Are the Iranian Protests Another US Orchestrated “Color Revolution?”

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by Octoldit, Jun 21, 2009.

  1. Octoldit
    Offline

    Octoldit VIP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    792
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Ratings:
    +262
    By Paul Craig Roberts

    A number of commentators have expressed their idealistic belief in the purity of Mousavi, Montazeri, and the westernized youth of Terhan. The CIA destabilization plan, announced two years ago (see below) has somehow not contaminated unfolding events.

    The protests have the hallmarks of the CIA orchestrated protests in Georgia and Ukraine. It requires total blindness not to see this.

    The claim is made that Ahmadinejad stole the election, because the outcome was declared too soon after the polls closed for all the votes to have been counted. However, Mousavi declared his victory several hours before the polls closed. This is classic CIA destabilization designed to discredit a contrary outcome. It forces an early declaration of the vote. The longer the time interval between the preemptive declaration of victory and the release of the vote tally, the longer Mousavi has to create the impression that the authorities are using the time to fix the vote. It is amazing that people don’t see through this trick.

    As for the grand ayatollah Montazeri’s charge that the election was stolen, he was the initial choice to succeed Khomeini, but lost out to the current Supreme Leader. He sees in the protests an opportunity to settle the score with Khamenei. Montazeri has the incentive to challenge the election whether or not he is being manipulated by the CIA, which has a successful history of manipulating disgruntled politicians.

    There is a power struggle among the ayatollahs. Many are aligned against Ahmadinejad because he accuses them of corruption, thus playing to the Iranian countryside where Iranians believe the ayatollahs’ lifestyles indicate an excess of power and money. In my opinion, Ahmadinejad’s attack on the ayatollahs is opportunistic. However, it does make it odd for his American detractors to say he is a conservative reactionary lined up with the ayatollahs.

    Commentators are “explaining” the Iran elections based on their own illusions, delusions, emotions, and vested interests. Whether or not the poll results predicting Ahmadinejad’s win are sound, there is, so far, no evidence beyond surmise that the election was stolen. However, there are credible reports that the CIA has been working for two years to destabilize the Iranian government.On May 23, 2007, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported on ABC News: “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell ABC News.

    "On May 27, 2007, the London Telegraph independently reported: “Mr. Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.”

    A few days previously, the Telegraph reported on May 16, 2007, that Bush administration neocon warmonger John Bolton told the Telegraph that a US military attack on Iran would “be a ‘last option’ after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed.”

    On June 29, 2008, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker: “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 protests in Tehran no doubt have many sincere participants. The protests also have the hallmarks of the CIA orchestrated protests in Georgia and Ukraine. It requires total blindness not to see this.

    Daniel McAdams has made some telling points. For example, neoconservative Kenneth Timmerman wrote the day before the election that “there’s talk of a ‘green revolution’ in Tehran.” How would Timmerman know that unless it was an orchestrated plan? Why would there be a ‘green revolution’ prepared prior to the vote, especially if Mousavi and his supporters were as confident of victory as they claim? This looks like definite evidence that the US is involved in the election protests.

    Timmerman goes on to write that “the National Endowment for Democracy has spent millions of dollars promoting ‘color’ revolutions . . . Some of that money appears to have made it into the hands of pro-Mousavi groups, who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that the National Endowment for Democracy funds.” Timmerman’s own neocon Foundation for Democracy is “a private, non-profit organization established in 1995 with grants from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), to promote democracy and internationally-recognized standards of human rights in Iran.”

    Are the Iranian Protests Another US Orchestrated “Color Revolution?” - BlackListed News
     
  2. Midnight Marauder
    Offline

    Midnight Marauder BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    That's a lie right off. Nobody has done that.
     
  3. oreo
    Offline

    oreo Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,446
    Thanks Received:
    1,960
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    rocky mountains
    Ratings:
    +4,150
    Everyone I have heard who has discussed this issue has stated that Mousavi--Including Obama's statements basically state he is the same as Ahmenjenadad. No change would happen in foreign relations with Mousavi as President.

    And for a GOOD reason--all Presidents of Iran are just puppets to the Supreme leader--who was appointed by God only knows who--& when they say "Supreme Leader" that's exactly what it means.

    There is absolutely NO reason for the CIA to get involved in trading one bad guy for another bad guy. The Opt's post is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2009
  4. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Demonstrate that the CIA has a history of using such a tactic


    Demonstrate that the CIA 'forced' anything.
    You have shown no such trick

    Care to cite a source?

    Link
    Link
    Link


    Green was already known as the color of the opposition, and he could easily be referring to a political or social revolution


    Sources: You need some
     
  5. oreo
    Offline

    oreo Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,446
    Thanks Received:
    1,960
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    rocky mountains
    Ratings:
    +4,150
    BTW--it is very typical for both sides to call victory early in an election in Iran. It's their "honor" at stake. And in their culture--if one is protecting their "honor" it is perfectly O.K. to lie.
     
