It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran finds US-backed MKO fingermarks in riots

page: 12
28
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by pexx421
 



First of all, the U.S. did not go alone to neihter Iraq, or Afgahnistan...

All countries who went to Afgahnistan, still belive in fighting the war there, and there are also many fighting in Iraq. The two were wars made by the allies.

Second of all, even though the past administration did pass some draconian laws, none of them comapre to the draconian Socialist laws being implemented by the current U.S. administration, and if you don't think that other countries are torturing by cohercing terrorists, you are mistaken.

Also, the U.S. is not the only country being turned into a Socialist dictatorship. The same is happening in Canada, with even more restrictive laws being passed. The same is happening in Australia, Britain, ec, etc...

The U.S. is not the only country being turned into a Socialist dictatorship.

The endgame is a one World Socialist regime, and for that to happen most countries will have to be Socialist in one way or another.

Socialism/Communism is the only form of government/economy that allows for a one World dictatorial system, and a one world economy.



[edit on 24-6-2009 by ElectricUniverse]




en.wikipedia.org...
Only four countries announced they would support a resolution backing the war.



Opposition to the Iraq War




en.wikipedia.org...
Opinion polls showed that the population of nearly all countries opposed a war without UN mandate, and that the view of the United States as a danger to world peace had significantly increased.[54] [55] [56] UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described the war as illegal, saying in a September 2004 interview that it was "not in conformity with the Security Council."[57] Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said that the invasion "disrespects the United Nations" and failed to take world opinion into account.


World leaders: Iraq war unjustified




www.pww.org...
The decision by George W. Bush to launch a preemptive military strike against Iraq brought angry protests from apprehensive governments around the world.

As would be expected, the sternest rebukes came from members of the United Nations Security Council who forced the United States, Great Britain and Spain to withdraw a resolution that would have placed the UN stamp of approval on war with Iraq. The resolution was withdrawn when it became obvious that, despite threats of recrimination and offers of reward, none of the "Middle Countries" – Mexico, Chile, Guinea, Cameroon, Angola and Pakistan – would support it, leaving the council divided 11-4 against the resolution.

In what might be referred to as an emerging "anti-war axis," countries around the world have criticized the U.S. for arrogant exploitation of its status as "the world's only superpower."

France, Germany and Russia – countries that fought the hardest to extend weapons inspections – accused the U.S. of launching a war that is unnecessary and illegitimate.



The population of nearly every country, including the US, The United Nations, the US Catholic Bishops, civil rights leaders, the Vatican, and the World Council of Churches all opposed the US decision to go to war with Iraq.

Please refrain from using this to support your argument!




posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
This is what happened in Iraq

British spies in Iraq to incite revolt




British and American agents are on the ground in Iraq fomenting revolt among opposition groups and potential traitors in Saddam Hussein's inner circle as part of a covert campaign to topple him, senior officials disclosed last night.

The admission, on the eve of a conference of Iraqi opposition figures in London, is powerful evidence of a renewed determination in Washington and London to overthrow the Iraqi dictator.
Although the officials conceded that the CIA and MI6 operations were unlikely to succeed without direct military action, a senior source in the Bush administration said that the world should not be misled by the lack of overt military activity.

"American personnel are supporting the Iraqi opposition and working with dissatisfied elements within Saddam's regime, even though he has killed quite a few of these people. Britain is involved too," the official told The Telegraph.

"We could wake up one morning and find regime change in Baghdad has happened completely unexpectedly. It would be hard to do but it's not impossible."

www.telegraph.co.uk...

or this?

So what were two undercover British soldiers up to in Basra?



An Iraqi judge yesterday issued arrest warrants for two British soldiers, presumed to be SAS men, whose detention by Iraqi police and subsequent rescue by British forces in Basra last week has thrown an unprecedented spotlight on Britain's role in Iraq.

www.independent.co.uk...



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zerbst

Opposition to the Iraq War




en.wikipedia.org...
Opinion polls showed that the population of nearly all countries opposed a war without UN mandate, and that the view of the United States as a danger to world peace had significantly increased. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described the war as illegal, saying in a September 2004 interview that it was "not in conformity with the Security Council."[57] Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said that the invasion "disrespects the United Nations" and failed to take world opinion into account.


World leaders: Iraq war unjustified





Kofi Annnan. Is that the international criminal who with his son was making hundreds of millions with side deals with Saddam Hussein off the UN sanctioned oil for food program?

