of what is described in the article in the introduction line....and i excerpted parts of the article as is the rules when posting and quoting sources.....

I wonder why you left out the parts where there is mention of that declaration made by the Iranian president referring to the United States...

BTW...it appears that you want to change the article according to your own opinions...so why don't you ask moderators also to erase my name, put your name instead, and give you the points for an article I wrote about?.....


[edit on 21-6-2006 by Muaddib]

I would not worry honestly Maudibb. We fought off the evil communists before, and we damn will do it again. I would just like you to verify that you will have my back when we are in the trenches in South Korea, or Iraq dropping the poor fathers, husbands, and sons and dodging small arms and mortar fire while our fellow citizens are dying around us in the heat of battle. I will do it for the sake of our way of life, I just hope you can do it too. Because when it comes to the clash of the giants, we can not just send out other people to do the job, we will have to go and get it done as a whole.

You state all this anti-communist rhetoric (which I half support) and paranoid theories based on selective choosing of the facts, but I have yet to hear you bring about any solutions to this impending crisis. Therefore I can only assume you would support a global conflict to stop the alleged spread of communism. All I want to hear is that you will be right there with me, and many of us here on ATS in war killing and holding on to dear life. You give me that reassurance, and I will support the war effort.

Originally posted by DYepes
I would not worry honestly Maudibb. We fought off the evil communists before, and we damn will do it again. I would just like you to verify that you will have my back when we are in the trenches in South Korea, or Iraq dropping the poor fathers, husbands, and sons and dodging small arms and mortar fire while our fellow citizens are dying around us in the heat of battle. I will do it for the sake of our way of life, I just hope you can do it too. Because when it comes to the clash of the giants, we can not just send out other people to do the job, we will have to go and get it done as a whole.

Did i say anything about going to fight in every of those countries or any of those countries at all?.... as i said, I hope some people see what this is all about, and perhaps a few people won't fall for what the Russian government and others have been planning.

Originally posted by DYepes
You state all this anti-communist rhetoric (which I half support) and paranoid theories based on selective choosing of the facts, but I have yet to hear you bring about any solutions to this impending crisis. Therefore I can only assume you would support a global conflict to stop the alleged spread of communism. All I want to hear is that you will be right there with me, and many of us here on ATS in war killing and holding on to dear life. You give me that reassurance, and I will support the war effort.

Leave your rethoric for someone else DYepes, i don't see you providing any evidence to disprove any of the evidence i have provided. Selective facts huh?... can you disprove those facts with evidence or do you think that only using rhetoric will disprove any of the facts i have presented?...

Anyways, this is the last time i will respond to you unless you can disprove with evidence what i have presented here. You are just a waste of time and bandwidth space.



[edit on 21-6-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
This article is from November 14th, 1990. Gorbachev resigned on December 25th 1991 and the Soviet Union officially fell December 31st 1991. I think you can see where I'm going with this...

.... that link was from a professor of Soviet studies who was presenting his research in a paper from 1990, and in it's research he provided the account of Golitsyn, who wrote a book in 1984 and decades before that was providing evidence to western intelligence agencies about Russian spies, and their plans.....

Uh...yeah... That's my point. This research paper published in 1990 is from a time when the USSR still existed and the cold war was still going on. Of course people back then were paranoid about soviet Russia taking over the world! What relevance does it have today?

He is only the highest Russian military defector, he wasn't just a "communist defector"...again you are trying to dismiss this by claiming he is just a regular Communist defector...

No, I'm not trying to dismiss it based on him being a "regular" communist defector, I never said that. I'm dismissing it based on the fact that this book was written in 1984 and the plan that this book talks about was formulated in 1958, during the height of the cold war. Again I ask you, what's the connection between a plan made in 1958 by soviet Russia and a diplomatic meeting in 2006 in which a bunch of countries have gotten together to say that:

“Differences in cultural traditions, political and social systems, values and models of development formed in the course of history should not be taken as pretexts to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs,”

Where's the connection?

Wrong again.... perhaps you are new to the how stories should be submitted but you are not supposed to excerpt large portions of article, or papers.....

....no...i gave a direct link to that article....what I did was a summary of what is described in the article in the introduction line....and i excerpted parts of the article as is the rules when posting and quoting sources.....

My point is you left out the most important part because it takes away from your argument and in doing so you mischaracterized the entire news story.

