Iran: Some Dots You May Want To Connect

(This is my first thread. Apologies if I get any of the ATS procedures wrong, I'm still learning.)



This is an interesting article that goes a long way to explaining all the speculation and disinformation coming out of the MSM.

axisoflogic.com...

Before you start connecting the dots, consider this: The attempt to discredit the elections and cause instability in Iran look very much like a scheme we've seen before - directly out of the CIA playbook. We've seen this pattern in so many elections in Venezuela, for example, I swear that even the Chavistas would be disappointed if it doesn't reappear next time around. After all, a little drama does add some excitement in elections where consistent landslide victories are won by presidents like Chavez and Ahmadinejad. So here we go again - the old Langley one, two, three:

1. Groom an opposition candidate to run against the guy you hate, pay him well and line up your media to back him.

2. During the campaign, sell him as the savior of the bourgeois opposition who lost their money in the revolution. Use your own pollsters and media propaganda to convince his followers that they are going to win by a wide margin.

3. When your guy loses, scream "FRAUD!" It's akin to yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, inflaming all those disappointed bourgeois counter-revolutionaries. Get them out on the street, setting fires, playing the victim, waving flags, ready-to-go placards, banners, women crying in front of CNN cameras and men yelling angrily into Christiana Amanpour's microphone. Only this time, they're ready to burn their own flag instead of the U.S. flag. I tell ya, it makes great TV for a western audience. (Incidentally, don't take Christiana's reports too seriously. The Amanpours, like many Iranian expats, led a privileged life under the Shah of Iran and lost their ill gotten wealth as a result of the Iranian revolution in '79. Naturally, Christiana was very upset. Later, she married James Rubin, an arch-Zionist, and regained her status, good money and even some fame, this time as a CNN reporter in service to the empire.)

Well, that's just the start. It's an interesting read that makes a lot of sense in the light of 'who benefits' from a regime change in Iran. Or from even the spreading of the 'fraudulent election' meme.


Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 15-6-2009 by GAOTU789]

The only problem with the is that this has been building since the mid-1980s when the Iranian government actually kidnapped children off the street and conscripted them to fight in Iraq during their eight-year war. It may be another pretext to free up more fuel lines but the Iranians have seen enough of outside influences to want to be players on the world stage. One thing is for sure, no government will fight that hard to suppress its own people if they are not trying to get out from underneath it.

The only info that I'm even going to consider to hold water in what is going on in Iran is the protesters.

This is a geopolitical world changing event going on right now. Besides the Iranian people would not be revolting if the incumbent and Ayatollah didn't do what they are doing.

Besides a regime change is not in their best interest, a War is in their best interest. Look back at history the world is just starting a slide to depression and there is nothing like a good war to help bring us out of it.

Also as Secretagent Woooman stated this is something that has been building for a long long time. It was just a matter of time for a spark went off and ignited the powder keg.

Originally posted by starscape
(This is my first thread. Apologies if I get any of the ATS procedures wrong, I'm still learning.)



This is an interesting article that goes a long way to explaining all the speculation and disinformation coming out of the MSM.

It is indeed interesting but it is also pure speculation and character assassination. The entire case that the writer builds is based on a line of reasoning that says, "The US has interfered in foreign elections in the past, therefore they must be doing it again."

While it is an interesting premise there is no supporting evidence that the CIA was involved in this election. I know a couple of Iranian expats who have been telling me for a few years that the younger, more highly educated Iranians were chafing against the restrictions of the Islamic Fundamentalist Government. Iranian women have been vocal about the need for improved woman's rights in the country. Anyone who has studied Iran even a little bit knows that there was growing unrest.

If the CIA was going to put up a candidate, he would not have the Anti American views that Moussavi has expressed. He is no friend of the West.

You correctly ask who most benefits from a regime change in Iran? That is easy. The sizable progressive segment of the Iranian population.


[

[edit on 15-6-2009 by Night Watchman]

The MSM's excessive coverage of the protests in Iran and the total lack of coverage concerning non-Iran-related protests in the US should set off some alarm bells among the public.

Some MSM outlets are even reporting hundreds of thousands of protesters on the opposition's side.

Can this be independently confirmed?

