Neda was shot by the CIA

[JihadJane]

I just don't understand why these conspiracy theoriests have more trust in the Iranian regime than they do of the US and other western nations. I even saw one guy posting those 1984-esque prisoner confession tapes ,where they blame western nations for influenceing them, as if that was proof that the US and other outside powers were behind this. Where does such a contrast in trust come from?

Huh?

Why should anyone believe anything the US says?

Have you forgotten all those war-mongering lies already?

BTW, JihadJane, your friends in Iran have been setting up the jews (among others) to take the blame for the current unrest well before their bogus election as you can see in this Iranian propaganda video from last year detailing a jewish/American plot to undermine the Iranian regime:

You appear to be mistaking me for someone else.

 

[McHrozni]

I used the Venezulan example as an illustration that knee-jerk, black and white, Good Guys/Bad Guys thinking isn't compatible with skepticism.

You're the only one that could possibly be reasonably accused of such beliefs, so I don't really get your point.

Taking control of Iran is the the big ME prize for the US in its project to dominate the region.

This is a reasonable assumption, nothing more. Unless you can provide current and accurate policy documents specifying how and why Iran is important and what should be done in that regard, it will remain an assumption and should be treated as such.

Which claim of mine is outrageous? Agents of the US state (and many other states) have been interfering in the internal politics of other countries for decades, often violently and covertly. It is simply your opinion that says that such a claim is outrageous.

The claim that US agents have orchestrated many recent revolts, like in Yugoslavia or now in Iran. I do not contend the notion that they haven't helped them, mind you, but there is a world of difference in providing minor material aid and organizing the whole thing from scratch. The evidence you provided to support your assertion actually did far more damage to it than anything else - Serbian people certainly believed the rebels to be domestic, therefore proving substantial popular support from them not created by the CIA.

All you have is speculation, as far as I can see, though it isn't, of course, unreasonable speculation. Neither is it unreasonable to speculate about other possible culprits.

There is a significant difference in that my "speculation" is supported by quite a bit of circumstantial evidence, whereas your speculation is not. Whereas lack of hard evidence for my version is to be expected, since Iran would and could suppress it, the lack of any evidence for your version is quite damming, since Iran would have no reason not to past it anywhere they could, to improve their image. Officially they haven't even made the claim.
Therefore there is proof of lack for your speculation, not just lack of proof. You are allowed to hold an opinion, just know that it was already proven wrong.

McHrozni

 

[Travis]

Taking control of Iran is the the big ME prize for the US in its project to dominate the region.

Do you really think those opposition groups are just gonna hand over to the US if they do gain power? Why would they? The Iranians are a proud and intelligent people so they're not going to hand themselves over to anyone ever again.........at least not without one hell of a fight.

Which claim of mine is outrageous? Agents of the US state (and many other states) have been interfering in the internal politics of other countries for decades, often violently and covertly. It is simply your opinion that says that such a claim is outrageous.

All you have is speculation, as far as I can see, though it isn't, of course, unreasonable speculation. Neither is it unreasonable to speculate about other possible culprits.

France, the UK, the Netherlands and Russia have also meddled in the affairs of other countries for decades so why not consider them suspects as well. Heck the Galactic Empire is known to use it's Star Destroyers to get what it wants so why don't we include them in our list of endless speculative villains? Or, perhaps, we could use Occam's Razor and avoid all that.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Somehow, i think the Iranian Ambassador is a less than reputable source.

 

[Tailgater]

How does anyone know who shot her?

The exact person who shot her? maybe not. I'm taking an "educated guess" that someone from the CIA didn't jump up from behind the Iranian militia that were firing weapons, pick Neda out of a crowd of protesters, and pick her off. Someone who would think that is even close to logical is either totally blinded by hate of the West or just plain stupid. I'm still trying to figure out where you stand.

 

[McHrozni]

The exact person who shot her? maybe not. I'm taking an "educated guess" that someone from the CIA didn't jump up from behind the Iranian militia that were firing weapons, pick Neda out of a crowd of protesters, and pick her off. Someone who would think that is even close to logical is either totally blinded by hate of the West or just plain stupid. I'm still trying to figure out where you stand.

The two aren't mutually exclusive ... to the contrary, they often go hand in hand. I wonder if it's a coincidence

McHrozni

 

[Caustic Logic]

Which link? Repost it, please.

Alright, again:
http://guerillas-without-guns.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-notes-on-timing-and-consent.html

Hm. The entire segment of "evidence" I could find on your "done deal" involvement in Yugoslavia was an allegation of Yugoslav authorities that the resistance was created by the US, during the clampdown on the very resistance:

So the fight moved to a different level; the government issued a statement blaming all unrest on the cross-pressure from NATO-controlled information warfare and the activities of “an internal fifth column.” [14] Milosevic ran a series of ads targeting Otpor as “NATO foot soldiers” and tools of foreign powers; the spots cleverly had the trademark Otpor fist clenched around a wad of American dollars. [15] The public at the time dismissed the campaign as a cynical lie from a desperate ruler, solidifying in their minds that indeed “Gotov Je.”

I also bolded another part which you evidently missed.

If this is "thorough" research and "done deal", then all evidence clearly shows I'm quite correct in stating there was no significant CIA involvement in any of your alleged unrests, including the one in Iran.

McHrozni

First, I didn't miss that line, I typed it in and looked for video or an image of that ad as it made a great metaphor. Second, no one probably physically grabbed a handful of US dollars - it was more likely converted to local currency and deposited in a bank. Third, where did you get "CIA"? Fourth, the research I did was not totally horough and there may be errors.

The part you may be missing ... oops, I never posted the section, lemme see how buried my file is...

Behind the Fist: Helping Hands at Hungarian Hotels
In fact, within two months of the revolution, news began to break about the financial and tactical fertilizer that grew Otpor into such a political powerhouse - and much of it came from Washington. Influential Americans came and went to the nations surrounding Yugoslavia in 1999 and 2000 to create an on-the-ground solution to Milosevic’s entrenchment. According to Ian Traynor in the Manchester Guardian Ambassador Richard Miles helped coordinate the earliest of these activities from his post in Belgrade. Miles had earlier worked at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs, quite near Gene Sharp. The Army educated Russian and Yugoslav expert was also experienced in nonviolent training in South Carolina, registering voters and training political leaders in the 1960s. His post was terminated in mid-1999, as the US embassy closed down for good in lieu of war. He was sent to a new post right next door in Sofia, as ambassador in Bulgaria, where he likely remained involved, though the nexus of organization shifted to another nearby capital – Budapest.
To replace the embassy in Belgrade, the US set up in 1999 an “off-shore embassy” in Budapest, Hungary (NATO member as of two weeks before the bombing began). In October, American pollster Doug Schoen ran an opinion poll of 840 Serbian voters to find weaknesses in Milosevic’s political standing. He delivered his findings to opposition leaders gathered at the Budapest Marriott hotel,
[...]
In the ten months leading up to the revolution, numerous Otpor members had been shuttled in shifts to Hungary to receive training from prominent Americans including Daniel Server, program director of the Balkan Initiative of the US Institute for Peace (USIP), another government-funded NED-connected entity.
One of the more important elements in all this was Colonel Robert Helvey’s IRI-brokered Burma-style training program at the Hilton for the upstart Otpor. Peace magazine described the Colonel’s involvement:
“He began this project in the Budapest Hilton Hotel, with an original core group of only 12 people. […] He began his course by discussing the basics of strategic nonviolent struggle. Srdja Popovic, one of the students, recalls having memorized many of his lectures - especially the opening words, "Removing the authority of the ruler is the most important element in nonviolent struggle."
Helvey had his students analyze the “pillars of support” that sustained the regime, such as control of the media and the country's security forces. [...]
Gene Sharp’s From Dictatorship to Democracy was translated and re-published with US funds, becoming what one activist described as “the bible of the opposition’s resistance activities.” FDTD was widely distributed in Serbia along with Helvey’s own supplement, a manual of nonviolent resistance taking a less theoretical, more tactical approach. 70,000 copies of this booklet were printed and distributed throughout Serbia – just about one for every Otpor member.
A report from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty explained that by professing nonviolence, Otpor became a legitimate focal point for financial support from the Euro-Atlantic Community, with funds flowing from at least the Soros Foundation, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the NED. The NED granted the IRI nearly $75,000 to help Otpor set up a central office in Belgrade, and gave Otpor nearly $300,000 directly to establish new branches in all the other major cities and minor towns across Serbia. Another $125,000 was given to “encourage greater student involvement […] by organizing a university protest campaign,” and for a bus tour to encourage voter participation, both clearly boosts to the Otpor crowd.
So by the NED’s records as reported by RFE/RL, the total they donated to Otpor was around half a million dollars, minimal compared to other methods of regime change. But other much larger funding aided Otpor indirectly by providing the electoral basis of their promise for a better future. Michael Dobbs described an overall “$41 million project” in a December 2000 Washington Post article as:
“an extraordinary U.S. effort to unseat a foreign head of state, not through covert action of the kind the CIA once employed in such places as Iran and Guatemala, but by modern election campaign techniques. […] Regarded by many as Eastern Europe's last great democratic upheaval, Milosevic's overthrow may also go down in history as the first poll-driven, focus group-tested revolution.”

Sorry, I just need to update the blog and/or start a new thread.

The Iranian security forces shot Neda though.

 

[McHrozni]

Alright, again:
http://guerillas-without-guns.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-notes-on-timing-and-consent.html

A vague refference in a blog, citing a site that opens with:
Honduras: Obama's First Coup d'Etat
and considers four lines of text an article worthwhile of publishing.

And you consider this a high standard of evidence? The blog only hints at that US helped ease the Yugoslav protesters, nothing more. It doesn't even state it did so, nor is there anything that I could find that would implicate anything more significant than that.

You can't even find a claim of significant CIA involvement.

First, I didn't miss that line, I typed it in and looked for video or an image of that ad as it made a great metaphor. Second, no one probably physically grabbed a handful of US dollars - it was more likely converted to local currency and deposited in a bank. Third, where did you get "CIA"? Fourth, the research I did was not totally horough and there may be errors.

Yeah, I can tell it wasn't thorugh. Did you even read that useless blog post?

It doesn't matter if you meant CIA or NSA or EPA or NASA. If you say US agents were stirring up trouble abroad, that would fall under CIA, and unless you claim it was some other agency, I'll assume you're intelligent enough to mean CIA. Even if you aren't I'll still have a vastly greater chance of being correct in it than you.

The Iranian security forces shot Neda though.

In that case see post #22 and go away or at least post something on topic.

McHrozni

 

[JihadJane]

You're the only one that could possibly be reasonably accused of such beliefs, so I don't really get your point.

My (very reasonable) point was that killing one’s “own” is a potential part of any power-grabber’s armory.

This is a reasonable assumption, nothing more. Unless you can provide current and accurate policy documents specifying how and why Iran is important and what should be done in that regard, it will remain an assumption and should be treated as such.

The most important documents, from Cheney’s pre-911 Energy Task Force, discussing ME energy resources, remain classified.

The world is approaching a peak in global oil production after which it will go into permanent decline. Energy-hungry competitors to the gas-guzzling USA are rising. With the establishment of US military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran is the only country still posing an obstacle to US ambitions for regional hegemony. Here's map for you to contemplate:

The claim that US agents have orchestrated many recent revolts, like in Yugoslavia or now in Iran. I do not contend the notion that they haven't helped them, mind you, but there is a world of difference in providing minor material aid and organizing the whole thing from scratch. The evidence you provided to support your assertion actually did far more damage to it than anything else - Serbian people certainly believed the rebels to be domestic, therefore proving substantial popular support from them not created by the CIA.

Your "whole thing from scratch" argument is a straw man.

You're confusing me with Caustic Logic.

There is a significant difference in that my "speculation" is supported by quite a bit of circumstantial evidence, whereas your speculation is not. Whereas lack of hard evidence for my version is to be expected, since Iran would and could suppress it, the lack of any evidence for your version is quite damming, since Iran would have no reason not to past it anywhere they could, to improve their image. Officially they haven't even made the claim.
Therefore there is proof of lack for your speculation, not just lack of proof. You are allowed to hold an opinion, just know that it was already proven wrong.

McHrozni

How has it been “proven wrong”?

There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence pointing to US efforts to bring about regime change in Iran (and other countries). E.g.:


~~~~~~~ there is plenty of evidence to suggest that, whereas there are surely thousands of sincere and committed activists and participants in the recent protests, what we are witnessing may very well be the culmination of years of American infiltration and manipulation of both the Iranian establishment and public.

Back in 2005, the United States government was already funding groups it designated as terrorist organizations to carry out violent attacks within Iran in order to destabilize the Iranian government. In 2007, ABC News reported that George W. Bush has signed a secret "Presidential finding" which authorized the CIA to "mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government." These operations, according to current and former intelligence officials, included "a coordinated campaign of propaganda broadcasts, placement of negative newspaper articles, and the manipulation of Iran's currency and international banking transactions."

In May of that same year, the London Telegraph reported that Bush administration zealot John Bolton revealed that an American military attack on Iran would “be a ‘last option’ after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed.” Two weeks later, the Telegraph independently verified the ABC report, saying that, “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.”

Daniel McAdams tells us that, at the time, "the president met with the Congressional Star Chamber, the “gang of 8? House and Senate leaders, and was granted the authorization to use some $400 million for among other things, as the Washington Post reported, “activities ranging from spying on Iran’s nuclear program to supporting rebel groups opposed to the country’s ruling clerics…"

Then, in early May 2008, Counterpunch's Andrew Cockburn revealed that "Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents was 'unprecedented in its scope.'
"Bush’s secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan – but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines – up to and including the assassination of targeted officials. This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department's list of terrorist groups.

Similarly, covert funds can now flow without restriction to Jundullah, or "army of god," the militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan – just across the Afghan border - whose leader was featured not long ago on Dan Rather Reports cutting his brother-in-law's throat.

Other elements that will benefit from U.S. largesse and advice include Iranian Kurdish nationalists, as well the Ahwazi Arabs of southwest Iran.
Of course, US officials denied any "direct funding" of Jundallah, but admitted regular contact since 2005 with its leader Abd el Malik Regi, who was widely reputed to be involved in heroin trafficking from Afghanistan. Funding has reportedly been funneled through Iranian exiles with connections in Europe and the Gulf States.

Furthermore, on June 29, 2008, Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker confirmed all of these reports, writing, “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.” Among the activities Hersh cited were "gathering intelligence about Iran's suspected nuclear-weapons program", "undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions" and "trying to undermine the government through regime change [by] working with opposition groups and passing money."~~~~~~~


Plenty more:

'Ajax Redux

US Heavy Meddle in Iran '

By Lord Baltimore

http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/


---------------------------------

Do you really think those opposition groups are just gonna hand over to the US if they do gain power? Why would they? The Iranians are a proud and intelligent people so they're not going to hand themselves over to anyone ever again.........at least not without one hell of a fight.

The US aims to "impose regimes that are opening their markets to the US without conditions and which are aligning themselves to their foreign policy." **


As recent events have shown opposition groups have only limited power over governing forces in Iran.

Had Mousavi gained power he could have (and probably would have) privatized the oil sector.


** 'The grassroots takeover technique
« Color revolution » fails in Iran'

http://www.voltairenet.org/article160764.html

France, the UK, the Netherlands and Russia have also meddled in the affairs of other countries for decades so why not consider them suspects as well.

To varying degrees, they are, France and the UK, in particular.

Heck the Galactic Empire is known to use it's Star Destroyers to get what it wants so why don't we include them in our list of endless speculative villains? Or, perhaps, we could use Occam's Razor and avoid all that.

Probably best that we stick with reality and avoid pathetic recourse to the Galactic Empire of Straw and Razors.

 

[McHrozni]

My (very reasonable) point was that killing one’s “own” is a potential part of any power-grabber’s armory.

That is true, and there was one such side present - the Iranian 'security' forces. You're constantly hinting that CIA did the deed, and now you're claiming you never did. Convenient.

The most important documents, from Cheney’s pre-911 Energy Task Force, discussing ME energy resources, remain classified.

How convenient. And I should presume you know what they say because...?

The world is approaching a peak in global oil production after which it will go into permanent decline. Energy-hungry competitors to the gas-guzzling USA are rising. With the establishment of US military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran is the only country still posing an obstacle to US ambitions for regional hegemony. Here's map for you to contemplate:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/263894a42629b336b0.jpg[/qimg]

Of course if I were to say that USA is not going to attack Iran you'd claim you never said that. Convenient, and intellectually dishonest from you

Your "whole thing from scratch" argument is a straw man.

You're confusing me with Caustic Logic.

Perhaps, then again you never said what you claimed, you just hinted. There was no straw man whatsoever, since there was no way of knowing what exactly you had in mind, if anything at all

How has it been “proven wrong”?

I have explained it already. There is proof of lack for that idea.

There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence pointing to US efforts to bring about regime change in Iran (and other countries). E.g.:

Of course there is. And? If Iran had anything solid on that, it would be pasted everywhere. It is not. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that this round of unrest is spontaneous and domestic. We do know Iranians are severely unhappy in any event, so this conclusion is rational and plausible.

That doesn't mean CIA has no assets in Iran.

McHrozni

 

[twinstead]

All you have is speculation, as far as I can see, though it isn't, of course, unreasonable speculation. Neither is it unreasonable to speculate about other possible culprits.

Well, he has speculation based on actual evidence, where as you have speculation based on the fact you pretty much assume the US is somehow involved in just about anything bad, everywhere.

Until contrary evidence surfaces, which one of you is actually being the real skeptic?

 

[Caustic Logic]

McHrozni: We're off-topic and staying there for one more post each so you can take one more chance to get this concept through your skull plates, if you even want to. Which it doesn't seem you do.

Your epic Post #22

Lay your little straw man aside. There is a world of difference between putting money in attempting a regime change and paying off tens of thousands of men and women to demonstrate in the face of armed brutal police and militia.

So I offer you my previous thoughts on the issue (linked twice now, apparently read zero). It explains how US/Euro-Atlantic entities are able to sync interests with, partly steer, and compromise with genuine discontents inside a country. They give money and training, tactical advice, political advice, moral and diplomatic encouragement, and of course as in Serbia sanctions and bombs and such against the government the "youth movement insurgencies" (American planner's phrase) are up against. That's a lot of help, but it does take genuine diaffected people inside the target country. It is NOT either-or.

Most importantly "the West" does what it can (which is much) to control or co-opt the political leaders that come to power after the ___ Revolution.

So you look at this and say:

A vague refference in a blog, citing a site that opens with:
Honduras: Obama's First Coup d'Etat
and considers four lines of text an article worthwhile of publishing.

I didn't understand anything you just said. Venezuelanalysis is not even cited in that post. Did you even read it? A third time in case you lost the link
http://guerillas-without-guns.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-notes-on-timing-and-consent.html

And you consider this a high standard of evidence? The blog only hints at that US helped ease the Yugoslav protesters, nothing more. It doesn't even state it did so, nor is there anything that I could find that would implicate anything more significant than that.

Yes, "the blog" does not contain the details. Did you miss the post I posted right here for you just above this? I don't think you did.

You can't even find a claim of significant CIA involvement.

Why am I supposed to? (see below)

Yeah, I can tell it wasn't thorugh. Did you even read that useless blog post?

You mean the ones I wrote two years ago, or the one you say I cited but that's from this year?

It doesn't matter if you meant CIA or NSA or EPA or NASA. If you say US agents were stirring up trouble abroad, that would fall under CIA, and unless you claim it was some other agency, I'll assume you're intelligent enough to mean CIA. Even if you aren't I'll still have a vastly greater chance of being correct in it than you.

This is just not true. The CIA did coups and stuff through the 502-70s, then was scaled back after Church Commission, etc... the 1980s saw the emergence of "Overt operations" run by other agencies like NED, USAID, NDI, IRI... It's not the same kind of thing but it tries to fill the same slot, emerging just as the CIA stuff fell out of favor. Do you get this? These groups are known to have a hand in Iran, although the extent is not clear - it's their touchiest arena yet and they don't like to talk about it much. I can provide sources if get the feeling you read anything at all.

In that case see post #22 and go away or at least post something on topic.

McHrozni

This is my final answer to post #22. I'm now going away as that was my contribution to the topic. That and NEDA was probably not shot by the CIA. Tho she may have been working for the NED, twittering orders to the adolescent hordes to remove the regime's "pillars of support."

Apologies for the long derail. The bone is thick here...

 

[Caustic Logic]

~~~~~~~ there is plenty of evidence to suggest that, whereas there are surely thousands of sincere and committed activists and participants in the recent protests, what we are witnessing may very well be the culmination of years of American infiltration and manipulation of both the Iranian establishment and public.

And the info following - thank you, Jihad Jane, that's part of what I was talking about. The degree of authenticity and independence of these revolutionary movements must always be in doubt, since we've seen so many cases of engineered/partly steered/hijacked/derailed revolutions. Where? Where western interests come into play.

Iran is sooooo not immune.

You want to see the West-control aspect at play against native interests, search "Black Pora" "Yellow Pora" (re; Ukraine's Orange Revolution, 2004).

 

[Caustic Logic]

Also it occurred to me, when that diplomat said there was a Western-made bullet in her head, that might have been metaphor. Is he that subtle? I dunno, just a thought...

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Also it occurred to me, when that diplomat said there was a Western-made bullet in her head, that might have been metaphor. Is he that subtle? I dunno, just a thought...

The origin of the bullet matters doesn't matter as much as you might think. There are munitions factories all over the world churning out 7.62mm, some of them in the US, some of them in the former Soviet Union, some all over the place. As many times as pallettes of ammo change hands during the course of an arms deal, it doesn't really point to one country being responsible.

If she was hit with a specialized caliber or variant of round known to be only used by a certain military of a certain nation, that would be more incriminating but still not absolute proof, since most rifles in use by both sanctioned militaries and militias use one of two standard calibers. The more specialized stuff fell out of fashion - NATO being partly to blame.

 

[JihadJane]

That is true, and there was one such side present - the Iranian 'security' forces. You're constantly hinting that CIA did the deed, and now you're claiming you never did. Convenient...

That doesn't mean CIA has no assets in Iran.

McHrozni

I haven't hinted at anything. I have explicitly argued that there is plenty of evidence suggesting that the "green" revolution may not be the simple, spontaneous uprising that the Western press is portraying it to be. With this in mind any aspect of the narrative should be approached with caution. It is wise not to jump to conclusions.


I overestimated your your willingness to explore Iran's geostrategic importance to the US and your interest in responding concretely to the circumstantial evidence I presented that, in your previous post, you claimed didn't exist.

I won't make the same mistake again.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

I overestimated your your willingness to explore Iran's geostrategic importance to the US

Of course Iran would be a powerful ally to have in the region, were it possessed of a stable government friendly to us. That hardly constitutes anything more than a speculative basis for alleging active US involvement in the current political unrest. The money stored in the vault of the local bank would be of great use to me, but that's not exactly a pretense for me to go out and rob it - even if my father had done so in the past.

 

[JihadJane]

See post #49 for further information.

 

[McHrozni]

I haven't hinted at anything. I have explicitly argued that there is plenty of evidence suggesting that the "green" revolution may not be the simple, spontaneous uprising that the Western press is portraying it to be. With this in mind any aspect of the narrative should be approached with caution. It is wise not to jump to conclusions.

Then get back on topic. We weren't discussing the Iranian green revolution as a whole, nor was that my intention to do so.

By the way, your entire set of 'evidence' in favor of western involvement is a blog post about alleged US involvement in Yugoslav affairs 10 years ago - and it is even stated there the affected Serbs didn't buy it back then.

Way to go, really ...

I overestimated your your willingness to explore Iran's geostrategic importance to the US and your interest in responding concretely to the circumstantial evidence I presented that, in your previous post, you claimed didn't exist.

Heh

Don't get me wrong, I do know the Iranian geostrategic value, I just don't buy it that any trouble within Iran is a direct result of US meddling in Iranian affairs with the explicit goal of dominating the country

If you can't understand the difference say so and go away.

McHrozni

 

[discoransom]

Nice how silly allegations undermine the real accusations of terrorism and assassination that the CIA has been doing forever.

Man In Frightening Sunglasses: "I was told to find a hot chick and shoot her with a rare bullet. Seemed reasonable at the time"