Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 29, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Europe’s Warming Raises Tropical Disease Risk






Truthdig Bazaar
Motherhood Manifesto

Motherhood Manifesto

By Joan Blades and Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner
$8.97

more items

 
A/V Booth

‘Democracy Now!’: Seymour Hersh on the IAEA’s Racket in Iran

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 21, 2011
democracynow.org

Last week,the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog agency expressed “serious concerns” over Iran’s nuclear program in a strongly worded report that claimed that there is evidence that Iran might be developing an atomic weapon.  This is the stuff of “fantasyland,” according to The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh. The investigative journalist appeared on Monday’s “Democracy Now!” broadcast to give his take on the IAEA’s agenda, which he said reminds him of a similar situation in our nation’s not-so-distant past.

Democracy Now!:

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By diamond, November 30, 2011 at 4:23 pm Link to this comment

“dia—-there was a good deal of pack-rape during the war…the Afghans enjoyed
raping captured Russian soldiers as a preliminary to torture, mutilation and killing
them.”

And the Russians enjoyed doing the same in Muslim Chechnya, usually to twelve year old boys they simply took at gunpoint from their families. Their crimes there would match or better anything the Mujaheddin did in Afghanistan. Is it just me, or is there a pattern here? You can’t play the nationalism card here, hetero, because this is a global war, remember? It is the war of the haves on the have nots and it’s been going a very long time, but I have a feeling the ordinary folk of the world are getting sick of the whole corrupt madness and won’t tolerate it much longer.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 29, 2011 at 3:17 pm Link to this comment

RE: ...Afghanistan… smoking ruin with a mob government that only rules Kabul and doesn’t have any authority outside of it…

salient point, just repeated in Libya and on schedule in Syria…e.g.

November 29, 2011
New Libya ‘Government’ Is Run By CIA
By thomasmantell - By ANON
http://counterpsyops.com/2011/11/29/new-libya-government-is-run-by-cia/

UNPOPULAR CIA GOVERNMENT IN LIBYA

Ali Tarhouni has been both the oil minister, and the acting prime-minister, in the new Libya. He has now quit.

He says that the new government of Libya represents less than 10% of the Libyan population. He says the new government is being propped up by foreign “money, arms and PR.” Tarhouni lashes Libyan leaders. The new government of Libya is run by the CIA.It is unpopular.

[...]

Leading Libyan Islamist met Free Syrian Army opposition group
29.11. 2011 - http://tinyurl.com/dymldhp

Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, “met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey,” said a military official working with Mr Belhadj. “Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interim Libyan president) sent him there.”

The “covert operation” was immediately laid bare when a rival Libyan rebel brigade detained Belhaj at Tripoli airport, accused him of travelling on a fake passport, and declared they would jail the senior military leader. Only a letter from the country’s interim president was enough to persuade them to let him leave the country.

The meetings came as a sign of a growing ties between Libya’s fledgling government and the Syrian opposition. The Daily Telegraph on Saturday revealed that the new Libyan authorities had offered money and weapons to the growing insurgency against Bashar al-Assad.

[...]

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 29, 2011 at 2:59 pm Link to this comment

dia—-there was a good deal of pack-rape during the war…the Afghans enjoyed
raping captured Russian soldiers as a preliminary to torture, mutilation and killing
them.

if you’re unhappy that the Soviets invasion of Afghanistan was resisted and
reversed, you’ll have to lodge your complaint in several places, and they aren’t
mostly in “the West”.

Report this

By diamond, November 29, 2011 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment

“the Russians started the war
and they lost the war and we helped….we didn’t start it and we didn’t do more
than play a part….we hopped on.”

Yes, how ‘helpful’ can you get? I’m pretty sure the Afghan people could have done without your help and your ‘hopping on’. Sounds like pack rape to me and that is precisely what it was. Without the west’s interference Afghanistan might not be a smoking ruin with a mob government that only rules Kabul and doesn’t have any authority outside of it and the drug trade would have ceased, instead of which many of the biggest drug lords in Afghanistan are part of the government. Most of the heroin that makes its way to Europe and America comes from Afghanistan. I’m sure every parent with a junkie child thanks the neo cons for that. And if you’re part of the ‘everybody’ that knows what happened, then just stop lying about it.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 28, 2011 at 3:46 pm Link to this comment

again - exception taken; counter analysis: US aided, abetted,
designed provocation of USSR to enter Afghanistan militarily - e.g.

1978: CIA Begins Covert Action in Afghanistan

  http://tinyurl.com/7p4la85

The CIA begins covert action against the Communist government in
Afghanistan, which is closely tied to the Soviet Union. Some time this year, the
CIA begins training militants in Pakistan and beaming radio propaganda into
Afghanistan. By April 1979, US officials are meeting with opponents of the
Afghan government to determine their needs. [BLUM, 1995, PP. 344]

Robert Gates, who will become CIA Director in the early 1990s, will later recall
that in a meeting on March 30, 1979, Under Secretary of Defense Walter
Slocumbe wonders aloud whether there is “value in keeping the Afghan
insurgency going, ‘sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire.’” [GATES,
1996, PP. 145]

In March 1979, there is a major revolt in Herat province, and in June and August
there are large scale army mutinies. [COOLEY, 2002, PP. 5] President Carter will
formally approve covert aid to opponents of the government in July (see July 3,
1979), which will result in a Russian invasion in December (see December 8,
1979).

Entity Tags: Central Intelligence Agency, Robert M. Gates, Walter Slocumbe
Timeline Tags: War in Afghanistan
Category Tags: Soviet-Afghan War, Counterterrorism Action Before 9/11

__________________

this source… http://countrystudies.us/ - severely sanitized by “...by the U.S.
Department of the Army…”

Country Studies

This website contains the on-line versions of books previously published in
hard copy by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress as part of
the Country Studies/Area Handbook Series sponsored by the U.S. Department
of the Army
between 1986 and 1998. Each study offers a comprehensive
description and analysis of the country or region’s historical setting,
geography, society, economy, political system, and foreign policy.

_____________________

again, collaborating with hegemons… not recommended they usually turn on
you… e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L64WSPZ5mNk

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 28, 2011 at 1:59 pm Link to this comment

diamond—- everybody DOES know what happened…...The Afghans did the
fighting, along with Arabs and other Muslims and supported by the Pakistanis,
saudis and the US.

and they fought a Soviet takeover of Afghanistan…......the Russians started the war
and they lost the war and we helped….we didn’t start it and we didn’t do more
than play a part….we hopped on.

Report this

By diamond, November 28, 2011 at 1:56 pm Link to this comment

How close was the relationship between the CIA and bin Laden and the Islamic radicals who fought the Russians? Well, very. And the people they supported were not nice people.

‘Washington’s favoured mujaheddin faction was one of the most extreme, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The West’s distaste for terrorism did not apply to this unsavoury ‘freedom fighter’. Hekmatyar was notorious in the 1970s for throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil.

After the Mujaheddin took Kabul in 1992, Hekmatyar’s forces rained US-supplied missiles and rockets on that city — killing at least 2000 civilians — until the new government agreed to give him the post of Prime Minister. Osama bin Laden was a close associate of Hekmatyar and his faction.
Hekmatyar was also infamous for his side trade in the cultivation and trafficking in opium. Backing of the mujaheddin from the CIA coincided with a boom in the drug business. Within two years, the Afghanistan-Pakistan border was the world’s single largest source of heroin, supplying 60% of US drug users.’ (Norm Dixon, Green Left Weekly, 19th September 2001)

Any idea anyone might have that the CIA and the Muhajeddin/Taliban/al Qaeda were kept rigorously apart and that the CIA’s role was strictly hands off, apart from funding and weapons, would be wrong.

‘John Cooley, a former journalist with the US ABC television network and author of ‘Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism’, has revealed that Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary, the CIA’s spy training camp in Virginia, where young Afghans, Arabs from Egypt and Jordan, and even some African-American ‘black Muslims’ were taught ‘sabotage skills’. (Dixon, September 19th 2001).

No, America didn’t lead the way and didn’t arm and fund and train the fighters. Anyone can see that.

