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

[Octoldit]

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

 

[Midnight Marauder]

A number of commentators have expressed their idealistic belief in the purity of Mousavi, Montazeri, and the westernized youth of Terhan.

That's a lie right off. Nobody has done that.

 

[oreo]

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.

 

[JBeukema]

This is classic CIA destabilization designed to discredit a contrary outcome.

Demonstrate that the CIA has a history of using such a tactic

It forces an early declaration of the vote

Demonstrate that the CIA 'forced' anything.

It is amazing that people don’t see through this trick.

You have shown no such trick

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.

Care to cite a source?

"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.”

Link

A few days previously, the Telegraph reported on May 16, 2007,...

Link

On June 29, 2008, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker...

Link

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

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

 

[oreo]

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.

 

[DiveCon]

oh brother

 

[editec]

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.

So the hundreds of thousands of protestors are all CIA operatives?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

There is a power struggle among the ayatollahs.

That I believe without a doubt.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

"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.”

Well, good for Bush II.

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.”

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

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.”

Money well spent if it's true.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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..

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.

 

[sealybobo]

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..

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.

Toeing the Party Line MM?

The Associated Press: GOP senator says Obama 'timid, passive' over Iran

You guys would have complained no matter what he did. He did nothing, so you object. Big surprise.

And hey, look, what Obama did (NOTHING), worked.

We are watching the fall of Islamic theocracy in Iran. I don't mean by this that the Iranian regime is about to collapse. It may—I certainly hope it will—but repressive regimes can stick around for a long time. We are watching the failure of the ideology that lay at the basis of the Iranian government. The regime's founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, laid out his special interpretation of political Islam in a series of lectures in 1970. In this interpretation of Shia Islam, Islamic jurists were presumed to have divinely ordained powers to rule as guardians of the society, supreme arbiters not only on matters of morality, but politics as well. When Khomeini established the Islamic Republic of Iran, this idea, velayat-e faqih, rule by the Supreme Jurist, was at its heart. Last week that ideology suffered a fatal blow.

Theocracy and Its Discontents | Newsweek International | Newsweek.com

Should we have backed Amadenijad? WRONG. His opponent? WRONG AGAIN.

And even when Obama gets this right, you won't admit it. So please . No, seriously,

 

[sealybobo]

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..

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.

Like we have anything to say about free and fair elections.

 

[Terral]

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 . . .

Holy Cows! Let's not give the CIA (Criminals In Action) so much credit for orchestrating any destabilization of anybody, when these bought-and-paid-for robots do not know the difference between and EMPTY HOLE . . .

. . . and a crashed 100-ton Jetliner (pic and pic and take your pick) any more than you do (my Topic). A lot of people are working to destabilize Iran, NOT because of Nuclear anything, but because (like Saddam/Iraq) they refuse to denominate their oil wealth IN WORTHLESS U.S. DOLLARS.

2007 SpaceWar.com Report

Analysis: Iran moves to ditch U.S. dollar

by Derek Sands
Washington (UPI) Sep 10, 2007

Faced with U.S. economic sanctions and a weak dollar, Tehran is demanding foreign companies do business in yen and euros, despite increasingly desperate need for investment.

In a deal announced last week, Japan's Nippon Oil agreed to buy oil from Iran using yen instead of the traditional U.S. dollars. The agreement comes after years of Iranian efforts to shift its petroleum exports away from dollars and toward yen and euros.


With refineries in need of investment and vast natural gas deposits in need of foreign companies for development, Iran is trying every avenue to extricate itself from U.S. sanctions. (Continued)

If you guys will revist history for one minute, then you will see that Saddam Hussein made the same decision in the fall of 2000 and there are,

"Real Reasons Why Iran Is The Next Target: The Emerging Euro-dominated International Oil Marker"

Global Research.ca Articles

by William Clark

www.globalresearch.ca 27 October 2004​

The URL of this article is: The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target:

The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse.

In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."


- James Madison, Political Observations, 1795 (Continued)

​

And yet, 'perpetual warfare' is exactly what we see by the out-of-control Bushie/Obama Administrations in their illegal and fictitious "War On Terror" that has no real enemy and never ends.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl3EB25J-wI"]The War On Terror Is A LIE For DUPES[/ame]

Bush/Obama run from Iraq to Afghanistan to Pakistan and now Iran to fight an enemy of their own creation, because We The Sheeple (stupid idiotic morons) will believe just about anything.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBgxa4gQGRA"]Listen To Aaron Russo And Wake The Hell Up[/ame]

GL,

Terral

 

[Octoldit]

This is classic CIA destabilization designed to discredit a contrary outcome.

Demonstrate that the CIA has a history of using such a tactic

It forces an early declaration of the vote

Demonstrate that the CIA 'forced' anything.


