IRAN being setup? (From american CONSERVATIVE Mag)

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Xymphora is skeptical of the Iran story

Postby starroute » Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 am

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2005/07/birth-of-shiite-empire.html">xymphora.blogspot.com/200...mpire.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>It's clear that calls by various neocons, including Ledeen, for an attack on Iran are not directed at the American people or lawmakers, but at the people and leaders of Iran. The talk of war, even nuclear attack, coupled with other American actions, including the neocon support of the anti-Iranian MEK terrorist group, probable CIA incursions into Iran to create havoc by setting off bombs, and the recent highly publicized crash of a U-2 obviously spying on Iran, are intended to create a strategy of tension in Iran, pushing the country into the hands of religious leaders. The results of the recent Iranian elections prove the success of this strategy. Why would the Zionist neocons want to create an Islamic dictatorship in Iran, led by Shi'ite clergy, with effective control over Iraq?<br><br>The Israelis and their agents in the American government tricked the Americans into the attack on Iraq, in part through the use of the forged Niger documents. The long-term Israeli plan has to answer the question of how Israel will build 'Greater Israel' when faced with a completely hostile Muslim world. The only answer is based on three principles:<br><br> 1. The divide-and-conquer approach as set out by Oded Yinon (and written about here many times);<br><br> 2. The 'doctrine of the periphery', the idea that Israeli interests can be advanced by making alliances with those non-Arab states like Turkey and Iran which are not adjacent to Israel; and<br><br> 3. The Shi'ite-Sunni rift within Islam.<br><br>Israel's obvious enemies are mostly Sunnis. If you're going to be fighting Sunnis, the obvious trick is to create a new ally, a Shi'ite empire consisting of Iran and Iraq. The minor annoyance of Iranian support to Hezbollah is far outweighed by the advantages of creating a new and very powerful player in the Middle East, a player who, for religious reasons, probably hates your enemies more than it hates you. 'Greater Israel' can extend all the way to the Euphrates over Sunni lands, and your new friend may even help you (it will be a much bigger challenge heading towards the Nile!).<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I don't back this 100%, but it ties in closely enough with things I've read in the past about Israeli notions of creating a Middle East entirely dominated by themselves at one end and the Iranians at the other to sound plausible. (India also figures into these long-range plans to remake the power balance of southern Asia.) At the very least, it should be taken into consideration as one possibility. <p></p><i></i>
starroute
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:01 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Xymphora is skeptical of the Iran story

Postby DrDebugDU » Sun Jul 31, 2005 5:28 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>It's clear that calls by various neocons, including Ledeen, for an attack on Iran are not directed at the American people or lawmakers, but at the people and leaders of Iran. The talk of war, even nuclear attack, coupled with other American actions, including the neocon support of the anti-Iranian MEK terrorist group, probable CIA incursions into Iran to create havoc by setting off bombs, and the recent highly publicized crash of a U-2 obviously spying on Iran, are intended to create a strategy of tension in Iran, pushing the country into the hands of religious leaders.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>On the one hand he is right in his saying what we are currently seeing are attempts of trying to destablize the country, however the Bush administration has been proven capable of starting pre-emptive wars. So I don't rule out the possibility of an attack on Iran in the near future. Also a new 9/11 is not beyond the current administration either.<br><br>There are already quite a number of stories about civil unrest in Iran:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Unrest continues in NW Iran<br>SMCCDI (Information Service)<br>Jul 30, 2005<br><br>Unrest is continuing in several northwestern cities of Iran located in the Kurdistan and W. Azarbaijan provinces. Cities, such as, Mahabad, Marivan, Baneh, Saghez, Mian-Do-Ab, Marivan, Oshnovieh and Sannandaj are the daily scenes of expression of exasperation against an unpopular regime notorious for Human Rights abuses.<br><br>Tens of residents gathered, today, in Sannandaj in order to request the release of all arrested, an immediate exit of the regime's special forces and the trial of agents involved in killing and murder of dissidents and protesters.<br><br>Popular demonstrations and scattered riots have been taking place in the last two weeks ago, following the publication of the mutilated body of a killed young activist who was arrested on July 9th.<br><br>Several demonstrators and security agents have been killed in the following daily clashes and tens of public buildings have been damaged.<br><br>The regime has had to deploy hundreds of its special troops, including its Iraqi and Lebanese mercenaries, in order to control relatively the situation. <br><br>It's to note that more and more of region's residents are resorting to protest following President Bush's wise statement on the "need of respecting the territorial integrity of Iran". Till then, most residents were fearing to become indirect tools in service of few independentist groups who are targeting the split of the two provinces from Iran.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>The problem with these reports is that they all seem to come from sites like SMCCDI which had received funding from the CIA in the past, so somehow there is a high likelyhood that the CIA is already attempting to cause student unrest in Iran.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>15. There is as yet no evidence to corroborate the allegations of the Iranian authorities that the US intelligence has been behind the current wave of student unrest. However, it appears to be true that, after repeatedly seeing the potential and clandestine operational capability of the pro-communist students of the Universities, the CIA has started shifting its bets to them rather than placing them on the monarchists and the MEK for destabilising the Teheran regime.<br><br>16. Certain Western-based students' organisations such as the Students' Movement Co-ordination Committee for Democracy in Iran (<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>SMCCDI</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->), which do not appear to be directly associated with the communists, were already in receipt of <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>financial assistance and guidance in agitprop methods from the CIA in the past</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. Now, an increasing part of this assistance is being diverted to those directly associated with the communists.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.saag.org/papers8/paper719.html">www.saag.org/papers8/paper719.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>And these stories of unrest do make sense as an excuse to attack Iran. The Bush cabal can start claiming that there is widespread (US backed) dissent in Iran among the students, they are working on nuclear weapons and therefore we need to liberate Iran <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=drdebugdu>DrDebugDU</A> at: 7/31/05 3:34 pm<br></i>
DrDebugDU
 