Report this

By diamond, November 28, 2011 at 1:46 pm Link to this comment

“We hopped on but it wasn’t US leading the way against the Soviets.”

No, of course not. It was Switzerland. Why you insist on trying to rewrite history, as if no one knows what really went on, is a mystery to me.

“Part of the CIA program was led by its elite Special Activities Division and included the arming, training and leading of Afghanistan’s mujahideen. This policy had the explicit aim of promoting radical Islamist and anti-Communist forces to overthrow the secular communist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan government in Afghanistan, which had been destabilized by coup attempts against Hafizullah Amin, the power struggle within the Soviet-supported Parcham faction of the PDPA and a subsequent Soviet military intervention.

Years later, in a 1997 CNN/National Security Archive interview, Brzezinski detailed the strategy taken by the Carter administration against the Soviets in 1979:

We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions. And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from various sources again – for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese. We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujaheddin from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt.”

And what does this prove? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and Heterochromatic prefers lies to the truth.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 27, 2011 at 8:48 pm Link to this comment

no surprises - the Pope did more to end the old Polish regime than Solidarno?? - however, let all
beware the potential consequences of dealing with hegemons…

Poland called to account for CIA ‘black sites’
5th September 2011
http://www.wbj.pl/article-55928-poland-called-to-account-for-cia-black-sites.html


A human rights official has slammed Poland for failing to come clean on complicity with US rendition
practices

Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe Thomas Hammarberg is urging Poland,
Romania and Lithuania to come clean regarding their alleged hosting of CIA “black sites” in the
beginning of the 2000s.

[...]

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 27, 2011 at 8:25 pm Link to this comment

dog—- I don’t know what you’re getting at.  The
Daoud government always was influenced by the Soviets
and menaced by them. They did indeed attempt to keep
from falling completely under the Soviet thumb….and
they got killed by a Soviet-sponsored coup and
replaced by people who would dance to the Bear’s
tune.

If you’re surprised that the US would keep a line
open to religious parties, natural enemies of the
Soviets, you shouldn’t be.

(We kept in touch with the Catholics in Poland as
well, you might someday be surprised to discover.)

and you’ll flabbergasted to hear that we have
contacts with the Sunnis in Iran, who are always
oppressed (along with the Baha’i and all other
religious groups) by the Iranian theocrat thugs.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 27, 2011 at 7:35 pm Link to this comment

having studied a number of the pages in this report,
http://countrystudies.us/afghanistan/ - I find that there is literally nothing that
even addresses this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Afghanistan

Afghanistan 1973

Roger Morris, a former Foreign Service Officer and National Security Council
staff member under presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, writing in
the Asia Times, argues that as early as 1973-74, the CIA began offering covert
backing to Islamic radical rebels in Afghanistan premised on the claim that the
right-wing, authoritarian government headed by Mohammed Daoud Khan,
might prove a likely instrument of Soviet military aggression in South Asia.

Morris argues that this premise was without basis in fact; Daoud had always
held the Russians, his main patron when it came to aid, at arm’s length, and
had purged local communists who supported him when he overthrew the
Afghan monarchy in 1973. The Soviets had also shown no inclination to use the
notoriously unruly Afghans and their army for any expansionist aim.[1] Morris
claims that during this period U.S. foreign policy leaders saw the Soviets as
always being “on the march.” U.S. secret backing of radical Islamic rebels
ceased following an abortive rebel uprising in 1975.[1]

Afghanistan 1978

See also: Soviet war in Afghanistan
One of the American intelligence community’s biggest operations and initially
considered a major success was the funding of the Mujahedeen (Islamist
fighters) in Afghanistan and their training, arming, and supplying. The program
was initiated under President Jimmy Carter and greatly expanded following the
Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in December 1979. Under Reagan funding
reached levels of $600 million/year.

Roger Morris, writing in the Asia Times, states that in April 1978, the
crackdown by the regime of Daoud on Afghanistan’s small Communist Party
provoked a successful coup by Communist Party loyalists in the army. The
coup occurred in defiance of a skittish Moscow, which had stopped earlier coup
plans[citation needed].

According to Morris, by autumn 1978, an Islamic insurgency, armed and
planned by the U.S., Pakistan, Iran and China, and soon to be actively
supported, at Washington’s prodding, by the Saudis and Egyptians, was fighting
in eastern Afghanistan. The Black Book of Communism instead puts the blame
on the Soviet Union who feared that Afghanistan was escaping its domination.
There was little Muslim extremism before the Communist coup. After the coup,
according to the Black Book, several anti-religion campaigns by the Communist
regime, as well as the harsh repressions, soon caused a fierce insurgency.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 27, 2011 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment

source… http://countrystudies.us/

Country Studies

This website contains the on-line versions of books previously published in hard copy by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress as part of the Country Studies/Area Handbook Series sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army between 1986 and 1998. Each study offers a comprehensive description and analysis of the country or region’s historical setting, geography, society, economy, political system, and foreign policy.

studying the page cited: http://countrystudies.us/afghanistan/29.htm
plus this page:  http://countrystudies.us/afghanistan/89.htm 
USURPATION, INVASION AND WAR: 1978-92 The April 1978 Coup d’etat and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan;
quickly noted is that they’re sanitized of literally any mention of CIA activity, while including this:
The coup was by far Khalq’s most successful achievement. So much so, that a considerable literature has accumulated arguing that it must have been planned and executed by the KGB, or some special branch of the Soviet military.

even this page http://countrystudies.us/afghanistan/103.htm 
The Path to Victory and Chaos: 1979-92 
is wholly Volterraized

continuing… http://countrystudies.us/afghanistan/108.htm 
Pakistan’s Support of Afghan Islamists, 1975-79
again, includes no mention of the CIA - only a single reference to Pakistan Intelligence: Hekmatyar and Rabbani received funding, training, and equipment from Pakistan’s Interservice Intelligence Directorate (ISI).

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 27, 2011 at 6:13 pm Link to this comment

dog, __Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski about how the US provoked the
Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan and starting the whole mess Le Nouvel
Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*——

 

 

 

please OINE MORE TIME—- the mess was already started. the coup sponsored
by the Soviets in 1978 was ALREADY being resisted before we sent it any aid.
matter of fact, it was divided and there was internal fighting as the factions
sought to gain ascendency,

 

——-“Internal rebellion against the regime began in Afghanistan in the summer
and fall of 1978. A number of attempts by Parchamis to oust the Khalqis were
reported. The intense rivalry between Taraki and Amin within the Khalq faction
heated up, culminating in the death—admittedly the murder—of Taraki. In
September 1979, Taraki’s followers, with Soviet complicity, had made several
attempts on Amin’s life. The final attempt backfired, however, and it was Taraki
who was eliminated and Amin, who assumed power in Afghanistan. The Soviets
had at first backed Amin, but they realized that he was too rigidly Marxist-
Leninist to survive politically in a country as conservative and religious as
Afghanistan.

Taraki’s death was first noted in the Kabul Times on 10 October and reported
that the former leader only recently hailed as the “great teacher…great
genius…great leader” had died quietly “of serious illness, which he had been
suffering for some time.” Less than three months later, after the Amin
government had been overthrown, the newly installed followers of Babrak
Karmal gave another account of Taraki’s death. According to this account, Amin
ordered the commander of the palace guard to have Taraki executed. Taraki
reportedly was suffocated with a pillow over his head. Amin’s emergence from
the power struggle within the small divided communist party in Afghanistan
alarmed the Soviet and would usher in the series of events which lead to the
Soviet invasion.”——

http://countrystudies.us/afghanistan/29.htm

do the reading ....read about the reaction to Decree # 6 issued in mid-July
78.and you’ll find that the regime was amassing not only internal enemies but
that Afghans were setting up in Pakistan.


