What is astonishing is your assertion that there has been 'universal' condemnation of the election results in the West. There has certainly been condemnation of the violence directed towards the demonstrators and reports that some sections within Iranian society do not accept the results, but your initial premise is truly ludicrous.

As had been widely reported, opinion polls prior to the election, and exit polls just after the election, showed that Ahmadinejad was expected to win comfortably so it was hardly a shock result.

One can only assume that you are using the events in the region to pursue your own agenda.

However, equally astonishing is the fact the the writer, James Petras, is described as a 'professor' on Globalresearch's website.

... is that you can't even keep up with events:

'Iran Admits Possible Discrepancy in 3 Million Votes '
'the authorities here acknowledged that the number of votes cast in 50 cities exceeded the actual number of voters.'

Full article:
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/world/middleeast/23iran.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all

Egg on face ...

The writer is soooo much smarter than the easily-manipulated Western media.

Of course his OWN "analysis" is of the arm-chair variety, thousands if miles from any first-hand knowledge and, of course, safe from the risk he'd face of actually reporting from the streets of Tehran. And guess what? His "reality" nicely jibes with his political biases: there's scarcely a mention of the fascist theocratic underpinnings of the current regime. That would be too messy and politically incorrect to mention.

By the way, the LAST thing the Israelis want is Musavvi: far better the bogey-man of the psychotic Ahmadinejad. The removal of that lunatic would de-fang the calls for intervention.

"The great majority of voters for the incumbent probably felt that national security interests, the integrity of the country and the social welfare system, with all of its faults and excesses, could be better defended and improved with Ahmadinejad than with upper-class technocrats supported by Western-oriented privileged youth who prize individual life styles over community values and solidarity."

What a great put-down, asshole.

You probably said the same of those spoiled-brat "Western-oriented privileged youth" who were killed in the Tiananmin uprising.

blame the street demonstrations in Teheran on the Zionists. Well, there's nothing like consistency, as Dr Goebbels once said.

"I am sure that Americans would favour the emergence from the present situation of a truly popularly based government and it is very appropriate for the president to make clear that that is what he favours. Now if it turns out that it is not possible for a government to emerge in Iran that can deal with itself as a nation rather than as a cause then we have a different situation, then we may conclude that we must work for regime change in Iran from the outside but if I understand the president correctly he does not want to do this as a visible intervention in the current crisis."

[Former US Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Dr Henry Kissinger, BBC Newsnight interview, 18 June 2009]


VIDEO LINK:

//172.16.228.236/aup/redirect?OrigURL=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5nbWFpbC5jb20v&ClientIP=172.25.201.34

>A number of newspaper pundits, including Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times, claim as >evidence of electoral fraud the fact that Ahmadinejad won 63% of the vote in an Azeri-speaking >province against his opponent, Mousavi, an ethnic Azeri. The simplistic assumption is that ethnic >identity or belonging to a linguistic group is the only possible explanation of voting behavior rather >than other social or class interests.

And this is based on Iranian STATE media? how credible is that!! if you are so smart and you knwo this, why havent the Iranians that go on the street and get killed haven't undesrtood this???

and you suggest there has been no evidence? just because you don't follow the news you can't sit so confrotably on your *** and suggest the opposite. The oposition (including ALL 3 candidates and not your imagined CIA agenmt Mousavi) have listed over 200 evidence. Furtheurmore, when everything i controlled by the state, when the candidate's representatives were NOT allowed in the counting process, when they were not allowed to access the election software, were all the newspapers are close, where the Iranian state media don't list the details of the complaints, when all political figures and activists were arrestsed what the hell do you want to see?

Do you have any idea about Iranian society? have you ever been to Iran? you sit in your armchair and write in such an ignorant manner that Ahmadinejad has the support of people in the sural areas?? Do you have any idea what happened to Iranian agriculture and national indestry during ahmadinejad?? for you information there's been more privatasation under A.N than any other iranian govornment, who has he sold the country to under his privatasation program? the Sepah e Pasdaran ( an organisation diresctly related to supreme leader) There's no one in Iran more than farmers who would wish him gone. same goes with factory workers, teachers nurses etc.

and how ignorant can you be? who would Israel prefer? the israili govornment have repeatedly expressed their appreciation of Ahamadinejad being in power, before the ahmadinejad era, all european govornment were starting to realise the Israeili crimes in the middle east, but what happened after wards? Israel managed to create a new imaginary enemy to pursue all their crimes more than before . . .

Do you know a single thing about Mousavi? he was the prime minister in Iran during the Iran - Iraq war, a war that ALL western govornment were backing Iraq, a war which all the west had placed heavy sanctions on Iran so that they would be able to make extra money by charging Iran for guns 10 times the price. UK being the main winner of it all. How could you consider him as a CIA agent?

Why is you r little brain so incapable of anticipating that Mousavi would win? didnt the same thig happen to Khatami? Khatami spoke of freedom of speech, and moderate laws, In fact Khatami's policies were not focused on economics AT ALL. In fact Mousavi's promisses were not so appealing to Iranian urban rich northern tehrani middle class, those very people would vote karroubi , who talked of non obligatory hijab, freedom of speech, etc. as matter of fact. The state Iranian media has announced that Karroubi's vote was around 333 thousand votes, where as people who were campaigning for him across the country were far more. Same goes with Rezaie.

As a matter of fact all 3 candidates have complained, and despite your ignorance they have provided the guardian council with tough evidence. Notice the dictatorshio would not allow the evidence to come out, a dictatorship would not accept it, and if they do, (which despite your ignorance again , they have accepted a few, I refer you to the link in the comments before me) but they have announced that it would not alter the result thus classified as not important.

