Iranian Revolution?

[Diogenes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkQ1iNHEGW8

[Diogenes]

http://original.antiwar.com/pfaff/2009/06/16/irans-pre-political-revolt/

"There are two revolutions impending in the Muslim world, and while they run on parallel trajectories, they have to be distinguished from one another. One is the social revolution of modernization, peculiarly difficult and potentially traumatic in Muslim societies where, unlike in the secular or Christian West, no distinction is considered possible between religious and civil law and norms. In Islam, there has never been the equivalent of independent church and state, each with its own recognized legitimacy. Islamic Sharia law is universal."

  comments
I'm sorry, but when I see signs held up that are written in English I still see the hand of the CIA and the media in trying to discredit the Iranian government, on our way to another war of liberation. The signs cannot be meant for so many of the Iranians who cannot read English, and many of whom are illiterate in their own language. These signs are for Western, particularly American, consumption so that Obama can take up where Bush left off--he can go to war for Democracy. The American public is being prpared for war with Iran.

2 Can someone please explain why one-one at Antiwar wants to refer to the Bush 2008 allocation of $400 million for secret operations,to overthrow Iranian government?
While at it--how about the dozens of Israel spies caught last week ?
USA working hard to wreck countries :^(
Preparing the Battlefield
The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
by Seymour M. Hersh
July 7, 2008
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080...

3 Does the editorial director count?

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/06/14/ira...


    And we should not forget that, in spite of public assurances from the U.S. president that the administration wants peace, is prepared to negotiate, and that it’s time for "a new beginning," the Americans continue their covert action operations directed at Tehran – as recent bombings and other disturbances in the eastern non-Persian provinces have shown. Is the U.S. involved in the current street fighting in Tehran and other major cities? I wouldn’t be at all surprised to have this suspicion confirmed in coming days. After all, in 2007 Congress appropriated $400 million to destabilize the Iranian regime, and who’s to say this program isn’t bearing fruit?

ME: try and keep it honest Cle

[Diogenes]

Don't say I didn't wan you
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/cia-has-distributed-400-million-dollars-inside-iran-to-evoke-a-revolution/]
[url]http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/cia-has-distributed-400-million-dollars-inside-iran-to-evoke-a-revolution/[/url]


CIA has Distributed 400 Million Dollars Inside Iran to Evoke a Revolution

Former Pakistani Army General Mirza Aslam Beig claims the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has distributed 400 million dollars inside Iran to evoke a revolution.

In a phone interview with the Pashto Radio on Monday, General Beig said that there is undisputed intelligence proving the US interference in Iran.

“The documents prove that the CIA spent 400 million dollars inside Iran to prop up a colorful-hollow revolution following the election,” he added.

Pakistan’s former army chief of joint staff went on to say that the US wanted to disturb the situation in Iran and bring
to power a pro-US government.

He congratulated President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his re- election for the second term in office, noting that Pakistan relationship with Iran has improved during his 4-year presidency.

“Ahmadinejad’s re-election is a decisive point in regional policy and if Pakistan and Afghanistan unite with Iran, the US
has to leave the area, especially the occupied Afghanistan,” Beig added.

Also See:

[Cleisthenis]

But no matter how much money the US invested in secret Iranian destabilization operations, there are serious flaws emerging in the voting data that you can't discount outright:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/21/745310/-Iran-Guardian-Council-Admits-Vote-Fraud
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/21/745328/-UK-NGO-Experts-Expose-Ahmadinejad-Vote-Rigging-

[Diogenes]

Chatham House?
 cle You break me up!
You might want to dig deeper on this one, K?
"But no matter how much money the US invested in secret Iranian destabilization operations, there are serious flaws emerging in the voting data that you can't discount outright:"

Perhaps. There is always, yes always more to these political events than what we are led to believe.


http://www.consciousape.com/discussion-topics/chatham-house---the-royal-institute-for-international-affairs/

Formed in 1919, this highly secretive and massively influential group is where the well-known Chatham House Rule originated, the secrecy rule subsequently adopted by all other New World Order clubs and power groups, first among them the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission.

Of note is that Chatham House/RIIA was the forerunner of its American counterpart, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Until the formation of the CFR in 1921, in fact, Chatham House/RIIA was a joint British/American club boasting offices in both London and the US.

It was purely the need to effect maximum pressure on the US State Department, and thus maximum influence on US foreign policy, that it was ultimately decided to create an exclusively American ‘Chatham House’.

Thus the RIIA office in America was closed and the CFR was born.

But the move was purely a cosmetic one.

Even today, Chatham House and the Council on Foreign Relations are one and the same club, between them deciding more Anglo-American foreign policy strategies than the US State Department and the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office put together.

