"Iran really is trying to develop a nuclear weapons programme"

Is it possible that Iran is going for the Japanese solution of having the ability to make nuclear weapons but not actually doing so? Rafsanjani (IIRC) made some comment about Iran only needing the ability to make nukes, not actual nukes.

Another article, from Prof Gary Sick:
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=261

I'm afraid that Israel may decide to take advantage of the growing instability in Iran, and will attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

The US congress legislated for $400 million to be set aside for 'covert actions inside Iran'. This is a fact.

The first shots I saw of the protesters on TV showed them all wearing green....i.e. another CIA-backed 'colour revolution' like the orange' revolution in Ukraine, one in Burma (forget the colour) and a few more besides.

This does not mean that there is no real and justified resistance inside Iran, only that we should not doubt that 'our' side are not only supporting dissent but also lying about it.

(See: "How the spooks took over the News")

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22824.htm

.....and there can be no doubt, they're still at it (evil does not sleep).

We should take heed of the saying (Luke 6:42, King James Bible):

"How canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

Democracy in the UK is an utter fraud. Why don't we sort that one out before lecturing a people we have persecuted for the best part of a century on their failings.

If they are led by lunatic and vicious religious zealots then that is yet another catastrophe for which we are at least partly responsible.

Make the UK a true democracy and everybody will be simply desperate to copy us.

Totally agree anon 5.01. USUKIS's hypocrisy is massive. We are incinerating human beings in a flash of energy by remotely controlled drones with the aid of RFID chips. How cruel and pre-meditated is that?

Довольно интересно конечно. Я немогу подписаться под каждым вашим словом, но в общем соглашусь.

Did you see Fisk's article in The Independent? His long-time, trusted Iranian source stated: "... in the cities and in thousands of towns outside [Tehran], they voted overwhelmingly for Ahmadinejad." He gives two examples of groups that benefited from Ahmadinejad's actions: (1) three million poor women carpet-makers that now have full insurance; and (2) university courses for Azeri people (24% of the population) to obtain degrees in their own language.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-iran-erupts-as-voters-back-the-democrator-1704810.html

Quote from an UK ex-diplomat posted in Teheran in the 1970s whom I met a decade later, at the height of the Iraq-Iran War and also at the height of the negative propaganda about Iran:

"I'm not surprised they hate us. We had spies right through that society."

The CIA and SIS ran Iran from 1953 to 1979. They're still trying to run it, and to ruin it.

I agree with A and B and with the previous commentaries, too - though I wish I could read Cyrillic script.

Thanks Craig, excellent summary.

You would have to go some way into the depths of the extreme left before you encountered many people who accept your Set B. The vast majority of both the centre-left and the anti-imperialist left that I'm aware of would agree with those points. Lets not get into this Nick Cohn world of smearing the left as reflexive apologists for any anti-American tyrants. Those types of lefties are little more than a gobshite minority.

Set A, by contrast, is ignored not just by the right but by pretty much the entire mainstream.

But back to Set B - one possible exception is the point on nuclear weapons. Its worth noting that Juan Cole, who I also greatly admire, doesn't take it as read that Iran has such a program. Washington's own National Security Estimate says Iran ended its work on nukes several years ago. And the IAEA doesn't appear to have any evidence of enrichment being transferred to weaponisation programs.

I say this merely to stress that this is a grey area - I wouldn't want to say with certainty whether Iran was or wasn't developing nukes. In a sense its a moot point since (a) Iran may simply want to master enrichment to the point where it can get up a weapons capability in short order, and (b) if Iran is developing nukes we can quite easily understand why, as you rightly point out, and know what to do to remove that motivation.

In dictatorships, a country's leaders ignore the will of the people. But Iran at least claims to follow it. Holding a fraudulent election should therefore contain the seeds of the present regime's eventual downfall.

'Preferred' candidate Mousavi:

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=54948

One more proof of HYPOCRACY of American Democracy: In Iran 64% people voted for Ahmadinajad, in Uzbekistan Karimov rigged the votes 100% and violated the Constitution by running for how many times God only knows. Yet, not only they (in the West) haven't made criticism to the address of Mr Islam Karimov but they are in fact licking the arse of Uzbek dictator Mr Karimov by sending high level offcicals to Tashkent. Why? Because they need the airbase in this country to finish up with the taliban in neighbouring Afhganistan. When the americans criticised the Uzbeki regime in 2005 for killing the innocent people, they did not know that they would be kicked out of the base. Moreover, they did not expect that the taliban would emerge the stronger and more resilient. Now, they are back at the backyards of Mr Karimov. Unfortunately, they lack understanding of one important moment: the war in Afganistan is a leverage for Karimov to keep the West and americans in need for him. He he doesn't want the war to end, at the same as he doesn't want the taliban to win it. So, he is a clever old fox to use americans for strenghthening his power. 10 years ago I believed in democracy. Now, I undesrtand it as a tool in the hands of military powers to conquer the poor countries, at times by using puppets in the power, even if they are people killers.

I can honestly say I've never met a dumb Iranian, other than those of a western bent.

And of those who prefer to focus on Set A, I've not seen anyone dimsiss Set B. Set A (i.e. our meddling) is within our sphere of influence. Set B isn't.

Go figure which one deserves our focus.

However, I must say Craig, claims of a weapons program... It would be interresting to see what unbiased sources provide enough evidence to support that theory.

@ David Wearing
Some know what to do but NOONE will do it. There all bought and paid for and have been for some time.

Craig,

In a sense I think that you are on the money, but I beg to differ on the flip side of the Iranian coin.

Your sets A and B are fine by me. However, implicit in all you are saying is the suggestion that political constructs this side of the world, once satisfactorily exported/imported, offer the Iranians a viable prospect for some sort of viable change. There I part ways with you.

Do you believe that this “green revolution”, or intended one – is anything more or less than the West wanting to be able to dominate again – when we strip everything down to raw global power politics. Mossadegh in 1953 was a democrat, pro-western, building or trying to build Western institutions and modernise his country. It was indeed an unholy Anglo-American alliance that punished him for setting about nationalising Iranian oil, despite the World Court ruling that he could legitimately do this. Then we have the horrors of the US backed 8 years war with Saddam as paid puppet. With realities like these, shouldn’t the Iranians be free of Western political interference?With all that you say:-

“Hanging of gays, stoning of adulterers, floggings, censorship and pervasive control are not fine because of cultural relativism. Iran's whole legislative basis is inimical to universal ideals of human rights.”

And I believe these things to be as true for Iran as they are for the US backed Saudi Arabia – I still do not see any hope for the Iranians embracing what either Britain or the US have on offer for Iran’s political future. If invaded neighbouring Iraq is supposed to be some sort of model – the Iranians are better off with what they have – blemishes and all. The façade of “Western civilization” being on offer is belied by the horrors that Britain and America wreaked on Iran from the 1953 CIA, support of the Shah through to the US sponsorship of Saddam’s war against Iran – and they cannot be asked to believe that oil is not in the greedy eyes of both imperial powers now as was the situation with the CIA 1953 coup.

“ Democracy” in action in a country such as Iran, if one were to define this in Western terms – becomes a fallacy, for that any elected group that like Mohammad Mossadegh representing a true nationalist block, would still be condemned by the US particularly, if such political grouping did not find itself pliable, manipulable, useful like the most un-democratic ally the US has in the Middle East ( outside of Israel) - Saudi Arabia.

Iranian nationalism and freedom from US domination seems to me the real dynamic at play, while the myth of Western inspired “democracy” having been successfully killed in Iran in 1953, is unlikely to gain any credible traction at this point in history. The US and Britain are not and never have been genuine sponsors of any form of democracy which embraces the genuine interests of a people.

Another ironic point is that it was the US that had convinced the Shah to go nuclear pre-1979. It seemed initially not to make sense to the old boy. However, having an explanation of a longer life for sales of Iranian oil supplies, did lead to US scientific training and contracts in support of the then acceptable nuclear programme under the Shah. When one considers the lack of concerted US effort against the House of Saud, because the play of the oil and politics works favouralby for the US – pardon me for having virtually no confidence in any professed British or American expressed concerns about the welfare of “Iranian democracy” or the true interests of the Iranian people coming from either of these would be masters. What other conclusion can one come to when the political history of Anglo-American relations with Iran over the past half century is honestly considered? The coin flipped to a nationalist programme post-1979 and then US now once more wants to get the coin back on the “right side” of intended controls – and like the Shah – back in the pocket of domination and control. That is how I see the money as it is in circulation in Iran at present – for the West it sees a bad coin, for the Iranians they are better off with their own currency of choice than placing any reliance on the bad coins on offer from others. Now – you can place the label “ dirty and vicious hypocrites” on whichever side of the coin you believe it needs to be placed. For what my views are worth – I have shared same!

who is the west -meaining anglosaxon scvumbags-to ask as to which country is democtratic or not? is briitan democratic?
does democracy mean piracy and loot of others?
the briitsh media BBC was urging gore to not cvhallenge florida elelction result 2 days after the eelction. the americansd have conssitently stolen their elelction.
anglosaxon regularly install unelelctabl;e person in other countries.
even amalliki in iraq was sintalled because bastard balir went to iraq to not support the first elelcted prime minster who were chosen by the MPs there.
the tactics of anglosaxon scumbags is to install some stooge through fraud or propaganda -then if theat is not possible then hitre a crwod and use that rented crownd to destablise the country.
when the anglosaxon bastards thought theat opposotion could win iran elelction then they showed eellction process 0but as soon as the iranins rejected the western stooges -the media started doing propaganda to disctredit the legiti macy of the elction.
thwe iranian president has won with much larger margin then the bastard nbalir-who must eb given death d=senentence-couldever hope for.

"What was left for america to do was install maleable stooges inside the thrirld world countries. escpeally those types who are unelctable and have no mass base of their own-- in other words who are not elelctable democratically but installed from above through media and other manipulations.
this manmohan singh in india fulffiled that criteria of being unliked and unelctable insignificant person who was willing to act on arder of his american masters -if they had asked him to turn communist he would have done that.it isa sad refletion on india that since 1986 we have has only weaklings as our prime minsiters and fincnace minsiters not to speak of non mentionable defence misnters who made sure that indians nuclear and missle programme got stuck at 1986."

this manmohan sihngh has not been eelcted by indian people-but as he is a certified west asttoge you donot hear about that.

Dear Craig,
excuse me that I am posting this as comments, I don't have your email address.
Glad to see that you have courage to go for election again.
Just wanted to inform you of this:
http://www.gazeta.uz/2009/06/08/market/
They are going mad. And still, I don't see anyone except you who can talk about it in the West. In case this is irrelevant, apologize me.
Would be nice to have your email. Just to inform you of some news.
Best regards!

@ Courtenay Barnett.

Excellent comments.

At home, Democracy is a poisoned pill(a supposed pill). However 'democracy for foreigners' is set to an entirely different standard. The democracy that is tolerable is the one that the west can get it's teeth into.

John Perkins (of Confessions of an Economic Hitman) reveals this perfectly will with regard to Latin America and Indonesia. Pilger too, including South America. Steven Kinser (Overthrow) extending it to the Philippines and Hawaii and to Iran in All the Shah's men.

Chomsky wrote recently:

"The term 'moderate' has nothing to do with the character of the state, but rather signals its willingness to conform to U.S. demands...."

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22777.htm

In this context, "democracy" is clearly 'moderates' equivalent.

The only support for a weapons programm I have heard of is a twisted double bluff, the handing over of US nuclear bomb blue prints to the Iranians via a russian double agent in Vienna.
I read the story in the Spiegel, but there are other sources that agree with the guist of the story.

This could come straight out of the creators of the war on terror
handbook article1)
If you want to fight off the nuclear ambitions and weapons programme of a state, then you must at first make sure that they have the knowledge, materials and the plans.

What the US did, or did not forsee, or failed to come to terms with is that these mistakes must have been found by Irans exquisite mathematicians.

So now we have provided them with the nuclear means to help themselves,as I'm sure that the Shah was somehwat in ahurry and could not take the nuclear research and advances with him, the basis for a nuclear programm was formed, then we thrown in the blue prints, just in case.
The ironie is that we believe to have a legitamit option to sanction Iran, for developing a nuclear programm. A country that has a nuclear Russia to the north, a rampaging Taliban with a struggling Pakistani army trying to make sure they can't lay their hands on Pakistans nukes to the east.
To the south we have two US fleets permanently stationed with a french contingent, both armed with nuclear weapons. Then there is Israel to the north west, a rogue state that does not listen to anybody and holds a secret nuclear arsenal with bouncers in charge of foreign affairs.
This plan might be considered fiendish but its not very clever.

We hear a lot about stalled peace plans in Israel, today Netanyahu tries desperately to create new demands for a Palestinian statehood, the usual patronising bit without first negotiating, but were are the results of apparent ongoing talks with Ahmadinedjads administration and the US, have we waited for the election results and possible change? Have we not got a plan B, because one thing I'm sure about is, we must keep in dialogue, change comes from engagement and talk, bilateral trade, cultural exchanges, the more the better.
To stoope to the lows of a manufactured western consent that directs our relations with Arabs, that overlooks the slavery in Saudi, that ignores how females or homosexuals are treated there, but want to make points about it against Iran, is not necessarry on here.

Thanks Courtney for showing us the amount of money that is invested in creating terror inside Iran, it needs saying and stopping.

Craig Your A and B are both good, but there is a danger that some people will say that B is due to, or even justified by, A, i.e. Iran's theocratic fascist regime is the result of our meddling and serve us right. Iran's population is overwhelmingly young and has no memory of the Shah. The election has clearly been rigged and the majority of the population want reform and a better relationship with the West. Morevoer, the tyranny of the present regime is far worse than anything petpetrated by the Shah - not least the highest execution rate per head of any country in the world.

No, eddie, that is not true. The shah's regime was a heinous one, SAVAK was brutal and efficient. Don't try to minimise that. Iran has independence and the USA and UK want to take that away. That's the key point. They may not have direct personal memory of the shah, but they bloody well know what happened and is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan - anywhere where the USA has had its way. Have you forgotten WWII? I haven't, even though I wasn't born then. Do not try to paint em as a supporter of theocracy. I do not agree with theocracy. And Craig's Point B covers that anyway. Yes, the Iranians want a good relationship with the West - but NOT at the cost of becoming a colony again.

Just to nit-pick, the Americans certainly don't want to take away Iran's independence. They don't want a continuation of any war. That's why they elected Obama. I doubt the UK would really go for it, either.

It makes me wonder who the politicians think they're convincing with this sabre rattling. Each other?

Technicolour - you say " Just to nit-pick, the Americans certainly don't want to take away Iran's independence. They don't want a continuation of any war. That's why they elected Obama."

The Americans did indeed elect Obama - but who controls American power? Is it exclusively the people who elect Obama or the military-industrial complex.

I read of a figure of some 700 military bases that the US has around the world. If corporations are being funded trillions of dollars to produce more arms and weaponrry to be deployed at these bases or in new wars - what powwer do the people have to stop a machine that controls Obama?

Sorry my estimate of 700 US bases around was off. I found this article by Professor Chalmers Johnson (http://www.alternet.org/story/47998). He puts it at 737 bases.

The figure and the US refusal to cut military spending gives some indication of where the US is heading - I belive. More wars....

They don't want a continuation of any war.

No they want to wrap up Pakistan quick like they did Iraq with what is politely described on this blog as false flag operations.

It is absolutely McChrystal clear how the US intends to operate in Pakistan. Every scholar who was blown up, or market place bomb, or police station revenge attack or Hotel 'blast' in Iraq was the work of USUKIS. Their generals have been floundering around in the Afghanistan project for eight years trying to win the thing militarily.

Lahore, being so close to Armritsar is an easy target for false flag operations especially when the late scholar Naeem may God have mercy on him recently made a fatwa against India that every single Muslim in Pakistan should defend their country against them in the event of hostility from them.

Every single voice of reason in Iraq from any side of the sectarian fire, which Tony Blair deliberately ignited there, who had called for people to recognise the perpetrators of the atrocities as the UKUSIS aggressors, was summarily executed. Thousands of scholars and other voices of calm were quashed in order to allow the flames of civil war to scar Iraq for generations. Same as Africa, same as the British Raj. Same same same same same.
Aliens is too good a word for Cheney and Brizinsky, Bush and Blair.

eddieTroll(TM)

"The election has clearly been rigged" - You have no proof.
"the majority of the population want reform" - Again you have no proof of that, but there appears to be a 2 to 1 ratio of the electorate want to retain Ahmadinejad.

"the majority of the population want... a better relationship with the West." - What "West"? I presume you mean predominantly the United States and the Britain? And any improvement in relations, comes about by the USUK changing it's policy to Iran, not Iran changing it's policy to the USUK. Why should Iran have to yield to USUK hegemony?

"the tyranny of the present regime is far worse than anything petpetrated by the Shah" - The Iranian govt faces discontent from some members of its population (some of which receive US support and funding: see anon 5.01, June 14th) But to call it fascist but you repeatedly scold people who call the USUK fascist administrations shows yet again your Kiplingesque mind.

I half suspect you work in the FCO.

Page 8 of AI's 2008 report (http://tinyurl.com/d6hywh - pdf)

The following countries carried out executions in 2008: China (at least 1,718), Iran (at least
346), Saudi Arabia (at least 102), USA (37), Pakistan (at least 36), Iraq (at least 34),
Viet Nam (at least 19), Afghanistan (at least 17), North Korea (at least 15), Japan (15),
Yemen (at least 13), Indonesia (10), Libya (at least 8), Bangladesh (5), Belarus (4), Egypt
(at least 2), Malaysia (at least 1), Mongolia (at least 1), Sudan (at least 1), Syria (at least 1),
United Arab Emirates (at least 1), Bahrain (1), Botswana (1), Singapore (at least 1) and
St Kitts and Nevis (1).

Population Iran: 70m (2006, wiki)
Polulation USA: 306m (2008, wiki)

death sentence per capita:
USA: 0.121
Iran: 4.94

IS eddieTroll(TM) right then? That's contestable because what eddieTroll(TM) doesn't give you, is the big picture: The number of deaths caused by the US (and UK) across the globe every year via foreign and economic policy.

That’s what eddieTrolll(TM)'s do. They cherry pick "bad" points about others while utterly whitewashing the crimes of the state which they support. So they will use stats like domestic death sentences to demonize.

As for the rest of us, we should really tread with caution as to how we criticise other countries legal framework. If the majority of people there subscribe to a religious basis for the punishment of homosexuals, then that is their democratic right to do so. By criticising it, we are not respecting their democracy. Criticism of 'fair trials' is legitimate however because their legal system is supposed to provide fair trials.

And when Ahmadinejad won for the first time, people didn't respect the Iranian peoples choice then, still ignoring the fact that he was democratically elected, calling the country a dictatorship. A similar story can be told of Hamas and Chavez.

And why oh why is IRAN always the subject of negative discussion? Why not look at how the Jews in Iran really love Iran. How the Iranian parliament RESERVES seats for the Jewish people there.

P.S. Surprizingly, Uzbekistan is said in Amnesty International 2008 report, to have abolished the death penalty. Craig... any comments?

And I still can't believe the mindset of many so-called 'analysts'.
Despite knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that secrecy and dirty tricks are centuries-old attributes of both the UK and USA there is the naivite of thinking you know whether you're punched or bored in opinions about a place where SAS and other black ops have been going on literally for deacdes.
Credibility. 1960 Cuban Missile Crisis - Sovs installing nuke missiles in Cuba in response to US installing same in Turkey.
Lately : Russia raising holy hell over proposed missile silos in what was Eastern Bloc - contrary to agreements made prior to withdrawing land forces from Eastern Europe.
Nobody much pays attention to Russian warnings about not mucking with Iran : couched in terms protecting it as much as of it was part of Russia.
Russia even leaked a plan to deploy floating Arctic nuclear platforms - which you don't hear much about.
Given all that : can you imagine the kind of proof I would require to convince me that Russia knowingly gave Iran the capacity to generate WMD : considering its proximity ?
Anyone believing that : I have title to a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to negotiate on.
If Ahmadinejad really has made a coup : the CIA is the first sponsor I would look for. Otherwise...there really must be other candidates, hm ?

lwtc247,

Well done renaming 'eddie'......who's main argument for rejecting the 9/11 was an inside job thesis is 'how come no one has spoken about their involvement in such a crime'.

Well, eddie, it's your lucky day.

Someone has......one of the little people......Lloyd England, a cabdriver at the scene of the Pentagon crash. Watch this short film......still not convinced? ....thought so, troll:

http://www.911weknow.com/

mashasa: translated via: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

"Very interesting course. I немогу subscribe to your every word, but in general agree."

Totally agree with the comments from Courtenay Barnett and LWTC247 on this one...

Set A = What we did,
Set B = What we say 'they're' doing.

As with any dispute that seems plagued with ongoing disagreement, it seems the only course of action is to address the things 'we're' responsible for, in the hope that the Iranians do the same.

This coupled with an acceptance of the other's actions seems, to me at least, the only sensible option.

Living with the Conspiracy 24/7 - your puerile name says it all, but your stupid ignorant comments cannot go unchallenged. First, the 1979 revolution was broadly supported by leftists, communists and trade unionists but the medievalist Khomeini effectively launched a coup d'etat and imposed theocratic Islamism on the country, executing thousands of opponents in the process. There has been no democracy since, in spite of sham elections - the Guardian Council decides who can stand for election and they reject hundreds of candidates. When Ahmadinejad won four years ago many moderates chose not to put their names forward. So your notion that the "majority of the people... subscribe to a religious basis for the punishment of homosexuals, then that is their democratic right to do so" is garbage. As for the election, just study the polls and the mathematical studies that have been done to show how impossible the result is and then tell me it is free and fair. What has happened in Iran is another coup, the forces of backwardness triumphing over the forces of progress, with mobile networks and internet connections blocked. If that happened here you would complain of fascism, so why is it ok over there? It won't last.

I am pleased that you accept that Iran kills more people per head of population than any other country. Other than that glimmer of hope you are a top class idiot. Nameless person on 9/11. Just stop that nonsense.

I was in the UK in 1976 amongst a large group of Iranians and other foreign students. The Iranians were terrific people. I really liked them but there was one unusual and noticeable element in their behaviour.
Other groups of students, the Africans say, hung around together between lectures. The Iranians all went their own way. They did not mix outside the teaching environment.

I asked one of them why they behaved in such an unlikely fashion. He said it's like this. We all hate the Shah. I mean really hate the Shah.....but there might be one amongst us who is a spy for the government. If anyone says what they think their name might be in a black book at the airport when we arrive home for the holidays. Anyone whose name is there is taken out and shot.

We all know this.

We accept we can't be friends.

I found this truly shocking.....but was not surprised when the revolution took hold in 1979.

eddie's post disgusts me. He is a bigot and a fool.

Of course wickedness begets extreme reactions and that what you get in places like Iran and Afghanistan after the invader is expelled.....but to promote this condemnatory western (should I say Jewish) view of Iran is the action of an individual who is either very crass or positively evil.

Whoever you are you are an idiot as well. Do you think the Ayatollahs won't be shooting many of the people who oppose them now? It sounds like you are also an anti-semite, a commonplace on these boards - what has the Jewish view of Iran got to do with anything? As I said above, some people may choose to justify what has happened under the mullahs as a natural reaction to the Shah's oppression. You appear to be one of those people. "..wickedness begets extreme reactions". Does it really? South Africa after apartheid? Germany after WW2? Vietnam now? You don't know what you mean or waht you say.

Dear "June 15, 2009 9:13 AM"

Thank you for this contribution, which helps our understanding of the situation.

Eddie, you're so tedious. Just admit it, you're losing your grip. It's your preconceptions that are being tested. Shout your anti-semite accusations so willy-nilly, and people will get the idea.

For people who like giving their twopence worth, here's a new political blog. I haven't examined it in detail, but it looks interesting. Quite possibly some people already know about it:

http://www.uk21.org.uk/

@Suhayl Saadi

Just to round off @JimmyGiro's translation of @mashasa's comment: the missing word "немогу" is presumably "не могу": "I cannot".

Full translation:

"Quite interesting, of course. I can't subscribe to your every word, but in general I agree."

eddie,

The British view of middle east politics IS the Jewish view. That's what it has got to do with 'anything'.

See here: Gordon Brown has just appointed an Israeli lobbyist as his "Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with responsibility for Middle East policy, Iraq, Iran, counterterrorism and Anglo-American relations."

We should all be shocked by this. This means that British policy is Zionist policy, because that is what this man is, a full-on Zionist. He was a cheerleader for the Israeli attacks on Gaza. That makes him a very wicked b*stard in my book.

Here's the article:

Gordon Brown puts Israel lobbyist in charge of Britain's Middle East policy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Redress Information & Analysis

11 June 2009

Britain’s prime minister has put a notorious pro-Israel lobbyist in charge of policy in the Middle East, Iraq and Iran, reaffirming his determination to continue with his Zionist policies even as his administration approaches the end of its life.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has appointed an Israeli agent of influence and proponent of genocide in Gaza to a key position at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Britain’s foreign ministry.

On 9 June, Ivan Lewis was given a major promotion in Mr Brown’s government when he was appointed Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with responsibility for Middle East policy, Iraq, Iran, counterterrorism and Anglo-American relations. According to one source, he is now “just one step away from the cabinet”.

Speaking after his promotion, Mr Lewis said: “My responsibility for the Middle East peace process is particularly poignant. I have never hidden my pride at being Jewish or my support for the State of Israel”.

According to the Independent newspaper, Mr Lewis’s appointment has “raised eyebrows in the Foreign Office”. It said:

Lewis has a long history of interest in the region as vice-chair of the Labour Friends of Israel. Earlier this year, he became – not without controversy – one of the most outspoken political supporters of Israel's military assault on Gaza. Critics can't help but wonder how objective Lewis is likely to be in his new post.

Mr Lewis is also a trustee of the Holocaust Educational Trust, a body founded in 1988 by British pro-Israel lobbyists Greville Janner and Merlyn Rees with the aim of maintaining a culture of gentile guilt and Jewish victimhood in British schools.

Ivan Lewis’s support for the racist state of Israel and for the genocide in Gaza is not the only example of his questionable morality.

In 2007, when he was junior health minister, he was forced to apologise to a civil servant, Susan Mason, after she told managers she was unhappy with the nature of their relationship.

It emerged that Mr Lewis, who at the time was 40 years old, had been sexually harassing Ms Mason, aged 23, with numerous smutty text messages. After complaining to her bosses, Mr Lewis’s victim was moved to a different job before resigning from the Civil Service. Speaking of her former boss, she said: "He wasn't the nicest man to work for."

A year earlier, Mr Lewis had walked out on his wife of 16 years, Juliette, and their two sons, aged nine and 11, in order to have an affair with a 50-year-old councillor, Margaret Gibb.

Don't disagree with your two sets of facts, but am interested by this assertion: "ideologues of the left routinely discount Set B".

I guess I'd like to know examples of people who have done or continue to do this. I mean, from what I have read, lefties (and I'd include Juan Cole in this set) tend to take the view that we in the West have to get our own house in order before we can hope to affect some meaningful change in Iran.

Agree or disagree with this position, it's not the same thing as discounting the realities you set out.

To the extent there is a meaningful "left-right" debate to be had re. Western policy toward Iran, the central issue is how you engage/confront/undermine the "vicious theocratic nutters" running the show.

But to my mind, Iranians have proven before they could overthrow an ostensibly powerful government - with the right sort of Western support for democratic reformers, another coup could follow. Might not happen this week, but the regime is weaker than ever. The key calculus for the Ayatollahs now is whether they toss Ahmedinejad overboard in an act of self-preservation, or back him and try to stave off the flood of popular anger.

The Ayatollahs are in a precarious position - and hopefully Western governments can help sustain this momentum, and not for a change play into the hands of the rabid Islamist nationalists.

This is the way it works - you get one Friend of Israel to ask another Friend of Israel a planted question like this one -
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2009-06-10b.277763.h&s=speaker%3A11866#g277763.q0
where I had left a link to the Redress article!

From TheyWorkForYou Register of Interests -

Ivan Lewis -
6-11 April 2008, to Israel and the Palestinian Authority with Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). Travel and hospitality paid for by LFI. Accommodation paid for by LFI at a rate discounted through the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Some hospitality provided by the Palestinian Legislative Council/Palestinian Authority. Travel within Israel and Palestine provided by LFI. (Registered 30 April 2008)

Anne Snelgrove -
2-7 September 2007, to Israel and Palestine with Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). Travel and hospitality paid for by LFI. Accommodation paid for by LFI at a rate discounted through the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Some hospitality provided by the Palestinian Legislative Council/Palestinian Authority. Travel within Israel/Palestine provided by LFI. Some travel within Israel provided by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (Registered 29 October 2007)

Nameless person. "Redress Information and Analysis" - proprietors R. Murdoch or J. Goebbels jnr? Come off it. Tendentious claptrap.

Edo - your blog tells me all I need to know about you, thanks.

Reports on The Guardian that honest Interior Ministry officals are revealing the true extent of the fraud. How long can the conspiracy last? Answer, not long. Today's demonstration called off because the regime promised to use live rounds on protestors. Nice.

Eddie,

The death penalty is the death penalty. I don't think comparing numbers is relevant. You are aware that the "lethal injection" used by the USA has been shown to cause immense suffering and uses (or used, I'm not aware that it's been discontinued) a drug banned for use on animals.

'You killed 5 and we only killed 3' is not an argument that impresses anyone. It's similar to the argument I encounter on US right-wing blogs when I mention torture by the US. They say, "And/but they behead hostages!" Is this the yardstick the US should be using? Or should it be international and US law?

And kindly refrain from changing my handle. THAT is puerile.

As for Iran's elections: they're frankly none of our business - UNLESS they've been interfered with by clandestine forces of the "West". That's a whole nuther ball game.

eddie,
Quote: "Tendentious claptrap"

Sorry pal.

Absolute fact and you cannot deny one bit of that article.
Gordon Brown has appointed this creep Lewis. Lewis is a Zionist jew, a labour 'Friend of Israel', was a strong supporter of the Israeli attack on Gaza, is now in a senior position of authority regarding OUR (Britain's.....0.5% Jewish by the way) middle east policy.

Contradict one of the above assertions with a verifiable fact or shut up. You might like the UK being a satellite of Israeli power but many of us don't. It would be surprising if the vast majority of British people did not regard this appointment (if they knew about it) as a gross betrayal of the British people by Brown.
I think you'll find most British people people are not that keen on incinerating defenceless and innocent women and children (or men, come to that) nor persecuting them in any other way, as the Israeli state continues to do to the people of Gaza.

Anon at June 15, 2009 1:00 PM:

I find (as a woman) too much emphasis placed on "women and children" in these situations (incinerating people in Gaza.) So I'm glad to see you say "or men, come to that".

We've seen this pattern so often now...CIA all over this scene...same as it ever was...and because of this i cant believe single word in the mainstream media,all owned by the CIA no doubt.

Drearylin
So it's not relevant to you that Iran executes more per head than any other country in the world? The figures are given above. Capital punishment is wrong per se, I agree on that, but if I had the choice between an injection and being strung up from a crane in the streets of Tehran I know which I would choose. Your moral compass is all wrong. Whaboutery - see above.

So Iran's elections are none of our business? That really is puerile.

Nameless person - I'm not going to respond to your anti-semitism I'm afraid.

Basic rubric: The USA wants to dominate Iran, it will use any tactics to achieve that domination, if not yet through open war, then through destabilisation and the usual bag of ops tricks.

When it suits its aims, the rulers of the West often use human rights as a propaganda tool and a screen for conquest - this is an old imperial tactic, going back at least to Lord Palmerston's gunboat diplomacy of C19th. It is used continually, for example, in relation to China.

Study history. Have some humility. Remove the plank from your own eye.

The Israeli military-political establishment (Israel arguably is the most militarised state in the world with enough illegal nuclear weapons to destroy the entire Middle East, several times over) is obsessed now with Iran, as once it was obsessed with Iraq. In this strategic view, Iran must be neutralised - or at least, hobbled - as a significant regional player. This is in the perceived interests of the military-political elites of both the USA and Israel - and more than ever, in foreign policy terms, the two are essentially one. It is also in the perceived interests of the rulers of many Arab states - the divide-and-rule modus operandum playing out successfully and multi-dimensionally, as usual.

The West has screwed-up the 'Near' and 'Middle East' for too long. Better they got out. But they won't. And there's the rub. The struggle will continue.

eddie,

Knew you couldn't. Thanks for shutting up. Appropriate.
Calling me 'anti-semitic' is cowardly. With this man running middle east policy there is no answer to the charge that the UK is now a Zionist state. I don't like it. If that's anti-semitic, so be it. Actually there isn't a semite among these people. They're ethnic Russians. Great deceivers though. They can convince people like you of anything, even that they are semites when they are not. For your information eddie,(I like to be helpful) this is just like Gordon Brown claiming he is an arab. I suppose all it will take for you to believe that is for him to say it.

Dear Craig

Nice put, if you keep kicking someone often enough evenually they will fight back and then there is no going back.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Dear Craig

Nicely put, if you keep kicking someone often enough evenually they will fight back and then there is no going back.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Dear Craig

Nicely put, if you keep kicking someone often enough evenually they will fight back and then there is no going back.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

"Edo - your blog tells me all I need to know about you, thanks."

You're welcome eddie. Needless to say I couldn't give a **** what you 'need to know about me'.

Know this,

whatever it is you're trying so desperately to defend; Ideology, self righteousness, the state of Israel, Zionism, whatever, you're so blatantly transparent only someone as indoctrinated as yourself would fail to notice.

eddie: pointing out the inappropriateness of making a declared Zionist responsible for the UK's contribution to the Middle East peace process is not "anti-semitic"; it's merely stating the bleeding obvious.

With respect to the nuclear bomb; why should Iran pursue a very expensive weapon which she is hardly ever likely to use, it does not make any sense, and is as much use as a chocolate fire-guard when it comes to defending their home lands?

This line of thought is never explored for the reasons that the neo liberal attitudes making the set A probable and prevalent, are now busy plotting another tack for the same old, same old domination objectives of the yesteryear.

Interesting abstraction in the forwarded article, however, having touched on set A then set B somehow is tinged with the bias that made set A probable, and prevalent in the first place, and brought us to this mess that we are in now, but hey who is arguing?

The neo liberal tenets of unquestionable “values”, and its dogmatic notions of “democracy”, “freedom”, etc. promoted as the “absolute and universal values”, of course would leave very little room for any other interpretation of the events on the ground in Tehran. Therefore the usual assertions, and baseless assumption being arrived at yet again from a differencing route.

The current shenanigans of the neo cons within the Iranian hierarchy that includes Mr. Mousavi, who comes with the credentials of having once before been the Prime Minister, and a very good friend of Ghorbanifar, an Iranian exile and former CIA informant ….... becoming a trusted friend and kitchen adviser to Mir Hussein Mousavi, Prime Minister in the Khomeini government .

Coincidentally the “faster please Mr. President” ( title of article exhorting George Bush to attack Iran faster, and get on with changing the mid east into a haven for democracy!) ex rabbi Michael Ledeen the arch neocon is also an acquaintance of Mr. Mousavi, whose murky credentials have served him well in muckraking and causing mayhem in the current situation .

The facts before us are, the worryingly deeper implications of the onslaught of the neocons from both of the quarters, and the terrible outcomes that would be the result of of any such unholy alliance.

However, with respect to the rigged elections in Iran etc. and oppression of the Iranians, these unsubstantiated assumptions and assertions somehow finding traction due to the selective vision of the Western Audiences.

This simply put, is turning a blind eye to; hanging chads of Florida and the selection of the former US President Bush by the supreme court, and his subsequent “re-election” through the miracle of Diebold (counting a possible maximum of six hundred votes of an area, as ten thousand, and they talk about loaves, and fishes?) On the other hand the minority vote that is counted as an overwhelming mandate of the British for our esteemed neo Labour, and the ballot box stuffing practices thereof, which are are not an tissue at all, because no-one in these countries dares to come out and vent anger, and kick up a fuss, for these DNA printed, Finger printed, and photographed souls would be either picked up under the terrorism prevention act, and or be subject to Cattling and held under arrest until they are dispirited, and dejected enough to be processed as the future potential “terrorists” and trouble makers.

So talking about the oppressed Iranians, whose freedom of action includes disrupting traffic, burning bins, and buses, and security forces vehicles, coming from a bunch of people whom cannot so much as fart without permission from the relevant authorities is somewhat rich. Furthermore, considering the levels of the electoral fraud in US/UK again for anyone to sit in judgement begs the question of the whomsoever has not sinned to cast the aspersions.

However, as ever, I like the anarchy in the Iranian psyche, and the fact that the government is kept on its toes, and reminded of whomsoever is the boss, and it should not forget about it either. Therefore the crowds turning up on the streets bent on mischief are tolerated by other Iranians whom have so far been letting the losers to vent their anger, but let it be known that if any such demonstrations result in any changes to the elections outcome, the silent majority would be lynching the instigators from the nearest trees and lamppost, including Mr. Rafasanjani the sponsor of the current mayhem.

This is not 1953, and the Iranians are not as dumb as they used to be.

http://tinyurl.com/mlemap

http://tinyurl.com/ks6dc3

VamanosBandidos,

A bomb would be useless as a weapon for Iran but would be a serious deterrent to Israel. That's why Israel doesn't like. The possibility that they, a very small country, can be hit back hard and effectively destroyed.

Can't blame them.

Can't blame Iran either. Who wants to be bullied forever by these fiends.

Edo - Your're obviously touchy about your website. I didn't think it was that bad.

I'm not trying to defend anyone or anything, least of all the state of Israel which can look after itself (as I've said before I favour a two state solution and the removal of all settlements so your accusations of a Zionist agenda are piffle - I grew up in the C of E). All I am suggesting is that Iran is a theocratic tyranny where a lot of people are likely to die as a result of a stolen election and that people like you, if you had any decency, should support those people in Iran who want freedom. If you spent only a tenth of the time that you spend on attacking Israel and the West in opposing oppression in Iran and other countries then the world could be a better place.

Ahmadinejad came third. Huge rally in Tehran.

Posted by: at June 15, 2009 4:22 PM,

Israelis are of no consequence, with respect to Iran, they cannot under any circumstances take on Iran, and win. Israeli military prowess has been much the subject of Hollywood exaggerations, seeing as in reality the Israeli all out war against Lebanon resulted in a defeat at the hands of Hezbollah (a militia, not even a proper army so to speak of). Simple fact is; Israelis are only good at shooting fish in the barrel and killing unarmed Palestinians, their forces are not the stern stuff the “Hollywood Media” would have you believe.

The notion that Iran is engaged in production of Nuclear Weapons, is the hook that the meddling neo liberals have found the most convenient excuse to hang their imperial aspirations onto. Thereafter the narrative goes on with further vilification of the Iranians to bring about the conducive environment to either result in an attack Iran, and or force changes on the Iranians' internal/external policies that is least likely to benefit Iran in the long term.

Although as events have proved the military option against Iran is a non starter, hence the much talked about attacks that never came to pass. However, to find Iranians, committing the same mistake as Pakistanis, and Indians by spending their hard earned cash on useless weapons is an attribute that the West has endowed Iranians with, for the Western purposes, and end games. Therefore, Iranian Nukes are only the stuff of conjecture, and propaganda.

However, the fact that Iran will no longer be reliant on Western companies for its nuclear material needed in the fields of; metallurgy, agriculture, medicine, etc. As well as her abilities for separation of various isotopes of various materials, such as copper, zinc, etc. through the mastery of nuclear technology bringing her into direct competition in the lucrative markets thus far highly monopolized by a very few companies is the crux of the arguments forwarded against Iran going “nuclear”. Also, Iranians expanding their energy business through the sale of either electricity power generation (already they supply Turkey), or nuclear fuel for other countries to use in their reactors further hampers the aspirations of the energy giants whom loath admission of any new competitors into their highly lucrative and monopolized field of commerce.

Simple fact is Iran is bucking the trend and is not subscribing to the hegemony of US/UK, going so far as questioning the unquestionable “values” of the currently dominant neo liberal ideology. Hence the constant stream of propaganda against Iran and the outright lies which have come to be taken as facts concerning Iran in the West these days.

The truth of the matter is, we need more Irans if any of our freedoms are going to endure in the current climate of fear, and trepidation that the neo liberal crowd have induced, and thereafter set in place their constructs of control to cater for the risks arising from the state of fear and trepidation brought on by these in the first place.

Thought Craig would like this from medialens reference Blackburn!

Cartoon lion urges Lancs kids to dob in terrorist classmates
Posted by Tim Holmes on June 15, 2009, 4:02 pm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/10/lancashire_terror_school_film/

"We need more Irans" - yes, right. More tyranny, more despotism. This is newspeak. This is moral bankruptcy.

What evidence do you have that Israel would welcome the election of Mousavi? Ahmadinejad is a useful hate figure for them. I haven't seen any public pronouncements on the matter, but perhaps you can enlighten me.

Perhaps it would have been useful if US cities had gone up in unremitting mass stone-throwing and and petrol-bombing demonstrations after George W. Bush was fraudulently elected in 2000. It would've saved a lot of lives.

It could've been called, 'The Fluorescent Revolution' and Lindsay Hilsum (and maybe Frank Gardner, too) could've put on a basball cap and reported from the Washington Monument on how Americans were 'taking back their democracy' and rescuing the 50% of their budget that goes to the Pentagon.

What alerts me to vigilance about the current reported fracas relating to the Iranian Presidential election results is not the possibility that (speaking in the general sense) politics can be corrupt - everyone knows this, and in the UK we've just had several weeks of exposure of political corruption among British MPs on a massive scale - or that there are not socio-economic and other problems in Iran or that we all have to love every regime in the world, but that the entire unholy chorus of Western leaders and their side-kicks are queuing-up suddenly, as though they were on-cue on a stage, to bellow their 'concerns' about the Iranian Presidential election results, when the same people - the SAME people - have been actively arming and funding countless dictators and monarchs for decades!!! The hypocrisy is overwhelming and is so obvious, one would have to be either thick-as-a-brick or disingenuous not to see it.

This is what makes me very suspicious of ulterior motives. I saw the same tactic deployed against China in 1989 at the time of the Tiannenmen Square protests. China had problems which needed to be addressed and the young students had valid concerns, but the movement was hijacked and maldirected; teh aim was to stoke confrontation and discord and to destabilise China - remember, the Soviet Union was imploding at that point. It didn't work with China. This is not to say that I am a supporter of the Chinese regime, etc., but this is how it (the CIA) works.

The CIA has been pumping squillions into 'black operations' in Iran over the past several years. The mosque explosion, remember that? I know how these colonialists work, they way they destabilise, it's always the same. Afghanistan, 1928; Chile, 1972-3; Pakistan, 1977. Oh, the list goes on...

This is not so that Iranians become fearful, one has to be wary of joining a giant media psy-op aimed at inculcating fear into the hearts of the Iranian people and I have no wish to join that caravan, either. I'm just fed-up with the manner in which the military-political regimes of the West treat other people as though they are dirt.

I repeat: one way or another, military-political regimes of the West are responsible for most of the violent death in the world and are most certainly responsible for deliberately making a mess of the Middle East over the past 200 years - and over the past thirty years, and over the past six years and right now.

eddie,

Newspeak? Is this meant to be comedy?

For tyranny, despotism and moral bankruptcy Israel really takes the biscuit.
Don't fancy their religion much either. It's a licence to steal and murder, isn't it? I mean their RELIGION says it's OK. Pretty dodgy God they've got if you ask me.

"..people like you, if you had any decency, should support those people in Iran who want freedom."

People like me? hmmm, ok.

What makes you think I'm not decent? As it happens, I'm a very decent bloke.

Just because I think it's morally wrong to shout 'rigged' about the Iranian elections, when we can't even bring our own leaders to task for their corruption, lying, murder, back-room deals, subversion, ignorance (should I go on?) doesn't make me indecent. I would argue to the contrary, especially when our non-elected leader installs Ivan bloody Lewis.

Where's our democratic system?

(oh sorry? is this it? the fact I can air my views? - don't make me laugh)

Interesting news that Khamenei has ordered an investigation into allegations of rigging:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8101098.stm

If Khamenei were deceived by Ahmadinejad, to get his support, and if, when he found out, he didn't appreciate having been used, that would explain this development.

I read it that Khamenei had asked the Council to consider the complaints that had already been lodged by two of the losing candidates. I think it is unlikely that Ahmadinejad deceived the supreme leader.

What may be significant is that Rafsanjani has called a meeting of the Assembly of Experts - a body which has the power to remove Khamenei.

@anon at June 15, 2009 6:01 PM

"For tyranny, despotism and moral bankruptcy Israel really takes the biscuit.
Don't fancy their religion much either. It's a licence to steal and murder, isn't it? I mean their RELIGION says it's OK. Pretty dodgy God they've got if you ask me."

With you on the Israyhell bit, but I very much protest at what you say the Religion is at fault.

It isn't. What is at fault is the man made perversions and rotten distortions in variousa places in the man made Talmud and apparently the Zohar (which I've not read).

The Judaic divine guideance is a mercy to treasure to mankind. It's just a pity those toxic elements of the invert their divine teachings.

DON'T mix Judaism with Zionism. Your mergance of them shows very poor understanding or an ill planned comment.

Abe Rene,

That is BBC talk, the reality is as in here;

http://tinyurl.com/mxdlce

Also the DOS (denial of service) attacks on farsnews.com (semi-official news agency) which carries damning articles on Rafsanjani and his front man ie Moussavie.

http://tinyurl.com/koby4m

HappyClappy,

I was left feeling the BBC news at 6pm on radio 4, was making great use of the lack of pictures!

It left them free to report the 'riot' was anywhere between 100,000, to 2 million; according to eye witnesses, which must exclude the BBC.

When digital becomes exclusive, my next radio better come with a bucket of salt.

It's amusing how so many of you are in a quandary over Iran. You don't know what to make of it do you? Is it a popular revolution or is the CIA at work? Perhaps you need a grown up like Craig to tell you the party line. Look at the SWP website or Press TV. Nothing. What's happened is that many of you have sold your souls to the devil, aligning yourselves with islamist groups and other neo-nazis on the basis that my enemy's enemy must be my friend. Well you are deceived. Look at the mpacuk website today and their hounding of a Lesbian schoolteacher. Look at Galloway and his alliances within Respect. This is disgraceful behaviour. Once you ditch your principles your morals go with them. Can't you just accept that Iran is ruled by a vicious backward-looking regime and that the mass of the people want reform and freedom, especially the 50% that has lived under the tyranny of the morality police for the past few decades. It's not a difficult choice to support them. Make it.

JimmyGiro,

This is line with BBC remit for propaganda, the lunatics are indeed running the asylum for sure.

http://tinyurl.com/notdz7

The link is to a good article on the shenanigans of Rafsanjani.

The Gucci Crowd forming the support base of the Moussavie camp can be pretty vocal but that is just about the extent of their influence.

However the deeper implications of the unholy alliances between the neocons of the varying nationalities give rise to the question; is this hullabaloo designed to derail Obama's vision of the middle east?

eddie at June 15, 2009 9:00 PM

As Edo so eloquently outlined;

"whatever it is you're trying so desperately to defend; Ideology, self righteousness, the state of Israel, Zionism, whatever, you're so blatantly transparent only someone as indoctrinated as yourself would fail to notice."