Among mousavi, Karroubi and Rezaie supporters are the spouses and mothers of war martyrs, housewives, actory workers, farmers, students, war veterans etc. Can I draw you attention to the fact the you are undermining the Youth too much, do you have any ideas what proportion of Iranian population are under 30?

you refer to Iranian state media to suggest that Mousavi even lost in his home town, how credible is that?

The polls taken by western bodies were taken BEFORE televised debates in Iran.
27 percent had announde that they had not decided.
a huge percentage would NOT answer since they were afraid.
a lot of people would simply not trust a western statistic agency, and would not tell the truth.

get out of your armshair, read a bit , open your eyes, and don't write anything till then

The facts about uprising of the Iranian people.

1. Majority of people in Iran are seeking the real change.
2. Islamic regime during the last 30 years has executed more than 200,000 Left activist and freedom lovers and thousand women been killed by stoning in public.
3. Election and its fraudulence result is just a tool to show people’s anger against the whole tyrant and barbaric Islamic regime.
4. If youth and people do not rise their own flag, the flag of revolution to change the whole regime, their 30 years of struggle against political islam, their daily fight and their energy will be hijacked by one wing of the regime.
5. People’s demand are: Secularism, Freedom with no conditions, free all political prisoners, equal right for women, End the forced hejab law, freedom of organisation for workers.
6. People should change their slogan to [ down to the Islamic regime] [ no to hejab ] [ freedom and social justice] [ full employment and rise of minimum wage]
Khamenai’s speech has proved that the change and freedom will not be obtained by reform flag, it is a time to rise the flag of secularism

Long live Freedom, Long live equality , down to Islamic rules

Nima - Do you have any idea about Iranian society? have you ever been to Iran?

A bit, not enough, so it would be good to hear more from Iranians here. My girlfriend wouldn't take me to Iran because the mullahs would kill us for living in sin. Have you ever read Indymedia before? Not many people here vote so the slogan 'Where is my vote?' is less persuasive here.

Nima - and how ignorant can you be? who would Israel prefer?

Well, it is US policy that is important, and that policy is aimed at destablising Iran. Whether the US want regime change to a particular candidate or not, they do want regime change.

It is no accident that the opium crop in Afghanistan, which makes Iran the country with the worst drug problem, increased significantly after the US invaded.

US army special forces have been operating on the ground in Iran for years now, targetting, kidnapping and killing.
In late 2007 Bush gave the CIA an extra $400 million specifically to destablise Iran, plus the permission to kill.
The CIA have been funding and supplying 'weapons and our communications gear' to the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), the Jundallah ( Iranian People’s Resistance Movement) and ethnic groups such as the Baloch. The US State Department lists the MEK as a terrorist group, and yet during this US 'War On Terror' the US is sponsoring terrorism in Iran. The hypocracy of that is staggering given the Hezbullah hyperbole directed at Iran as a state-sponsor of terror.

Nima - As a matter of fact all 3 candidates have complained, and despite your ignorance they have provided the guardian council with tough evidence.

The only evidence that I've seen reported in the British press is cities with more than 100% voting, which is possible due to Irans strangely, perhaps suspiciously, not requiring you to vote where you register.
The note to Khameni from Iranian minister of interior, Sadeq Mahsuli, seems to be an obvious fake however. The wording doesn't sound plausible, that such content would be written at all, only to be leaked.
"your concerns for the 10th presidential elections" and "and your orders for Mr Ahmadinejad to be elected president", and continues "for your information only, I am telling you the actual results". Mr Mousavi has 19,075,623, Mr Karroubi 13,387,104, and Mr Ahmadinejad a mere 5,698,417.

I just don't believe that 32 million people are being controlled by 6 million, or that anyone would write a 'Dear leader, I fixed the election as you asked' letter. Obvious propaganda such as that blurs the waters, and makes me suspicious of everything that is claimed.

For instance, the post following yours espouses secularism, which is a big increase on the demands of protestors contesting an election or willing to appeal to the Guardian council, but it also includes seeming exaggerations that make me dubious.

>2. Islamic regime during the last 30 years has executed more than 200,000 Left activist
and freedom lovers and thousand women been killed by stoning in public.

That is 6666 a year executions a year but in 2004 Iran executed just 159 prisoners, so without a breakdown of that 200,000 figure the post reads like clumsy propaganda.

'US army special forces have been operating on the ground in Iran for years now, targetting, kidnapping and killing.'

Evidence? Who's been kidnapped? Who's been killed? And in all this time, none of them have ever been caught? In Iran, US Army special forces would stand out like a pinstripe suit at an anarchist's meeting. A typical Danny comment: high on assertion, low on proof.

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 covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.

Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.

Under federal law, a Presidential Finding, which is highly classified, must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees—the so-called Gang of Eight. Money for the operation can then be reprogrammed from previous appropriations, as needed, by the relevant congressional committees, which also can be briefed.

“The Finding was focussed 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.” The Finding provided for a whole new range of activities in southern Iran and in the areas, in the east, where Baluchi political opposition is strong, he said...

The covert operations set forth in the Finding essentially run parallel to those of a secret military task force, now operating in Iran, that is under the control of JSOC. Under the Bush Administration’s interpretation of the law, clandestine military activities, unlike covert C.I.A. operations, do not need to be depicted in a Finding, because the President has a constitutional right to command combat forces in the field without congressional interference. But the borders between operations are not always clear: in Iran, C.I.A. agents and regional assets have the language skills and the local knowledge to make contacts for the JSOC operatives, and have been working with them to direct personnel, matériel, and money into Iran from an obscure base in western Afghanistan. As a result, Congress has been given only a partial view of how the money it authorized may be used. One of JSOC’s task-force missions, the pursuit of “high-value targets,” was not directly addressed in the Finding. There is a growing realization among some legislators that the Bush Administration, in recent years, has conflated what is an intelligence operation and what is a military one in order to avoid fully informing Congress about what it is doing.