Isn't that the UN the organization filled with countries run by corrupt despots, dissolute monarchies, murderous military regimes, fascist drug warlords, etc. Goes without saying they'd wet their pants knowing someone might come in some day and stop them from robbing blind the people in their own countries.


Mike



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Zerbst

Opposition to the Iraq War




en.wikipedia.org...
Opinion polls showed that the population of nearly all countries opposed a war without UN mandate, and that the view of the United States as a danger to world peace had significantly increased. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described the war as illegal, saying in a September 2004 interview that it was "not in conformity with the Security Council."[57] Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said that the invasion "disrespects the United Nations" and failed to take world opinion into account.


World leaders: Iraq war unjustified



What's your point? What difference does that make? I have listed multiple sources, not to mention that the info is no secret.



Kofi Annnan. Is that the international criminal who with his son was making hundreds of millions with side deals with Saddam Hussein off the UN sanctioned oil for food program?

Isn't that the UN the organization filled with countries run by corrupt despots, dissolute monarchies, murderous military regimes, fascist drug warlords, etc. Goes without saying they'd wet their pants knowing someone might come in some day and stop them from robbing blind the people in their own countries.


Mike


[edit on 6/24/2009 by Zerbst]

[edit on 6/24/2009 by Zerbst]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MegaCurious
 


How does MKOtra have anything to do with it? I thought they ruled by proxy with something or other and HAARP. If they did have something to do with it then there will be hell to pay (more tin-foil hats made).

[edit on 24-6-2009 by pluckynoonez]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zerbst
What's your point? What difference does that make? I have listed multiple sources, not to mention that the info is no secret.


The point is, whatever you want to claim, there are 20 websites that back up your opinion.

Synthesis of credibly sourced information is research. Investigooging is not.

You avoided the fact that you appeal to the UN as some kind of august body, where in fact were run by a crook who was skimming Iraqi oil money. And the 100 or so corrupt regimes that make up it's membership were terrified they might be next.

Mike



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zerbst


en.wikipedia.org...
Only four countries announced they would support a resolution backing the war.





United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (October 2007)


Wiki: 2003 invasion of Iraq

The 2003 invasion of Iraq, from March 20 to May 1, 2003, was spearheaded by the United States, backed by British forces and smaller contingents from Australia, Spain, Poland and Denmark. Four countries participated with troops during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from March 20 to May 1. These were the United States (248,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (194). 36 other countries were involved in its aftermath. The invasion marked the beginning of the current Iraq War. In preparation for the invasion, 100,000 U.S. troops were assembled in Kuwait by February 18. [15] The United States supplied the vast majority of the invading forces, but also received support from Kurdish troops in northern Iraq.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Zerbst
What's your point? What difference does that make? I have listed multiple sources, not to mention that the info is no secret.


The point is, whatever you want to claim, there are 20 websites that back up your opinion.

Synthesis of credibly sourced information is research. Investigooging is not.

You avoided the fact that you appeal to the UN as some kind of august body, where in fact were run by a crook who was skimming Iraqi oil money. And the 100 or so corrupt regimes that make up it's membership were terrified they might be next.

Mike





Are you telling me that, despite that many countries agreed to creating it, the UN is no longer relevant? Despite that most countries only agreed to support this war if it had UN support? Is the opinion you have stated shared around the world, or is it yours alone?

I am in no way a supporter of the UN. Regardless of my personal views, I do not have the authority to denounce it. Do you? Despite what you and I may think of the UN, the world has decided to respect it's authority. Until that is changed it is what it is. You can't sit here and say that, because you don't recognize the UN's authority, the countries around the world that do are not relevant. Can you approve the legality of torture if you disagree with the Geneva Conventions?

Besides all that, what I have said is not in controversy. Nobody, including the US, is denying that war with Iraq was not heavily supported. Even the US admits it was a mistake, yet you're still defending it? You also mention corrupt regimes? Is the American government not corrupt? Are any governments?

Americans boasting as if the rules don't apply to their country are embarrassing. It's shameful to see people claiming moral superiority due to military superiority. You want to determine the truth by debating which is the better source? Truth is not something you can discredit.