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Re:DIPLOMATIC CABLES 07/30/2005

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:58 pm

DIPLOMATIC CABLES 07/30/2005<br><br><br> WASHINGTON, DC AND TASHKENT -- July 30, 2005 -- As first reported here on July 8, relations between Washington and Tashkent finally boiled over after evidence that Pentagon special operations teams were involved in the Islamist revolt against President Islam Karimov's government in the town of Andijan on May 17. On July 29, Tashkent formally evicted the United States from its airbase at Karshi-Khanabad, also known as "K2." The Pentagon was given 180 days to evacuate all personnel, aircraft, and equipment from the base, which had been used by the United States since the Afghan war broke out following 911. The State Department was apparently blindsided by the abrupt Uzbek decision. It planned to send a diplomat to Tashkent on August 2 to negotiate the base's future. However, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had already decided to scrap K2 after he secured continued basing rights in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The Uzbek media has been abuzz with revelations that Pentagon special operations teams secretly met in Afghanistan with Tohir Yoldashev and members of his Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), a group the U.S. State Department considers a terrorist organization allied to "Al Qaeda." The meetings were reported to have occurred before and after the Andijan revolt, which was blamed on IMU forces. The US-IMU meetings in Afghanistan were also referenced in an article in Asia Times by India's former ambassador to Uzbekistan and Turkey, M. K. Bhadrakumar. <br><br><br>A number of US military-contractor incidents have taken place in and around Baghdad International Airport.<br> WASHINGTON, DC AND TASHKENT -- July 30, 2005 -- As first reported here on July 8, relations between Washington and Tashkent finally boiled over after evidence that Pentagon special operations teams were involved in the Islamist revolt against President Islam Karimov's government in the town of Andijan on May 17. On July 29, Tashkent formally evicted the United States from its airbase at Karshi-Khanabad, also known as "K2." The Pentagon was given 180 days to evacuate all personnel, aircraft, and equipment from the base, which had been used by the United States since the Afghan war broke out following 911. The State Department was apparently blindsided by the abrupt Uzbek decision. It planned to send a diplomat to Tashkent on August 2 to negotiate the base's future. However, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had already decided to scrap K2 after he secured continued basing rights in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The Uzbek media has been abuzz with revelations that Pentagon special operations teams secretly met in Afghanistan with Tohir Yoldashev and members of his Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), a group the U.S. State Department considers a terrorist organization allied to "Al Qaeda." The meetings were reported to have occurred before and after the Andijan revolt, which was blamed on IMU forces. The US-IMU meetings in Afghanistan were also referenced in an article in Asia Times by India's former ambassador to Uzbekistan and Turkey, M. K. Bhadrakumar. <br>The Uzbek government obviously believes the Pentagon has been dealing with terrorist groups and decided to deny the Americans a base from which they might be using to foment Islamist terrorist operations in Uzbekistan and in surrounding countries.<br><br>ROME AND WASHINGTON, DC -- July 23, 2005 -- Arrest warrants for six additional American intelligence agents have been issued by Milan, Italy magistrate Chiara Nobili. The warrants were originally denied when warrants were issued for 14 other agents, thought to be members of a secret hybrid Pentagon/CIA Special Activities Division group called Task Force 121, controlled by the National Security Council in coordination with the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. The six additional warrants are reportedly for: Eliana Castaldo, Victor Castellano, John Thomas Gurley, Robert James Kirkland, Anne Lidia Jenkins, Liliana Brenda Ibanez.<br><br>KATHMANDU AND WASHINGTON, DC -- July 18, 2005 -- As President Bush welcomes Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the White House, there is renewed interest in the U.S. role in Nepal, where the pro-U.S. King has suspended the constitution and jailed political opponents. King Gyanendra, an old friend of Henry Kissinger, took over power in June 2001 after a still murky coup d'etat against the predecessor Royal Family. The killing of the Royal Family, including King Birendra and the Queen, was falsely blamed on a mass killing by the late Crown Prince Dipendra, said to be despondent over his controversial marriage plans. Now comes word that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has pressed UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to declare Nepal a "failed state" and put it under UN control, with the King retaining monarchical duties. Nepal has faced an increased Maoist revolt since the regicide against the Royal Family and Rice's initiative is clearly aimed at rolling back Maoist gains with the help of the British and encircle China with a ring of U.S. bases. The Bush and Blair administrations have provided Gyanendra with weapons and special operations training. Rice's initiative is suspect since declassified U.S. State Department cables reveal that it was her National Security Council (and the