Therefore, eddie, you have nothing of any value to add to the debate, would you kindly get lost and spam somewhere else?

I repeat: the West is right now responsible for the vast majority of the violent death in the world. The West is waging and fuelling wars across the globe. The military-political regimes of he West support the most vicious dictators and kings who run police states with the active help of the West. I thought that this website demonstrated that. Craig Murray resigned because the West (specifically, the UK) was supporting a police state and was gleaning power through torture. Then tell me truly which regime might best be depicted as, 'the devil'?

The military-political regimes of the West do not care about the freedom of anyone. They are interested only in power, wealth and tribe. No amount of disinformation or misinformation by web-log or other media straw-men or agents will dispel this very simple fact. People know now. Knowledge cannot be taken away.

Eddie

Talking of vicious, backward looking regimes, the retro-imperialism of Thatcher's 18 years and New Labour's 13 years is now looking as weak as dishwater and as unsavoury. Those of us who celebrated the destruction of British colonialism by two world wars have understood, as you have not done, that hubris is always followed by a fall.

The present government has its back against the wall after being held to ransom by the Zionist bankers. It will stage a series of false flag operations in the coming pre-election months to divert attention from its criminal wars in Iraq and Afghan-/Pak-istan. But the cat is already out of the bag. You know you talk crap and you know that the majority of people in the UK are fed up with this sort of attitude.

Knowing the desperate measures this government has stooped to in the last few years, anybody who travels on the London underground while the government is in this panic mode, has got to be mad. The next false flag operation has got to be Mega and convincing. If I was you I'd move to Norwich and post your comments in felt tip pen in the corner of the piggy posters.

Quote: "Can't you just accept that Iran is ruled by a vicious backward-looking regime"

eddie,
you vicious, ignorant, hate-filled little tub of Zionist shyte. For you:

Deepak Chopra – San Francisco Gate Chronicle June 15, 2009

If you have been tempted to buy into the portrayal of Iran as a reckless, terrifying country, please take the following quiz. Each item requires a Yes or No answer:

Yes or No, Iran has the most advanced stem cell research in the Mideast.

It has an active in vitro fertilization program.

The state subsidizes surgery for transsexuals.

Iran has a Jewish member of parliament and a Jewish hospital in downtown Tehran.

Iranian state television recently ran a 22-part series dramatizing the Holocaust, including the man known as Iran's Schindler, because he saved 4,000 to 5,000 European Jews by giving them Iranian passports.

The answer is "Yes" to everything on this list. Which serves to remind us of the subtle power of brainwashing. Even if you call yourself left-liberal, it's hard to resist the toxic media image of Iran. This image has been fed to us for thirty years, ever since the Iranian hostage crisis. Since then, the right wing has fueled it without letup while the mass media and even the left have passively acquiesced.

All the contrary facts on my list came from watching a refreshingly open segment on NBC's Dateline news magazine. In the same program, one learns that two-thirds of Iran's population consists of people under thirty. This massive baby boom is coming of age feeling the need to break the shackles of the old religious hardliners. As a group, their feelings toward the United States are decidedly positive. Going behind the scenes, the NBC crew found a leading filmmaker who is a woman, as well as the country's foremost AIDS doctor and activist. The latter pushed through a program for training AIDS patients in new jobs and providing clean needles for drug addicts.

It's a shock to learn all this, but also a huge relief. During the Cold War we were given a warped view of ordinary Russians, who in the end were the major force in bringing down the rigid Communist regime. That regime, like the theocrats in Iran, grew out of touch with ordinary life. Today Iran has a double identity. Ultimate power and the ability to punish resides with the mullahs and ayatollahs. Outside their reach is a modern, secular, Westward-looking society. Between the two forces there is no real contest if you take the long view. The mullahs aren't going to win. As secular society rises, it will make sane choices for itself.

I think President Obama knows this, and he is backed by a new generation in this country that is sick of demonizing Iran. The bad things still exist. A demagogue like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can prosper in a state where "Death to America" is a regular part of mosque services. An Iranian nuclear weapon may be unstoppable. For all that, it's good to keep a sane, optimistic view of a society that isn't so far from Western values as the right wing wants us to believe. Let's hope the forces for modernization win some key political and social battles soon. In the meantime, young lovers stroll hand in hand in the parks outside the capital, despite the mullahs who forbid them to show public affection. They may not dare to kiss in downtown Tehran, but that's only for today. Tomorrow it will be different.

Good, except I find little credence that Iran is still looking for Nuclear Weapons. Aside from the International Energy Agency reports and Western Intel both agreeing that they are not, I think the reason is rather more pragmatic:

Surrounded by Nuclear powers as they are, it makes no sense to provide your enemies with the golden excuse to attack you. We have Israel of course, who have at least 150 warheads, although there seems to be an unspoken agreement in the media never to mention this, then we have US client state Pakistan and of course India - for whose loyalty several major powers are vying.

Next we have puppet state Iraq, whose permanent (enduring - apparently) US bases surely include tactical nukes. On top of this we have the various US, UK and French naval fleets and bases dotted about the region, and finally, not too far away, there is of course both Russia and China.

In addition, I wonder how much of the human rights abuses accusations levelled at Iran are exaggerated or propagandised? Certainly Saudi Arabia is worse. Of course it has to be recognised that much of the oppression of the Society is related to the theocratic nature of the regime, rather than Ahmadinejad's government, who are not the true ruling power in Iran, but answer to the Islamic Clergy.

The truth of course, is that a removal of external antagonism towards Iran (including internal covert destabilsation), would reduce the paranoia and oppression of the regime, allowing political freedom to flourish. But since when have the Western powers responsible for Iran's current agitation ever cared about that?

To June,

Really good posting, but I wouldn't be too optimistic about the attitude of Obama.

As Noam Chomsky recently observed in a reply to an email I sent him (he always replies, apparently),

Obama's "olive branch" comes down to "follow our orders and we'll deign to talk to you" (meanwhile threatening force in violation of the UN Charter)

Obama's rhetoric is usually better, but the underlying policy is the same or even worse than his predecessor, and it's interesting to note that his recent speech in nasty puppet state Egypt contained passages lifted almost word for word from one of Dubbya's speeches, who curiously enough, didn't live up to the promises therein.

http://www.distantocean.com/2009/06/the-habit-of-skepticism.html

Craig,
Well put.
Just one point and it isn't small.

Iran is a theocracy where the Supreme Leader has fatwaed the production, possession or use of nuclear weapons.
He has condemned them as gravely sinful.

Abominable though many of their beliefs and practises are, these Ayatollahs are straightforward and honest.

Iran is NOT in the process of developing nuclear weapons nor even a nuclear weapon manufacturing facility.

@ Gerard Mulholland.

I was going to write that myself.

"It has gone largely unnoticed in all the coverage of Iran's resumed nuclear fuel enrichment operations, but an official statement issued by the Islamic republic at the emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna Aug. 9 [2005] noted that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons." - source http://www.ww4report.com/node/929 (includes partial test of Iranian statement)

Although I'd likely reject your relativisism: "Abominable though many of their beliefs and practises are"

Hullo Craig,

On what do you base your belief that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme? Apart from the media asserting that it's so? Aren't we watching history repeat here? Iraq was going to get bombed come hell or high water - what was that quote? - 'The intelligence was being fixed around the policy'? Sure enough, the bloc-media were unanimous in telling us the Iraq had WMD's. Lo and behold, not a sausage. All of the 'evidence' we were presented with was concocted. The Niger documents were out and out forgeries, not that this scandalous story was of any interest to the bloc-media of course.

And here we are doing it again with Iran for Christ's sake. Have a read of any Israeli online newspaper article about Iran and check out the comments. These are the most bloodthirsty people you've ever seen. 'Death to all Iranians!', 'Fire the nukes now!' 'Turn Iran into a sheet of glass!', etc. etc. ad nauseam. There's your policy. Now all the bloc-media has to do is fix the intelligence around it. And they are. These assertions of nuclear weapons (best we avoid the old discredited expression 'WMD's') are just that - assertions. Not a single piece of credible evidence has been presented.

Not forgetting the head of Iran's church issued a fatwa against nukes. Does that not mean anything? Or do we only make a fuss about fatwas when it suits us? Ha ha ha, sure of course! In this vein, Iran might just be the single most lied about country in the world. Ahmadinejad did NOT call for Israel to be wiped off the map. He merely looked forward to the zionist regime disappearing in almost exactly the same fashion that Reagan looked forward to the Soviet regime doing likewise. Reagan gets lionised, Ahmadinejad cops calls for his death. Abysmal. Me, I'm with Ahmadinejad - I look forward to a Middle East free of zionism too.

Otherwise, good comments. We're obviously witnessing another George Soros-style colour coded revolution. Green this time is it? Yeah, whatever. $400M will buy you a lot of rock concerts.

As for nuts and bolts, all the early polls showed Ahmadinejad getting a big majority. Then he gets one and the bloc-media declares it's a fraud. Frauds are easy to spot. When the election outcome is wildly at odds with the initial polls it's odds-on there's fraud. Never mind the US media explaining their election outcome was like this because straw polls are notoriously inaccurate. Absolute bullshit! Straw polls are famously accurate and measurably so. Iran has hand-counted paper ballots, all done in the open with scrutineers and everything. And the US wants to cock an eyebrow at Iran's elections!

Otherwise those mobs in the street are the kids of those who supported the Shah, who was head of one of the most vicious regimes a people has ever been subjected to. Should they get into power it will certainly be against the will of the minority, and as such they will only be able to govern by way of death squads, torture, and fear. The US did it before and they'd loooove to do it again. And they are doing it again!

And sure enough, the media is doing their bit and lying their sick arses off. On the subject of Iran (amongst many others, sure), if you assume that whatever the media tells you is a complete lie and that the truth lays 180 degrees in the other direction, you'll probably be on the money. Honestly, we've seen it all before.

And I note that the ever tiresome Eddie is back. Eddie, you told us you were leaving and not coming back. Was that just you being wishy-washy or is it a tactic from the official Mockingbird guide book? You'd tell us the truth wouldn't you? Ha ha ha ha.

Otherwise mate, wouldn't you feel more at home in the comments section of the Jerusalem Post? They'd love you there! No need for your measured shows of exasperated politeness in hell hole. You can get all kinds of Nietzschean there - festival of cruelty ain't in it! C'mon Eddy, embrace the blood lust! It'll give you a woody!

The news about Khamenei issuing a fatwa against the development or use of nuclear weapons certainly throws anew light on the matter. Regarding the credibiity of such a fatwa, there are conflicting articles on the internet. For example here are two, respectively sympathetic and sceptical. It would be interesting to know what readers make of these respective viewpoints:
http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050412130710.kizyij2s.html
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_29293.shtml

A rough comparison between the theoretical Islamic, and the existing World Order. The resources available to the Pentagon to dominate the world and maintain an anti-Islam, or Zionist, system are 50% of the US' government revenues. That is made up of taxes from those who are taxed, and capital invested voluntarily in the Zionist financial system from people who are not taxed. Call that half of the world's GDP. So it takes a quarter of the world's resources to maintain a system that opposes Islam. 25% of the total.

Islamic law requires the payment of just 2.5% of surplus capital to maintain an Islamic world order. Why is it so much more efficient? Because belief in God and a desire to worship Him is built into the hearts of human and all other beings. God provides for all his created beings, but under the present system, 25% of those resources are being harnessed by a tiny number from the sect of Zionism to prevent the rest of the world sharing those resources in an equitable way of distribution.

At a time of scarcity of resources, it's time for honest people to decide to dispense with them.

Plenty of ad hominem abuse as usual but no meaningful responses. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that I am not a Zionist but it obviously fulfills some kind of psychological need in some of you to have a hate figure that you can abuse.
Nobody, a million people on the streets of Tehran calling for freedom and an end to dictatorship and all you can do is call them the children of the Shah and claim it's some kind of CIA plot. Your comments are disgraceful. People are being shot there right now.

Nameless person who listed all the wonders of Iran (ops for transsexuals etc) - I completely agree with you, but then Hitler made the trains run on time and brought full employment to Germany, so your comments prove nothing. Orwellianuk skulking over from the little cult at media lens - what a lucky boy to get an e mail from the great dissembler Chomsky. Did you wet your pants? Your name is still a disgrace.

Iran: Some Dots You May Want To Connect
Moon of Alabama
Sunday, Jun 14, 2009

Editor's Comment: 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:

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

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.

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.)
Mir Hussein Mousavi followed his script, declared to his followers that the election was invalid instead of graciously accepting defeat. CIA's shill, Manuel Rosales, did exactly the same thing in Venezuela when he lost large to President Chavez in 2006. The opposition came out and banged their pots and pans, then went home to bed. When Ahmadinejad reached out to Mousavi and his followers, offering to give them a part in the new government, Mousavi rejected the offer. Folks, these are not exactly marks of a real statesman, ready to lead a nation.

Yes, they'll succeed in smearing Iran and marring this election in the minds of those who prejudged them before they took place. The CIA/Mossad duo can be proud of the pain and confusion they've caused in Iran and worldwide. Now they've got some video of some angry Iranians to show their bosses for a pat on the head. But if they think that they can destabilise Iran by getting a few thousand Iranians out on the streets of Teheran, they're even dumber than I thought.

Manucher Ghorbanifar
Mir Hussein Mousavi

Indeed, connect the dots below, get acquanted with Manucher Ghorbanifar and find out a little more about Hussein Mousavi, the U.S.-backed candidate before you buy the western media line about fraud in the 2009 Iranian election.

- Les Blough, Editor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 14, 2009
Some Dots You May Want To Connect
Moon of Alabama Editorial

...In any ordinary business, Manucher Ghorbanifar would cut an implausibly mysterious figure. Officially, he has been a shipping executive in Tehran and a commodities trader in France. By his own account he was a refugee from the revolutionary government of Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini, which confiscated his businesses in Iran, yet he later became a trusted friend and kitchen adviser to Mir Hussein Mousavi, Prime Minister in the Khomeini government. Some U.S. officials who have dealt with Ghorbanifar praise him highly. Says Michael Ledeen**, adviser to the Pentagon on counterterrorism: "He is one of the most honest, educated, honorable men I have ever known." Others call him a liar who, as one puts it, could not tell the truth about the clothes he is wearing. The Murky World of Weapons Dealers, Time Magazine, Jan. 19, 1987

...On or about November 25, 1985, Ledeen received a frantic phone call from Ghorbanifar, asking him to relay a message from the prime minister of Iran to President Reagan regarding the shipment of the wrong type of HAWKs. United States v. Robert C. McFarlane, Walsh Iran Contra Report, 1985

...Franklin, along with another colleague from Feith's office, a polyglot Middle East expert named Harold Rhode, were the two officials involved in the back-channel, which involved on-going meetings and contacts with Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar and other Iranian exiles, dissidents and government officials.

...The administration's reluctance to disclose these details seems clear: the DoD-Ghorbanifar meetings suggest the possibility that a rogue faction at the Pentagon was trying to work outside normal US foreign policy channels to advance a "regime change" agenda not approved by the president's foreign policy principals or even the president himself. Iran-Contra II?, Washington Monthly, September 2004

...Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.

...“The Finding was focused on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.” Preparing the Battlefield, The New Yorker, July 7, 2008

...The Ukrainian Orange phenomenon was modeled quite explicitly on the example of the Rose Revolution, which featured a disputed election, massive youth-oriented street protests, and plenty of subsidies from U.S. government agencies. The 'Color' Revolutions: Fade to Black, Antiwar, September 29, 2006.

...The Pentagon and US intelligence have refined the art of such soft coups to a fine level. RAND planners call it ‘swarming,’ referring to the swarms of youth, typically linked by SMS and web blogs, who can be mobilized on command to destabilize a target regime. Color Revolutions, Geopolitics and the Baku Pipeline", Engdahl, (no date)

...Even before the count began, Mousavi declared himself “definitely the winner” based on “all indications from all over Iran.” He accused the government of “manipulating the people’s vote” to keep Ahmadinejad in power and suggested the reformist camp would stand up to challenge the results.

...“It is our duty to defend people’s votes. There is no turning back,” Mousavi said, alleging widespread irregularities. Iran declares win for Ahmadinejad in disputed vote, Associated Press, June 13, 2009

Thanks for the last two snippets, they tally very well with what is known about the Vienna incident during the early nineties.
This leaves the question, was Mousavi involved in the US contra scandal, or was he just doing 'his thing'?

History Repeating Itself...

http://tinyurl.com/yuv62m

“The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people,” wrote Ken Ballen, president of Terror Free Tomorrow: the Center for Public Opinion, and Patrick Doherty of the American Strategy Program of the New America Foundation."

"They pointed out that their opinion poll, carried out between May 11 and May 20, “showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin—greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday’s election.”

"The two specifically rebutted claims by Mousavi supporters that the fact that as an ethnic Azeri he failed to win a larger share of the Azeri vote proved that the totals were rigged. The poll, they said, showed that Azeris also favored Ahmadinejad 2 to 1 over Mousavi."...

http://tinyurl.com/mk73vv

Eddie,

If you want meaningful debate, start by using rational thought and common sense in you contributions.

It'll come with time, if you persevere.

JJ

Exactly. This is a refreshing reminder of the underlying dynamics. Thank you, whoever you are, for posting the info.

The effect of the mainstream media firestorm is to induce a kind of psychosis so that it becomes difficult to think clearly, difficult to challenge 'received wisdoms' and 'common sense'. It is akin to PR marketing strategy - no accidnet, for as one might expect, input form psychologists underpins both political and commercial propaganda techniques.

There is also the very real phenomenon, about which I talked earlier this year, of people being paid to seek out and disrupt ant-establishment and especially anti-Zionist blogs; as anyone who has read my material, I am not obsessed about this, it is simply an observation of the lobbying, realpolicking and manipulation engaged in by the Israeli state and its associated propagandist organisations. Current target: Iran.

Remember, this is psy-ops and I-ops we're dealing with. I am almost certain that Craig Murray's blog, for some time, will have been a target of such infiltration. The aim? To manipulate public opinion at all levels in order to distract people from learning and recognising the truth.

For an imbecile, Eddie does get people's backs up. He is a troll, seriously deranged and a bigot. Lets Ban him !

Most of you people are an absolute fucking disgrace. A million brave people demonstrating on the streets of Tehran against a rigged election, for freedom and democracy and you call them CIA stooges. A fascistic government that has blocked telephones, internet and satellite links in a bid to retain its power. How far have you fallen? Have you no morals, no principles left?

I suppose it is no surprise, after the events of the past few years when we have seen people like your pal Galloway ally themselves with some of the most unsavoury elements in British society. We are all Hizbollah now, eh? Indeed, left and right join together in praise of fascism. Disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful.

/slaps forehead and laughs at eddie.

Oh dear.

I'm not laughing.

This troll is standing up for the mainstream media view on this board.

Crying is more appropriate.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident" .Arthur Schopenhauer

eddie seems to be completing the circle nicely, and all in one thread. Impressive.

"I am almost certain that Craig Murray's blog will have been a target of infiltration to manipulate public opinion at all levels in order to distract people from learning and recognising the truth."

Damn, it didn't work. We'll have to get the Bilderberg man to sack Operative E and get a proper agent. We told them to send us a professional and they wouldn't listen. Now we will insist on the best. No more amateurs!!

Oh dear, is that the best you can do?
Edo, your website is still crap. I particularly like the bit where you talk about "shit floating around in my cranium". Your words not mine but I see your point.

Meanwhile, for all you lovers of oppression and censorship, The Guardian reports that today's march in Tehran has been called off as the government has deployed 5,000 armed and trained plain-clothes forces to confront marchers. That is armed as in bullets that come out of the end of a gun and kill you, in case you are in any doubt. What will be the CIA's next move I wonder?

Have I got this right? Is Eddie really saying that he supports a popular peaceful uprising of the Iranian people even if it happens to be supported by the US government?

If so, well done, Eddie (I'll ignore his furious and aggressive tone) Surely anything else would be a bit of an insult to the peaceful millions who defied the march ban. It'd be like the Americans saying, oh just ignore the UK's anti-war marchers; they're sponsored by the Communists, surely.

Mouussavi appears to be pro women's rights (good); pro corporatisation (bad); pro dialogue with Israel (good); pro "enforcing Iranian laws" (possibly bad); pro reducing the power of the "Moral Police" (good); and pro privately owned media (mmm). Not a Chavez, then. But who is? Even Lula turned out not to be.

I know very little about the current regime in Iran, except enough about its record on gay rights to make me wonder if the surgery it provides for trans sexuals, referred to by one commentator, is elective or not. Other than that, I frequently defend it - Ahmajindedad didn't say "wiped off the map"; he wrote a nice letter to George Bush; Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons; there are Jewish people living peacefully in Iran (though not having much fun, maybe) etc etc blah blah.

But when I see people on the streets in such committed numbers, agitating for what they see (I think) as a more liberal and humane direction, I think "yipee". Even if I cynically predict that they will end up getting sold down the river by their corporate overlords just like the rest of us, damn.

"What will be the CIA's next move I wonder?"

To destabilise the whole world...

http://tinyurl.com/lyeeze

and here...

tinyurl.com/knah57

Ladbrokes are currently offering odds of 100/1 for Craig to win the Norwich North By Election. I doubt those odds will last when people realise Craig has a real chance of winning here!

It is not Iran in 1953 again - but somehow I can't but notice some similarities - consider this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRwUZ-u6KFo

Oh dear eddie.

You deride those who claim Iran is crawling with CIA fixers yet it's not as if the CIA aint got historic form in this arena is it?

Chile?
Central America?
Italy?
Greece?

And many more places since 1948.

What exactly do you think the CIA do eddie? This is their remit and it's already been publicly announced by the US Govt,this year,that hundreds of millions of the intelligence budget is earmarked for the CIA to stir things up in Iran.

Do try to keep up eddie.

Further,when you're not very rudely and childsishly changing people's name in your posts you then have to gall to accuse others of ad hominem abuse then pepper your replies with the F and C word!

Oh dear eddie.Oh dear.

http://tinyurl.com/n9setb

Right-wing Israeli interests are engaged in an all out Twitter attack with hopes of delegitimizing the Iranian election and causing political instability within Iran.

technicolour - perhaps irony is beyond your grasp? It's like steely, only made of iron. Other than that, your post is a voice of relative reason in a sea of sewage. Well done.

Your point about transsexual surgery is interesting. Iran appears to have a liberal policy on this but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that LGTB people are pressured into having gender re-assignment as a way of avoiding further persectuion. If it was a choice between execution and having my bollocks cut off I think I would probably choose the latter, however painful.

Latest report from The Guardian, all foreign journalists have been forbidden to leave their offices and the regime has been clearing offices around Valisar Square to fill them with armed militia.

lwtc247 - And when Ahmadinejad won for the first time, people didn't respect the Iranian peoples choice then, still ignoring the fact that he was democratically elected, calling the country a dictatorship. A similar story can be told of Hamas and Chavez.Unlike those two cases, Iran quite objectively is a dictatorship. What else can you call it when candidates are only permitted to stand for office if they are approved by a completely unelected body?

Hm. Firefox seems to play silly buggers with the format of my post. What I was trying to say, in response to lwtc247, is that a system where you can only be electd to office after approval by an unelected body, as in Iran, *is* a dictatorship. It's difficult to see how that can be denied.

Allegedly, Ahmadinejad worked for some time as an interrogator, torturer and executioner of political opponents in the notorious Evin Prison.

True or not, it is easy to believe that he is a very bad man indeed.

The trouble is, if I were an Iranian, would I prefer an american-backed candidate to him. Probably not.

The displaced who yearn for the good old days of the Shah might disagree.

Obama, according to the Bryzinski doctrine (he is Bryzinski's man), does not want to attack Iran on behalf of Israel. He wants to turn Iran against Russia.

In Bryzinski's 'Great Game', the serious threats to US hegemony come from Russia and China so balkanisation of these countries and any potential allies (like Pakistan or Iran) would be all to the good. To get Iran where they want it the promoters of colour revolutions (this regularly occuring caper seems to be a Soros project) they need to get their own man installed in Tehran.....or destabilise the country so that the change will occur later.

Truly horrible and wicked stuff.

The Iranian people do not deserve the horrors that have visited on Iraq.

Their politics is as grim as most but we should wish the country well and that it remains out of America's clutches.

The American devils do not intend to serve anyone's interests but their own.

Hearing Obama say he was 'very disturbed' about the violence in Iran on the news this morning was vomit-inducing.
'violence?''disturbing?'......Tell that the the Pakistanis or the Afghans or the Iraqis.......

............you filthy mass-murdering c*nt you.

hey, eddie.....they deserve it really though, don't they?

Er, thanks, Eddie. No, you don't sound ironic to me, you sound quite livid. And sometimes not a little nasty. But hey, so do lots of the others.

What does everyone who thinks that the CIA are entirely responsible for this suggest the people of Iran do, I wonder? Put up with the current regime in case any alternative turns out to be a CIA plot?

Technicolour - you are probably right, I am livid about those who support theocratic fascists.

But perhaps I am wrong, perhaps this uprising is all done with smoke and mirrors on photoshop and Iranians actually want more theocracy, more hanging of Gays, more oppression of women so that they can then expose 9/11 and the Holocaust as Jewish conspiracies. Then they can build their nuclear bomb and nuke Israel. Perhaps we are all Ahmadinejad now.

I don't think so.

How do you seriously, I mean seriously, suggest that the CIA have brainwashed all these people into taking to the streets, dodging bullets in the process? Have they paid them? Are you seriously claiming that these people are sheep, being manipulated by "dark forces"? Have you looked at the stuff on The Guardian website today? Come on.

@ eddie

"Have they paid them?"

Er well,probably yes eddie..that's usually exactly how it's done.
Or raw intimidation.
Or both.

Why else has the US Govt granted hundreds of millions of $,this year alone,to admitted covert and disruptive activities in Iran?

Why does it bring forth the same sort of mockery every time anyone suggests that organisations such as MI5 (official title, 'The Secret Service') do, uh, secret things, i.e. things concealed from the majority of the public? The role of the CIA and all the rest of these bodies is precisely to conduct covert operations and these include psychological and information operations - as well as to conduct analysis, etc. Did you know that from WWII to the late 1980s, an Secret Service Officer used to sit in an ofice in the BBC HQ on Queen Margaret Drive in Glasgow, vetting all internal and external job applications. Did you know that Kay Carmichael, partner of Neal Ascherson, was refused a job becasue she was considered suspect on some ridiculous premise. She was one of many. Did you know that successive BBC director-generals denied the existence of this SS officer? It was admitted to only in the early 1990s. Now, they don't need a person sitting in an office.

Of course, manipulation of opinion doesn't convince everyone - but it doesn't have to, it simply has to sow doubt and discord, flood the media with misinformation and create the orthodoxy that anyone who points to its mechanisms must be deluded.

Do you know what the CIA have DONE over the past 60 years - covertly, yes, that means in secret! Did you know that they had the biggest base outside Langley on the road between Islamabad and Rawalpindi in Pakistan throughout the 1980s? Unmarked, but everyone knew where it was an what it was. Do you know why? What do you think they were doing?

Did you know that the majority of Fleet Street's Industrial Correspondents during the 1950s-70s were on the SS payroll?

This is not 'conspiracy theory'. This is documented evidence, admitted to by the SS themselves and boasted of by the CIA! In 1953, the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh was declared clinically insane by the UK Press and heinous stories were spread about him. 1956, Nasser: same thing - he was 'Hitler'. Saddam Hussein, remember him? Remember the 'babies flung out of incubators' story? Completely false. He had, what was it now, 'nuclear, biological and chemical weapons ready to attack London in 45 minutes'. Right. Fantasy - but it was swallowed by the media, lock, stock and long-gun barrel. In 1928, Lawrence 'of Arabia' manufactured photographs of the Queen of Afghanistan's face on top of the body of naked woman as part of a (successful) disinformation campaign to bring down King Amanullah Khan who was attempting to advance his country - the UK wanted a weak buffer-state rather than a strong nation-state. There's much more. Now, it's the blogosphere and we are the 'natives'. The point is to be clever natives rather than stupid ones.

JIVES
I though you had more sense than that.

Watch this video from The Guardian and then tell me a) that these demonstrators are CIA stooges and b) that you don't support them.

You should be ashamed of yourself, supporting these fascists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBp2p3MGJqw

How about both of these are true:
a) The CIA have actively tried to destabilise Iran, and are justifying their existence and budgets by claiming to have succeeded
b) The majority of Iranians want the regime out.

Which brings us back to Mr Murray's post.

I do think it's insulting to assume Iraqis would need special coaching in how to use Twitter. Or that the opposition couldn't have come up with the idea of a green symbol all by themselves.

And I wonder how good the CIA actually are - some people here seem to think they're omnipotent. Paradoxically, I also wonder how the people of Burma would feel if the CIA tried to 'destablilise' their dictatorship by pouring money and resources into the democratic opposition. Not that bad, I imagine.

Of course meddling never really mends. I think it will be a disgrace and a shame if Iran ends up with an American stooge at its head, sewn into the IMF's golden straitjacket, pumped full of GM crops and with oil multinationals continuing to corrupt their economy and their politics. But what do people here suggest the Iranians do, apart from put up with Ahmajinedad?

Also, I am pretty sure, this way they know the US won't be bombing them? Poor Iranian people.

"According to then CIA officer Richard Cottam, 'that mob that came into north Tehran and was decisive in the overthrow was a mercenary mob. It had no ideology. That mob was paid for by American dollars.'"...

http://tinyurl.com/lrm4lj

Suhayl: "Do you know what the CIA have DONE over the past 60 years - covertly, yes, that means in secret! Did you know that they had the biggest base outside Langley on the road between Islamabad and Rawalpindi in Pakistan throughout the 1980s? Unmarked, but everyone knew where it was an what it was"

Doesn't sound very secret to me ;)

I've noticed the BBC's apparent inability to find one voice in favour of Ahmajinedad, however (perhaps I've missed them).

I'd love to take part in this debate, but @eddie, if you persist in coming here, swearing and using various ad hominem attacks make you look like a nutter and/or a stooge. Of this thread in particular, my guess is you are here to be disruptive, though I hope I am wrong.

Personally I support any genuine opposition to the Iranian regime. I don't think the people on the Iranian streets are all CIA collaborators. But I deplore any external influence that does not have the views of the Iranian people at heart, which as history teaches would likely include US/UK tinkering. After the lies over Iraq, the West is quite morally bankrupt, and its involvement (if any) should be viewed with deep suspicion.

@Suhayl Saadi - thanks for your calm and measured posts, which are refreshing here!

George Dutton: Yes, well he would say that, wouldn't he?

@eddie,

Give your other orifices a chance!

You have been systematically spamming this board with the same lines of asinine bile.

I am sick of the lines of arguments about Gays in .......... , a minority whose sexual proclivities are best left to themselves, and not paraded around as a badge of honour, or a must live life style. Furthermore what sex has to do with it? Every single post of yours winds up going on about sex, that is about the unusual kind of sex, what are you a pervert, or are you a closet homosexual?

So far as your pontifications goes about fascism, you have no idea what the words mean, you are living in a fascist state mate. However the ignorant moron that you are, whilst busy regurgitating bilge, you cannot see where you live, and how idiotic your posts appear. You are on record attributing trains running on time to Hitler!

Be advised it was Duce who is suppose to have had the trains ran on time, or for you to understand Mussolini the very good friend of Sydney Harmsworth, that is Lord Rothermere to you, the Jewish owner of the Daily Mail and mentor to il Duce, whom coined that rumour. In fact Trains were never on time whilst il Duce was around.

So far as your mendacious persistence for spamming the board with “fascism” goes, Fascio is the one that pays and sends you to spam this board. Fascisti are the criminals in US/UK/Israel whose cynical world view has brought humanity nothing but misery. Your monkey trap is only good enough for your kind of hairless apes, stop talking about morality, you have none, and your posts manifestly proves it.

You are asserting that a bunch of irate yuppies in Tehran, in search of more thrills forming the Gucci Crowds filmed runing amok are the representative of the aspirations of Iranians for “freedom”!!!!!! What kind of scum bag are you? To spin the expression of the freedom of action, on display in the streets of Tehran as oppression?

Eddie: why (how?) do you link Iran's oppression of women to Iran's wanting to bomb Israel? It doesn't follow. You are presenting the country as armed and dangerous. It is not armed and dangerous. Ahmajindedad's tone towards the West has, if anything, been conciliatory. Whatever your problems with Iran's internal human rights record, and however pure your support for its liberal, peaceful people, you do not need to be hysterical about the place, OK?

VamanosBandidos. Can you stop screaming insults in a manner which would get you sent out of any respectable classroom - it makes it hard to hear your point. Are you saying that all those millions of people were "Gucci" types? Iran must be incredibly rich.

EDDIE.

At what point in my post simply detailing acknowledged CIA methods did i offer any support to any particular regime?

And I'm certainly no supporter of fascists or theocrats-believe me.

Kindly read my psots more fully before levelling such baseless accusations against me.

Thanks.

eddieTroll(TM) opens his bowels again on this blog, brandishing the word fascism around while slamming others for using it in an equal or more valid sense.

eddieTroll(TM) curses, spittle flying, falsely insulting and labeling people with derogatory terms and complains people insult him.

eddieTroll(TM) blinkers himself to the crimes of his Blair Bush blow-up dolls, and believes he has some cosmic right to interfere in other countries, yet this right doesn't apply to others.

eddieTroll(TM) lives in a country that has nuclear power and nuclear weapons yet believes he is endowed once more with that cosmic force to decide who can have it and who cannot.

eddieTroll(TM) doesn't appreciate that the country tat inspired the star spangled underpants he never removes is the only country evil enough and insane enough to have used nuclear weapons, twice!, and ever the bully boy, threatened to end the human race in the 1960's.

eddieTroll(TM)'s indented consciousness lives in a country that has been to war numberous times over the past century yet would love to see the fall of a country that has been on the receiving end of war over that same century.

eddieTroll(TM)'s grand imperialist illusions are the stuff of nightmare that have apoliges it's sorry little ass off for the deaths of countless millions - the kind of death-trash we so long to put behind us.

@Suhayl: "MI5 (official title, 'The Secret Service')"

A little history for you. The body that was formed in 1909 to carry out surveillance on Germans suspected of spying was the "Secret Service Bureau". Subsequently the domestic branch became known as the "Security Service", while the foreign branch became the "Secret Intelligence Service". The terms MI5 and MI6 stem from the first Word War, and have stuck after they ceased to be official.

@Suhayl: "MI5 (official title, 'The Secret Service')"

A little history for you. The body that was formed in 1909 to carry out surveillance on Germans suspected of spying was the "Secret Service Bureau". Subsequently the domestic branch became known as the "Security Service", while the foreign branch became the "Secret Intelligence Service". The terms MI5 and MI6 stem from the first World War, and have stuck after they ceased to be official.

Jives
If you claim that the CIA is behind these protests, and you fail to support them, then you objectively (to use an old marxist term) support the present regime as far as I am concerned. Tell me you don't and I will accept it. Technicolour, I have made no links between oppression of women and wanting to bomb Israel. Craig has already stated that Iran is aiming to become a nuclear power, and I agree. A regime that is secretive, repressive and facing internal problems (pace North Korea) is more likely to use nuclear weapons than a democracy. As for Ahmadinejad's conciliatory tone towards the West I think you must read different information to me. This is a man who denies the Holocaust and wants to liquidate (I use the term in its Stalinist sense) Israel (or move it to Europe, and welcomed the global recession that has caused so much hardship in the West. Under his stewardship repression has increased and, as I have said before, Iran now leads the world in executing people, per capita. The Iranian people deserve a better future.

Jon I am sorry if I have used swear words (I don't recall it), but I think you will find that I have been more abused than abusing, on a ratio of about ten to one I would say. I also try to keep posts short, in contrast to the offensive nonsense spouted by KevinB and VB.

@technicolour,

Are you and eddie the same poster?

What millions of people, are you atlking about?

The few hundreds gathered Gucci Crowds, filmed in tight camera shots are now getting presented as millions?

show me the wide camera shots, and let us debate from there on.

Yes Iran is an incredibly rich country, do you not know that either?

The real estate prices in Tehran are higher than London, for your information; for the price of an average apartment in Tehran you can buy a flat in Mayfair, London.

As for the rest of your comment, eddie deserves every insult anyone can heap upon it.

Eddie-Troll should be ignored. He gets his kicks by getting up people's noses here. It's the only reason he posts.

-------

The arrogance of the 'US/UK combo' is really appalling. Imagine the reaction if there was even a hint of Iranian "tinkering" in UK or US elections (although Diebold can do it). The self-righteous outrage would resound around the world, and Iran would be branded the most evil of evil. Again.

We don't know for sure what the CIA may or may not have done in Iran, but the idea that they did nothing at all is not one of my options.

Ahmadinejad has indeed been conciliatory. I've read him carefully, and I watched his interview with Jon Snow. He didn't deny the Holocaust, but said he questioned the numbers. He followed that by saying that the Palestinians weren't responsible for it. (Oddly enough, the instantaneous translation that I heard at the time was not the same as what appeared on the Channel 4 website as a transcript, later.)

I don't see anything very radical there. The question of the numbers who died in the Holocaust has been discussed on this blog before, and most people seemed to agree that there was nothing wrong with anyone suggesting further study of the figures. The 'official' figures are apparently disputed by scholars anyway, as I understand it.

Ahmadinejad was also wrongly quoted/translated regarding 'wiping Israel off the map'. He never said that, and to my knowledge, the BBC admitted as much afterwards.

We are all well aware of the US capability for demonising those whom they wish to overthrow/oppress, and the gullibility of their citizens, who are easily duped by speeches and reports in the MSM -- the same MSM who don't bother their arses (neither here nor there) making a genuine effort to give their readers the truth, or even an approximation of it.

I would love to see a new generation of (freelance?) journalists who would take great pride in getting as close to the truth as was humanly possible. But I'm not holding my breath. And that's depressing.

This looks like a pretty balanced news report:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6506536.ece

CIA blah and historical context aside, of course. Unless I'm missing something? It agrees with VamosBandidos that 'yuppies' srtated it off, joined by perhaps a million or so other people (excuse my use of the plural, and yes, I saw wide angled shots of packed avenues quite unlike the lame staging in Baghdad.) If it's only a few yuppies, VB, why are the regime cutting off the media?

Mind you, it's not that nice about Moussavi, either. This all reminds me of the Yeltsin story, actually. And look who the poor Russians are stuck with now.

@ eddie.

I don't buy your Manichean simplification eddie,sorry.

To echo G.W.Bush at the outset of the War On Terror>" You're either with us or with them..."

I didn't buy that appalling simplification then and i don't subscribe to it now.

To answer your direct question though> No i don't at all support the current regime but nor do i support the CIA's meddling in other countries and cultures affairs.I support the Iranian peoples right to a free democratic process.Whether the CIA can achieve that is,at best,moot to me.I have read enough history to know the CIA always work to their own agenda.

"America has no friends only interests..."

Cheers.

Abe, I know, I meant, Security Service, I think in my almost dyslexic haste I had conflated the titles Security Service with the Secret Intelligence Service. Thanks for pointing it out though.

Eddie:

"Technicolour, I have made no links between oppression of women and wanting to bomb Israel."

"Iranians actually want more theocracy, more hanging of Gays, more oppression of women so that they can then expose 9/11 and the Holocaust as Jewish conspiracies. Then they can build their nuclear bomb and nuke Israel. Perhaps we are all Ahmadinejad now."

So yes, you did. You probably think you were being ironic. But in attempting, no doubt, to defend the choice of freedom and democracy, you were conflating fact (the Iranian regime oppresses women/hangs gay people) with fiction (the Iranian regime/Ahmajinedad want to build a nuclear bomb and nuke Israel) and presenting both as a truth of the current regime's mindset.

No matter what Mr Murray thinks (sure you can make your own mind up) there are conflicting reports about whether Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb at all, as I'm sure you know. Never mind wanting to "nuke" Israel: how would that help the Palestinians? There is no need to demonise the regime by raising spectres. You should read Ahmajindedad's letter to Bush urging peace: its tone may surprise you.

Jon, thanks, much appreciated indeed - though it's hard to maintain calmness sometimes!

Technicolour, I know that outside of the UK and USA, people seem to accept that the state does horrible things to people - it's 'secret' but open knowledge. It's only here that we seem to believe otherwise. The CIA had an unmarked complex but everyone knew where it was. That doesn't mean that they didn't do lots of covert things about which people did not know.

That the BBC won't interview pro-regime Iranians comes as no surprise.

I'm not a fan of Ahmedinejad or theocracy, not at all, but I know how US power works and in the case of the Middle East, it is not benificent.

The movement in Iran may well have genuine aims and reasons to be deeply upset. But, in view of past experience - some of these examples I have already mentioned - I think it highly likely that it is being manipulated by the CIA.

I wonder how many of us actually know Iranian people living in Iran, I mean, individuals.

I discoursed recently - over the web - with an educated Iranian woman in Tehran who over the course of time has been critical of Ahmedinejad and the political class in general and her words to me were:

"I would rather have Ahmedinejad's dog as president than be ruled by the USA".

@ dreoilin: "The question of the numbers who died in the Holocaust..The 'official' figures are apparently disputed by scholars anyway, as I understand it."

I hope that you were talking about a relatively small error as might occur in any estimate from documentary evidence (e.g. 5.75 instead of 5.9 million). The kind of estimates that anti-semites have promoted are typically orders of magnitude smaller, and so amount virtually to denial (which is now a crime in several European countries), e.g. Richard Williamson the right-wing cleric who claimed that the true figure was 4 or 5 % of the usual estimate.

A countervailing view:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8103292.stm

It's good to know that someone at the BBC remains awake even after the David Kelly Affair.

Here's the full piece: I think it's important, it comes from international sources, including some American ones:

Poll hint at plausible Iran vote
Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi
Supporters of Mr Mousavi may be louder rather than greater in number

The official result in Iran's disputed presidential election could plausibly reflect the will of the people, a group of international pollsters says.

An independent poll three weeks ago had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ahead of his closest rival by a similar 2:1 ratio.

Runner-up Mir Hossein Mousavi has claimed the election result was fixed.

The research was conducted by US-based polling organisations Terror Free Tomorrow, the New America Foundation and KA Europe SPRL.

"We found that President Ahmadinejad was leading by a substantial margin," Ken Ballen from Terror Free Tomorrow told the BBC World Service.

The nationwide poll was conducted between 11 and 20 May and consisted of 1,001 random interviews covering all 30 provinces of Iran. It had a 3% margin of error.

Its results gave Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a 33.8% share of the vote, more than twice as much as Mr Mousavi with 13.6%, and with Mehdi Karroubi and Mohsen Rezai trailing on less than 2% and 1% respectively.

Respondents says none of the candidates in 7.6% of interviews, while 15.1% refused to answer and 27.4% said they didn't know.

"Whether or not this would have changed, or whether Mr Ahmadinejad would hold that lead which would have translated into a victory, that's where the unknown factors arise," Mr Ballen said.

Cautious

According to official results Mr Ahmadinejad, the incumbent president, won 62.6% of votes cast. Mr Mousavi trailed with 33.8%.

"It's a plausible result, but the way the Iranian government handled it raises lots of questions," Mr Ballen told the BBC.

FROM BBC WORLD SERVICE

More from BBC World Service

His polls predicted that no candidate would pass the 50% threshold for an automatic win, and a second round would take place between the two highest finishers.

In the 2005 presidential elections, the leader in the first round, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, lost to the runner-up, Mr Ahmadinejad, in the run-off.

Mr Ballen said the independent survey was a rarity in Iran, where polls are normally carried out by state agencies.

"It is not a society that allows independent polling or exit polling or election monitors or independent monitors so its very hard to ascertain whether or not the results actually reflect the will of the people," he said.

However, the large number of students now protesting against the results was also in keeping with the findings and did not necessarily reflect the will of the whole country, Mr Ballen said.

"The only groups we found in Iran that were supportive of Mousavi or [among whom]... he was competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students, university graduates and the highest-income Iranians."

Other groups, such as Azeris, to whom Mr Mousavi was considered likely to appeal because of his Azeri background, also showed stronger support for Mr Ahmadinejad ahead of Mr Mousavi.

Only 16% of Azeris said they intended to vote for Mr Mousavi, compared to 31% who said they would vote for Mr Ahmadinejad.

"We need to be cautious in drawing a conclusion," Mr Ballen said.

"We know it [the election] wasn't free and fair but to jump to the next conclusion that Mousavi would have won with a landslide, we don't have hard scientific evidence for that.

"But we do have evidence pointing in the other direction, that the result may have been valid."

For anyone seriously interested in the interplay of events on the ground in Iran and external influences, then please visit and read this analysis - http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_308.shtml.
There is accurate comment there and much food for thought.

For anyone concerned about any semblace of scientic accuracy of the poll in Iran - consider these views - per. "Washington Post" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757_pf.html

For anyone concerned about any semblance of scientic accuracy of the poll in Iran - consider these views - per. "Washington Post" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757_pf.html

The article in the Washington Post is an eye-opener, and my thanks to the contributors who brought it to the readers' attention. This is the kind of contribution we need, that increases understanding; a refreshing change from matches of profane insults and sermons on conspiracies.

Technicolour - yes I was being ironic, it seems to be the only thing that works sometimes. I have no evidence that Ahmadinejad would like to nuke Israel, but I agree with Craig that he is seeking to develop the bomb, and since he affirms a) that there are no Gays in Iran and b) that he wants to see Israel wiped off the map (and all this nonsense about translations etc is just dissembling) I think he is not to be trusted. A lot of Iranians think so too.

Should one trust any politician?

We were assured that 'Iraq had WMD' - but no, they didn't. Actually, it was quite obvious that Colin Powell was the reluctant liar at the UN when he presented that shameful dossier. Uranium from Niger? False story, entirely made-up by the SIS, as Valerie Plame's husband proved.

Did you trust Tony Blair? Alasdair Campbell?

George W. Bush?

Colin Powell?

Condoleeza Rice?

Did we trust them? What did they do?

Who exactly is wiping people off the map, right now?

Many Iranians - even some of those who voted for them - don't trust their politicians, so perhaps they are wiser than we.

No! Otherwise, thanks Eddie, but this nonsense about translations I don't think is just dissembling. It really matters as to whether Ahmajinedad expressed a wish to see the Israeli government (regime) wiped off the map (or "expunged from the pages of history") or whether he wanted to annhialate (sp?) the whole Israeli population ("Israel").

At times I might have wished the Blair regime both wiped from maps and expunged from history (I mean, how awful was it?) but this did not mean that I wished for the obliteration of the entire British people. Do you see?

I don't know what the Iranians think (feel?). The one Iranian I know looks scared. I don't know whether Ahmajindedad is to be trusted over a used car. I am pretty sure that no-one wants to be blown to kingdom come, which has been the suggestion behind previous US regimes' sabre rattling.

Agreed, Suhayl. I think I would choose Ahmajinedad's dog over most of them. Do you think we do get the leaders we deserve? It doesn't seem so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

I have read up a lot on this and the only conclusion is that he is dissembling. Regime = country, no question. He seeks the elimination of Israel. Whether it is Gays, Israel or Holocaust denial he uses the same tactics over and over again - he flies a kite and then denies it, or gets his people to say that he has been mis-translated. It is transparent.