[Diogenes]

The writer is the author of the recently published work, A World Less Safe, now available on Amazon, and he is a regular columnist on rense.com. He is a retired Senior Foreign Service Officer of the US Department of State whose overseas service included tours in Egypt, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Brazil. His immediate pre-retirement positions were as Chairman of the Department of International Studies of the National War College and as Deputy Director of the State Office of Counter Terrorism and Emergency Planning. He will welcome comment at
 
wecanstopit@charter.net


US Electoral Meddling ­
Soft Coups & Regime Changes
By Terrell E. Arnold
6-22-9
 
In the midst of mainly US, Israeli and their mainstream media moaning about Iran's election outcome, it has become increasingly clear that both countries were engaged in covert efforts to change the regime in Tehran. And they lost, but they are not graceful losers. The sheer diversity of those efforts-costing in some reports hundreds of millions of dollars-obviously was known to Iran clerical leadership and to Ahmadinejad's lieutenants and counselors. Therefore, the decision to proceed with a national election, knowing that major efforts were underway by outsiders to influence if not subvert it, was pretty bold. However, the mood of the country, as measured in an independent survey three weeks before the polls opened, suggested that proceeding with the balloting was low risk for the party in power.
 
The Ayatollah Khamenei, the Guardian Council and Ahmadinejad apparently had not counted on such a tumultuous election followup. Indications are that the "green" revolutionary heir expectant, Mir Hossein Mousavi, did well among university students, the English-speaking elites, exporter/importer businesses, and political devotees in his home Azeri district. However, there are far more ordinary Iranian folk than the academic, intellectual and business elites, and judging simply from the voting numbers (a reported 82% of the electorate), far more ordinary people voted in this election than the elites could muster. It appears that the bulk of Iranians, the people of the countryside and poor urban districts, including Azeris, went heavily for Ahmadinejad. Good reasons for that are he was born poor and he has not lost his link to the poor, while as a politician he has helped them in many ways. That includes Azeris, whose language he speaks after several years service in that region of Iran.
 
The principal claim cited by Iran's external critics that the election was rigged is the fact that Mousavi resoundingly lost. While outside observers, to the extent that they actually observed part of the election, were pretty much in and around the capital, no ballot box tampering cases or voter intimidation cases have been cited by critics. Some have cited the rapid release of results as evidence of tampering, but the argument can be made that rapid reporting from polling places is one of the ways to avoid or reduce rigging, or charges thereof. The longer ballots hang around a polling place without being counted and placed under lock and key, the easier it is to tinker with outcomes. Thus, polling places were probably instructed to work quickly and report promptly. The quick count is not per se evidence of anything but a quick count. On that point, Mousavi jumped the gun himself and declared victory well before the polls closed.
 
Was the election rigged? We may never know for sure, just as we are unlikely to know exactly how the US presidential election of 2000 should have turned out. However, the sweep of outsider opinion is extreme. Professor Juan Cole is cited on Salon.com (see "The arguments against (and for) trusting Iran's election results" by Gabriel Winant) as having made the "most influential case" that the election was stolen, but Cole himself has said that his judgment was based on "speculation and informed guesses". In a world of political turmoil, including cheating at times virtually everywhere elections are held, one cannot dismiss such judgments, but they are not useable as evidence in a court of law. They specifically do not provide a basis for challenging the reported outcome of the Iranian elections.
 
On the other side, Professor James Petras notes (see "Iranian Elections: The 'Stolen Elections' Hoax" at globalresearch.ca) "that not a single shred of evidence in either written or observational form has been presented either before or a week after the vote count" to show that the elections were interfered with or rigged. Petras points out that there were competing demonstrations during the runup to the elections and pro-Ahmadinejad crowds were as large as (perhaps larger than) pro-Mousavi crowds were, but outsiders were interested in watching and reporting on only the opposition demonstrations. Petras credits the large recorded Azeri vote for Ahmadinejad to the amount of help he has given to the Azeri working class, and he sees Ahmadinejad's identification with the poor and working people as a key factor in the countrywide outcome. This fits a model in which the vote was divided essentially along class lines, and in that sort of contest the relatively small Iranian elites would have lost. 

[Cleisthenis]

Regardless, the supreme council itself admitted this week that in 50 districts the number of votes exceeded the population. Others, who are less biased, are saying that the number might be as high as 200.

[Diogenes]

Source?

[Diogenes]

its late I'm tire and you get the full article
 Man You can't call the plays unless you study the rule book


Mousavi, Celebrated in Iranian Protests, Was the Butcher of Beirut

By Jeff Stein | June 22, 2009 7:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
He may yet turn out to be the avatar of Iranian democracy, but three decades ago Mir-Hossein Mousavi was waging a terrorist war on the United States that included bloody attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut.
 