We hopped on but it wasn’t US leading the way against the Soviets.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 27, 2011 at 4:59 pm Link to this comment

bloody hell! if I knew that, I’d certainly ‘know too much’ - here’s John Stockwell discussing it in 1989 - his predictions are off, but so what, most prognostications are
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePMSj8XDZxQ

and here’s the extended Brzezinski quotes from the oft-cited 1998 interview

http://killinghope.org/bblum6/brz.htm

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski about how the US provoked the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan and starting the whole mess Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [From the Shadows], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, in substance: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalists, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?**

Question: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

This interview was translated from the French by William Blum, Author of “Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II” and “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower”. Portions of the books can be read at: http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm (with a link to Killing Hope)

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 27, 2011 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment

dog, do us a favor and explain what aid was sent and let us examine it

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 27, 2011 at 2:18 pm Link to this comment

not defending anything - where your polemics go off the mark - always looking for
a fight, someone to dominate, humiliate, browbeat, denigrate - clearly the habits
of a pedant too long too distant from opportunities to impose abusive discipline

the point, Brzezinski wrote: ”...in my opinion this aid was going to induce a
Soviet military intervention.…”

proof: The US intentionally provoked USSR intervention in Afghanistan

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 27, 2011 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment

so we sent aid to the people fighting the Soviet puppet regime and the Soviets
sent an invasion force that within three days summarily executed the head of their
own Afghan puppet government .............


Soviets sponsor the 1978 coup..the coup runs into a lot of resistance as it tries to
turn the Afghans away from their ideas of society and create a different one….we
support the Afghans in some insubstantial way or another…


and you’re still trying to defend diamond’s sill assertion that the war was started
by US?

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 27, 2011 at 1:45 pm Link to this comment

niggling, niggling, niggling, gleiche wie die Nibelungen…
__________

the point… Brzezinski:    ...July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret
aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the
president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet
military intervention.…the CIA had been aiding the rebels since at least the year before
(see
1978 and 1973-1979). The Soviets invade Afghanistan by the end of 1979 (see December 8,
1979).

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 27, 2011 at 1:21 pm Link to this comment

good….now we can agree that the guy you were quoting
saying that the Shah fell in 1978 is wrong and possibly
not all that well informed.

BTW-what is this .....[DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 241, 251 -
256]

got a link?

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 27, 2011 at 1:05 pm Link to this comment

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

The Shah left Iran for exile in mid-January 1979, and in the resulting power vacuum two weeks later Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran to a greeting by several million Iranians.[11] The royal regime collapsed shortly after on February 11 when guerrillas and rebel troops overwhelmed troops loyal to the Shah in armed street fighting.[12][13] Iran voted by national referendum to become an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979,[14] and to approve a new theocratic constitution whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country, in December 1979.

_____________________

Fall of the Shah of Iran
Biot Report #137: November 11, 2004
http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=137

On January 16, 1979, the shah fled Iran, unlike 1953, not to return. He died in exile in June 1979. The aged Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Khomeini, flew from Paris to Tehran on February 1, 1979, ending fourteen years of exile, to lead religious revolutionaries in the final overthrow of the shah’s government on February 11, 1979.

__________________

A history and analysis of the revolution in which socialists aligned themselves with Islamists to overthrow the West-backed Shah.

Following the success of the revolution, the Islamists instituted a theocratic dictatorship and wiped out the workers’ movement and the left.

http://libcom.org/history/1978-1979-the-iranian-revolution

[...]

On January 16, 1979, the shah fled to Egypt. In mid-February, there was an insurrection, with air force cadets joining with guerrilla forces - the leftist Organisation of Iranian Peoples’ Fedai Guerrillas, or Fedayeen, and the nationalist Mujahedeen - in over-running the military academy, army bases, the parliament, factories, armouries and the TV station. The Pahlavi regime collapsed and Khomeini, who had returned from exile, cobbled together a multi-party provisional government, but the people wanted more.

Women’s organisations flourished, peasants started seizing the land and in some places, established communal cultivation councils, strikes were rampant and workers seized control of their workplaces, arranging raw materials, sourcing and sales themselves, even setting prices in the oil industry. A system of grassroots soviets - called “shoras” in Iranian and based on the old factory council idea - sprang up in fields, factories, neighbourhoods, educational institutions and the armed forces. Armed neighbourhood committees - called “komitehs” - based on the old Muslim scholar networks - patrolled residential areas, arrested collaborators, ran people’s courts and prisons, and organised demonstrations. It was a true workers’ revolution with secular revolutionaries and Muslim workers overthrowing the capitalist state side by side. A May Day march in Tehran drew 1.5 million demonstrators.

A month later, the government declared the shoras to be “counter-revolutionary”, claiming that their minority bourgeois regime was “the genuine Islamic Revolution”. Still the shoras spread, so the regime introduced a law aimed at undermining worker self-management by banning shora involvement in management affairs - while at the same time trying to force class collaboration by insisting that management must be allowed to participate in the shoras.

[...]

Khomeini founded the fundamentalist Iranian Republican Party (IRP) to squeeze opposition parties out of the provisional government and at the same time established the Revolutionary Guards (Pasdaran), a political police force to marginalise the secular left within the komitehs, which it wanted to mobilise as a supporter bloc.

[...]

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 27, 2011 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment

and the Shah hung on in his own indicisive and depressive way until late Jan 1979
when he flew out of the country and his regime STILL continued for two more
weeks…...

do the reading, dog.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 27, 2011 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment

for pedants bent on derision, browbeating, humiliation… any niggle will do:

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

Demonstrations against the Shah commenced in October 1977, developing into a campaign of civil resistance that was partly secular and partly religious,  and intensified in January 1978. Between August and December 1978 strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country. The Shah left Iran for exile in mid- January 1979

________________
more on Brzezinski

November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union
 
In December 1978, President Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski says, “An arc of crisis stretches along the shores of the Indian Ocean,  with fragile social and political structures in a region of vital importance to us threatened with fragmentation. The resulting political chaos could well be filled by elements hostile to our values and sympathetic to our adversaries.” [TIME,  1/8/1979]

There is widespread discontent and rioting in Iran at the time. State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea “that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was,  there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets.” [SCOTT, 2007, PP. 67]

________
the point

July 3, 1979: President Carter Approves Covert Aid to Anti-Soviet Forces in Afghanistan
 
President Carter authorizes covert aid for opponents of the Communist government in Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security Adviser, will state in 1998, “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujaheddin began… after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan…

But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.…

We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.” [LE NOUVEL OBSERVATEUR (PARIS), 1/15/1998]

After Brzezinski’s confession, other US officials who denied US involvement prior to the Soviet invasion will change their story as well. For instance, Charles Cogan, who is head of the CIA covert aid program to Afghanistan at this time, will call Carter’s approval on this day a “very modest beginning to US involvement.” [COOLEY, 2002, PP. 10]

In fact, even this is not correct because the CIA had been aiding the rebels since at least the year before (see 1978 and 1973-1979). The Soviets invade Afghanistan by the end of 1979 (see December 8, 1979).

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 27, 2011 at 11:52 am Link to this comment

——- after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski
favored a “de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the
Republic of Iran.” [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 241, 251 - 256]
———


such a good source that it says that the Shah fell in 1978 when it was Jan 1979

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 27, 2011 at 11:32 am Link to this comment

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=zbigniew_brzezinski

1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam
Against Soviet Union

  
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter’s National Security Adviser,
forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of
weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions.

The Islamic populations are regarded as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father
of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts
that with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will “explode into genocidal
fury” against Moscow.

According to Richard Cottam, a former CIA official who advised the Carter
administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski
favored a “de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the
Republic of Iran.” [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 241, 251 - 256]

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 27, 2011 at 11:17 am Link to this comment

——Clearly you’ve never heard the expression, ‘If you break it, you own it’. In
1978 Afghanistan had a secular and democratic government but that
government had links to the Soviet Union and wanted to carry out land reform.-
——

that government come to power in 1978 in a bloody coup, diamond, executing
the ministers of the previous government….....and then imprisoning thousands
of people.

there wasn’t a damn thing “democratic” about it even if it was violently secular.

——” America needs to understand that you can’t create democracy by blowing
up children and putting a gangster government in place in Kabul…”—-

double standard, diamond? 