"Lost in translation"
'Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. Reports that he did serve to strengthen western hawks.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155

"e.g. Richard Williamson the right-wing cleric who claimed that the true figure was 4 or 5 % of the usual estimate."
--Abe

No, I didn't mean that at all. I was talking about the fact that the figures, of necessity, can't be 100% accurate. I had recently been reading here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust

Are You Ready For War With Demonized Iran?

By Paul Craig Roberts (ex-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during Reagan years)

June 16, 2009 "Information Clearing House"

-- How much attention do elections in Japan, India, Argentina, or any other country, get from the US media? How many Americans and American journalists even know who is in political office in other countries besides England, France, and Germany? Who can name the political leaders of Switzerland, Holland, Brazil, Japan, or even China?

Yet, many know of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad. The reason is obvious. He is daily demonized in the US media.

The US media’s demonization of Ahmadinejad itself demonstrates American ignorance. The President of Iran is not the ruler. He is not the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He cannot set policies outside the boundaries set by Iran’s rulers, the ayatollahs who are not willing for the Iranian Revolution to be overturned by American money in some color-coded “revolution.”

Iranians have a bitter experience with the United States government. Their first democratic election, after emerging from occupied and colonized status, in the 1950s was overturned by the US government. The US government installed in place of the elected candidate a dictator who tortured and murdered dissidents who thought Iran should be an independent country and not ruled by an American puppet.

The US “superpower” has never forgiven the Iranian Islamic ayatollahs for the Iranian Revolution in the late 1970s, which overthrew the US puppet government and held hostage US embassy personnel, regarded as “a den of spies,” while Iranian students pieced together shredded embassy documents that proved America’s complicity in the destruction of Iranian democracy.

The government-controlled US corporate media, a Ministry of Propaganda, has responded to the re-election of Ahmadinejad with non-stop reports of violent Iranians protests to a stolen election. A stolen election is presented as a fact, even thought there is no evidence whatsoever. The US media’s response to the documented stolen elections during the George W. Bush/Karl Rove era was to ignore the massive documented evidence of real stolen elections.

Leaders of the American puppet states of Great Britain and Germany have fallen in line with the American psychological warfare operation. The discredited British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, expressed his “serious doubt” about Ahmadinejad’s victory to a meeting of European Union ministers in Luxembourg. Miliband, of course, has no source of independent information. He is simply following Washington’s instructions and relying on unsupported claims by the defeated candidate preferred by the US Government.

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, had her arm twisted, too. She called in the Iranian ambassador to demand “more transparency” on the elections.

Even the American left-wing has endorsed the US government’s propaganda. Writing in The Nation, Robert Dreyfuss presents the hysterical views of one Iranian dissident as if they are the definitive truth about “the illegitimate election,” terming it “a coup d’etat.”

What is the source of the information for the US media and the American puppet states?

Nothing but the assertions of the defeated candidate, the one America prefers.

However, there is hard evidence to the contrary. An independent, objective poll was conducted in Iran by American pollsters prior to the election. The pollsters, Ken Ballen of the nonprofit Center for Public Opinion and Patrick Doherty of the nonprofit New America Foundation, describe their poll results in the June 15 Washington Post. The polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and was conducted in Farsi “by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award.” - You can find their report here

The poll results, the only real information we have at this time, indicate that the election results reflect the will of the Iranian voters. Among the extremely interesting information revealed by the poll is the following:

“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.

“The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our pre-election 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.”

There have been numerous news reports that the US government has implemented a program to destabilize Iran. There have been reports that the US government has financed bombings and assassinations within Iran. The US media treats these reports in a braggadocio manner as illustrations of the American Superpower’s ability to bring dissenting countries to heel, while some foreign media see these reports as evidence of the US government’s inherent immorality.

Pakistan’s former military chief, General Mirza Aslam Beig, said on Pashto Radio on Monday, June 15, that undisputed intelligence proves the US interfered in the Iranian election. “The documents prove that the CIA spent 400 million dollars inside Iran to prop up a colorful but hollow revolution following the election.”

The success of the US government in financing color revolutions in former Soviet Georgia and Ukraine and in other parts of the former Soviet empire have been widely reported and discussed, with the US media treating it as an indication of US omnipotence and natural right and some foreign media as a sign of US interference in the internal affairs of other countries. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that Mir Hossein Mousavi is a bought and paid for operative of the US government.

We know for a fact that the US government has psychological warfare operations that target both Americans and foreigners through the US and foreign media. Many articles have been published on this subject.

Think about the Iranian election from a common sense standpoint. Neither myself nor the vast majority of readers are Iranian experts. But from a common sense standpoint, if your country was under constant threat of attack, even nuclear attack, from two countries with much more powerful military establishments, as is Iran from the US and Israel, would you desert your country’s best defender and elect the preferred candidate of the US and Israel?

Do you believe that the Iranian people would have voted to become an American puppet state?

Iran is an ancient and sophisticated society. Much of the intellectual class is secularized. A significant, but small, percentage of the youth has fallen in thrall to Western sexual promiscuity, to personal pleasure, and to self-absorption. These people are easily organized with American money to give their government and Islamic constraints on personal behavior the bird.

The US government is taking advantage of these westernized Iranians to create a basis for discrediting the Iranian election and the Iranian government.

On June 14, the McClatchy Washington Bureau, which sometimes attempts to report the real news, acquiesced to Washington’s psychological warfare and declared: “Iran election result makes Obama’s outreach efforts harder.” What we see here is the raising of the ugly head of the excuse for “diplomatic failure,” leaving only a military solution.

As a person who has seen it all from inside the US government, I believe that the purpose of the US government’s manipulation of the American and puppet government media is to discredit the Iranian government by portraying the Iranian government as an oppressor of the Iranian people and a frustrater of the Iranian people’s will. This is how the US government is setting up Iran for military attack.

With the help of Mousavi, the US government is creating another “oppressed people,” like Iraqis under Saddam Hussein, who require American blood and treasure to liberate. Has Mousavi, the American candidate in the Iranian election who was roundly trounced, been chosen by Washington to become the American puppet ruler of Iran?

The great macho superpower is eager to restore its hegemony over the Iranian people, thus settling the score with the ayatollahs who overthrew American rule of Iran in 1978.

That is the script. You are watching it every minute on US television.

There is no end of “experts” to support the script. For one example among hundreds, we have Gary Sick, appropriately named, who formerly served on the National Security Council and currently teaches at Columbia University:

"If they'd been a little more modest and said Ahmadinejad had won by 51 percent," Sick said, Iranians might have been dubious but more accepting. But the government's assertion that Ahmadinejad won with 62.6 percent of the vote, "is not credible."

"I think,” continued Sick, “it does mark a real transition point in the Iranian Revolution, from a position of claiming to have its legitimacy based on the support of the population, to a position that has increasingly relied on repression. The voice of the people is ignored."

The only hard information available is the poll referenced above. The poll found that Ahmadinejad was the favored candidate by a margin of two to one.

But as in everything else having to do with American hegemony over other peoples, facts and truth play no part. Lies and propaganda rule.

Consumed by its passion for hegemony, America is driven to prevail over others, morality and justice be damned. This world-threatening script will play until America bankrupts itself and has so alienated the rest of the world that it is isolated and universally despised.

Why O Why, there is this English disease of looking for exceptions, minorities, and odd balls, and legislating/catering/citing for/from these?

eddie keeps going on about Gays, so what about Gays? Are Gays a huge majority? Is being Gay a mandatory? What the hell is the Numbers of Gays in the world?

Are the numbers of killed gays as many as the one and on half of one million killed Iraqis? or five million Iraqis made into homeless refugees?

On the other hand are the numbers of killed Gays as many as four million homeless Palestinians, because the Jewish Supremacists stole their lands, and kicked these out? Or is the numbers of these killed Gays as many as the two million Gaza residents kept in the bigest open air concentration camp in the world by the Apartheid Jewish supremacist state?

Then what the hell is this incessant moans about Gays, and bloody Jewish Supremacists, this eddie so much whines on, and, on, and, on, .......

http://tinyurl.com/n2s4mr

Ahmadinejad Won. Get Over It

///

...Western media, most American “Iran experts” overstated Mir Hossein Mousavi’s “surge” over the campaign’s final weeks. More important, they were oblivious — as in 2005 — to Ahmadinejad’s effectiveness as a populist politician and campaigner. American “Iran experts” missed how Ahmadinejad was perceived by most Iranians as having won the nationally televised debates with his three opponents — especially his debate with Mousavi.

….. the same aides concluded that Ahmadinejad’s provocatively impressive performance and Mousavi’s desultory one had boosted the incumbent’s standing. Ahmadinejad’s charge that Mousavi was supported by Rafsanjani’s sons — widely perceived in Iranian society as corrupt figures — seemed to play well with voters.

….Some “Iran experts” argue that Mousavi’s Azeri background and “Azeri accent” mean that he was guaranteed to win Iran’s Azeri-majority provinces; since Ahmadinejad did better than Mousavi in these areas, fraud is the only possible explanation.

But Ahmadinejad himself speaks Azeri quite fluently …. during the campaign, he artfully quoted Azeri and Turkish poetry — in the original — in messages designed to appeal to Iran’s Azeri community. (And we should not forget that the supreme leader is Azeri.) The notion that Mousavi was somehow assured of victory in Azeri-majority provinces is simply not grounded in reality.

///

An excellent article written by someone who actually can discern his elbow from his keyboard.

Why the west made no noise about unelected person being isntalled as PM of india-
because that man-bastard manmohan singh is a west's stooge and he has been installed on behalf of the west on Indian public. this bastard did not win elelction nor he did any electioneering.

THE INDIAN PUBLIC HAS BEEN BOOTING OUT THE GOVTS. AFTER GOVTS. AS TERM EXPIRES BECAUSE INDIAN PUBLIC DOES NOT WANT SO CALLED LIBERALIZATION AND PIRATE CAPITALIST SUYTEM BUT THE POLITICANS INT EH PAY PACKET OF BUSIENSS MEN AND MEDIA BEING PIMPS OF CAPITAL HAVE BEEN NULLYIFYING TH ELECTION RESULT FOR LAST 15 YEARS. THIS SYSTEM WAS BROUGHT TO INDIA BY THE AMERICAN AGENT MANOHANS SINGH WHO BRIBED THE MPS TO KEEP THE NEAO LIBERAL AGENDA OF HIS UNCLELCTABLE GOVT. BOth IN 1993 and 2008. such people swear a lot by democracy aswell.!! What that has done to the indian elelction process is that it has made the result of Indian elelction as farce as of any american or british elelction result. During 60s and 70s and even 80s the Indian masses used to celebrate elcetion time as a festival of choice -the people power to take account of the polictiicans -therefore there was a large turn out of people in voting. but having seen that even after toppling the govt. the new govt from oppositon is made to act just like previous one-looking after interest of business class and corrupt traders-the Indian public is getting tired of voting and the voting tally is going down from 85% to 65 %. this is exactly what the corrupot business class want-the people to be depoliticised. and that is the tactics the Indian corrupt business sclass has imported from britian and usa. 7th october, 2008 even after the obvious faliure of free markeeters in america this americna gen manmonan singh ( a person who is not only unlelected but unelectable-he sttod for lower house of parliament but was throughly defeated by the elctorate-then he entered parliament through uppwer house-like house of lords from where he is not supposed to become prime minsiter at all-but law was circumvented for him) such is the democracy we are talking about) not been killed frhh treason but also not chastised this manmhan singh is a charlaton whose theory fits with fit with Milton Friedman's "greed is good" Chicago School mumbo jumbo. Both Friedman and Kemp believe that what is good for the stock market is good for America, ignoring the shocking economic polarization that has divided the nation. Now, more and more people are beginning to see that Friedman was a charlatan who provided ideological cover for obscenely rich financiers and their dodgy investment scams. may 9th , 2007. This ( rejected thrice by the public in general election) prime minister(installed at american behest) manmaohan singh is trying to enter parliament again through vack door-he filled nomination through assam with help of sonai gandhi congress(of whoioch he is not a leader or person of any singificance). such is the democracy we live in. i thought democracy meansd people electing the party and primeminister to be elected through that elelctable persons. but as for american definigitn of democracy like in stooge s in afggansitana nd iraq we have an americana tooge who doe snot need to boyther wabout indian opinion because he has not been s-chosen by the indian people for the post but isntalled by a foreing country to make idnia run for foreing.es nbenefit. and we are celebrating 150 yrs of what? return of the company and corporate again?(not called ast or west india company this time but same nevertheless).. the media now decries that the polling rate in india is rapdly going down that in india where the people have always been enthusiatic to vote. doe sit not occur to media that pepel are now refusing to rubber stamp the primeminsiter sna his cabinet when the people have already rejected such lots and still unelectable person gets chosen as prime minister of foren minister(jaswant singh) with no popular support anbut only because angloamerican agents in india want that to be. For several general elections the people have rejected the so called loiberalization and wasnhington consensus policy of govet. of india but each time new govt is elected the media astrats telling that economic and foreing policy msut not change even though people have overwhelmingly voted against that. media brings erronaeous cause for defeat of incumbent govt. like secratarianism and all russbih but never mentions that people have thrown that american dictated policy being pursued by both parties. Such is the genesis of indian electorate's disilluionment with voting -all due to corruption of media and jourtnalists along with the busisness class of india(these days traitor FICI is organising more conferences than the govt. of India for inter-ministerial meetings!. How India is being treacherously enslaved by angloamerican agents likes of (unelectable and defeated in democratic election ) this Pm manmohan singh and the english media inside india. a great misconception is that so caled liberalization and globalization was brought to india by this manmohan singh. In fact soon after victory in iraq war in febraury 1991 the bush no. first declared a new world order in which he explicitly said that he will open up the world for american business. In fact his trade seccratary immeditealy annomnuced that she will make sure that america open up the thighs of thrid world countries (Like as with a vice ) as a slwoly and surely to american business(true analogy to a rape)-that was given the name Liberalization and globalization for which the british and americans had been working since 1986. What was left for america to do was install maleable stooges inside the thrirld world countries. escpeally those types who are unelctable and have no mass base of their own-- in other words who are not elelctable democratically but installed from above through media and other manipulations. this manmohan singh in india fulffiled that criteria of being unliked and unelctable insignificant person who was willing to act on arder of his american masters -if they had asked him to turn communist he would have done that.It is this traitor manmohan singh who informed america of impending Indian nuclear test in 1993 and also who openly said that iran pakistan inida pipe line would be difficlt to finance -just because his americans masters did not want that! It isa sad refletion on india that since 1986 we have has only weaklings as our prime minsiters and fincnace minsiters not to speak of non mentionable defence misnters who made sure that Indians nuclear and missle programme got stuck at 1986. " Modus operandi of british and american scumbags --Groom an opposition candidate to run against the guy you hate, pay him well and line up your media to back him. 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. 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 and BBC cameras and men yelling angrily " Rubin, Summers and Geithner are credited with managing the global economy through the turbulent nineties, including the Mexican, East Asian, Russian and Latin American financial crises. This narrative glosses over the role they played in forcing countries, particularly in Asia, to liberalize financial flows. A New York Times account from February 1999 noted: “It was American officials who pushed for the financial liberalization that nurtured the speculation (even if developing nations themselves welcomed it). And it was American bankers and money managers who poured billions of dollars into those emerging markets. Then, when the crisis hit, American officials insisted on tough measures like budget cuts and high interest rates, which many economists argue made things worse.” Summers and Rubin were the point men for liberalization, which led to the rise of oligarchic billionaires and financial panics that saw huge outflows of funds, currency devaluations, mass impoverishment and Western capital sweeping in to cherry-pick industries at fire-sale prices. march, 2007 --this unelectable (and three times defeated in democratic elections ) so called prime minieter manmohan singh is a blot on the face of democratic india. he is there aonbly because the anglosaxon powers wanted him there instead of sonia gandhi(who wouldnot have been that maelelable to english speaking world-master race as this stooge manmohan is). this manmohan singh has been very unpopular in democratic election losing even when there was a wave in favour of congress. he has not even let pujab select his d=congress pqarty for assembley election in 2007 so mucn unpol;ular he is. but he is very popular amnost the anglosaxon media and govert. therefore he is popular amonst the english media and all the angloamerican stooges theat you find in any thirld world aka allwi,Ahmed Chalabi(of iraqi traitor fame) mubarak types. manmohan singh is a yeltsin of india-very pouilar amonst enemies of india exactly because he has sold india cheap to thse amngloamericn interests. now the idito indian elites are pro=jecting this imbecile manmohan singh as some intelecutal -whoever heard of e=an economist as a scintist or intellectual espceaccilly the economist who foolws voddo ecnomy of chaicago school? even granted someone is educated what thse iditot elites of india are saying is that a geek with =zero personality and nil oratory power with no public fowwlloping should become a leader of 1.2billion people without being unecleted or despite losing elelction in genral elelctions. three times. ofcourse with no personality and a rote knowledge of chicago peudo-economics this imposter on indian poilctical scene is a cancer to the very name of democracy and decency.he is very very dishonet-he lies at he drop of hat (indo american nuyclear pact, indians defence procurements, agricultrual disaster inside india -which caters to 75% of indian population0.), this manamohsn singh has papuperized india and weakned the idnian defence forces. During the period from 1992 onwards the indian defence forces has weakened to one third of its ablity during this traitors helm at finance minsitry and primeministreship. this fellow has made indian air force virtually a camel air force.manmohan singh is responsible for tracherous indo nuclear pact and for dragging his feet over delay procumrent to indian air force jsut to please his real masters the angloamerican interests.

As ever, with Eddie the irony runs rampant.

"and since he affirms a) that there are no Gays in Iran and b) that he wants to see Israel wiped off the map (and all this nonsense about translations etc is just dissembling)"

Dissembling you say? Bloody marvellous! How free of shame you are Eddie, a true inspiration to gits everywhere.

a) Ahmadinejad did not say there are no gays in Iran, capitalised or otherwise. He merely said that Iran didn't have gays like we in the West have gays. And he's right! There are no men in latex short shorts, crotchless chaps, or cabaret chanteuse cocktail dresses in Tehran's inner city. I don't know about everyone else but me I could live with that. But what with your fixation on it Eddie, I'm half given to thinking you might want to scratch Tehran of your travel itinerary - 'nightlife too boring'.

b) The old 'wipe Israel off the face of the map' chestnut is just the lie that wouldn't die isn't it? As for regime = country, just take it as read, Eddie, that we're all laughing in your face. And quite right too, that being such a chronically bad argument. Why don't you get in touch with the OED and tell them they have two entries when they only need one? I'll say it again, what Ahmadinejad said of zionism in Israel is mirrored precisely in what Reagan said of the Soviet Union. If it's alright for Ronny, it's alright for Mahmoud

Speaking of 'say it again', that's a thing one is doomed to do forever when it comes to our Eddie. He has his talking points (identical to the media's funnily enough) and that's all we're ever going to get (just like the media). And you have tag-team partners I notice Eddie. Are they you or are they other individuals? If the latter, do you ever meet? Is there a secret handshake? Or are you in the same office?

No whinging now, Eddie. If you've got the game you may as well have the name. (Don't you love it how that phrase makes way more sense arse-about like that?) Anyway, under this rubric why don't we just call you out - you're a disinfo spook. Protest away, say that that ain't you etc. but we got your number mate, and your pathetic bleating won't make a lick of difference.

Happy Clappy/Nobody- you both seem to have issues with Gay people. I assumed that most of the people on these boards were broadly speaking of the left, and therefore that you (broadly speaking) would support certain universal principles, such as human rights, freedom of thought and religion, equality for women, equality for Gay people, an acknowledgement of the horrors of the Holocaust, democracy etc. Perhaps I am wrong, in fact I know I am wrong as there seems to be as much intolerance here as among the far right, and, as I have always said the differences between the BNP and some of you lot are slight. Your regular and violent abuse of me is evidence of that.

From The Guardian - in a speech made at Columbia University September 2007.

"In Iran, we don't have homosexuals. In Iran we don't have this phenomenon. I don't know who has told you we have it," Mr Ahmadinejad said to laughter and cries of disbelief from the audience of students and university staff. Homosexuality is illegal in Iran, and sodomy punishable by death.

Is that clear enough for you? Lost in translation again?

As for wiping Israel off the map I have provided the link that sets out the discussion on that topic. Don't you think, in your heart of hearts, that, in a country where "Death to America" has been the main government slogan for the past thirty years that "Death to Israel" (its proxy according to you) might, just might, touch a chord? Did you not see the reception that Ahmedinejad received when he returned from Geneva? So I fear it is you that is dissembling over this issue. And anyway, what if he did? According to another post above the President has no power so it is irrelevant. Cake, eat.

eddie basically keeps presenting the Obama/Brown/Zionist line time and time again on this thread.

Our hearts should bleed about the fact that some Afghan girls are not getting 'a proper education' but slaughtering thousands in Afghanistan on systematic and regular basis is fine......not really a moral issue at all.

Read Paul Craig Roberts above. The 'green' US-backed colour revolution is the mostly the Iranian high-earners yearning for a return to the days of the Shah so that they get down to looting their country properly.

genuinely independent polls before the election showed Ahminejad as the clear 2:1 leader....

......and why would iranians want to elect persons who are the preferred candidates of their greatest enemies, US/UK/Israel.

Read eddie the Troll and believe the exact opposite of every disgusting word that comes out of him.

Anyone genuinely interested should read "Unspeakable Love. Gay and Lesbian Life in the Middle East" by Brian Whitaker. It is a chilling account of tyranny, torture and murder.

I have stopped posting comments on Guido's blog because of the smutty homophobic sneers he allows against Mandelson and other public figures who happen to be gay (which is quite irrelevant to their public performance). I'd be sorry to have to do the same here.

I think the people attacking Eddie sound far more horrible than he does.

technicolour,

So regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran we're the good guys are we?

Have you never heard the expression about removing the beam from your own eye before remarking on the mote in someone else's?

The BNP objected to the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq too. This does not make them the "good guys".

technicolour,

That's so like eddie's (non) logic....attacking a statement no one has made to prove your (non) point.

Are you eddie?

I was simply pointing out, anonymous poster, that several of the people attacking eddie sound far more horrible than he does. You brought up Afghanistan Iraq and Iran, for some reason (I presume you meant the attacks on them, rather than the geography). I then pointed out that being against these attacks does not necessarily make you a nice person, or "a good guy" (your words). Have you had breakfast yet?

technicolour,
Are you eddie?

Er, no, but then technically I am not technicolour either, you know, it is a pseudonym. I will not pre-suppose that you are the anonymous poster throwing around phrases like "vicious, ignorant, hate-filled little tub of Zionist shyte", but would ask, do you think this kind of statement advances debate, or merely serves to relieve a person's feelings, like a bowel movement? And don't you think it's curious that many of the people accusing eddie of being a troll whose purpose is to stir up hatred and cloud the issues, then release clouds of hatred and stir things up in their turn? I do.

technicolour,

the difficulty in dealing with eddie is a long standing refusal to accept the most persuasive of evidence. I accept that this does not justify the attacks - although he is never slow to respond and historically has a habit of getting his revenge in first.

If one was to suggest to eddie that the sun might rise in the east tomorrow morning he would doubtless deny such a thing could ever happen. This attitude frustrates people as does a habit of hiding behind moral equivalence as an argument - hence the growing desperation that gathers in opposing posters.

There are many occasions on this site where eddie has demanded a well sourced or definitive piece of evidence to prove him wrong and then deliberately ignored such responses, ducking and diving like an east end spiv. All add up to an atmosphere where people over-react and I think that is, for eddie, the point. I think it is extremely unfortunate because this attitude leads to the generation of more heat than light on topics that are often worthy of far greater consideration. All people ask is that eddie accepts the opinions of others (often sourced much more accurately than his own) as he expects his own contributions to be respected.

Yours, more in hope than expectation....

So Chris, leaving eddie aside for a second, the often vicious and vaguely homophobic abuse he's getting is because
a) he deserves is/is actively asking for it
b) he's often abusive first
c) the most viciously abusive posters are simply decent people inflamed and made desperate by his inability to agree with them.

I see.

Thanks to the anonymous poster who provided the reference to the piece, "Are You Ready For War With Demonized Iran?". Very interesting. That the western media is so exercised about dodgy foreign ballot counts, and less so about dodgy domestic ballot counts, makes me truly unhappy. Aside from pockets of dissidents, most people seem enthralled to power and are taken in by the illusion of benign western government - despite the historical record. Mass apathy and a widespread lack of intellectual rigour may well help us to destroy the planet, if not ourselves too.

I received the following from Avaaz, a US-based centre-left pressure group inspired by MoveOn.org, leftist Democrats themselves. They've released some good alerts and petitions and I believe they're not a front group! However they are also suspecting the election is a fraud, so just for yourselves:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/iran_vote_truth/

If you believe that the uprising has nothing to do with CIA destabilisation, then feel free to donate. They are a good group, but I wonder whether they've got the balance on this one right.

Technicolour and anticant, thank you for your comments, I won't call it support but at least you have recognised that the abuse I get is not good. Chris, I am quite happy to accept well sourced and objective information, what I won't accept and never will accept is fantasies about conspiracies and dark forces ("the most persuasive of evidence"), and on this Craig is in agreement. Many of the "persuasive" bits of evidence that are thrown at me turn out to be nothing of the sort, instead they come from the murkier corners of the internet.

Nameless person (can't you get that sorted?) with respect, the fact that you think technicolour could be me highlights your paranoia. Can't you accept that someone who holds different views to you may wish to challenge and argue his case? Why on earth do you think spooks or agents would inhabit this remote corner of the internet? As for your heart bleeding for the fact that some Afghan girls not getting an education thay are also having acid thrown in their faces by the Taliban and I would remind you that the government of Afghanistan is democratically elected and that 30% of its MPs are women. I think that is worth standing up for, don't you? Standing up against the REAL forces of darkness, the people who would like to take us back to the middle ages.

Returning to Iran, the violence is escalating and if these demonstrators are being paid by the CIA then many of them are paying with their lives and their freedom. The IT official in the Interior Ministry who leaked the real results has reportedly died in a suspicious car crash. If this isn't nazism/stalinism I don't know what is. What we are witnessing is a coup d'etat.

dear Eddie, I do quite like the way you insist that everything is OK in the West and the "dark forces" in Afghanistan, say, are no longer US stooges and spooks but the "Taliban", for example. I think, however that whoever called this point of view Manichean had it right. The US created the Taliban. I was there while they were channeling millions of dollars a year into Hezb i Islami, whose leader (Gulbuddin Hekmatyar) had thrown acid into women's faces himself. No-one, least of all the mujaheedin moderates, could understand it.

I think there's very much a case for drawing a line under all this, and starting again with what is happening *now*, otherwise when will this ever end? Perhaps the US is now actively supporting people who believe in human rights, for example, rather than encouraging the worst psychos and killers to do their dirty work for them. And it does not mean that the Iranian protests, say, are invalid as a result. But I think it does behove us to have a certain sense of history before commenting.

Any time eddie is under fire, suddenly technicolour makes an appearance, and prances to defend eddie, on the same lines of imbeciles' reasoning as eddie.

Fact that Guardian has written this and that makes it a true reflection of the realities apparently, based on the principles that anything printed on a bit of news print is true, and anything the nice BBC man says is true too!

The simple fact that what about millions of Palestinians whom have been incarcerated in an open air concentration camp, millions of Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, …. have been made into homeless refugees, by the very system that eddie, and his cohorts are constantly defending, and admonishing all and sundry whom ever strays from the path of pusillanimous, wanton, grovelling support of the same criminals whom have constituted such a criminal system and imposed it upon those unfortunates.

None of the above, matters to eddie, for he is all too concerned with sex, and its unusual forms. What eddie wants is all of us to be thinking about, is the poor little Gays, fact that there are millions more pressing issues such as five millions Iraqi refugees, whom have been left to fend for themselves without the slightest help from any quarters, is only incidental, all that matters to eddie is sex, and Gays, and so it matters to technicolour too.

This thread is about the hijack of an indigenous democracy by outside elements in collusion with the insider reactionaries in Iran. Fact that Hashemi Rafsanjani is sarcastically known as King Hashem the first, and derided for his notions of his state of health and wealth being directly correlated with the state of health and wealth of Iran!!! Ie if the king is happy then the country is happy too!!!!!!!

But hey that matters little to eddie the Zionist toady and his cohorts. All that matters to eddie is the very narrow and obtuse angle of what is in it for eddie? Never-mind millions of deaths, and millions more left starving, homeless, and destitute without any hopes of ever returning to their homes, all that is to be debated is; gays, and Israel, and the hypothetical, and possibly imaginary threats to these.

Fact is we the people have voted with our remote controls, and we no longer watch the bilge on the TV passed as news, we the people no longer buy the propaganda sheets, passed as the “print media”, hence the latest notions of the propaganda tax (BBC license fee) to be split among commercial and “independent” companies. As well as paying even more to trolls like eddie to come and mess up the boards for the benefit of whom?

No one is buying the propaganda shown on BBC that shows a bunch of Iranian students chanting a song, and then the commentators informs the audiences as; These students are shouting “death to dictator”. Fact that dictator is pronounced dictator in any language somehow does not matter, because the BBC person told us and we ought to believe her too! This is what eddie's sponsors want, and wish for.

The audacity of these out of touch, and out of time sharp operatives is beyond the pale, for they truly believe that masses can eat cakes when faced with scarcity of bread, and expenses scrounging is legal as per rules that have been set in place, and Shah Hashem Rafsanjani the first is the best hope for Iran!!!!!

Yeah right eddie, technicolour, et al.

I haven't insisted that everything is ok in the West. We are certainly far from perfect. What I have insisted, and will continue to insist, is that worse things are happening elsewhere. Talking about history, we all know that when people were protesting in Grosvenor Square in the sixties over Vietnam (bad) Mao was in the process of killing a total of 60 million people (very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad) yet no one in the West did a thing. So all I am saying is that the obsessing over the West/ Israel/ Gaza is missing the target, very, very bad things are happening around the world and we are complicit in our silence. Those who carry on about living here in a fascist state, to me, are like spoilt rich kids in a big house shouting "It's so unfair!" when people are dying across the tracks. So that is what gets me worked up, and it is a legitimate point of view I believe.

As for the taliban, you have no evidence that they were "created" by the US. It is true that the West provided arms to those who were fighting the Soviets during the cold war, but to suggest that the US "created" an organisation that it knew would go on to deny human rights, maim, torture and kill in the way that it has is nonsense. You know perfectly well that throughout history governments have made policy on the basis that "my enemy's enemy is my friend", often with disastrous results.

"I am quite happy to accept well sourced and objective information, what I won't accept and never will accept is fantasies about conspiracies and dark forces"

Come again? The first person on this thread to claim "conspiracies and dark forces" in respect of the Iranian election result was you eddie, and that was based on no sources whatsoever other than your own Islamophobic fantasies. Given that a professionally conducted poll prior to the election predicted a 2/3 majority for Ahmadinejad those fantasies appear to be somewhat off the mark as things currently stand.

When however eminently well-sourced and objective evidence was put to you regarding the discovery of active thermite particles in the dust from WTC you blew a gasket and made rather a fool of yourself.

Would you like to reconsider your self-assessment on this matter and get back to us with something a little more accurate?

VamanosBandidos,
"This thread is about the hijack of an indigenous democracy by outside elements in collusion with the insider reactionaries in Iran."

Is it? I thought it was merely stating that you can't have a sensible conversation about Iran unless you see both sides of the argument.
It really annoys me when people like you seem to think that because Iran opposes the US's desperate need for dominance that they are a worthy government.
I'm no fan of our government or the US but i will never support a country that restricts the rights of people like Iran does.
I see supporting Iran in the same light as supporting the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe or the Junta in Burma or the Royal government of Saudi Arabia.
They're all the same.
I think we are lucky that we can complain against our government without the fear of death when we believe that they are wrong and that our country accepts people for who they are not what they are. It's a luxury that we should never forget.

By the way I'm not Technicolour or Eddie.

Eddie:

The West may not have completely created the Taliban but they allowed extremism take over when the Russian's were defeated. As soon as the Russian's had left they jumped ship too and left the country in ruins. They provided little or no support and were quite happy for the Taliban to take over.
The West were the main reason the Taliban were in power for so long in Afghanistan.

Chris, well said, and no you are not me. But the USA didn't even "partially" create the taliban. The Taliban that we know is the one that took Afghanistan back to the middle ages, banned music and kite flying, stopped women working (and destroyed the health service at a stroke) on top of all its other atrocities. I don't believe that you can say the USA created that. You say the USA "allowed" extremism to take over after the Soviets left? One minute you are slagging off the USA for interfering in other countries the next you are saying they should have intervened. Make your mind up! The West may have been a little "happy" early doors that the taliban brought order and stability after the chaos of warlordism, but they soon changed their mind once the enormities of taliban rule became apparent.

MJ I haven't mentioned any fantasies - I have referred to well grounded suspicions that the election has been rigged and you will find that many commentators support that notion, especially as the regime is now clamp0ing down on all dissent and, allegedly, killing an expert who leaked the true results. You call me Islamophobic, but that is just a kneejerk mantra. But yes, I am anti all religions, especially those that interfere in civil life. Religion is for the head and the home and it should not intrude elsewhere.

Please don't get me started on 911 again I beg you. The thermite argument is well rehearsed and it doesn't have any credible backers (stands back and waits for the onslaught).

Eddie, you don't understand: the US government of the time created the Taliban in Afghanistan, by openly funding the most hated and fanatical of all the warlords, in an attempt to prevent Russia regaining control. They had the choice of Ahmed Shah Massoud and instead they funded Hekmatyar. I was there. I saw it happening.

I know it seems naive, foolish, destructive, even, to choose to give millions to a man who hated Westerners, and threw acid in women's faces. And, as I say, no-one could understand it at the time. But that, encouraged by the CIA and ISI, is what the US did. Perhaps, as you say, the logic was 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' - with the proviso that you choose the most violent and vicious 'friend' available to increase your chances.

I have sympathy for your view that screaming about a fascist state is the privilege of a relatively lucky people. I can see why it upsets you. I walk down a London street and think "How lucky we are that the ever present helicopters are not bombing us" not "I'm living in a fascist state". I would say we are living in an increasingly autocratic surveillance state, with far too much power devolving to the police and rigged parliamentary committees, which is wickedly complicit in the deaths of countless people abroad, myself.

That's why when I see mass peaceful protests, I tend to think governments should listen, on the whole.

eddie:

I didn't say that i agreed with the US involvement in Afghanistan in the late eighties. However, they were involved and they should have provided the same support after the war was over that they provided when the Russians were there. Afghanistan was in ruins and with no real leadership but the US government didn't care as they had achieved their objectives.

Ah, so when you say the US "created" the Taliban, what you really mean is that they foolishly created the conditions in which the taliban could organise and rise to prominence. I can accept that, but to say that they created them is like saying that a cow has created the flies buzzing round its arse.

Chris - again I agree! By and large I think that western governments (or preferably the UN) should intervene if they have the power to do so and if, on the balance of probabilities, the intervention is likely to do more good than harm in the long run. Rwanda is a classic example of where we should have intervened sooner and with more force. Iraq is probably another where our intervention is/was justified in the long run (stands back again and waits for another onslaught).

technicolour,

please read what is said before responding.

"I accept that this does not justify the attacks": that was a very specific reference to eddie and his detractors. It's kinda simple if you bother to read it. But, like eddie, you choose only to see the words you want to see rather than what is there. Selective quotation is a less than noble art. My other references to eddie covered a long period when he has quite deliberately been obtuse. But, and I will say it again, this does not justify the attacks. It may help explain them but it doesn't justify them.... okay?

There is a very determined effort by eddie/technicolour/chris to prevent any kind of coherent alternative version of what is going on in Iran informing the minds of casual visitors to this site.

Are You Ready For War With Demonized Iran?

By Paul Craig Roberts (ex-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during Reagan years)

June 16, 2009 "Information Clearing House"

-- How much attention do elections in Japan, India, Argentina, or any other country, get from the US media? How many Americans and American journalists even know who is in political office in other countries besides England, France, and Germany? Who can name the political leaders of Switzerland, Holland, Brazil, Japan, or even China?

Yet, many know of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad. The reason is obvious. He is daily demonized in the US media.

The US media’s demonization of Ahmadinejad itself demonstrates American ignorance. The President of Iran is not the ruler. He is not the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He cannot set policies outside the boundaries set by Iran’s rulers, the ayatollahs who are not willing for the Iranian Revolution to be overturned by American money in some color-coded “revolution.”

Iranians have a bitter experience with the United States government. Their first democratic election, after emerging from occupied and colonized status, in the 1950s was overturned by the US government. The US government installed in place of the elected candidate a dictator who tortured and murdered dissidents who thought Iran should be an independent country and not ruled by an American puppet.

The US “superpower” has never forgiven the Iranian Islamic ayatollahs for the Iranian Revolution in the late 1970s, which overthrew the US puppet government and held hostage US embassy personnel, regarded as “a den of spies,” while Iranian students pieced together shredded embassy documents that proved America’s complicity in the destruction of Iranian democracy.

The government-controlled US corporate media, a Ministry of Propaganda, has responded to the re-election of Ahmadinejad with non-stop reports of violent Iranians protests to a stolen election. A stolen election is presented as a fact, even thought there is no evidence whatsoever. The US media’s response to the documented stolen elections during the George W. Bush/Karl Rove era was to ignore the massive documented evidence of real stolen elections.

Leaders of the American puppet states of Great Britain and Germany have fallen in line with the American psychological warfare operation. The discredited British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, expressed his “serious doubt” about Ahmadinejad’s victory to a meeting of European Union ministers in Luxembourg. Miliband, of course, has no source of independent information. He is simply following Washington’s instructions and relying on unsupported claims by the defeated candidate preferred by the US Government.

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, had her arm twisted, too. She called in the Iranian ambassador to demand “more transparency” on the elections.

Even the American left-wing has endorsed the US government’s propaganda. Writing in The Nation, Robert Dreyfuss presents the hysterical views of one Iranian dissident as if they are the definitive truth about “the illegitimate election,” terming it “a coup d’etat.”

What is the source of the information for the US media and the American puppet states?

Nothing but the assertions of the defeated candidate, the one America prefers.

However, there is hard evidence to the contrary. An independent, objective poll was conducted in Iran by American pollsters prior to the election. The pollsters, Ken Ballen of the nonprofit Center for Public Opinion and Patrick Doherty of the nonprofit New America Foundation, describe their poll results in the June 15 Washington Post. The polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and was conducted in Farsi “by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award.” - You can find their report here

The poll results, the only real information we have at this time, indicate that the election results reflect the will of the Iranian voters. Among the extremely interesting information revealed by the poll is the following:

“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.

“The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our pre-election 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.”

There have been numerous news reports that the US government has implemented a program to destabilize Iran. There have been reports that the US government has financed bombings and assassinations within Iran. The US media treats these reports in a braggadocio manner as illustrations of the American Superpower’s ability to bring dissenting countries to heel, while some foreign media see these reports as evidence of the US government’s inherent immorality.

Pakistan’s former military chief, General Mirza Aslam Beig, said on Pashto Radio on Monday, June 15, that undisputed intelligence proves the US interfered in the Iranian election. “The documents prove that the CIA spent 400 million dollars inside Iran to prop up a colorful but hollow revolution following the election.”

The success of the US government in financing color revolutions in former Soviet Georgia and Ukraine and in other parts of the former Soviet empire have been widely reported and discussed, with the US media treating it as an indication of US omnipotence and natural right and some foreign media as a sign of US interference in the internal affairs of other countries. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that Mir Hossein Mousavi is a bought and paid for operative of the US government.

We know for a fact that the US government has psychological warfare operations that target both Americans and foreigners through the US and foreign media. Many articles have been published on this subject.

Think about the Iranian election from a common sense standpoint. Neither myself nor the vast majority of readers are Iranian experts. But from a common sense standpoint, if your country was under constant threat of attack, even nuclear attack, from two countries with much more powerful military establishments, as is Iran from the US and Israel, would you desert your country’s best defender and elect the preferred candidate of the US and Israel?

Do you believe that the Iranian people would have voted to become an American puppet state?

Iran is an ancient and sophisticated society. Much of the intellectual class is secularized. A significant, but small, percentage of the youth has fallen in thrall to Western sexual promiscuity, to personal pleasure, and to self-absorption. These people are easily organized with American money to give their government and Islamic constraints on personal behavior the bird.

The US government is taking advantage of these westernized Iranians to create a basis for discrediting the Iranian election and the Iranian government.

On June 14, the McClatchy Washington Bureau, which sometimes attempts to report the real news, acquiesced to Washington’s psychological warfare and declared: “Iran election result makes Obama’s outreach efforts harder.” What we see here is the raising of the ugly head of the excuse for “diplomatic failure,” leaving only a military solution.

As a person who has seen it all from inside the US government, I believe that the purpose of the US government’s manipulation of the American and puppet government media is to discredit the Iranian government by portraying the Iranian government as an oppressor of the Iranian people and a frustrater of the Iranian people’s will. This is how the US government is setting up Iran for military attack.

With the help of Mousavi, the US government is creating another “oppressed people,” like Iraqis under Saddam Hussein, who require American blood and treasure to liberate. Has Mousavi, the American candidate in the Iranian election who was roundly trounced, been chosen by Washington to become the American puppet ruler of Iran?

The great macho superpower is eager to restore its hegemony over the Iranian people, thus settling the score with the ayatollahs who overthrew American rule of Iran in 1978.

That is the script. You are watching it every minute on US television.

There is no end of “experts” to support the script. For one example among hundreds, we have Gary Sick, appropriately named, who formerly served on the National Security Council and currently teaches at Columbia University:

"If they'd been a little more modest and said Ahmadinejad had won by 51 percent," Sick said, Iranians might have been dubious but more accepting. But the government's assertion that Ahmadinejad won with 62.6 percent of the vote, "is not credible."

"I think,” continued Sick, “it does mark a real transition point in the Iranian Revolution, from a position of claiming to have its legitimacy based on the support of the population, to a position that has increasingly relied on repression. The voice of the people is ignored."

The only hard information available is the poll referenced above. The poll found that Ahmadinejad was the favored candidate by a margin of two to one.

But as in everything else having to do with American hegemony over other peoples, facts and truth play no part. Lies and propaganda rule.

Consumed by its passion for hegemony, America is driven to prevail over others, morality and justice be damned. This world-threatening script will play until America bankrupts itself and has so alienated the rest of the world that it is isolated and universally despised.

Please note that Chris and chris, glasgow are not the same person.....

No, Eddie, the analogy would be if the cow deliberately picked the most unpleasant and vicious of the flies, with a particularly nasty sting, a horsefly, say, and armed it with a surface to air missile.

Chris: OK, OK! You just appeared to have changed your mind by the end there (and I didn't quote you!) But peace, bro.

technicolour,

fair enough.... and peace to you. I hate the bile that is so often spilled across the internet. It is sad that people (me sometimes included - much to my shame) lapse into language that they would not use if they were facing the object of their ire face to face. It is all to easy to hide behind a keyboard and the anonymity of a user name. I don't agree with all that eddie says but I would defend until death his right to say it.

"There is a very determined effort by eddie/technicolour/chris to prevent any kind of coherent alternative version of what is going on in Iran informing the minds of casual visitors to this site."

That was not what this thread was about. You should have read what Craig wrote and not decided to use this thread as a platform for you view regarding the current situation in Iran. What you are talking about may be correct but then again it maybe wrong that's not the point.
Anonymous I would like to ask you, in relation to the thread, do you discount Set B and believe in Set A? Or like me do you believe in both Sets.

@Chris

This is the brain farts of a reactionary;
""I think we are lucky that we can complain against our government without the fear of death when we believe that they are wrong and that our country accepts people for who they are not what they are. It's a luxury that we should never forget.""

=====

Iranians are enjoying their freedom of action in the streets, and no they are not Catteled in, or face the vicious and systematic violence of SPG now re-branded as TSG to arrest these en mass, or have the anti terror laws invoked, as it happened in the puny and sanctioned G20 protests, and etc. In Iran they can get on with running amok as good as they like, to remind the government who is the boss. But hey morons like you would never understand that, would they?

Mugabe!! Anyone whom invokes this witchcraft of the British Media is truly a brainless moron!

Chris, we've had this problem before on another thread on this site. That's why i added Glasgow. Nice name by the way!!!

Anonymous: I agree I am possibly not contributing to a "clear alternative picture of what is going on in Iran". I was rather more hoping to learn.

I hardly ever agree with a thing eddie says but i feel it's important he's here to air his views-however strange they may seem to some of us.

Can we ALL desist,eddie included,from the invective and name-calling though,tempting as it is when things get heated?

Please?

That way Craig/we'll have a better blog with more focus on the real issues?

thanks for clearing that up, chris, glasgow.... I agree about the name, by the way!!!

VamanosBandidos:

If all you can come up with is pathetic name calling then you are a sad individual.

You actually believe that in Iran you can get away with running amok on the street to remind the government whos boss? You are naive!!! What do you think will happen when this all calms down. There will be a crackdown and many of the reformists will be arrested. This is generally what happens but I guess you can't see that because you are blinded by the idea that Iranian's are free and we are not.

"Mugabe!! Anyone whom invokes this witchcraft of the British Media is truly a brainless moron!!"

This isn't witchcraft of the British Media. I can't believe you wrote that!!!! What planet are you on!!!! This is a man who has destroyed his country with his greed and lust for total power. But all you see is someone fighting against the West.

Do you live in Iran by the way?

Jives I am being very calm and will aim to desist from name calling, but VB you are a very silly person indeed - there are people being shot right now on the streets of Tehran. I know that what happened at the G20 was bad but it cannot in any way be compared to what is happening in Tehran.

I know I slag off the far left, but to their credit the SWP has come out with a party line that is mostly honourable.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18229

Technicolour - how could a cow do what you suggest? They don't have opposable thumbs.

Cow walks over to missile, cow bends head over missile, cow picks missile up *with its teeth*. Honestly.

I'm concluding I have no idea which outcome to hope for in Iran, apart from one where no-one else gets hurt and all the people can be happy and stuff. My inner cynic says that at the very least this is a peaceful corporate take-over attempt, rather than a hostile one, as in Iraq. But then I think the US and UK know they wouldn't get away with attacking Iran: no way, no how.

June – have you considered a certain irony in all of this. Do you recall John McCain – who tried to be, and could have been, the President of the US? Do you also recall his singing the sick song “ Bomb-bomb- bomb Iran” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg)? I wager that there are many people in the US who do have those kinds of sick sentiments which McCain honestly vented when he sang. I then ask myself the question – how many of these people in the US at the policy level and amongst the ordinary citizens – are now so, so, so, concerned about the democratic health and welfare of the same Iranian people who could have been bombed?

Are You Ready For War With Demonized Iran?

By Paul Craig Roberts (ex-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during Reagan years)

June 16, 2009 "Information Clearing House"

-- How much attention do elections in Japan, India, Argentina, or any other country, get from the US media? How many Americans and American journalists even know who is in political office in other countries besides England, France, and Germany? Who can name the political leaders of Switzerland, Holland, Brazil, Japan, or even China?

Yet, many know of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad. The reason is obvious. He is daily demonized in the US media.

The US media’s demonization of Ahmadinejad itself demonstrates American ignorance. The President of Iran is not the ruler. He is not the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He cannot set policies outside the boundaries set by Iran’s rulers, the ayatollahs who are not willing for the Iranian Revolution to be overturned by American money in some color-coded “revolution.”