Commander in Chief, US Pacific), not the State Department, that coordinated President Bush's personal communications with Gyanendra after he seized power. <br><br>DATE = 2001/06/06<br><br>FM AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU<br><br>TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE<br><br>SECRET<br><br>…3. (C) CINCPAC [THIS ENTIRE PARAGRAPH IS BLACKED OUT]<br><br>4. (SBU) POTUS [PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES] MESSAGE: WE LIKE YOUR DRAFT TEXT FOR THE MESSAGE, CLEARLY AN IMPROVEMENT OVER OUT [sic] EFFORT. REPORTS OF KING GYANENDRA’S SPEECH VARY ON WHETHER HE ACTUALLY ENDORSED “DEMOCRACY.” SINCE THE MOST DEFINITIVE GOVERNMENT NEWSPAPER’S TEXT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE WORD, WE THINK IT OK TO INCLUDE THE REFERENCE IN THE LETTER. NE [sic] SMALL SUGGESTION: IN THE LAST SENTENCE, SUBSTITUTE “YOUR NATION MOVES” FOR “YOU MOVE.”<br><br>6. (C) DS HQ ACTIVITIES: [ENTIRE PARAGRAPH BLACKED OUT]<br> <br><br> <br><br> DATE = 2001/06/06<br><br>FM SECSTATE WASHDC<br><br>TO AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU IMMEDIATE<br><br>CONFIDENTIAL<br><br>POTUS MESSAGE TO THE KING<br><br>2. (SBU) HERE IS PROPOSED TEXT THAT WE PASSED TODAY TO NSC [NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL] FOR PRESIDENTIAL MSG. PLEASE ADVISE IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS VERSION.<br><br>6. (C) DS HQ ACTIVITIES [ENTIRE PARAGRAPH BLACKED OUT]<br><br>POWELL<br> <br><br>Another cable from the US Embassy in Kathmandu reports on the widepsread belief of Dr. Baburam Bhattarai and the Maoists that the coup in Nepal was organized by the United States and the previous right-wing Janata Party government of India:<br><br>DATE = 2001/06/07<br> FM AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU<br><br>TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE<br><br>CONFIDENTIAL<br><br>…THE BHATTARAI ARTICLE<br><br>1. (U) BHATTARAI IS ONE OF THE MAOIST’S CHIEF INTELLECTUALS. HIS ARTICLE IS FULL OF REFERENCES TO HIMALAYAN HISTORY, BOTH THAT OF NEPAL AND BHUTAN. HE CALLS THE LATEST PALACE KILLING A 2001 VERSION OF NEPAL’S 1846 “KOT MASSACRE.” THE ORIGINAL “KOT MASSACRE” HAPPENED AT THE KATHMANDU ROYAL PALACE WHEN PRIME MINISTER BHIMSEN THAPA AND OVER 100 MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL FAMILY WERE GUNNED DOWN, CLEARING THE WAY FOR A HEREDITARY PRIME MINISTERIAL SUCCESSION OF THE RANA FAMILY. . .<br><br>2. (SBU) IMPLICITLY, BHATTARAI ACCUSES KING GYANENDRA OF MASTERMINDING A PALACE COUP THROUGH THE MURDER OF HIS BROTHER KING BIRENDRA AND THE REST OF THE ROYAL FAMILY. BHATTARAI ACCUSES GYANENDRA, IN COVER-UP, OIF [sic] INVENTING THE MOST COMMONLY REPEATED THEORIES OF WHY THE CROWN PRINCE MIGHT HAVE COMMITTED THE REGICIDE: “LOVE AFFAIRS” AND ACCIDENTIAL FIRINGS/ EXPLOSIONS. IN A TELLING LINE, BHATTARAI SAYS: “LATER, A VERY COMICAL EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN BY TRUE VILLAINS OF THE EVENT--THAT AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON EXPLODED AND KILLED PEOPLE TARGETING THEM ONE BY ONE.”<br><br>3. (U) BHATTARAI SAYS THAT BIRENDRA WAS MURDERED BECAUSE HIS IDEALS WERE TRULY NATIONALIST AND POLITICAL, AND THUS HE WAS OPPOSED BY THE IMPERIALISTS AND EXPANSIONISTS (THE AMERICANS AND INDIANS). BHATTARAI NOTES SEVERAL SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE MAOISTS AND BIRENDRA INCLUDING THE KING’S NATIONALISM AND HIS “SOFT POLICY TOWARD CHINA.” HE SAYS THE RAW (INDIAN INTELLIGENCE) AND THE FBI, THROUGH ITS OFFICE IN DELHI, PLANNED A PROCESS TO FIRST MAKE NEPAL A “BHUTAN” AND THEN A “SIKKIM.”<br><br>1. (U) ON WEDNESDAY THE MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS ESTABLISHED AN OFFICE TO SUPPORT LOCAL MEDIA AND THE MANY FOREIGN JOURNALISTS COVERING THE PALACE SLAYINGS. THE MINISTER ASKED ALL JOURNALISTS TO PUBLISH ONLY FACTUAL NEWS. ON WEDNESDAY EVENING THE GOVERNMENT-OWNED NEPAL TV WARNED ALL JOURNALISTS NOT TO SPECULATE OR ENGAGE IN RUMOR MONGERING REGARDING THE MASSACRE UNTIL THE COMMISSION RELEASED ITS REPORT…<br><br>11. (SBU) . . . REPORTEDLY, STAR NEWS (AN INDIAN SATELLITE CHANNEL), WAS TAKE [sic] OFF CABLE FOR TWO DAYS WHEN IT WAS BROADCASTING SPECULATION ABOUT KING GYANENDRA AND/OR PRINCE PARAS BEING BEHIND THE MURDERS. ONCE THAT SPECULATION STOPPED RUNNING, REPORTEDLY, STAR NEWS BROADCASTS TO NEPAL WERE RESUMED.<br> <br><br>LONDON, July 11-12, 2005 -- Some informed British sources believe that the recent London Transport bombings may have been the work of far right-wing British terrorists hoping to stir up tensions with the nation's large Muslim population. There are several reasons for this belief. One is that GCHQ and MI-5 intercepts of the communications of Muslim groups in Britain and abroad -- groups suspected of ties to militants -- revealed that targeted individuals and organizations were genuinely surprised at the London bombings. Another is the statement of former Metropolitan London police commissioner Sir John Stevens that the perpetrators were "almost certainly" British. Although many accused Stevens of stirring up racial tensions, he never referred to British Muslims. British Prime Minister Tony Blair ruled out any probe of the bombings claiming it would "distract" from the investigation.<br> <br>more<br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/diplomatic/foreign.htm" target="top">www.waynemadsenreport.com/diplomatic/foreign.htm</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><br> <br><br> <br><br> <br><br> <br><br> <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Postby starroute » Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:58 pm