Of course, reagan wasn’t president in 1978 ...and Afghanistan was already quite
broken….the Soviets did the breaking and owned that war

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 27, 2011 at 1:58 am Link to this comment

RE: </i>”...when the CIA ran the massacre and those carrying it out reported
directly to the CIA I hardly think you can claim the blood in on someone else’s
hands.”</i>

ditto for Libya

- http://tinyurl.com/7pufnby
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L2dy3-uqEc
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u03Xiz4i26w

carbon copy for Syria

Report this

By diamond, November 27, 2011 at 12:42 am Link to this comment

“the Indonesians killed don’t belong
to us and the idea that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was resisted on our
behalf rather than successful because of our aid to the resistance is also wrong.”

Clearly you’ve never heard the expression, ‘If you break it, you own it’. In 1978 Afghanistan had a secular and democratic government but that government had links to the Soviet Union and wanted to carry out land reform. Many of the Mullahs were big landowners. It was a marriage made in heaven, the Mullahs and Ronald Reagan combined and Reagan spent $20 billion of taxpayers’ money on funding and arming the Mujaheddin. America needs to understand that you can’t create democracy by blowing up children and putting a gangster government in place in Kabul or Baghdad. For starters.

I find it more than somewhat alarming that you think ANY people ‘belong’ to America, even though I know that mindset is well and truly entrenched in the Pentagon and the CIA. It’s why they think they have the right to carry out genocide in the name of their laissez faire, capitalist ideology. It’s common knowledge that America made a decision to give the Soviet Union its Vietnam and thereby cause its collapse. That they did this by funding and arming people they now virtuously describe as ‘terrorists’ they must save the world from, while currently playing footsie with drug lords and war lords and former Unocal executives like Karzai is no surprise to me. Apparently it’s all a mystery to you, though, that anyone would hold America accountable for its crimes. It seems that ‘what happens in Indonesia stays in Indonesia’ in your universe but when the CIA ran the massacre and those carrying it out reported directly to the CIA I hardly think you can claim the blood in on someone else’s hands.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 26, 2011 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment

diamond———America has done more than its share of killing, but we’ve never
cornered the market.

and some of your claims aren’t well-founded….the Indonesians killed don’t belong
to us and the idea that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was resisted on our
behalf rather than successful because of our aid to the resistance is also wrong.


to date, nothing we’ve done makes the iranian theocracy appear comparatively
virtuous. that’s simply not the case and not really possible.

Report this

By diamond, November 26, 2011 at 2:02 pm Link to this comment

“I’m open toi seeing the Iranian side of it, but will point out that the Iranians
haven’t exactly been mindful of avoiding harm to civilians ....”

1.3 million Iraqis are dead because of America’s invasion of their country and according to some statistics I’ve seen, 90% of the dead are civilians. 5 million died in Vietnam, most of them were civilians too, 70%. 600,000 killed by American forces in the Philippines, again most of them civilians. 1 million died in Indonesia in a ‘killing fields’ scenario orchestrated by the CIA. Most of them were students, trade unionists and people who just weren’t thinking the ‘correct’ political thoughts. Their bodies were dumped in mass graves.

If you want to talk in your blinkered way about killing civilians, you need to factor in that it’s obvious to a lot of people that America has cornered the market there and Iran can only ever be a bit player waiting in a state of virtual helplessness for their role in the military/industrial complex’s global action oil movie. Is anyone really surprised that they want a nuclear deterrent? You can’t prove that Iran has attacked, bombed, invaded or occupied any other country unless attacked themselves, as in the case of Iraq and Saddam Hussein and in the case of the Iranian Kurdish rebels, because it is simply historically untrue.

No other nation on earth attacks and occupies countries with the rapacity and corporate ruthlessness that America does. And the countries they attack are third world countries that can’t possibly defend themselves against the American juggernaut, so that makes America an imperial bully that makes war for profit and gives it no moral authority to put sanctions on others or to compel others to ‘follow orders’. Noam Chomsky has openly stated that America is the number one terrorist state in the world and that America’s terrorism is ‘not discussed, by fiat’. The idea of attacking Iran conforms to no logic, military, moral or even economic that I’m aware of, but is driven by America’s fear of Israel and Israel’s fear that one day all those chickens will finally come home to roost. As of course they will. Destroying Iran won’t prevent it, either, and might even speed it up.

And I haven’t even mentioned the 1 to 2 million Afghan citizens that died in the proxy war the Mujaheddin fought for America against the Soviet Union. It’s impossible to estimate how many civilians have died in Afghanistan as a result of America’s invasion and occupation of that country because no one could be bothered keeping score but after thirty years of war and destruction it must be many millions. And I haven’t even referred to the hundreds of other countries that have felt the American jackboot on their necks. Iran looks positively virtuous next to America’s record of corporate war and civilian slaughter. All the rest is propaganda and deceit.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 25, 2011 at 11:53 pm Link to this comment

that’s right, dog. Porter decided to try to defend Shawcross’s savaging of
Porter’s denial that the Khmer Rouge were engaged in a bloodbath against the
citizens of Cambodia by saying that Shawcross wasn’t being fair to the book
because the book wasn’t entirely Khmer Rouge propaganda…..Porter says there
was other stuff, so Shawcross isn’t being fair!.


Porter actually got up before Congress in May 77 and said that the charges of a
KHmer Rouge “bloodbath” in Cambodia were…. “hysterical” and that all the
refugees who managed to get out of Cambodia alive and who were telling the
world about Khmer Rouge atrocities were “painting the darkest picture
possible” and the escaped victims were causing all this fuss needlessly and
leading to “wild exaggeration and wholesale falsehoods” about the policies of
the Khmer Rouge government.

http://books.google.com/books?
id=ksusfDywiGUC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=Gareth+Porter+and+the+Khmer+
Rouge&source=bl&ots=37xNcWEAlV&sig=g5Vrch_kNVqRYQgbCDtjGewhosk&hl;
=en&ei=0obQTqXNGqfY0QG28cVO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum;=
10&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Gareth Porter and the Kh
mer Rouge&f=false


Porter was entirely full of shit all along the line and he finally couldn’t lie and
longer and in August 1978 admitted that the Khmer Rouge did what he had all
along denied.

A decent and sane man would never have written another word for public
consumption, but Porter is neither.


http://youtu.be/8GSv9uyNu7U

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 25, 2011 at 11:07 pm Link to this comment

http://tinyurl.com/88sfgod

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 25, 2011 at 11:05 pm Link to this comment

http://tinyurl.com/79y3vch

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 25, 2011 at 10:01 pm Link to this comment

never tear the shipping carton. very useful for a play room for the little pups.

dog, you don’t know me or know a damn thing about “thinking outside the
box”.


accepting any sort of crap because it’s sounds like a challenge to conventional
wisdom ....just doesn’t cut any ice.  shit on ice still stinks and still is pointless.

long time ago, i used to believe everything that a guy reporting about the war
in Viet-nam used to write.

His name was Gareth Porter. He wrote stuff that was good….until he started
writing disgraceful lies…..He still writes and he still writes lies and he’s still
disgraced .....

but people learned that he was a liar and a fool long ago.

you might like to read a book he wrote about Cambodia…...


http://www.amazon.com/Cambodia-Starvation-Revolution-Gareth-
Porter/dp/0853453829

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 25, 2011 at 8:36 pm Link to this comment

sophomoric mixed metaphors are the best one can expect from authoritarian
pedants for whom the notion of ‘thinking outside the box’ means deciding where
to put the 59-inch TV after tearing off the shipping carton

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 25, 2011 at 8:02 pm Link to this comment

blogdogs are prone to ticks and as long as you drop bullshit links on the page,
you can expect to have you snout rubbed in them….


http://canisbonus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/nose-rub.gif

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 25, 2011 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment

tic, knock off the lectures, orders, derision… your days of pedantic browbeating
are over - do a little research on your own legacy - learn how many kids you
forever damaged are living under a bridge, too emotionally broken to even look
for minimum wage job - not that it was all your fault, but since the first thing they
ever heard from you was probably “IDIOT!” it didn’t help - a leopard’s spots don’t
change - so you bring that pedant attitude in here and now I’m asking politely to
knock it off - keep hammering on me, and I may get really ticked off, tic!