Iranians have a bitter experience with the United States government. Their first democratic election, after emerging from occupied and colonized status, in the 1950s was overturned by the US government. The US government installed in place of the elected candidate a dictator who tortured and murdered dissidents who thought Iran should be an independent country and not ruled by an American puppet.

The US “superpower” has never forgiven the Iranian Islamic ayatollahs for the Iranian Revolution in the late 1970s, which overthrew the US puppet government and held hostage US embassy personnel, regarded as “a den of spies,” while Iranian students pieced together shredded embassy documents that proved America’s complicity in the destruction of Iranian democracy.

The government-controlled US corporate media, a Ministry of Propaganda, has responded to the re-election of Ahmadinejad with non-stop reports of violent Iranians protests to a stolen election. A stolen election is presented as a fact, even thought there is no evidence whatsoever. The US media’s response to the documented stolen elections during the George W. Bush/Karl Rove era was to ignore the massive documented evidence of real stolen elections.

Leaders of the American puppet states of Great Britain and Germany have fallen in line with the American psychological warfare operation. The discredited British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, expressed his “serious doubt” about Ahmadinejad’s victory to a meeting of European Union ministers in Luxembourg. Miliband, of course, has no source of independent information. He is simply following Washington’s instructions and relying on unsupported claims by the defeated candidate preferred by the US Government.

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, had her arm twisted, too. She called in the Iranian ambassador to demand “more transparency” on the elections.

Even the American left-wing has endorsed the US government’s propaganda. Writing in The Nation, Robert Dreyfuss presents the hysterical views of one Iranian dissident as if they are the definitive truth about “the illegitimate election,” terming it “a coup d’etat.”

What is the source of the information for the US media and the American puppet states?

Nothing but the assertions of the defeated candidate, the one America prefers.

However, there is hard evidence to the contrary. An independent, objective poll was conducted in Iran by American pollsters prior to the election. The pollsters, Ken Ballen of the nonprofit Center for Public Opinion and Patrick Doherty of the nonprofit New America Foundation, describe their poll results in the June 15 Washington Post. The polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and was conducted in Farsi “by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award.” - You can find their report here

The poll results, the only real information we have at this time, indicate that the election results reflect the will of the Iranian voters. Among the extremely interesting information revealed by the poll is the following:

“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.

“The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our pre-election 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.”

There have been numerous news reports that the US government has implemented a program to destabilize Iran. There have been reports that the US government has financed bombings and assassinations within Iran. The US media treats these reports in a braggadocio manner as illustrations of the American Superpower’s ability to bring dissenting countries to heel, while some foreign media see these reports as evidence of the US government’s inherent immorality.

Pakistan’s former military chief, General Mirza Aslam Beig, said on Pashto Radio on Monday, June 15, that undisputed intelligence proves the US interfered in the Iranian election. “The documents prove that the CIA spent 400 million dollars inside Iran to prop up a colorful but hollow revolution following the election.”

The success of the US government in financing color revolutions in former Soviet Georgia and Ukraine and in other parts of the former Soviet empire have been widely reported and discussed, with the US media treating it as an indication of US omnipotence and natural right and some foreign media as a sign of US interference in the internal affairs of other countries. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that Mir Hossein Mousavi is a bought and paid for operative of the US government.

We know for a fact that the US government has psychological warfare operations that target both Americans and foreigners through the US and foreign media. Many articles have been published on this subject.

Think about the Iranian election from a common sense standpoint. Neither myself nor the vast majority of readers are Iranian experts. But from a common sense standpoint, if your country was under constant threat of attack, even nuclear attack, from two countries with much more powerful military establishments, as is Iran from the US and Israel, would you desert your country’s best defender and elect the preferred candidate of the US and Israel?

Do you believe that the Iranian people would have voted to become an American puppet state?

Iran is an ancient and sophisticated society. Much of the intellectual class is secularized. A significant, but small, percentage of the youth has fallen in thrall to Western sexual promiscuity, to personal pleasure, and to self-absorption. These people are easily organized with American money to give their government and Islamic constraints on personal behavior the bird.

The US government is taking advantage of these westernized Iranians to create a basis for discrediting the Iranian election and the Iranian government.

On June 14, the McClatchy Washington Bureau, which sometimes attempts to report the real news, acquiesced to Washington’s psychological warfare and declared: “Iran election result makes Obama’s outreach efforts harder.” What we see here is the raising of the ugly head of the excuse for “diplomatic failure,” leaving only a military solution.

As a person who has seen it all from inside the US government, I believe that the purpose of the US government’s manipulation of the American and puppet government media is to discredit the Iranian government by portraying the Iranian government as an oppressor of the Iranian people and a frustrater of the Iranian people’s will. This is how the US government is setting up Iran for military attack.

With the help of Mousavi, the US government is creating another “oppressed people,” like Iraqis under Saddam Hussein, who require American blood and treasure to liberate. Has Mousavi, the American candidate in the Iranian election who was roundly trounced, been chosen by Washington to become the American puppet ruler of Iran?

The great macho superpower is eager to restore its hegemony over the Iranian people, thus settling the score with the ayatollahs who overthrew American rule of Iran in 1978.

That is the script. You are watching it every minute on US television.

There is no end of “experts” to support the script. For one example among hundreds, we have Gary Sick, appropriately named, who formerly served on the National Security Council and currently teaches at Columbia University:

"If they'd been a little more modest and said Ahmadinejad had won by 51 percent," Sick said, Iranians might have been dubious but more accepting. But the government's assertion that Ahmadinejad won with 62.6 percent of the vote, "is not credible."

"I think,” continued Sick, “it does mark a real transition point in the Iranian Revolution, from a position of claiming to have its legitimacy based on the support of the population, to a position that has increasingly relied on repression. The voice of the people is ignored."

The only hard information available is the poll referenced above. The poll found that Ahmadinejad was the favored candidate by a margin of two to one.

But as in everything else having to do with American hegemony over other peoples, facts and truth play no part. Lies and propaganda rule.

Consumed by its passion for hegemony, America is driven to prevail over others, morality and justice be damned. This world-threatening script will play until America bankrupts itself and has so alienated the rest of the world that it is isolated and universally despised.

I met an Iranian woman a couple of weeks ago and had a long conversation with her. I was particularly interested in what she had to say about Iran as I'd not come in contact with any Iranians since the end of the Shah's regime. Her husband was doing a PhD at Cambridge and she too was highly educated. She told me she and her husband just couldn't wait to get back to Iran as things were so awful here. This opinion didn't take into account missing families or friends, weather or food

I think 'June' was me, Mr Barnett. Do I think there are some strange and sad people around, both in power and out of it? Yes. Do I think that a country which voted for what Obama represented would allow a repetition of Iraq? No.

technicolour,

I hope you are right but fear that you overestimate many ordinary americans and underestimate the power of their media.

If you elect a messianic leader then you will probably go where he takes you if only in the misguided belief that he's different from his predecessor. In some respects I am trying to give Obama the benefit of the doubt but I fear that he will struggle to make a significant difference particularly to foreign policy. That said, I hope I am wrong.

Back on topic, I would like to ask a serious question: Do we actually know that the Iranian election is fraudulent? I have read reports which suggest 'yes' and I have read reports which suggest 'no'. Ignoring such arguments as 'on the balance of probabilities....' do we have anything concrete on which to base our assertions?

"Do we actually know that the Iranian election is fraudulent?"

I've been reading and viewing and reading and viewing, and for the life of me I can't decide. The only concrete thing (?) we seem to have is that polls predicted that Ahmadinejad would win.

http://tinyurl.com/nkgagl

"She told me she and her husband just couldn't wait to get back to Iran as things were so awful here."

That's very interesting. It gives me hope that not everywhere is like life in the UK. Everyone I meet seems to be dying of depression.

Maybe we can have a list 'A' and list 'B' for life in the United Kingdom. Though I feel the depression might be a global situation.

Has anyone here heard of the global 'Chemtrail' spraying operation? In all parts of the UK you can see it going on if you just spend a short time each day, for around a week, watching the skies.

The depression and lifelessness of so many people may have a connection with the Chemtrail spraying operation. I have not mentioned 'conspiracy'. I have just mentioned what I and millions of others have observed for many years.

Perhaps the spraying is not happening over Iran.

Eddie: re cow. The cow would also have previously had to disturb a group of flies, who were otherwise hanging around their patch of the field doing their fly thing, by having an enormous fight with another cow (a red one) over who the patch really belongs to, and trampling on and killing many many flies in the process. It would then have to choose the nastiest fly left over to arm.

Analogies, hey.

PS Agree with dreolin and everyone else - have no idea whether the elections were rigged or not. One thing apparently not being reported on the BBC (might be wrong) is that there have also been large pro-Ahmajinedad rallies. In fact, one such rally was titled "Mossavi supporters" on the BBC website before someone complained (see over at Medialens for details)

Are You Ready For War With Demonized Iran?

By Paul Craig Roberts (ex-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during Reagan years)

June 16, 2009 "Information Clearing House"

-- How much attention do elections in Japan, India, Argentina, or any other country, get from the US media? How many Americans and American journalists even know who is in political office in other countries besides England, France, and Germany? Who can name the political leaders of Switzerland, Holland, Brazil, Japan, or even China?

Yet, many know of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad. The reason is obvious. He is daily demonized in the US media.

The US media’s demonization of Ahmadinejad itself demonstrates American ignorance. The President of Iran is not the ruler. He is not the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He cannot set policies outside the boundaries set by Iran’s rulers, the ayatollahs who are not willing for the Iranian Revolution to be overturned by American money in some color-coded “revolution.”

Iranians have a bitter experience with the United States government. Their first democratic election, after emerging from occupied and colonized status, in the 1950s was overturned by the US government. The US government installed in place of the elected candidate a dictator who tortured and murdered dissidents who thought Iran should be an independent country and not ruled by an American puppet.

The US “superpower” has never forgiven the Iranian Islamic ayatollahs for the Iranian Revolution in the late 1970s, which overthrew the US puppet government and held hostage US embassy personnel, regarded as “a den of spies,” while Iranian students pieced together shredded embassy documents that proved America’s complicity in the destruction of Iranian democracy.

The government-controlled US corporate media, a Ministry of Propaganda, has responded to the re-election of Ahmadinejad with non-stop reports of violent Iranians protests to a stolen election. A stolen election is presented as a fact, even thought there is no evidence whatsoever. The US media’s response to the documented stolen elections during the George W. Bush/Karl Rove era was to ignore the massive documented evidence of real stolen elections.

Leaders of the American puppet states of Great Britain and Germany have fallen in line with the American psychological warfare operation. The discredited British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, expressed his “serious doubt” about Ahmadinejad’s victory to a meeting of European Union ministers in Luxembourg. Miliband, of course, has no source of independent information. He is simply following Washington’s instructions and relying on unsupported claims by the defeated candidate preferred by the US Government.

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, had her arm twisted, too. She called in the Iranian ambassador to demand “more transparency” on the elections.

Even the American left-wing has endorsed the US government’s propaganda. Writing in The Nation, Robert Dreyfuss presents the hysterical views of one Iranian dissident as if they are the definitive truth about “the illegitimate election,” terming it “a coup d’etat.”

What is the source of the information for the US media and the American puppet states?

Nothing but the assertions of the defeated candidate, the one America prefers.

However, there is hard evidence to the contrary. An independent, objective poll was conducted in Iran by American pollsters prior to the election. The pollsters, Ken Ballen of the nonprofit Center for Public Opinion and Patrick Doherty of the nonprofit New America Foundation, describe their poll results in the June 15 Washington Post. The polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and was conducted in Farsi “by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award.” - You can find their report here

The poll results, the only real information we have at this time, indicate that the election results reflect the will of the Iranian voters. Among the extremely interesting information revealed by the poll is the following:

“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.

“The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our pre-election 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.”

There have been numerous news reports that the US government has implemented a program to destabilize Iran. There have been reports that the US government has financed bombings and assassinations within Iran. The US media treats these reports in a braggadocio manner as illustrations of the American Superpower’s ability to bring dissenting countries to heel, while some foreign media see these reports as evidence of the US government’s inherent immorality.

Pakistan’s former military chief, General Mirza Aslam Beig, said on Pashto Radio on Monday, June 15, that undisputed intelligence proves the US interfered in the Iranian election. “The documents prove that the CIA spent 400 million dollars inside Iran to prop up a colorful but hollow revolution following the election.”

The success of the US government in financing color revolutions in former Soviet Georgia and Ukraine and in other parts of the former Soviet empire have been widely reported and discussed, with the US media treating it as an indication of US omnipotence and natural right and some foreign media as a sign of US interference in the internal affairs of other countries. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that Mir Hossein Mousavi is a bought and paid for operative of the US government.

We know for a fact that the US government has psychological warfare operations that target both Americans and foreigners through the US and foreign media. Many articles have been published on this subject.

Think about the Iranian election from a common sense standpoint. Neither myself nor the vast majority of readers are Iranian experts. But from a common sense standpoint, if your country was under constant threat of attack, even nuclear attack, from two countries with much more powerful military establishments, as is Iran from the US and Israel, would you desert your country’s best defender and elect the preferred candidate of the US and Israel?

Do you believe that the Iranian people would have voted to become an American puppet state?

Iran is an ancient and sophisticated society. Much of the intellectual class is secularized. A significant, but small, percentage of the youth has fallen in thrall to Western sexual promiscuity, to personal pleasure, and to self-absorption. These people are easily organized with American money to give their government and Islamic constraints on personal behavior the bird.

The US government is taking advantage of these westernized Iranians to create a basis for discrediting the Iranian election and the Iranian government.

On June 14, the McClatchy Washington Bureau, which sometimes attempts to report the real news, acquiesced to Washington’s psychological warfare and declared: “Iran election result makes Obama’s outreach efforts harder.” What we see here is the raising of the ugly head of the excuse for “diplomatic failure,” leaving only a military solution.

As a person who has seen it all from inside the US government, I believe that the purpose of the US government’s manipulation of the American and puppet government media is to discredit the Iranian government by portraying the Iranian government as an oppressor of the Iranian people and a frustrater of the Iranian people’s will. This is how the US government is setting up Iran for military attack.

With the help of Mousavi, the US government is creating another “oppressed people,” like Iraqis under Saddam Hussein, who require American blood and treasure to liberate. Has Mousavi, the American candidate in the Iranian election who was roundly trounced, been chosen by Washington to become the American puppet ruler of Iran?

The great macho superpower is eager to restore its hegemony over the Iranian people, thus settling the score with the ayatollahs who overthrew American rule of Iran in 1978.

That is the script. You are watching it every minute on US television.

There is no end of “experts” to support the script. For one example among hundreds, we have Gary Sick, appropriately named, who formerly served on the National Security Council and currently teaches at Columbia University:

"If they'd been a little more modest and said Ahmadinejad had won by 51 percent," Sick said, Iranians might have been dubious but more accepting. But the government's assertion that Ahmadinejad won with 62.6 percent of the vote, "is not credible."

"I think,” continued Sick, “it does mark a real transition point in the Iranian Revolution, from a position of claiming to have its legitimacy based on the support of the population, to a position that has increasingly relied on repression. The voice of the people is ignored."

The only hard information available is the poll referenced above. The poll found that Ahmadinejad was the favored candidate by a margin of two to one.

But as in everything else having to do with American hegemony over other peoples, facts and truth play no part. Lies and propaganda rule.

Consumed by its passion for hegemony, America is driven to prevail over others, morality and justice be damned. This world-threatening script will play until America bankrupts itself and has so alienated the rest of the world that it is isolated and universally despised.

It already has. See:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090614_the_american_empire_is_bankrupt

In Ancient Sumeria, the cow was a sacred beast. One theory has it that our letter, A, alpha, alef, is simply a series of variants of a rotated or inverted, horned cow's head.

Once, Nebuchadnezzar was all-powerful, then he was nothing.

while, amidst the dusts of time,

Shelley lives forever...

Thanks for the reminder Suhayl.

And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
PBS

Iran Faces Greater Risks Than It Knows

By Paul Craig Roberts

June 17, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- Stephen Kinzer’s book, All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, tells the story of the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mosaddeq, by the CIA and the British MI6 in 1953. The CIA bribed Iranian government officials, businessmen, and reporters, and paid Iranians to demonstrate in the streets.

The 1953 street demonstrations, together with the cold war claim that the US had to grab Iran before the Soviets did, served as the US government’s justification for overthrowing Iranian democracy. What the Iranian people wanted was not important.

Today the street demonstrations in Tehran show signs of orchestration. The protesters, primarily young people, especially young women opposed to the dress codes, carry signs written in English: “Where is My Vote?” The signs are intended for the western media, not for the Iranian government.

More evidence of orchestration is provided by the protesters’ chant, “death to the dictator, death to Ahmadinejad.” Every Iranian knows that the president of Iran is a public figure with limited powers. His main role is to take the heat from the governing grand Ayatollah. No Iranian, and no informed westerner, could possibly believe that Ahmadinejad is a dictator. Even Ahmadinejad’s superior, Khamenei, is not a dictator as he is appointed by a government body that can remove him.

The demonstrations, like those in 1953, are intended to discredit the Iranian government and to establish for Western opinion that the government is a repressive regime that does not have the support of the Iranian people. This manipulation of opinion sets up Iran as another Iraq ruled by a dictator who must be overthrown by sanctions or an invasion.

On American TV, the protesters who are interviewed speak perfect English. They are either westernized secular Iranians who were allied with the Shah and fled to the West during the 1978 Iranian revolution or they are the young westernized residents of Tehran.

Many of the demonstrators may be sincere in their protest, hoping to free themselves from Islamic moral codes. But if reports of the US government’s plans to destabilize Iran are correct, paid troublemakers are in their ranks.

Some observers, such as George Friedman [ http://www.realclearworld.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2009/06/western_misconception_iran_rea.html ] believe that the American destabilization plan will fail.

However, many ayatollahs feel animosity toward Ahmadinejad, who assaults the ayatollahs for corruption. Many in the Iranian countryside believe that the ayatollahs have too much wealth and power. Amadinejad’s attack on corruption resonates with the Iranian countryside but not with the ayatollahs.

Amadinejad’s campaign against corruption has brought Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri out against him. Montazeri is a rival to ruling Ayatollah Khamenei. Montazeri sees in the street protests an opportunity to challenge Khamenei for the leadership role.

So, once again, as so many times in history, the ambitions of one person might seal the fate of the Iranian state.

Khamenei knows that the elected president is an underling. If he has to sacrifice Ahmadinejad’s election in order to fend off Montazeri, he might recount the vote and elect Mousavi, thinking that will bring an end to the controversy.

Khamenei, solving his personal problem, would play into the hands of the American-Israeli assault on his country.

On the surface, the departure of Ahmadeinjad would cost Israel and the US the loss of their useful “anti-semitic” boggy-man. But in fact it would play into the American-Israeli propaganda. The story would be that the remote, isolated, Iranian ruling Ayatollah was forced by the Iranian people to admit the falsity of the rigged election, calling into question rule by Ayatollahs who do not stand for election.

Mousavi and Ayatollah Montazeri are putting their besieged country at risk. Possibly they believe that ridding Iran of Ahmadeinjad’s extreme image would gain Iran breathing room. If Mousavi and Montazeri succeed in their ambitions, one likely result would be a loss in Iran’s independence. The new rulers would have to continually defend Iran’s new moderate and reformist image by giving in to American demands. If the government admits to a rigged election, the legitimacy of the Iranian Revolution would be called into question, setting up Iran for more US interference in its internal affairs.

For the American neoconservatives, democratic countries are those countries that submit to America’s will, regardless of their form of government. “Democracy” is achieved by America ruling through puppet officials.

The American public might never know whether the Iranian election was legitimate or stolen. The US media serves as a propaganda device, not as a purveyor of truth. Election fraud is certainly a possibility--it happens even in America--and signs of fraud have appeared. Large numbers of votes were swiftly counted, which raises the question whether votes were counted or merely a result was announced.

The US media’s response to the election was equally rapid. Having invested heavily in demonizing Ahmadinejad, the media is unwilling to accept election results that vindicate Ahmadinejad and declared fraud in advance of evidence, despite the pre-election poll results published in the June 15 Washington Post, which found Ahmadinejad to be the projected winner.

There are many American interest groups that have a vested interest in the charge that the election was rigged. What is important to many Americans is not whether the election was fair, but whether the winner’s rhetoric is allied with their goals.

For example, those numerous Americans who believe that both presidential and congressional elections were stolen during the Karl Rove Republican years are tempted to use the Iranian election protests to shame Americans for accepting the stolen Bush elections.

Feminists take the side of the “reformer” Mousavi.

Neoconservatives damn the election for suppressing the “peace candidate” who might acquiescent to Israel’s demands to halt the development of Iranian nuclear energy.

Ideological and emotional agendas result in people distancing themselves from factual and analytical information, preferring instead information that fits with their material interests and emotional disposition. The primacy of emotion over fact bids ill for the future. The extraordinary attention given to the Iranian election suggests that many American interests and emotions have a stake in the outcome.

Khameini's speech today, "If they continue (to protest on the streets)they will be receiving other consequences, behind the scenes. I'm asking my friends and brothers to follow the laws. Let God give us blessing to follow those ways."

Translation. Any further protests and we will shoot you.

This is not just about a stolen election, it's about the right to protest. I am sure that all of you will support the right of protest in Iran?

Fascinating article here

http://tinyurl.com/mxeq5f

on the so-called rash of Twitter postings supposedly from Iranians, but actually coming from Israelis.

"Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter #IranElection"

"This is not just about a stolen election"

Given that pre-election polls predicted a 2/3 majority for Ahmadinejad it is by no means clear that the election has been stolen at all. The proposed partial re-count of disputed regions, in the presence of the defeated candidates, seems quite a sensible first step.

"I am sure that all of you will support the right of protest in Iran?"

Absolutely.

Fascinating. If you believe that sort of nonsense. There is plenty of evidence that Israeli hawks favoured Ahmedinejad's election - he is a useful hate figure. There may have been three twitterers from Israel, I'm sure there are several from Britain - but there are hundreds in Iran and given the suppression of the media it seems that internet and mobile phone technology is the only way that events can be transmitted to a wider world. In his speech Khameini keeps going on about British radio. It's as if the technologies of the last fifty years have not reached his consciousness. The whole point of twitter is that you have to be on the ground for it to have any meaning.

MJ, did you look at the first twitter the article refers to? Several later postings in Arabic, requests to translate student flyers into English, earlier posts look pretty much what you'd expect from someone on the ground & trying to get news out to the world. And using English is the obvious way to do it. Not convinced by the other "proof" that these three were mentioned in the Jerusalem Post, either. Why wouldn't they be?

It was dreoilin, not me, who posted the twitter article and no, I haven't followed it up. My interest at the moment is what evidence, if any, there is to suggest vote rigging. It all seemed to start when Mousavi declared himself the winner before the votes had even been counted. This seems to have galvanised his supporters, not to mention the rest of the world, but why did he think he had won when pre-election polls suggested otherwise? What's the evidence?

Iran Faces Greater Risks Than It Knows

By Paul Craig Roberts

June 17, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- Stephen Kinzer’s book, All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, tells the story of the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mosaddeq, by the CIA and the British MI6 in 1953. The CIA bribed Iranian government officials, businessmen, and reporters, and paid Iranians to demonstrate in the streets.

The 1953 street demonstrations, together with the cold war claim that the US had to grab Iran before the Soviets did, served as the US government’s justification for overthrowing Iranian democracy. What the Iranian people wanted was not important.

Today the street demonstrations in Tehran show signs of orchestration. The protesters, primarily young people, especially young women opposed to the dress codes, carry signs written in English: “Where is My Vote?” The signs are intended for the western media, not for the Iranian government.

More evidence of orchestration is provided by the protesters’ chant, “death to the dictator, death to Ahmadinejad.” Every Iranian knows that the president of Iran is a public figure with limited powers. His main role is to take the heat from the governing grand Ayatollah. No Iranian, and no informed westerner, could possibly believe that Ahmadinejad is a dictator. Even Ahmadinejad’s superior, Khamenei, is not a dictator as he is appointed by a government body that can remove him.

The demonstrations, like those in 1953, are intended to discredit the Iranian government and to establish for Western opinion that the government is a repressive regime that does not have the support of the Iranian people. This manipulation of opinion sets up Iran as another Iraq ruled by a dictator who must be overthrown by sanctions or an invasion.

On American TV, the protesters who are interviewed speak perfect English. They are either westernized secular Iranians who were allied with the Shah and fled to the West during the 1978 Iranian revolution or they are the young westernized residents of Tehran.

Many of the demonstrators may be sincere in their protest, hoping to free themselves from Islamic moral codes. But if reports of the US government’s plans to destabilize Iran are correct, paid troublemakers are in their ranks.

Some observers, such as George Friedman [ http://www.realclearworld.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2009/06/western_misconception_iran_rea.html ] believe that the American destabilization plan will fail.

However, many ayatollahs feel animosity toward Ahmadinejad, who assaults the ayatollahs for corruption. Many in the Iranian countryside believe that the ayatollahs have too much wealth and power. Amadinejad’s attack on corruption resonates with the Iranian countryside but not with the ayatollahs.

Amadinejad’s campaign against corruption has brought Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri out against him. Montazeri is a rival to ruling Ayatollah Khamenei. Montazeri sees in the street protests an opportunity to challenge Khamenei for the leadership role.

So, once again, as so many times in history, the ambitions of one person might seal the fate of the Iranian state.

Khamenei knows that the elected president is an underling. If he has to sacrifice Ahmadinejad’s election in order to fend off Montazeri, he might recount the vote and elect Mousavi, thinking that will bring an end to the controversy.

Khamenei, solving his personal problem, would play into the hands of the American-Israeli assault on his country.

On the surface, the departure of Ahmadeinjad would cost Israel and the US the loss of their useful “anti-semitic” boggy-man. But in fact it would play into the American-Israeli propaganda. The story would be that the remote, isolated, Iranian ruling Ayatollah was forced by the Iranian people to admit the falsity of the rigged election, calling into question rule by Ayatollahs who do not stand for election.

Mousavi and Ayatollah Montazeri are putting their besieged country at risk. Possibly they believe that ridding Iran of Ahmadeinjad’s extreme image would gain Iran breathing room. If Mousavi and Montazeri succeed in their ambitions, one likely result would be a loss in Iran’s independence. The new rulers would have to continually defend Iran’s new moderate and reformist image by giving in to American demands. If the government admits to a rigged election, the legitimacy of the Iranian Revolution would be called into question, setting up Iran for more US interference in its internal affairs.

For the American neoconservatives, democratic countries are those countries that submit to America’s will, regardless of their form of government. “Democracy” is achieved by America ruling through puppet officials.

The American public might never know whether the Iranian election was legitimate or stolen. The US media serves as a propaganda device, not as a purveyor of truth. Election fraud is certainly a possibility--it happens even in America--and signs of fraud have appeared. Large numbers of votes were swiftly counted, which raises the question whether votes were counted or merely a result was announced.

The US media’s response to the election was equally rapid. Having invested heavily in demonizing Ahmadinejad, the media is unwilling to accept election results that vindicate Ahmadinejad and declared fraud in advance of evidence, despite the pre-election poll results published in the June 15 Washington Post, which found Ahmadinejad to be the projected winner.

There are many American interest groups that have a vested interest in the charge that the election was rigged. What is important to many Americans is not whether the election was fair, but whether the winner’s rhetoric is allied with their goals.

For example, those numerous Americans who believe that both presidential and congressional elections were stolen during the Karl Rove Republican years are tempted to use the Iranian election protests to shame Americans for accepting the stolen Bush elections.

Feminists take the side of the “reformer” Mousavi.

Neoconservatives damn the election for suppressing the “peace candidate” who might acquiescent to Israel’s demands to halt the development of Iranian nuclear energy.

Ideological and emotional agendas result in people distancing themselves from factual and analytical information, preferring instead information that fits with their material interests and emotional disposition. The primacy of emotion over fact bids ill for the future. The extraordinary attention given to the Iranian election suggests that many American interests and emotions have a stake in the outcome.

sorry MJ. Mossavi was playing politics, don't you think?

I like Ruth's story about the Iranian woman who couldn't wait to leave the UK & get back there!

Absolutely, whoever you are. That's it, in a nutshell.

I meant the Paul Craig Roberts piece.

agree, thanks nameless person.

Very sensible views, M. Murray. Thank you to try balance things, though I find your set B objectively weaker than set A.
"Universal ideals of human rights" are not that universal, despite the fact that anyone deeply feels the contrary. Personaly, if I was handed a pen and asked to make a list, right there on the way to work, I probably would commit prejudicial and useless commonplace.
I am at a loss as well when it comes to define "democracy".
But I think I know violence and gross falsehood when I see them and the West side is certainly not a friendly place in that respect. It makes no difference to me to see people murdered -legaly or not- because they were gay or because they were at the wrong place in the wrong lot.

Invisible person - You have posted that article about five times now and it is a pile of faeces. Whoever wrote it cannot even write decent English. It is a disgrace and a slander upon brave people. If you wish me to demolish it I will, but it is barely worth the trouble.

No, it's a different article, there are two different articles, both by Paul Craig Roberts, who was Reagan's Assistant Secretary to the Treasury. Roberts was a right-winger who was at the very centre of US power and he knows what he's talking about.

He is most certainly not illiterate. One of the articles, I think, is from 'Counterpunch' a very good oppositional webzine based in the USA and co-edited by iconic journalist and car fanatic, Alexander Cockburn, brother of Patrick Cockburn (who writes for the Independent and who provided some of the best Iraq reportage of the past few years) and Andrew Cockburn, another journalist. They are all sons of Claude Cockburn, the late, famous and excellent Irish-American journalist.

These people are the very antithesis of illiterate.

No, please do demolish it eddie. I'd be interested to see you engage with the key points it makes.

"If you wish me to demolish it I will, but it is barely worth the trouble."

Please do, Eddie. I'd like to read your demolition of PCR.

And Eddie, remember that virtually everyone on Twitter (unless a well-known public figure) is anonymous. I have an account myself. I could have been posting so-called updates from Iran today. And labelled them #iranelection, which hashtag was coming in at around 30 per second. Many continuous repeats, including one offering to turn your avatar green (I think from the USA) something many had already done. It was like a rush on a new fashion accessory.

@Suhayl,

Both Paul Craig Roberts articles were fwd'd on Information Clearing House email updates. Sadly Tom is running out of money (because of the recession, I assume.) He said yesterday that the situation is critical. I'd hate to see him go under.

Quote of the week:
Ari Fleischer on the present situation in Iran:

"I think it’s fair to say that George Bush’s Freedom Agenda planted seeds that have started to grow in the Middle East."

Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com:

"[m]uch of the same faction now claiming such concern for the welfare of The Iranian People are the same people who have long been advocating a military attack on Iran and the dropping of large numbers of bombs on their country -- actions which would result in the slaughter of many of those very same Iranian People."

http://tinyurl.com/mynklr

Nameless person:

Interesting article although it think that it fails to mention Akbar Rafsanjani in this revolt. I have a sneaky feeling that Rafsanjani is working this from behind the scenes. He wants Ahmedinejad out and probably Khamenei out too so he can push his own political agenda forward. I would imagine that he wants reform so that there will be relaxations on the current UN sanctions that will allow his business interests to thrive. I don't believe that any of this is about democracy.
It was also interesting that Khamenei mentioned in his speech today that all the parties were for the revolution. He's right as none of these people want to topple the regime. They are just trying to eliminate their political foes. However, it appear that the west are trying to stoke the fire in the hope that they'll destroy each other and the regime with it.

Here's a video of Henry Kissinger threatening regime change in Iran if the current coup fails.

Little eddie the troll,
Demolish this pile of faeces.

http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/kissinger-threatens-regime

chris.glasgow:

Good point about Rafsanjani. Lost to Ahmadinejad in 2005 presidential election and claimed vote rigging. Reputedly the richest man in Iran with a fortune made from nut farming, oil, private schools and, it is rumoured, arms dealing. Widely thought to be very corrupt but, as Chairman of the Assembly of Experts one of the few men in Iran with the power legally to remove the Supreme Leader. Remarkably silent over the past week.

Where do I begin? "Today the street demonstrations in Tehran show signs of orchestration." What, and demos in London don't? All those SWP banners? "The protesters, primarily young people, especially young women opposed to the dress codes" a) he has no proof that they are primarily young people, images are censored b) dress codes - this is insulting, as if young women only care about dress codes.

"carry signs written in English: “Where is My Vote?” The signs are intended for the western media, not for the Iranian government" - er, is that a problem? They are appealng to an international audience.

"More evidence of orchestration is provided by the protesters’ chant, “death to the dictator, death to Ahmadinejad.” Oh so orchestration on the streets of London ("We are all Hamas now") is ok but not on the streets of Tehran? The chant is ambiguous, that's its whole point. The real enemy is Khameini.

"Even Ahmadinejad’s superior, Khamenei, is not a dictator as he is appointed by a government body that can remove him."
This is bullshit. The supreme leader cannot be removed. An individual can, but the post carries on. Hitler may be replaced by Jodl but it remains a dictatorship. Over 400 potential presidential candidates were rejected. The finalists are all supporters of the system.

"On American TV, the protesters who are interviewed speak perfect English. They are either westernized secular Iranians who were allied with the Shah and fled to the West during the 1978 Iranian revolution or they are the young westernized residents of Tehran." More insults. Whatt is wrong with speaking perfect English? TV companies are more likely to interview people who can speak English than to pay for translations.

"Many of the demonstrators may be sincere in their protest, hoping to free themselves from Islamic moral codes." Christ, they want to free themselves from more than this surely? They want a decent system of democracy for a start. "But if reports of the US government’s plans to destabilize Iran are correct" (what reports?) "paid troublemakers are in their ranks." Do me a favour? This is an insult to all the brave people risking their lives on the streets and he has absolutely NO proof of it.

"Montazeri sees in the street protests an opportunity to challenge Khamenei for the leadership role." So is he orchestrating the street protests or is the CIA, or is he working with the CIA? The article is full of confused logic like this.

"If Mousavi and Montazeri succeed in their ambitions, one likely result would be a loss in Iran’s independence. The new rulers would have to continually defend Iran’s new moderate and reformist image by giving in to American demands." What on earth does this mean? The people on the streets of Tehran want a better relationship with the West, mainly because it would help to rebuild the economy that has been so damaged by Ahmedinejad.

"If the government admits to a rigged election, the legitimacy of the Iranian Revolution would be called into question, setting up Iran for more US interference in its internal affairs." More weird logic. The Iranian revolution was not legitimate. It was a coup by the Ayatollahs, after which they executed thousands of their allies in leftist and other parties. So they can't admit they've faked the election now because it would admit that the revolution was also a fake?? Strange logic.

"The US media serves as a propaganda device, not as a purveyor of truth." This is the classic Media Lens device. The proles may be stupid but we are clever. How does he know? Where does he get his information from that the rest of us can't access? You've already quoted Alexander Cockburn, is he part of the propaganda device? Chomsky too?

"Feminists take the side of the “reformer” Mousavi." This statement is left hanging in the air. What does it mean? Feminism is bad?

"Ideological and emotional agendas result in people distancing themselves from factual and analytical information, preferring instead information that fits with their material interests and emotional disposition." He has already said that he doesn't know what the result was, yet accepts that the results were announced too quickly. He is doing exactly what he accuses others of.

"Large numbers of votes were swiftly counted, which raises the question whether votes were counted or merely a result was announced." More bad English, you've just said the votes were swiftly counted so clearly votes were counted.

"The extraordinary attention given to the Iranian election suggests that many American interests and emotions have a stake in the outcome." Oh so we should ignore a dodgy election in one of the most important countries inthe world? Let's turn our attention back to Israel, obviously.

I could go on. The language is tortured and bad. The logic is flawed. As for Claud Cockburn, he was a Stalinist hack who was attacked by Orwell. His son is a supporter of scientology, a climate change denier and has regularly been accused of anti-semitism. Both he and this author are 9/11 troofers. Enough said.

The point is that American money and US/UK support and propaganda are behind this ongoing 'colour revolution'. This is a replay of what happened in 1953.

US/UK obviously believe that regime change would be in OUR interest. It is unlikely that we care quite so much about what is in the Iranians' interest.

Here's a video of Henry Kissinger threatening regime change in Iran if the current coup fails.

http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/kissinger-threatens-regime

by the way, eddie, for a plain fellow you are suddenly very well informed about the detailed background of an obscure individual, Roberts. I'd be careful if I were you. Personal paradigm shifts undermine credibility.

Roberts is right about 9/11 also, by the way. He's that unusual thing in politics. An honest and decent man.

I sense a vast and deep knowledge and a superb range of techniques for the massaging of information. We are indeed entering the maze of the Minotaur. Better hold onto that piece of string, people. We are in the presence of an expert. Exposed!

But stop! Character assasination is the lowest form of critique.

Because Alexander Cockburn does not follow a party line - thank goodness someone doesn't - doesn't mean that he's a nutter! Alex Cockburn has written massively knowledgeable political analyses on the USA over many decades, he's not a crank. Btw, he doesn't believe the Kennedy assassination was a plot, so where does that place him? I disagree with him on that. So he doesn't agree with climate change? So I disagree with him on that, too. It is permitted. Claud Cockburn was one of the premier intellectuals of his day. Orwell and he had a fight - there were many fights within the Left over the role of the Soviet Union (what's new?!). Good, that means they were both alive and awake.

Patrick Cockburn is one of the best journalists in the UK - his accounts of Iraq were superb, honest and lucid.

Paul Roberts was Reagan's Assistant Sec to the Treasury. This is a guy who was in the US Administration when Iran-Contra was being organised by the US Administration.

Anybody can pick apart any sentences in isolation (even this sentence can be picked apart) and make them look ridiculous. And then it is possible for one to be lost in a labyrinth of semantics and illusion, a hall of mirros, so that one no longer knows whether one is looking left, right, up or down. Confusion, dissimulation, the viral spread of disniformation. See no evil, hear no evil.

Yes, the key point is this: I agree, the SWP helps to organise popular front-type demos in London. And I agree that the demos in Iran have been organised by outside forces, indeed that the whole orchestration has been Made in America.

What we may think of theocracy is another matter, as is whether we agree or disagree with the US action, the posited role of (taboo-word!) Israel, the demonstrators' views, couture, etc. We may think it as an entirely valid use of US power to do this, so spread liberal capitalist democracy where it suits our purposes and to support dictators and theocracies where it suits our purposes, to facilitate the use of torture and simultaneously to bellow about human rights - where it suits our purposes.

There now is no disagreement, it seems, that the US is behind the current disturbances in Iran.

The point is, to look at the big picture, to loacte its heart and then to draw a rapier.

Just as Theseus did, with the Minotaur.

"BBC Persian is the Persian language franchise of BBC which conveys the latest political, social, economical and sport news relevant to Afghanistan, Iran, and Tajikistan, and the world. Its headquarters are based in London, United Kingdom"

"BBC proposals for the service were drawn up by senior BBC management. These were approved by the then BBC Governors – the body that oversaw the BBC and ensures the BBC's independence from the UK Government. They were then submitted to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for their consent as the BBC is obliged to do under the agreement with the FCO"

"Relationship between BBC and FCO"...

http://tinyurl.com/krrsnt

BBC...

tinyurl.com/mje7xs

You see, I - and many people - long for such things to be true, I mean for a tableau of 'The People' rising up against all forms of oppresion, etc. wherever it may be. This is the key. The iconic images of 1968 in Paris and other cities are what all these tableaux - in Ukraine, Georgia, etc. - draw on. Everybody - esp. left-wingers in the West - long for this kind of popular front burning-property-but-not-killing types of outbreaks, but the terrible fact is that real shifts in power effected by revolution, as opposed to evolution, are very violent and are not the sort of thing that would look good on TV or as a poster on a student's wall. I'm not being facetious.

I just think we need to look at facts.

There seems to be an internal power-struggle going on within the ruling class in Iran and I would be very surprised indeed if the USA (and the UK, since the UK MUST do everything the USA tells it to do or the USA will ruin the UK economy completely; this has been the nature of the 'special relationship since 1956, although Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson - a giant, compared to Tony Blair - chanced his arm in the mid-1960s by refusing to get into Vietnam, for which he paid a huge price later on, there was almost a coup d'etat against him engineered by MI6) did not have a hand in fomenting this. In fact, from time immemorial, divide and rule has been the modus operandum of empire; the UK perfected this technique and in terms of imperial genotype (speaking politically), the USA grew as a 'cutting' from the UK. I see MI6's hand in this kind of subtle manipulation.

These are not bread riots, this is NOT the French Revolution of 1789, 1832, 1848 or 1871. It's not even Hungary, 1956 (also CIA-backed, though one has no time for Stalinism) or even Czechoslavia, 1968 where a new form of democratic socialism was promised.

This is not a 'Third World Revolution', either. It's not Cuba, 1959 or Vietnam, or Algeria. In fact, it's not a revolution, at all. These people are not hungry, their faces are not drawn and lined like the faces of those in Pakistan, for example. They are mostly very well-dressed, fashionable people (even if in chadurs, the chadurs are well-cut); this seems to be a revolt of a certain section of the urban middle-classes. Who am I, with my much-enjoyed individual freedoms, to criticise them? I've no doubt that their grievances are real. But this is my perception - that there may be an element of class struggle. Look at the students who rioted against Chavez in Venezuela a couple of years ago - their organisation was paid-for by the USA. It's a familiar sight. It's got nothing to do with the American people and everything to do with American power.

It's good that the American people are empathising with Iranians, seeing their faces. But American people are not in power in America - and British people are not in power in Britain, othewise we (in Britain) would never have attacked Iraq, as, in spite of massive govt propaganda the vast majority of UK citizens were absolutely against the attack in 2003.

I think that Obama is unlikely to want to get involved in another full-blown war (and I am wary of the constant threat of war on Iran as I think that in itself to some extent is a psy-op, as I've said before). I think the US Administration wants to hobble the power of Iran in the region by all other means (other than open war), although I suspect an Israeli attack on selected targets as part of a 'softening-up' process is still on the cards.

Nonetheless, the US depends to some extent on Iran to maintain stability in Iraq, and Iran also has influence in the western part of Afghanistan, so I think what they're seeking is a definitive and sustained reduction in Iran's influence regionally, esp. in Iraq, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon. Israel, of course, would want to go further. I think they also want to neutralise Iranian independence - I mean REAL, as opposed to nominal, independence - as it is the only state still to be independent in the region. They see Rafsanjani and Mousavi - leaders with whom the US dealt with during the 1980s (Iran-Contra) even while supplying Saddam Hussein with chemical weaponry, and leaders who may have come to the conclusion that the maintenance of the power of a certain element of the ruling classes in Iran can be accomodated only through rappochment with - aka submission to - US power.

On the other hand, leaders get 'bought' all the time. Nelson Mandela was almost certainly an MI6 agent. This doesn't mean he was not a great leader, he was, but necessity and his lifelong anti-communism, anti-trade unionism drove him into their arms. The rest is history.

I'm not privy to any inner workings, so I may be completely wrong. But that's my take, today.

George Dutton,

Quote:"These were approved by the then BBC Governors – the body that oversaw the BBC and ensures the BBC's independence from the UK Government."

If the UK 'government' (MP's) are as detatched from real power as they seem to be then it is certain that the 'BBC governors' are much closer to our real government (the financial oligarchy that really run this country) than parliament.

This talk of 'independence' is comical and the mechanisms put in place to 'achieve' it, are nothing but a smokescreen.

Do you think the powers-that-be will leave their fate in 'independent' hands or leave their fate to chance in any way whatsoever.

Anyone who is capable of believing such a thing is brainwashed to an extreme degree by our dominating little oligarchy/cryptocracy.

Enough of this 'independent' bollocks.

Wait for the 'Iraq Inquiry', then call that independent. Be prepared to get laughed off stage.

Eddie,

Taking just one of your comments (because you're better off reading Suhayl Saadi. I just try to keep up.)

"But if reports of the US government’s plans to destabilize Iran are correct"
(what reports?)--Eddie

Paul Craig Roberts, from "The Waning Power of Truth", June 19, 2009 (ICH)

http://tinyurl.com/mzecm2

"on May 23, 2007, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported on ABC News: “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell ABC News.”

"On May 27, 2007, the London Telegraph independently reported: “Mr. Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.”

"A few days previously, the Telegraph reported on May 16, 2007, that Bush administration neocon warmonger John Bolton told the Telegraph that a US military attack on Iran would “be a ‘last option’ after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed.”

"On June 29, 2008, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker: “Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.”

If you have some special knowledge, Eddie, that this is another pile of faeces, please explain.

Yes, and corroborated on June 16:

"Pakistan’s former military chief, General Mirza Aslam Beig, said on Pashto Radio on Monday, June 15, that undisputed intelligence proves the US interfered in the Iranian election. “The documents prove that the CIA spent 400 million dollars inside Iran to prop up a colorful but hollow revolution following the election.”"

I would add that if protesters in Iran are protesting an internal election result in their own country, I have yet to see a good argument for why they would be so desperate to get the word out IN ENGLISH on Twitter, or by carrying placards written IN ENGLISH on the streets of Tehran.

Iranians are a proud people with a proud history. Why would anyone imagine they want intervention from outside?

Quote:"These were approved by the then BBC Governors – the body that oversaw the BBC and ensures the BBC's independence from the UK Government."

The point of my post was to point out that...as you say...

"This talk of 'independence' is comical and the mechanisms put in place to 'achieve' it, are nothing but a smokescreen."

The BBC is control by some not very nice people...NOT very nice at all.The BBC is nothing more then a propaganda agency.

Come to think about it...the money that is being used to pay for the..."BBC Persian is the Persian language franchise of BBC which conveys the latest political, social, economical and sport news relevant to Afghanistan, Iran, and Tajikistan, and the world. Its headquarters are based in London, United Kingdom"...does that come out of the TV Licence?.

Oh you people are beyond belief. Why can't you allow your silly selves to accept that a) the Iranian regime is wicked and reactionary and b) that many of its people want more democracy, an end to sexual and other forms of apartheid and discrimination and better relationships with the West? Instead you carry on smearing these brave people who are risking their lives at this vey moment. It may not have escaped your notice direlin that the USA took on a new president this year so all your fabricated "facts" from 2007 are meaningless and none of you has ANY proof that the USA is behind these demonstrations. You must have seen Obama's measured response to the election. Why else is the UK public enemy number 1? I have dissected parts of the article above but none of you has responded. Suhayl, do you think the protestors of 1968 were hungry? Your comments are specious. Do people have to be hungry before they can demonstrate against sexual apartheid and in favour of democracy? You submit a long rant about how American power is behind it and then admit you may be wrong. The truth is you just don't know. And Mandela a British agent? Oh dear me.

And George Dutton, you go on about the PErsian BBC service. Have you noticed that Press TV is advertised on all the buses in London - sponsored by Iran? That's free speech for you. .

On Press TV we were able to see live what the Israelis were doing to the people of Gaza during Cast Lead. Same also from Al Jazeera. The BBC were only able to put Bowen or Adler on the Hill of Shame where Israelis were bringing their picnic chairs and binoculars, the better to observe the slaughter of the caged people. Press TV also have some excellent documentaries and current affairs programmes (even have people like Aarononovitch on). You should try to catch one or two - might learn something.

