6.
President Obama publicly stated position progressed smoothly in tandem
with CNN propaganda: first, that "the election had questions", then,
"possibly involved some fraud', then, probably fraudulent, winding up
with the "obviously" word in agreement with a media consensus of fraud,
throwing "some doubt on the legitimacy of his holding office'. No
commentary on how a fraud of such proportions be perpetrated under the
eyes of two former presidents, one ex-prime minister and all there
campaign workers and election poll monitors
7. The TV networks,, CNN leading, also characterized this "green color revolution', as a women's liberation affair, notwithstanding that Iranian women make up 64% of university students and unlike in other Muslim nations work as professionals in all fields, medicine, science, law and economics. The claim that those protesting came from all walks of life cannot hold up to scrutiny. Iran is still a third world nation and a country with solid class distinctions. The demonstrations, whether orchestrated or spontaneous or a mixture of both only took place in the few large gems of Iran's templed cities. But more than a third of Iran's population is rural, another third living in small cities and towns.
8. As the days wore on and CNN attributed the smaller crowds to a fear of beatings and arrests, in U.S. media round table discussions and interviews of experts on Iran the opinion expressed is that this movement is no longer about Mousavi or rigged elections, but about legitimacy of Iran being governed by a dictatorship of mullahs. The charge of election fraud is now in limbo, but while no longer important, pertinent, or necessary for the attack on Ahmadinejad and the present Iranian regime and government, yet all commentators and U.S. officials, including Obama, continue to point out that Ahmadinejad has less legitimacy for "the high probability that his reelection was somehow fixed."
9. CNN and the other networks, NY Times and newspaper studiously avoid any comparison with the events of 1954. Why have these 2009 disturbances not kindled interest in reading up on the CIA sponsored election riots in "54 that led to the overthrow of Iranian democracy , the arrest of popular Prime Minister's Mossadeg (he had nationalized the Anglo-US oil companies) and the long dictatorship of the US supported Shah, with the U.S. overseeing the torturing by the feared SAVAK Secret Police trained from the US Embassy. The CIA had arranged election riots in the street similar to 2009 with all kinds of false rumors planted etc. This "Operation Ajax," as the 1953 CIA-run plot was code-named, ousted Mossadegh's secular government and installed Mohammad Reza Shah.
"U.S.
approved suspension of democracy, arrest and jailing of popular oil
nationalizing Prime Minister Mosadegh. CIA official Kermit Roosevelt,
in charge of how to achieve Eisenhower's request for On 4 April 1953,
CIA director Dulles approved US$1 million to be used "in any way that
would bring about the fall of Mosaddeq' - massive protests, engineered
by Roosevelt's team, took place across the city and elsewhere with
tribesmen paid to be at the ready to assist the coup. Fake anti- and
pro-monarchy protesters, both paid by Roosevelt (as he reports in his
book, cited), violently clashed in the streets, looting and burning
mosques and newspapers, leaving almost 300 dead. The pro-monarchy
leadership, chosen, hidden and finally unleashed at the right moment by
the CIA team, led by retired army General and former Minister of
Interior in Mosaddeq's cabinet, Fazlollah Zahedi joined with underworld
figures such as the Rashidian brothers and local strongman Shaban
Jafari, to gain the upper hand on 19 August 1953. The
military joined on cue: pro-Shah tank regiments stormed the capital and
bombarded the prime minister's official residence, on Roosevelt's cue,
according to his book." [[Wikipedia entry "Plot to depose Mosaddeq"]
10. Though it sticks in the minds of anyone interested in monitoring the CIA, media does not take into account the fairly recent bill passed by Congress openly allocating $400,000,000 for designated for destabilization of Iranian government under the code words "promoting democratic change." Media has taught with continuous indignation that clearly that Iran was our enemy ever since Iranian students arrested our embassy and CIA personnel. This large sum goes unmentioned. No one asks what the CIA did with this money besides funding the usual armed groups - one inside Iraq now under attack from Iraqis now that US military protection has been withdrawn..
On May 22, 2007, ABC News reported that "The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert 'black' operation to destabilize the Iranian government, [according to] current and former officials in the intelligence community"
Seymour Hersh, the investigative reporter for the New Yorker magazine who first broke the story about the Abu Graib prison in Iraq, later reported that the Democrat-controlled Congress had approved up to $400 million to fund this CIA destabilization campaign.
That CIA agents aren't authorized to use deadly force while carrying out secret operations against Iran. But they don't have to. They use proxies.
With large and violent antigovernment protests following the June 12 election, is it possible that this vast array of U.S. government efforts all of which are dedicated to promoting the overthrow or at least the undermining of the Iranian government wouldn't have been cranked into high gear to try and influence events in some way? Wouldn't it try to steer street protests into violent uprisings? Wouldn't it be easy to promote "propaganda, disinformation" through anonymous means like Facebook, Internet blogs and Twitter?
This is from a June 25 story in USA Today: "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 [George W.] Bush."
That story, published 13 days after the Iranian elections, explains that the U.S. Agency for International Development, which reports to the U.S. secretary of state, had for the last year been soliciting applications for $20 million in grants to "promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Iran."
Clearly, that's internal interference. After all, imagine how Americans would have reacted if Iran had allocated millions of dollars to "promote democracy" in Florida after George W. Bush stole the 2000 presidential election?