Also, how many counter-protestors are there?


[edit on 15-6-2009 by star in a jar]

Originally posted by star in a jar
The MSM's excessive coverage of the protests in Iran and the total lack of coverage concerning non-Iran-related protests in the US should set off some alarm bells among the public.

Some MSM outlets are even reporting hundreds of thousands of protesters on the opposition's side.

Can this be independently confirmed?

Also, how many counter-protestors are there?


[edit on 15-6-2009 by star in a jar]

What protesters in the US are you referring to? If you mean those protesting in support of the people of Iran I saw coverage of that today and also coverage of similar demonstrations in France and other countries.

As for the numbers of protesters, what is being reported on the MSM is downplaying the amount of protesters when compared to what Iranians inside the country are claiming via Twitter...

Am I missing your point?

The OP is correct of course - this is the CIA and Mossad stirring up the hornets nest - all the publicity is purely propaganda to hopefully get people onside for sending some troops in to 'help the Iranian people'.

Its total lies - Ron Paul mentioned recently the CIA were working to destabilize Iran.

Being in congress I doubt he would be able to say anything now to support that - it would probably land him in a military detention facility.

reply to post by star in a jar

That is normal, it is breaking news of massive importance in many respects. Newspeople thrive on excitement and alway are competing for ratings. It would look bad if one station had continual coverage and the others did not since that would raise accusations of bigotry and "government interference." More than anything, it is an exciting day at the office.

Also, not everyone watches the 6 p.m. news, lots of people watch intermittently during the day including every local newsroom in the country, this is partly how we get our stories. Right now I guarantee you all of them are scrambling to find Iranian-Americans or military personnel who can localize the coverage. Most of them are totally dependent on wire feeds and CNN so you can't entirely blame them for spreading misinfo, few papers ever had foreign bureaus and lot of those are closing for budget cuts. Many smaller papers can't even afford to subscribe to AP or other wire services anymore so their readers will get no information.

Originally posted by Amagnon
Its total lies - Ron Paul mentioned recently the CIA were working to destabilize Iran.

Wait, Ron Paul SAID IT?

Wow, it must be true then.

reply to post by Night Watchman

The people who accuse Obama and Bush supporters of being stupid or misinformed yet blindly accept Ron Paul''s words as fact crack me up.
Newsflash......he's just another politician with an agenda, albeit a slightly more independent one.

Originally posted by secretagent woooman
reply to post by Night Watchman

 

The people who accuse Obama and Bush supporters of being stupid or misinformed yet blindly accept Ron Paul''s words as fact crack me up.
Newsflash......he's just another politician with an agenda, albeit a slightly more independent one.

My comment regarding Ron Pauls was purely for info - I remembered that he had mentioned it during maybe one of his presidential debates. Saying that I, or anyone else would blindly believe one source, regardless is insulting.

I know the history of Iran quite thoroughly, and the efforts that have been made to control its oil since as early as 1909 - most famously in 1953 when the CIA organized a coup.

Iran is the fifth largest oil exporter and is well known to reject the US dollar hegemony - and other western influence, it is an emerging leader for the Arab world - and the US see's its rising influence over Iraq, and Saudi Arabia as a serious threat.

Also - most obviously - it supports Palestine, and is hostile towards Israel.

I just mentioned RP's comment because it was contemporary and he is relatively well known to ATS'ers.

[edit on 16-6-2009 by Amagnon]

reply to post by Amagnon

I know, it was not personal but the whole Ron Paul camp amazes me. I actually have worked with real live journalists who will argue that nothing he says has to be fact checked, they think he is a literal well of truth. Just like Obama.....
Ron Paul has a few good ideas here and there but some of them are for the birds. I doubt we'd be any better off had he gotten in.

The sad part about all of this is the two guys who actually had some ideas that would have been helpful, Nader and Romney, stood no chance of getting in. This country has a bizarre obsession with electing former attorneys and lobbyists in lieue of successful business men. God forbid someone who can actually balance a budget and turn a profit gets elected!

Originally posted by Night Watchman

Originally posted by starscape
(This is my first thread. Apologies if I get any of the ATS procedures wrong, I'm still learning.)