"The truth is you just don't know"

eddie

The truth is you just don't know.

"Have you noticed that Press TV is advertised on all the buses in London - sponsored by Iran? That's free speech for you."

Hmmm...I have heard UK government plans are a foot on that one eddie...a case of watch this space?.

I was giving some examples of revolts of different sorts - so, some were bread riots, others were not. Quite obvious, what I was saying, really.

Yes, there is strong evidence that Mandela did work with British Intelligence, this is not a secret. Sometimes he had to - as when they helped foil several assasination attempts by S. African white extremists post-1990, at other times it was as part of a power-game with the Communist party of S. Africa and the TU movement. The reaction was predictable.

I rendered this as an example of how liberation (or shall we say, oppositional) leaders can/ can have to work with the intelligence services of imperial powers for various reasons. Look at the Iraqia - one minute, they with the US, the next, their fighting them. See, such shifts are normal.

My analyses apply, regardless of whether or not one is a cheerleader for US power/ theocracy/ democracy/communism/fascism, etc.

I do not agree with theocracy, how many times do I have to state this? But I do not agree with US military-political power being exerted in a strategy to achieve imperial global hegemony. Most wars today are a direct result of this.

'...they're', I mean! Lest I be accused of illiteracy!

"Hmmm...I have heard UK government plans are a foot on that one eddie...a case of watch this space?."...

http://tinyurl.com/lfmtob

Where the USA goes today...The UK will go tomorrow.

George Perhaps you can enlighten me as I have barely watched Press TV. Do they have programmes like "Question Time"? Do they have interviewers like John Humphreys who give government ministers a hard time? From what I have heard press tv is firmly under the control of the regime.

Just had a look at the Press Tv website. As I suspected it is just a government propaganda station - every report toes the regime line. No feedback or message boards. No debate.

We've had "drearylin", and now "direlin", Eddie.

Why do you keep changing my name? Is it because of my nationality?

And don't you think, as you've already virtually admitted on another thread, that it's puerile and unnecessary?

As for your reference to "all your fabricated "facts" from 2007", what evidence do you have that they're fabricated?

You seem to be under the illusion that the arrival of Obama means the USA has done some sort of U-turn. It hasn't. And if you think that all covert operations by the USA have been terminated, you're making a very big and rather naive mistake.

One of Obama's speeches before election referred to his vision of the USA "leading the world" in a different manner/fashion. I neither want nor need to be led by the USA anywhere. If you're happy to sit there and be led by the nose, more fool you.

"Instead you carry on smearing these brave people who are risking their lives at this vey moment."--Eddie

No, Eddie, you're smearing them. By suggesting that they're desperate for support from outside Iran, on Twitter and TV screens. I doubt if they have any need of you.

"Where the USA goes today...The UK will go tomorrow."

And (culturally) Ireland the next day, George. We have all suffered from many of the worst aspects of American culture being assimilated via a shared language. But that's off-topic so I'll leave it there.

Of course I don't know for certain - how is it are any of us can be so certain of our positions that no doubt ever crosses your minds? If we all knew for certain, we would not be having this discussion. Are we supposed to substitute arrogance for honesty, corporate-style? To fll into a line dictated by the state, every time? "Attack Iraq: yes sir! Undermine Iran: Yes sir!"

No, I refuse.

eddie: I haven't read a single comment here that smears the Iranian demonstrators. Most people are just trying to get a handle on the bigger picture.

Your remarks have indeed been addressed. In particular your assertion that there is no proof of outside interference has been thoroughly shot to pieces and this, after all, was the key point of Roberts's article.

I do not share your confidence in having a reliable insight into precisely what each demonstrator is demonstrating for. Those asking "Where is my Vote?" are presumably suggesting that the election was rigged and that, had Mousavi got in, they would not be on the streets. The election may have been rigged but at present there is no proof of this. The best evidence available - the opinion poll taken before the election - suggests it was not rigged. If so, the answer to the protesters' question is that their vote was counted but unfortunately more people voted for the other guy. Tough.

I certainly do not share your view that the protesters are seeking to overthrow the whole system (or at least any that do are in a minority). I believe this is simply wishful thinking on your own Islamophobic part.

I may be wrong but I suspect the majority of Iranians prize their country's independence and do not want to become another Iraq or Afghanistan. They do not want their country's rich resources stripped by western interests and a corrupt western puppet government installed. They have been through that and it was hell. You're happy to call the current regime "wicked and reactionary" but compared with the horrors of the Shah it is a vision of compassion and enlightenment.

"George Perhaps you can enlighten me as I have barely watched Press TV"

eddie

To get enlightenment watch "Press TV".

You should also stop going to Harry's Place and mixing with all the other unenlightened ones...it`s doing you no good eddie...

http://tinyurl.com/l9yo9s

"And (culturally) Ireland the next day, George."

I should amend that. I was in Shannon protesting against US troop planes, and US Gulfstream rendition flights, passing through our airport there. So 'culturally' can be left out.

I think this thread, while vigorous, informative and spirited, is becoming circular.

I think also that it important that all discourses, while not dodging any potential narratives, avoid simply revolving around the provocative and disruptive, rather than stimulating and challenging, statements of one particular blogger - whose views in relation to imperial power are well-known and rather predictable - this seems to occur to some extent on several of the threads which I have followed on this blog.; the dynamic is always the same. Hence my Theseus allusion, earlier.

We shall see what happens in, and to, Iran...

dreoilin

One BRIGHT ray of light...

http://tinyurl.com/nbo9wn

"We shall see what happens in, and to, Iran..."

"Iranian police have used water cannon, batons and tear gas to disperse protests over the presidential election, witnesses in Tehran say".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8110582.stm

Under the Shah it would have been tanks and machine guns.

I know, you're right, MJ.

I do fear that it will escalate, though. I have real fears for people, including friends, in Iran. From the contemporaneous info I'm getting, I think a lot of people there are as baffled as we are - and are very frightened. Once stuff starts happening, whatever the triggers, it can assume a momentum of its own and then no-one is safe, regardless of their views, etc. Perhaps this was the reason for my earlier uncertainty. It's all very well us engaging in discourse. I think things might be beginning to slip out of control. I think the leaders of Iran need to get together and stop this, on both sides.

I pray for the people of Iran.

Dreolin - apologies, it's my one weakness to prick your pomposity, I will try to stop and I know it's wrong. I don't know what nationality you are.

"And I agree that the demos in Iran have been organised by outside forces, indeed that the whole orchestration has been Made in America."Suhayl
If that is not a smear I don't know what is. MJ, I do wish you would stop throwing Islampophobic at me - I have tried to oexplain before that I despise all religions. Religion-phobic would be a better term - personally I am not keen on theocratic governments, whether they are Christian or Islamic. Just because you hate fascists who happen to be muslims it does not make you an Islamophobe. You are right though, the arguments are circular and we shall have to agree to disagree. The truth is that none of us really know what we are saying because the facts are still so obscure. But people are being beaten and killed on the streets of Tehran right now so to claim they are being manipulated by the CIA is truly disgraceful (in my view) and none of you has any proof for such a claim.

Anyway, I have just been to see "Looking for Eric" - it's a great film and I recommend it.

eddie,
"and none of you has ANY proof that the USA is behind these demonstrations."

Well there is the $400 millions dollars the Congress put aside for 'covert actions inside Iran'.....and a multitude of circumstantial happenstances, not least the oft-implemented Soros 'colour revolution' meme.

I'll tell what there is NOT a shred of proof for...that the election was actually stolen.

Here's a video of Henry Kissinger threatening regime change in Iran if the current coup fails. Is this evidence?

Little eddie the troll,
Demolish this pile of faeces.

http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/kissinger-threatens-regime

We'll have to see what comes out of all this - and what comes out - information-wise and politically - in the aftermath.

I'm not indicting individuals who are demonstrating, I mean I know people on both 'sides' of the argument (if one wants to put it like that). I just think there's more going on than what we see as a surface picture, and history illustrates that the CIA have worked in exactly this manner repeatedly over the years. Millions of dollars have gone into black ops recently in Iran and other bloggers have already posted articles from various knowledgeable sources in a number of countries - there are some from Israel, incidentally, both from those who seek peace with the surrounding countries and from those who are 'hawks' - on the subject.

It's hellish for the people on the streets right now and also for those in the houses. It's a very emotive time for everyone who cares a jot about people. But that should not distract one from attempting to delineate underlying dynamics; on the contrary. It is not disrespectful to do this. I'm not smearing the ordinary people, I am critiquing some of the leaders in Iran who I think are being irresponsible in their quest for power (or more power, depending on who we are talking about) and the outside interference and manipulation which is likely to be pertinent in this situation and who are willing to spill, or to allow the spilling, of oceans of blood in their pursuit of power and wealth.

I, too, despise theocracy, religious fundamentalism, etc., I've seen what it's done in Pakistan (with the sustained help of the West, I'm afraid). The Left was crushed in Iran in the early 1980s and in Pakistan has been for decades - and the invasion of Iran by Iraq undertaken at the instigation of the USA worsened the situation wrt the Iranian Revolution. My own (civilian, I hasten to add) relatives are actively struggling to oppose the Taliban in the NWFP of Pakistan right now; I have no time for Islamism of whatever brand.

I am not blogging on this subject because I don't care or feel for the people of Iran - quite the opposite - or because I'm trying to be clever. I am not 'anti-American', I think that there are many wonderful things about the USA - and Britain - and I celebrate those things often!! But I am against the manner in which the military-political establishment of the US has tended to screw up almost every effort of people in the economic South to achieve anything and I resent the active complicity of my own country, the UK in this process (as well as being very aware of, and being formed from, the UK's own imperial history).

Surveying the past six decades, I find it hard to see how a person on the Left (in its broadest sense) or of Libertarian or Progressive tendencies cannot be at the very least uneasy about the nature of US power in the world.

Perhaps I am stupid and should shut up.

I, too, despise theocracy, religious fundamentalism, etc., I've seen what it's done...

You certainly didn't see religious fundamentalism nor I suspect can you hate "theocracy" As you have no benchmark.

George,

Indeed.
And my vote was part of that. :)

anonymous person - I wish you would stop being so offensive.
If you can bear to watch it, look at this video of a young girl on the streets of Tehran. As she lay dying I wonder if she thought, "The fucking CIA, if only I'd never taken their money." I doubt it. Suhayl - I respect your measured opinions, but you seem to be saying that there is a power struggle going on in Iran, which appears to be true, but that the US is also manipulating the siutation. Both cannot be true surely? If so, it would mean that one or more of the leaders in Iran is complicit with the CIA/USA, a foolish step by any standards for any serious figure who wished to take power there. Even more incredible would be the notion that one of these senior figures is being manipulated without knowing it.

http://www.hurryupharry.org/

Inquisitor, I must be even thicker than I thought. I don't understand what you're saying. Benchmark? I thought that was a corporate accolade. Please explain.

"Mousavi’s supporters have questioned the wide margin of Ahmedinejad’s victory”

http://tinyurl.com/nh7zvq

the most sensible quote of the decade--by the ayatulla khomenni ofiran-2the british are the most treacheropus of all".
he has hit the nail right on the head. the enlgish nation are the most vile treacheropus lying deceptive cheater and fraudulent race the earth ever has had the misfortune to bear and the world to tolerate so far. High time they are sorted out .]
the same BBC which was daily asking Gore to not push for vote recount in 2000 american elelction is doing the propaganda about fraud in iran !they are shamless and must be destryed.
As for this eddie-he is a usual dog -why give him attention? thse people do NOT WANT to be convinced by argument or fact-they know only one langauge.

"CIA, if only I'd never taken their money"

In the link I give above...

"Finally, one must make a quick comparison with what happened in the June 7 elections in Lebanon. Tens of thousands of people of Lebanese origin were flown from abroad, all expenses paid by the Saudis, to vote for the March 14 group led by Saad Hariri. The Saudis also paid each person $500 for pocket money. Despite this massive fraud, Hariri’s group got 68 seats in parliament (two less than they had in the previous one) while the Hizbullah-backed alliance got 57 seats (one less than in the earlier one). There were three independents. Hizbullah Secretary General did not complain that the election was rigged. He told his supporters to accept the result and move on."

"There was little or no mention in the Western media about Lebanese vote rigging; the only thing one heard was that Hizbullah had been “defeated”."

They don`t have free elections in the UK/USA friend and ally Saudi Arabia.Nothing said about that by Prime Minister Mandelson or his underling Brown...I wonder why?.

"Dreolin - apologies, it's my one weakness to prick your pomposity"

Don't flatter yourself, Eddie. You'd need a bigger prick.

"I don't know what nationality you are."

Don't dissemble either. It's all over this page and you've clearly been reading me.

Now I will take my own advice and ignore you in future. Anyone who seems to think that PSYOP or black ops means standing in the middle of Moseni Square with a bullhorn shouting "We're the CIA. We think you should protest these election results. Come to XYX street and we'll explain all", hasn't a clue.

"you seem to be saying that there is a power struggle going on in Iran, which appears to be true, but that the US is also manipulating the siutation. Both cannot be true surely?"

"Yes they can".

anglosaxon scumbag's conspiracy in Iran and elsewhere.
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06192009.html

Is This the Culmination of Two Years of Destabilization
Are the Iranian Protests Another US Orchestrated "Color Revolution?"

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

A number of commentators have expressed their idealistic belief in the purity of Mousavi, Montazeri, and the westernized youth of Terhan. The CIA destabilization plan, announced two years ago (see below) has somehow not contaminated unfolding events.

The claim is made that Ahmadinejad stole the election, because the outcome was declared too soon after the polls closed for all the votes to have been counted. However, Mousavi declared his victory several hours before the polls closed. This is classic CIA destabilization designed to discredit a contrary outcome. It forces an early declaration of the vote. The longer the time interval between the preemptive declaration of victory and the release of the vote tally, the longer Mousavi has to create the impression that the authorities are using the time to fix the vote. It is amazing that people don’t see through this trick.

http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2009/3624econ_science.html

This article appears in the June 19, 2009 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
ECONOMY FOR SCIENTISTS:
Economic Science, In Short

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

May 29, 2009

[PDF version of this article]

The following report has been produced for the special benefit of those serious scientists and poets who are prepared to come directly to the crucial issue underlying the world's presently accelerating plunge into the onrushing new dark age of general breakdown-crisis of the present world economy as a whole. The subject within which this report is situated, is what is, to my present knowledge, the still rarely considered principle which distinguishes the human mind, knowledgeably, from that of beasts. This is the same uniquely human principle, of that willful potential of the human mind which lies under the same heading, under which the notion of the ontological conception of the tensor must be situated for our study here.
Foreword

Unless there is a relatively immediate reversal of the current economic and demographic policies which had been expressed by both the recent U.S. Presidency of George W. Bush, Jr., and, now, President Barack Obama, civilization on this planet is now doomed to a rapidly accelerating descent of all mankind in a general dark age, a time during which the population of this planet would descend, foreseeably, from the presently estimated level of more than six-and-a-half billions persons, to the less than two billions which has been the stated goal of Britain's Prince Philip and the Prince's explicitly pro-genocidal World Wildlife Fund.

This nightmare, born out of current British ideology, which is already now descending upon this planet as a whole, is not a product of natural causes, but, rather, the natural outcome of so-called Malthusian economic policies, policies which had been radiated from the British empire, and had been carried out, during a certain time, by what the British monarchy and its ideological accomplices and interests had created as the Nazi Germany regime under Adolf Hitler, earlier. The same kind of genocidal result packaged as the Hitler regime, is being promoted by the British under the impetus of Prince Philip and his World Wildlife Fund now, with the present collaboration of U.S. President Barack Obama.

These pro-genocidal policies of the current British monarchy, are of a type which is by no means new to known history. The current policies of the British monarchy, of its accomplices inside leading political and related circles inside even our own United States, and its current Presidential administration today, are types of policies which the Eighteenth-Century British Empire's British East India Company of Lord Shelburne and his accomplices had copied, explicitly, from the policies of practice of the ancient Roman Empire, policies which had been described in the Prometheus Bound of the ancient Greek Classical dramatist Aeschylus.

The continuation of such pro-genocidal policies as those of Britain's Prince Philip and his World Wildlife Fund today, is not to be traced to the United Kingdom as a nation-state, but, rather, to the imperial character of the role of London's financial center as the capital of a world-wide empire based on a currently dominant world-wide monetarist system akin to a Keynesian monetarist system. This is a system whose origins are traced to the feudal medieval European monetarist system, centered in Venice, which crashed in the so-called "New Dark Age" of Europe's Fourteenth Century, and to the monetarist imperial system of usury maintained by the Roman and Byzantine empire earlier. That is the present-day echo of the imperialist form of tyranny, an echo which is known by the name of "globalization" today.

"Globalization" and the attempted global practice of genocide, by the British monarchy and its accomplices, against the world's population today, is a presently immediate threat to all mankind which has arisen in its present form through the virtual capture of the Presidency of the United States by the British monarchy, as under the recent and current Presidencies of George H.W. Bush (1989-1993), George W. Bush, Jr. (2001-2009), and, presently, Barack Obama (2009 -...).

President Obama and his immediate personal cabal of the pro-genocidal British fanatics gathered within his Presidency, is a present expression of the particular, greatest economic threat to mankind as a whole. It is an expression of the influence of the British monarchy's currently continuing tradition of Lord Shelburne's British East India Company, a tradition of hateful efforts against all mankind during the course of the modern world history since that February 1763 Peace of Paris which established that Company as, in fact of practice, a private world maritime empire holding the British monarchy itself as captive.

The United Kingdom, as a form of an only nominally sovereign nation-state, had become, up to the present time, a virtual colony of what Shelburne established, in 1782, as the British Foreign Office and its relationship to a City of London as a center of a global form of imperial monetarist system. President Obama, like the present regime of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, is presently a collateral puppet of that continuing, global form of monetarist imperium crafted according to the paradigm of the Roman, Byzantine, and Venetian traditions.
Our United States

Good points in relation black ops, etc. made by all. Interesting about the Lebanon election, too, I didn't know that, it would fit with the wider anti-Iran strategy pursued by the USA and Israel.

Avatar, I share your anger at colonialism and neocolonialism, but for a number of reasons, I'd be somewhat wary of drawing on the work La Rouche, he's viewed by many serious oppositional commentators as 'halfway to David Icke' and possibly anti-Semitic. The effect of these types of media figures presence in the general discourse tends to reinforce power, as effectively they debunk the very serious and often accurate and interesting (Byzantine, Venetian, money - that's intriguing historical purview) economic/ political critiques which they make by making it contingent on crazy foundational stuff about (in the case of Icke) lizards, etc. and in the case of La Rouche, racial material.

"Interesting about the Lebanon election, too, I didn't know that"

Suhayl Saadi

"US, Biden try to strong-arm Lebanese elections"

http://tinyurl.com/odz5r5

Drearylin
"Yes they can" yet another statement of which you have absolutely no proof. I do NOT know what nationality you are. Perhaps I have not been reading your stuff with as much attention as you think you deserve. Those pesky Persians and their empire eh? Getting their comeuppance at last.

Drearylin
"Yes they can" yet another statement of which you have absolutely no proof, as with the vast majority of your crap. As stated previously, if you believe that senior figures in Iran are knowingly being funded by the CIA then I say that is beyond belief. I do NOT know what nationality you are. Perhaps I have not been reading your stuff with as much attention as you think you deserve and if you think it is important then that says more about you. Those pesky Persians and their empire eh? Getting their comeuppance at last.

eddie: of course it is possible for an internal power struggle to take place and for foreign interests covertly to support one of the parties. One doesn't need "proof" simply to demonstrate that what you consider a logical impossibility is in fact possible. It can be as banal as a foreign donor contributing to an election campaign. The recipient might not even know the true source of the money.

We know the US has put 400 million dollars into destabilising Iran from within. Any ideas on how the money has been spent?

eddie,

Quote: "....if you believe that senior figures in Iran are knowingly being funded by the CIA then I say that is beyond belief."

Don't be ridiculous.

It has happened before in Iran (1953)....not to mention Ukraine and other countries to numerous (particularly in South America) to mention.

What do you think Kissinger is saying here (link below). It is quite clear. If this uprising does not succeed we might have to use military force against Iran. Next step military attacks. Are you still claiming America is adopting a 'hands-off' policy with Iran and saving their $400 million put aside to deal with Iran for some other day.

Oh, you're a joker eddie. A very funny fellow indeed.

http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/kissinger-threatens-regime

I was going to link to the Paul Craig Roberts article at Counterpunch, but I see I've been beaten to the — er — punch. As little as any of us know about what's actually going on in Iran, it would surprise me not one whit to discover that the current crisis is the result of or being taken advantage of by a CIA operation. In fact, I'd be truly surprised to learn otherwise.

And I agree with the warning about Lyndon LaRouche. He's a complete and utter nutter, and one needs to give him a very wide berth indeed.

I don't agree with you and you have no proof. You believe what you want to bleieve, like all your other fantasies over 911 etc. I wish the anonymous person above would sort out their name.

Severe repression now in Iran. What will it take for anyone on these boards to condemn the slaughter?

eddie,

Quote: "I don't agree with you and you have no proof. You believe what you want to bleieve, like all your other fantasies over 911 etc."

Fantasies????

My God, you are a living gibbering fantasy....or rather a sponsored promoter of outright lies, i.e. fantasies you know to be untrue.

The CIA interferences in South America (many times) and Iran in 1953 are admitted and copiously documented. Now here's the grand-daddy of US Imperial interventionism threatening military action against Iran as a next step if they don't cave in to the ongoing 'colour revolution'.

No proof? You should apply for a job at the BBC. They'd love you eddie. Hey, maybe you're already there, posting from their 'newsroom' (aka 'The Lie Factory')

Here is the Kissinger interview again:

http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/kissinger-threatens-regime

PS The uninformed should disabuse themselves of the notion that a fantasy organisation* 'AlQaida' carried out the attacks of 9/11. Watch "911 Mysteries" on google video.

*Here's a quote from Robin Cook (before he suddenly dropped dead....could there be a connection?):
"There is no such organisation as Al Qaida and everybody with any connection to the intelligence services knows it".

And bin Laden died in Dec 2001, according to Fox News.

http://tinyurl.com/mfs8y

"US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran"

Telegraph:

http://tinyurl.com/5j9fbn

"Severe repression now in Iran. What will it take for anyone on these boards to condemn the slaughter?"

I for one condemn all killing and this is no exception. It's probably a little early to be talking about severe repression (demonstrators are still on the streets) or slaughter (the death toll so far of ten includes police). So far then it's little more than an average afternoon on the West Bank.

But I fear severe repression and slaughter are a distinct possibilty. Another Tianeman Square cannot be ruled out. Politically, the strangely quiet Rasfanjani holds the trump cards. As Chairman of the Assembly of Experts he can, with a bit of behind-the-scenes wrangling, remove the Supreme Leader and get Mousavi or even himself in instead. The sooner he reveals his hand the better, I feel.

"like all your other fantasies over 911"

By the way eddie, I'm still waiting for a sensible response as to how all that thermite got into the dust. Or are you still too attached to your own fantasies about 9/11 to face up to that terrifying piece of reality?

"How all that thermite got into the dust" - simple, some little green men from Mars came and put it there. Then they took away all those planes with the passengers on board and they are all living happily on a planet somewhere far away. It's just as believable isn't it? Gibber, gibber. Send for the men in white coats.

Ah, Fox News and the Torygraph -very reliable. "CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions." Has Tehran moved to the border regions?? Dummy. Still no proof of any US involvement in these protests. Just more smears of brave people.

At least 30 dead.

"Iran finds US-backed MKO fingermarks in riots"

http://tinyurl.com/kqoe7v

etc etc etc

I need a chorus here, folks. Think only of the wooded vales of Langley, which as as close to the Throne of Heaven as one can get without turning into Beatrice. After me. All together now! One, two three...

!Let us all praise the freedom-loving USA, the CIA, the Pentagon, the DIA, the hundreds of wonderful, pacific and beatific bases, the harmonic nuclear peaceheads, the Conflict Resolution Drones, the sleek, Lear Executive jets (ah, the leather upholstery does rather go with those 1970s-style sun-coloured jumpsuits!), Old Uncle Sam Cobbly and All, who never, ever undertake anything underhand or covert or convertible, who never ever do anything less than benificent and who are truly, madly, deeply all-caring. Let the cosmic Stars-and-Stripes flood over everyone! Amen, amen, amen.

and Amen.

6% of the world's population so kindly looking after the other 94%.
Who could ask for more.

Press TV is an Iranian govt sponsored propaganda machine. hardly an impartial source.

While we are on the subject. Press TV has an annual budget of £27 million and transmits its message across the UK. It propagandises for the Iranian government and seeks to convert Western audiences to its point of view by challenging Western orthodoxies and building support for the Iranian regime and its proxies such as Hezbollah, proof that the Iranian govt was behind the recent G20 riots. Your logic not mine.

Incidenally, that press relase from Press TV is a disgusting piece of work. The kind of thing that Mugabe would be proud of. Let's blame the British, anyone but ourselves for the shit we find ourselves in.

MJ,

Ignore the stupid distractions posted by the troll. Just keep posting the information. Only fools will be influenced by the gibberings of one who avoids every issue raised and tries to divert the focus onto tired old straw men.

Here is the Kissinger interview again:

http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/kissinger-threatens-regime

From tomorrow's Guardian.
Mohammad Khatami, a former president and another leader of the reformist camp, spoke out against the repression. "The provocative and insulting portrayal of our people who have been acting independently, and accusing their healthy civil protest to be an act of foreign influence, is an example of the wrong policies that further distance people from our government," he said.

Quite so.

MJ

Don't really want to go too far off the topic but the whole conspiracy theory about 9/11 does my head in a bit. The thermite theory by Steven Jones has been debunked quite sucessfully as shown in these websites:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims

I hope this will put an end to it and we can move back to the CIA involvement in Iran which is more realistic although i still think that the majority of this is internal power struggles.

Eddie

Maybe i'm wrong but you seem to think that the people on the street are fighting for democracy. Howeverm the person (Mousavi) they voted for is still completely for the current regime. He's gone for Mohammad Khatami approach to politics and like Khatami he's not interested in democracy or regime change. Also you shouldn't dismiss the comments about the signs because there is no reason for the people who voted for Mousavi to complain in English to their government.

chris.glasgow:

It was just an aside really, referring to a discussion eddie, I and others were having a week or two back.

You may not be up to date on the thermite issue however. A new paper was published a couple of months ago by the University of Copenhagen Chemistry Department. They've found particles of active thermite in the dust from WTC. The debunkers are in a bit of a quandary and haven't come up with anything coherent yet.

Anyway, back to Iran...

eddie:

I've got a lot of time for Khatami. He's obviously a decent and thoughtful man and I find his mild, diplomatic tone far preferable to Ahmadinejad's abrasive rhetoric.

It does seem however that there is a 'reformist' coup hatching and Khatami is clearly part of that. He may even have his eye on becoming Supreme Leader; that may be why he pulled out of the presidential contest.

Although the reformists' agenda of more democracy, liberalisation of personal freedoms and a more conciliatory approach to the West may play well over here and among the Iranian middle-classes, on the domestic economic front things may be a bit less enlightened. I understand for instance that the reformists are rather keen on privatisation of major industries and services, in the Thatcherite mold. One reason for Ahmadinejad's undoubted popularity among the poor is that he has had some success in spreading Iran's oil wealth more widely and a reformist victory is likely to put an end to that.

Khatami's words will be particularly carefully chosen at the moment and we need to read between the lines. Clearly he doesn't want the impetus of the current discontent to be derailed by claims that it's all a CIA plot. Obviously it isn't; genuine grievances are being expressed. It is also the case however that outside interference is happening and it is disingenuous of him to suggest it is not. It probably just isn't having a decisive effect. There's a limit to what you can achieve with $400 million these days.

MJ,
Yes, genuine grievances are being expressed but that does not mean the protesters represent a disenfranchised majority. Neither does that mean that the CIA (and MI6)are not playing a large part in supporting the protesters materially.

Mousavi decisively won a pre-election poll that was a CELL-PHONE poll. Obviously only the middle classes were, therefore polled.....an entirely unrepresentative group.
Perhaps such a pre-election poll should be carried out in Bethnal Green before our next general election and the media should announce that George Galloway is favourite to be the next Prime Minister.

Independent polls in the US media predicted an Ahmedinejad victory by a ratio of 2 votes to 1.

Here is the Kissinger interview again:

http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/kissinger-threatens-regime

No American interference? That's very nearly funny.

Chris/MJ
I know that Mousavi is a dodgy character - as a previous PM he must have blood on his hands and given that 400+ other candidates were rejected he is clearly a high establishment figure who would continue the present regime but perhaps with a softer face. But I think the people on the streets see him as a figurehead in a wider campaign for human rights and democracy. They do appear to be younger and more westernised and I do not honestly know why they are holding up signs in English - I prefer to think that is because they are an internet savvy bunch who know that they have to appeal beyond their borders, rather than being some sinister CIA plot. I do think the left has got themselves in a right pickle over this - many are claiming cia interference, smearing the protestors etc when we should all support those who fight oppression. This view from Dave's Part seems to take a more sensible approach.

http://www.davidosler.com/2009/06/the_eighteenth_brumaire_of_mah.html

Talking of conspiracies (sorry this is off topic) there was a programme on Sky last night about the Illuminati. Apparently Ken Clarke and Denis Healey are members. The proponents of the theory that they interviewed were all American survivalist/ Rush Limbaught types and obvious nutballs. Perhaps this was journalistic licence but none of them could provide a shred of evidence for their potty theories.

Ken Clark and Denis Healey have been to Bilderburg meetings that's all. So has George Osborne and many others. That doesn't mean they are anywhere seriously near the centre of power. These are servants of the financial masters rather than real decision makers. They go to Bilderburger to be briefed on the global agenda for the following 12 months.
There is so much evidence of the malign influence of international bankers and the secret masonic societies they control that to use the phrase 'not a shred of evidence' is utterly ridiculous. Massive tomes, too numerous to mention, have been written on the subject and mountains of evidence amassed. If the media won't talk about this that should be no surprise.

Those that are comfortable with Parliament, the City of London, local councils, the police and the judiciary being populated by a large and almost certainly dominating faction who have taken oaths of allegiance to EACH OTHER rather than the public they serve should, in itself, be a grave cause for concern.....

.....shouldn't it?

Here is the Kissinger interview again:

http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/kissinger-threatens-regime

No American interference? That's very nearly funny.

All the points made in the last few posts are good, I feel, even if they are conflicting; they may not be mutually exclusive.

This is a different area, but the Left also got themselves in a pickle over Bosnia in the early 1990s. You see, the Left obviously opposes US hegemony but this can lead it - a broad church, of course - into expressing support for movements/ regimes with which it has little in common except opposition to imperial hegemony. I know this point has been made this point before but it is a valid general observation.

The West (USA, UK, Germany, mainly) was aiming to break-up Yugoslavia for all kinds of reasons, while Russia, apart from the old Orthodox ties, saw this as an encroachment on its potential sphere of influence. But it was very complicated. The West was supporting Croatian Fascists and Russia, Serbian Fascists. This is not even to venture into the territory of the Kosovan Mafia, etc. and the drug routes, it's all very complex, as I understand it. Meanwhile, people got killed, en masse. In the end, for what? For nothing. Frankly, Yugoslavia would've been better off staying as Yugoslavia, though with a less toxic leader than Milosevic.

But one had many people on the Left in the UK in partisan fashion tacitly or ridiculously defending the actions of the Serbian state and its paramilitary offshoots just because they knew that the West had supported nationalist (as opposed to federal) policians.

Sudan is another difficult an complex area, with everyone from the Christian Far-Right in the US to Salafists to right-wing think-tanks in the Uk fronted by 'ex'-SIS officers, all throwing in their tuppenceworth.

There is a conflicted situation in relation to the Taliban et al as well. No-one who cares a jot about human life wants the Taliban in power in Pakistan and yet a continuation of the de facto (US supported) military rule of that country, which has resulted in the rise of movements like that of the Taliban and which has got the country into the socio-economic-political mess it's in, is also a hopeless option. At least with some form of democracy (hugely imperfect, yes), there is the possibility of gradual - or sudden - change.

The fact is, situations are often are caused by longstanding imperial (Russian, US, whatever) policies of various sorts - colonialism, neocolonialism - and then other things happen (i.e. things get messed-up in all directions) and there is no straight and pure narrative path through the forest of the world.

Nonetheless, it is important to attempt engage in political cartography, all the while realising that the maps shift and change and are geological as well as schematic.

It's much easier for the non-Libertarian Right; they just support empire, wherever it goes and whatever it does.

We shall see what happens in Iran.

Suhayl. That is a good post and I agree with most of it. It comes back to the danger of believing that my enemy's enemy must be my friend, a notion that has caused tremendous problems for both left and right (Hamas and Hezbollah for the left, Al Quaida for the right etc). The situation in Iran is complex and the lesson perhaps s not to rush to judgement too quicklu.

Robin Cook said, quote: "There is no such organisation as Al Qaida and everybody with any connection to the intelligence services knows it."

Dangerous words.....

.......poor fellow.

Here is the Kissinger interview again:

http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/kissinger-threatens-regime

No American interference? That's very nearly funny.

"It's much easier for the non-Libertarian Right; they just support empire, wherever it goes and whatever it does."

An easy life. A bit like my father's adherence to Catholicism, down to the last comma and full stop. Maybe I should change my politics - and revert to strict Catholicism. It'd simplify my life enormously. Everything in black and white and handed to me by someone else - no thinking required. :)

"It's much easier for the non-Libertarian Right; they just support empire, wherever it goes and whatever it does."

Sounds a bit like American conservatives I have known. I haven't yet asked them what they felt when Obama won.

@ Suhayl Saadi

"You see, the Left obviously opposes US hegemony" - ???
If it did, it was in theory only. It certainly isn't the case now.

"Russia, apart from the old Orthodox ties, saw this as an encroachment on its potential sphere of influence." - Maybe Yugoslavia changed from the Tito days.

"many people on the Left in the UK in partisan fashion tacitly or ridiculously defending the actions of the Serbian state and its paramilitary offshoots just because they knew that the West had supported nationalist (as opposed to federal) policians." - care to name a few?

"No-one who cares a jot about human life wants the Taliban in power in Pakistan...the Taliban and which has got the country into the socio-economic-political mess it's in" - what utterly ridiculous and thoroughly stupendous set of statements.

"At least with some form of democracy (hugely imperfect, yes), there is the possibility of gradual - or sudden - change." - Huh? Democracy has MANY q's to answer before it can be seen as not beng in conflict with Islamic governance - Islam being the regions principal belief. What the people in these 'conflict zones' (essentailly conflict free when free of outsiders poking their noses in!!) is a government THEY would like from their own social, cultural and religious values.

At least you give some recognition to the problems from the meddling of others.

"there is no straight and pure narrative path through the forest of the world." - Yes there is, but none YOU find palletable. That solution is the Islamic Caliphate. It's quite simple.

I just want to write the 300th post on this thread. Pathetic, I know...

"You see, the Left obviously opposes US hegemony" - ???
If it did, it was in theory only. It certainly isn't the case now.
I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN. BUT MOST LEFT-WINGERS REMAIN AGAINST US HEGEMONY; THE REST ARE IJEUTS. I DON'T REGARD NEW LABOUR AS LEFT-WING BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT. NIC COHEN ET AL ARE SIMPLY LIBERAL IMPERIALISTS.

WHEN THE ISLAMISTS WERE BEING FUNDED, TRAINED AND FED BY THE US, OTHERS CONSISTENTLY WERE OPPOSING THESE FORCES AND WERE NOT IN CAHOOTS WITH THE SOVIET UNION. READ HISTORY. YES, I KNOW. HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY THE VICTORS. SO READ HISTORY WRITTEN BY THE LOSERS, TOO.

"Russia, apart from the old Orthodox ties, saw this as an encroachment on its potential sphere of influence." - Maybe Yugoslavia changed from the Tito days.

POTENTIAL IS THE WORD. RUSSIA ALWAYS WANTED TO GET (BACK) YUGOSLAVIA. TITO HAD BROKEN AWAY AND WAS NON-ALIGNED.

"many people on the Left in the UK in partisan fashion tacitly or ridiculously defending the actions of the Serbian state and its paramilitary offshoots just because they knew that the West had supported nationalist (as opposed to federal) policians." - care to name a few?
A FEW OF WHO? FEDERALIST POLITICIANS IN YUGOSLAVIA, OR PEOPLE ON THE LEFT IN THE UK OR NATIONALIST POLICTIANS IN YUGOSLAVIA? PLEASE CLARIFY.

"No-one who cares a jot about human life wants the Taliban in power in Pakistan...the Taliban and which has got the country into the socio-economic-political mess it's in" - what utterly ridiculous and thoroughly stupendous set of statements.
I DIDN'T SAY THE TALIBAN HAD CAUSED THE UNDERLYING SOCIO-POLITICAL-ECONOMIC PROBLEMS, I SAID THE MILITARY REGIMES HAD! PLEASE DON'T DISTORT MY WORDS IN THIS WAY, WITH ELLIPSIS. HOW CAN ANYONE DENY THAT THE ENDLESS MILITARY REGIMES AND THE PWOER OF THE ARMY HAVE HAD ANY USEFUL EFFECT IN PAKISTAN OTHER THAN EFFECTS WHICH SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE US MILITARY-POLITICAL COMPLEX AND AN ELITE OF PAKISTANI MILITARISTIC-FEUDAL GROUPS. THEY CERTAINLY HAVEN'T SERVED THE ORDINARY PEOPLE, INCLUDING PEASANTS, WORKERS AND MIDDLE-CLASSES. THS TALIBAN IS A SYMPTOM OF THE MALAISE AND OF US-SOVIET IMPERIALISM. THE MALISE IS MORE DEEP-ROOTED.

"At least with some form of democracy (hugely imperfect, yes), there is the possibility of gradual - or sudden - change." - Huh? Democracy has MANY q's to answer before it can be seen as not beng in conflict with Islamic governance - Islam being the regions principal belief. What the people in these 'conflict zones' (essentially conflict free when free of outsiders poking their noses in!!) is a government THEY would like from their own social, cultural and religious values.
I AGREE ENTIRELY. 'SOME' IS THE OPERATIVE WORD HERE. 'SOME FORM OF DEMOCRACY'. I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'DEMOCRACY SHOULD BE IMPOSED BY WESTERN POWERS'! IF YOU'D BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO ALMOST ALL OF MY PREVIOUS POSTS ON THIS WEBSITE AND ON EVERY OTHER FORUM AVAILABLE OVER THE PAST 15 YEARS, YOU WOULD KNOW THAT. WHAT A DISTORTION OF MY STATEMENTS THIS IS!

At least you give some recognition to the problems from the meddling of others.
THANK YOU. THE FEELING IS MUTUAL.

"there is no straight and pure narrative path through the forest of the world." - Yes there is, but none YOU find palletable. That solution is the Islamic Caliphate. It's quite simple.
O, GOD SAVE US! OR RATHER, GOD FORBID. READ THE HISTORY OF ISLAM, PLEASE!

"I just want to write the 300th post on this thread. Pathetic, I know..."

Dammit, I wanted to do that! Equally pathetic.

I'm well-read enough to know the hisorty of Islam and the history of Muslims doings things others labes as being Islam.

Not sure what history whose version of history you've read however.

Your socio-economic-political mess statment was ambiguous. Some do that be design. I give u the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks for the reply.

I love this thread. It explains why I seem to have no ideology. Listen, one interesting thing I heard:

1) Iran is trying to take over the role of the IMF in Pakistan:
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=188595

And has been for some time, if you look.

And no, lwtc247, Islam and democracy, egalitarianism, etc. are not fundamentally in conflict, indeed, quite the opposite. What you're saying is exactly what right-wing Uber-Zionist nutters like Daniel Pipes et al claim.

The US empire and the regressive 'Islamist' armies feed off each other - not surprisingly, since the second was created, not by God, but by the good old US of A! Oh, with a little help from their friends (correction, their slaves), the Pakistan military and the Saudi Monarchy.

'Alive, Son of Awake!' ('Hayy Ibn Yaqzan')
Ibn Tufail, 1105-1185, Al Andalus

having said that (and I'm sure eddie will agree) I am utterly horrified & sickened by events on the ground. I presume everyone has read Fisk?

sorry, those two posts sound stupid

Congratulations on getting past 300. Is that a first on this site?

Events on the ground are hard to guage due to the crackdown on reporting. It is hard to know whether the images are recent or old. The Guardian suggests a huge power struggle is ongoing within the regime. Those on the streets appear to be a hardcore of protestors and the authorities seem to be stoppping any gatherings. If I was there I doubt I would be brave enough to risk the wrath of the Revolutionary Guard.

There is obviously brutality going on on the ground. I've seen some very nasty mobile phone video - one tonight on Channel 4 News. (Assuming it's all correctly time-stamped etc.)

I've just read this:

"Wearing Green for Iran? What About the People of Iraq and Afghanistan?"

http://tinyurl.com/m38khk

"The recent outpouring of support from Americans for Iranian citizens ranges from the sincere to the premeditated. For every post of Twitterific solidarity from a well-intentioned American, there is a wily Jonah Goldberg spouting empty platitudes about needing to preserve freedom by _____ (we can only assume invading Iran.) Everyone seems outraged that an authoritarian power would dare to steal an election, though Americans seemed widely unconcerned when this happened in Azerbaijan in 2003 and Egypt in 2006.

There was also little outrage from Americans when police beat citizens in Agri/Kurdistan as they tried to protest election results.

In fact, if one searches the database over at Human Rights Watch for “election fraud,” page after page of reportedly stolen elections comes up. But the citizens of Kenya, Nigeria, Thailand, Colombia, Uganda, Rwanda, and Armenia aren’t the citizens exploitive politicians and Americans choose to care about.

Not only are citizens’ rights to free and fair elections being violated in many countries most Americans couldn’t even locate on a map, but the U.S. is also currently killing innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan right this very moment, and Americans aren’t Twittering to stop that injustice.

In Afghanistan, over 3,000 civilians have died from U.S. and NATO airstrikes alone (and Human Rights Watch emphasizes this is an extremely conservative figure.) HRW states, “civilian deaths from U.S. and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007.” The total figure of Afghans killed during the invasion is unknown, but figures range from 7,500 to 20,000 dead (when factoring indirect consequences such as civilians later dying from severe wounds.)

In Iraq, the figures have reached a genocidal level with around 655,000 civilians having been killed (conservative figures state 81,174 - 88,585 civilians have died in Iraq, though these figures seem extremely low.)

Today’s New York Times briefly returned to the issue of the Civilians We Don’t Care About. U.S. military officials ensure us that they are working super, super (pinky swear!) hard not to kill Afghan civilians. Commander Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal said airstrikes will only be used to prevent Americans and coalition troops from being overrun, which he’s totally psyched about because all of those pesky civilian deaths have been undermining the American-led liberty parade mission.

Of course, the NYT also reports that the United Nations found "the number of Afghan civilians killed in 2008 was 40 percent higher than in 2007," so McChrystal has a long way to go before anyone ever accuses him of being compassionate toward civilians.

While the reports of Afghan and Iraq civilian deaths have been sparse, the news of Pakistani deaths has almost been nonexistent, but the numbers of dead there are also startling with U.S. drones having killed at least 687 civilians.

The civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan don't seem to count anymore. While it's nice American citizens are expressing concern for a possibly stolen election in Iran, it would be equally heartening to see this degree of media attention turned toward the countries where the U.S. military kills innocent men, women, and children every day with taxpayer dollars."

[Allison Kilkenny co-hosts Citizen Radio, the alternative political radio show. G. Gordon Liddy once told her her writing makes him want to vomit, which is the greatest compliment she's ever been paid, ever.]

@technicolour

It's not a *huge* step from some of the police tactics in these islands to what we're watching (or getting snippets of) from Iran.

The use of Tasers, for example, is a worrying development. They are said to be 'non-lethal'. But they have been shown to be lethal in certain circs.

http://tinyurl.com/ayvtst (Amnesty)

Yes, tasers are nasty.

Here is Kissinger threatening military action against the Iranian government if they don't accept our pal Mousavi as the rightful victor in the recent election (in spite of the fact Ahmedinejad obviously won)

http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/kissinger-threatens-regime

"CIA, Iran and the Election Riots - June 14, 2009"...

http://tinyurl.com/lodzdy

Hmmmm...

tinyurl.com/nay9hu

"These credentials should have disqualified Dreyfuss from saying anything about the events in Iran. Nothing this man writes has any credibility."

"The real question is: how has an individual of this character surfaced as the Nation’s correspondent in Tehran and its principal commentator on international affairs?"...

http://tinyurl.com/n7qlpk

"What Actually Happened in the Iranian Presidential Election?"

"A Hard Look at the Numbers"...

tinyurl.com/mwff7v

I do not think that a man who considers it clever to use expressions such as "theocratic nutters" should ever have been granted an ambassadorship to the Middle East, Mr. Murray.

A Hard Look at some more reliable numbers.

"In two conservative provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, a turnout of
more than 100% was recorded.

If Ahmadinejad's victory was primarily caused by the increase in voter
turnout, one would expect the data to show that the provinces where
there was the greatest 'swing' in support towards Ahmadinejad would
also be the provinces with the greatest increase in voter turnout. This
is not the case.

In a third of all provinces, the official results would require that
Ahmadinejad took not only all former conservative voters, all former
centrist voters, and all new voters, but also up to 44% of former
reformist voters, despite a decade of conflict between these two
groups.

In 2005, as in 2001 and 1997, conservative candidates, and
Ahmadinejad in particular, were markedly unpopular in rural areas.
That the countryside always votes conservative is a myth. The claim
that this year Ahmadinejad swept the board in more rural provinces
flies in the face of these trends."

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/14234_iranelection0609.pdf

eddie

Read what the link above say`s...

"On the other hand, there was only one poll carried out by a western news organization. It was jointly commissioned by the BBC and ABC News, and conducted by an independent entity called the Center for Public Opinion (CPO) of the New America Foundation. The CPO has a reputation of conducting accurate opinion polls, not only in Iran, but across the Muslim world since 2005. The poll, conducted a few weeks before the elections, predicted an 89 percent turnout rate. Further, it showed that Ahmadinejad had a nationwide advantage of two to one over Mousavi."

What Actually Happened in the Iranian Presidential Election?
A Hard Look at the Numbers

by Esam Al-Amin June 22, 2009
CounterPunch

Since the June 12 Iranian presidential elections, Iran "experts” have mushroomed like bacteria in a Petri dish. So here is a quiz for all those instant experts. Which major country has elected more presidents than any in the world since 1980? Further, which nation is the only one that held ten presidential elections within thirty years of its revolution?

The answer to both questions, of course, is Iran. Since 1980, it has elected six presidents, while the U.S. is a close second with five, and France at three. In addition, the U.S. held four presidential elections within three decades of its revolution to Iran’s ten.

The Iranian elections have unified the left and the right in the West and unleashed harsh criticisms and attacks from the “outraged” politicians to the “indignant” mainstream media. Even the blogosphere has joined this battle with near uniformity, on the side of Iran’s opposition, which is quite rare in cyberspace.

Much of the allegations of election fraud have been just that: unsubstantiated accusations. No one has yet been able to provide a solid shred of evidence of wide scale fraud that would have garnered eleven million votes for one candidate over his opponent.