Almost half a billion dollars! And the CIA has its secret billions to boot. (Was that huge amount of money not spent well? So well, in fact, that even peace organizations and lots of progressive writers were convinced by conglomerate media's depiction of a vicious Iranian government and a mullah led justified revolt for the fraud of a dishonest election.
11. While independent minded people in the Third World remain skeptical, Mousavi's election cause has been taken up by the whole media managed capitalist First World. Has anyone researched what kind of a Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi was from 31 October 1981 until August 1989?, that might explain a media characterized meteoric rise in popularity during the last weeks of the 2009 campaign?
Some brutal homicidal decisions were attributed to Mousavi domestically, and Mousavi was unpopular when sought to keep the war with Iraq going even when already stalemated, at great cost of lives. Mousavi did not finish his term as Prime Minister as the office was abolished by parliament during his tenure.
7. The TV networks,, CNN leading, also characterized this "green color revolution', as a women's liberation affair, notwithstanding that Iranian women make up 64% of university students and unlike in other Muslim nations work as professionals in all fields, medicine, science, law and economics. The claim that those protesting came from all walks of life cannot hold up to scrutiny. Iran is still a third world nation and a country with solid class distinctions. The demonstrations, whether orchestrated or spontaneous or a mixture of both only took place in the few large gems of Iran's templed cities. But more than a third of Iran's population is rural, another third living in small cities and towns.
8. As the days wore on and CNN attributed the smaller crowds to a fear of beatings and arrests, in U.S. media round table discussions and interviews of experts on Iran the opinion expressed is that this movement is no longer about Mousavi or rigged elections, but about legitimacy of Iran being governed by a dictatorship of mullahs. The charge of election fraud is now in limbo, but while no longer important, pertinent, or necessary for the attack on Ahmadinejad and the present Iranian regime and government, yet all commentators and U.S. officials, including Obama, continue to point out that Ahmadinejad has less legitimacy for "the high probability that his reelection was somehow fixed."
9. CNN and the other networks, NY Times and newspaper studiously avoid any comparison with the events of 1954. Why have these 2009 disturbances not kindled interest in reading up on the CIA sponsored election riots in "54 that led to the overthrow of Iranian democracy , the arrest of popular Prime Minister's Mossadeg (he had nationalized the Anglo-US oil companies) and the long dictatorship of the US supported Shah, with the U.S. overseeing the torturing by the feared SAVAK Secret Police trained from the US Embassy. The CIA had arranged election riots in the street similar to 2009 with all kinds of false rumors planted etc. This "Operation Ajax," as the 1953 CIA-run plot was code-named, ousted Mossadegh's secular government and installed Mohammad Reza Shah.
10. Though it sticks in the minds of anyone interested in monitoring the CIA, media does not take into account the fairly recent bill passed by Congress openly allocating $400,000,000 for designated for destabilization of Iranian government under the code words "promoting democratic change." Media has taught with continuous indignation that clearly that Iran was our enemy ever since Iranian students arrested our embassy and CIA personnel. This large sum goes unmentioned. No one asks what the CIA did with this money besides funding the usual armed groups - one inside Iraq now under attack from Iraqis now that US military protection has been withdrawn..
On May 22, 2007, ABC News reported that "The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert 'black' operation to destabilize the Iranian government, [according to] current and former officials in the intelligence community"
Seymour Hersh, the investigative reporter for the New Yorker magazine who first broke the story about the Abu Graib prison in Iraq, later reported that the Democrat-controlled Congress had approved up to $400 million to fund this CIA destabilization campaign.
That CIA agents aren't authorized to use deadly force while carrying out secret operations against Iran. But they don't have to. They use proxies.
With large and violent antigovernment protests following the June 12 election, is it possible that this vast array of U.S. government efforts all of which are dedicated to promoting the overthrow or at least the undermining of the Iranian government wouldn't have been cranked into high gear to try and influence events in some way? Wouldn't it try to steer street protests into violent uprisings? Wouldn't it be easy to promote "propaganda, disinformation" through anonymous means like Facebook, Internet blogs and Twitter?
This is from a June 25 story in USA Today: "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 [George W.] Bush."
That story, published 13 days after the Iranian elections, explains that the U.S. Agency for International Development, which reports to the U.S. secretary of state, had for the last year been soliciting applications for $20 million in grants to "promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Iran."
Clearly, that's internal interference. After all, imagine how Americans would have reacted if Iran had allocated millions of dollars to "promote democracy" in Florida after George W. Bush stole the 2000 presidential election?
Almost half a billion dollars! And the CIA has its secret billions to boot. (Was that huge amount of money not spent well? So well, in fact, that even peace organizations and lots of progressive writers were convinced by conglomerate media's depiction of a vicious Iranian government and a mullah led justified revolt for the fraud of a dishonest election.
11. While independent minded people in the Third World remain skeptical, Mousavi's election cause has been taken up by the whole media managed capitalist First World. Has anyone researched what kind of a Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi was from 31 October 1981 until August 1989?, that might explain a media characterized meteoric rise in popularity during the last weeks of the 2009 campaign?
Some brutal homicidal decisions were attributed to Mousavi domestically, and Mousavi was unpopular when sought to keep the war with Iraq going even when already stalemated, at great cost of lives. Mousavi did not finish his term as Prime Minister as the office was abolished by parliament during his tenure.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
2
2