This is an interesting article that goes a long way to explaining all the speculation and disinformation coming out of the MSM.

It is indeed interesting but it is also pure speculation and character assassination. The entire case that the writer builds is based on a line of reasoning that says, "The US has interfered in foreign elections in the past, therefore they must be doing it again."

While it is an interesting premise there is no supporting evidence that the CIA was involved in this election. I know a couple of Iranian expats who have been telling me for a few years that the younger, more highly educated Iranians were chafing against the restrictions of the Islamic Fundamentalist Government. Iranian women have been vocal about the need for improved woman's rights in the country. Anyone who has studied Iran even a little bit knows that there was growing unrest.

If the CIA was going to put up a candidate, he would not have the Anti American views that Moussavi has expressed. He is no friend of the West.

You correctly ask who most benefits from a regime change in Iran? That is easy. The sizable progressive segment of the Iranian population.


[

[edit on 15-6-2009 by Night Watchman]

Looks like your EXPATS may not know squat - this has been common knowledge for MONTHS- and was widely reported BEFORE it even happened.....authorative posts though for someone who EQUALLY has no idea...





And here

www.newyorker.com...

here
www.newyorker.com...
www.huffingtonpost.com...
onebigtorrent.org...


AND HERE
www.payvand.com...
original.antiwar.com...

Thanks.

Of course the original post is correct - I am GOBSMACKED that you would even bother posting such ignorance.

reply to post by star in a jar



Indeed star in a jar. One of the things I have been wondering is WHY on earth would Iranians in Germany and LA be protesting the election results? I mean your talking about folks that immigrated and naturalized in other nations there... That just does not strike me as logical.

And you know what else strikes me as illogical. Iranians holding up protest signs in Arabic and English. Why bother with the english? Those protesters aren't protesting in an english speaking nation. Amedidajad doesn't speak english nor does their supreme Imam so just what the heck is the point of english signs? Its not like any other nation has a right to go in and mess with the nation of Iran. Thats an internal thing for them to work out right?

So whats up with the english protest signs in an arabic nation?

CIA-lqadia?

To consider that the mainstream media is calling these elections rigged, a coup de'tat within six hours of the results is mind blowing - the RIGGED us elections were not discussed for weeks - in other words only after an investigation was done were these kinds of allegations thrown around

"Robert Dreyfuss, the Nation’s chief commentator on foreign policy and national security, posted a blog entry under the headline, “Iran’s Ex-Foreign Minister Yazdi: It’s A Coup.” The article is dated June 13 and is time stamped at 7:24 AM—that is, about half a day after Iranian authorities released preliminary results from the election"

wsws.org...

The simple fact is that the guy is an American expansionist

The reference to the “radical-right” president is intended to give the impression to Nation readers that somehow Mousavi is a “left” figure. In fact, Mousavi’s main position on economic policy was to denounce Ahmadinejad’s limited handouts to poor and rural Iranians. Like Ahmadinejad, Mousavi is part of the Iranian establishment, representing a faction of the ruling elite that favors closer relations with the United States, free market policies and an opening of Iran to foreign investment, and reductions in state subsidies to the poor.

and continues with a direct link back tot he CIA

He then provides the text of an interview with Yazdi, a major figure in the so-called “reformist” movement in Iran and the country’s foreign minister in the first few months after the 1979 revolution. Yazdi resigned to protest the taking of US hostages after the revolution, and he favored a general amnesty for members of the Shah’s regime. He is presently the head of the Freedom Movement of Iran, which the Iranian regime has banned for alleged links to the CIA. Yazdi states that “the election was rigged,” citing the existence of many mobile polling places and the control of the Interior Ministry over the counting process. From this, the former foreign minister declares, “A coup d’etat? They’ve already made one!”

Originally posted by secretagent woooman
reply to post by Amagnon

 

I know, it was not personal but the whole Ron Paul camp amazes me. I actually have worked with real live journalists who will argue that nothing he says has to be fact checked, they think he is a literal well of truth. Just like Obama.....
Ron Paul has a few good ideas here and there but some of them are for the birds. I doubt we'd be any better off had he gotten in.