“This is a big deal,” the person familiar with the Finding said. “The C.I.A. needed the Finding to do its traditional stuff, but the Finding does not apply to JSOC. The President signed an Executive Order after September 11th giving the Pentagon license to do things that it had never been able to do before without notifying Congress. The claim was that the military was ‘preparing the battle space,’ and by using that term they were able to circumvent congressional oversight. Everything is justified in terms of fighting the global war on terror.” He added, “The Administration has been fuzzing the lines; there used to be a shade of gray”—between operations that had to be briefed to the senior congressional leadership and those which did not—“but now it’s a shade of mush.”

“The agency says we’re not going to get in the position of helping to kill people without a Finding,” the former senior intelligence official told me. He was referring to the legal threat confronting some agency operatives for their involvement in the rendition and alleged torture of suspects in the war on terror. “This drove the military people up the wall,” he said. As far as the C.I.A. was concerned, the former senior intelligence official said, “the over-all authorization includes killing, but it’s not as though that’s what they’re setting out to do. It’s about gathering information, enlisting support.” The Finding sent to Congress was a compromise, providing legal cover for the C.I.A. while referring to the use of lethal force in ambiguous terms...

A member of the House Appropriations Committee acknowledged that, even with a Democratic victory in November, “it will take another year before we get the intelligence activities under control.” He went on, “We control the money and they can’t do anything without the money. Money is what it’s all about. But I’m very leery of this Administration.” He added, “This Administration has been so secretive.”

In recent months, according to the Iranian media, there has been a surge in violence in Iran; it is impossible at this early stage, however, to credit JSOC or C.I.A. activities, or to assess their impact on the Iranian leadership. The Iranian press reports are being carefully monitored by retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, who has taught strategy at the National War College and now conducts war games centered on Iran for the federal government, think tanks, and universities. The Iranian press “is very open in describing the killings going on inside the country,” Gardiner said. It is, he said, “a controlled press, which makes it more important that it publishes these things. We begin to see inside the government.” He added, “Hardly a day goes by now we don’t see a clash somewhere. There were three or four incidents over a recent weekend, and the Iranians are even naming the Revolutionary Guard officers who have been killed.”

Earlier this year, a militant Ahwazi group claimed to have assassinated a Revolutionary Guard colonel, and the Iranian government acknowledged that an explosion in a cultural center in Shiraz, in the southern part of the country, which killed at least twelve people and injured more than two hundred, had been a terrorist act and not, as it earlier insisted, an accident. It could not be learned whether there has been American involvement in any specific incident in Iran, but, according to Gardiner, the Iranians have begun publicly blaming the U.S., Great Britain, and, more recently, the C.I.A. for some incidents. The agency was involved in a coup in Iran in 1953, and its support for the unpopular regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi—who was overthrown in 1979—was condemned for years by the ruling mullahs in Tehran, to great effect. “This is the ultimate for the Iranians—to blame the C.I.A.,” Gardiner said. “This is new, and it’s an escalation—a ratcheting up of tensions. It rallies support for the regime and shows the people that there is a continuing threat from the ‘Great Satan.’ ” In Gardiner’s view, the violence, rather than weakening Iran’s religious government, may generate support for it.

Many of the activities may be being carried out by dissidents in Iran, and not by Americans in the field. One problem with “passing money” (to use the term of the person familiar with the Finding) in a covert setting is that it is hard to control where the money goes and whom it benefits. Nonetheless, the former senior intelligence official said, “We’ve got exposure, because of the transfer of our weapons and our communications gear. The Iranians will be able to make the argument that the opposition was inspired by the Americans. How many times have we tried this without asking the right questions? Is the risk worth it?” One possible consequence of these operations would be a violent Iranian crackdown on one of the dissident groups, which could give the Bush Administration a reason to intervene.

A strategy of using ethnic minorities to undermine Iran is flawed, according to Vali Nasr, who teaches international politics at Tufts University and is also a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Just because Lebanon, Iraq, and Pakistan have ethnic problems, it does not mean that Iran is suffering from the same issue,” Nasr told me. “Iran is an old country—like France and Germany—and its citizens are just as nationalistic. The U.S. is overestimating ethnic tension in Iran.” The minority groups that the U.S. is reaching out to are either well integrated or small and marginal, without much influence on the government or much ability to present a political challenge, Nasr said. “You can always find some activist groups that will go and kill a policeman, but working with the minorities will backfire, and alienate the majority of the population.”

The Administration may have been willing to rely on dissident organizations in Iran even when there was reason to believe that the groups had operated against American interests in the past. The use of Baluchi elements, for example, is problematic, Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. clandestine officer who worked for nearly two decades in South Asia and the Middle East, told me. “The Baluchis are Sunni fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda,” Baer told me. “These are guys who cut off the heads of nonbelievers—in this case, it’s Shiite Iranians. The irony is that we’re once again working with Sunni fundamentalists, just as we did in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties.” Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is considered one of the leading planners of the September 11th attacks, are Baluchi Sunni fundamentalists.

One of the most active and violent anti-regime groups in Iran today is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People’s Resistance Movement, which describes itself as a resistance force fighting for the rights of Sunnis in Iran. “This is a vicious Salafi organization whose followers attended the same madrassas as the Taliban and Pakistani extremists,” Nasr told me. “They are suspected of having links to Al Qaeda and they are also thought to be tied to the drug culture.” The Jundallah took responsibility for the bombing of a busload of Revolutionary Guard soldiers in February, 2007. At least eleven Guard members were killed. According to Baer and to press reports, the Jundallah is among the groups in Iran that are benefitting from U.S. support.