  6. DiveCon
    Offline

    DiveCon gone

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    48,025
    Thanks Received:
    3,387
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +3,387
    oh brother :rolleyes:
     
  7. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    So the hundreds of thousands of protestors are all CIA operatives?

    Total blindness? How does he know this? Some evidence to support this claim might help.

    So both sides declared victory before the polls closed. The above proves nothing. It asserts things but proves nothing.

    Okay there's a motive for lying, but still no proof of the lie.

    That I believe without a doubt.


    Looks like an example of the usual tension that exists everywhere in the world between urbanites and rural folks.

    Evidence? There is no evidence either way, actually.

    But there is the fact that the Iranian economy is in the crapper and STILL the incumbant won by a margin of two to one.

    That's strains credibility to the extreme. Voters typically do NOT reward such sheer incompetence



    This I do not doubt. Were I running the CIA I'd be trying to destabilize Iran, too. However the CIA can only play on the discontent that already exists in this case.

    The CIA could not possible hire hundreds of thousands of Iransians to get out on the streets. But they COULD help with the corrdination somewhat by supporting the leaders of these protests.

    Well, good for Bush II.

    A US military attack on Iran would be dumb, very very very dumb.

    The protestors against the current regime would rally around the flag to defend their nationm against US aggression

    Money well spent if it's true.

    Or the protests have all the hallmarks of legitimate anger of the people.

    As yet this person has done nothing but tell us his position without proing a damned thing.

    He didn't say orchestrated plan, did he?

    This author is an idiot.

    He might be right. We cannot know. But his argument is vapid.

    Why would people who are already sick of the current regime already be organized? Because it's a nation with political factors and a hisotry of having votes, that's why.

    I'm sorry, but this author is an idiot.
     
  8. Midnight Marauder
    Offline

    Midnight Marauder BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    Nothing in the OP -- which I'm glad to see was moved to the proper forum -- addresses the main flashpoint of all of this: The physical impossibility of hand-counting 30 MILLION handwritten votes in just two hours. Or even twelve for that matter.

    Folks generally don't know about the Iranian student insurrection of 1999, which was quickly and violently put down by the military in Iran, so this isn't the first unrest they've had there in the last 30 years. Was that a CIA operation as well?

    It matters not if the opposition declares victory before or even after the polls close. It DOES matter if the votes are actually counted, and given the impossibility of them being counted in 2-12 hours, I tend to doubt they even were. Add to this, the Ayatolla's announcement that there would be a recount, never happened. Then two days later he said there would be a recount of 10% of the votes, chosen at random. It's been more than 48 hours since that was announced, still no word on that recount.

    We are to believe it takes 4-14 times longer to count 300,000 votes than it did to count 30 million?

    And this election? It's not even the issue anymore, and the opposition candidate, Mousavi, isn't even the cause anymore. Those were only the flashpoints. The cause is self-determination and freedom.

    So, of course the answer to the question which forms this thread title is, NO and please discard your tinfoil hat.
     
  9. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    50,477
    Thanks Received:
    3,187
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +10,144
    No it is not, but it is another conflict the GOP is trying to play politics with.

    The worse thing for the US to do is get involved, and thats exactly what the GOP wants Obama to do.

    THE WORSE THING. They want Obama to fuck up. That means they want America to fuck up and do the worse thing. If that means another war, thats ok too. Whatever it takes to win. 4000 dead? 1 million dead? Whatever. Maybe not 1 million American casualties, but 1 million arabs? Sure.

    They want Obama to fuck up and cause another war so they can profit from it and use it against him politically. If that means another 40,000 wounded/killed Americans, thats fine. Suicides, broken families, fine with Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh.

    And no matter what Obama does, they will take the other side. NO MATTER WHAT. Because they can't stop playing politics.

    Since Jefferson/Adams time, this has been the case. Adams tried to put that shit aside and Jefferson stabbed him in the back. I know Jefferson wasn't in the GOP, but it was the party that the GOP was spawned from.

    Ruthless hypocritical elitists. They represent the rich and they will say/do anything to win.

    Google Lee Atwater and Karl Rove to see what bullshitters are in the current GOP.
     
  10. Midnight Marauder
    Offline

    Midnight Marauder BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    NOBODY wants the US to "get involved." That's simply a lie. And Obama already did fuck this up, by making such weak statements initially, then finally interrupting his partying in the WH to finally issue an appropriate statement reflecting actual American values. He did this only AFTER, for chrissakes, the Congress almost unanimously approved such a statement from them!

    The CONGRESS took the lead on this, Obama looks weak.

    And again, NO ONE has ever said the US should "get involved." Making statements calling for an end to the bloodshed and re-affirming our belief in self-determination and the right to free and fair elections isn't "getting involved."

    And besides which, did you notice both the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad already blamed the US for this, already claimed we were "interfering" and "meddling" even before Congress and Obama released their statements?

    My only knock on Obama so far in this is, his initial weak statements, and his badly late, badly belated correct and stronger statement.

    He missed his "Tear down this wall" moment.
     

Share This Page