The sad part about all of this is the two guys who actually had some ideas that would have been helpful, Nader and Romney, stood no chance of getting in. This country has a bizarre obsession with electing former attorneys and lobbyists in lieue of successful business men. God forbid someone who can actually balance a budget and turn a profit gets elected!

Name his "for the birds" ideas. I am not American and I can assure you that after years and years of study the US is almost totally corrupt - your presidents (Eisenhower) was explicit about this and the K-street gang running your empire and totally beyond the realms of legitimate - his ideas are exceptionally sound, fundamental and clear - I have seen nothing wrong with them ever beyond the fact that they challenge the status quo of endemic corruption - so lets hear these for the birds ideas - should make for very short reading.

reply to post by starscape


Just as I was starting to think there's no longer intelligent life in ATS... great post. I was just thinking the same thing about this coverage. Suddenly the UK media (guess we are "on side" after all) is shrieking fraud over these elections. The Independent's front page yesterday had a tear-jerking story from "Maryam" saying how bad it all was.

Previous UK coverage - particularly of the capture of some UK troops by Iran - has beenbiased and hysterical for some time now. Any rational person studying coverage of that incident will have noticed conspicuous attempts to exaggerate and over-dramatise the situation.

As for whoever it was who advanced the argument "just because the CIA have done it before, doesn't mean they're doing it again now"... while logically this is indeed correct, empirically the overwhelming evidence is of a pattern of consistent behaviour on the part of the US/CIA and we should not be surprised therefore to see the pattern repeating itself.

One might say that the pattern is so obvious and entrenched that the burden of proof has shifted to the deniers. Of course very few Americans will realise this.

It's also of note that George Soros took the CIA playbook on board and financed a lot of the Eastern European "colour revolutions" which featured, again, rather suspiciously co-ordinated and well-financed allegedly "popular" movements. Titorite's points about demonstrations organised outside Iran is very well made.

I think it's also important to note that I'm sure there is genuine opposition to Ahmedinejad... but what we're getting is the US-owned-and-operated side.

Originally posted by audas


Of course the original post is correct - I am GOBSMACKED that you would even bother posting such ignorance.

The original post is not "correct," it is, just like your attempt to support it, a lame attempt to pass off speculation as fact.

The fact that you seem to believe that providing information that the US was active in Iran working with opposition parties is some sort of breaking news suggests that you aren't very well versed on international politics.

The US, China, Russia and many other nations have operatives in key countries. Is this surprising to you? Your problem is that you are attempting to take this elementary level information and attempting to connect the dots from there to a place where the US is behind the demonstrations happening in Iran.

As my friends have told me (and many other exPats have written and said similar things) the seeds of unrest were planted years ago. If you would not limit your research to conspiracy websites you could easily find much written about the growing disenchantment on the part of a large segment of the Iranian population. If you weren't so intent on seeing the world in strictly black and white terms, you might begin to understand nuance.

Some of you seemingly cannot function unless you can assign every world event to either the evil US (or allies) or the NWO.

Real life isn't like that.

As I have mentioned in other posts, I don't have a problem with speculation. I do have a problem when posters (such as the OP) attempt to portray their speculation as indisputable fact.

Originally posted by Night Watchman


The US, China, Russia and many other nations have operatives in key countries. Is this surprising to you? Your problem is that you are attempting to take this elementary level information and attempting to connect the dots from there to a place where the US is behind the demonstrations happening in Iran.

I'd appreciate your comment on this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think I've shown a direct link from Mousavi back to the US fairly clearly.

Originally posted by vox2442


I think I've shown a direct link from Mousavi back to the US fairly clearly.

Here is the problem. I have stated that I have no doubt that the US is engaged covertly in Iran, just as NK, China, Russia and others are. This is not a surprise.

That the US dealt with the Iranian govt at a time in which Mousavi was Prime Minister proves nothing with regard the claim that the US is behind the demonstrations in Iran now.

Please understand, I am not dismissing that possibility completely but rather I am taking exception with those who claim to know for certain that what is happening in Iran is nothing more than a US operation.

My point has been that there was enough evidence that the Iranian population, or at least a significant demographic has been growing increasingly unhappy living under the rule of a Islamic Fundamentalist Government. It is entirely possible that this election was the tipping point for them.