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir


Uh...yeah... That's my point. This research paper published in 1990 is from a time when the USSR still existed and the cold war was still going on. Of course people back then were paranoid about soviet Russia taking over the world! What relevance does it have today?

...so you call it just a coincidence that everything that Russia and other countries are doing is exactly as what the master plan is all about?.... That is your opinion, but you apparently cannot back it with facts, you are only producing your own opinions.

I have given excerpts, links and facts which proves my argument, you just resorted to trying to convince moderators to change the story as you see it fit...

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir

No, I'm not trying to dismiss it based on him being a "regular" communist defector, I never said that.

Oh i see...so you were not using a patronizing statement when you mentioned "just because a communist defector is saying..", or something like it?....

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
I'm dismissing it based on the fact that this book was written in 1984 and the plan that this book talks about was formulated in 1958, during the height of the cold war. Again I ask you, what's the connection between a plan made in 1958 by soviet Russia and a diplomatic meeting in 2006 in which a bunch of countries have gotten together to say that:

“Differences in cultural traditions, political and social systems, values and models of development formed in the course of history should not be taken as pretexts to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs,”

Where's the connection?

and then you tell me that "i am leaving out the most important parts"....

MAHMOUD Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, held talks with Chinese and Russian leaders at a summit meeting yesterday to build up a security grouping in opposition to the US and Nato.
Mr Ahmadinejad was invited to address a meeting of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO), a China-sponsored proto-alliance that aims to strengthen defence links across Central Asia.

In an implicit reference to the US and its pressure on Iran to end its nuclear weapons programme, he said that the SCO could “ward off the threats of domineering powers to use their force against and interfere in the affairs of other states”.

Excerpted from original article....

The whole meeting was to build up a security grouping agianst the United States... So i guess it is you who is leaving out "the most important part of the article"...

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
My point is you left out the most important part because it takes away from your argument and in doing so you mischaracterized the entire news story.

Really?... your argument was actually to "try to convince moderators" to change the story according to your own opinion, and that's the truth...

anyways, what facts do you have to back what you are saying?... Everything which Golitsyn said was going to happen has been happening to the letter... which tells me this master plan is still in the works.

[edit on 22-6-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by subz

What aggressive American foreign policy? I do hope you are kidding. Pre-emptive wars are the epitome of aggressive American foreign policy. You can deny, spin, spruik, finesse, finagle and ignore what ever you like about American foreign policy. I am not going to waste my time stating the glaringly obvious to some one who is hell bent on ignoring it.

...the fact is that jsobecky, myself and some other members know by now that the agenda of members like yourself is "bent on hell on claiming the United States is responsible for acts which other nations were part of"..... You can "deny it, spin it, spruik, finesse, finagle and ignore" the facts if you want....

Originally posted by subz
How eager were the French, Germans or the Nordic countries to get into Iraq with Dubya? How many are now eager to get into Iran with Dubya? Christ even Britain has said you're on your own in Iran. Nuf' said.

[edit on 21/6/06 by subz]

Oh boy.... Could you tell us what nations declared not too long ago that something must be done to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?....

and there is also the following to dismiss your argument...

Iran accused of hiding secret nuclear weapons site
By Con Coughlin, Defence and Security Editor
(Filed: 12/06/2006)



Fresh evidence has emerged that Iran is working on a secret military project to develop nuclear weapons that has not been declared to United Nations inspectors responsible for monitoring Iran’s nuclear programme.

Nuclear experts working for the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna are pressing the Iranians to make a full disclosure about a network of research laboratories at a secret military base outside the capital Teheran.

The project is codenamed Zirzamin 27, and its purpose is to enable the Iranians to undertake uranium enrichment to military standard. Zirzamin means “basement” in Farsi, which suggests the laboratories are underground and 27 refers to the 27-year-old Iranian revolution.

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/06/12/wiran12.xml

All Things Considered, May 12, 2005 · Negotiations between Europe and Iran over Iran's nuclear activities appear to be near collapse, as foreign ministers of Great Britain, France, and Germany warn the Iranian government that its threatened resumption of nuclear activities would bring talks to an end and have negative consequences for Iran.

www.npr.org...