This is one more Neocon group we should definitely be keeping an eye on. I ran into them a few months ago (when trying to find out what had become of the World Anti-Communist League) and now they seem to be involved with the drum-beating against Iran as well. Here are some quotes:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/">www.waynemadsenreport.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>July 31, 2005 -- CIA says Iranian hostage photo does not show Iranian President-elect. As reported here on July 1 and 2, neocon-supplied photos intended to "prove" that incoming Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as one of the hostage takers at the U.S. embassy in Teheran in 1979 have proven to be as phony as Iraqi WMDs and Niger government documents. A CIA analysis has concluded that Ahmadinejad was not one of the hostage takers shown in a photo released by a London-based Iranian exile group tied to the neocon Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=359">thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=359</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Yesterday, Fox posted a 1,500-word “news article” that purportedly “places responsibility squarely in [U.N. chief Kofi Annan’s] office for obscuring mismanagement” of the Oil-for-Food program. The piece was co-authored by Claudia Rosett, who is identified at the end of the article only as “a journalist-in-residence with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.” Sounds harmless enough, right?<br><br>Except the Foundation is an “aggressive…neoconservative think tank” designed to “shape American thinking on war, terrorism, and the Middle East,” according to a gushing piece in American Conservative magazine. And Claudia Rosett is described by prominent conservative columnist Victor Davis Hanson as the “single brave maverick” to take on the oil-for-food scandal, which the right-wing has deceptively shaped into an anti-U.N. smear campaign. Moreover, Rosett’s think tank “has been attacking the United Nations since long before corruption in oil-for-food came to light.” In May 2003, Foundation President Clifford D. May blamed “the deaths of millions of innocent victims” on “U.N. fecklessness.”<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/fdd.php">rightweb.irc-online.org/org/fdd.php</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) was founded two days after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Although FDD is nominally bipartisan, right-wing Republicans direct the policy institute, which focuses on “terrorism, the ideologies that drive terrorism, and the policies that can most effectively eradicate terrorism.” In its view, the “major ideological threat to democracies comes from Islamic extremism and rogue states,” which are the leading supporters of terrorism and totalitarianism.” In keeping with its neoconservative ideology, FDD advocates that the “United States should lead the war of ideas in the battle between freedom and totalitarianism.”<br><br>Republican Party insiders dominate FDD's board and staff. FDD's three board members are Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, and Jeane Kirkpatrick. Its two “distinguished advisers” are Newt Gingrich and James Woolsey, while other advisers include Gary Bauer, Richard Perle, William Kristol, Walid Phares, Charles Krauthammer, and Frank Gaffney-all prominent neoconservative figures with multiple links to the Defense Policy Board, Center for Security Policy, American Enterprise Institute, Weekly Standard, and Project for the New American Century. Among FDD's advisers are also several prominent Democrats associated with the Democratic Leadership Council and the Progressive Policy Institute, including Donna Brazzile, a close associate of Sen. Joseph Lieberman; and Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA).<br><br>FDD is best known through the frequent media interviews and news analysis by FDD's Clifford May, who before joining FDD was director of communications (1997-2001) for the Republican National Committee. May's other institutional affiliations include being vice-chair of the Republican Jewish Coalition. A veteran journalist, May continues to contribute regularly to National Review.<br><br><snip><br><br>According to one accounting, FDD arose as a strategy to gain support for Israel's response to the Palestinian intifada and to diminish public outcry against Israeli actions. Its predecessor was known as Emet: An Educational Initiative, Inc., which was founded in early 2003 by the same Jewish donors that support FDD. Emet was conceived as a public relations effort to support Israel through offices in Washington and Israel. In addition to its media work, Emet initiated educational tours to Israel for U.S. university students and professors. FDD operates a similar although much larger educational exchange program that takes students and professors who are interested in being activists in Israeli counterterrorism issues when they return to the United States.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/may/may.php">rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/may/may.php</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>May is codirector with Frank Gaffney of the Alliance for Research and National Security, which is a joint project of the Center for Security Policy and FDD. The focus of the research institute is terrorism and counterterrorism in the Middle East, particularly in Israel.<br><br>On September 29, 2003, May wrote in his National Review Online column that he known that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA long before right-wing columnist Robert Novak blew her cover. In an apparent attempt to discredit her husband, Amb. Joseph Wilson, who had challenged the administration's claims that Iraq was buying yellowcake from Africa, someone in the administration had shared information about Plame's CIA affiliation with as many as five journalists, including Novak. Writing on the same day that the Washington Post confirmed that the CIA had requested a criminal investigation of the affair, May boasted: "That wasn't news to me. I had been told that-but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer that it was something that insiders were well aware of."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=starroute>starroute</A> at: 7/31/05 9:59 pm<br></i>
starroute
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:01 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: IRAN being setup? (From american CONSERVATIVE Mag)