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 25, 2011 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

oh dog…your second link is to the writings of Dean Henderson…who likes to
talk about “the illuminati” and the Illuminati Plan to depopulate the World

http://deanhenderson.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/the-illuminati-
depopulation-agenda/


......how Israel was behind the terrorist attack in Norway——and I quote

‘“Friday’s bloodbath in progressive Norway bears the markings of an Israeli
Mossad false flag terror attack….....

and that Anders Breivik murder of 76 people in Norway is explained by saying

” ...the terrorist attacks in Oslo took place exactly 65 years to the day after the
fascist Israeli Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem….”

 

dog, stop posting stuff from madmen unless and until you can substantiate the
bullshit.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 25, 2011 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment

RE: ...Saudis and the rest of the GCC…

Saudi Arabia Plays Key Role in US Anti-Iranian Alliance
by Jean Shaoul
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27682

Saudi Arabia’s key role in seeking to destabilise the Ba’athist regime of
Bashir Assad has become the centrepiece of an attempt by Washington to
cobble together an anti-Iranian alliance, aimed more generally at suppressing
the Middle Eastern masses.

[...]
___________________

The Gulf Cooperation Council: Rockefeller/Rothschild Puppet
Monarchy

Posted on September 17, 2011
http://tinyurl.com/82fybxb
March 8, 2011 — Dean Henderson

Yesterday the six nations which make up the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
called on their Western protectors to enforce a no-fly zone in the skies over
Libya. Why would these Arab nations- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE,
Oman and Qatar- clamor for an act of war against another Arab oil-producer?
A brief history of the GCC is in order.

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was a watershed event. With the Shah deposed
and the Iranian Consortium nationalized, the Four Horsemen- Exxon Mobil,
Chevron Texaco, BP Amoco and Royal Dutch/Shell- and their
Rockefeller/Rothschild owners sought to create a more comprehensive security
system for the safeguarding of Persian Gulf crude oil. The House of Saud was
fast becoming a lightning rod for Arab nationalists, who saw the monarchy as a
Western surrogate.

The State Department sought to take pressure off the Saudis by finding other
regional leaders willing to embrace the same oil for arms quid pro quo that had
been in force in the Kingdom since the early 1950’s. That arrangement involves
the US arming the House of Saud to protect it from enemies both foreign and
domestic. In return the Saudis serve as “swing producer”, ensuring the West a
steady and relatively cheap supply of oil. While US spook outfits like SAIC, Booz
Hamilton, TRW and Vinnell Corp. trained the Saudi National Guard, Pakistani
and Egyptian pilots (Saudi nationals were not to be trusted) were trained to fly
US F-15 fighters in protection of the Kingdom. The Saudis in turn became the
primary funder of CIA/MI6/Mossad covert operations worldwide, including
those aimed at Libya from bases in Exxon Mobil-controlled Chad.

[...]
___________________________

and typically, the focus here at TD is on a narrow corner of the board…
up-to-date analysis from Pepe Escobar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xbUCgHKz2Mg

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 25, 2011 at 4:16 pm Link to this comment

diamond—-the reference was to show that Iran does attack…and I make no
claims as to the justice of the fighting between Iran and the Kurds.

I’m open toi seeing the Iranian side of it, but will point out that the Iranians
haven’t exactly been mindful of avoiding harm to civilians ....


http://www.dawn.com/2011/09/02/human-rights-watch-slams-turkey-iran-
attacks-in-north-iraq.html


————


and NO, diamond, ” The whole basis for the ‘get Iran’ club’s activities is that
Iran intends to attack Israel.”

That’s not all the basis and the Saudis and the rest of the GCC wouldn’t be in
the forefront of the push to stop Iran from building nukes if it was the basis.

It’s far more than that.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 25, 2011 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment

virtual carbon copies across the region -  R2P proliferation:

SUNDAY, MAY 8, 2011
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/05/syria-standing-in-defiance.html
Syria Standing in Defiance
US-funded sedition and the responsibility to restore order.
commentary by Tony Cartalucci

Bangkok, Thailand May 8, 2011 - The global corporate-financier funded think-
tanks rolled out their slick acronym, “R2P,” or the “responsibility to protect,” as
a means to encapsulate the latest excuse in a long history of untenable excuses
for wars of imperial expansion, in recent regards to Libya. The corporate-
owned media eagerly explained to any impressionable reader that would have
them, how R2P allowed the US to bomb any nation into submission that
attempted to deploy security forces against “peaceful” protesters.

Not mentioning that Libya’s “protesters” are actually armed insurgents, merely
fighting the latest campaign of a 30 year foreign-funded war against Libya’s
government, R2P is already being menacingly waved in Syria’s direction, as well
as toward the remaining sovereign nation-states of the world.

It is difficult to imagine any nation on earth tolerating foreign-funded sedition,
arson, and riots without attempting to restore order. In fact, any nation that
didn’t attempt to restore order in the face of violent, foreign-funded sedition
would surely be guilty of negligence and incompetence. So while globalist rags
like Foreign Policy Magazine, the Economist, and think-tanks like the Brookings
Institution promote R2P, maybe we should consider R2rO, or the “responsibility
to restore order.”

In Syria’s case, the fact that the opposition in the streets is foreign-funded is a
matter of public record. In an April 2011 AFP report, Michael Posner, the
assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labor, stated that the “US
government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new
technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution
by authoritarian governments.” The report went on to explain that the US
“organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world.
A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from
Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim
of training their colleagues there.” Posner would add, “They went back and
there’s a ripple effect.”

[...]

Report this

By diamond, November 25, 2011 at 3:19 pm Link to this comment

‘Northern Iraq, this summer.’

“Iran also shelled the border, Ahmed said. The shelling appeared to target bases of the Iranian Kurdish rebel group PEJAK (in Northern Iraq), which has been involved in sporadic cross-border clashes with Iranian forces in recent years. PEJAK says it’s fighting for greater rights in Iran. The rebels deny recent Iranian accusations they have taken up positions inside Iran.”

This sounds to me more like an invasion of Iran by (Iranian) Kurdish rebels. I’m sure if it happened to America, say attacks by Americans with bases in Mexico, their response would be far more robust. And you know perfectly well that I’m talking about invasions and occupations. The whole basis for the ‘get Iran’ club’s activities is that Iran intends to attack Israel. Iran intends no such thing but it will, like Israel and the United States, defend its sovereignty if it feels threatened. And how could it not feel threatened with the constant sabre rattling of Israel and the threats made to America by the Israelis that if America doesn’t neuter Iran, the Israelis will do it themselves? This is the same kind of game that was played before the invasion of Iraq but the invasion of Iran would not be merely disastrous, as Iraq was, it would devastate what’s left of America’s economy and its empire.My advice is to switch to renewables and stop invading countries to get their oil. That tactic is slow motion suicide.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 25, 2011 at 10:42 am Link to this comment

ardee—-yes, ardee, there’s a whole of “better than you ever could” running
around….

especially when you can’t do better than to try using “screeds” and fanaticism” 
rather than attempting thoughts and words.


http://youtu.be/I7sbpGxeDas

Report this

By ardee, November 25, 2011 at 8:25 am Link to this comment

heterochromatic, November 24 at 11:56 am
\
I know, when I respond to fanatics, I get only fanaticism in return. Your screeds condemn your points far better than ever could I ,myself.
Thanks.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 25, 2011 at 1:19 am Link to this comment

CSI Forensics Proves Who Killed US Marines (1983 Beruit)
              - Evidence shows Israel is Guilty!

By Ralph Forbes

Ralph Forbes had appointments to the U.S. Air Force Academy and West Point,
but eager to help his country fight Communism he enlisted in the U.S. Marine
Corps instead. While on active duty he volunteered for combat missions in both
Lebanon and Vietnam. “Thank God, they didn’t send me; because today I know
the real purposes of these wars were not for America, but against her.”

http://65.118.73.164/cache/forensics.htm

General Kelly

The Beirut bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines was “the largest non-nuclear
explosion in history,” according to General Paul X. Kelley, past-Commandant of
the Marine Corps. 
[...]