Press Corner
UK, Germany warn Iran could still face sanctions
January 29, 2006
Reuters
Britain and Germany warned Iran on Saturday it could be hauled before the UN Security Council over its nuclear ambitions, but both countries said they still hoped for a diplomatic way out of the impasse.

Since Iran's 18-year secret nuclear programme was exposed three years ago, European Union nations Britain, France and Germany have tried to find a way to ensure Iran cannot make an atomic bomb while developing civilian nuclear technology.

www.freemuslims.org...

I wonder who is trying to "deny, spin, spruik, finesse, finagle and ignore" the facts....

BTW, i mentioned that Golitsyn was/is the highest Russian military defector from Russia. It is Ion Mihai Pacepa who is the highest intelligence official to defect from the Communist block, and he also had many interesting stories to tell about "part" of the Russian master plan.

Here is some information on Pacepa, as well as the attempted assassinations and the rewards given by many regimes because of what he knows.

en.wikipedia.org...

As a former Romanian spy chief who used to take orders from the Soviet KGB, it is perfectly obvious to me that Russia is behind the evanescence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. After all, Russia helped Saddam get his hands on them in the first place. The Soviet Union and all its bloc states always had a standard operating procedure for deep sixing weapons of mass destruction — in Romanian it was codenamed "Sarindar, meaning "emergency exit."Iimplemented it in Libya. It was for ridding Third World despots of all trace of their chemical weapons if the Western imperialists ever got near them.
..............
The plan included an elaborate propaganda routine. Anyone accusing Moammar Gadhafi of possessing chemical weapons would be ridiculed. Lies, all lies! Come to Libya and see! Our Western left-wing organizations, like the World Peace Council, existed for sole purpose of spreading the propaganda we gave them. These very same groups bray the exact same themes to this day. We always relied on their expertise at organizing large street demonstrations in Western Europe over America'swar-mongering whenever we wanted to distract world attention from the crimes of the vicious regimes we sponsored.

www.washtimes.com...

The whole article is very interesting, but the most interesting part, appart from what I put in bold above, is the following.

Here is what another Russian military defector, Vladimir Bukovsky, has to say about this topic, his opinion is a bit different than that of Pacepa . Mihai Pacepa was also in that interview.

In a sick society, the elite is the main virus-carrier. And while I am convinced that any effort at re-Sovietization will be a futile absurdity, I am equally convinced this "elite" will try it, ruining more human lives and poisoning international relations in the process. Just as we conduct our symposium, Dr. Igor Sutyagin was sentenced in Moscow to 15 years of hard labor as an American spy. Now, it is a common knowledge in Russia that Dr. Sutyagin, a peaceful scholar who had no access to state secrets and who conducted his research from open sources on contracts with different Western research institutions, is just a convenient scapegoat. His sentence is a stern warning to Russian intellectuals: stay clear of close contacts with foreigners. It is meant to chill down enthusiasm of too pro-Western Russians, and it is meant to scare off too enthusiastic Westerners.

www.frontpagemag.com...


Here is in part what Pacepa had to say in that interview.

FP: Thank you Mr. Bukovsky. Mr. Pacepa, do you share Mr. Bukovsky’s pessimism? Kindly give us your final word thoughts on this discussion.



Pacepa: I spent 27 years of my life working for the KGB, I defected from it 26 years ago. Today most of the top governmental positions in Russia are held by former KGB officers. This is like “democratizing” Germany by putting the old, supposedly defeated Gestapo officers in charge. That’s not good for our future relations with Russia.


By definition, police states are totalitarian, and totalitarianism requires a tangible enemy. The Gestapo targeted the Jews. The KGB’s main enemy has always been the United States. And anti-Americanism has increased as more former KGB have taken over key government positions. A week after Putin became president, an American businessman, Edmund Pope, was arrested in Russia, charged with spying for America, and sentenced to 20 years in prison in a farcical show-trial. Shortly afterwards, in a grand gesture of magnanimity, Putin pardoned Pope. But, following the same old Soviet pattern, the trial was used to demonize America and inflame the idea in the minds of the Russian people that America is still Russia’s number one enemy. Simultaneously, the fact that such trials go largely unnoticed in the West means that Russia maintains its cover as a friend to America.

www.frontpagemag.com...