There is only righteousness no matter who or where it comes from. Same goes for unrighteousness. Recognition of this is what provides true leadership. It's also what separates the men from the rest. I am righteous first and American second. If that's not popular, so be it?



www.un.org...
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Zerbst


en.wikipedia.org...
Only four countries announced they would support a resolution backing the war.





United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (October 2007)


Wiki: 2003 invasion of Iraq

The 2003 invasion of Iraq, from March 20 to May 1, 2003, was spearheaded by the United States, backed by British forces and smaller contingents from Australia, Spain, Poland and Denmark. Four countries participated with troops during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from March 20 to May 1. These were the United States (248,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (194). 36 other countries were involved in its aftermath. The invasion marked the beginning of the current Iraq War. In preparation for the invasion, 100,000 U.S. troops were assembled in Kuwait by February 18. [15] The United States supplied the vast majority of the invading forces, but also received support from Kurdish troops in northern Iraq.



Hey, are you rotc?



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Jeez....I dont think i have shaken my head in disagreement with so many comments, in one thread, for a looong time!!

Whilst everyone is welcome to an opinion, too many "opinions" are being passed off as fact....
Heres just one example...factually based of course!!

MADE IN THE USA

(from the LA Weekly...2003)


In his speech before the United Nations, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that “To support its deadly biological and chemical weapons program, Iraq procures needed items from around the world, using an extensive clandestine network.” But Powell has been notably silent on issues of U.S. culpability, corporate profiteering or violations of international chemical, nuclear and biological treaties. Powell, for instance, neglected to mention that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta sent Iraq three shipments of West Nile virus for medical research in 1985.

Powell also failed to acknowledge that Iraq obtained some of its initial anthrax bacilli from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), a Maryland/Virginia–based nonprofit bio-resource center that supplies viruses and germs to governments, companies and academic institutions worldwide. Between 1985 and 1989, ATCC sent Iraq deadly shipments that included a variety of anthrax bacteria and germs that cause meningitis, influenza, botulism, lung failure and tetanus, according to media reports and U.N. records. ATCC did not respond to a request for an interview.

Thiodiglycol, a substance needed to manufacture deadly mustard gas, made its way to Iraq via Alcolac International, Inc., a Maryland company, since dissolved and reformed as Alcolac Inc., and Phillips, once a subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum and now part of ConocoPhillips, an American oil and energy company.


Now, that kind of behaviour by the US tells me they are not as innocent as some on here would have us believe....

Or another...??
This one perhaps more poignant...


THE CIA IN IRAN

(from NY Times)


The Central Intelligence Agency's secret history of its covert operation to overthrow Iran's government in 1953 offers an inside look at how the agency stumbled into success, despite a series of mishaps that derailed its original plans.

Written in 1954 by one of the coup's chief planners, the history details how United States and British officials plotted the military coup that returned the shah of Iran to power and toppled Iran's elected prime minister, an ardent nationalist.

The document shows that:

...Britain, fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister.

...The C.I.A. and S.I.S., the British intelligence service, handpicked Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and covertly funneled $5 million to General Zahedi's regime two days after the coup prevailed.

...Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government.

...The shah's cowardice nearly killed the C.I.A. operation. Fearful of risking his throne, the Shah repeatedly refused to sign C.I.A.-written royal decrees to change the government. The agency arranged for the shah's twin sister, Princess Ashraf Pahlevi, and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the father of the Desert Storm commander, to act as intermediaries to try to keep him from wilting under pressure. He still fled the country just before the coup succeeded.


Hmm...interesting parallels eh??

And lastly...

The Iranian People Speak

(Washington Post 15 June 2009)

Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.
While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.

Independent and uncensored nationwide surveys of Iran are rare. Typically, preelection polls there are either conducted or monitored by the government and are notoriously untrustworthy. By contrast, the poll undertaken by our nonprofit organizations from May 11 to May 20 was the third in a series over the past two years. Conducted by telephone from a neighboring country, field work was carried out in Farsi by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award. Our polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our preelection survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi.

Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.

The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.

Yeah...i know...the Washington Post!!
Clearly they had not yet received their script...hence this abberation in a sea of articles claiming election fraud..without even a shred of evidence...none.

Yet the West, with Europe and Amerika leading the charge, says it is rigged and is now demanding regime change...

Iraq had imaginary WMD, and we all know how that panned out...

Can you see were I am going here...??



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by MegaCurious
 


What silliness.