Mousavi, prime minister for most of the 1980s, personally selected his point man for the Beirut terror campaign, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi-pur, and dispatched him to Damascus as Iran's ambassador, according to former CIA and military officials.


The ambassador in turn hosted several meetings of the cell that would carry out the Beirut attacks, which were overheard by the National Security Agency.

"We had a tap on the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon," retired Navy Admiral James "Ace" Lyons related by telephone Monday. In 1983 Lyons was deputy chief of Naval Operations, and deeply involved in the events in Lebanon.

"The Iranian ambassador received instructions from the foreign minister to have various groups target U.S. personnel in Lebanon, but in particular to carry out a 'spectacular action' against the Marines," said Lyons.

"He was prime minister," Lyons said of Mousavi, "so he didn't get down to the details at the4 lowest levels. "But he was in a principal position and had to be aware of what was going on."

Lyons, sometimes called "the father" of the Navy SEALs' Red Cell counter-terror unit, also fingered Mousavi for the 1988 truck bombing of the U.S. Navy's Fleet Center in Naples, Italy, that killed five persons, including the first Navy woman to die in a terrorist attack.   

Bob Baer agrees that Mousawi, who has been celebrated in the West for sparking street demonstrations against the Teheran regime since he lost the elections, was directing the overall 1980s terror campaign.

But Baer, a former CIA Middle East field officer whose exploits were dramatized in the George Clooney movie "Syriana,"  places Mousavi even closer to the Beirut bombings.

"He dealt directly with Imad Mughniyah," who ran the Beirut terrorist campaign and was "the man largely held responsible for both attacks," Baer wrote in TIME over the weekend.

"When Mousavi was Prime Minister, he oversaw an office that ran operatives abroad, from Lebanon to Kuwait to Iraq," Baer continued.

    "This was the heyday of [Ayatollah] Khomeini's theocratic vision, when Iran thought it really could export its revolution across the Middle East, providing money and arms to anyone who claimed he could upend the old order."


Baer added: "Mousavi was not only swept up into this delusion but also actively pursued it."

Retired Adm. Lyons maintained that he could have destroyed the terrorists at a hideout U.S. intelligence had pinpointed, but he was outmaneuvered by others in the cabinet of President Ronald Reagan.

"I was going to take them apart," Lyons said, "but the secretary of defense," Caspar Weinberger, "sabotaged it." 

[Diogenes]

over 370 "reads" and down to lil ol me to keep it going

http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20090623_destabilization.htm
Destabilization 2.0
Soros, the CIA, Mossad and the new media destabilization of Iran

 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?).

 Me: Can anybody now say the reaction to the election was/is a spontanious Irainian action?

There is in this set of events the possibility for knowledge to be applied to world politics.
Read the full article.
Begin to understand the poitical games 
 Dio

[Diogenes]

Ignorance Is Strength
By Paul Craig Roberts
6-25-9
 

The American media's one-sided and propagandistic coverage of the Iranian election has made an American hero out of the defeated candidate, Mousavi.
 
This leaves one wondering if anyone anywhere in the US media or US government knows that Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who served as prime minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran from 1981 to 1989, the decade following the overthrow of the American puppet government by Khomeini, has been fingered as the Butcher of Beirut, responsible for the bloody attacks on the US embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut during the Reagan administration that blew to pieces 241 US Marines, Sailors, and Army troops.
 
According to <http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22903.htm>Jeff Stein writing in the June 22, 2009, CQ Politics, Mousavi "personally selected his point man for the Beirut terror campaign, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi-pur," who presided over the terror cell responsible for the attacks.
 
The National Security Agency had a tap on the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon, according to Admiral James Lyons who was deputy chief of Naval Operations at the time. Admiral Lyons told Jeff Stein that "the Iranian ambassador received instructions from the foreign minister to have various groups target US personnel in Lebanon, but in particular to carry out a 'spectacular action' against the Marines."

[Cleisthenis]

Source?

Here and here.

I don't know about you, but if only 50 cities had voter turnout above 100%, (and that's what they publicly admitting to mind you), there is a reasonable doubt cast about the overall validity of the results.

[Cleisthenis]

Sigh.... it looks like the regime has successfully put the kibosh on any freedom in Iran.

 

[Diogenes]

thank you for supplying sources
 
Not that there is much bearing on the topic only an interesting side note.


 There was great controversy about both of the Dubya Bush elections
 any way your assessment is valid 

  Do you believe there would be "Freedom" with the ongoing Yankee influence?