The C.I.A. and Special Operations communities also have long-standing ties to two other dissident groups in Iran: the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, known in the West as the M.E.K., and a Kurdish separatist group, the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, or PJAK.

The M.E.K. has been on the State Department’s terrorist list for more than a decade, yet in recent years the group has received arms and intelligence, directly or indirectly, from the United States. Some of the newly authorized covert funds, the Pentagon consultant told me, may well end up in M.E.K. coffers. “The new task force will work with the M.E.K. The Administration is desperate for results.” He added, “The M.E.K. has no C.P.A. auditing the books, and its leaders are thought to have been lining their pockets for years. If people only knew what the M.E.K. is getting, and how much is going to its bank accounts—and yet it is almost useless for the purposes the Administration intends.”

The Kurdish party, PJAK, which has also been reported to be covertly supported by the United States, has been operating against Iran from bases in northern Iraq for at least three years. (Iran, like Iraq and Turkey, has a Kurdish minority, and PJAK and other groups have sought self-rule in territory that is now part of each of those countries.) In recent weeks, according to Sam Gardiner, the military strategist, there has been a marked increase in the number of PJAK armed engagements with Iranians and terrorist attacks on Iranian targets. In early June, the news agency Fars reported that a dozen PJAK members and four Iranian border guards were killed in a clash near the Iraq border; a similar attack in May killed three Revolutionary Guards and nine PJAK fighters. PJAK has also subjected Turkey, a member of NATO, to repeated terrorist attacks, and reports of American support for the group have been a source of friction between the two governments.

Gardiner also mentioned a trip that the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, made to Tehran in June. After his return, Maliki announced that his government would ban any contact between foreigners and the M.E.K.—a slap at the U.S.’s dealings with the group. Maliki declared that Iraq was not willing to be a staging ground for covert operations against other countries. This was a sign, Gardiner said, of “Maliki’s increasingly choosing the interests of Iraq over the interests of the United States.” In terms of U.S. allegations of Iranian involvement in the killing of American soldiers, he said, “Maliki was unwilling to play the blame-Iran game.” Gardiner added that Pakistan had just agreed to turn over a Jundallah leader to the Iranian government. America’s covert operations, he said, “seem to be harming relations with the governments of both Iraq and Pakistan and could well be strengthening the connection between Tehran and Baghdad.”

My point exactly. Hersh says this, says that. Proof? None.

Indeed, covert operations in Iran would be one of the most stupid things the US could do, and there are some people in the US Government with some sense. Why stupid? Well, the propaganda victory to the Iranian Government would be immense. The Revolutionary Guards wet themselves with joy when a RIB with British naval personnel was stupid enough to fall for their threats, and allowed themselves to be meekly escorted into Iran.

One journalist ain't evidence. Repetition of supposition does not turn it into proof.

For anyone who doesn't know the name, Sy Hersh is the best living US reporter. He broke the My Lai massacre story in Vietnam and the Abu Ghraib abuse story in Iraq. In this story he is quoting senior sources who he hasn't named for obvious reasons. Now some anonymous Indymedia poster is claiming he invented a story about Iran after a lifetime of distinguished journalism, demanding proof for a story about security services and military operations that are currently happening.

So what do you doubt about the story, my anonymous sniper? Do you doubt that Bush signed a Presidential Finding authorising $400 million in 2007 to destablise Iran? Your argument that Bush didn't have covert operations in Iran is that that would be stupid, but stupidity never curtailed Bushs ambitions.

Did I ever use the word 'lying'? People can write things they believe to be true. That does not automatically imply that they are true. Flat Earthers can write that the Earth is flat - are they lying, or are they deluded?

In any case, like MPs with their expenses, Danny just doesn't 'get it'. So the Americans have been doing whatever - does that excuse election fraud? Does it excuse the security forces in Teheran shooting and beating people? For once, Danny, pull off the spectacles which say 'It's America! They're doing it again!' and watch the scenes on the streets.

[PS as to Bush's stupidity - I bet his academic record is beter than yours]

Interesting post. You go from saying the greatest living US journalist is as deluded as a flat-earther.
Then you try to distract with a weird comment about MPs expenses.
Then you admit what Hersh was saying is actually true but that it just isn't important.
Finally you defend the intelligence of George Dubya Bush - do you really think that I've misunderestimated him ?

It's laughable, obvious propaganda posts like that that helps make activists in the West suspicious of your motivations and dubious about your supposed facts. (Want to get back to me about the 200,000 executions? I thought not.)

The fact that the US have been trying to destablise Iran using military raids ( an act of war ) and massive CIA assets is relevant to explaining the current situation. Does it justify the Iranian state response to the protests? No, but it does help to explain it, it does put the protests into context.

'greatest living journalist' .... in your opinion. If he has broken such a great story, why hasn't the rest of the media been all over it?

Er - when did I say it was actually true?

Er - what makes you think I'm not in the West?

Er - when did I mention 200,000 executions?

If that's the level of your commentary, I think Indymedia should employ someone else.

And while we're on the subject, how, in the interest of transparency, does Indymedia fund you and its servers?

"'greatest living journalist' .... in your opinion."

In most journalists opinion. He has won the Pulitzer Prize and five George Polk awards. He has covered or been responsible for the three biggest US stories except for Watergate in his lifetime. Who the fuck are you to criticise him?

"If he has broken such a great story, why hasn't the rest of the media been all over it?"