The obvious flaw is that you are trusting the words of a government which executes people for being gay and doesn't allow non-supporters to run for office. Why should I trust them? Just today they said they would take extreme measures.

The facts remain as this. If the US is influencing things, it's signing it's own death warrant to influence in the region. Also, the CIA does not contact civilians directly. That's totally a flaw right there. It's called a proxy. For goodness sakes, Iran can't Photoshop and apparently they can't lie either.

Here's the the thing. A revolution means that the anti-Americans flee the country. But where to? China and Russia. Now why on Earth would America want to draw 2 more superpowers into this? What, for a world war? Why? Does America want a cripple fight? The fact remains that China Russia and the US are at one of the lowest points in legitimacy to others and their own people. They cannot afford to lose anymore. No one would win. All three would collapse.

America wants leadership change, not regime change. You ignorants.

Another grand truth is that an Iran allied to the US = profit. No war is wanted. And the US, as do I, already do know that the Iranians want to bring down the theocracy.

What's this you say? you don't understand why?

Please, allow the countrymen to say it for me:

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Translation to your right.

I can go on.


If you can't understand why, do not assume. To assume is to be ignorant. The reason why they want to bring down the theocracy is because they revolted to get rid of the Shaw, not replace him with a religious equivalent.


The ignorance of foreigners amongst the US is amazing sometimes. You'd rather assume it's the CIA then, God forbid, go look up some basic history and know the facts.

The CIA has no interest in limiting US influence in the region. And doing anything would do just that.

To quote Reza Aslan from last night, sometimes the US just needs to shut up and let people do things themselves.

Either know and connect the dots, or don't know and don't assume.

[edit on 26-6-2009 by Gorman91]

[edit on 26-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zerbst

Are you telling me that, despite that many countries agreed to creating it, the UN is no longer relevant? Despite that most countries only agreed to support this war if it had UN support? Is the opinion you have stated shared around the world, or is it yours alone?

I am in no way a supporter of the UN. Regardless of my personal views, I do not have the authority to denounce it. Do you? Despite what you and I may think of the UN, the world has decided to respect it's authority. Until that is changed it is what it is. You can't sit here and say that, because you don't recognize the UN's authority, the countries around the world that do are not relevant. Can you approve the legality of torture if you disagree with the Geneva Conventions?




Your points are well taken.

I have an opinion, but it is shared by many other people worldwide.
Isolating certain aspects of international agreements does not address the larger picture. I may agree with certain laws in a country, but not accept their legal system as a whole.

The UNITED NATIONS was formed 60 odd years ago after WWII and as a replacement for the League of Nations. The world has changed considerably since then, and so has the UN. As an worldwide organization it has become so hopelessly corrupt, a tool for special interests and big business, a defense resource for despotic regimes, a facilitator for international crime, and many other injustices.

I think most intelligent and knowedgeable people will agree the UN needs immediate and radical changes if it is to claim any relevancy.

One of many articles on the terrible state of the UN is linked below

Mike



www.canadafreepress.com...

How Corrupt Is the United Nations?

... the amount of money lost to waste by the UN, or skimmed through graft, or dumped wholesale into agencies, commissions, and alliances that serve mainly themselves, or devoted in the UN's name to select private crusades, arguably counts less than the kind of agenda all this money supports.

The founding purpose of the UN was to bring peace and prosperity to the globe. As to the former, the UN in the age of terror has been in most ways useless and in some ways positively dangerous. The lesson that Saddam Hussein quickly grasped was that the UN lends itself to money-laundering. With its big flows of funds across borders, its many contractors and public-private partnerships, its gigantic bureaucracy and lax controls, its diplomatic immunity, and its culture of impunity, the UN operation is a prime candidate not only for graft but, as Charles Duelfer discovered, for arms deals masked as medicine and soap. Further protecting those arms deals, and the rogues and tyrants making them, is the fact that in its capacity as a deliberative body, the UN has repeatedly urged appeasement in the face of real threats to world peace and just as repeatedly tried to constrain those (like the U.S. and its allies) willing to act to remove them.

[...]

On matters involving Israel and the Palestinians–unlike nuclear proliferation, this may be the UN's one genuine obsession–hypocrisy has been outdone only by mischief-making and blatant anti-Semitism. UN programs set up to help the Palestinians over the past half-century have not only failed to produce decent lives but have helped create a culture of entitlement and violence–fueled in large part by the UN's own anti-Israel agenda. The UN condemnation of Zionism as racism in 1975, finally repealed in 1991, was followed by the grotesque transformation of the UN's 2001 Durban conference on racism into an anti-Semitic festival. The UN Security Council invites totalitarian Syria to take the chair, but democratic Israel has never been so much as allowed to hold a seat.