So let’s analyze much of the evidence that is available to date.

More than thirty pre-election polls were conducted in Iran since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his main opponent, former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, announced their candidacies in early March 2009. The polls varied widely between the two opponents, but if one were to average their results, Ahmadinejad would still come out on top. However, some of the organizations sponsoring these polls, such as Iranian Labor News Agency and Tabnak, admit openly that they have been allies of Mousavi, the opposition, or the so-called reform movement. Their numbers were clearly tilted towards Mousavi and gave him an unrealistic advantage of over 30 per cent in some polls. If such biased polls were excluded, Ahmadinejad’s average over Mousavi would widen to about 21 points.

On the other hand, there was only one poll carried out by a western news organization. It was jointly commissioned by the BBC and ABC News, and conducted by an independent entity called the Center for Public Opinion (CPO) of the New America Foundation. The CPO has a reputation of conducting accurate opinion polls, not only in Iran, but across the Muslim world since 2005. The poll, conducted a few weeks before the elections, predicted an 89 percent turnout rate. Further, it showed that Ahmadinejad had a nationwide advantage of two to one over Mousavi.

How did this survey compare to the actual results? And what are the possibilities of wide scale election fraud?

According to official results, there were 46.2 million registered voters in Iran. The turnout was massive, as predicted by the CPO. Almost 39.2 million Iranians participated in the elections for a turn out rate of 85 percent, in which about 38.8 million ballots were deemed valid (about 400,000 ballots were left blank). Officially, President Ahmadinejad received 24.5 million votes to Mousavi’s 13.2 million votes, or 62.6 per cent to 33.8 per cent of the total votes, respectively. In fact, this result mirrored the 2005 elections when Ahmadinejad received 61.7 per cent to former President Hashemi Rafsanjani’s 35.9 per cent in the runoff elections. Two other minor candidates, Mehdi Karroubi and Mohsen Rezaee, received the rest of the votes in this election.

Shortly after the official results were announced Mousavi’s supporters and Western political pundits cried foul and accused the government of election fraud. The accusations centered around four themes. First, although voting had been extended several hours due to the heavy turnout, it was alleged that the elections were called too quickly from the time the polls were closed, with more than 39 million ballots to count.

Second, these critics insinuated that election monitors were biased or that, in some instances, the opposition did not have its own monitors present during the count. Third, they pointed out that it was absurd to think that Mousavi, who descended from the Azerbaijan region in northwest Iran, was defeated handily in his own hometown. Fourth, the Mousavi camp charged that in some polling stations, ballots ran out and people were turned away without voting.

The next day, Mosuavi and the two other defeated candidates lodged 646 complaints to the Guardian Council, the entity charged with overseeing the integrity of the elections. The Council promised to conduct full investigations of all the complaints. By the following morning, a copy of a letter by a low-level employee in the Interior Ministry sent to Supreme Guide Ali Khamanei, was widely circulating around the world. (Western politicians and media outlets like to call him “Supreme Leader” but no such title exists in Iran.)

The letter stated that Mousavi had won the elections, and that Ahmadinejad had actually come in third. It also promised that the elections were being fixed in favor of Ahmadinejad per Khamanei’s orders. It is safe to assume that the letter was a forgery since an unidentified low-level employee would not be the one addressing Ayatollah Khamanaei. Robert Fisk of The Independent reached the same conclusion by casting grave doubts that Ahmadinejad would score third – garnering less than 6 million votes in such an important election- as alleged in the forged letter.

There were a total of 45,713 ballot boxes that were set up in cities, towns and villages across Iran. With 39.2 million ballots cast, there were less than 860 ballots per box. Unlike other countries where voters can cast their ballots on several candidates and issues in a single election, Iranian voters had only one choice to consider: their presidential candidate. Why would it take more than an hour or two to count 860 ballots per poll? After the count, the results were then reported electronically to the Ministry of the Interior in Tehran.

Since 1980, Iran has suffered an eight-year deadly war with Iraq, a punishing boycott and embargo, and a campaign of assassination of dozens of its lawmakers, an elected president and a prime minister from the group Mujahideen Khalq Organization. (MKO is a deadly domestic violent organization, with headquarters in France, which seeks to topple the government by force.) Despite all these challenges, the Islamic Republic of Iran has never missed an election during its three decades. It has conducted over thirty elections nationwide. Indeed, a tradition of election orderliness has been established, much like election precincts in the U.S. or boroughs in the U.K. The elections in Iran are organized, monitored and counted by teachers and professionals including civil servants and retirees (again much like the U.S.)

There has not been a tradition of election fraud in Iran. Say what you will about the system of the Islamic Republic, but its elected legislators have impeached ministers and “borked” nominees of several Presidents, including Ahmadinejad. Rubberstamps, they are not. In fact, former President Mohammad Khatami, considered one of the leading reformists in Iran, was elected president by the people, when the interior ministry was run by archconservatives. He won with over 70 percent of the vote, not once, but twice.

When it comes to elections, the real problem in Iran is not fraud but candidates’ access to the ballots (a problem not unique to the country, just ask Ralph Nader or any other third party candidate in the U.S.) It is highly unlikely that there was a huge conspiracy involving tens of thousands of teachers, professionals and civil servants that somehow remained totally hidden and unexposed.

Moreover, while Ahmadinejad belongs to an active political party that has already won several elections since 2003, Mousavi is an independent candidate who emerged on the political scene just three months ago, after a 20-year hiatus. It was clear during the campaign that Ahmadinejad had a nationwide campaign operation. He made over sixty campaign trips throughout Iran in less than twelve weeks, while his opponent campaigned only in the major cities, and lacked a sophisticated campaign apparatus.

It is true that Mousavi has an Azeri background. But the CPO poll mentioned above, and published before the elections, noted that “its survey indicated that only 16 per cent of Azeri Iranians will vote for Mr. Mousavi. By contrast, 31 per cent of the Azeris claim they will vote for Mr. Ahmadinejad.” In the end, according to official results, the election in that region was much closer than the overall result. In fact, Mousavi won narrowly in the West Azerbaijan province but lost the region to Ahmadinejad by a 45 to 52 per cent margin (or 1.5 to 1.8 million votes).

However, the double standard applied by Western news agencies is striking. Richard Nixon trounced George McGovern in his native state of South Dakota in the 1972 elections. Had Al Gore won his home state of Tennessee in 2000, no one would have cared about a Florida recount, nor would there have been a Supreme Court case called Bush v. Gore. If Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards had won the states he was born and raised in (South and North Carolina), President John Kerry would now be serving his second term. But somehow, in Western newsrooms Middle Eastern people choose their candidates not on merit, but on the basis of their “tribe.”

The fact that minor candidates such as Karroubi would garner fewer votes than expected, even in their home regions as critics charge, is not out of the ordinary. Many voters reach the conclusion that they do not want to waste their votes when the contest is perceived to be between two major candidates. Karroubi indeed received far fewer votes this time around than he did in 2005, including in his hometown. Likewise, Ross Perot lost his home state of Texas to Bob Dole of Kansas in 1996, while in 2004, Ralph Nader received one eighth of the votes he had four years earlier.

Some observers note that when the official results were being announced, the margin between the candidates held steady throughout the count. In fact, this is no mystery. Experts say that generally when 3-5 per cent of the votes from a given region are actually counted, there is a 95 per cent confidence level that such result will hold firm. As for the charge that ballots ran out and some people were turned away, it is worth mentioning that voting hours were extended four times in order to allow as many people as possible the opportunity to vote. But even if all the people who did not vote, had actually voted for Mousavi (a virtual impossibility), that would be 6.93 million additional votes, much less than the 11 million vote difference between the top two candidates.

Ahmadinejad is certainly not a sympathetic figure. He is an ideologue, provocative, and sometimes behaving imprudently. But to characterize the struggle in Iran as a battle between democratic forces and a “dictator,” is to exhibit total ignorance of Iran’s internal dynamics, or to deliberately distort them. There is no doubt that there is a significant segment of Iranian society, concentrated around major metropolitan areas, and comprising many young people, that passionately yearns for social freedoms. They are understandably angry because their candidate came up short. But it would be a huge mistake to read this domestic disagreement as an “uprising” against the Islamic Republic, or as a call to embark on a foreign policy that would accommodate the West at the expense of Iran’s nuclear program or its vital interests.

Nations display respect to other nations only when they respect their sovereignty. If any nation, for instance, were to dictate the United States’ economic, foreign or social policies, Americans would be indignant. When France, under President Chirac opposed the American adventure in Iraq in 2003, some U.S. Congressmen renamed a favorite fast food from French Fries to “Freedom Fries.” They made it known that the French were unwelcome in the U.S.

The U.S. has a legacy of interference in Iran’s internal affairs, notably when it toppled the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. This act, of which most Americans are unaware, is ingrained in every Iranian from childhood. It is the main cause of much of their perpetual anger at the U.S. It took 56 years for an American president to acknowledge this illegal act, when Obama did so earlier this month in Cairo.

Therefore, it would be a colossal mistake to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs yet again. President Obama is wise to leave this matter to be resolved by the Iranians themselves. Political expediency by the Republicans or pro-Israel Democrats will be extremely dangerous and will yield serious repercussions. Such reckless conduct by many in the political class and the media appears to be a blatant attempt to demonize Iran and its current leadership, in order to justify any future military attack by Israel if Iran does not give up its nuclear ambition.

President Obama’s declarations in Cairo are now being aptly recalled. Regarding Iran, he said, “I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect.”

But the first sign of respect is to let the Iranians sort out their differences without any overt –or covert –interference.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14052

eddie recommends a document on Iran presented by 'Chatham House'.

Chatham House is a mouthpiece of British Intelligence.

How on earth could simple eddie be so in touch with this outlet for UK/globalist propaganda.

Only fools could trust such a source, ........or eddie, come to that.

Yes, Chatham House is an organ for spies. 'Chatham House' Rules' are bunkum but seem to have become generalised. Every second meeting I go to, it's 'Chatham House Rules-this' and 'Chatham House Rule-that'. It's the new corporate mantra. Let's tear 'em up, folks!

Maybe someone's already posted this link - if so, my apologies for being tedious. It's an account of the UK's central role in the 1953 coup in Iran. Lobster mag is a very serious and analytical mag, it doesn't have any time for crank theories.

http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm

MJ

Came across this,thought you might like to read it?...

http://tinyurl.com/lkxsnu

"Whatever the truth it will out in the end"...so it is said.

I sent the piece posted by 'no-name' (are you the same person as lwtc247?) to an Iranian pal of mine in Iran who is, as far as I know, very anti-imperialist and who over recent years in fact has tended to defend Ahmedinejad and certainly is very loyal to the Islamic Republic. This pal got back to me, saying that much of the substance of the piece was a translation of the speech given on Friday by Ayatollah Khameini.

This does not negate its portrayal, but is interesting to know, and it wasn't stated in the article that the writer was drawing widely on the speech.

There is already so much dis- and mis-information circulating on the web that I feel it is imperative that all such sources be stated openly.

It's not no-name's fault; I have no idea whether or not they know Persian. One would have to know Persian and to have listened to the speech to have been able to pick up the connection. Otherwise, one would just take it at face value.

The tenebrosity intensifies.

dreoilin, I agree some of the deliberate repression (May Day, Kingsnorth, city climate camp) has been appalling, though never quite as bad as the Battle of the Beanfield. I really think that if the CIA did sponsor this one they must be kicking themselves. The sight of so many brave people acting against a regime prepared to use guns gives me courage & inspiration, and I'm not alone. Of course also agree about Tasars: what has happened to those policemen in Nottingham? They should be in jail.

This is one aspect the sort of thing I meant by 'unforseen effects' in a post awhile back. One wonders whether the refinery workers in Lincolnshire also have been inspired by the Iran protests. An interesting and somewhat ironic symmetry.

It will also be interesting over time to note the tone of media coverage of the refinery workers and compare it with that of foreign protests. Remember the Miners' Strike?

George Dutton,

re http://tinyurl.com/lkxsnu

This kind of revelation is, it seems, part of the occult cycle that secret societies and the criminals who inhabit them use to further enhance their power.

The slow drip-drip of damning revelations is always played out after high crimes have been committed by the shadow powers that are the real power behind the state.

The same happened with the Kennedy assassination, The King assassination, The Robert F Kennedy killing.....eventually it becomes clear to all that official story that was first impressed on the public of 'The Lone Nut' is obvious nonsense, but it seems to late to do anything about, the fire in the public's belly has gone, the presiding legal powers (who are controlled anyway) do nothing....

.....and the reputation and invulnerability of the criminal degenerates in control is enormously enhanced while those that cry out for justice suffer further inevitable demoralisation.

George Dutton,

PS that doesn't mean that these people will get away with it forever.

No name (KevinB?)
Is there any organisation in the UK that is not part of British Intelligence, in your view? The Brownies perhaps? The fact that the Institute for International Affairs has a good worldwide reputation is obviously meaningless to you. If their analysis came down in favour of your views would you suddenly be quoting them as a reliable source?

George Dutton
And here is an article that questions the poll you refer to. So the jury is still out.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2009/06/about_those_iran_polls.html

Suhayl, well, OK re miners, but the Lincolnshire refinery protests sound like a misguided misdirected attack on foreign workers, don't they? I haven't read much further, but will do. I wonder how well they're being reported, in fact.

Oh right, technicolour, that's interesting, if that's so then it's divide-and-rule again, in the absence of an organised and lucid oppositional dynamic, i.e. an organised Left with some sharp teeth left!

Btw, Caius and Gonville College, Cambridge has an excellent international reputation, is an aesthetically beautiful place and is filled with hyper-intelligent people, and some of the professors there actively recruit for the SIS.

Sing, in castrato: Hosannah in excelsis!

Chatham House is an instrument of imperial foreign policy.

Sing again!

Now I shall put on The Electric Prunes' 'Mass in F Minor'. I need to be out there.

eddie

What the Washington Post article tells us is that Ahmadinejad would have won by a very comfortable margin if not a landslide victory. Makes you think eddie WHY would they have wanted/needed to commit election fraud?.

Problem is eddie you have been in New Labour too long and judge everyone by New Labour standards. Iran eddie is not a banana republic...USA (Diebold)or should that read..."banana" democracy like the UK...

http://tinyurl.com/4h3724

We should get our own voting system sorted out before talking about other countries voting results.

refinary protests is really a protest by lazy english workers agasint entitled italian and other european workers. high time that enlgand be kicked out of european union-sadluy EU has been infiltrated by enlgish scumbags. and thier agents.

Steady on, my good man. You're upsetting my cucumber sandwiches!

George Dutton - Wa??! The article tells us nothing of the kind, except that the polls are unreliable. You are another victim of whataboutery. It's a common condition on here and the only cure is a dose of reality counselling. Sunlight helps. Perhaps you would enlighten me - when did the UK or the US have post-election riots on the streets and people being shot by plain clothes militia? That kind of moral or political equivalence is not helpful. For a start 400+ candidates were rejected in Iran. In the UK we allow anyone to stand.

eddie

You know that ALL the indications point to Ahmadinejad winning a (on the whole) fair election so your answer is to say...

"except that the polls are unreliable"

Only when they don`t suit New Labour eddie...me thinks.

eddie,

quote:"Is there any organisation in the UK that is not part of British Intelligence, in your view? "

Anyone who has studied the intelligence services even a little bit knows that chatham House is a mouthpiece for them. It is possible to know such things.

As Robin cook said before he 'dropped dead', "There is no such organisation as Al Qaida. Everyone with any connection to the intelligence services knows it."

George Dutton,

re http://tinyurl.com/lkxsnu

So it is now revealed by official sources that there is no record of Flight 11 (one of the planes that hit the twin towers) having taken off on the morning of 9/11.

This is violating mockery, pure arrogance and chutzpah on the part of the 9/11 criminals.

This kind of revelation is, it seems, part of the occult cycle that secret societies and the criminals who inhabit them use to further enhance their power.

The slow drip-drip of damning revelations is always played out after high crimes have been committed by the shadow powers that are the real power behind the state.

The same happened with the Kennedy assassination, The King assassination, The Robert F Kennedy killing.....eventually it becomes clear to all that official story that was first impressed on the public of 'The Lone Nut' is obvious nonsense, but it seems to late to do anything about, the fire in the public's belly has gone, the presiding legal powers (who are controlled anyway) do nothing....

.....and the reputation and invulnerability of the criminal degenerates in control is enormously enhanced while those that cry out for justice suffer further inevitable demoralisation.

That doesn't mean that these people will get away with it forever.

No Name

I only put the link up for what maybe some info?.Who knows the truth of 9/11, not me.

The way I look at 9/11 is to ask myself just one question...

Are the powers that be capable of doing such an atrocity for their own ends...The answer that comes to me is...Yes, but that is not to say they did?.

George Dutton
I don't know any such thing and nor do you.

Nameless one. KevinB again? Lone Nut. You said it. "The internet is a place where like-minded lunatics can meet up to re-inforce their lunacy". (TM me). I said it. If it didn't take off where is it? Still standing on the runway? Surely you are sensible enough to realise that all this stuff is bunkum?

no-name,

You are misquoting Robin Cook on Al Aaeda. What he actually said was:

"al-Qaeda was originally the name of a database. It was a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the ‘80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda, literally ‘the database,’ was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujaheddin who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."

That quote was made up based on the actual quote above which was logged in Parliament. Robin Cook never denied the existance of Al Qaeda.

And can you tell why Omar Bakri calls the 911 terrorists the "magnificent martyrs"? He knows they exist so why don't you? Is he part of the conspiracy as well?

Typing error:

"It was a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies."

Should read

"Bin Laden was the product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies."

Apologies

While I think that the 'Masters of War' are capable of anything, my own view on the more fringe hypotheses about the attacks on the USA of 11th Sept 2001 is that such hypotheses - holograms et al - derive from a deep psychological need for utopia and for the existence of the big unifying theory of everything.

In practice, they actually serve to reinforce the official narrative and to debunk any (rational) criticism of that narrative. It's the David Icke phenomenon again: Lizards, and other such beings.

There are many valid questions relating to '9/11' but it has become very difficult and counterproductive to pose these because of the forest of nonsense which has grown up around the matter.

I'm not saying that this all has been deliberate - as I say, I think (as a cod psychologist) that like alien abduction it is reflective of some deep societal neurosis and maybe a conflicted sense of spirituality.

Nonetheless, I think that if certain elements in the US Administration were somehow complicit by omission, they wouldn't need anyone to plant oddball stories in the media because there are enough people around who seem to derive pleasure from doing that themselves.

We don't need to invent conspiracies, because as Chomsky suggests, there are enough indications on the tin for us to reflect that power conspires most effectively to do what it says it does - i.e. it crushes people.

chris, glasgow

He said it was not an organisation which it wasn't. It was exactly as you just said it was a list of names on a CIA database.

eddie,

Every detail of the ludicrous 9/11 official conspiracy theory can be easily dismantled.

And there are plenty of Muslims saying exactly what the intelligence services want a western audience to hear including 'debunked' versions of Bin Laden claiming they did it (on videos with the wrong shaped noses and heads, using the wrong hand to sign documents and wearing gold rings just like any other Muslim fundamentalist. The CIA/MI6/Mossad wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't have a pubfull of geezers like this.

The Electric Prunes were good.

Chomsky is a deceiver, a gatekeeper. A misdirector of outrage. His university is funded by Pentagon money and if he was any threat to that evil he would have been silenced years ago.
His story is that the people carrying out the 'conspiracies' are the Obamas of this world and that's a flat-out lie.
Obama is owned by Wall Street financiers. Now that the Federal Reserve, a private corporation, IS effectively the American government, this is beyond reasonable dispute. The real power is hidden within the financial/military/industrial establishment. This power is a lying, murdering, mind-controlling deceitful power.

Chomsky is their boy.

He is the most treacherous dog out there because he is too intelligent not to know the truth and he protects the very people he all-too-vaguely condemns. He'll break your heart talking about the crimes committed against the defenceless, then he blame 'the US Government' rather than identify the source of the problem which is the money creation system (and the small group at the top) that owns it.

Here's what President Woodrow Wilson (on whose watch the federal Reserve was installed) said about these people in the 1920's (two quotes):

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

These are the people we need to eject from power and they are the ones who, for Chomsky (the fraud), do not exist.

Suhayl Saadi:

Everybody who brings up "holograms", "lizards", "alien abductions" or "Noam Chomsky" when it comes to 9/11 doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

Bill Doyle, who lost his son Joey on 9/11 and now heads the large "Coalition of 9/11 Families", estimates that approximately 50 % of the members of his group think that 9/11 was an inside job. Donna Marsh O'Connor, the Jersey Girls and Bob McIlvaine are only some of many family members that have publicly questioned 9/11. They have done so not because they are "conspiracy buffs" or because they believe in shapeshifting lizards but because the official conspiracy theory is a load of horseshit.

Planes are normally intercepted within 15-20 minutes (129 times in 2000 alone), but on 9/11 the planes weren't intercepted for 109 minutes. AA 77 was flying towards the Pentagon for over 40 minutes, passing several air bases, but no interceptor jets went up. NORAD gave three different conflicting timelines (two of them under oath). There were up to 9 different war games running on the morning of 9/11, some of them mirroring the events and paralyzing the response. Coincidence, huh? The head of the German central bank, Ernst Welteke, said his investigators found "almost irrefutable proof" for massive insider trading before the attacks. Investigations against the alleged hijackers were being obstructed so extremely that the FBI agents in Minneapolis joked that there had to be "spies or moles" who were "actually working for Bin Laden" at the FBI headquarter. Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, George Bush, Montague Winfield, Scott Fry and Richard Myers - the people who would have been responsible for coordinating the defense on 9/11 - had better things to do during the attacks (Rumsfeld playing a paramedic, for instance). One may be a coincidence, but ALL?! And despite the fact that practically all key people in the FAA, CIA, FBI, NSA, the government and at NORAD had failed miserably and 2,973 people died because of their overwhelming incompetence, nobody was fired or even reprimanded and many of the people who were directly responsible for the worst defense failure in US history were even promoted!! Doesn't make much sense in the context of the official version, or does it? Sounds more like "mission accomplished" to me. And I think it's pretty much common knowledge by now that the 9/11 commission, with Condi's buddy Zelikow directing it and 25 % of the report based on torture evidence, didn't investigate nothing (Naomi Klein calls the report "an embarrassment") and, if only because of that, a new investigation must be done. The 9/11 families are calling for it. Even Noam Chomsky supports their call. Jimmy Carter does. You don't?

The points I mentioned are not conspiracy theories, they are conspiracy facts. Even the conspiracy phobic George Galloway had to admit that it's "practically impossible" to see how Building 7 could have come down without explosives. Everybody who is not in deep denial would agree with that. Paul Craig Roberts has questioned 9/11. Peter Scholl-Latour has questioned 9/11. Horst Ehmke has questioned 9/11. Lynn Margulis has questioned 9/11. Cindy Sheehan has questioned 9/11. Robert Fisk has questioned 9/11. Robert Bowman has questioned 9/11. Michael Parenti has questioned 9/11. Gore Vidal has questioned 9/11. Over 700 Architects and Engineers have questioned 9/11. And, according to you, they are all "conspiracy theorists"? Yes, they are conspiracy theorists in the same way people theorizing about Gladio, MKUltra, CoIntelPro, Project Paperclip, Operation Mockingbird, the Manhattan Project and Operation Northwoods would have been conspiracy theorists. It's ridiculous to suggest that there are no conspiracies, that there are no false flag attacks (or that "Brutus acted alone"). Whatever Noam Chomsky's virtues are, he's an idiot when it comes to conspiracies. "Wide-ranging conspiracies do take place, whether you or I, or Charlie Brooker, are inclined to believe it or not," Dan Hind put it. Not everything is a conspiracy, yes, but not everything is coincidence either.

John Martin. Thanks.

The information is very informative and I appreciate you sharing it.

If you read what I wrote more carefully, you'll note that I did not suggest that there no doubts about the aetiology of '9/11'. What I was suggesting was that idiotic theories about holograms, etc. fall into the category of David Icke et al and that they 'tar' anyone rational who suggests that the official version is not true with the same brush and enable easy dismisall of such critique that therefore they end up serving power. Do you understand what I'm saying? These theories are disinformative.

I do take your very astute points about Chomsky and have noted other criticisms of his political thought/ activism, particularly in relation to Israel, actually. It's a discourse well worth having. I paraphrased him on this occasion as a referential point of sanity.

With respect, you ought to have considered what I'd said more carefully in the context of the immdeiately previous posts rather than firing off a tirade in a sort of knee-jerk way as though I'd been singing the Pentagon's tune all along. It's the sort of tirade best reserved for those who religious endorse the official conspiracy theory, which I do not. I don't know exactly what might have happened, but like many other sane and rational people I do not buy the official story.

Is that clear enough?

How refreshing to see Chomsky being slagged off, especially here. I always thought he was a phoney, but my views come from the other direction to yours.

AS for 911, oh, oh dear, oh dear. Gore Vidal. Cindy Sheehan. Please God. What do these people know about science? I could assemble a hundredfold of "eminent" people and a thousandfold of engineers and architects who believe that your theories are nuts. As indeed they are.

eddie,

yes, 'eminent' liars. Actually there are hundreds of architects and engineers for 9/11 Truth who can prove, using, year 11 science and the physical facts now available, that 9/11 was an 'inside job'.

The only professional engineers I have read who have defended (stupidly, as it happens)the official story are employed by NIST, Popular Mechanics magazine (editor, brother of Zionist Director of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff) and one young engineer at Cambridge University whose 'theory' on the collapse of WTC7 is hardly a theory at all more the unproveable ravings of a lunatic on LSD.

Stick to the name-calling. Serious people look at the evidence and understand what happened on 9/11, though few have the courage (as yet) to stand up and spell out the implications of this horror in the public domain.

I agree with Suhayl Saadi in that the whole 9/11 movement has become saturated with mis and dis-information, but that to anyone with eyes open enough to see, the official narrative is plainly misleading, and wrong in many cases.

The quote below goes a long way to explain the current state of the 9/11 research community...

-------------------------------------

Vincent Salandria was perhaps the first JFK researcher to come to believe that the truth of the assassination could be better approached by large-scale considerations than by focusing on details. Here is a brief selection from Gaeton Fonzi's 1993 book The Last Investigation that vividly expresses this sentiment, which has now been adopted by many researchers:

QUOTE -"By late 1975, when I was beginning work as a Government investigator on the Kennedy assassination, I had not seen or spoken with Vince Salandria for a number of years... I moved to Florida and, because of other demands, found little time to devote to the assassination. But Vince Salandria had become something of a legend among the growing circle of Warren Commission critics. Almost everyone who planned to write a book about the Kennedy assassination first journeyed to Philadelphia to probe Salandria for insights and perspective...

But before starting my new job, I returned to Philadelphia to draw upon Salandria's vast knowledge of the evidence and get his opinion about the most fruitful areas of investigation. Salandria was most cordial, and we spent a long winter Sunday talking. Yet I sensed a certain balking in his attitude, a feeling of disappointment in what I was about to begin. Eventually, he explained why he was no longer actively involved in pursuing an investigation of the assassination. It gave me a surprising insight into how far Salandria's thinking had evolved.

"I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one -- not the President, not Congress, nor any elected official -- no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

"The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face the fact -- not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and eventually, they'll wear you down."

For some more insight into the macro view, see:

http://tinyurl.com/ksjux5

Re. 'eddie':

It is not rational to rubbish everyone who questions official accounts of events, whether it be in relation to Iraq, Iran, 9/11 or whatever, as incompetant, nor is it rational always - in whichever of the threads grow from this website - to defend official government policy. I mean, even Labour, Lib-Dem and Conservative MPs will disagree on some aspects of the govt's foreign war policy, but there is no evidence of any such critical thinking here.

It is not rational, rather, it demonstrates a consistent, almost bloody-minded, loyalty to those who have power and wealth and who constantly are trying to accrue even more power and wealth. Such a position is becoming unsustainable and lacks credibility.

"The propaganda war against Iran"

"Responsibility for the violence in the streets of Tehran is attributed entirely to the government and its security forces."

"No connection is drawn between these events and the broader situation in the region, where the US is waging two wars, on Iran’s eastern and western borders, both aimed at establishing American hegemony over the oil-rich territory."...

http://tinyurl.com/mjw2bg

No name,

"He said it was not an organisation which it wasn't. It was exactly as you just said it was a list of names on a CIA database."

Please tell me where he said Al Qaeda as not an organisation? What Robin Cook said was that the NAME Al Qaida was originally the database of mujaheddin fighters fighting against the Russians in the late 80's.
He has never denied the existance of a terrorist organisation called Al Qaeda. He was quoted many time refering to the lack of evidence connecting Al Qaeda and Saddam in his stange against the Iraq War. But at no point did he deny the existance of Al Qaeda.

Sorry I just posted a comment but forgot to add my name to it. Here it is again.

No name,

"He said it was not an organisation which it wasn't. It was exactly as you just said it was a list of names on a CIA database."

Please tell me where he said Al Qaeda as not an organisation? What Robin Cook said was that the NAME Al Qaida was originally the database of mujaheddin fighters fighting against the Russians in the late 80's.
He has never denied the existance of a terrorist organisation called Al Qaeda. He was quoted many time refering to the lack of evidence connecting Al Qaeda and Saddam in his stange against the Iraq War. But at no point did he deny the existance of Al Qaeda.

Maybe a trivial comment, but I'm fascinated, looking back at the first quote here from Paul Craig Roberts who asks would there be such attention (in the USA) given to an election in Japan, India, or Argentina, or who in the USA can name the leaders of various other countries.

He goes on to say that the reason is that the USA has been demonizing Iran for a long time.

Seems to me that the number of comments and the heated discussion here proves the accuracy of PCR's remarks 100%.

And a PS:

I don't know when the USA became shortened to the "US" but is has connotations that I don't like, and maybe we should think about using USA all the time. Why? Because it stands for United States, without saying where, and it's far too akin to "UN" for my liking. United States - United Nations. Since the USA has been setting itself up in direct opposition to the UN (which I am *fully* aware needs reform) and mocking it and deriding it among the right-wing in the USA, I think it's an insidious change of title that we should resist. My "two cents" for today (I'm in the Euro zone.)

Good point about the term, 'US', it's partly I think laziness, partly is a reflection of the ubiquity of narratives relating to the imperial power of the US (of A), partly is a tacit acceptance of the global cultural and linguistic dominance and normative absolutist perspective of the USA (esp. in the UK, it's the Atlanticist tendency and a sign of media genuflection to 'the cousins') and partly may be that tendency common in North American colloquial expression to shorten, abbreviate, e.g. NYC, DC, LA, etc.

The older colloquialism of course was/ is 'America', but understandably this really hacked-off people from the other countries of the continents of South and North America. Not unlike the terms, 'The British Isles' or 'Great Britain' in relation to various aspects (shall we say) of Ireland.

The term, '9/11' is another example. Of course, as has been pointed-out on a number of occasions, this term makes no sense in British English. It's also a branding, a corporatisation and institutionalisation of war, and so we have '7/7', etc.

There was also, 'Soviet Union' instead of 'USSR' or 'CCCP'. There will be a political etymology relating to that, too, I should imagine.

Interesting point, thanks for raising it.

He didn't say it was'nt a terrrorist organisation. He didn't say it wasn't a trapeze act either. The quote I read had him saying it was not an organisation.....it was a CIA database of Islamic militants and criminals.

Therefore it was not a centrally co-ordinated army of any kind....as it has been presented to us in the dopey west.

"BBC Caught In Mass Public Deception With Iran Propaganda"...

http://tinyurl.com/m7muot

One suggestion is that since Al Qaeda means "the base", Arabic speaking CIA operatives initially used it as a short form of "the database" when referring to the collection of names held on it. And the people on that database (or indeed anyone who wanted to) began calling themselves after it.

Agree about US, but then am frequently cross with myself for using Israel when I mean the Israeli government, for example.

dreoilin: Seems to me that the number of comments and the heated discussion here proves the accuracy of PCR's remarks 100%.

Actually, what I like about this thread is that it seems to be bending over backwards to avoid demonising Iran, and raising some interesting points, including "why focus on this?" in the process. My answer to that, when my partner asked was:
a) A million people or so marching peacefully on their parliament is and should be news. If it happened in Japan, it would be news too.
b) The previous USA administration has been threatening Iran with attack, and according to some commentators, the new one has not materially changed policy. This concerns us all.

BTW, has anyone wondered whether to use "the government is", or "the government are", and why? And really, the very fact that we call it a "government" annoys me. They do not "govern" us, they work for us.

Excellent points, Technicolour.

'The government' is singular so it should be 'is'. 'Governments' would be the plural.

I think that while many are focussing on Iran right now for the best reasons - the ones to which you alluded - others, particularly those in positions of power - may well have other agendas in relation to their interest (in both senses of the word).

George:

Thanks for that last link. You may be interested to know that the BBC has now issued a correction and changed the caption of the photo...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8104362.stm

technicolour said. "a) A million people or so marching peacefully on their parliament is and should be news. If it happened in Japan, it would be news too."

If my memory serves me right, a million or so brits turned out with the stop the war coalition with regard to our invasion of Iraq. Didn't achieve much did it? We're still there.

Latin description of government =

govern (control)
ment (mind)

Surely its a coincidence?

"others, particularly those in positions of power - may well have other agendas"

Yes, it's always useful not to lose sight of the big picture. Iran:
1) has the world's fourth largest oil reserves;
2) has the world's second largest gas reserves;
3) has, owing to its coastline on the Caspian Sea, a share of the Caspian's vast oilfield;
4) has one of the shortest land routes from the Caspian Sea to navigable waters;
5) has an independent central bank that issues its own currency interest-free, and is therefore not in debt to (read - not in the control of) the global banking cabal.

Is there anything else we really need to know?

"BBC has now issued a correction and changed the caption of the photo."

Only because they have been found to be lying...AGAIN.

Remember...

http://tinyurl.com/mje7xs

Spot-on, MJ! A knock-out in five!

@dreoilin
I had slipped into the US usage until it was pointed out to me. The USA thinks it invented the internet and so does not see the need for a country suffix in urls. See for example gov.uk for the UK, but just gov etc for the USA based addresses.

Well put MJ.

"In 2005, the BBC commissioned a study to review the impartiality of its Israeli - Palestinian coverage. It consisted of an independent panel, the Communications Research Centre at Loughborough University, and British - Israeli international lawyer Noam Lubell. Their published April 2006 findings weren't what the broadcaster wished. Highlights from them showed BBC coverage:"...

http://tinyurl.com/kjc5ht

There is only the web left to find out the truth...But for how much longer?.

///The American Civil Liberties Union reported June 10 that “Anti-terrorism training materials currently being used by the Department of Defense (DoD) teach its personnel that free expression in the form of public protests should be regarded as ‘low level terrorism’.”///
http://tinyurl.com/llzkk2

Then there are the freedom lovers in Iran, whom get the full support of Pentagon, CIA, State Department, and above all POTUS!

Talk about hypocrisy?

Now, you low level terrorists (except that suck up eddie troll thing) go keep quiet, before you are all rendered to Gitmo, Bagram, or some other hell hole in the vast array of the black prisons of CIA.

I love the smell of Freedom brand in morning!!!!!

"Stop town hall political newspapers paid for by council tax, MP urges"...

http://tinyurl.com/mdoh3n

Where does it all end.

Edo, re marches here, I know. I think we've all learnt a lot since then.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090616/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_mi6_chief_2

The 'C' Word

Bye-bye, Captain Scarlett. Welcome Tom Sawyer.

Tony Blair's foreign policy advisor, eh? Wonderful. Maybe I'm incorrect on this, but I always thought that only actual spies tended to ascend to head the SIS, so why appoint an ex-ambassador to the position - unless, of course, he himself was always a spy. 'Political Director of the Foreign Office', hmn, sounds about right.

Not that I'm being Petty, but it sounds as though he's Mister Disinformation, himself. Wonder if he ever wrote for the Sunday Telegraph? Or Encounter - I mean Prospect - magazine? {forgive that slip of the pen) Or the Spectator, perhaps?

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=86544§ionid=351020104

Do you know anything about this dude, Craig? If so, now's the time...

Destabilization 2.0

Soros, the CIA, Mossad and the new media destabilization of Iran

James Corbett
The Corbett Report
23 June, 2009

It's the 2009 presidential election in Iran and opposition leader Mir-Houssein Mousavi declares victory hours before the polls close, insuring that any result to the contrary will be called into question. Western media goes into overdrive, fighting with each other to see who can offer the most hyperbolic denunciation of the vote and President Ahmadenijad's apparent victory (BBC wins by publishing bald-faced lies about the supposed popular uprising which it is later forced to retract). On June 13th, 30000 "tweets" begin to flood Twitter with live updates from Iran, most written in English and provided by a handful of newly-registered users with identical profile photos. The Jerusalem Post writes a story about the Iran Twitter phenomenon a few hours after it starts (and who says Mossad isn't staying up to date with new media?). Now, YouTube is providing a "Breaking News" link at the top of every page linking to the latest footage of the Iranian protests (all shot in high def, no less). Welcome to Destabilization 2.0, the latest version of a program that the western powers have been running for decades in order to overthrow foreign, democratically elected governments that don't yield to the whims of western governments and multinational corporations.

Ironically, Iran was also the birthplace of the original CIA program for destabilizing a foreign government. Think of it as Destabilization 1.0: It's 1953 and democratically-elected Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh is following through on his election promises to nationalize industry for the Iranian people, including the oil industry of Iran which was then controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The CIA is sent into the country to bring an end to Mossadegh's government. They begin a campaign of terror, staging bombings and attacks on Muslim targets in order to blame them on nationalist, secular Mossadegh. They foster and fund an anti-Mossadegh campaign amongst the radical Islamist elements in the country. Finally, they back the revolution that brings their favoured puppet, the Shah, into power. Within months, their mission had been accomplished: they had removed a democratically elected leader who threatened to build up an independent, secular Persian nation and replaced him with a repressive tyrant whose secret police would brutally suppress all opposition. The campaign was a success and the lead CIA agent wrote an after-action report describing the operation in glowing terms. The pattern was to be repeated time and time again in country after country (in Guatemala in 1954, in Afghanistan in the 1980s, in Serbia in the 1990s), but these operations leave the agency open to exposure. What was needed was a different plan, one where the western political and financial interests puppeteering the revolution would be more difficult to implicate in the overthrow.

Enter Destabilization 1.1. This version of the destabilization program is less messy, offering plausible deniability for the western powers who are overthrowing a foreign government. It starts when the IMF moves in to offer a bribe to a tinpot dictator in a third world country. He gets 10% in exchange for taking out an exorbitant loan for an infrastructure project that the country can't afford. When the country inevitably defaults on the loan payments, the IMF begins to take over, imposing a restructuring program that eventually results in the full scale looting of the country's resources for western business interests. This program, too, was run in country after country, from Jamaica to Myanmar, from Chile to Zimbabwe. The source code for this program was revealed in 2001, however, when former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz went public about the scam. More detail was added in 2004 by the publication of John Perkin's Confessions of an Economic Hitman, which revealed the extent to which front companies and complicit corporations aided, abetted and facilitated the economic plundering and overthrow of foreign governments. Although still an effective technique for overthrowing foreign nations, the fact that this particular scam had been exposed meant that the architects of global geopolitics would have to find a new way to get rid of foreign, democratically elected governments.

Destabilization 1.2 involves seemingly disinterested, democracy promoting NGOs with feelgood names like the Open Society Institute, Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy. They fund, train, support and mobilize opposition movements in countries that have been targeted for destabilization, often during elections and usually organized around an identifiable color. These "color revolutions" sprang up in the past decade and have so far successfully destabilized the governments of the Ukraine, Lebanon, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, among others. These revolutions bear the imprint of billionaire finance oligarch George Soros. The hidden hand of western powers behind these color revolutions has threatened their effectiveness in recent years, however, with an anti-Soros movement having arisen in Georgia and with the recent Moldovan "grape revolution" having come to naught (much to the chagrin of Soros-funded OSI's Evgeny Morozov).

Now we arrive at Destabilization 2.0, really not much more than a slight tweak of Destabilization 1.2. The only thing different is that now Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social media are being employed to amplify the effect of (and the impression of) internal protests. Once again, Soros henchman Evgeny Morozov is extolling the virtues of the new Tehran Twitter revolution and the New York Times is writing journalistic hymns to the power of internet new media...when it serves western imperial interests. We are being asked to believe that this latest version of the very (very) old program of U.S. corporate imperialism is the real deal. While there is no doubt that the regime of Ahmadenijad is reprehensible and the feelings of many of the young protestors in Iran are genuine, you will forgive me for quesyioning the motives behind the monolithic media support for the overthrow of Iran's government and the installation of Mir-Houssein "Butcher of Beirut" Mousavi.

http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20090623_destabilization.htm

Another great post, from the one-who-has-no-name! Thanks again.

Curiouser and curiouser...

Zizek on Iran (no mainstream would take it, apparently)
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/06/433107.html

"Whatever the outcome, it is vitally important to keep in mind that we are witnessing a great emancipatory event which doesn’t fit the frame of the struggle between pro-Western liberals and anti-Western fundamentalists. If our cynical pragmatism will make us lose the capacity to recognize this emancipatory dimension, then we in the West are effectively entering a post-democratic era, getting ready for our own Ahmadinejads. Italians already know his name: Berlusconi. Others are waiting in line."

... and curiouser. A nuanced view, the Zizek piece.

I sense that over the past couple of days the Cheshire cat has disappeared, leaving only the faintest hint of a grin.

Yet another "revelation" from another "Zizek" flaming about Islam, Authoritarian, apologists, Ahmadinejad!

Fact that evidently there are those whom after thirty years of Islamic Republic still dreaming of a "Kingdom", and or a secular republic, regardless of the actualities on the ground. These zealots going on to regurgitate the neo liberal weltanschauung, without any relevance to all things Iran, and Iranian, and for the benefit of contributing even more towards the Gesundes Volksempfinden in the West.

Nonetheless this kind of unconscious drivel and cornflakes box philosophy finds room in the Indymedia with an offer of free copyright to boot! What is happening in this bizarre world where anarchists are observing copyrights, and giving a platform to the fascio that pours bile on aspirations of the majority of Iranians, and keeping with the traditions of leaving a back door open raves on about; "emancipatory" bollocks, admonishing us all for not falling for the stories and despite these, still seeing the psyops for what it is, and shirking off our duties by stubbornly refusing to throw away reason, and experience and dive in head first into buying the stories of a bunch of retired, and retarded neo conservative/liberals.

Well I buy into that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://tinyurl.com/nbjhkc
CNN: Fake reporting or duped by caller?

and finally:

"Well, the results from Iran's presidential elections are in. And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared victory. But his opponent, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, is claiming ballot fraud and wants an investigation. If that doesn't work, he's planning on making a documentary about global warming." --Jimmy Fallon

It's keeping eyes and ears open and trying to srt through the information and opinion - one cannot stop people from expressing their points-of-view, otherwise discourse would be both pointless nd impossible.

Also, people in Iran actually have different views on things, or even conflicting views within themselves about things - as do most of us about many things. It's just life.

It would be useful, though, to know the pedigrees of the various 'pundits and commentators' whose pieces have been published in the web. One example was the article which turned out to be translation of Khameini's speech, but which did not declare itself as such.

I sense that most of the people posting on this thread do understand how imperialism works - MJ's snappy list of 'five points' awhile back is as good a primer as any - but also understand that matters involving human societies can be complicated.

I say this, really, simply to state the obvious, rather to add to the already abundant disinformation.

MJ
"Yes, it's always useful not to lose sight of the big picture. Iran:
1) has the world's fourth largest oil reserves;
2) has the world's second largest gas reserves;
3) has, owing to its coastline on the Caspian Sea, a share of the Caspian's vast oilfield;
4) has one of the shortest land routes from the Caspian Sea to navigable waters;
5) has an independent central bank that issues its own currency interest-free, and is therefore not in debt to (read - not in the control of) the global banking cabal.

Is there anything else we really need to know?"

Yes, actually there is. Why is Iran not therefore one of the richest countries in the world? World Bank and IMF figures show that its wealth per capita ranks it down in 80th place or lower, with less wealth per head than South Africa or Belarus, in spite of 30 years of stable and independent government. Of course this is entirely the fault of the USA and nothing to do with the fact that the country is run by reactionary theocrats who have no inkling of how to run a modern economy and who disqualify 50 per cent of the population from playing a proper role through their policies of sexual apartheid.

Suhayl Saadi: "It would be useful, though, to know the pedigrees of the various 'pundits and commentators' whose pieces have been published in the web. One example was the article which turned out to be translation of Khameini's speech, but which did not declare itself as such."

Here's another speech, the origin of which should perhaps have been declared - Obama's Cairo speech:

http://www.distantocean.com/2009/06/the-habit-of-skepticism.html

" no inkling of how to run a modern economy"

eddie

You have got to be joking?.

I have to point out the "modern economy" as you call it is on the brink of total collapse due to the greedy..."theocrats who have no inkling of how to run a modern economy".

It`s no wonder people on here think and treat you as an idiot.

eddie at June 25, 2009 4:43 PM

NO it is not the reactionaries, but the thieving Western brigands, whom verily believe everything on Earth belongs tho these!

Fact that Iran is trying to carve an independent path and away from the clutches of the "international financiers" read as the bullies with bigger caliber of guns, somehow makes her an outsider which ought to be punished through; sanctions, covert ops, invasion, etc.

However, these days world is no longer a mono-polar play ground, and the newest of the new world orders just does not accommodate the old and stale operators. Hence the changing scenery and the mood music.

Get over it eddie, what you see is going to get even worse, have you noticed that there is a possibility of the collapse of the dollar? This could mean at its wake Pound would follow suit, hence the worries of Mervyn the King!

"Let’s take the story that is being shoved down our throats by almost all media sources now; the Iranian election “fraud” and subsequent unrest. The news is augmented by proclamations from Obama, France’s Sarkozy, Germany’s Merkel, and just about every politician in the UK. Oh, I forgot to mention the US Congress voting 404 to 1 supporting the protesters."

"We are being told that the elections were rigged, even though western pollsters all had Ahmadinejad ahead by a 2 to 1 margin on election’s eve. This matters not to our government which continues to place politicians in press conferences dutifully covered by a pliant press corps."...

http://tinyurl.com/nrkc3h

The people who destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan have absolutely zero interest in enabling Iran to become even richer or to effect redistribution of wealth in that country! It's psychotic to even suggest this as a motivation for whatever games the West is getting up to in Iran or a causus belli.

To suggest this has to be a cynical joke. It's certainly not credible!

And as others have pointed out, the London-Wall Street-centred capitalist banking system has not been of great benificence for the world as a whole, ever, and certainly not recently. My God, what errant nonsense.

The sexual apartheid thing is nonsense, too and is an old trope used by liberal imperialists to justify intervention. Personally, I do not agree with theocracy and hijabs, chadurs and all that, etc. (but I also understand that utopias, even liberal utopias, are dangerous things) yet one need only look at Iran's literacy and education and many other 'vital stats' across the genders and such an assertion is shown to be the simplistic disinformation it most obviously is.