Postby foodforlife » Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:39 am

I don't buy the "Iran's next" story.<br>Check this out: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/helping.htm">emperors-clothes.com/docs/helping.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
foodforlife
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:03 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: IRAN being setup? (From american CONSERVATIVE Mag)

Postby dbeach » Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:45 am

Iran yes or no?<br><br>its still rule by FEAR..Patsy act and real id allow for USSR internal chekpoints through the USA<br><br>1984 is here whether attack Iraq evolves into slam Iran<br>or not ..bush has more powers than any pres in history<br>and the sheelpe are stupid enough to follow him<br><br>Its really up to you to stop all this insanity... <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

considerations

Postby rain » Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:29 am

of Iran - if, when, how, why, perhaps could be weighed in regard to other considerations. <br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.israelnationalnews.com/print.php3?what=news&id=82226">www.israelnationalnews.co...s&id=82226</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>(and for those who have an interest, I'd just draw your attention to the mention of '38 years').<br><br>but there's a curious hybrid bovine-nuke theme occurring at the moment too. which, at the risk of blowing sacred cows out of the water, perhaps suggests consideration of a wider context.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/Laura-Knight-Jadczyk/fastest_growing_cult.htm">www.cassiopaea.org/cass/L...g_cult.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>ring-a-ring-a-rosie...<br>'aaah fehu'. 'bless you'.<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
rain
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 12:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: IRAN being setup? (From american CONSERVATIVE Mag)

Postby heath7 » Mon Aug 01, 2005 4:53 pm

President Bush, at his first oppurtunity during this congressional break, recess-appointed Bolton to the UN. They say that Bolton's mission is to reform the UN, but his chief ambition before being nominated was war with Iran. He is one of the few officials who have stated unequivocally that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, something the president himself has not been so bold about (although he would if he could). Bolton epitomizes the failure that is Iraq... nix that; Iraq would be a far worse disaster if Bolton always got his way.<br><br>In the very least, Bolton's stay on the East River should be eventful. <p></p><i></i>
heath7
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 9:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: IRAN being setup? (From american CONSERVATIVE Mag)

Postby DrDebugDU » Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:09 am

Buzzflash has a nice about this:<br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.buzzflash.com/bradenton/05/08/images/01bradenton.jpg"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i></i>
DrDebugDU
 
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: IRAN being setup? (From american CONSERVATIVE Mag)