BTW, to those members that are going to come up and say..."oh, but some of those sites are only right wing"... The fact is that these defectors are only interviewed by what some would call "hardcore right wing sites", for some reason left wing sites have no interest in interviewing these men, or any others who have defected from Communist regimes....

i would like anyone who will try to make that assertion, to show me a left wing site that presents any of these issues, and what these Russian defectors have been saying, and keep saying...... Anyone?

[edit on 22-6-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
...the fact is that jsobecky, myself and some other members know by now that the agenda of members like yourself is "bent on hell on claiming the United States is responsible for acts which other nations were part of"..... You can "deny it, spin it, spruik, finesse, finagle and ignore" the facts if you want....

Oh thats right, disinfo 101: if you cant attack the substance of an argument attack the poster.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Oh boy.... Could you tell us what nations declared not too long ago that something must be done to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?....

You forget that they want to go about Iran diplomatically, without the use of force. I was talking about aggressive foreign policy Muaddib. There is a difference, if you cant see that then thats probably why you have so many problems here.

You proved nothing. You tried to attack my character with no proof to back yourself up. You misconstrued European support for a diplomatic tact with Iran as support for aggressive foreign policy i.e. American pre-emptive war. The use of force has been ruled out by Europe (including Britain). You have proved nothing.

Originally posted by subz

Oh thats right, disinfo 101: if you cant attack the substance of an argument attack the poster.

I wasn't attacking you, i was attacking your argument, perhaps someday you will grow wise and understand the difference. BTW, first, this isn't a thread about your hatred for the United States, nor your attempts to derail threads such as this one. second, i have not seen you provide any evidence against what has been presented here.

Originally posted by subz
You forget that they want to go about Iran diplomatically, without the use of force. I was talking about aggressive foreign policy Muaddib. There is a difference, if you cant see that then thats probably why you have so many problems here.

Well subz, some of us know by now that you like derailing threads, but this thread is not about your exagerated claims about "an aggressive foreign policy" by the United States...

Originally posted by subz
You proved nothing. You tried to attack my character with no proof to back yourself up. You misconstrued European support for a diplomatic tact with Iran as support for aggressive foreign policy i.e. American pre-emptive war. The use of force has been ruled out by Europe (including Britain). You have proved nothing.

Did I? I only saw your attempts at derailing this thread, that's all i have seen, nothing new from you anyways.


---edited for errors---

[edit on 22-6-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
I wasn't attacking you, i was attacking your argument, perhaps someday you will grow wise and understand the difference. BTW, first, this isn't a threat about your hatred for the United States nor your attempts to derail threads such as this one. second, i have not seen you provide any evidence against what has been presented here.

Youre entire paragraph was focused on what you think my agenda is and a quote of mine.

Originally posted by Muaddib
...the fact is that jsobecky, myself and some other members know by now that the agenda of members like yourself is "bent on hell on claiming the United States is responsible for acts which other nations were part of"..... You can "deny it, spin it, spruik, finesse, finagle and ignore" the facts if you want....

Where is there any mention of my argument? You focused on accusing me of being anti-American (which I am not) and made a strawman argument of your own with a false quote. Can you link me to where I (or any one) wrote

"bent on hell on claiming the United States is responsible for acts which other nations were part of"

Either you do not understand what quotation marks represent or you are falsifying a quote. None of which is based on anything other that your perceived opinion on what you think I believe.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Well subz, some of us know by now that you like derailing threads, but this thread is not about your exagerated claims about your claims of "an aggressive foreign policy" by the United States...

How is it derailing this thread? The Shangai Co-operation Organisation, which this thread is about, is designed to counter the foreign policy objectives of the United States.

Iranian President said that the SCO could “ward off the threats of domineering powers to use their force against and interfere in the affairs of other states”.

Or do you mean that because I dont buy into this Soviet super-conspiracy that I should take my rational posts elsewhere?

Originally posted by subz
What aggressive American foreign policy? I do hope you are kidding. Pre-emptive wars are the epitome of aggressive American foreign policy.

No. I'm not kidding, I'm serious. Where has America been pre-emptive?

Originally posted by jsobecky
What facts do you have to support your contention that NATO countries are more worried about America than terrorism?

How eager were the French, Germans or the Nordic countries to get into Iraq with Dubya? How many are now eager to get into Iran with Dubya? Christ even Britain has said you're on your own in Iran. Nuf' said.

I don't think we even have to discuss why France and Germany (Russia, also) did not want Saddam to fall.