Then there is peacekeeping, which since the end of the cold war has been a boom area for the UN. Here again the expansion of UN missions has brought everything from widespread allegations of corruption to drug-dealing to rape and the sexual exploitation of hungry children–"Sex-for-Food," as the columnist Mark Steyn has aptly put it. In large parts of the undeveloped world, the appearance of blue-helmeted forces has come to signal a warning: stay away, and keep your children away.

But neither have those blue-helmeted forces been visible when and where they might actually be needed. Provided with manpower plus a budget that ought to qualify the UN itself as a formidable military power, the organization stood passively aside during the massacres in Rwanda and Srebrenica and has yet to act in the case of Sudan. Indeed, it has yet to muster even the integrity to kick Sudan off its Geneva-based human-rights commission, which has doubled as a clubhouse for the world's worst regimes. (Current members include China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe.)

As for disaster relief, the record is similarly deplorable. When the tsunami hit Asia in December 2004, the U.S. and countries like Australia rushed to help the victims. The UN rushed to help itself. Demanding exclusive rights to direct the aid effort (and the money), UN officials warned loudly of a health crisis that never materialized, denounced the U.S. as "stingy," and promised transparent use of funds. A year later, the Financial Times reported that, from what little could be gleaned of the UN's largely incomplete or secret accounts, the organization's expenditures on overhead (i.e., travel, hotel rooms, lavishly funded international talk-fests, and the like) were triple those of private charities.

[...]

The United Nations was founded as a forum of governments. As we had ample occasion to learn over the decades, this arrangement presented quite enough problems of its own. Now the UN, in contravention of its own charter, is rapidly evolving into something larger, more corporate, and more menacing: a predatory, undemocratic, unaccountable, and self-serving vehicle for global government. Like the Soviet Union of old, the UN is unwieldy, gross, inefficient, and incompetent; it is also so configured as to reach deep into the national politics of its member states and, by sheer weight and persistence, to force at least some of the worst of its agenda upon all of us.

There will never be enough John Boltons to counter all of this–not that it was easy to come up with even one. Indeed, with notable exceptions, generations of American officials and policy-makers have been content, sometimes for reasons of state, sometimes for reasons of convenience, to look away from the UN's multiform deficiencies and derelictions while occasionally indulging in minor punitive measures like withholding a proportion of our annual dues–akin to docking a delinquent's bus money while continuing to pay for his liquor and his car. For many others in public life, and for many ordinary citizens as well, the institution itself, as the very embodiment of the multilateralist ideal, is still held in nearly sacred regard.



[edit on 26-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
The Islamic dictatorship in Iran is a joke. The US doesn't have to create anything in Iran.

www.npr.org...



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinman67
The Islamic dictatorship in Iran is a joke. The US doesn't have to create anything in Iran.



www.npr.org...

"According to Mohsen Sazegara ... Former Revolutionary Guard Member:

Right after the election, 11 o'clock at night, was a military coup because they went to (presidential candidate Mir Hossein) Mousavi's headquarters -- five persons from the Revolutionary Guard -- and told him that, 'Yes, the leader says that this is true, you have won the election, you are the elected president, but you can't be the president. (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad should remain in the position.'

"And then they started to invent those fake numbers in Ministry of Interior. And right after that they started to arrest the people, to disconnect the country, to dismiss the reporters, and that is the reason that we call it a military coup."


Interesting but not first han knowledge. He has lived in the US for the past 6 years.

And what about those supposedly leaked numbers showing Mousavi came in first, Ahmadinejad third?

I believe these things are part of a disinformation campaign.


Mike

[edit on 26-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
hey Mike
When i read your article on the UN and its corruption i couldnt help thinking how your example very succinctly described the US...you know,the Irael-Palestine "thing"...the peacekeeping, Americas deplorable record in Disaster relief etc....??

Does that mean the States also needs a total overhaul before it too can be taken seriously by the rest of the world??

Do you believe most intelligent and knowedgeable people will agree the US needs immediate and radical changes if it is to claim any relevancy??

I do......