U.S. military intelligence’s equivalent of CSI (Crime Scene Investigators), using
the most sophisticated, high tech diagnostic tests, forensically examined
evidence found at the scene of the terrorist explosion that killed 241 U.S.
Marines in Beirut - They know where the bomb came from, but the stunning
truth has been suppressed for 23 years. Even without full disclosure of those
test results, experts on explosives and terrorism believe more than enough
proof exists to establish who is guilty. The truck that blew up the Marine
Barracks was loaded with 666 pounds of enhanced RDX “rag bombs.”

The Israelis call RDX, “rag bombs,” because they use it to kill “rag-heads” or to
blame bombings on “rag-heads.” Also, the “safest” way to handle it is in “rags”
that have been soaked in RDX and dried. Their planted bombs often look like a
pile of dirty “rags.”
[...]

Forensic Evidence Points to Israelis Guilty of Massacre of U.S. Marines! The RDX
that killed our Marines was “enhanced” with propane gas and primed with PETN
boosters or detonation cord, according to Yosef Bitar, Lebanon’s top explosive
expert. Bitar is an expert; between 1975 and 1983 he had defused 1,870
bombs! Gas-enhanced RDX bombs are exotic devices. Only explosive experts
with a great deal of practical experience can prepare a gas-enhanced bomb.
The bomb must be prepared so that first the gas cylinders are exploded to
create a cloud in which the RDX is detonated. The gas cloud “amplifies” the
exploding plastic charge.
[...]

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 24, 2011 at 5:31 pm Link to this comment

your first link is to some college kid in Canada….you can find somebody on the
internet talking any old thing….that doesn’t make it worth linking to, dog.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 24, 2011 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment

never trust the West, aka: The Global North
fair estimate: over half of all terrorism authored at
Langley, Vauxhall Cross or Tel Aviv
http://tinyurl.com/8axwc2w
CIA/MI6/MOSSAD nexus, world’s most dangerous
operatives in play 24/7 on every side

—————————
April 1980: New Leader of Lebanese Militia Forms Alliances with Hezbollah, US
Agencies, and Others

http://tinyurl.com/768j3lw

Nabih Berri takes over the Amal Militia, a Shi’a Lebanese paramilitary
organization, and tries to build it up as a power base for himself. Although not
a fundamentalist Muslim, Berri allies himself with the new regime in Iran and
Hezbollah, a fundamentalist Lebanese Shi’a party backed by Iran. Berri also
manages to convince Syrian authorities that he will represent their interests in
Lebanon and comes to a similar arrangement with the Ba’ath party in Iraq. This
is a difficult balance for Berri to keep, as journalists Joe and Susan Trento will
later point out, “If he displeased the Iranian mullahs who controlled the supply
of money to Hezbollah in Lebanon, he would lose his grip on power.” Former
intelligence officer Michael Pilgrim will comment, “Berri was targeted for CIA
recruitment and so were members of his militia… I think it’s safe to say we
financed his early trips to Iran.” He also commences relationships with the Drug
Enforcement Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency.

[...]
————
Beirut paper reports top Iranian general was Israeli spy
http://www.majalla.com/eng/2011/02/article2330

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 24, 2011 at 2:37 pm Link to this comment

The IRGC was in Lebanon arming and training and financing the kidnappers.

As well, Khomeini was the supreme authority for the kidnappers and had been
since the “Manifesto of the Nine”

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 24, 2011 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment

clarification: Iran Hostage Crisis (1979) ? Arms for Hostages AKA Iran Contra (not Iranian-held hostages) - the point: the double-dealing never ends - Anglo-American, NATO & Israel operatives never to be trusted
___________________________

November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union
http://tinyurl.com/6mr89k4
In December 1978, President Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski says, “An arc of crisis stretches along the shores of the Indian Ocean, with fragile social and political structures in a region of vital importance to us threatened with fragmentation. The resulting political chaos could well be filled by elements hostile to our values and sympathetic to our adversaries.” [TIME, 1/8/1979] There is widespread discontent and rioting in Iran at the time. State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea “that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was,  there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets.” [SCOTT, 2007, PP. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an “arc of crisis” and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union
[...]
Brzezinski will attempt to create a de facto alliance with Khomeini’s new fundamentalist government, but his efforts will come to a half with the Iranian hostage crisis in November 1979 (see February-November 4, 1979).
[...]
________________________

Summer 1980: CIA Agent: Republicans Open Secret Channel to Iran in Preparation for ‘October Surprise,’ Arms Deals
http://tinyurl.com/88awmgx
Robert Sensi’s membership card in Republicans Abroad. [Source: Larry J. Kolb] According to a later account by Robert Sensi, a young CIA agent with excellent contacts among prominent Arabs, the Republican National Committee opens what Sensi calls “a secret channel to Iran.” Sensi is not only alluding to the secret plans for the US to sells arms to Iran, which is just developing (see Early 1980), but to the “October Surprise” of the November 1980 US presidential elections (see October 1980).
[...]
_____________________

March 3, 1984: CIA Station Chief in Beirut Kidnapped; Will Die in Captivity  
http://tinyurl.com/7tbbbtu
Lt. Col. William Buckley. [Source: Arlington Cemetery (.net)] William Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut, is kidnapped by militants who claim to be part of a mysterious organization they call Islamic Jihad. Buckley will die in June 1985, after 15 months of captivity, neglect, and torture. The CIA will not acknowledge his death until 1987. His body will not be returned to the US until December 1991. Buckley’s captivity, and that of at least five other American hostages, will be cited as one of the precipitating factors in the Iran-Contra arms deals. [PBS, 2000; ARLINGTON CEMETERY (.NET), 4/23/2006] (Note: Some sources cite the date of his capture as March 16, not March 3.) [NEW YORK TIMES,  11/19/1987]
[...]

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 24, 2011 at 2:02 pm Link to this comment

Northern iraq—-this past summer

Report this

By diamond, November 24, 2011 at 1:59 pm Link to this comment

“it’s not true that Iran doesn’t attack.”

Who has Iran attacked? I’ll make it easy: name a country attacked by Iran since World War II - of course they haven’t attacked anyone for 200 years but I’ll make it simple. Name them. I can name all the countries America has attacked, bombed and occupied since 1890 and I can name all the countries to whom Israel has done the same throughout its aggressive, manic 60 year history. The reason Israel hates Hezbollah is that they can defeat the IDF, and have, unlike the Lebanese army . I think you’re getting your ‘villains’ mixed up. Isn’t the narrative that Hamas fired rockets into Israel? I suppose to you one raghead is the same as any other.

“there’s more constant propaganda FROM Iran and Iran does more demonizing than it is demonized.”

What absolute crap. What hope does Iran have of demonizing anyone or using propaganda against the constant noise of the monomaniac mainstream media which is completely in Israel’s corner? Israel simply cannot abide the idea that someone else in the region might have nuclear weapons, even though Israel had 200 nuclear weapons at last count and has a history of extreme violence.

The irony is that Israel’s aggression and constant threats to Iran and America’s mindless oil-driven aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan and the overall neo con agenda of re-arranging the entire Middle East by endless war, if necessary, is the impetus behind Iran’s belief that it needs a nuclear deterrent to survive. Once again it is a self-inflicted American/Israeli wound. You, Hec, are like one of those nodding toy dogs they have in the back of cars. Do you even know how to think for yourself? Or would that interrupt your nodding?

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 24, 2011 at 11:56 am Link to this comment

ardee,  you’ve got to be joking about treating Iran as a friend instead of an
enemy.

you obviously no nothing of the history of our relations with Iran since the
Khomeini seized power. perhaps you’re not old enough to remember that when
the idiot Reagan was president, he was sold on convincing the US that there
were “moderate element s in iran’s government with which we could work.
Reagan sent some some lovely gifts and a lot of weapons that they asked for,
Khomeini responded by talking Americans hostage and torturing and then
killing some of them, sending the US a tape of the agonized screams of one of
the hostages in return.

clearly you know little and anyone who feels the need to point out the glaringly
obvious fact that Iranians are not Arabs might want to learn that Iranians call
people “Arabas”  as a term of derision.