Postby heath7 » Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:26 pm

Is Iran being setup some how?<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticleSearch.aspx?storyID=212903%2005-Aug-2005%20RTRS&srch=iran" target="top">U.S. backs Iran civilian nuke program for first time</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Friday for the first time accepted that Iran can develop civilian nuclear programs, backing an EU proposal that would allow Tehran to pursue atomic power in exchange for giving up fuel work.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <p></p><i></i>
heath7
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 9:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: IRAN Phase Two

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:37 pm

<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2005/08/most-important-story-of-our-time.html">cannonfire.blogspot.com/2...-time.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>......<br><br><br>I believe they did so because an attack on Iran was always Phase Two of the scheme -- a scheme the neocons concocted well after the conclusion of the first Gulf War. If America topples the government in Tehran, the threat of a spreading Shiite theocracy ends. <br><br>The very fact of the attack on Iraq has always presupposed the existence of a long-standing plan to attack Iran. Doing one nation requires doing the other. Once the United States gains control of both governments, Shiite fundamentalism will end and we will "own" oil reserves comparable to those in Saudi Arabia, a country which may soon lack stability.<br><br>Such was the plan. Such, I believe, is still the plan, despite the problems in Iraq.<br><br>The facts on the ground do much to justify this viewpoint.<br><br>We have already noted the uncontradicted report (authored by former CIA man Phil Giraldi) that Cheney tasked the Pentagon to draw up plans for a nuclear attack on Iran after the next major terrorist act -- regardless of Iranian guilt or innocence. Now we have Ray McGovern's latest column, which draws, in turn, from this Washington Post piece.<br><br><br>Whatever plans Dick Cheney and his neo-conservatives may have had to conjure up a nuclear threat from Iran as "justification" for military action have been sharply undercut by some timely leaks to the Washington Post. In a redux of President George W. Bush's spin on the "grave and growing" danger from Iraq, Cheney protege and newly appointed U.N. Ambassador John Bolton is on record warning that Iranian "deception" must not be allowed to continue much longer: "It will be too late. Iran will have nuclear weapons."<br><br>Not for ten more years, report sources close to the U.S. intelligence community in yesterday's lead story in the Post. Several government officials with access to the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran have told journalist Dafna Linzer of its main judgments. By doing so, Linzer's sources seem determined not to sit idly by as our country is misled once again into a war favored only by "neo-conservatives" in Washington and their counterparts in the far-right Likud government in Israel who share a vision of remaking the map of the Middle East.<br>The welcome rationalism of Linzer's sources will soon be forgotten. <br><br>Those Voices of Reason will lose their vocal chords in the aftermath of a major terrorist incident within the United States. Indeed, Linzer's intelligence contacts remind me of the "sober" intelligence sources who told the truth about Iraq to Robert Novak in October of 2001. (See the posts directly below this one.) Soon thereafter, Novak, the administration, and much of the nation decided to disdain sobriety. <br><br>If it happened in 2001-2002, it can happen again -- especially if a portable nuclear device demolishes a portion of Chicago or some other American city. Long time readers will know why I've predicted such an event.<br><br>In that light, it's worth noting that the United States Northern Command will be conducting drills for just such a nuclear attack in August. As you no doubt know, similar exercises were being conducted on September 11, 2001. Many have argued that "exercises" of this sort could provide cover for a real-world attack. (True, a few have mounted reasonable sounding counter-arguments; I would like to see a debate on this topic.)<br><br>There are also reports -- rumors, really -- that August leaves have been cancelled for an unnervingly large number of serving military personnel. Are these whispers true? I'd appreciate feedback from those in the know. <br><br>Incidentally, the current leaders of Iran must have come to conclusions similar to mine. The latest reports indicate that they have wisely backed away -- again -- from their nuclear program. <br><br>One wonders if this move will spare Tehran. Fully cooperating with U.N. inspectors did not save Saddam Hussein. <br><br>One final mystery remains. Just which Iranians were dealing with Ledeen and Chalabi? Ghorbanifar is one answer, but who else? Obviously, someone in Tehran hopes to function as the future puppet ruler of Iran -- presuming there's anything left of Iran to rule after Cheney & Co. finish with the place. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Halliburton Sold Iranian Oil Co. Key Nuclear Reactor Com