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MegaCurious


I figured that something was fishy about the "demonstrations".

This Moussavi dude doesn't take losing elections very lightly either.

Why these folks would want to over throw their "Ayatollah" is totally beyond me. No news source has given a valid reason for that. But after Obama chimed in with his "will of the people" nonsense, then something just clearly didn't feel right.. because America never follows the "will of the people"


www.presstv.ir
(visit the link for the full news article)


You need to be actually told why they want to overthrow Khamenei.... are you serious??

They despise him.... the women especially. You have to look at it from the point of view of Iranian's to get the whole picture.

Before this election Iranian's dared not speak out about Khamenei as it was punishable by death.

A gradual build up of oppression by the secret police has stored built up anger in mostly the young. The rigging of the election was a spark that lit this anger and turned it into demonstrations that began with shouts of "where's my vote gone", with peaceful protests, and the occasional "down with the dictator".

And this led to protestors being beaten by the police and militia, getting worse and worse as each day progressed. And more recently snipers and guns have been used to pick off the most courageous of demonstrators, and even axes were used against the people.

Therefore this led to protestors requiring to use violence to defend themselves from this vicious onslaught which have led to massacres of innocent people.

So you can see now why the Iranian people are shouting "death to the regime, and death to Khamenei".

We have had many many videos, photos to confirm this, and even phone-ins on CNN. The evidence is overwhelming.

If you only look from the point of view of govt. conspiracies then it's not surprising you end up with that conclusion, and of course if you don't have a clue about Iranian politics or Iranian life then it would be totally beyond you to come up with an accurate conclusion.

I've also found that presstv is used by the regime to spread it's propaganda. So I wouldn't take what you read there too seriously. And before you ask, it's much worse propaganda than in the west, you can get whole articles on presstv that are completely false. Not one other news source agrees, doesn't that tell you something?

This regime blames different countries for starting these protests everyday. They even suggested that the BBC are responsible for Neda's death, and later changed that to protestors. They change their story so many times, if anyone believes them they are laughing.

I feel Obama has his message absolutely correct about this issue. Iran's problem is from within, and that's where it must be solved. By not direcly condemning the regime at first it didn't give the regime chance to falsely convince many in the world that the west are responsible.

And also shown the regime, especially Ahmadinejad to be totally inept asking Obama for an apology, where Obama quite literally told him where to shove it. Obama can now treat Iran similar to how Bush would have, but in the process of this learning curve the world has learnt that the regime is unreasonable and has very little chance of accepting any form of negotiations at all. Maybe Obama didn't mean this, maybe he's just a genius, as the whole world now the regime for what they really are - brutal and vicious, and what they really stand for! Which is not freedom, it's oppression and murder of anyone who stands in their way.

[edit on 26-6-2009 by john124]

[edit on 26-6-2009 by john124]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Yeah I'm sure all confessions under torture reveal good information.

So I don't believe it's all a US or UK sponsored event. However even if it were, isn't it better to obtain regime change or disrupt an enemy via civil unrest rather than the mass killing that would ensue with the use of military force?

I know that the folks the student's support will still hate America and support Islamic terrorism, but perhaps it will disrupt the nuke program some.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
now, my view on this is and will probably be for a while, its to far away to know what is happening, we need somebody to go to the streets and get interviews, the offices to get statements, and documents to get proof to clear all of this up. do i believe the US is in on this? of course.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
The confessions are obtained by torture. I highly doubt the accuracy of any of these.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
hey Mike
When i read your article on the UN and its corruption i couldnt help thinking how your example very succinctly described the US...you know,the Irael-Palestine "thing"...the peacekeeping, Americas deplorable record in Disaster relief etc....??

Does that mean the States also needs a total overhaul before it too can be taken seriously by the rest of the world??

Do you believe most intelligent and knowedgeable people will agree the US needs immediate and radical changes if it is to claim any relevancy??



The exchange was about the reliability of the UN.

If I commit a crime and show someone else did too, does that relieve me of my guilt? It does by your argument.

I can name 100 countries that need radical overhauls. The US is one. But they are not the UNITED NATIONS, a collective of nations worldwide which claims to act without self-interest on the behalf of 7 billion people.

No country or organization makes that claim. Except the UN.

Which I, and very many other people, think is rotten to the core.

No shortage of evidence of this claim.


Mike


[edit on 26-6-2009 by mmiichael]



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join