And when did Great Britain make that statement?

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir

Originally posted by Muaddib
December 31st 1991. I think you can see where I'm going with this...

.... that link was from a professor of Soviet studies who was presenting his research in a paper from 1990, and in it's research he provided the account of Golitsyn, who wrote a book in 1984 and decades before that was providing evidence to western intelligence agencies about Russian spies, and their plans.....

Uh...yeah... That's my point. This research paper published in 1990 is from a time when the USSR still existed and the cold war was still going on. Of course people back then were paranoid about soviet Russia taking over the world! What relevance does it have today?

It has a lot of relevance. People do not understand that Russia, knowing that they cannot defeat us, are waging a war by proxy. They are using Iran, Venezuala, Syria, and very soon Sudan, to do their dirty deeds.

Never understimate the Russian mind.



[edit on 22-6-2006 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by subz
What aggressive American foreign policy? I do hope you are kidding. Pre-emptive wars are the epitome of aggressive American foreign policy.

No. I'm not kidding, I'm serious. Where has America been pre-emptive?

...

Originally posted by jsobecky
I don't think we even have to discuss why France and Germany (Russia, also) did not want Saddam to fall.

Oh we do, we do when you try to paint NATO as being completely behind the actions of the United States. Are France and Germany not part of NATO any more?

Originally posted by jsobecky
And when did Great Britain make that statement?

Let's see what Jack Straw had to say when he was the British Foreign Secretary.

"The reason why we're opposed to military action is because it's an infinitely worse option and there's no justification for it,"

"there is no smoking gun, there is no 'casus belli'

"We can't be certain about Iran's intentions and that is therefore not a basis for which anybody would gain authority to go to military action,"

You keep telling yourself every one backs military action....

[edit on 22/6/06 by subz]

Originally posted by subz

Let's see what Jack Straw had to say when he was the British Foreign Secretary.

Is it a policy, or formal statement? Or just his opinion?

You keep telling yourself every one backs military action....

I never remember saying that military action was the only option. Of course, if you can point out where I said that, I'd be happy to re-examine it.

Double post, due to "Parse Error".

[edit on 22-6-2006 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by subz
Oh we do, we do when you try to paint NATO as being completely behind the actions of the United States. Are France and Germany not part of NATO any more?

subz, be serious. You don't know why France, Germany, and Russia were against taking Saddam down?

Originally posted by subz

Youre entire paragraph was focused on what you think my agenda is and a quote of mine.

....No...that post of mine in specific was focused on your argument of trying to derail this thread by making more claims and trying to blame the United States....

Originally posted by subz
Where is there any mention of my argument? You focused on accusing me of being anti-American (which I am not) and made a strawman argument of your own with a false quote.

lol... subz....you made a claim trying to derail this thread making claims that it must be because of U.S. foreign and "pre-emty" policy.... if not then why are you responding in this thread?....

Originally posted by subz
Can you link me to where I (or any one) wrote

"bent on hell on claiming the United States is responsible for acts which other nations were part of"

Either you do not understand what quotation marks represent or you are falsifying a quote. None of which is based on anything other that your perceived opinion on what you think I believe.

Oooh...i see, so I guess you never said and I quote...

What aggressive American foreign policy? I do hope you are kidding. Pre-emptive wars are the epitome of aggressive American foreign policy. You can deny, spin, spruik, finesse, finagle and ignore what ever you like about American foreign policy. I am not going to waste my time stating the glaringly obvious to some one who is hell bent on ignoring it.

......

Is this thread about your claims on U.S. foreign policy?...

BTW, i was just "borrowing part of your own argument" to respond to you, in case you didn't noticed....

Originally posted by subz
How is it derailing this thread? The Shangai Co-operation Organisation, which this thread is about, is designed to counter the foreign policy objectives of the United States.

That's a claim of yours, which you did not provide any evidence of, but it is not what all the evidence i have presented says.

Originally posted by subz
Or do you mean that because I dont buy into this Soviet super-conspiracy that I should take my rational posts elsewhere?

If you are going to debate this thread, you should be presenting facts that back your claim and refute what the evidence i have provided says. I am not quoting Alex Jones here... I have been quoting ex-Russian military officers, experts who know about this topic, and not nuclear physicist trying to be civil engineers..., and i have been giving direct links which proves my argument.