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:57 pm

<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://worldnewstrust.org/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=919" target="top">worldnewstrust.org/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=919</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Halliburton Sold Iranian Oil Company Key Nuclear Reactor Components, Sources Say <br>Article ID : 919<br>Audience : DefaultVersion 1.00.03<br>Published Date: 2005/8/6 13:25:28Reads : 65<br> By Jason Leopold<br><br> © 2005 Jason Leopold<br><br> Scandal-plagued Halliburton -- the oil services company once headed by Vice President Cheney -- sold an Iranian oil development company key components for a nuclear reactor, say Halliburton sources with intimate knowledge into both companies’ business dealings.<br><br> Halliburton was secretly working at the time with one of Iran’s top nuclear program officials on natural gas related projects and sold the components in April to the official's oil development company, the sources said. <br><br> Just last week, a National Security Council report said Iran was a decade away from acquiring a nuclear bomb. That time frame could arguably have been significantly longer if Halliburton, whose miltary unit just reported a 284 percent increase in its second quarter profits due to its Iraq reconstruction contracts, was not actively providing the Iranian government with the means to build a nuclear weapon.<br><br> With Iran's new hardline government now firmly in place, Iranian officials have rounded up relatives and close business associates of Iran's former President and defeated mullah presidential candidate Hashemi Rafsanjani, alleging the men were involved in widespread corruption of Iran's oil industry, specifically tied to the country's business dealings with Halliburton.<br><br> On July 27, one of Iran's many state countrolled news agencies, FARS, an 'information' arm of the Islamic judiciary, announced the arrest of several of the executives of the Oriental Oil Kish Company, which is owned by Rafsanjani's children and other relatives.<br><br> "They were brought up on charges of economic corruption," according to a report posted on the Iran Press News website. “Following the necessary investigations by the judiciary's bailiffs, with warrants from the public prosecutor's office (mainly mullahs who only dole out Islamic jurisprudence), the case of economic corruption and malfeasance, certain of the authorities of Oriental Kish Oil Company have been arrested and under questioning. The head of the board of directors was also among those detained.”<br><br> Now comes word that Halliburton, which has a long history of flouting U.S. law by conducting business with countries the Bush administration said has ties to terrorism, was working with Cyrus Nasseri, vice chairman of the board of directors of Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran’s largest private oil companies, on oil and natural gas development projects in Tehran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran’s nuclear development team and has been negotiating Iran's nuclear development issues with the European Union and at the International Atomic Energy Agency.<br><br> “Nasseri, a senior Iranian diplomat negotiating with Europe over Iran's controversial nuclear program is at the heart of deals with U.S. energy companies to develop the country's oil industry,” the Financial Times reported.<br><br> “A reliable source stated that, given the parameters, the close-knit cooperation and association of one of the key members of the regime's nuclear negotiation team with Halliburton can be an alarm bell which will necessarily instigate the dynamics of the members of the regimes' negotiating committee,” according to the Iran Press News story.<br><br> Oriental Oil Kish is registerd in the United Kingdom and Dubai.<br><br> Nasseri was interrogated by Iranian authorities in late July for allegedly providing Halliburton with Iran’s nuclear secrets and accepting as much as $1 million in bribes from Halliburton, Iranian government officials said. During the first round of interrogations in the judiciary, a huge network of oil mafia has been exposed, according to the IPS report.<br><br> It’s unclear whether Halliburton was privy to information regarding Iran’s nuclear activites. Halliburton sources said the company sold centrifuges and detonators to be used specifically for a nuclear reactor and oil and natural gas drilling parts for well projects to Oriental Oil Kish.<br><br> A company spokesperson did not return numerous calls for comment. A White House spokesperson also did not return calls for comment.<br><br> In 1991, Halliburton sold Libya, another country that sponsors terrorism, nuclear detonator devices. The company paid more than $3 million in fines for violating a U.S. trade embargo that President Reagan imposed in 1986 because of Libya's ties to terrorist activities.<br><br> Oriental Oil Kish dealings with Halliburton became public knowledge in January when the company announced that it had subcontracted parts of the South Pars natural gas drilling project to Halliburton Products and Services, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Halliburton that is registered in the Cayman Islands.<br><br> Following the announcement, Halliburton said the South Pars gas field project in Tehran would be its last project in Iran. The BBC reported that Halliburton, which took in $30-$40 million from its Iranian operations in 2003, "was winding down its work due to a poor business environment."<br><br> Halliburton, under mounting pressure from lawmakers in Washington, D.C., pulled out of its deal with Nasseri's company in May, but has done extensive work on other areas of the Iranian gas project and was still acting in an advisory capacity to Nasseri's company, two people who have knowledge of Halliburton's work in Iran said.<br><br> In an attempt to curtail other U.S. companies from engaging in business dealings with rogue nations, the Senate approved legislation July 26 that would penalize companies that continue to skirt U.S. law by setting up offshore subsidiaries as a way to legally conduct business in Libya, Iran and Syria, and avoid U.S. sanctions under International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is part of the Senate Defense Authorization bill.<br><br> “It prevents U.S. corporations from creating a shell company somewhere else in order to do business with rogue, terror-sponsoring nations such as Syria and Iran,” Collins said in a statement.<br><br> "The bottom line is that if a U.S. company is evading sanctions to do business with one of these countries, they are helping to prop up countries that support terrorism -- most often aimed against America," she said.<br><br> The law currently doesn’t prohibit foreign subsidiaries from conducting business with rogue nations provided that the subsidiaries are truly independent of the parent company.<br><br> But Halliburton’s Cayman Island subsidiary never did fit that description.<br><br> Halliburton first started doing business in Iran as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company and in possible violation of U.S. sanctions.<br><br> According to a February 2001 report in the Wall Street Journal, “Halliburton Products & Services Ltd. works behind an unmarked door on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. A brochure declares that the company was registered in 1975 in the Cayman Islands, is based in the Persian Gulf sheikdom of Dubai and is non-American. But, like the sign over the receptionist's head, the brochure bears the company's name and red emblem, and offers services from Halliburton units around the world.”<br><br> Moreover, mail sent to the company’s offices in Tehran and the Cayman Islands is forwarded to the company’s Dallas headquarters.<br><br> Not surprisingly, in a letter drafted by trade groups representing corporate executives vehemently objected to the amendment saying it would lead to further hatred and perhaps incite terrorist attacks on the United States and “greatly strain relations with the United States’ primary trading partners.”<br><br> “Extraterritorial measures irritate relations with the very nations the United States must secure cooperation from to promote multilateral strategies to fight terrorism and to address other areas of mutual concern,” said a letter signed by the Coalition for Employment through Exports, Emergency Coalition for American Trade, National Foreign Trade Council, USA Engage, U.S. Council on International Business and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.<br><br> “Foreign governments view U.S. efforts to dictate their foreign and commercial policy as violations of sovereignty, often leading them to adopt retaliatory measures more at odds with U.S. goals.”<br><br> Still, Collins’ amendment has some holes. As Washington Times columnist Frank Gaffney pointed out in a July 25 story, “the Collins amendment would seek to penalize individuals or entities who evade IEEPA sanctions -- if they are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."<br><br> “This is merely a restatement of existing regulations," Gaffney said.<br><br> "The problem with this formulation is that, in the process of purportedly closing one loophole, it would appear to create new ones. As Sen. Collins told the Senate: "Some truly independent foreign subsidiaries are incorporated under the laws of the country in which they do business and are subject to that country's laws, to that legal jurisdiction. There is a great deal of difference between a corporation set up in a day, without any real employees or assets, and one that has been in existence for many years and that gets purchased, in part, by a U.S. firm."<br><br> "It is a safe bet that every foreign subsidiary of a U.S. company doing business with terrorist states will claim it is one of the ones Sen. Collins would allow to continue enriching our enemies, not one prohibited from doing so,” Gaffney said.<br><br> Going a step further, Dow Jones Newswires reported that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sent letters in June to energy corporations demanding that the companies disclose in their security filings any business dealings with terrorist supporting nations.<br><br> “The letters have been sent by the SEC's Office of Global Security Risk, a special division that monitors companies with operations in Iran and other countries under U.S. sanctions, which were created by the U.S. Congress in 2004,” Dow Jones reported.<br><br> The move comes as investors have become increasingly concerned that they may be unwillingly supporting terrorist activity. In the case of Halliburton, the New York City Comptroller's office threatened in March 2003 to pull its $23 million investment in the company if Halliburton continued to conduct business with Iran.<br><br> The SEC letters are aimed at forcing corporations to disclose their profits from business dealings rogue nations. Oil companies, such as Devon Energy Corp., ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil Corp. and Occidental Petroleum Corp., that currently conduct business with countries that sponsor terrorism, have not disclosed the profits received from terrorist countries in their most recent quarterly reports because the companies don’t consider the earnings “material.”<br><br> Devon Energy was until recently conducting business in Syria. The company just sold its stake in an oil field there. ConocoPhillips has a service contract with the Syrian Petroleum Co. that expires on Dec. 31.<br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Syria China