There is no variation in tone from this source, it is not worth the time and effort engaging in discourse with someone who clearly sees themselves as a corporatised, broken-record-style PR mouthpiece for the UK hard state whose interests have been all too apparent over many decades.

the chatham house that bastard organisation to promote the british piracy and propaganda has the temerity to put fraudulent study to discredit the iranian elelction.
It is high time thse scumbags in british media be taken care of!
====================

== How the enlgish race conspired to kill Lincoln in USA.

see this theme
published in The London Times in 1865:

“If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North American Republic during the late war in that country, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

Lincoln was assassinated in 1865. According to historian W. Cleon Skousen:

“Right after the Civil War there was considerable talk about reviving Lincoln’s brief experiment with the Constitutional monetary system. Had not the European money-trust intervened, it would have no doubt become an established institution.”

==========================================================================
Lincoln won the civil war by ignoring international bankers(controlled by London) and printing his own, interest-free, money.

By April 1862 $449,338,902 of debt free money had been printed and distributed. He said:

“We gave the people of this republic the greatest blessing they ever
had, their own paper money to pay their own debts”.

The Times was incensed. In that same year it wrote:

"If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture,
then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will
pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all
countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe".

By 2001 there were only 7 nations left without a (Rothschild-controlled) central bank. These were: Afghanistan: Iraq; Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba and Libya.

Note that by 2003 that number was reduced to five. By the end of this year it may be down to three. Note also the extraordinary coincidence between not being in debt to international banksters and being labelled an "axis of evil".
===============================================================

21st march, 2009.

" Goldman sachs-the parasite bank

. and they sit on the boards of those banks. Even though all the banks are American, they are heavily tied into international banking. On the States Street Corp board for instance there are 3 Goldman Sachs board members, so they vote and their votes are a conflict of interest since they also benefit from Federal Reserve policy which is blatantly illegal under our 'conflict of interest' laws. Many are retired, but then so was Paulson, it makes no difference, its how they get around the conflict of interest, yet they still are tied to Goldman Sachs.

There is no question, they have put layers upon layers between them and those who carry out the agenda, but look at these administrations, Bush had Paulson as SEC OF TREASURY AND HE IS A INACTIVE CEO OF GOLDMAN SACHS..... THEN GEITHNER ALSO WORKED FOR GOLDMAN SACHS BEFORE BEING APPOINTED HEAD OF THE NY FED RESERVE.... HOLY TOLEDO... TALK ABOUT CONTROL..... So you hit that nail right on the head.

ALL ROADS LEAD TO GOLDMAN SACHS. They also supply the economic hitmen to the IMF for stealing third world emerging economies of their natural resources... that is why they are called "economic hitmen". That is why some of those third world emerging economies kicked them out of their country... like argentina.

From the beginning banks have always controlled the fed... here is a study done by staff of the congress showing the interconnection between them and the fed... its worth getting some history of who hte players were that controlled our money.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12954740/Federal-

eserve-Directors-Congressional-Study-1976

Now States Street Corp is one example of a company that is part owner of the Federal Reserve, and here are two new board members appoint in 2009 to the board. One American and another from foreign country and BOTH FROM MAJOR BROKERAGE HOUSES OF THE US. Morgan stanley and Goldman Sachs. (don't forget to cut and paste)

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article

.aspx?

Feed=BW&Date=20090313&ID=9695761&Symbol=STT "

=====================================================================
DAVID ROCKEFELLER at the 1991 Bilderberg meeting:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

Do you plan to MARCH toward world government? I sure as hell don't. Don't be their chattel. WAKE UP! Get off your good intentions and organize. Shut down Wall St, shut down Pennsylvania Avenueand certainly shuit down the dowing street-the headquarter of evil.
=============================================================

what if someone challenges the racist-steeped version of American history and exceptionalism they taught. What if they couldn't maintain in their children a hatred of all 'races' but caucasians, as well as Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Buddists, blacks, and heathen cultures such as the Red Chinese and Commie Russians, etc.

=======================================================================

"The minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them."
Doctor Albert Einstein (in a letter to Sigmund Freud 7/30/1932. 1879-1955)

“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government of the U.S. ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (on oligarch Fascist rule in a letter to handler “Colonel” Edward M. House, confidence man for the cartel and founder of the Council on Foreign Relations. House also handled President Wilson for the foisting of a private and unconstitutional “Federal Reserve” Corporation sham with its IRS in 1913. November 21st, l933 from the book "F.D.R.: His Personal Letters" - New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce 1950)

==========================================================================

Embodying Americans' hope to break through the British blockade and revitalize the depressed postwar economy, the Empress of China, the first American commercial ship after its independence, left New York for Canton (Guangzhou), China, on February 22, 1784. Before the Empress of China left the East River Harbor of New York, George Washington duly signed the sea letter, guiding the purpose of the Empress of China's voyage.

There was a great deal of uncertainty in the newly founded country. After the war for independence was over, the nation's fiscal system was on the brink of chaos. Many small farmers, the broad base of the new nation, were being thrown into jail for debt and many others were forced to lose their farms. The Congress, established under the Articles of Confederation, was attempting to bring order out of the turmoil. In Massachusetts, an agrarian revolt spread quickly.

In the meantime, Britain, which lost the war militarily, was seeking to defeat the Americans economically. It strengthened its economic pressure on individual states to compel them, one by one, to return to "Mother England". Britain closed all traditional trade partners to the new nation, and American merchants could no longer trade with Spain, Africa and West Indies. In the aftermath of the victory of the American revolutionary war, France, Holland and other European countries were willing to use the US as their market, but not anxious to take American wares in exchange.

Given the situation, commerce became "the lifeblood of America's recovery from its economic slump". New trade partners had to be discovered, new trade routes had to be opened and new connections had to be established. Otherwise, political independence wouldn't last long. It was in this critical situation that the first American voyage to China started.

Washington regarded Europe as only a sideshow that must not divert attention from the permanent strategic interests of the US . He had not wanted to do business with England after the revolution. In October 1783, six months before the Empress of China started her virgin voyage to China, Washington made it clear in his letter to Marquis de Lafayette, a general in the American Revolutionary War and later a leader of the Garde Nationale during the French Revolution, that "I do not incline to send to England (from whence formerly I had all my goods) for anything I can get upon tolerable terms elsewhere." Where could the Americans trade for what they needed? His solution was for the newly founded US to develop its commercial relationship with China.

======================================================================

George Dutton - that abuse does not answer the point I'm afraid. Why is Iran so low in the world rankings for wealth and we are so high, yet they have so many natural resources? Do you even know what a theocrat is?

Saadi "The people who destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.." what,you mean Saddam and the Taleban? Both countries have elected governments and we are seeking to help them to rebuild. As a failed novelist and recipient of taxpayer's support I hardly think you are qualified to lecture anyone on economic success, do you? And that hat makes you look ludicrous. Iran has been a sovereign nation for 30 years so why is the economy in such a mess when they have such resources? Response comes there none. Read point 5 again. You can''t have your cake and eat it. It's the usual story, blame the west for everything, nothing to do with me mate. The Iranian regime is doing it now - riots on the streets? Must be the fault of the BBC and the Voice of America. Easy cop out.

What a right little shit the troll is.
And very persistent, for some obscure reason.

Avatar, you're right. The bottom line is... the bottom line. And the answer to the riddle is: GOLD.

I try to resist self-advertising on other people's blogs, but since the issue of my couture has been raised (not that I am vain!), if anyone wishes to check out my work (or my hats!), here is a link (I hope you don't mind, Craig). I only just managed to get round to inserting a link in the URL box, so I'm very pleased that people are checking it out.

My new novel, 'Joseph's Box' comes out in August and will be launched at the Edinburgh International Book Festival and is already receiving glowing reviews, which I have received but which are yet to be published - they usually come out once the book is publically available. I am scheduled to be interviewed (again) by a number of national newspapers.

Previous books have been shortlisted for awards in the UK and Pakistan and I won an award for 'Psychoraag' in the USA! I have appeared as a writer in many countries around the world, including, incidentally, in Washington DC, at the geographical heart of contemporary power. It's a lovely city, btw.

This does not affect my critique of power.

For those of us who remain human, unlike for those who role it is to serve the masters of war, in life, the bottom line is not the bottom line. Thank God.

Afghanistan has been destroyed, in deranged but inevitable concert, by the West and the USSR over a 30-year period, starting, in recent times, with the Carter Adminsitration in the late 1970s (before, and in deliberate provocation of, the Soviet invasion).

Right now, members of my family are helping people who (sometimes simultaneously) have been victims of both NATO strikes and Taliban violence. Right now, as we speak. My forebears come from Afghanistan - as does the mother of the protagonist in 'Joseph's Box' who is named Zuleikha MacBeth.

I do know what I am talking about on this subject.

'Joseph's Box' draws on many traditions and musics from many cultures and is about love, music and death. But above all, it is about love and the continuum of humanity.

Here is the link and also the website addresses.

Enjoy!!

http://www.josephsbox.co.uk/HTML%20pages/Main%20page.html

www.suhaylsaadi.com
www.josephsbox.co.uk

"that abuse does not answer the point"

eddie

You are wrong once again on both points,it is NOT "abuse" it is a FACT. You have said as much yourself on this blog as to how others see you and YES it does "answer the point".

You now realise how stupid your post was and that response was your rearguard action eddie...Not a very good one at that.

"Do you even know what a theocrat is"

eddie

By the way,do you know what Christian theocrats are?. They are very BIG in the GOP.

eddie at June 25, 2009 7:43 PM,

The incessant unconscious driveling of a Ziofeckwit, somehow does not make a reality out of the lies, and conjecture forwarded.

Iran has always been sovereign, despite all the efforts to the contrary, by the brigands, thieves, and merchants dealing in death.

However, for the first eight years of the revolution, the costly war imposed by that vassal of the West, whom later was hanged for his appallingly crap invasion of Kuwait, namely one ex Saddam, who overnight rode into Iran some one hundred and sixty miles, thanks to the maps, and photos provided by the US, who later set up a satellite down link station in down town Baghdad, as well as supplying Generals, and planners to plan the Iraqi attacks on Iranians, which went so far as using chemical and biological weapons too.

However in you racist mind, your blind spot to all these events conveniently overlooking the orchestrated campaign of sabotaging Iran's progress as a none aligned ie independent country by the West.

Furthermore your stupid questions only feed into the "institutional corruption" of the foreigners, albeit they are Africans or Iranians, citing as the case in example being their "sham" elections!!!!

In direct contrast to the upstanding Anglos who never engage in any corrupt behavior, such as vote rigging, and expense scrounging, and sexually pervert conduct, and ..........

Blow it out of your elbow, you racist scum bag, Iran has been under a constant wave of covert, and overt attacks to stop it from succeeding, and setting the path for the other countries in the region.

However, never mind the GDP in Iran, what about the GDP and earnings per-capita in this country? That is after ten years of the working class champions holding office in UK?

"Iran has been under a constant wave of covert, and overt attacks to stop it from succeeding, and setting the path for the other countries in the region."

Cuba also comes to mind.

eddie will know all about that,it`s the place students in the USA go to get trained up to be doctors as the USA can`t give the same high degree of training that Cuba provides.The cubans don`t charge the students, it`s free...Thats socialism in action.

I notice that in the temporary absence of input from the self-appointed hard state's agent, the threads on this website tend towards the basic rubric of the contributors, which is rational and sometimes humourous discourse - and spirited disagreement but disagreement delivered in - and this is crucial, in my view - good faith.

I am very impressed by the response to constant provocation by such entities.

I do think that it is important to maintain strength of discourse, to continue to post pertinent links and articles, etc. and to voice strongly-held opinions, regardless of attempts at disruption and provocation. Such things are to be expected and is proof that serious points are being made and relevant and lucid information shared and developed.

More than ever, the struggle occurs on the front of information. The struggle will continue.

The moralising regarding our activities in the middle east is quite sickening. Our noble leaders, on behalf of the international financier/criminals that control them, put all their energy into giving the impression that we care about the wellbeing of the Iranian people.

Like we cared about the Afghanis.

Like we cared about the Iraqis.

'We' don't.

We don't care ONE LITTLE BIT.

You don't care about people by murdering them.

Or by trying to take over their government.

We are there to control and to steal.

There is no moral reason for us to be in any of those countries.

All troops should be ordered home.

Not least because there is an almighty engineered financial collapse coming in a very few short months and when British people recognise the betrayal and decide to act against the treasonous centre I would rather have British troops here than UN troops flown in, who would have no compunction about killing us, to deal with the inevitable uprising.

Millions of people are already on to this stuff but we are passive. When the sh*t hits the fan that is likely to change unless the 'solution' is ready (which it will be) and implemented immediately.

This will actually be the plan.....but the solution will mean centralised world financial system and a centralised police state controlled by the criminals who have deliberately caused the problems that now beset us.

How many will be prepared to put up with this?

That's the big question.

Please God, not many.

See here:
http://www.infowars.com/bankster-holiday-planned-for-september/

Absolutely. The moralising is disingenuous.

And goes back to C19th British imperialism. White Man's Burden.

"Why is Iran so low in the world rankings for wealth and we are so high"

eddie

Many are finding out that their (so called) wealth was just an illusion. Sadly for a great many more wealth in monetary terms never existed.

There again eddie you don`t know what TRUE wealth is...I will give you a clue...It ain`t money.

"An illusion is a distortion of the senses, revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation. While illusions distort reality, they are generally shared by most people."...

http://tinyurl.com/pbse9

Saaadi - I thought that would prick your pomposity. Like others on here you seem incapable of answering simple questions and resort instead to abuse. I ask again, and perhaps you or others could give a straight answer, why is Iran so poor when it has such natural wealth and a stable government for thirty years? It's a simple question. Please do not tell me that it is the fault of the USA once again. Perhaps you are aware that 50% of state spending in Iran goes towards religious institituions? Do you think the mullahs actually produce any income? It's like England pre-Reformation where the monasteries drained the wealth from the land. While you are at it, perhaps you could tell us how much you have earned from your writing, and how much the state (taxpayers like me) has funded you? Then you have the gall to lecture me about economic success? What a tosser. I have never heard of you and I know a lot about literature. And yes you do look stupid in that hat, bald is respectable. Personally speaking, I resent public subsidy to any so-called artists, as it tends to produce bad art.

If you want a website to be a place where everyone agrees with each other, and where you all re-inforce your idiocy that is up to you. I prefer to think that a robust exchange of differing views is more healthy, otherwise it becomes very dull indeed. You will note no doubt that this thread has over 300 postings, a record for this site, and my challenging opinions have played a part in that, whether you agree or not, it is true. I have challenged many of you to provide answers about the neo-fascist dictatorship in Iran, and raised questions about your ambivalence about that regime, something that is infesting and infecting the so-called left at present. Do you support Iran because they oppose the USA or do you support the protestors who are risking their lives agaisnt the bullets and batons of the regime? I know where I stand, you obviously do not and it brings great discredit and shame upon you.

No name (DO sort that out) -you talk crap as usual. The recession is coming to an end, the recovery is here. Your threats ot financial meltdown are hollow. Get a grip.

And just to piss you off even more, here is an excellent quote from Bono - Sunday Times last weekend. Moral relativism eh? That Tony Blair, eh? What a cunt. So how many lives have you creeps saved with your witless postings and your silly little novels?

"But because of Blair and Brown, through their interventions in HIV and Aids, millions are alive who’d have been dead in other far-off places.”

Sleep tight.

"The recession is coming to an end, the recovery is here. Your threats ot financial meltdown are hollow. Get a grip."

eddie

We will remember that...Oh yes.

Before you post again on this site eddie you would do well to read this and learn where you go wrong...

"Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!"

Sir Walter Scott (1771 - 1832)

So how many lives have you creeps saved with your witless postings and your silly little novels?

eddie at June 25, 2009 11:12 PM

At least twenty that I can think of!

There again wankers like eddie can never in their wildest nightmares realize who is posting on these boards! So far as these eddie like rodents are concerned world is full of creeps, and moral cripples like them, hence the projection.

Tony Bliar is a war criminal and in time he will be hounded to his grave, and have no doubts about that. World is a lot more smaller, and far more intelligent with a longer memory span than it used to be.

However so far as the fifty percent of Iran GDP going on religion, your plucked out of air fifty percent somehow cannot understand that social funding of the various activities such as; helping out the newly weds by setting a new starter homes for these, as well as funding the university educations of poor, in addition to provision of many other services for the poor, and middle calss alike is where the money goes to, but for a privateer, whose head is way up his own arse, eddie cannot see, or smell anything other than the indols right under his nose!

eedie's brain fart; ""neo-fascist dictatorship""

neo fascism is a European political doctrine, and dressed up in the neo labour guise has been the mode of governance here in UK, which for the sake of appearances has been touted as neo liberalism.

Then eddie regurgitates the "think" already thought for him and voiced by the nice BBC man; "recession is coming to an end, the recovery is here"

Oh the green shoots of recovery just around the corner in 2030 hopefully!!

eddie you have serious denial issues, try and see if you can find an NHS psychiatrist to sort out your cognitive impairment.

PS refrain from the use of the utterly vile "*unt", these are quite suefull things, unlike you and your hero Tonykins Emily Bliar, both pretty useless, overbearing, messianic, psychotic, and cognitively impaired.

eddie, you dick.

You really are clutching at straws now, it's embarrassing.

"300 plus comments and that's largely down to me"... What a totally self absorbed wanker you are. Like Jordan counting her week's column inches, only not as pretty, or intelligent it seems.

Oh, and before you think of slaggging of me, or me blog, I invite you to see this, http://tinyurl.com/dkmon8

No sexual apartheid in Iran eh?
This is the constitution.

"Woman in the Constitution
Through the creation of Islamic social infrastructures, all the elements of humanity that served the multifaceted foreign exploitation shall regain their true identity and human rights. As a part of this process, it is only natural that women should benefit from a particularly large augmentation of their rights, because of the greater oppression that they suffered under the old regime.

The family is the fundamental unit of society and the main center for the growth and edification of human being. Compatibility with respect to belief and ideal, which provides the primary basis for man's development and growth, is the main consideration in the establishment of a family. It is the duty of the Islamic government to provide the necessary facilities for the attainment of this goal. This view of the family unit delivers woman from being regarded as an object or instrument in the service of promoting consumerism and exploitation. Not only does woman recover thereby her momentous and precious function of motherhood, rearing of ideologically committed human beings, she also assumes a pioneering social role and becomes the fellow struggler of man in all vital areas of life. Given the weighty responsibilities that woman thus assumes, she is accorded in Islam great value and nobility."

It could have ben written by the Monday Club or the BNP. Women, get back in the home! This shows how far you lot have sold your souls. My enemy's enemy must be my friend according to your lights, so you carry on defending the indefensible.

You need to read up on the Bonyads of Iran and understand the comparisons with the tithes of the monasteries. A religious ruling elite creates nothing and consumes much of Iran's wealth. So a coup d'etat takes place in one of the most important countries in the world, hundreds dead, thousands detained and injured, the ruling elite close down the media and launch repressive measures across all sectors of society and your response is? Nothing. Hypocrites one and all.

Edo - thanks for the link, but I saw this and thought of you

http://www.sugarcraft.com/catalog/novelties/looneytunes/LooneyTunesWallpaper.jpg

Bankster “Holiday” Planned for September?

Kurt Nimmo, Infowars
June 22, 2009

Bob Chapman’s influential International Forecaster is reporting on the possibility of a so-called “bank holiday” planned for late August or early September. According to Chapman’s sources, U.S. embassies around the world are selling dollars and stockpiling money from respective countries where they operate.

FDR imposed a "bank holiday" soon after taking office. It resulted in the government stealing gold from the American people and giving them useless fiat paper money in return.

“Some US embassies worldwide are being advised to purchase massive amounts of local currencies,” writes Harry Schultz, “enough to last them a year.” Schultz publishes the Harry Schultz Letter, an international investment, financial, economic, and geopolitical newsletter named as “Newsletter of the Year” by Peter Brimelow of Market Watch in 2005 and 2008.

Schultz believes the global elite are in the process of engineering an FDR-style “bank holiday” of undetermined length in order to “sort-out the bank mess” and impose new bank rules.

On March 5, 1933, in the depths of the banker engineered “Great Depression,” newly elected Franklin Roosevelt declared a “bank holiday” that forced banks closed for four days. Roosevelt then rammed the Emergency Banking Act through the legislature. Passed by Congress on March 9, the act granted FDR near dictatorial control over the dealings of banks. It also allowed the Secretary of the Treasury the power to compel every person and business in the country to relinquish their gold and accept paper currency in exchange.

On March 10, Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 6073, forbidding people from sending gold overseas and forbidding banks from paying out gold. A few weeks later, on April 5, Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 6102 ordering Americans to deliver their gold and gold certificates to the Federal Reserve bank in exchange for paper fiat money.

In other words, FDR engaged in one of history’s greatest rip-offs — that is until now.

FDR not only ripped-off the American people, but foreigners holding dollars as well, thus ensuring the “Great Depression” would spread around the world like a bankster engineered contagion.

As Schultz notes, another forced “bank holiday” will likely lead to a formal devaluation of the already broadsided U.S. dollar. “But devalue against what? The euro? Doubtful. Gold? Maybe. Or vs. the IMF basket of currencies,” which he feels is more likely.

In fact, this is precisely what the globalist have in mind. In March, the media reported the IMF was poised print billions of “global quantitative easing” dollars to be dubbed global “super-currency” to address the (bankster engineered) economic crisis. “The principle behind it is that everyone would get bonus dollars and instead of the Federal Reserve having to print them, everyone gets them,” declared Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the IMF.

Can you say inflation?

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

It is no secret the elite have envisioned a global currency for some time now. In 2007, the director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations stated that the dollar and the euro are but temporary currencies. “It is the market that made the dollar into global money – and what the market giveth, the market can taketh away. If the tailors balk and the dollar falls, the market may privatize money on its own,” Benn Steil pontificated.

More like the banksters taketh away — and not only money but national sovereignty as well because a global currency will demand an end to “monetary nationalism.”

Or as Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, has said, “states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.”

Mr. Schultz believes a “bank holiday” would suit the burning desires of the international bankster elite. It will lead to “nationalization,” which is a polite word for brazen thievery. It will allow the government — owned lock, stock and barrel by the global elite and run by their corrupt whores and cronies — to rape secured creditors and bondholders. Nationalization is the unfettered process of grabbing up of insurance companies, mortgage companies, banks, medical care, and car companies and handing them over to the monopoly men.

During the FDR “bank holiday,” Schulz notes, “thousands of banks never reopened; it was a face-saving way of shutting them down. I would guess the same would occur today; thousands have little or no net value, loaded with debt, bad mortgages.”

In order soften the nation up for the coming pillage, the Obama administration has proposed a plan to give the privately-owned and unaccountable Federal Reserve complete regulatory oversight across the entire U.S. economy. The new rules would see the Fed given the authority to “regulate” any company whose activity it believes could threaten the economy and the markets — that is to say if it “threatens” the monopolistic interests of the bankers.

“Obama’s regulatory ‘reform’ plan is nothing less than a green light for the complete and total takeover of the United States by a private banking cartel that will usurp the power of existing regulatory bodies, who are now being blamed for the financial crisis in order that their status can be abolished and their roles handed over to the all-powerful Fed,” write Paul Joseph and Steve Watson. “The government is ready to hand over everything to a monolithic private corporation and a gaggle of bastard banker offspring, that have gobbled up an amount close to the entire GDP of the country in taxpayers’ money and figuratively stuck the middle finger up regarding questions over where that money has gone.”

A “bank holiday” would work wonders for any “regulation” the Fed and the bankers have in mind. It would compliment the criminal consolidation now underway. It would allow them to finally and formally devalue the dollar and usher in a global “super currency” of control and enslavement.

A Bob Chapman subscriber added a little dinger to the prospect of the banks going dark. The subscriber claims to have overheard two men in FEMA jackets talking with a police chief in California, all who agreed that the federalization of police around the country — a process largely complete — will be required if the banks are shuttered in late August or early September because it will get “ugly” out there.

No doubt. Because the sort of enduring and polite American who weathered the “Great Depression” is now in seriously short supply.

If Mr. Schultz’s prediction is correct, we can expect riots in bank foyers and ultimately martial law to be imposed

http://www.infowars.com/bankster-holiday-planned-for-september/

Does anyone know what proportion of the USA's GDP goes to the Pentagon? Perhaps regime change there would be a good thing.

What is this fixation with hats about? I thought that was my fetish!

There is a fundamental qualititative difference between argumentation made in good faith and that made simply in order to disrupt oppositional discourse and serve the interests of power.

Why is there so much hatred of Iran? And Iraq? And Afghanistan? And...

Actually, I have saved lives, one way or another, I help do it every day.

Funding for the arts/ artists is a separate and very well-discoursed matter and has very little to do with Iran. There are pros and cons.

It is interesting that the attacks from an individual who seems to have set themselves up as a spokesperson for the UK hard state have become personally-directed and somewhat vicious in this manner. The nature of my work has nothing to do with the situation regarding imperialism or Iran. However, behaving in a manner commensurate with the reinforcement of the imperatives of the hard state does, and this the difference.

But hey, I'm a duck and this is water! Quack! Quack!

I am glad my work is gaining more exposure. This is not about me, though.

It's about imperialism and Iran.

If anyone dares to suggest that Israel is an apartheid state (as, say, Jimmy Carter did), those who propel imperialist power go off at the deep end. Yet, they are the first to use the term 'sexual apartheid' in relation to Iran. Interesting paradox.

More water, please.

So eddie goes and does a cut and paste of the Iranian constitution, and then starts; the by now familiar and expected eddie the whirling idiot act all the while putting his own spin on his cut and paste effort, ending the flailing brain farts by invoking the boogeyman's tale the BNP.

A- eddie Iran has a written, note: written constitution. ie Iranian government cannot wriggle out of any of its obligations to Iranians, and move the goal posts through the "unwritten" constitutional cock and bull yarn in search of precedence, and innovative traditions of just one off events, passed as; it has always been thus, principle!

B- eddie BNP could never write up anything as profound as your cut and paste effort, even if the BNP mob were given a thesaurus; enema, suppository, pills, and for good measures powder thrown in too.

C- eddie you are back with your obsession about sex, when will you take the advice offered to you and seek psychiatric treatment? Calling you a wanker is a tautology not an insult, it is a description of, and associated habit with you eddie.

D- where does the Iranian Constitution say that; women are to be chained to the sink in the kitchen, at home? The Iranian Constitution goes on record to outline the duty of care of the Iranian government in provision of a steady environment for women to have the opportunity of staying at home and raising their children, unlike the West that economic hardships push wives and mothers to go out to work, in a matter of course fashion, at the expense of neglecting their prime duty towards their offspring, and rearing these! With the resultant swathes of out of control youth, that is the latch key door children grown up, helping to give rise to all manner of statistics in the fields of; drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, shoplifting, burglary, knife crime, mugging, murder, .........

But hey eddie the perv cannot abstract any of this, due to the big words, abstract ideas, and above all, the way he/she has been spanking the monkey, along with drinking, and snorting, there are no viable brain cells left in his cranial cavity!

"The nature of my work has nothing to do with the situation regarding imperialism or Iran."

Quite so. The troll can be very nasty when he's slapped down by so many good arguments here.

Not to mention ridiculous. He's quoting Bono of all people? Most of us think Bono is a little creep who should have stuck to what he's good at -- the music industry. He's now a publicity-seeking little waffler, likes to be photographed with Bush et al, but can hardly string three coherent sentences together when he's put on the spot. Most people I know don't like him.

Give me Geldof any day. At least he's sincere, in my opinion. A rough diamond.

Iran: looks like things will now (slowly) revert to the status quo ante. Ahmadinejad in place, protests suppressed. But one wonders will Iran underneath have permanently changed?

I can't help wondering if Obama's unexpected admission in Cairo of USA interference in Iran in '53, was a cover for what he knew was to come. Exploitation of a power struggle in Iran, which might never have appeared as rioting in the streets without USA interference. If so it was a clever move, designed to make Obama look like an innocent bystander.

VamanosBandidos has just stolen my thunder about women in Iran. I wouldn't like to be a woman in some Muslim countries (maybe any?) but VamanosBandidos made the excellent point about the disintegration of families in our culture, and the resultant social problems which are causing such huge concern, not to mention damage and deaths.

There has to be a middle ground.

If it's not sexual apartheid how would you describe it exactly? Women's place is in the home? Concern about "the disintegration of families in our culture" is straight out of Tory Central office. You really should be ashamed of yourselves for this support of cultural relativism. What's your position on female circumcision? Either you subscribe to universal rights or you don't. You lot clearly do not.

My attacks are personal are they? And the following are not?

"But hey eddie the perv"
"Eddie, a true inspiration to gits everywhere."
"eddie the Zionist toady"
"Little eddie the troll,
Demolish this pile of faeces"
"The incessant unconscious driveling of a Ziofeckwit"
"There again wankers like eddie..."

I don't think you would be unresponsive to such abuse. You may not like my opinions but you seem to have trouble responding to them without abuse. Here again, a simple question for you.

MJ
"Yes, it's always useful not to lose sight of the big picture. Iran:
1) has the world's fourth largest oil reserves;
2) has the world's second largest gas reserves;
3) has, owing to its coastline on the Caspian Sea, a share of the Caspian's vast oilfield;
4) has one of the shortest land routes from the Caspian Sea to navigable waters;
5) has an independent central bank that issues its own currency interest-free, and is therefore not in debt to (read - not in the control of) the global banking cabal.

Is there anything else we really need to know?"

Yes, actually there is. Why is Iran not therefore one of the richest countries in the world? World Bank and IMF figures show that its wealth per capita ranks it down in 80th place or lower, with less wealth per head than South Africa or Belarus, in spite of 30 years of stable and independent government. Of course this is entirely the fault of the USA and nothing to do with the fact that the country is run by reactionary theocrats who have no inkling of how to run a modern economy and who disqualify 50 per cent of the population from playing a proper role through their policies of sexual apartheid.

eddie:

None of those comments, quoted above, were mine.

I am critical of your stance in relation to foreign policy matters and in my view this stance effectively supports imperial power in the maintenance of which the 'hard' state is a mechanism. I disagree with you on these matters. You seem to have identified yourself with this tendency to the extent that the views expressed here serve the interests of the powerful in the 'empire' in which we live. Hence, my view that at least on this particular outlet you have become a de facto spokeperson for these elements.

I have not made personal attacks. I appreciate the infomation and links which you have provided and it is always good to have counter-arguments and to have one's own opinions challenged. My opinions on many things have changed over the years and we all have areas of ignorance. As I have tried to suggest in these posts, things often are more compliated than they seem on the surface.

It is your views which I am attacking. I do not deny you the right to hold them. I simply feel that they have been expressed extensively here and that now they seem simply to be posited in a sort of personal provocation-and-response dynamic which is not illuminating or informing for anyone. I sometimes refer to you in the third person partly because when you have been attacking me and my work, I do not wish to become embroild in a mutual hurling of insults. You are entitled to not like my work; though if you've not actually read it, I don't know on what basis you can make such criticisms; and even my hats (though I am partial to the latter!), and also it is entirely valid to criticise state arts funding of/ investment in my or others' work. Nonetheless, I do not think that it is right to misrepresent my work.

It depends what one's definition of success is, of course. Is it winning a million pounds, as so many TV programmes would suggest? Is it critical acclaim? It is that one breaks new ground? Could it be any of these or none? That's another debate.

Perhaps, if I may suggest, ease off on the personal stuff, esp. when the person against which you are making statements has not actually reciprocated in kind.

And that is not because I am a temperate or cosmic individual; I am neither; it is simply because I do not see it as relevant to this discourse on Iran.

eddie, you forgot these from me,

"eddie, you dick."

and,

"What a totally self absorbed wanker you are."

I don't know how you can stand it. All this abuse! You plainly have a desire to set the record straight, so to speak. The only thing is eddie, your message isn't getting through.

(Or maybe it is, and people are just too afraid to take your perspective, because, frankly, who wants to be associated with a dick?)

"What's your position on female circumcision?"

I think it's a bad thing. I don't care much for male circumcision, either - not a nice thing to do to a young boy.

VamanosBandidos

"where does the Iranian Constitution say that; women are to be chained to the sink in the kitchen, at home? The Iranian Constitution goes on record to outline the duty of care of the Iranian government in provision of a steady environment for women to have the opportunity of staying at home and raising their children, unlike the West that economic hardships push wives and mothers to go out to work, in a matter of course fashion, at the expense of neglecting their prime duty towards their offspring, and rearing these! With the resultant swathes of out of control youth, that is the latch key door children grown up, helping to give rise to all manner of statistics in the fields of; drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, shoplifting, burglary, knife crime, mugging, murder, ........."

You can't attribute drug abuse etc. to the fact that women aren't at home looking after their children. A lot of mothers that have kids who turn to crime and violence don't work and tend to be at home all day. They also get paid by the british government to do so. It has nothing to do with women having equal rights and everything to do with society as a whole.

Did you ever think that women wanted to go out and work and not stay in the home looking after the kids all day? Also what about the Father, why doesn't he stay at home and the mother work?
Do you seriously think that women being told by their government that it is more important that they stay at home is not repressive?

You tone is as sexist as the Iranian governments.

That previous no named quote was me. Forgot to add my name.

eddie,
Quote: "the disintegration of families in our culture" is straight out of Tory Central office. You really should be ashamed of yourselves for this support of cultural relativism.

Where can one begin with this kid of idiocy. Families have been disintegrating over the last 5 decades in this country. This is simply a fact. The Tories have caused this to happen just as much as labour. Sex as recreation, the 'homosexual agenda', feminism (i.e. get women out of the house so we can tax them too...and have more influence over their children), media propaganda, the advertising industry.....all of the above, including the Labour and Conservative parties, in the pockets of big financial power, directing affairs from their corporate-controlled think-tanks......all these things have deliberately conspired to destroy the family as an institution. The miracle is the extent to which this project is yet partly failing.
Have you ever watched East Enders and coronation Street. Do you notice that the conversations are about little other than sex and sexual relations. Is this normal life in your neck of the woods. If you eavesdrop on random conversations in a pub, do you find that this is how the world really is.

At the moment muslim families, particularly, are under attack through these mediums. There are silly salacious asian parents with their leery tit-wagging and sometimes 'gay' offspring. Then there's all these white guys forming sexual partnerships with black women. There's unisex toilets....you know, the kind of stuff we see everyday.

This is social engineering of the most lousy kind. Religious people call it satanic. That's probably right.

'cultural relativism'? WHAT! that's the method used for implementing the new corrupting agenda.

there is no absolute right or wrong.

Only a place you want to get to.

......a hideous one. A global police state where the state alone not family nor any other culture dictates not only what will happen but also what is right and wrong.

as usual eddie, you do not even understand the meaning of the words you use.

You are blind and full of absolute sh*t.

From today's Guardian.
"As the crisis continues, it appears that women demonstrators are being singled out and subjected to brutal attacks by heavily-armed Iranian security forces. While there are no authoritative figures for the number of women killed or hurt, anecdotal evidence suggests they have been targeted for especially rough treatment."

"The approach mirrors the regime's uncompromising attitude to women's rights campaigners, many of whom have been arrested or jailed for promoting gender equality through movements such as the One Million Signature campaign"

"The sight of female protesters, many dressed in clothes that give them the appearance of affluent liberated women by Iran's standards, may be a provocation to zealous agents, most of whom adhere to the regime's traditional view on gender roles. The supreme leader is believed to equate the demand for women's equality with a western-backed "velvet revolution".

Now THAT is one of the consequences of sexual apartheid.

No name "with their leery tit-wagging and sometimes 'gay' offspring." Man, what century are you living in??

"there is no absolute right or wrong" - what silly nonsense. BNP attacks on black people are wrong, female circumcision is wrong, attacking white women for going out with black men is wrong, forcing women to cover themselves up is wrong, forcing women to stay in the home is wrong, attacking people becasue they are Gay is wrong. The far left used to believe in all these basic human rights, now some of you seem to be joined at the hip with the BNP.

Suhayl - thanks for your comments, I will try to avoid mentioning your hats or your novels.

"there is no absolute right or wrong" - what silly nonsense.

I agree.

"BNP attacks on black people are wrong, female circumcision is wrong, attacking white women for going out with black men is wrong, forcing women to cover themselves up is wrong, forcing women to stay in the home is wrong, attacking people becasue they are Gay is wrong."

I agree also.

A propagandising western media, corrupt bankers, corrupt politicians, subversive secret services, surveillance laws, torture, they're also wrong.

Which ones are facilitating the other I wonder?

Posted by: chris, glasgow at June 26, 2009 12:56 PM

What kind of rubbish is this you have posted?

You seem to singularly dismiss the primary function of women; to bear the next generation. Ie women have a primary role, and this is not being turned into fuck pots, or adornments to be wrapped around the arms of the rich and powerful albeit old and wrinkled men.

Your statement wreaks of a systemic bias, that is born out of denial of the primary roles of the genders, coupled with the normative condescension upon all that is not European!

In an asinine statement you forward that crime is not solely due to the absence of mothers, and these not being there, going on to pontificating; mothers whom are at home and look after their children produce villainous children too. Conveniently overlooking the simple fact that, this is an admission to the failure of Motherhood in these incidents, which furthermore reiterates the undertones of inherent evil disposition of the criminal class too. (despite the qualification of; latch key door children, in my statement)

Evidently the provision of an environment that affords women the opportunity of staying at home in the Iranian Constitution is constructed as control orders for women to be detained under house detention in Iran. This calumny is born out of the same condescension that refuses to acknowledge that seventy five percent of the higher education places in the hard ball departments of various university (physics, medicine, astronomy, chemistry, engineering, maths) in Iran are primarily occupied by the female gender, to the extent that now the male gender in Iran is campaigning for positive discrimination in favour of men, to gain access to these places!

So far as private arrangements are concerned, that is up to the individuals to reverse their roles as and when these wish to do so, as in the case of many couples in Iran doing such, due to the greater earning power of the relevant spouse, alas these exceptions as well as the primary role of women as Mothers are not to be entertained, for any such deviation from the neo liberal dogma invokes the wrath of the gatekeepers, and converts alike. Motherhood is an honour, it is not mandatory in Iran, those wishing to achieve such mantel of importance are given the opportunity to do so in law, on the other hand if women in Iran do not wish to take such a path, then these can get on with advancing in the field of commerce, science, and government too, it is up to each individual. Where is the sexism in this and or any of my statements?

My bad! I acknowledge the primary roles of the genders, as opposed to subscribing to the artificially contrived, and obtuse narrative of the “equality of the sexes”, which of course means freedom to be exploited as a fuck pot/penis, and never to rise above the status of a hole/pole, in the best possible abstraction!!!!!

From today's Guardian.

eddie why don't you go and find a bona-fide Zionist newsletter, and quote from it, instead of the whishywashy tongue in cheek Zionist Guardian?

Tell you what go and quote from Jerusalem Post, Washington Times, or some other Supremacist news affiliate!

"Why is Iran not therefore one of the richest countries in the world? World Bank and IMF figures show that its wealth per capita ranks it down in 80th place or lower"

You will recall eddie that my 5 points were what I considered the key reasons for the West's keen - one might even say prurient - interest in Iranian affairs. I don't think its domestic economic affairs have any bearing on this.

However since you raise the matter, I should perhaps point out firstly that since Iran has no association with either the World Bank or the IMF their figures are by necessity estimates.

On the assumption however that the figures are reasonably accurate then of course yes, the US and others do have some responsibilty for Iran's economic under-performance. For over 30 years Iran has been subject to a variety of trade embargos and other restrictions whose purpose has been solely to destabilise the country. All this because the Iranians had the temerity to overthrow one of the most viciously repressive regimes the world has ever seen.

It should also be remembered that when the Shah fled the country he took the trouble to ensure that he took unknown billions of the country's wealth with him, which he deposited in US banks. Iran is still waiting for this money to be returned.

All in all a rather disgraceful way to treat such brave people, I'm sure you'll agree.

"the normative condescension upon all that is not European!"

I like that phrase. It sums up your position nicely. Translation: Let's not judge people who do nasty things to each other, it's only their culture and why should we take the moral high ground? Well, when it comes to things like female circumcision and forcing women to cover themselves up I think I am quite entitled to take an absolutist position and stuff "cultural norms". If it's wrong, it's wrong, it's wrong. It is true that women dominate science courses in Iran, and are better-educated and more politically astute than many in the region, but the regime severely restricts women's rights. They cannot run for President or be a judge, their testimony is valued less than that of a man and the man automatically gets custody after divorce. Women can be beaten or jailed for "moral crimes" such as wearing inapproriate clothes or makeup. Khomeini reduced the marriage age for women from 18 to 9, later raised to 13 (that nasty Shah eh? Making women wait until 18 to get married). Women and men are separated in many public places, women cannot inehrit on the same scale as men and women can still be stoned to death for adultery. Is that enopugh evidence of sexual apartheid for you? Is there any substantive difference between that list and the restrictions that black people faced in South Africa?

MJ "For over 30 years Iran has been subject to a variety of trade embargos and other restrictions whose purpose has been solely to destabilise the country". As expected, I knew you would come out with that line. You forgot to mention the Iran Iraq war, but of course all these things happened thirty years ago. Yet Iran is an independent and stable country - it can trade almost anywhere it likes, other than the US. Look at Venezuela or Cuba, they seem to have done reasonably well without US trade. Why isn't Iran trading with China and Africa? Why are they IMPORTING petrol when they have such oil wealth? Surely they could have developed refinery facilities without US support? As I say, it's the easy cop out always to blame the US. I won't go into the reasons for the sanctions, other than to say that the Iranian regime is hardly a guiltless party. When "Death to the USA" is the government mantra, repeated every friday at prayers, it is hardly conducive to friendly diplomatic relations.

None of the comments the troll quoted above were mine either. But he still insisted on twisting my name. And he introduced the term "pile of faeces" himself. He does himself no favours.

I didn't recommend "forcing women to stay in the home". I wrote, "there has to be a middle ground". If he can't see the effects of family break-up on our societies, he's doing a version of the three monkeys.

Clocks are notoriously hard to turn back, but closer extended families and a sense of community -- where neighbours actually look out for one another, instead of trying to outdo each others patio furniture -- would do a lot for future generations. As would more parents (male or female) staying at home with the kids, more couples staying together, and less "free love" for all and sundry.

And no I'm not a prude, and yes I was a part of the very Women's Lib crowd who were campaigning for freedom from the kitchen sink, decades ago. Since that time I've reared a family while (on/off) working freelance from home, and my blasé youthful assumptions have shifted considerably.

I don't *recall* seeing our troll deplore the dreadful bombing, maiming and killing of so many civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan, on the heels of so much death and devastation in Iraq. He has been so exercised over the rights of Iranian protesters, he seems to have forgotten what's been done in the name of "freedom" to innocents elsewhere.

eddie you cannot keep away from sex for more than ten minutes can you?

What female circumcision has to do with Iran, or Islam?

Female circumcision is an all African affair that is going back many centuries, and like it or not, is there and is getting practised, but not in the name of Islam.

However, the Jewish supremacists bent on deriding all things Muslim have managed to project into the addled minds of simpletons, the likes of yourself eddie, this female circumcision story as an extension of male circumcision as practised in Islam.

Fact that Judaism itself mandates circumcision of males as in Islam somehow is never attributed to be the progenitor of the female circumcision, despite the fact that Judaism has been around longer than Islam.

However, that is not the case and still the female circumcision is attributed to the Muslims, regardless of the actualities, and realities. Furthermore in the light of the colonial barbarism that is somehow considered an amiable effort; in civilizing the heathens by the very affable Englishmen, any derogatory statements about Islam suddenly finds traction in UK, and the Europe in general too.

Once before the Europeans were engaged in religion baiting, but now apparently they have stopped Jew baiting, and instead have chosen to be Muslim baiting, just like the Irish whom have become White, and now are harassing, and racially abusing the Roma in Belfast.

Therefore, your tired and “absolutist” stance is only a reflection of what an absolute waste of skin and a wanker you are eddie!

Apartheid is practised in Israel, and used to be practised in South Africa, and nowhere else is it practised, and your effort to make sex a cause for apartheid just does not wash, but hey reactionary tossers like you, are in the habit of regurgitating the sound bites they have been fed.

PS eddie you have not been engaged in “grammar policing” what is up? Are u off colour, or somefing?

"just like the Irish whom have become White, and now are harassing, and racially abusing the Roma in Belfast"

Don't lump us all together, VamanosBandidos. They were a bunch of nasty teenagers, as far as I know. But for some reason that I don't understand, racism is raising its ugly head in Northern Ireland more often than in the South (although nowhere is entirely free of it.) And if they were mostly youngsters, they are almost a "post-Troubles" generation. It's a subject I want to read up on.

Cuba hasn't done that well, actually, though there are number of factors contributing to that, including the US embargo but also the centrallly controlled economy, albeit recerntly modulated. Venezuela was in the US camp until Chavez, and since then they've had a lot of trouble. He's been trying to redistribute wealth and that's good, but has faced lots of resistance from vested interests who have been supported by the USA. Iran is one of China's major trading partners. Iran does trade with Africa, including with South Africa and with lots of other countries, including the UK.

I agree that women's rights in many Muslim countries is a real issue, including in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is far worse than Iran, btw, in this respect. No question that when Islamists become dominant, the first thing they 'go for' is women's rights.

Pakistan's women's rights regressed hugely and most drastically under a regime which was directly supported by the USA. In Iraq, women's rights have receded since the USA and UK invaded. And we know about the US-Saudi relationship.

In Indonesia, struggles go on b/w Islamists and others in relation to women's rights. But the USA and UK supported the 'Muslim Generals', as they were known who set up the Suharto regime (around 1 million people were killed) and continued to do so.

No, all of this is not all the West's fault, it's much more complex thatn that, but it's certainly not going to be remedied by infiltration, destabilisation or invasion by the West.

VB - I fear that it is you that is obsessed with sex, not me. You know very well that by sexual apartheid I mean gender apartheid. Female circumcision is not an Islamic issue, that is true. But to compare it to male circumscision is a tad stupid, frankly. I think you would know the difference if you were a woman. Your comments on apartheid in Israel are specious. I presume you are talking about the occupied territories, which is not Israel. And, as you raised it, your grammar is poor - particularly the use of who and whom. Who and whoever are in the subjective case, whom and whomever are objective. So, "Who is that idiot VB?", "To whom does that idiot VB pay his rent?" Clear?

Dreolin - I see you are now resorting to cheap insults just because I had the temerity to misquote your name. To be fair, I don't often know who is throwing insults at me because many posters here don't leave a name - perhaps it is only one person, I don't know. I suspect KevinB as was may be the worst offender. Whtether it is deliberate or a technical problem I don't know either. I merely gave a sample of insults, there were many more. I had a feeling that you had reactionary impulses from some of your earlier comments. Nothing like a cconvert to be zealous eh? It's like ex-smokers. You say you support the family, so here is a test for you. Do you support the right of Gay and Lesbian couples to adopt children and bring them up within a same sex family? I do, and if you don't where does that leave us on the left-right spectrum? You despise me as a right wing troll but can it possibly be the case that I have more liberal views than you in some areas? As I said, left and right tend to share many of the same opinions and fantasies at either end of the spectrum.

