No Noise From Speedboat in Iran Conflict Tape

ronaldomoon — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 06:19:57 +0000

Whoops, they forgot to include noise in the tape! Next time you guys fake a tape, think about it a little more. This is almost as bad as the 'new' Bin Laden tapes where his beard is less gray than in the 'older' videos. I'm sure that if he was in a cave in Pakistan plotting our demise, he would not be worried about coloring his beard. That is a whole other blog in itself, though.
One more thing - next time you guys pull one of these stunts - use better lines than "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes". I guess I shouldn't be giving tips though, we are lucky that these globalists are so incompetent.

From: BBC

An alleged threat to blow up US warships "may not have come" from Iranian speedboats involved in a recent stand-off, the BBC has learned.

The voice on a Pentagon tape could instead have come from another ship in the area or a transmitter on land, senior US Navy sources told the BBC. The US has sent Iran a formal protest over Sunday's stand-off in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has accused the US of faking its video of the incident.

The New York Times noted on Wednesday that the US-released audio includes no ambient noise of the kind that might be expected if the broadcast had come from on one of the speedboats.

New Gulf of Tonkin off of Iranian Coast?

ronaldomoon — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 18:46:05 +0000

"You are going to blow up in a minute". Wow, sounds like they mean business! Smells like a set-up.

U.S. - Iran Relations, Past and Present

ronaldomoon — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 18:38:23 +0000

I wrote this blog on MySpace a little over a month ago. I thought that things might actually cool down with Iran after the NIE report and the Shah talking about future U.S. relations, but no, the elites want their war and they will have it. So here it is - how we got here in the first place.

The drums of war are sounding once again. Would-be-dictator [1] George W. Bush has declared that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." [2] and several resolutions condemning Iran have been pushed through Congress [3]. Nearly all presidential candidates say that "no option is off the table" in regard to Iran, and it has even been alleged that Vice President Cheney has given orders to Neo-Con run news organizations to push the need for war with Iran on the American public[4]. Some of these things sound all too familiar when one recalls the build-up to the current war in Iraq. Is war with Iran inevitable? Or has it already begun, and if so, when did it start and why are we still in the dark? We don't have much of a ground presence in Iran, not publicly, and we aren't bombarding them from the air...but make no mistake, we are at war with Iran and have been for quite some time.

As President Bush would say; "this is a different kind of war". He said that about Iraq but it applies even more so to our involvement in Iran. The war in Iran is a war of subversion, manipulation, and outright terrorism. Instead of invading with masses of troops, as in Iraq, we use CIA operatives and, yes, we even use

Al Qaeda to shake things up in Iran. This war, however, started long before either Bush was in the White House.

In 1951 Mohammad Mosaddeq was democratically elected to the position of Prime Minister in Iran. Mosaddeq was very instrumental in bringing democracy in the first place, and was also strongly opposed to foreign intervention in Iran. This ideology led to the nationalization of Iran's oil fields that had previously been controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, or as it is now known, British Petroleum (BP). Britain tried to work out a deal but failed to do so, so they turned to the United States for assistance. Once Eisenhower took office in 1953, the war began with Operation Ajax. Under the direction of Allen Dulles, the CIA began a propaganda campaign designed to make it seem that Mosaddeq was turning communist, in order to turn the Shah and the citizens of Iran against the leader. Iranian CIA operatives pretending to be socialists even threatened the lives of Muslim leaders with violence if they opposed Mosaddeq in order to make it seem as if Mosaddeq himself was cracking down on dissent. The CIA & British Intel agents tried to convince the Shah dismiss Mosaddeq and appoint a new president, General Fazlollah Zahedi. This goal was achieved after faltering slightly, however, when the Shah fled to Italy. British Petroleum returned to Iran along with a handful of U.S. companies where they were able to successfully plunder Iran's oil for a while longer. [5]

After the coup the CIA assisted in consolidating the power of the Shah and in the formation of SAVAK; Iran's secret police who brutally tortured and murdered thousands of Iranian's suspected of having anti-Shah sentiments.[6] The U.S. also provided financial and military aid to Iran in the years following the removal of Mosaddeq. Between 1950 and 1977, the United States supplied Iran with over $20 billion worth of arms, ammunition, training, and technical assistance under the Military Assistance Program (MAP) and the Foreign Military Sales Program (FMS). [7]

By 1978, Iran's Shi'a majority had grown quite dissatisfied with the pro-west Shah. Allegations of corruption, elitism, and abuse of power through his use of SAVAK led to the Islamic Revolution of 1979 which put into power Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and paved the way for the passage of a new theocratic constitution which gives Khomeini nearly absolute power. This revolution in Iran, along with our policy of radicalizing Muslims in Afghanistan and other countries in order to turn them against the Soviets, are most likely the biggest contributing factors to the heavy influence that Islamic extremists have over Middle Eastern politics today. Shortly after the revolution, in 1980, Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, invaded Iran. Then in 1982, despite objections from congress, President Ronald Reagan removed Iraq from the list of known terrorist countries and began to funnel money and weapons into Iraq to fuel Saddam's war against Iran. In 1983, Secretary of State George Schultz is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians, and the U.S. responds by sending Donald Rumsfeld to ensure Saddam of our continued support. [8] This relationship between Iraq and the U.S. continued throughout the eighties, and into Bush 41's presidency, with the U.S. continually funding Iraq's war against Iran and then against the Kurds in northern Iraq. We not only provided them with chemical weapons, but also with intelligence regarding Iran's troop formations so that they could better coordinate their attacks. On one occasion we even provided Saddam with 21 different varieties of Anthrax[9]Once Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 our relationship with them changed, despite our original claims that it wouldn't. That is another story altogether, though. This blog entry is about Iran, after-all, but an important part of our history with Iran involves Iraq, so that needed to be covered.

During the 1990's, under President Clinton, the U.S. placed a trade embargo on Iran, barring all U.S. companies from doing business with the Islamic nation. After the election of reformist president Khatami a few restrictions were eased and relations between the U.S. and Iran seemed to be headed in the right direction. Unfortunately, the Islamic extremists that came into power because of western meddling still had too firm a grip on the reins of power in Iran to allow talks between the U.S. and Khatami to lead to any substantial changes. It was later reported that Clinton had the CIA carry out an operation meant to slow Iran's nuclear progress by feeding them fake blueprints, which were then corrected by Soviet scientists and successfully implemented by the Iranians. [10]

After the Sept. 11th, 2001 attacks, President George W. included Iran in his "Axis of Evil", despite offers from Iran to assist with the restoration of Iraq after the coming war, open it's nuclear program to inspections, and help bring down both Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. Since 2003 the U.S. has been flying unmanned aerial vehicles, launched from Iraq, over Iran to obtain intelligence on Iran's nuclear program, reportedly providing little evidence[11]. Then during the summer of 2005, members of Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK) and Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PEJAK) began attacking government buildings in Iran during the lead up to the country's presidential elections[12]. After the terrorist attacks, support drastically shifted from the moderate incumbent Rafsanjani to the militant fundementalist Ahmadinejad, who, as well all know, ended up winning the election. In a sense, these acts of terrorism gave Ahmadinejad the win. Now instead of an Iran that offers assistance in bringing terrorists to justice, we have an Iran that has taken a very hostile stance against Western intervention into Middle Eastern affairs. On top of that, human rights violations are getting increasingly worse. Now that Ahmadinejad is in power, the Neo-Cons can seem justified in their desire to have an all-out war with Iran, a war that takes place out in the open and not just behind the scenes. Yes, it seems that once again, terrorism has served to further the Neo-Con agenda of Middle Eastern conquest. What a convienient coincidence for the White House, or is it?

Not many things that happen on the world stage happen by coincidence, and the bombings that got Ahmadinejad elected are no different. Both PEJAK and MEK are being funded by people within the U.S. government including civilians in the Pentagon and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. Congressman Dennis Kucinich has written a letter to President Bush expressing his concerns over these matters, but as far as I know, has not recieved a response[13]. I think the lesson that we need to learn here is that when we mess around in the Middle East, we mess things up in the Middle East. Our meddling in Iran over the last 50 years has worsened the political climate at every turn. Why don't we just leave them alone for once, and let them work things out on their own? The last thing the people of Iran want is for the U.S. to bring them the "freedom" that they brought the Iraqi people.

Sources:

[1]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/230707martiallaw.htm

[2]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071017/wl_mideast_afp/usirannuclearpoliticsbush_071017154505

[3]

Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.1400.EH]

Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.2347.EH]

Whereas the Department of State has said that Iran is the `most active state sponsor of terrorism'; (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.RES.435.EH]

Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide... (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House)[H.CON.RES.21.RFS]

[H.CON.RES.203.RFS] , [H.CON.RES.203.EH] , [H.R.957.EH] , ...the list goes on and on...

[4]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushill194593036jan19,0,5773049.story

http://adereview.com/blog/?p=19

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/040907_cheney_orders.htm

[5]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/19/i_ins.00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1021997,00.html

http://www.democracynow.org/print.pl?sid=04/03/05/1542249

[6]

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

[7]