You have shown no such trick



Care to cite a source?



Link


Link

On June 29, 2008, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker...

Link

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

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

Are you really so politically imature, or are you part of the delusional cover-up squad, or are you pretending to be clueless to what the Zionist lead CIA actually does?

Or you think Americans are so stupid that they will not remember what happened in 2002 concerning Hugo Chavez? Maybe all of the above...is this correct?

Even after two stolen election involving GWB do you really think people are still fooled by the lying media and dirty tricks by the CIA?

Some people may be fooled at first just as I was, but with all the wholesale greed going right here in this country, people stealing their liberties and freedom= 9-11, stealing their pension money, stealing their homes, their employment, their health (poison in food, air,and water), looting the American treasury and calling it bailouts, with all this going on do you really believe we don't recognize or understand the Zionist Crinimal network at work?

I could flood this site with a great abundance of evidence supporting my assertions, but just one video of thousands available will provide insight into the CIA and their Zionist controllers.

Venezuela 2002 election: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpir1dJ3GrQ&feature=PlayList&p=568E5075199B523C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=21]YouTube - CIA Venezuela 2002 Part 3[/ame]

 

[JBeukema]

Are you really so politically imature, or are you part of the delusional cover-up squad, or are you pretending to be clueless to what the Zionist lead CIA actually does?

So now it's the CIA AND the jews?

I could flood this site with a great abundance of evidence supporting my assertions, but just one video of thousands available will provide insight into the CIA and their Zionist controllers.

evidently not, as you've been challenged repeatedly- and it took you this long to dig up something to post

 

[DiveCon]

Are you really so politically imature, or are you part of the delusional cover-up squad, or are you pretending to be clueless to what the Zionist lead CIA actually does?

So now it's the CIA AND the jews?

I could flood this site with a great abundance of evidence supporting my assertions, but just one video of thousands available will provide insight into the CIA and their Zionist controllers.

evidently not, as you've been challenged repeatedly- and it took you this long to dig up something to post

i watched about half that stupid nutter video
not once in the first half of it did it have anything credible showing CIA involvement


oh, and it was about 5 minutes out of my life that was a total waste of time

 

[Octoldit]

Are you really so politically imature, or are you part of the delusional cover-up squad, or are you pretending to be clueless to what the Zionist lead CIA actually does?

So now it's the CIA AND the jews?

I could flood this site with a great abundance of evidence supporting my assertions, but just one video of thousands available will provide insight into the CIA and their Zionist controllers.

evidently not, as you've been challenged repeatedly- and it took you this long to dig up something to post

i watched about half that stupid nutter video
not once in the first half of it did it have anything credible showing CIA involvement


oh, and it was about 5 minutes out of my life that was a total waste of time

So your whole purpose here is to try and get people to just accept your toxic misleading opinion, and not watch the very informative video....is this correct?

I'm sure you want everyone to think the CIA had no involvement despite the evidence.

Despite the history of this Zionist lead organization do you also want to state for the record the CIA has had no involvement in South America?

Don't pretend to be ignorant...its a covert organization and the evil wickedness of what they do is appalling to any real human being so they operate in secrecy...just as most Satanic criminals.

The video shows the result of the strategic political planning Of the Mossad and CIA, and reveals how people are manipulated into dangerous life threatening protest and situations without them even knowing it.

Next it seems you will be trying to convince people the Mossad and CIA were clueless about who the snipers were and what their mission was all about.

 

[DiveCon]

So now it's the CIA AND the jews?

evidently not, as you've been challenged repeatedly- and it took you this long to dig up something to post

i watched about half that stupid nutter video
not once in the first half of it did it have anything credible showing CIA involvement


oh, and it was about 5 minutes out of my life that was a total waste of time

So your whole purpose here is to try and get people to just accept your toxic misleading opinion, and not watch the very informative video....is this correct?

I'm sure you want everyone to think the CIA had no involvement despite the evidence.

Despite the history of this Zionist lead organization do you also want to state for the record the CIA has had no involvement in South America?

Don't pretend to be ignorant...its a covert organization and the evil wickedness of what they do is appalling to any real human being so they operate in secrecy...just as most Satanic criminals.

The video shows the result of the strategic political planning Of the Mossad and CIA, and reveals how people are manipulated into dangerous life threatening protest and situations without them even knowing it.

Next it seems you will be trying to convince people the Mossad and CIA were clueless about who the snipers were and what their mission was all about.

after 5 minutes into that video, it had not presented any evidence
just more speculations with not a shred of proof to back it up

 

[garyd]

Octy my boy if you believe that particular video proves anything beyond your gullibility you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Uknow_me72]

I like how people come in and call other gullible like they know anything different.