I was waiting for you to ask that, really hoping that you would say something so stupid. Actually, I was wrong to say Hersh broke the destablisation of Iran story story, he merely covered it in depth in print first. It was actually broken by one of the three main US tv networks, ABC. Maybe you consider ABC are anti-US, pro-ayatollah flat-earthers too, since their sources also told them that Bush authorised the destabilisation of Iran.

 http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html

"I think everybody in the region knows that there is a proxy war already afoot with the United States supporting anti-Iranian elements in the region as well as opposition groups within Iran," said Vali Nasr, adjunct senior fellow for Mideast studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. "And this covert action is now being escalated by the new U.S. directive, and that can very quickly lead to Iranian retaliation and a cycle of escalation can follow," Nasr said.

Other "lethal" findings have authorized CIA covert actions against al Qaeda, terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

Also briefed on the CIA proposal, according to intelligence sources, were National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams. "The entire plan has been blessed by Abrams, in particular," said one intelligence source familiar with the plan. "And Hadley had to put his chop on it." Abrams' last involvement with attempting to destabilize a foreign government led to criminal charges. He pleaded guilty in October 1991 to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress about the Reagan administration's ill-fated efforts to destabilize the Nicaraguan Sandinista government in Central America, known as the Iran-Contra affair...

As earlier reported on the Blotter on ABCNews.com, the United States has supported and encouraged an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, that has conducted deadly raids inside Iran from bases on the rugged Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan "tri-border region." U.S. officials deny any "direct funding" of Jundullah groups but say the leader of Jundullah was in regular contact with U.S. officials. American intelligence sources say Jundullah has received money and weapons through the Afghanistan and Pakistan military and Pakistan's intelligence service. Pakistan has officially denied any connection. A report broadcast on Iranian TV last Sunday said Iranian authorities had captured 10 men crossing the border with $500,000 in cash along with "maps of sensitive areas" and "modern spy equipment."
A senior Pakistani official told ABCNews.com the 10 men were members of Jundullah. The leader of the Jundullah group, according to the Pakistani official, has been recruiting and training "hundreds of men" for "unspecified missions" across the border in Iran.


Oh and look, another flat-earther who somehow earns a crust as a journalist, Andrew Cockburn.

Secret Bush "Finding" Widens War on Iran

By ANDREW COCKBURN

Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, "unprecedented in its scope." Bush’s secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan – but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines – up to and including the assassination of targeted officials. This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department's list of terrorist groups. Similarly, covert funds can now flow without restriction to Jundullah, or "army of god," the militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan – just across the Afghan border -- whose leader was featured not long ago on Dan Rather Reports cutting his brother in law's throat. Other elements that will benefit from U.S. largesse and advice include Iranian Kurdish nationalists, as well the Ahwazi arabs of south west Iran.

In fact, I can't find any denial of this story apart from your ignorant post, maybe you could search Fox News for me?


Looking at Counterpunchs latest Iranian coverage is also edifying.
 http://www.counterpunch.org/amin06222009.html

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.


"If that's the level of your commentary, I think Indymedia should employ someone else. And while we're on the subject, how, in the interest of transparency, does Indymedia fund you and its servers? "

Donations fund the IM servers. My wage is paid directly by the British government, I only get £60 a week but then exposing propaganda like yours isn't hard work so I can't complain.

Indeed, from the ABC report:

"The "nonlethal" aspect of the presidential finding means CIA officers may not use deadly force in carrying out the secret operations against Iran."

As to fraud in the elections, nobody will ever find out since the chance of an investigation is minimal. What is more important is the people in Iran believe there was fraud. They go out on the streets and are shot. Is this is no concern to you? Your obsession with the CIA is, in these circumstances, quite baffling.

Indymedia is funded by donations. From?

>"The "nonlethal" aspect of the presidential finding means CIA officers may not use deadly force in carrying out the secret operations against Iran."

You are accepting ABC as a newsworthy source - just not Seymour Hersh? Hersh contradicts that finding of the ABC report about non lethal force from the CIA, but I don't find it a major or relevant issue to argue about. I doubt the Basij were authorised to murder, and the US military operation was already intent on murder, it was only the CIA who wanted this legal cover.

The language was inserted into the Finding at the urging of the C.I.A., a former senior intelligence official said. The covert operations set forth in the Finding essentially run parallel to those of a secret military task force, now operating in Iran, that is under the control of JSOC. Under the Bush Administration’s interpretation of the law, clandestine military activities, unlike covert C.I.A. operations, do not need to be depicted in a Finding, because the President has a constitutional right to command combat forces in the field without congressional interference. But the borders between operations are not always clear: in Iran, C.I.A. agents and regional assets have the language skills and the local knowledge to make contacts for the JSOC operatives, and have been working with them to direct personnel, matériel, and money into Iran from an obscure base in western Afghanistan. As a result, Congress has been given only a partial view of how the money it authorized may be used. One of JSOC’s task-force missions, the pursuit of “high-value targets,” was not directly addressed in the Finding. There is a growing realization among some legislators that the Bush Administration, in recent years, has conflated what is an intelligence operation and what is a military one in order to avoid fully informing Congress about what it is doing.

“This is a big deal,” the person familiar with the Finding said. “The C.I.A. needed the Finding to do its traditional stuff, but the Finding does not apply to JSOC. The President signed an Executive Order after September 11th giving the Pentagon license to do things that it had never been able to do before without notifying Congress. The claim was that the military was ‘preparing the battle space,’ and by using that term they were able to circumvent congressional oversight. Everything is justified in terms of fighting the global war on terror.” He added, “The Administration has been fuzzing the lines; there used to be a shade of gray”—between operations that had to be briefed to the senior congressional leadership and those which did not—“but now it’s a shade of mush.”

“The agency says we’re not going to get in the position of helping to kill people without a Finding,” the former senior intelligence official told me. He was referring to the legal threat confronting some agency operatives for their involvement in the rendition and alleged torture of suspects in the war on terror. “This drove the military people up the wall,” he said. As far as the C.I.A. was concerned, the former senior intelligence official said, “the over-all authorization includes killing, but it’s not as though that’s what they’re setting out to do. It’s about gathering information, enlisting support.” The Finding sent to Congress was a compromise, providing legal cover for the C.I.A. while referring to the use of lethal force in ambiguous terms.

"As to fraud in the elections, nobody will ever find out since the chance of an investigation is minimal. What is more important is the people in Iran believe there was fraud. They go out on the streets and are shot. Is this is no concern to you? Your obsession with the CIA is, in these circumstances, quite baffling."

My concern with the US last year approving a program destablising Iran is baffling to you?

"Indymedia is funded by donations. From? "

Posters, readers, activists. I gave them a couple of tiny donations, rather than me being funded by them as you alleged, I have yet to make it onto their Christmas card list. Still, your obsession with trying to score an easy smear is reflected in the paucity of your argument over the Iran destablisation, added to the complete absence of quotes or any accountabilitly in your own posts.

Thanks for giving me the excuse to expose the US as a war-mongering sponsor of terror while showing you to be a Bushite flunkie. You are living proof that no matter how moronic a president is, there will always be stupider people following his lead. By the way, I just got a supportive email from Sy Hersh. It was unhelpful but it did make me go weak at the knees, the way you must have felt when you first sucked Bushs cock.

>A bit, not enough, so it would be good to hear more from Iranians here. My girlfriend wouldn't >take me to Iran because the mullahs would kill us for living in sin. Have you ever read Indymedia >before? Not many people here vote so the slogan 'Where is my vote?' is less persuasive here.

That shows how ignorant you are about Iran, there are a great number of westeners who go to Iran every year and "mullas" don't kill them. That's how ignorant you are that you simplify the politics and culture of the country simply into "MULLAHS". get out of your little world , talk to westeners who have been to Iran, and open your eyes a little bit.

>The only evidence that I've seen reported in the British press is cities with more than 100% >voting, which is possible due to Irans strangely, perhaps suspiciously, not requiring you to vote >where you register.

The British Press have to rely heavily only on the reports from the Guardian council, How credible do you take that to be? you must be extremely ignorant to take this as a credible source of news.
For your information, what the guardian council accepts is no all, you must be intelligent enough to realise.


>2. Islamic regime during the last 30 years has executed more than 200,000 Left activist
and freedom lovers and thousand women been killed by stoning in public.
>That is 6666 a year executions a year but in 2004 Iran executed just 159 prisoners, so without a >breakdown of that 200,000 figure the post reads like clumsy propaganda.

I never suggested the 200,000 figure, but wouldnt 159 be bad enough?


Danny

Noam Chomsky supports Hopoi ( Hands off People of Iran) but Danny says Hopoi are fascists -see earlier threads- therefore Noam is a supporter of fascists eh Danny?

Dear Nima,

>That shows how ignorant you are about Iran, there are a great number of westeners who go to Iran every year and "mullas" don't kill them. That's how ignorant you are that you simplify the politics and culture of the country simply into "MULLAHS".

No, that goes to show how ignorant you are in condemning my point of view.
I was quoting my former Iranian lover, so your point is, well pointless. I do admit the possibility she just didn't want me to meet her parents. She might have been exaggerating when she said I would be hung for sex without marriage, but I don't think she was exaggerating when she said she'd be stoned to death for the same 'crime'. She was so terrified of politics that when I opposed the Afghanistan invasion she dumped me for being too overtly political. I would like to visit her family in Tehran, one day, but not when a theocracy there makes that risky for them. I am just pointing out the history of people who disagree with you isn't black and white.

>The British Press have to rely heavily only on the reports from the Guardian council, How credible do you take that to be? you must be extremely ignorant to take this as a credible source of news. For your information, what the guardian council accepts is no all, you must be intelligent enough to realise.

As anyone can see, my posts on this thread have quoted several sources, but not once the Guardian Coucil. However, the opposition candidates have appealed to the Guardian Council which in my opinion underlines that they are not a true opposition to the theocracy.

>>2. Islamic regime during the last 30 years has executed more than 200,000 Left activist
and freedom lovers and thousand women been killed by stoning in public.
>>That is 6666 a year executions a year but in 2004 Iran executed just 159 prisoners, so without a >breakdown of that 200,000 figure the post reads like clumsy propaganda.

>I never suggested the 200,000 figure, but wouldnt 159 be bad enough?

Your 'posting partners' did suggest such a figure. But you are correct, 159 executions is appalling, one judicial execution is appalling in my appalled opinion. So why do the opposition exaggerate by a factor of 42? It doesn't make your case, it only undermines your legitimate argument. If that isn't the undeniable CIA propaganda on Iran, then it is distinguishable only by being so amateur.


For the record, my view on the death penalty is best summed up by this brilliant Welsh song from a few years ago:

If The Death Penalty Were An Olympic Sport - Tracey Curtis

Well, done America coming in third,
It's the good old USA
Representing the western world,
Thank you for leading the way
God fearing citizens, thank you, well done
Last year disposed of seventy one
Shooting, poisoning, gassing or electric chair,
Invite only, VIPs, be there or be square

Zambia, Algeria, Bangladesh, Armenia, Cameroon, Uzbekistan
Bahamas, Ethiopia, Thailand, Indonesia, Rwanda, Tajikistan
Singapore, Somalia, Iraq and Japan
Trinidad Tobago, Tanzania and Sudan
Cuba, Kenya, Guinea, Qatar, Pakistan
Belarus, Yeman, Laos, Egypt, Vietnam.

Well done Iran, you've done what you can
to stick to traditional ways
You've gained second place by showing your people
that petty crime never pays
Morality / chastity must be preseved.
One hundred and thirteen got whats deserved
Stoning, crushing, hanging, killing children too
Public welcome, get there early to ensure best views

Burundi, Malaysia, Malawai, Nigeria, Uganda, Lebanon, Kazakstan,
Guyana, Belize, India, Korea, Jordan,
Libya, Kuwait, Zimbabwe and Kurgistan,
Jamacia, Ghana, UAE, St Lucia, Oman
Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Gabon,
Democratic Republic of Congo and Taiwan
Syria, Botswana, Palestine, Afghanistan

Well done China, you've got the gold
and you win hands down, fair play
You set your sights and human rights
will not stand in you way
Your peoples silenced, no means to defend
One thousand and sixty met the same end
Quick, efficent, single bullet through the head
School groups, please enjoy your day
and take your thoughts to bed


>Noam Chomsky supports Hopoi ( Hands off People of Iran) but Danny says Hopoi are fascists -see earlier threads- therefore Noam is a supporter of fascists eh Danny?

Noam Chomsky supports from afar many groups that seem worthy but that I know are in fact state agents. I have already named British groups here that he supports but which are heavily infiltrated. I have the greatest respect for Chomskys body of work, but everyone makes mistakes. Now, I have little idea about Hopoi, but I can recognise a fake propragandist post when I read it. Indymedia was flooded by 'Iraqi exiles' urging the invasion of Iraq in 2001-2003, who suddenly disappeared when the invasion came and a reckoning came for the millions killed there. I hope you are more genuine and long lasting than that, but respect is earned not automatic.

Please be aware that Indymedia is awash with "CIA in my cornflakes" trolls like Danny. There is no point in reasoning with such people. Anyone who goes against their grain must be a "state agent"... which says it all.

Of course, there is every possibility that the CIA would be disrupting the Iranian elections... but logically you would assume they'd be trying to keep the incumbent nutcase in situ as a pretext for serious interventions... but who knows- obviously not Danny and his ilk who never bring anything but ropey old conspiracy blogs etc. to the table and some cobbled together homespun conjecture.

Don't waste your time feeding them.

Out of interest, are you slagging Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker or ABC news as being a ropey old conspiracy blog?

from WIkipedia:

In a Los Angeles Times review, Edward Jay Epstein cast doubt on these and other assertions, writing, "this book turns out to be, alas, more about the deficiencies of investigative journalism than about the deficiencies of John F. Kennedy."[22] Responding to the book, historian and former Kennedy aide Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called Hersh "the most gullible investigative reporter I've ever encountered."

In a review of Hersh's book, Chain of Command, conservative commentator Amir Taheri wrote, "As soon as he has made an assertion he cites a "source" to back it. In every case this is either an un-named former official or an unidentified secret document passed to Hersh in unknown circumstances... By my count Hersh has anonymous 'sources' inside 30 foreign governments and virtually every department of the U.S. government."

In a response to an article in The New Yorker in which Hersh alleged that the U.S. government was planning a strike on Iran, U.S. Defense Department spokesman Brian Whitman said, "This reporter has a solid and well-earned reputation for making dramatic assertions based on thinly sourced, unverifiable anonymous sources."

It's good to see you have the audacity to try to smear Seymour Hersh to try to justify your propaganda. I could defend him, but why bother. Instead, it is easier just to rewrite the history books. US troops never massacred Vietnamese civilians in My Lai. US troops never abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib. US troops aren't destabilising Iran. That was all just Hershs naive credulity.

Instead, here is a quote from an American I am sure you respect greatly:

"It's been conclusively proven Iran is not going to be talked out of its nuclear programme. So to stop them from doing it, we have to massively increase the pressure. If we can't get enough other countries to come along with us to do that, then we've got to go with regime change by bolstering opposition groups and the like, because that's the circumstance most likely for an Iranian government to decide that it's safer not to pursue nuclear weapons than to continue to do so." - John Bolton, 16 May 2007

but those of Wikipedia. Perhaps you'd care to go and edit the entry?

As to John Bolton - you're obviously not up to date. There's been a 'regime change' in America since May 2007. I doubt his sentiments would be echoed by the present White House. And John Bolton is not the President, Vice President, or head of the CIA. His executive powers when in government were smaller than your IQ.

Wow, I did read the wikipedia entry. It lists many more of the stories credited to Hersh, not one of which has proven to be false over the past 40 years.

So are you saying he got this one wrong? Nah, not directly, you are just smearing and changing your argument. And I'm the troll ?

I detect another change of tactic in your last post. You seem now to be admitting that the Bush regime was trying to destabilise Iran, but the new Democratic regime would never be party to such illegal terrorism. Is that your argument? I am happy to demolish it if it is since the Iranian destablisation policy was approved and funded by Democrats.

President Obama, patron saint of the gullible, has killed more Pakistani mourners in the past days, weeks and months than have been been killed in Iran. Not much press coverage of that fact though, that isn't a useful story for the mainstream media.

I see your outraged friend has just dropped his claim 200,000 Iranians have been executed over the past 30 years to only 100,000. It is great to learn that 100,000 victims have just risen from the grave. Of course, it is still a 2000% exageration. Typical CIA propaganda, and no one is buying it here, thank you.

Still shilling for the Iranian state, I see. How much is Ahmadinejad paying you these days?

'So are you saying he got this one wrong?' Yes, I am. Four words: I don't believe it.

'You seem now to be admitting that the Bush regime was trying to destabilise Iran,' Do I? When?

'Not much press coverage of that fact though, that isn't a useful story for the mainstream media.' Oh. Goes to BBC new website: 'Dozens dead in US drone strike' - listed in top stories.

Yes, Danny, there's a war going on out there. People get killed in wars; sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. Danny covers D Day: 'Shock! Horror! Millions of French civilians massacred by US forces'.

And talking of destabilisation: you're going to tell me next that Iran never, ever, on their honour, interfered in the post-invasion Iraq.

By the way, that is five words, don't is a conflation of do not. Still, if the number of executed Iranians drops from 200,000 to 100,000 overnight then arithmetic isn't your strength.

Do you believe the My Lai Massacre happened? Do you believe the abuse at Abu Ghraib happened?

Strange how the Whitehouse, Pentagon and State Department all 'declined to comment' on the Hersh story instead of denying it. In fact the only Neo-Con criticism of Hershs report was Frum fulminating that the Hersh expose was risking US soldiers lives on the ground in Iran. How could he be risking soldiers lives in Iran if there are no troops there?

Also curious that the only topic you have ever posted on Indymedia is to deny a massive CIA programme at a time that programme is bearing (bitter) fruit. Funny how instead of presenting counter evidence you resort to smears. So far on this thread I am being paid by both Iran and Indymedia, 200000 Iranians have been executed (only for half of them to reappear the next day), the New Yorker is a conspiracy rag and George Bush is an academic. It's easy to see which side you are on and it isn't the Iranian people. See that girl shot through the heart ? You did that.

... because you really are beginning to ramble. You are conflating half a dozen diferent posters into one. You are resorting to gibberish (do I believe My Lai? Yes. Hersh exposed it. Oh. So, in that case, everything he writes until the day he dies is gospel. Yeah, right).

So I shot a girl through the heart. Well, if you say so. But we all know the truth and the reality, don't we ... the CIA DID IT!!!!! They got Lord Voldemort to come along and cast the Imperius curse on thousands and thousands of Iranians, so they could all march through the streets and be shot.

Lie Down. Darkened room. Keep taking the pills.



[PS from the Boston Globe:

During last year's presidential campaign, John F. Kerry was the candidate often portrayed as intellectual and complex, while George W. Bush was the populist who mangled his sentences.

But newly released records show that Bush and Kerry had a virtually identical grade average at Yale University four decades ago.

In 1999, The New Yorker published a transcript indicating that Bush had received a cumulative score of 77 for his first three years at Yale and a roughly similar average under a non-numerical rating system during his senior year.

Kerry, who graduated two years before Bush, got a cumulative 76 for his four years, according to a transcript that Kerry sent to the Navy when he was applying for officer training school. He received four D's in his freshman year out of 10 courses, but improved his average in later years.

The grade transcript, which Kerry has always declined to release, was included in his Navy record. During the campaign the Globe sought Kerry's naval records, but he refused to waive privacy restrictions for the full file. Late last month, Kerry gave the Navy permission to send the documents to the Globe.]

>(do I believe My Lai? Yes. Hersh exposed it. Oh. So, in that case, everything he writes until the day he dies is gospel. Yeah, right).

So his sources, and the seperate ABC sources were mistaken or lying about the Presidential Finding? And yet no one denied it, which is atypical of the Bush administration. I've searched, and you seem to be the only person on the internet denying it, and even you are just sniping anonymously.

You've convinced me I did misunderstimate Bushs intelligence, certain things he said do make more sense once you assume they were spoken by an intelligent person, such as
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

Oh, I can believe Bush giving money to the CIA, but US Special Forces killing, kidnapping, creating mayhem in Iran? Mission Not Possible.

"Oh, I can believe Bush giving money to the CIA, but US Special Forces killing, kidnapping, creating mayhem in Iran? Mission Not Possible."

Seemingly the Presidential Finding was there to provide the CIA with written proof that they wouldn't be liable, where as the military mocked such qualms. Nonetheless, this article is about the destablisation of Iran, and I'm not one to blame the soldiers for following orders.

So, to clarify, when you say you can believe Bush giving money to the CIA, can you believe that the CIA were given several extra hundreds of millions of dollars to institute regime change in Iran in 2007?

First and foremost, the CIA is a huge governmental bureaucracy. It is the Prime DIrective for a bureaucracy to extend its empire. To do this, they write long reports filled with 'ifs', 'perhaps', 'maybe', and usage of the subjuncive: 'It may well be that ...' Knowing that no one will read the full report, they provide a summary. This goes to the Presindential advisors. They drop the conditionals and the subjunctives: 'The CIA has found out that ...', they tell the President. 'Gosh', he says, 'they are dong well. We'd better give them some more money.

90% of this money will be spent on analysts in Langley pouring over Iranian newspapers and old satellite photos.Some of it may well be spent in Iran trying to bribe informers. Whilst some people may be susceptible to bribery, working for America is a different matter. They may well fed innocent titbits back to their handlers.

At the end of it all, the CIA writes another 2000 page report, whose main conclusion is: 'There is a strong possibility that the Iranian nuclear program ...'

Danny, you are so innocent in the ways of bureaucrats. Find me a Government bureaucracy that has volutarily wound itself up, job done, and I'll award you the Sir Humphrey prize for 2009. Spying - it's not guns and leather, you know.

I've worked for bureaucrats but that's irrelevant. This is $400 milion extra to destabilise Iran. The CIA already have the existing infrastructure and bureaucracy, this is extra. The sources for the CIA part of the story you accept state that there is risk of exposure through traceable guns and comms equipment being passed to various groups, as well as the money going to more legitimate opposition. You can either doubt the entire article or accept that.

You seem to be accepting the ABC and Hersh stories of the '07 Presidential Finding for extra funding for the CIA to destabilise Iran. This is at a time that the Democrats controlled Congress and could have blocked it, so there is no reason to suspect that destabilisation programme has been stopped.

CIA involvement in the current destablisation of Iran in no way invalidates the genuineness of the protestors, or the worthiness of their cause, but it should be acknowledged because we can see from past experience that this does not bode well for the protestors safety or aspirations.