Report this

By ardee, November 24, 2011 at 4:54 am Link to this comment

heterochromatic, November 23 at 10:26 am Link to this comment

aedee—-there’s more constant propaganda FROM Iran and Iran does more
demonizing than it is demonized.

Silly statements deserve silly responses. Here’s one now:

Horseshite.

Considering that there has been, and continues to be, reams of accusations, inaccurate appraisals of what that govt is saying and doing, what its intent really is with all that uranium, coming from the entire NATO bloc your “fact” holds no water.

Interestingly there is, in this forum, a refutation even of the claim that Ahmadinejad called for the destruction of Israel, citing the actual words which , when properly translated seem to call for the end of Israel’s regime, not its nation..

Having said that, the iranian still EARN every jot and tittle of demonization that it
endures. They are as right-wing as right-wing gets and as bloody-minded and
gross in suppression of human rights for their citizens as they are zealous in
subverting neighboring nations.

The universal “they” earns you little credit in the intellectual and compassionate departments, but is, sadly, a part and parcel of your usual modus operandi and a reason I seldom respond to your stuff any more.

Ahmadinajad has been shouted down on several occasions by crowds of students and other citizens objecting to his hard line positions. Further, he is the mouth that roared, sort of like your buddies IMax and Ozark, fronting for the real power in Iran, the mullahs, who find it useful to remain in the background while allowing him to attract all the negativity.

When one appraises the real facts in this matter, and not your thinly disguised right wing distortions of said facts, one finds a nation that has been the target of both military ( through the use of our former puppet Hussein), economic and political sanctions for decades.

One cannot help but wonder what responses Iran might be having had we treated them as friends rather than as another in a series of oil rich nations awaiting subjugation?

Minor point alert…

Iran is NOT an Arab nation one might note, but a European , and chiefly Caucasian, country. Only significant because of the constant demonisation of all things Arab , again, that lovely crude oil, not your unlovely crude position.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 23, 2011 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment

Hersh is pretty good, but if you’re relying on
Democracy Now for all of your info on foreign nations
and our relations with them, then you’re selling
yourself short. Democracy Now is primarily an advocacy
group, not a good source for primary information.


ain’t never good to rely on a single source of
information

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 23, 2011 at 4:43 pm Link to this comment

News and analysis from Democracy Now and the likes of Seymour Hersh is the best available. One would have to receive News and analysis directly from other nations in the world in order to be better informed about those nations.

Not speaking all the languages necessary to garner information from the world’s nations I guess I’ll rely on Democracy Now and such as Hersh and blogdog. I’m not the best informed person on the planet but I now enough to know that Heterochromatic is in need of some serious retuning. His atonal microtone grunts would only appeal to Cro-Magnons.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 23, 2011 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment

diamond—-


Israel also uses white phosphorous bombs which are banned under
international law.——

they are not banned, the use of them is subject to conditions.

it’s not true that Iran doesn’t attack.

————-

and the war with Hezbollah was initiated by Hezbollah’s firing rockets into and
kidnapping and killing IDF soldiers patrolling in Israel.

———-


facts are our friends.

Report this

By diamond, November 23, 2011 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment

The fact of the matter is, Iran hasn’t attacked anyone for 200 years and would never be crazy enough to attack Israel because that would mean Iran would be ‘wiped off the map’. Iran was attacked itself, of course, by America’s dictator of choice, Saddam Hussein, when he fought a proxy war for America against Iran. A million people died on each side and America armed both sides. This was what they called ‘neutrality’.

America has been involved in well over 200 attacks, bombings, invasions and occupations of other nations since 1890. Haiti was occupied for 19 years, for example. Most of these military interventions were motivated by profit.

Israel has bombed, invaded and occupied whenever it felt it necessary, usually for domestic political purposes. After the 2006 invasion and slaughter in Lebanon, even members of the IDF demanded to know for what purpose this act of aggression was carried out. Israel also fired a quarter of a million cluster munitions into Southern Lebanon in the last two days, when a peace deal had already been negotiated and the IDF was on the brink of withdrawing. These cluster munitions split into hundreds of bomblets which lay around, unexploded, ready to main and kill children and civilians.It’s why so many people have tried for so long to have them banned - but, of course, America and Israel have no intention of banning them or desisting from their use. Israel also uses white phosphorous bombs which are banned under international law.

And yes, it’s true Iran has a lot of oil but it’s also five times as big as Iraq, would be incredibly hard to ‘pacify’ and could only be subdued by the use of nuclear weapons. This may, let’s think about it for a moment, be why Iran wants to have nuclear weapons and a nuclear deterrent of its own. I think the call that an arms race. Iranians know only too well that Iran was on the list the neo cons put together in the nineties of countries to be invaded and occupied. Though Donald Rumsfeld was reluctant to invade Afghanistan. He said there were ‘no good targets’ there. One of the few times Rumsfeld was ever right about anything, not that it spared Afghanistan. Nowhere that has oil or resources that America wants is safe. Iran knows that.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 23, 2011 at 11:38 am Link to this comment

That’s correct. Mahmoud said that Israel must be ended…...and did not specify
the means for Israel’s destruction.

That was left unstated and everyone has to guess as to whether he meant that
the Israelis would put up a big “Going Out of Business” sign or whether he
thought that military action, possibly involved the scores of thousands of
missiles and other arms that Iran has supplied to terrorists groups committed
to the fight to remove israel might be involved.


THERE IS NO PROOF though that Mahmoud didn’t mean it in a friendly
way…....after all he’s a nice guy.

BUT you may want to read this….from I guy who defended that earlier speech
and who agreed that it wasn’t necessarily violent.

Read Juan Cole about Ahmadinejad;s more recent speeches.

http://www.juancole.com/2009/09/ahmadinejad-spews-raving-lunatic-
anti.html

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 23, 2011 at 10:48 am Link to this comment

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4527

“Wiped Off The Map” - The Rumor of the Century
by Arash Norouzi

Global Research, January 20, 2007
The Mossadegh Project

Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic
implications. According to legend, Iran’s President has threatened to destroy
Israel, or, to quote the misquote, “Israel must be wiped off the map”. Contrary
to popular belief, this statement was never made, as the following article will
prove. 

[...]

    THE ACTUAL QUOTE:

  So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi:

  “Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar
mahv shavad.”

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell:
rezhim-e. It is the word “Regime”, pronounced just like the English word with
an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country
or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant
distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not
even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase “rezhim-e
ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”?
The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The
Persian word for map, “nagsheh”, is not contained anywhere in his original farsi
quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western
phrase “wipe out” ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran’s President
threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”, despite never having uttered the words
“map”, “wipe out” or even “Israel”.


    THE PROOF:

  The full quote translated directly to English:

    “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page
of time”.

  Word by word translation:

  Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e
(occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of
time) mahv shavad (vanish from).


  Here is the full transcript of the speech in farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad’s
web site

    http://www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-
84/840804sahyonizm.htm

[...]

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 23, 2011 at 10:26 am Link to this comment

aedee—-there’s more constant propaganda FROM Iran and Iran does more
demonizing than it is demonized.

Having said that, the iranian still EARN every jot and tittle of demonization that it
endures. They are as right-wing as right-wing gets and as bloody-minded and
gross in suppression of human rights for their citizens as they are zealous in
subverting neighboring nations.

Report this
Blueokie's avatar

By Blueokie, November 23, 2011 at 9:56 am Link to this comment

Hetero - TY, missed that one.  Kurds are another consequence of arbitrary lines on the map from the British withdraw.  Thanks again.

Report this

By ardee, November 23, 2011 at 6:03 am Link to this comment

More questions than answers.

Some here seem to refuse to learn from the past, a past that has seen this nation lied into a war with Iraq for example. Now it is Iran on the list of for- profit wars, a list that might be large indeed.

Yes Iran made fools of US strategists in Iraq, but that is hardly a difficult task now is it?

Constant propaganda villifying Iran and one wonders why they might need to defend themselves?


Iran, and Russia concurs as the builders of those nuclear facilities, that the nuclear fuels they are creating is for the generation of electricity only. They wish to husband the oil reserves for the economic benefits exporting them reaps. Considering that their exports, other than petrochemicals are mostly fruit and nuts, this reasoning has weight.

We are engaged in a seemingly self fulfilling prophesy, first threatening and strong arming Iran and then condemning any sign, however slim, of their hostility generated by our tactics. After all, war is our chief export these days, and it is so profitable, albeit for a very few.

I believe Mr. Hersch, especially as opposed to the unstable posts of the few radical righties here.

Report this

By Sodium-Na, November 23, 2011 at 2:33 am Link to this comment

Seymour Hersh knows what he is talking about. He has always adhered firmly to his profession,as a genuine journalist,whose dedicated interest has always been to seek the truth,regardless of the odds he might encounter. His exposure of the “Me Ly Massacre”,during Viet Nam war,attests to that.

It is unwise not to take seriously what he wrote in the New Yorker magazine and what he said in the interview on “Democracy Now”,about Iran.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 22, 2011 at 10:22 pm Link to this comment

Blue—-all summer and into the fall

http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE77N2IO20110824

until they signed a cease-fire agreement on Nov 7—-16 days ago.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 22, 2011 at 10:15 pm Link to this comment

Blue—-very sure. Both Turkey and iran have been bombing and fighting in
northern iraq.

Report this

By gerard, November 22, 2011 at 10:12 pm Link to this comment

John Poole:  You gotta believe that Russia was “bad” and the U.S. was “good” and it’s okay if “good guys” shoot nuclear missiles on “bad” guys but not the other way around.  You also gotta believe that the U.S. is still “good” and Russia is “not so bad” but Iran is now very “bad”.  Hence ...
  If this were not so, and if any of these nations were halfway sincere and reasonable, they would all have agreed long ago that the “nukes” are almot as “bad” as the people who plan to drop them, and that those people, in order to PROTECT THEMSELVES IF FOR NO OTHER REASON, had better agree to stop making nukes all together, and destroy what they have on hand.
  Since that hasn’t happened for more than fifty years, it is time to take notice of the fact that all governmental and military authorities holding or desiring to make and/or hold nuclear weapons are criminally insane, without exception.

Report this
Blueokie's avatar

By Blueokie, November 22, 2011 at 9:23 pm Link to this comment

hetero-  Are you sure it was Iran?  I remember a Turkish incursion about that time, ostensibly in pursuit of Kurdish separatists, but nothing about Iran.  Do you have a source?

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 22, 2011 at 6:39 pm Link to this comment

BlueOkie—it’s been about 30 days since the Iranians were attacking northern Iraq.

Report this
Blueokie's avatar

By Blueokie, November 22, 2011 at 6:02 pm Link to this comment

What’s it been, 250, 300 years since the Persians attacked anyone?  Surrounded,
as they are, by the Empire’s nuclear armed Navy, and Air Force, not to mention a
right wing government in Israel, each looking to distract from their domestic
failures by creating yet another Southern Hemisphere boogeyman that must be
confronted, what would the reaction of any sovereign state be to that kind of
existential threat?  And still there’s no hard evidence, only more propaganda and
jingoism from the same system that brought us the debacle in Iraq.

Report this

By John Poole, November 22, 2011 at 11:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Was the United Nations in “serious concern” mode during the time when the US
and USSR were designing, building, arming and aiming ICBMs towards one
another? 

While the two nations were busy at work stockpiling and readying weapons with
civilizational extinguishing potential (the mother of all “collateral damage”?) where
was the UN?

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 22, 2011 at 12:09 am Link to this comment

Early in the summer Iran had stockpiled 20% well past sufficiency for their future
needs and then in August, Abassi announced that they were not all going to
continue, but that they were stepping up production and were opening a second
site, at Fardo, to really ramp up their pile.


Enriched uranium isn’t something that you spend vast sums on stockpiles of
because it’s fun to have around or because it’s got a million and one uses.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 22, 2011 at 12:00 am Link to this comment

you know that it’s a joke, I hope. Abassi has no explanation for why iran might
need anywhere near to the amount of 20% enriched that it’s stockpiling,

the obvious answer for the stockpile is that it’s the intermediate stage of
refinement and the stock from which uranium is further refined to weapons-
grade.

Abassi first was putting out the story that Iran was just piling up 20% to meet
it’s needs. As the pile grew, he started saying that they wanted to have a
plentiful stock in case they had to stop production in future.

Finally, he started putting out some crap about exporting the stuff…..Put that’s
transparently silly. There’s plenty already being produced and there’s no market
for export from iran and there won’t be any market shortfall, considering the
output increase from Brazil anytime in the next 50 years.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 21, 2011 at 11:45 pm Link to this comment

http://tinyurl.com/8yx5bx7

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 21, 2011 at 11:14 pm Link to this comment

Hersh is wrong about the uranium being enriched to ~20%—- it’s not a small. it
sizable and far more that Iran could use for the stated “medical ” purpose in more
than a decade….and they’re still enriching more.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 21, 2011 at 1:51 pm Link to this comment

thank goodness a factual informative interview - why not consult Hersh rather
than the NATO shill Juan Cole when reporting the agitprop to launch on Libya?
e.g.

The Libya Secret: How West Cooked Up “People’s Uprising”
By Russ Baker on Aug 31, 2011
http://tinyurl.com/7spl2b2

Qaddafi has long been a thorn in the side of the West’s oil industry and their
national security apparatus. In the early 1970s he worked closely with
Occidental Petroleum chairman Armand Hammer in thwarting the ambitions of
the oil majors. He was a leader in the boycott of Israel and often cozied up to
the Soviet Union.

Back in the 1980s, the Reagan Administration plotted for five years to get rid of
Qaddafi and sent 18 U.S. warplanes in April 1986 to eliminate the “Mad Dog of
the Middle East.” Reporter Seymour Hersh actually did investigate the whys and
wherefores of the ensuing bombings over Tripoli. (The bombings killed the
Libyan dictator’s daughter but obviously failed to achieve their primary
objective). Hersh’s piece in the February 22nd, 1987 New York Times
Magazine, “Target Qaddafi,” has striking echoes in the NATO attacks of 2011.
It revealed:

-  “internal manipulation and deceit” on the part of the White House to disguise
its real intentions, namely, to assassinate Qaddafi;

-  Denials after the raid on Qaddafi’s compound that he had been a target,
insisting that the compound hit was “a command-and-control” building;

-  The training of Libyan exiles, armed by Israel, to infiltrate Libya through
Tunisia.

-  The creation of a pretext for the attacks. In this case, it was the April 5, 1986
bombing of the La Belle discotheque in West Berlin,a hangout of American
servicemen. This bombing was blamed on Libya “based on intercepted
communications,” despite the explicit rejection of this claim by Berlin’s then-
chief of anti-terrorist police.

-  The revelation, according to one intelligence official, that “We came out with
this big terrorist threat to the U.S. government. The whole thing was a complete
fabrication.”

-  As for real motives, Hersh discerned from a three-month investigation that
the Reagan Administration saw Qaddafi as being pro-Soviet, “relentlessly anti-
Israel,” and a supporter of extreme elements in Syria as opposed to “the more
moderate regimes in Jordan and Egypt.”

-  Qaddafi’s “often-stated ambition to set up a new federation of Arab and
Moslem states in North Africa” frightened policy makers about their access to
minerals.

It’s this that has to be considered as background for the true story of Libya—
the one the Western media cannot, or will not now, report.

BEHIND LIBYA’S “SPONTANEOUS REVOLUTION”

What the media has so relentlessly characterized as the “spontaneous uprising”
of February 2011 was hardly spontaneous. It began even before the Arab Spring
itself commenced in Tunisia during December of last year—and it was
orchestrated by the West.

[...]

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.