You write, "I don't *recall* seeing our troll deplore the dreadful bombing, maiming and killing of so many civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan, on the heels of so much death and devastation in Iraq. He has been so exercised over the rights of Iranian protesters, he seems to have forgotten what's been done in the name of "freedom" to innocents elsewhere." Actually, I object to the death of innocents everywhere on an equal footing. I also object to genocidal slaughter in Darfur, Rwanda and Zimbabawe as well. Do you? I object to executions in the USA as well as Iran and China. Do you? And if so, what have you ever done about it other than twitter on here?

Continuing on from my previous post, I think that real change in relation to society needs to develop from within - though of course nowadays especially it's not so clear what is 'within' and what, 'without' and maybe the division is increasingly meaningless. However, I don't think imposing change by overt or covert operations from imperial powers works, in fact in the end it's usually counterproductive. Nonetheless, I'm sure that some of the recent discord in Iran has been a reflection of real dissatisfaction among certain segments of society. Of course, all of the leaders vying for power there are less than savoury, but at least they haven't invaded and destroyed countries - which is more than we can say for our leaders. And I don't think it's really enough to say that 'we' are helping Iraq and Afghanistan build-up societal structures when 'we' - or rather, governments which we elected - have been instrumental in destroying any structures there once were in those countries - and I don't mean the Taliban, I'm talking over a much longer period. In fact, it is only a tacit pact in Iraq b/w the USA and Iran really which has held the (very relative; it's not calm as we know it) reduction in violence in Iraq since last year, so one could say that Iran, too is helping to build societal structures in Iraq. Iran also cooperates with teh USA/ NATO in relation to Afghanistan, while still vying for its spehere of influence there, too. It's all realpolitik, of course. The pursuit and retention of power is amoral, it's Machiavellian right through.

That doesn't mean - I talk generally now - that we have to be tribal or (for want of a better word) ideological and relinquish our critical faculties to any of these leaders or empires.

eddie's brain farts go;

Your comments on apartheid in Israel are specious. I presume you are talking about the occupied territories, which is not Israel.
===

Oh the raw nerve that is so tender eddie aye?

No eddie the apartheid Israel that is busy passing a law mandating Arabs to swear an oath of Loyalty to the Jewish State, or get kicked out of Israel!

The same apartheid Israel that mandates any Arab teacher to be subject of a security clearance by the Shin-bet (internal intelligence service) before these are allowed to teach in any primary school.

The same apartheid Israel that is maintaining its siege of Gaza, turning it to the biggest open air concentration camp in the history of man kind.

The same apartheid Israel, that has abandoned the Geneva Convention in its ruthless killing spree, and land theft fest.

Notwithstanding any of the above, seeing as male circumcision has nothing to do with it, how come female circumcision is always associated with the Muslims, and not the Jews instead? This erroneous conflation is used time and again by the Jewish supremacist shills, included your posts to prove time and again the “barbarity/depravity” of the Muslims , that is clearly an intent to deride Muslims, and incite hatred against Muslims.

eddie you are on record about sexual this, and sexual that, included the made up phrase of today “sexual apartheid”, clearly indicative of the sex on the brain syndrome that creeps into every little paragraph you write, so don't blame me for highlighting it, your projections are there to be seen by all.

Finally you have picked up your role as the grammar police, and as every vacuous waste of time shill does, started to nit pick, and insulting away in your didactic fit, you prevaricate about how is it said rather than what is being said? Poor eddie, knows no better, poor, poor poor eddie.

Iranian Envoy: CIA involved in Neda's shooting?

CNN – June 25, 2009

The United States may have been behind the killing of Neda Agha-Soltan, the 26-year-old Iranian woman whose fatal videotaped shooting Saturday made her a symbol of opposition to the June 12 presidential election results, the country's ambassador to Mexico said Thursday.

"This death of Neda is very suspicious," Ambassador Mohammad Hassan Ghadiri said. "My question is, how is it that this Miss Neda is shot from behind, got shot in front of several cameras, and is shot in an area where no significant demonstration was behind held?"

He suggested that the CIA or another intelligence service may have been responsible.

"Well, if the CIA wants to kill some people and attribute that to the government elements, then choosing women is an appropriate choice, because the death of a woman draws more sympathy," Ghadiri said.

In response, CIA spokesman George Little said, "Any suggestion that the CIA was responsible for the death of this young woman is wrong, absurd and offensive."

Though the video appeared to show that she had been shot in the chest, Ghadiri said that the bullet was found in her head and that it was not of a type used in Iran.

"These are the methods that terrorists, the CIA and spy agencies employ," he said. "Naturally, they would like to see blood spilled in these demonstrations, so that they can use it against the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is of the common methods that the CIA employs in various countries."

But, he added, "I am not saying that now the CIA has done this. There are different groups. It could be the [work of another] intelligence service; it could be the CIA; it could be the terrorists. Anyway, there are people who employ these types of methods."

Asked about his government's imposition of restrictions on reporting by international journalists, Ghadiri blamed the reporters themselves.

"Some of the reporters and mass media do not reflect the truth," he said.

For example, he said, international news organizations have lavished coverage on demonstrations by supporters of Mir Hossein Moussavi, whom the government has said lost to the incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by a landslide.

But those same news organizations have not shown "many, many demonstrations in favor of the winner," he said.

Further, he said, members of the international news media have failed to report on people setting banks and buses afire or attacking other people. "The only things they show are the reactions of the police," he said.

Because of restrictions on reporting in Iran, CNN has been unable to confirm many of the reports and claims relating to protests.

Ghadiri said it is only fair that security forces protect the lives and property of the Iranian people.

"If in America supporters of Mr. McCain had gotten out on the street and tried to burn the banks during the last election, do you think the police would just sit idly by and be a spectator?" he asked, referring to the GOP presidential candidate who lost the presidential vote in November to Barack Obama.

Ghadiri called on backers of Moussavi to "accept the majority's victory."

Ahmadinejad's overwhelming victory was no surprise, Ghadiri said, noting that a poll published in the United States three weeks before the June 12 elections showed Ahmadinejad with a commanding lead. "Why don't you show that?" he asked.

Ghadiri also addressed questions about the rapid reporting of the election results, which the opposition has cited as evidence that the ballots were not properly counted.

"It wasn't said that only four people counted the 40 million votes," he said. "There were tens of thousands of people in Iran who counted these votes. They declared that this is very simple.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/25/iran.ambassador/

"..but at least they haven't invaded and destroyed countries - which is more than we can say for our leaders." Aren't you forgetting Thermopylae? The Persians were one of the greatest imperialists of history. Time is relative of course, the Iranians may be benign now but then so is the British Empire if you want to take a less extended timespan of history.
From today's Guardian:
"Jailed Iranian reformists are believed to have been tortured in an attempt to force them into TV "confessions" of a foreign-led plot against the Islamic regime."

"According to Iranian websites, the "confessions" are aimed at implicating Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, the defeated reformist candidates in this month's presidential poll, in an alleged conspiracy.

suhayel Sadii-what a beautiful surname you have got! reminds me of the great world poet of iran-sadii> do you know suhayel, what we call mughal grandeur and culture in India was basically a mixture of Indian and iranian culture though mughals thmesleves were of turk origin they imbibed the Iranain culture so high was held the iranain culture.
in fact iranains are our-Indian's distant cousins-both being aryas-that is modern days aryans.
incidently patahns are aryans too.
anyway-iran has dominated in spehre of cultrue and civilisation for 3 thousand years-donto let thse bumbs lecture to iran about culture and civilizations or democracy.
in ioran the mullah are ready to have 10% of polling boxes recounted at random whiel in usa even one places' voting fraudf was not allowed by bought up supre court and which the british bastard coprporation otherwise klnown as BBC advised -only two days after eelction-to Gore not to oppose bush on vote recounting!. so much for dcemocracy for thse scum bags. they donto talk about georgia or ukraineun popular presidents imposed from outside!

Eddie interrogates:

"Do you support the right of Gay and Lesbian couples to adopt children and bring them up within a same sex family?"

I do, depending on their characters and the stability of their relationship, as is the case with heterosexual couples.

"I also object to genocidal slaughter in Darfur, Rwanda and Zimbabawe as well. Do you?"

I do.

"I object to executions in the USA as well as Iran and China. Do you?"

I do.

"And if so, what have you ever done about it other than twitter on here?"

Joined Amnesty International in 1971 and became an activist/volunteer.

And you?

Vamanosbandidos

"You seem to singularly dismiss the primary function of women; to bear the next generation. Ie women have a primary role, and this is not being turned into fuck pots, or adornments to be wrapped around the arms of the rich and powerful albeit old and wrinkled men."

That's an interersting view and one that i would have shared............. if i was alive say 500 years ago!!!!!! However, pretty much the rest of the world has moved on and recognises that a womans place on earth isn't just to fufill her primary function.

" Conveniently overlooking the simple fact that, this is an admission to the failure of Motherhood in these incidents, which furthermore reiterates the undertones of inherent evil disposition of the criminal class too. (despite the qualification of; latch key door children, in my statement)"

I was merely trying to give an example that having the wife/mother stay at home to look after her chilren doesn't mean there will definitely be a reduction in crime. It is stupid to assume that.

"Motherhood is an honour, it is not mandatory in Iran, those wishing to achieve such mantel of importance are given the opportunity to do so in law, on the other hand if women in Iran do not wish to take such a path, then these can get on with advancing in the field of commerce, science, and government too, it is up to each individual."

Iranian government does allow women to pursue careers but it does not do so willingly. It is to the credit of many Iranian women standing up for themselves that they have achieved a more equal society in Iran. For example, under Ahmedinejad's government, the Centre for Women's Participation was renamed the Centre for Women and Family Affairs. That doesn't seem like a goverment who are happy for women to pursue careers, does it?

More worryingly, you seem to have a bit of hatred stored up against women which is fairly unhealthy. Just because a woman wants to go and work doesn't mean she is a "fuckpot." Sort it out and stop ranting like a pshycopath.

"Just because a woman wants to go and work doesn't mean she is a "fuckpot"."

Nasty label, I agree.
And if a woman doesn't want any children, that's her choice too. Now.
When we were dominated by the Church, women like my grandmother had nine children, and died young. Seven of the nine emigrated to the USA because of extreme poverty. She never saw them again.

dreoilin

"Clocks are notoriously hard to turn back, but closer extended families and a sense of community -- where neighbours actually look out for one another, instead of trying to outdo each others patio furniture -- would do a lot for future generations. As would more parents (male or female) staying at home with the kids, more couples staying together, and less "free love" for all and sundry. "

Couldn't agree more. There is too much focus on material things that family life seems to be coming second. I think that parents should spend more time with their kids and try to balance work/home ratio better. It's when you hear about people working all hours to make sure their kids get a good life and then they neglect them because they are never around that doesn't make any sense to me.

I hate myself for doing this, because I try so hard not to feed trolls, but for this I just can't resist.

Eddie: "Aren't you forgetting Thermopylae? The Persians were one of the greatest imperialists of history."

ahahahahahaha really? Is that the best you can come up with? An event from 480BC when talking about current politics? Do you make reference to the killing of Jesus when talking about the characteristics of the modern states Italy or Israel? Or is the death of Jesus too recent to be considered relevant?

I consider myself a very progressive person and believe in equal opportunity for all. However I also recognise that in general there are some major fundamental differences between males and females. The sexes are wired differently, each with different aims and perspectives. This is how humans have evolved, it's a fact. The reality is that the nature of men and women help to balance each other out, and when a culture puts too much emphasis on one it does hurt society. It's sad that motherhood & extended family is so devalued in modern western society.

Having said all that some of the social conservatism being displayed here is also very disturbing. The 'gay agenda'? WTF is that? Who is pushing the 'gay agenda'? Why do so many animals also 'succumb' to the 'gay agenda'? There must be some powerful lobbyists that can talk to animals. Who spread the 'gay agenda' accross the world? When was it spread? Did the Romans and Spartans start the 'gay agenda' or were they also 'victims'?

People against interracial relations? Have these people not studied biology? Which race is pure? What problems are created by interracial relationships, other than those caused by busy body social conservatives? We all have common ancestors.

I firmly believe the west should stay out of Iranian affairs, and the affairs of all others when it comes to domestic matters. But please don't try and whitewash the Iranian system as being some paradise for women. I'm guessing that the people that are claiming it is so terrific to be a woman in Iran are neither women nor Iranian.

Well yes, eddie, even more recently than Cyrus, Darius, Alexander (Iskander, Sikander) and Co., there was Genghis (Changez) Khan and the Mongols and they had the biggest empire of all - which also, incidentally, relates to Avatar's point (btw, Avatar, thanks for the compliment!) about the Mughals (Mongols), at some level, it's all a wondrous melange.

Also, I think that the importance of battles like Thermopylae and (much later) Tours-Poitiers were exaggerated by the 'Oxford Greeks' of the British Empire in an attempt to solidify retrospectively into history their idea of 'Europe' as a discrete, superior (shorts-in-cold-weather-and-all-that!) and civilising entity. I've noticed that such historical events sometimes are drawn on as cultural buckram by buffoonish commentators like Bruce Anderson of the Independent.

Nonetheless, deep history is fascinating, though it may be a bit of diversion here. Anyway...

Views of Alexander are interesting. In Arab countries and in South Asia, he was transfigured into a kind of Sufi hero - but I don't think he's that popular in Iran, as he conquered and looted what was then the richest and most advanced empire in the world, though of course he married Roxana, but that's another romance! But as was well-depicted in Nadeem Aslam excellent novel, 'The Wasted Vigil', Alexander left his name across vast swathes of territory - from Kandahar to Egypt and beyond.

However, we're really talking in this instance about contemporary or near-contemporary geopolitics and near-contemporary leaders.

Also, while we are still living with the legacy of political decisions made by the British Empire (Palestine, Kashmir, Northern Ireland, Cyprus), those of the Achaemenid Empire, while no doubt forming some part of our civilisation's nerve-bundles and genetic memory store, no longer have a direct impact on big events.

Though I am sure we are all descended from a handmaiden of Cyrus the Great (as well as from the lamplighters of the Golden Horde).

Remember that professor who'd claimed that Africans had inferior intelligence to whites and then fund that his genes were almost 20% African!

Anyway, I am rambling...

CheebaCow,

Excellent comment. You can rest assured that to eddie the death of Jesus is of no relevance whatsoever.

......except in the context of 'government' education policy. He, like New Labour, want it written off the curriculum and out of history. In this particular venture they have been, sadly, enormously successful.

....not that it's got anything to do with the Italians.

So US trying to destabilise Iran....

Now then, the media is very quiet about this mousarvi character, isnt he some extremist linked with some bombings, hates american, and is just a silvery tongue version of whats already in power?

Now then, the media is very quiet about this mousarvi character, isnt he some extremist linked with some bombings, hates american, and is just a silvery tongue version of whats already in power?"

You are right. He not the icon for democracy and many people seem to be promoting. In fact he doesn't want to change the current regime that much.

cheebacow - reference to Thermopylae intended as joke, but perhaps not adverised as such. Suhayl, you know a lot more about ancient history than me, but I would be interested t know how the world would now look if the various empires of the last 300 years had not existed. Also, what is the balance of good vs bad arising from the British empire. Philosophical questions. When I was in Delhi, for example, I was staggered by the amount of cricket being played. Is that a good legacy of the British or not, or would it have happened anyway?

Dreoilin - I am also a member of AI, Hampstead branch circa 1980 to start with. I probably agree with some of your social views and have written on social capital - Robert Putnam etc. The present recession may perhaps lead to a questioning of meaningless consumption and a realisation that community, neighbourhood and family are more important. If that means women or men staying at home more then that is probably a good thing, the key point is that no one should be forced to do so.

Snap, Eddie.
I'm smiling because I'm picturing us having a verbal punch-up at an AI gathering.
FYI, I'm in Ireland. The Republic, not the North.
Agree about the recession - a shift in values might be the silver lining in the cloud. Might.

Ah, the British Empire, now that's a question over which historians will wrangle till the gates of eternity swing shut! One cannot separate the rise of capitalism, the industrial revolution and the rise of maritime capitalist empires (as opposed to the older, land empires like the Ottoman Empire). It's history, as they say, for a whole load of complex reasons well documented elsewhere, it happened from about the last decade of the C16th century, onwards, and we are, what we are, as a consequence.

I think colonialism probably hindered the development (or whatever one wanst to call it) - industrialisation, shall we say - of countries which were colonised or de facto colonised. They've reqd massive revolutions and other changes subsequently to jump on the wheel - but then, so did C18th and C19th Europe - and of course, England's was the first modern-day revolution, in mid-C17th. Western Europe progressed as much as it did partly because of the wealth and dynamism generated by imperialism. The two are inextricable.

Nonetheless, the advances attained by Western Europe from C17th would still have been the drivers of change, even if there had been no colonialism and even if, say, Egypt had been allowed to industrialise in the mid-C18th.

But look at China. For all its faults, through communist revolution and then capitalist change it's gone from being the opiate-smoking butt of jokes to being possibly incipiently the No. 1 Country. Yes, it was never colonised in the way some places were. India, for example. But it was destroyed in WWII. Singapore - occ. by Japan in WWII, a poor colonised country albeit with Raffles, an enlightened imperialist governor. Someone already mentioned South Korea. And then there's imperial Japan, which defies all paradigms.

There are other things than simply colonialism going on. Oil is one big thing, of course, which has affected the 'Muslim Belt' for many decades. But there's more, it's not as simple as that. I think many people in/ of majority-Muslim, and other, countries understand this.

The legacy of specifically the British Empire - a very intriguing experiment in imeperalism - is mixed, esp. wrt South Asia but also wrt the UK - many things we think of as 'British' were actually developed as hybrids - the class system, for example, went both ways. I am aware of the current crop of revisionist historians who tend to foreground the achievements of the British Empire.

French imperialism was different, again. The Belgian version was psychotic. The Dutch - very cruel colonialists. And then there's the indutrialisation of slavery.

I'm obviously against imperialism, and it is of course entirely hypothetical as to what would've happened if it hadn't happened. I think a lot of places would've developed but not in the way it happened in W. Europe. It would've been different, is the truism and that's about all we can say.

Suhyehel

10 years ago while reading the history of iran -I saw the last pages of book to cjehck on bibliography. Only then did I realise a profound truth. the name by which the west knows the iranian kings are not the name by which they kenw thmesleves and by which they had thier name put on the tablets.
The name of cyrus the great was really Kurush-a still common name in india-the name of xeres was khyres just like a indian name ankhaye,in there was a datta otherwise known as datis who was the commander of persian army in first greek war. this datta is still a common surname in India.
in other words if you read the inscription of darius-real name dayayauss-then you realise he was speaking in a langauge which any Indian of even today can recognise let alone of 2500 years ago.
the reason the name was distorted was because the greeks did not and could not pronounce arayn names as greeks like all europeans were and are not =aryans. so much that the greeks and even horodotus did not know the existence of persiopils because in persipolis were gathered all the aryan kings under the darayayuss otherwise called darius now and non aryans were not allowed there for ceremonies.in the same way partha is similar to an Indian hero arjuan who was called partha.

PERISANS CALLED THEMSELVES PERSU WHICH REALLY MEANS ONE HOLDING BATTLE AXE-THE BA=NAME PERSU COMES VERY OFTEN IN iNDIAN MYTHOLOGY AND HISTORY.
THE PERSIAN THELMELVES SAY THEY CAME FROMT HE EAST-THEOUGH AGANISTAN-NOW AFGANISTAN WAS ALWAYS UNDER INDIAN INFLUNCE -SOMETIMES DISPUTED WITH IRANIAN -UNTIL MUSLIM INVASION.
so you see how much atmised the iranaina histroy is made if you donto pronounce the correct name.
the main point i am trying to make is by distorting the names we forget the so much similarity -just brother like similarity-between iranains and indian races otherwise called arya.
another lesson is -donot let the bastards distort your name because by this means they distort your history aswell.

Dreoilin yes I'm not sure we'd get on! I'm not too bad if I stay off politics. I have friends in Dublin (Shankill) and a very old friend of mine has a cottage near Moville in Donegal. I love Ireland, it's how England was in my childhood, although the economy is in a bit of a mess. Shame about all those priests.
Suhayl - thanks for the history lesson. Interesting thoughts. I went to China in 1985 and took the trans siberian to Moscow, saw Mao and Lenin embalmed- the changes have been incredible . I read the Jung Chang biog of Mao - now he was a monster - but the Chinese have managed to achieve somehting remarkable, whether it is sustainable is another question.

As for cricket, being in Scotland most of the time I never really got into it deeply, though nothing beats English village green games. Every second 'gulley' in South Asia is a cricket-pitch, it's an amazing phenomenon. Football, being in Scotland, I reacted against it! - though I was commissioned to pen two football stories, one, a paean to Celtic FC, the other turned out as a kind of psychedelic ode to Zidane. Rugby, I always thought, was for giants or masochists. Tennis, I used to like playing; haven't played for years; and watching - but much more so in the days when it was an art as well as a science. In my opinion, Rod Laver was the best tennis player of all time. I can't stand to watch all the grunters and the aggressive, constantly grimacing, punching-the-air, hyper-corporatised players, there's no fun in watching them. The last really artistic top player - though his attitude stank and in retrospect was the start of all that tendency - was John McEnroe. Strawberries and cream are always lovely, though. Agassi was half-Iranian, I think (just so we're not totally off-topic!). 'Assyrian Armenian Iranian', it appears - just to round-off the discussion about ancient empires!

Thanks, avatar, that's fascinating. I've been exploring the deep past recently and it is fascinating, etymologies, place-names, mis-pronounciations, etc.

Of course, Afghanistan was part of Bactria and later, part of Khurasan - and as you say, much else, too. Rumi came from what is now Afghanistan. Babur, first Mughal emperor of India, wrote poetry espressing his homesickness for the cool glades of Kabul.

The history of the Indo-Greek Empire is also interesting.

History, not unlike faith and language, has always been a contested thing and for much the same reasons. It tells us who we are, how we came into being, what 'we' did on the way and - since (like even Michael Jackson, RIP) we cannot be certain of the next moment - in the end, it is all we can know.

eddie,

Shankill (as in 'the Shankill Road')is in Belfast, not Dublin. It is the home and heartland of working-class Belfast Protestantism.

And yes, it is a shame about certain priests and the way they were protected by the Catholic Church authorities. No reasonable person would defend these people. It's an old story, sadly.......but, for the record, most priest were (and are) good and decent men.

It's just that all the focus is on the wickedness of some rather than the virtue of the many.

The destruction of Christianity by the media and other agencies of government has gone too far......it is time people understood that we are in an age, via New Labour (at the moment), when satanism rules.

Christianity is NOT paedophile priests and anyone who thinks that a Christian culture is worse than a Luciferian one (which is what we've got) needs to seriously take another look at the foundation of their thinking.

It is a pity the dead do not have a vote.

From no-name:

"It is a pity the dead do not have a vote."

... as one election rigger said to another.

Joke

....and not a bad one.

Here, I've copied and pasted an article from 'Counterpunch' - this time, they did render the author's provenance, which is helpful. It's a view by someone sympathetic to the Mousavi/ Khatami, etc. 'camp'. I think it's an interesting piece.

The Iranian Uprising
Green, But Not Velvet

By FARID MARJAI

In reaction to the widespread discontent with the election results in Iran, reflected in large scale demonstrations and disturbances in the streets, the Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei had asked the Guardian Council to conduct a partial recount of the presidential election of June 12th. Although the Guardian Council (GC) has acknowledged irregularities in the vote count, it considers the irregularities inadequate to change the final tally of the votes. The Guardian Council which is the institution responsible for the task of monitoring elections has asked for several more days to announce its final decision on the elections. It is interpreted this time is needed for the lobbying that is taking place behind the scenes.

Mousavi, the challenger to President Ahmadinejad, is not satisfied with this procedure of a partial recount since it does not adequately address what he views as the election irregularities. But whatever the details of the behind the scenes dialogue with the conservative establishment, Mousavi strategists are focusing only on the vote count and the presidential election. This is an achievable goal. It is crucial to understand that the reformists within Mousavi camp are not using the election issue to pursue a maximalist strategy of transforming the Islamic Republic or undermining its institutions. Mousavi strategists are aiming to manage this confrontation within this definable framework.

Clearly, over the years, the Guardian Council has been a right wing institution resisting the reformists in their transformative politics. Nonetheless, it is remotely conceivable that at this stage the Guardian Council could make a compromise decision towards Mousavi. However, that depends on several factors and dynamics in the coming days. We need to explore these factors.

The Mechanisms and Institutions

The Guardian Council is composed of 12 jurists; 6 members are appointed by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, and the remaining 6 are jurisprudents recommended by the Judiciary, to be approved by the Parliament majles. The Judiciary itself is more neutral in this matter than the Guardian Council. Immediately, before the elections, the Judiciary started to prosecute cases that were embarrassing to President Ahmadinejad. This move was interpreted by observers that the Judiciary is not completely behind Ahmadinejad.

Politically, the Judiciary is not a monolithic entity. It is headed by Ayatollah Shahroodi who is somewhat independent in his conduct; the other faction is influenced by the graduates of the Haghani Seminary. This school had attempted to provide modern education and thinking for the clerical students. So in a way, this seminary has been effective in creating a generation of politicized clerics, although many of them ended up with right wing elements.

Prior to monitoring elections, the Guardian Council is responsible for filtering out candidates. In this way, the Guardian Council works as a mechanism to shape the character of the elected bodies of the executive and the legislative branches. As opposed to the Assembly of Experts, members of the Guardian Council are not elected by popular vote. The GC is considered as right wing and pro-Ahmadinejad. So, GC’s final announcement on the election results, if unfavorable to Mousavi, will clearly have legitimacy issues, and will fail to create social trust at this time.

It should be noted that senior clerics or marja and the clerical establishment is not unified on this contested issue. On June 17, an emergency meeting of the Assembly of Experts was convened. Although on paper the Assembly is the institution that can select or unseat the Supreme Leader, too much is being read into this. In Iran, there is a balance of power that is understood. As clerics, members of the Assembly of Experts are elected by popular vote, but have to pass an exam to qualify for the candidacy. Two years ago, during the elections for the 68 seat Assembly, the conservative faction of Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, supporter of Ahmadinejad, was competing with Hashemi Rafsanjani faction for control. Rafsanjani’s faction won with a slight majority.

The Outside Dynamic and Elements

By watching the foreign broadcasting television and the cyber–public–sphere, you get the impression that many players seem to want to throw their hat in the game. Many in the opposition outside the country are projecting their wish list onto Mousavi’s campaign. It is imaginable that some émigré circles, neoconservatives, and elements of Iranian opposition linked with the neoconservative cliques would paint a picture that is favorable to their objective of “creative chaos.” In other words, for them to try to agitate for strategies that are in line with “regime change,” or a velvet revolution if you may. In that sense, they see Mousavi’s Green Wave, as the strategic vehicle for this regime change. However, the reformists want to stay with Mousavi’s pace and objective, and maintain that it is counterproductive and unwise to try to get ahead of the Mousavi platform. They are focused on a strategy that remains responsive to the internal dynamics.

Many of us believe that Mousavi and former president Khatami’s inner circle are concerned that the movement not be appropriated or influenced by obstructionists. They want to contain the slogans to a framework within the Islamic Republic, and what is achievable with minimum human cost.

The system in Iran has multiple power centers. For challenges confronting the Mousavi camp, he needs the support of the clerical establishment. Over the years, this establishment has not entirely acted as a monolith, and he is astute enough not to alienate them with an agenda that might be viewed as an assault on the state. Their support or lack of can be decisive for the outcome.

Moreover, Mousavi supporters need to continue to be actively engaged, without resorting to any violence. For the most part they have done so.

In addition, the tone of language of protest on the street can not be along class lines. Although Mousavi’s language has been inclusive and his discourse egalitarian, some provocateurs in the public at large hurled insults at Ahmadinejad during the presidential campaign, using demeaning terms (such as “peasants”) which has a de-humanizing effect and alienates sectors of the society that support Ahmadinejad.

During the disturbances of the past week, those who brought you the Iraq “show” like Paul Wolfowitz have resurfaced, and written op-eds about the Iranian situation. In his appearances on CNN, Wolfowitz urged the American government to establish contact with Mousavi. There is a subtext to this statement and position. By coloring and compromising Mousavi and the Green Wave in this way, Mousavi would suffer legitimacy, and as a result, the social crisis would intensify and radicalize the process to the point of desperately Americanizing the movement. This may be a component of the “creative chaos” doctrine that was advanced by the neoconservative elements in the Bush national security team. In their writings, other Neocon figures such as Kenneth Timmerman had been focusing on opportunities that can be created in Iran even before the elections. Basically, they are on a fishing expedition.

Mousavi and the people around him are revolutionaries of the early 1970’s and have an understanding and long view of the American paradigm, destabilization policies and official attitude toward independent democratic movements of the periphery. Mousavi’s direct audience first and foremost is the Iranian people. His audience may include the world community, but his utterances indicate that his agenda is not the same as the American neocon establishment with their design towards Iran.

For some years now, the Voice of America (VOA) TV has been beaming broadcasts to Iran targeting the Iranian audience. The VOA Persian program is not a standard politically objective news network. It is a legacy of the Cold War propaganda and its programming tends to imply regime change in Iran. Also, the predominant orientation of the Los Angeles TV stations that beam to Iran are mostly influenced by the exiled monarchist émigré circles and counter-revolutionary royalists. They are also fishing, and hope that the demonstrations in Tehran will create an assault on the State and obliterate it. That is not what the reformists in Iran are striving for, nor is the movement capable of it.

Several neoconservative organizations such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINP) and the American Enterprise Institute pursue policies towards the Middle East and Iran that are ideological and highly charged. They have been making efforts to cultivate and attract “native intellectuals” in line with their own agenda and policy of “velvet revolution” and regime change.

A recent debate on VOA illustrates this. On June 14, in his conversation, Eisa Saharkhiz a supporter of the other reformist presidential candidate Mr. Karrubi, debated a person affiliated with WINP. In that, Saharkhiz reminded his interlocutor in strong terms that Mousavi’s statements and letters explicitly state that we operate in a non-violent manner within the framework of the constitution of the country (recount the vote, and obtain the executive branch through legal means.) Saharkhiz was implicitly saying that the Green Wave is a vernacular movement, and superimposing of any message or agenda to this movement would be a misrepresentation outside of the Mousavi framework.

Imagining wish lists is not complicated, but the challenge is to be able to carry the movement thru to a political conclusion. A crisis on its own does not necessarily lead to a political conclusion. Only an institution or a leadership that enjoys widespread legitimacy can act as the catalyst to bring a series of chaotic events to a fulfilling conclusion.

Sure, some voices are heard here and there that claim the Green Wave “is not about vote counts, or a Mousavi candidacy anymore” – that it has gone beyond Mousavi and the elections. But considering the realities on the ground, we have to acknowledge that as a catalyst, only Mousavi with the backing of both the reformist block and the moderate conservatives can the crisis be brought to a meaningful conclusion. The state is not about to collapse. That is why the Mousavi camp insists that it is only within the framework of the Green Movement and the constitution that a resolution to the crisis can be envisioned.

Democracy activists in Iran believe that another strong independent opposition is being born within the system that is not looking for regime change; critics, observers and outside actors need to respect and accommodate this birth, and not undermine it through sectarian and selective politics.

Farid Marjai is a contributor to the reformist newspapers Etemad and Shargh in Iran.

But Shankill is also a suburb of Dublin, it is a couple of stops along the DART from Dalkey where Van the Man and Bono, the Edge (and Chris de Burgh) and all that crowd live, and just before Bray. Suhayl - agree with you about the grunters - ban them all I say, and McEnroe was definitely the culprit who started all the downhll slide, but at least we have the prospect of a British champion at last -watched Murray today and he was sublime, he puts Henman to shame.

Not much news from Iran just now. I fear things are bad there now and that most people are keeping their heads down. Some of the hardliners are calling for protestors to be executed.

eddie,

You're right (it can happen it seems). I have a cousin in Killiney and I've been there often but did not know that.....

Andy Murray is no relation to Craig Murray, I assume...?! That would be super, if he won - and it would be great for tennis in this country (Scotland, and the UK) as well. Good for strawberries, too.

Yes, I think the situation in Iran right now is (to use the word of someone from there who communicated with me recently) that it is "frozen". Fear predominates.

it is "frozen". Fear predominates.
Suhayl Saadi at June 28, 2009 8:41 AM

Well slap my thigh, was that not what the operation Third Green Wave, all about?

Anyone roped into that den of spies, and mercenaries calling itself NED (National Endowment for Democracy) knew full well that their colour coded revolution would not fly in Iran. Fact that; this camarilla spend best part of their time to work out the criminal justice, and civic codes of their victim/target country, to identify the work arounds and loopholes, with a view to working the indigenous systems to their own advantage as any cheap hoodlum would.

We have all got used to the Soros funded Rose, Orange, ….. revolutions, or velvet revolutions as maintained by some. These so called revolutions reliant on whipping up the public opinion of the outsiders, mainly the westerners, and then feeding this amplified public opinion back into the host nation, whilst the local and indigenous operatives operating almost ad hock and at the very edge of the local laws, get on with undermining the “undesirable”, which means usually established politicians and instead promoting to shoe-in the alternative and “desired” set of the political operatives, which means vassals, sock puppets, mercenaries already chosen by the perpetrators of the velvet revolution.

The fact that Mousavie camp in Tehran had given the game away, in the days prior to the elections, by requesting and meeting with none compliance, that their election observers ought to be able to attend the polling booths and be present alongside plebeians casting their vote in real time! This little nugget of information coming to light in the interview of the spokesperson of Mousavie a Mr. Mahkhmalbaf on Newsnight.

However without getting too technical, the introduction of Third Green Wave had two probable outcomes;

A- The NED mob manage to push it in, and presto the troubles are solved, and the bent as the nine bob note corrupt Mr. Rafsanjani the candidate West most likely would want to deal with is set in place, and hints of Shah, Victor Yushenko (the poisoned one, whom never was poisoned), Mikheil Saakashvili (which news organ is broadcasting the on going demonstration to oust him?).

B- The NED mob fails, but then the little unrest which is not all that difficult to whip up, as the anarchic Iranians are for ever looking for a cause to kick up a fuss about.

In the case of B then the propaganda mills can begin their characteristic grind, showing the “undemocratic”, and “brutal” , and “cheat President” for what he is, running a “dictatorship”, which even leaves the so called “open minded” punters worrying about the dangers of the “frozen” affairs etc.

This can then be used to bludgeon the nascent Iranian nuclear industry, as the tools of ultimate destruction in the hands of unpredictable, cruel, and brutal “dictatorship”!! With the usual Zionist Fascio screaming; never again, and see how the “cheat president” treated his own people, by killing them and repressing them!!!!

Also in a cheeky and brazen move, there will be every effort spent to keep immune the exposed assets of the foreign SIS, as the article posted above already tries to separate the “trouble makers” read into it the foreigners proxy thugs, from the reformers. Although nowhere is any mention of the mother of all reformers the sponsors of the puppets for the Punch and Judy show, whom have started to syphon their ill gotten wealth in ten million dollar sums out of Iran, and or any mention of the hot market in the airline ticket out of Tehran, with most of the puppet masters making their discrete exits before the full weight of the revolutionary courts are thrown on these traitors.

The coming search and destroy operations to systematically purge the counter revolutionary cadres in Iran will be an opportunity to study the unhealthy influence of certain international factions, as well as a re-education for those Iranians whom have forgotten the revolution and the need for such remedy.

June 28, 2009

"US 'has agents working inside Iran' "

"The US has intelligence agents in Iran but it is not clear if they are providing help to the protest movement there, a former US national security adviser has told Al Jazeera."

"Brent Scowcroft said on Wednesday that "of course" the US had agents in Iran amid the ongoing pressure against the Iranian government by protesters opposed to the official result of its presidential election."

"But he added that he had no idea whether US agents had provided help to the opposition movement in Iran, which claims that the authorities rigged the June 12 election in favour of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the incumbent president."...

http://tinyurl.com/lazjpp

June 26, 2009

"U.S. grants support Iranian dissidents"

"WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is moving forward with plans to fund groups that support Iranian dissidents, records and interviews show, continuing a program that became controversial when it was expanded by President Bush."

"The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which reports to the secretary of state, has for the last year been soliciting applications for $20 million in grants to "promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Iran," according to documents on the agency's website. The final deadline for grant applications is June 30."...

tinyurl.com/kmd68h

Dr in Neda Video Gave Two Completely Different Stories
soc.culture.british – June 26, 2009

Version 1

Shot by a basij member hiding on the rooftop of a civilian house.
Irish Times – June 24, 2009

The circumstances of her death remain oblique apart from this account from a bystander: "A young woman who was standing with her father watching the protests was shot by a basij [pro-government militia] member hiding on the rooftop of a civilian house. He had clear shot [sic] at the girl and could not miss her.

"However, he aimed straight at her heart. I am a doctor, so I rushed to try to save her. But the impact of the gunshot was so fierce that the bullet had blasted inside the victim’s chest, and she died in less than two minutes.""
www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0624/1224249417475.html
----------------------

Version 2
Shot by an armed man on a motorcycle.
BBC Online – Thursday June 26, 2009 20:47 UK
Iran doctor tells of Neda's death

The doctor who tried to save an Iranian protester as she bled to death on a street in Tehran has told the BBC of her final moments.

Dr Hejazi also told how passers-by then seized an armed Basij militia volunteer who appeared to admit shooting Ms Soltan.

He doubted that he would be able to return to Iran after talking openly about Ms Soltan's killing.

"Anti-riot police were coming by motorcycles towards the crowd."

Dr Hejazi said he saw Ms Soltan, who he did not know, with an older man who he thought was her father but later on learned was her music teacher.

"Suddenly everything turned crazy. The police threw teargas and the motorcycles started rushing towards the crowd. We ran to an intersection and people were just standing. They didn't know what to do.

But later he saw protesters grab an armed man on a motorcycle.

"People shouted 'we got him, we got him'. They disarmed him and took out his identity card which showed he was a Basij member. People were furious and he was shouting, 'I didn't want to kill her'.

"People didn't know what do to do with him so they let him go. But they took his identity card. There are people there who know who he is. Some people were also taking photos of him."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8119713.stm
------------------

Yeah, sure, they just let the guy go. So where are the photos of the shooter???
+
Pucker your lips for the Apocalypse!

Source: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.british/browse_thread/thread/9a4cfa67511cbe47/17d865be17916cea?lnk=raot

Here we go AGAIN...

http://tinyurl.com/mmustj

29 June 2009

"Denials of US interference in Iran not credible"

"considerable evidence of extensive US operations against Iran, spanning a range of diplomatic, intelligence and military activities."...

http://tinyurl.com/maa327

29 June 2009

"Honduran military ousts president in coup"...

"The Honduran military ousted President Maunel Zelaya on Sunday morning, just before a planned national referendum. "...

tinyurl.com/nynabz

Now the Lebanese seem to be at each others throats again, with the Israeli Army maneuvering at the Lebanese border!

Any guesses where else next we will witness the pangs of "freedom, democracy and apple pie"?

Recollecting the profound brainfarts of a spinster, whose lesbian proclivities leave little room for understanding motherhood, going on record; "these are the birth pangs of a new democratic mid east" Condi Rice, in response to a huge massacre of the Arabs.

Seems the monkey trap getting set over and again based on yea olde apothecaries nostrums; chaos, more chaos, and even far more chaos to be sewn around the world as leeches,and more leeches, an blood letting if the patient did not improve, until the patient died, or accidentally got better. Trouble is these neo liberal/conservative morons locked into their own narrative, cannot comprehend the magnitudes of death and destruction these are wreaking around the world.

When will we start putting these bastards to trials for their crimes against humanity?

Now the Lebanese seem to be at each others throats again, with the Israeli Army maneuvering at the Lebanese border!

Any guesses where else next we will witness the pangs of "freedom, democracy and apple pie"?

Recollecting the profound brainfarts of a spinster, whose lesbian proclivities leave little room for understanding motherhood, going on record; "these are the birth pangs of a new democratic mid east" Condi Rice, in response to a huge massacre of the Arabs.

Seems the monkey trap getting set over and again based on yea olde apothecaries nostrums; chaos, more chaos, and even far more chaos to be sewn around the world as leeches,and more leeches, an blood letting if the patient did not improve, until the patient died, or accidentally got better. Trouble is these neo liberal/conservative morons locked into their own narrative, cannot comprehend the magnitudes of death and destruction these are wreaking around the world.

When will we start putting these bastards to trials for their crimes against humanity?

Any guesses where else next we will witness the pangs of "freedom, democracy and apple pie"?

Recollecting the profound brainfarts of a spinster, whose lesbian proclivities leave little room for understanding motherhood, going on record; "these are the birth pangs of a new democratic mid east" Condi Rice, in response to a huge massacre of the Arabs.

Seems the monkey trap getting set over and again based on yea olde apothecaries nostrums; chaos, more chaos, and even far more chaos to be sewn around the world as leeches,and more leeches, an blood letting if the patient did not improve, until the patient died, or accidentally got better. Trouble is these neo liberal/conservative morons locked into their own narrative, cannot comprehend the magnitudes of death and destruction these are wreaking around the world.

When will we start putting these bastards to trials for their crimes against humanity?

Sorry guys, I didn't feel thrice as strong about he last post!

However, to put the reaction of the establishment into perspective, the following article from one of the known SIS tapped outfits, would clarify the extent of their frustration;

Galloway stirs up a new storm with TV defence of regime
IRAN: the 'traitor' By Martin Williams
http://tinyurl.com/l5lzh4

Note the Traitor in quotes!!!

Also worth noting is, the rent a quote person getting quoted, who is a Diana Nammi, a Kurdish female (Kurdish as in Iraqi, Iranian, Turkish, or Syrian is not clarified) who is involved in: “Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation, the British charity set up in 2002 to support Middle Eastern women at risk of honour killings, domestic violence, forced marriages and physical abuse.”

Clearly on our way to Baghdad we set up this charity because we needed some human angle to work up the ire of the people whose taxes, and lives were going to be put on the line for the Iraq War adventure, and this still can be good for a few miles more, blackguarding all thing Muslim, and Iran.

Note the anger and the tone of the article, it bitterness is directed at Galloway for stating a tautology; the current shambles of the Third Green Wave is an Operation Ajax redux!

Evidently now stating the obvious is treason, and these kinds of facts are the kind of unspoken facts that one dare not to speak of, aye?

I love the smell of Freedom in morning!

Vamanos,

Rice is a war criminal. Agreed, to about the disinformation redolent of the pre-Iraq invasion period.

Whether she enjoys lying down with men, women or rainbow trout is neither here nor there.

In this respect, you're beginning to sound a little like that arch-feminist of these boards, Jimmy Giro.

eddie,

Here, perhaps, is why Iran has been struggling economically:

"........But that was not the whole story. Washington has been attempting to overthrow Iran’s Islamic government since the 1979 revolution and continues to do so in spite of pledges of neutrality in the current crisis.

The US has laid economic siege to Iran for 30 years, blocking desperately needed foreign investment, preventing technology transfers, and disrupting Iranian trade. In recent years, the US Congress voted $120 million for anti-regime media broadcasts into Iran, and $60-75 million funding opposition parties, violent underground Marxists like the Mujahidin-i-Khalq, and restive ethnic groups like Azeris, Kurds, and Arabs under the so-called "Iran Democracy Program." "

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22898.htm

Guys came across this little nugget;

"American forces have attempted to take over an Iranian oil field near the country's western border with Iraq, a security official says.

“US forces backed by tanks entered the Mousian area of the Dehloran County, laying around 100 meters of pipeline in Iranian territory," the source, talking on condition of anonymity, said Monday.

The source added that the pipes, marked with Iraqi flags, were blocked after Iranian forces pushed the “intruders” back across the border.

Iraqi officials have been notified of Iran's objection to American movements along the common border, according to the source. "
http://tinyurl.com/m4uske

Oh great.

Why don't we make a TV programme, to replace all those defunct housing/ DIY/ cooking/ gardening programes. Let's entitle it,

'Provocation, provocation, provocation'.

Suhayl Saadi,

The notion is not for introduction of sex into any and all subjects, as in eddie's case and his obsessive compulsive affliction of sex with everything!

Fact is to highlight the cynicism of a spinster who loathes the idea of "normal" pairings and by extension she loathes the idea of giving birth, however this she devil then decides to explain away a cold calculated mass murder, as some event that ought to be celebrated, as in birth of an infant!

The audacity of misanthropy in that statement is beyond reprehension!

However, back to the more pressing issues;

A- Does anyone recollect the balloons used as a protest in the series of the “velvet” revolutions so far, we all have witnessed? Which particular one used the transparent green plastic bin liners as balloons?

B- Has anyone seen the CNN, BBC et al trying to push the "green balloon protests" in Tehran?

The following was picked from another web site;

Iconic photo of Iranian protester is faked: reveals Italy's most conservative mainstream paper
http://tinyurl.com/kjs8gr

The latest data released by the Iranian Electoral Commission are as follows;

1- The “Third Green Wave” candidate ie Mousavie had appointed 40,600 that is forty thousands, and six hundreds electoral observers, whom were attending the polling stations throughout Iran, and observing the elections. Although Mr. Makhmalbaf who is the spokesperson of the Candidate Mousavie was not happy for these observers only to be observing with in the polling stations, he wanted the observers to accompany the voters into the individual booths and witness these voting!! (this in effect nullifies the secret ballot nature of the elections)

2- Also the ten percent recount of the total of the votes cast at random across Iran, which the Candidate Mousavie has rejected time and again, and has been continuing to ask for a re election. The results of these recounts, which in any scientific survey is as good as counting each vote individually, have been coming thorough in at least in three provinces with an increased Majority in favour of Dr. Ahmadinejad, and in Quome the results have held as per the initial results announced (this is very important because Rafsanjani was in Qoume trying to find backers for his coup d'etat).

3- The electoral commissioner, complaining about the reckless aspersions of the defeated Candidates on the electoral processes, admonished these candidates for belittling the efforts of six hundred thousand workers, and personnel involved in the elections, and such unjust questioning of these hard-working group's integrity. Furthermore, pointing out that the complaints registered, by the candidates had been so general, and lacking in detail which had resulted in some of the representatives of candidates to be so uncomfortable and these have refrained from attending the various meetings since lodging the perceived wrongs and hearsay as evidence of wrong doing.

4- The electoral commissioner further clarified his remarks by citing the following example; Candidate Mousavie representatives have maintained; some of the ballot boxes were already filled with votes, before delivering these to the various stations. This unjust and reckless contention discounts the fact that sixteen electoral observers witness the empty boxes getting tagged, and set in place in the relevant polling station, and fact that the candidate's representatives were late in turning up for the tagging and setting of the boxes, is a matter that candidate should address within his own operations, and cannot take these tardy attendees as any sign of impropriety, the commissioner went on to add elections are too serious for these to be delayed and stand in waiting for the sake of the representatives of one or more candidates making their way to the polling stations as and when these felt doing so.

These are contemporaneous data relayed to me by someone whom can read and speak Farsi, and whom has read the relevant news sites, and provided me with these synopsis.

Interesting. I suspect even more will out as time goes on.

There is no actual evidence of election fraud in Iran.

IranAffairs.com has compiled the list of claims and none stands scrutiny.

Think for a moment: The opposition leader Mousavi was a former Prime Minister who was vetted and cleared to run for office. And his his election victory was supposed to pose such a signficant threat to the regime that they had to resort to election fraud to keep him out? Rubbish.