Postby dbeach » Sat Aug 06, 2005 8:46 pm

the neo-consters have no boundrys..again the planet belongs to them is the Starus s dcotrine of HTA and selfishness<br><br>RUMMY has been sabe rrattling for yrs and when teh other govts don't pay back..then any excuse for another invasion..<br><br>WHAT A HUSTLE!!!<br><br>and they ain't even slick ..just real lucky that most Amerikens NEVER been in a war and /or had to suffer like in some other countiries..USA has been pampered until the busheviks struck their first coup of awakening in 2000<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=116x11011">www.democraticunderground...=116x11011</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

It was planned long ago

Postby marykmusic » Sat Aug 06, 2005 11:22 pm

I've been in correspondence with someone who was born in Tehran and lived at the palace. Some tidbits:<br><br>The "crowd" that "took over" the American Embassy was only about 100 people, who spoke Farsi badly and with a "foreign accent."<br><br>The Shah and all of his closest advisors all died within a couple of years, of the same rare cancer.<br><br>That whole thing, the Ayatollah's takeover, was a set-up. --MaryK <p></p><i></i>
marykmusic
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:23 am
Location: Central Arizona
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: It was planned long ago

Postby dbeach » Sun Aug 07, 2005 12:23 am

Mary almost at 100 posts<br><br>Shaw was another company man..set em up to knock em down.. <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Middle East

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest