Len Colby Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) Steve SAID,there would be handler.......... COLBY=Let’s not be disingenuous, at least own up to backing the false flag theory. Colby not ony tells me what to remember but also what I think.....(Control issues ??) ???? Your 1st line is not what you actually said, the 2nd line was what I said in response to something else entirely and I have no idea what rantabblng © about in the 3rd. =========================XXXXXXXXooooXXXXXXXX=====================(Bangkok Post 2/19/12) Bomb suspects 'were anti-Iran exiles Four Iranians suspected of involvement in a botched bomb plot targeting Israeli diplomats in Bangkok were members of an exiled Iranian opposition group which wanted the incident to reflect badly on Teheran, Syedsulaiman Husaini, Shia leader of Thailand, said on Sunday. He claimed the four belonged to the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organisation (also known as MEK, MKO and the People's Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran, or PMOI) which aims to overthrow the current Iranian government. So says a Shia cleric in a country with a minimal Shia population, who is “former president of the Iran University Alumni Association”, lists ‘Ayatullah Sayed Ruhollah Khomeini’ and other Iranian mullahs as his ‘likes’ on Facebook and looks a lot more like a Persian than a Thai but provides no evidence. http://www.facebook.com/pages/%E0%B8%8B%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B8%E0%B9%84%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%99-%E0%B8%AE%E0%B8%B9%E0%B8%8B%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%A2 %E0%B8%99%E0%B8%B5-Syedsulaiman-Husaini/215957771777173?sk=info Nikkhahfard a Boluchistan type name http://pakobserver.n...s.asp?id=135590 http://pak1stanfirst...alochistan.html BS Neither of your links contained the keyword ‘Nikkhahfard” let alone said that it is “a Boluchistan type name” and a Google search for Nikkhahfard Boluchistan only returned 12 hits. Only one of them actually contained both terms, it was from a news sites with an article about the suspected bombers but the tern ‘Boluchistan’ only appeared on a link to another article. 10 of the hits came from news sites with articles about the incident that mentioned Nikkhahfard but the term Boluchistan did not appear. Apparently there were links to stories about that region when the pages were crawled by Google. The last hit came from the “Index Medicus for the WHO [World Health Organisation] Eastern Mediterranean Region with Abstracts” it contained an abstract by 7 researchers from Isfahan University of Medical Science one of whom is ‘Nikkhahfard, M’. A previous version of the page had an abstract from Boluchistan University. Isfahan is 1200 – 1600 miles from Iranian Boluchistan and Boluchs are apparently only about 2% of Iran’s population so the odds that ‘Nikkhahfard, M’ is one are small. So it seems you just made up that claim. In any case MEK is a Shia group and Baluchs are Sunnis. Edited February 20, 2012 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) "Deep investigation may indicate a handler" PREVIOUS STATEMENT Gaal Steve SAID,there would be handler..........1st line COLBY="???? Your 1st line is not what you actually said" //conclusion: COLBY Dosent want anyone right but him. ------------------------------------------++++--------------------------------------------------------------- Javad Nikkhahfard (JAVAD) Boluchistan name. Colby "BS ...So it seems you just made up that claim."// conclusion: Colby poor internet researcher -----------------------------------------++++--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COLBY" In any case MEK is a Shia group and Baluchs are Sunnis." ===== Yes !! Thats how you play the false flag 'game', deniability. The term "plausible deniability" can apply to any act that leaves little or no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse.// conclusion: Colby small imagination +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Edited February 21, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 "Deep investigation may indicate a handler" PREVIOUS STATEMENT Gaal Steve SAID,there would be handler..........1st line COLBY="???? Your 1st line is not what you actually said" //conclusion: COLBY Dosent want anyone right but him. I still haven’t the slightest was you are rantabbling about. In any case you fail to address the nonsequitous nature of the opening of your previous post. ------------------------------------------++++---------------------------------------------------------------Javad Nikkhahfard (JAVAD) Boluchistan name. Colby "BS ...So it seems you just made up that claim."// conclusion: Colby poor internet researcher OK then impresses us all with your superior abilities and produce evidence, other than your sayso, in support of your claim. Since you included the given name Javad twice and all capped it once I’m guessing you think it’s “a Boluchistan type name” but it’s not, it is typical of Azerbaijan and northwestern-central Iran. The only other Nikkhahfard I could find trace of was the researcher from Isfahan University, her first name is Mojghan which seems to be Persian. -----------------------------------------++++---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------COLBY" In any case MEK is a Shia group and Baluchs are Sunnis." ===== Yes !! Thats how you play the false flag 'game', deniability. The term "plausible deniability" can apply to any act that leaves little or no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse.// conclusion: Colby small imagination. Come on; get off it you obviously though MEK was a Baluchi group. So what’s you theory now, that to make Iran look bad they were MEK operatives posing as Baluchis or Baluchis posing as MEK ones? How would either embarrass Iran? Or was that the cover story within the cover story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) COLBY =Come on; get off it you obviously though MEK was a Baluchi group. So whats you theory now, that to make Iran look bad they were MEK operatives posing as Baluchis or Baluchis posing as MEK ones? How would either embarrass Iran? Or was that the cover story within the cover story? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ You know I watch/study CIA,thus your above remark is oddball insult.MEK is a layer between intell agencies and operation. Baluchi are mostly anti Iran current government,thus can be recruited. This is a difficult concept ???? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Deep investigation may indicate a handler" PREVIOUS STATEMENT Gaal this thread Steve SAID,there would be handler..........1st line COLBY="???? Your 1st line is not what you actually said" //conclusion: COLBY Dosent want anyone right but him. ================================================ conclusion: Cobly nitpicks when in corner. Gives 'NO' credit to his perceived enemies. I predicted handler and there was one,however, you implied by, ="???? Your 1st line is not what you actually said",that no prediction was made. Colby is incorrect. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Night shift worker Steve says ,"to sleep perchance to dream". +++++++++++++++++++++++++ To be or not to be Colby that !! is the question...... JAVAD (below) ====================== 2007 Zahedan BombingMain article: 2007 Zahedan bombings On February 14, 2007, a car bomb and gunfire directed at a bus killed 18 members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Guards commander Qasem Rezaei said, "This blind terrorist operation led to the martyrdom of 18 citizens of Zahedan" and attributed the attack to "insurgents and elements of insecurity."[90] Jundallah claimed responsibility for the attack on 15 February.[91] Iranian security forces also arrested five suspects, two of whom were carrying camcorders and grenades when they were arrested, while the police killed the main "agent" of the attack.[44] Among the arrestees was Said Qanbarzehi, a Balochi, who was hanged in Zahedan prison on 27 May 2007. He had been sentenced to death at the age of 17 along with six other Balochi men—Javad Naroui, Masoud Nosratzehi, Houshang Shahnavazi, Yahya Sohrabzehi, Ali Reza Brahoui and Abdalbek Kahrazehi (also known as Abdalmalek) -- in March 2007,[92] despite the absolute international prohibition on the execution of child offenders.[93] Two days later on Friday, Feb 16 2007, Jundallah bombed a girls school in city of Zahedan and the leader of the group took responsibility for it on the official TV of MEK.[94] Edited February 21, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 COLBY =Come on; get off it you obviously though MEK was a Baluchi group. So what’s you theory now, that to make Iran look bad they were MEK operatives posing as Baluchis or Baluchis posing as MEK ones? How would either embarrass Iran? Or was that the cover story within the cover story? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ You know I watch/study CIA,thus your above remark is oddball insult.MEK is a layer between intell agencies and operation. Baluchi are mostly anti Iran current government,thus can be recruited. This is a difficult concept ???? You failed to spell out what your theory was which seems to be a post hoc rationalization; yes it’s possible they’d work together despite having different ideology, goals and religion. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++"Deep investigation may indicate a handler" PREVIOUS STATEMENT Gaal this thread Steve SAID,there would be handler..........1st line COLBY="???? Your 1st line is not what you actually said" //conclusion: COLBY Dosent want anyone right but him. ================================================ conclusion: Cobly nitpicks when in corner. Gives 'NO' credit to his perceived enemies. I predicted handler and there was one,however, you implied by, ="???? Your 1st line is not what you actually said",that no prediction was made. Colby is incorrect. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Night shift worker Steve says ,"to sleep perchance to dream". +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Me in a corner? Hardly. I never denied there could have been a handler, in fact my response to that was, “Many such ops do.” You made your ‘prediction’ at 18 February 2012 - 06:30 PM GMT, the cited article was posted at 02/17/2012 12:06:07 AM PST i.e. over 34 hours earlier. To be or not to be Colby that !! is the question......JAVAD (below) ====================== 2007 Zahedan BombingMain article: 2007 Zahedan bombings On February 14, 2007, a car bomb and gunfire directed at a bus killed 18 members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Guards commander Qasem Rezaei said, "This blind terrorist operation led to the martyrdom of 18 citizens of Zahedan" and attributed the attack to "insurgents and elements of insecurity."[90] Jundallah claimed responsibility for the attack on 15 February.[91] Iranian security forces also arrested five suspects, two of whom were carrying camcorders and grenades when they were arrested, while the police killed the main "agent" of the attack.[44] Among the arrestees was Said Qanbarzehi, a Balochi, who was hanged in Zahedan prison on 27 May 2007. He had been sentenced to death at the age of 17 along with six other Balochi men—Javad Naroui, Masoud Nosratzehi, Houshang Shahnavazi, Yahya Sohrabzehi, Ali Reza Brahoui and Abdalbek Kahrazehi (also known as Abdalmalek) -- in March 2007,[92] despite the absolute international prohibition on the execution of child offenders.[93] Two days later on Friday, Feb 16 2007, Jundallah bombed a girls school in city of Zahedan and the leader of the group took responsibility for it on the official TV of MEK.[94] So perhaps Jundallah and MEK do cooperate, but the cited source was a CNN article which indicated, “According to FARS, the leader of the Jondollah group, Abdolmalek Rigy, claimed responsibility for the bombing on MKO-TV. The group also claimed responsibility for a car bomb in the same area Wednesday.” MKO is another name for MEK, FARS though it describes itself as “independent” seems to be tied to the Iranian government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fars_News_Agency http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1996165,00.html Wikipedia has a list of 29 men named Javad, 3 are/were Azeris, 1 a Kurd, 1 as a Shia, 1 the governor of a different provence, none of 10 others whoses bios I glanced at were Balochs. Look at the list of surnames of the men arrested, it would seem that “Boluchistan type names” end with the letter ‘i’. Jundallah’s founder was Abdolmalek Rigi (or Riggi). According to Wikipedia it is now headed by Muhammad Dhahir Baluch. Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s family was from the Pakistani part of Boluchistan, his family name was Baluchi*, he was the uncle of Ramzi Yousef, whose family name was Karim, another terrorist nephew is Ammar al-Baluchi. Wikipedia has a list of “Baluchi music composers and performers” with 28 names, 8 have the surname Baloch, 13 have names ending in ‘i' only 7 have other surnames, none of which are similar to Nikkhahfard or Nikkhah or Fard. I was able to find the names of 4 other Balochs: Zabol University President Ahmad Ghanbari, University of Sistan and Baluchestan Chancellor Alireza Rezvani; Balochistan (Pakistan) Governor, Zulfikar Ali Magsi and Chief Minister, Aslam Raisani. So of the 44 Baluchi musicians, terrorists, academics and politicians 9 (20%) are named Baloch or Baluch, 27(61%) have surnames ending in ‘i' and only 8 (18%) have other surnames, none of which are similar to Nikkhahfard or Nikkhah or Fard. * http://articles.latimes.com/2002/dec/22/world/fg-ksm22/3 I’m still waiting for any evidence Nikkhahfard or Nikkhah Fard is “a Boluchistan type name”. I only found one person with that name who I could tie to a location in Asia, that was the scientist from Isfahan. Her name is sometimes written Nikkhah Fard. I was able to find 4 other Nikkahs who I could tie to locations in central Asia. Basketball players Aidin and Samad Nikkhah Bahrami, both born and raised in Tehran, Ali Nikkhah*, also from Iran’s capital and Reza Nikkhah* who lives and went to university in Rasht, in the opposite (northwest) corner of Iran, 1800 miles from Boluchistan. Facebook has no Nikkhahfards but has 2 people with similar names in central Asia, Mahfam Nikamalfard who is from and went to university in Tehran and Behdokht Nikkhahan who is from and lives in Amol on the Caspian Sea 1700 miles from Boluchistan. * On Facebook You still haven't told us the source for your claim, did some one tell you? Or was it 'a little bird' or did it come to you in a vision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) You still haven't told us the source for your claim, did some one tell you? Or was it 'a little bird' or did it come to you in a vision? COLBY ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Did a little bird tell you not to mention a certain country that uses flase flags mentioned in my links ???????????????? ======================================= Posted 18 February 2012 - 05:30 PM All of this ignores the arrests of Iranians in Thailand and predominantly Muslim Malaysia which seriously undermine the false flag theory. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Well,did I take a position ? Or just say related links ?? =============== Now Thai Iranians were seen at nightclubs....reminds me of Atta stories. Deep investigation may indicate a handler. Link 1 talked about a certain country and false flags which you ignored. sg This post has been edited by Steven Gaal: 18 February 2012 - 05:36 PM ================ I didnt know of handler till FEB 20. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ MEK HELPERS 2007 with six other Balochi menJavad Naroui, Masoud Nosratzehi, Houshang Shahnavazi, Yahya Sohrabzehi, Ali Reza Brahoui and Abdalbek ----------------JAVAD a Baluchi I said Javad Nikkhahfard (JAVAD) Boluchistan name. SO I DONT UNDERSTAND YOUR PROBLEM ?? _________ FOX NEWS Winai identified the suspect as 52-year-old Javad Nikkhahfard and said he was believed to be a bomb maker who had possibly been training ... ================== LINK VERY odd http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1202/S00191/signs-allegedly-posted-by-iranian-bombers-baffle-bangkok.htm Edited February 22, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) You still haven't told us the source for your claim, did some one tell you? Or was it 'a little bird' or did it come to you in a vision? COLBY ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Did a little bird tell you not to mention a certain country that uses flase flags mentioned in my links ???????????????? Replied to below. You OTOH still haven't answered the question, so it's safe to assume at this point you simply made that up. =======================================Posted 18 February 2012 - 05:30 PM All of this ignores the arrests of Iranians in Thailand and predominantly Muslim Malaysia which seriously undermine the false flag theory. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Well,did I take a position ? Or just say related links ?? =============== Now Thai Iranians were seen at nightclubs....reminds me of Atta stories. Deep investigation may indicate a handler. Link 1 talked about a certain country and false flags which you ignored. sg This post has been edited by Steven Gaal: 18 February 2012 - 05:36 PM ================ I didnt know of handler till FEB 20. That might well be the case, but that fact had been public knowledge for well over a day before your ‘prediction’. This in no way advances your theory - a handler, if indeed he was one, fits the Iran/MEK/Mossad/CIA/MI6/ Jundallah /KGB/MIBH/AQ/CBGBs etc. theories equally well. I have no idea what point you were trying to make with the rest of the above. MEK HELPERS 2007 Your characteristic confusion is on display once again, the men were from Jundallah, even the Iranian government only claimed Jundallah once made an announcement on a MEK TV station not that Jundallah helped MEK. I said Javad Nikkhahfard (JAVAD) Boluchistan name. SO I DONT UNDERSTAND YOUR PROBLEM ?? BS You: “Nikkhahfard a Boluchistan type name” 20 February 2012 - 05:18 PM I challenged this and you replied: ‘Javad Nikkhahfard (JAVAD) Boluchistan name. Colby "BS ...So it seems you just made up that claim."// conclusion: Colby poor internet researcher’. 21 February 2012 - 01:04 AM Your 1st claim pretty clearly was wrong, Boluchi names tend to end with an ‘i’ an/or be some variant of Boloch, by contrast Nikkahfard seems to be typical of central and northern Iran. Your 2nd claim was false as well because despite their being at least one Boluchi named Javad the name seem more typical of other regions. So who is the “poor internet researcher”? Might he be the one of us sitting in front of YOUR monitor? So spell out your theory, is it that at Mossad’s behest a ‘handler’ from Jundallah directed some men from MEK to pull off an operation to frame Iran. And what evidence do have in support of that theory? Does go beyond a) Israel attempted a false flag op. in the 1950s meant to make Egypt appear unstable, supposedly some Mossad agents recently posed as CIA ones to recruit Jundallah c) an Iranian cleric in Thailand claimed, without any supporting evidence, the men were from MEK d) your mistaken belief the bomb maker had a Boluchi name, which would have made him Jundallah, not MEK, e) an Iranian government propaganda outlet claimed that Jundallah once claimed credit for an attack on a MEK TV station? Pretty weak! That Iranians were behind the attacks is no longer in doubt. The question remains which group. They don’t seem to Jundallah, Kurdish or other seperatists because if they were someone would have commented on their common heritage. That leaves MEK/other non- ethnic anti-government groups or the government. However the former seems unlikely because at least three members of the group returned to or tried to return to Iran, which is the last place anti-government militants would want to go after an operation went south. Mr Khazaei was arrested that evening trying to catch a flight to Malaysia. Mr Sedaghatzadeh was arrested the next day at Kuala Lumpur airport while trying to board a flight to Tehran. Police have identified two other plotters. Iranian Leila Rohani, 31, flew out of Bangkok for Tehran on February 5. She had rented two safe-houses in Bangkok during three trips to Thailand last year. Iranian Norouzi Shayan, 57, left Bangkok on a flight to Tehran the next day. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/terrorists-or-tourists-suspects-partied-with-thai-prostitutes-before-blast-20120222-1tobl.html#ixzz1nF7L5Ihh Shortly before the attacks Iran’s Supreme Leader aknowlwdged that his government financed operation against Israel: Khamenei affirmed that Iran had assisted militant groups like the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas – a well-known policy, but one that Iranian leaders rarely acknowledge explicitly. "We have intervened in anti-Israel matters, and it brought victory in the 33-day war by Hezbollah against Israel in 2006, and in the 22-day war" between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza Strip, he said. Israel's large-scale military incursion against Hamas in 2008-09 in Gaza ended in a ceasefire, with Israel claiming to have inflicted heavy damage on the militant organisation. The war in Lebanon ended with a UN-brokered truce that sent thousands of Lebanese troops and international peacekeepers into southern Lebanon to prevent another outbreak. "From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this," said Khamenei. He said Israel was a "cancerous tumour that should be cut and will be cut". http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/03/khamenei-iran-help-confront-israel?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487 EDIT - Formatting Edited February 23, 2012 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) TWO POST RESPONSE THIS PART ONE --------------------v-------------- ================================== COLBY = Since you included the given name Javad twice and all capped it once I’m guessing you think it’s “a Boluchistan type name” but it’s not, it is typical of Azerbaijan and northwestern-central Iran. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Oh ! Azerbaijan !! Well .............Now it would be MIX and match. The fellow who would go to IRAN not MEK. The others link http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2010/01/mossad-busy-in-malaysia.html PICKED by another country..... ----------====---------------------- From: total_truth_sciences Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:01 PM Subject: Mossad In Malaysia Mossad in Malaysia April 22, 2010 . On April 4, 2010 - Malaysia's internationally known politician, <http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&pagename=Zon... ish-Muslim_Affairs/MAELayout&cid=1181062677246> Anwar Ibrahim (born 1947), country's former Deputy Prime Minister (1993-98)and Finance Minister (1991-98) and currently the Opposition leader - claimed that Israeli intelligence agents (Mossad) have infiltrated into Malaysia's Bukit Aman (Federal Police headquarter in Kuala Lumpur). The espionage link to Israel is the company named Asiasoft Global Pte Ltd. (Singapore), which has worked as a sub-contractor to upgrade the telecommunication systems for the police. Two of the directors of the firm, Izhak David Nakar and Ido Schechter, are reportedly Israeli citizen. However, this is not the first time the 'Israeli connection' is raised. In 2008, then Malasian Home Minister had told the Parliament: "Then between November and December, a police report was lodged by the responsible police officers and investigated by one ASP Sairah. Then Sairah was transferred to Taiping and there was no news after that," The Malaysian Insider. How reliable is Anwar Ibrahim? Well, he is known for his good connections with the Jewish Lobby in the US through personal friendship and links to CIA-funded think tanks. In 2000, Malaysian politician Lim Kit Siang had asked former prime minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad to declare the outcome of a three year police investigation to whether Anwar Ibrahim is a CIA operative. Anwar Ibrahim has been a good friend of former US Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton administration, William S. Cohen (1997-2001), son of a Russian Jewish immigrant Reuben Cohen. No other Malaysian politician has forged such a relationship with individuals of the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, the former US Secretary of Defence and ex- President of the World Bank, who fervently believes that Israeli military dominance and power in the Middle East serves US interests. One of the principal advocates of the invasion and occupation of Iraq in furtherance of Israeli goals in the region, Wolfowitz was described by Anwar Ibrahim as his "great friend," a person in whom he has "faith," in a speech in the US on 19 June 2006. It seems now, Anwar Ibrahim is trying to turn the table on his old Zionist friends after being betrayed by Washington-based Zionist PR firm <http://freemalaysiatoday.com/fmt-english/opinion/comment/3892-apco-an... b-beneath-the-veil-of-public-relations> apco Worldwide, whose several directors are not only former Israeli high officials such as Shimon Shein , former Tel Aviv ambassador in Bonn, ItamarRabinovich and former Tel Aviv ambassador in Washington. Its CEO in Israel Gad Ben-Ari was a personal adviser to former PM Rabin. Speaking at 2003 OIC summit meeting in Malaysia in October 2003 - Malaysian prime minister Muhathir Mohamad while urged Muslim youth to abandon suicide attacks and apply their faith to strive in science and technology - he blamed Israel and its western allies for creating most of world's crisis and wars. Malaysia is a multicultural, multiracial and multireligion society ruled by a secular democratic government in which Muslims make a slight majority (60%). This makes easy for the Judeo-Christian foreign agents to incite communal clashes in Malaysia. Malaysia doesn't recognize Israel. Israeli professor Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi in his book, <http://books.google.ca/books?id=7v-g21ksdVsC&pg=PR7&lpg=PR7&dq=the+is... connection+-+the+book&source=bl&ots=V_4tucUsPT&sig=L0PI53Y1CSufdjs4T_4CV37MU lI&hl=en&ei=QXXPS6-AIsOqlAedsJSgCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ve d=0CCAQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=the israeli connection - the book&f=false> The Israeli Connection, wrote about Zionists' hatred toward the Muslim world and their support for anti-Muslim insurgencies and covert military and intelligence operations to destablize Muslim countries especially those which don't recognize the European Jewish occupation of Palestine. The book documents Tel Aviv's involvement in Iran-Cntra fiasco, French genocide of Algerian Muslims, aiding Idi Amin and Marcos against Moro Muslim resistance, collaborating with Chinese and Burmese genocide of Muslims in those countries. Currently Israeli Mossad is very active in India where it carried out the 2008 Mumbai terrorist false-flag operation; in Afghanistan, in Lebanon, in Pakistan, in Indonesia, in Pakistan, in Iran, in Nigeria, in Somalia, in Malaysia and many other Muslim countries. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ AS to Azerbaijan ....gee this unnamed country very active,very . http://presstv.com/detail/228055.html http://presstv.com/detail/209597.html http://presstv.com/detail/228080.html Azeri officials have contested Iranian claims that Azerbaijan has been assisting Israeli Mossad’s activities against Iran by allowing MEK members to travel through Azerbaijan and onto Israel to receive training related to the recent assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. An Azeri foreign ministry spokesman said the Iranian complaint was likely in response to Azeri diplomatic protests over last month’s alleged Iranian plot to kill Israelis in Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan maintains friendly ties with the U.S. and Israel, while it long has had shaky relations with Iran over the ethnic Azeri minority in northern Iran. (BBC 02/13) ===================================================================== +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ===================================================================== How to Start a War: The American Use of War Pretext Incidents. by Richard Sanders Global Research, January 9, 2012 The following article by Richard Sanders published in May 2002, prior to the onslaught of the Iraq war, carefully documents the History of War Pretext Incidents. This historical review raises an important issue: Is the Pentagon seeking to trigger military confrontation in the Persian Gulf with a view to providing a pretext and a justification to waging an all out war on the Islamic Republic of Iran? As documented by Richard Sanders, this strategy has been used throughout American military history. With regard to the confrontation in the Persian Gulf, is the Obama administration prepared to sacrifice the Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain with a view to triggering public support for a war on Iran on the grounds of self-defense. Those opposed to war must address the issue of the "pretext"and "justification" to wage war. Of relevance, the "Responsibility to Protect under a NATO "humanitarian" mandate has also been used as a thematic pretext to wage war (Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria), The 911 Attacks and the "Global War on Terrorism" (Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan,...) not to mention the alleged "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (Iraq) have also been used to justify military intervention. Both 9/11 and WMD are being heralded as a justification for waging war on Iran, based on allegation that Iran was behind the 9/11 attacks and that Iran possesses nuclear weapons. In the words of Richard Sanders [2002]: "It is vitally important to expose this latest attempt [9/11] to fraudulently conceal the largely economic and geostrategic purposes of war. By asking who benefits from war, we can unmask its pretense and expose the true grounds for instigating it. By throwing light on repeated historical patterns of deception, we can promote skepticism about the government and media yarns that have been spun to encourage this war. The historical knowledge of how war planners have tricked people into supporting past wars, is like a vaccine. We can use this understanding of history to inoculate the public with healthy doses of distrust for official war pretext narratives and other deceptive stratagems. Through such immunization programs we may help to counter our society’s susceptibility to “war fever.” " Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, January 9, 2012 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!” Sir Walter Scott, Marmion. Canto vi. Stanza 17 Pretext n. [Latin praetextum, pp. of praetextere, to weave before, pretend, disguise; prae-, before + texere, to weave], a false reason or motive put forth to hide the real one; excuse. Stratagem [Gr. Strategema, device or act of a general; stratos, army + agein, to lead], a trick, scheme or device used for deceiving an enemy in war. Throughout history, war planners have used various forms of deception to trick their enemies. Because public support is so crucial to the process of initiating and waging war, the home population is also subject to deceitful stratagems. The creation of false excuses to justify going to war is a major first step in constructing public support for such deadly ventures. Perhaps the most common pretext for war is an apparently unprovoked enemy attack. Such attacks, however, are often fabricated, incited or deliberately allowed to occur. They are then exploited to arouse widespread public sympathy for the victims, demonize the attackers and build mass support for military “retaliation.” Like schoolyard bullies who shout ‘He hit me first!’, war planners know that it is irrelevant whether the opponent really did ‘throw the first punch.’ As long as it can be made to appear that the attack was unprovoked, the bully receives license to ‘respond’ with force. Bullies and war planners are experts at taunting, teasing and threatening their opponents. If the enemy cannot be goaded into ‘firing the first shot,’ it is easy enough to lie about what happened. Sometimes, that is sufficient to rationalize a schoolyard beating or a genocidal war. Such trickery has probably been employed by every military power throughout history. During the Roman empire, the causes of war -- cassus belli -- were often invented to conceal the real reasons for war. Over the millennia, although weapons and battle strategies have changed greatly, the deceitful strategem of using pretext incidents to ignite war has remained remarkably consistent. Pretext incidents, in themselves, are not sufficient to spark wars. Rumors and allegations about the tragic events must first spread throughout the target population. Constant repetition of the official version of what happened, spawns dramatic narratives that are lodged into public consciousness. The stories become accepted without question and legends are fostered. The corporate media is central to the success of such ‘psychological operations.’ Politicians rally people around the flag, lending their special oratory skills to the call for a military “response.” Demands for “retaliation” then ring out across the land, war hysteria mounts and, finally, a war is born. Every time the US has gone to war, pretext incidents have been used. Upon later examination, the conventional perception of these events is always challenged and eventually exposed as untrue. Historians, investigative journalists and many others, have cited eyewitness accounts, declassified documents and statements made by the perpetrators themselves to demonstrate that the provocative incidents were used as stratagems to stage-manage the march to war. Here are a few particularly blatant examples of this phenomenon. 1846: The Mexican-American War CONTEXT After Mexico’s revolution in 1821, Americans demanded about $3,000,000 in compensation for their losses.1 Mexico abolished slavery in 1829 and then prohibited further U.S. immigration into Texas, a Mexican state. In 1835, Mexico tried to enforce its authority over Texas. Texans, rallying under the slogan "Remember the Alamo!”, drove Mexican troops out of Texas and proclaimed independence. For nine years, many Texans lobbied for US annexation. This was delayed by northerners who opposed adding more slave territories to the US and feared a war with Mexico.2 In 1844, Democratic presidential candidate, James Polk, declared support for annexing Texas and won with the thinnest margin ever.3 The following year, Texas was annexed and Mexico broke off diplomatic relations with the US. Polk sent John Slidell to Mexico offering $25 million for New Mexico, California and an agreement accepting the Rio Grande boundary. Mexican government officials refused to meet the envoy.4 PRETEXT John Stockwell, a Texan who led the CIA’s covert 1970s war in Angola, summed up the start of Mexican American war by saying “they offered two dollars-a-head to every soldier who would enlist. They didn't get enough takers, so they offered a hundred acres to anyone who would be a veteran of that war. They still didn't get enough takers, so [General] Zachary Taylor was sent down to parade up and down the border -- the disputed border -- until the Mexicans fired on him.... And the nation rose up, and we fought the war.”5 President Polk hoped that sending General Taylor’s 3,500 soldiers into Mexico territory, would provoke an attack against US troops.6 “On May 8, 1846, Polk met with his Cabinet at the White House and told them that if the Mexican army attacked the U.S. forces, he was going to send a message to Congress asking for a declaration of war. It was decided that war should be declared in three days even if there was no attack.”7 When news of the skirmish arrived, Polk sent a message to Congress on May 11: “Mexico has passed the boundary of the U.S. and shed American blood on American soil.”8 Two days later Congress declared war on Mexico.9 RESPONSE Newspapers helped the push for war with headlines like: “‘Mexicans Killing our Boys in Texas.’10 With public support secured, U.S. forces occupied New Mexico and California. US troops fought battles across Mexico and stormed their capital. A new more US-friendly government quickly emerged. It signed over California and New Mexico for $15 million and recognized the Rio Grande as their border with the US state of Texas.11 General Taylor became an American war hero and he rode his victory straight into the White House by succeeding Polk as president in 1849. REAL REASONS The US secured over 500,000 square miles from Mexico, including Texas, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, California and parts of Colorado and Wyoming. The war was a boon to US nationalism, it boosted popular support for a very weak president and added vast new territories to the US where slavery was allowed. 1898: The Spanish-American War CONTEXT Cubans fought several wars to free themselves from Spanish colonial rule, including 1868-1878, 1879-1880 and 1895-1898.12 In 1898, Cubans were on the brink of finally winning their independence. The US government agreed to respect Cuba’s sovereignty and promised they would not step in. "On January 24, [1898] on the pretext of protecting the life and safety of Mr. Lee, U.S. consul in Havana, and other U.S. citizens in the face of street disturbances provoked by Spanish extremists, the Maine battleship entered the bay of Havana.”13 PRETEXT On February 15, 1898, a huge explosion sank the USS Maine killing 266 of its crew.14 In 1975, an investigation led by US Admiral Hyman Rickover concluded that there was no evidence of any external explosion. The explosion was internal, probably caused by a coal dust explosion. Oddly, the ship's weapons and explosives were stored next to the coal bunker.15 RESPONSE The Maine’s commander cautioned against assumptions of an enemy attack. The press denounced him for "refusing to see the obvious." The Atlantic Monthly said anyone thinking this was not a premeditated, Spanish act of war was "completely at defiance of the laws of probability."16 Newspapers ran wild headlines like: “Spanish Cannibalism,” “Inhuman Torture,” “Amazon Warriors Fight For Rebels.”17 Guillermo Jimpnez Soler notes: “As would become its usual practice, U.S. intervention in the war was preceded by intensive press campaigns which incited jingoism, pandering to the most shameless tales and sensationalism and exacerbated cheap sentimentality. Joseph Pulitzer of The World and William Randolph Hearst from The Journal, the two largest U.S. papers... carried their rivalry to a paroxysm of inflaming public opinion with scandalous, provocative and imaginary stories designed to win acceptance of U.S. participation in the first of its holy wars beyond its maritime borders.”18 US papers sent hundreds of reporters and photographers to cover the apparent Spanish attacks. Upon arrival, many were disappointed. Frederick Remington wrote to Hearst saying: “There is no war .... Request to be recalled.” Hearst’s now-famous cable replied: "Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war." For weeks, The Journal dedicated more than eight pages per day to the explosion.19 Through ceaseless repetition, a rallying cry for retaliation grew into a roar. “In the papers, on the streets and in…Congress. The slogan was "Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain."20 With the US public and government safely onboard, the US set sail for war launching an era of ‘gunboat diplomacy.’ Anti-war sentiments were drowned out by the sea of cries for war. On April 25, 1898, the US Congress declared war on Spain. REAL REASONS Within four months “the US replaced Spain as the colonial power in the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico, and devised a special status for Cuba. Never again would the US achieve so much…as in that ‘splendid little war,’ as…described at the time by John Hay, future secretary of state.”21 Historian Howard Zinn has said that 1898 heralded “the most dramatic entrance onto the world scene of American military and economic power.… The war ushered in what Henry Luce later referred to as the American Century, which really meant a century of American domination.”22 1915: World War I CONTEXT In 1915, Europe was embroiled in war, but US public sentiment opposed involvement. President Woodrow Wilson said they would “remain neutral in fact as well as in name.”23 PRETEXT On May 7, 1915, a German submarine (U-boat) sank the Lusitania, a British passenger ship killing 1,198, including 128 Americans.24 The public was not told that passengers were, in effect, a ‘human shield’ protecting six million rounds of US ammunition bound for Britain.25 To Germany, the ship was a threat. To Britain, it was bait for luring an attack. Why? British Admiralty leader, Winston Churchill, had already commissioned “a study to determine the political impact if an ocean liner were sunk with Americans on board.”26 A week before the incident, Churchill wrote to the Board of Trade’s president saying it is “most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hopes especially of embroiling the U.S. with Germany.”27 British Naval Intelligence Commander, Joseph Kenworthy, said: “The Lusitania was sent at considerably reduced speed into an area where a U-boat was known to be waiting and with her escorts withdrawn.”28 Patrick Beesly’s history of British naval intelligence in WWI, notes: "no effective steps were taken to protect the Lusitania.” British complicity is furthered by their foreknowledge that: · U-boat commanders knew of the Lusitania’s route, · a U-boat that had sunk two ships in recent days was in the path of the Lusitania, · although destroyers were available, none escorted the Lusitania or hunted for U-boats, · the Lusitania was not given specific warnings of these threats.29 RESPONSE US newspapers aroused outrage against Germany for ruthlessly killing defenceless Americans. The US was being drawn into the war. In June 1916, Congress increased the size of the army. In September, Congress allocated $7 billion for national defense, “the largest sum appropriated to that time.”30 In January 1917, the British said they had intercepted a German message to Mexico seeking an alliance with the US and offering to help Mexico recover land ceded to the US. On April 2, Wilson told Congress: “The world must be safe for democracy.” Four days later the US declared war on Germany.31 REAL REASONS Influential British military, political and business interests wanted US help in their war with Germany. Beesly concludes that “there was a conspiracy deliberately to put the Lusitania at risk in the hope that even an abortive attack on her would bring the U.S. into the war.”32 Churchill’s memoirs of WWI state: "There are many kinds of maneuvres in war, some only of which take place on the battlefield.... The maneuvre which brings an ally into the field is as serviceable as that which wins a great battle."33 In WWI, rival imperialist powers struggled for bigger portions of the colonial pie. “They were fighting over boundaries, colonies, spheres of influence; they were competing for Alsace-Lorraine, the Balkans, Africa and the Middle East.”34 US war planners wanted a piece of the action. "War is the health of the state," said Randolph Bourne during WWI. Zinn explains: “Governments flourished, patriotism bloomed, class struggle was stilled.”35 1941: World War II CONTEXT US fascists opposed President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) from the start. In 1933, “America's richest businessmen were in a panic. Roosevelt intended to conduct a massive redistribution of wealth…[and it] had to be stopped at all costs. The answer was a military coup…secretly financed and organized by leading officers of the Morgan and du Pont empires.”36 A top Wall Street conspirator said: "We need a fascist government in this country…to save the nation from the communists who want to tear it down and wreck all that we have built.”37 The Committee on Un-American Activities said: “Sworn testimony showed that the plotters represented notable families -- Rockefeller, Mellon, Pew, Pitcairn, Hutton and great enterprises -- Morgan, Dupont, Remington, Anaconda, Bethlehem, Goodyear, GMC, Swift, Sun.”38 FDR also faced “isolationist” sentiments from such millionaires who shared Hitler’s hatred of communism and had financed Hitler’s rise to power as George Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush, predecessors of the current president.39 William R.Hearst, mid-wife of the war with Spain, opposed a war against fascism. Hearst employed Hitler, Mussolini and Goering as writers. He met Hitler in 1934 and used Readers’ Digest and his 33 newspapers to support fascism.40 PRETEXT On December 7, 1941, Japanese bombers attacked the US Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbour, Hawaii, killing about 2,460.41 FDR, and his closest advisors, not only knew of the attack in advance and did not prevent it, they had actually provoked it. Lt. Arthur McCollum, head of the Far East desk for U.S. Navy intelligence, wrote a detailed eight-step plan on October 7, 1940 that was designed to provoke an attack.42 FDR immediately set the covert plan in motion. Soon after implementing the final step, Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. After meeting FDR on October 16, 1941, Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote: "We face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first bad move -- overt move.” On November 25, after another meeting with FDR, Stimson wrote: "The question was: how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot.”43 The next day, an insulting “ultimatum” was delivered to the Japanese. The US intercepted a coded Japanese cable calling the ultimatum a “humiliating proposal” and saying they would now prepare for war with the US.44 The US had cracked Japanese diplomatic and military codes.45 A Top Secret Army Board report (October 1944), shows that the US military knew “the probable exact hour and date of the attack.”46 On November 29, 1941, the Secretary of State revealed to a reporter that the attack’s time and place was known. This foreknowledge was reported in the New York Times (Dec. 8, 1941).47 RESPONSE After Pearl Harbour, the US quickly declared war against Japan. With media support, “Remember Pearl Harbour!” became an American rallying cry. On December 11, Germany and Italy declared war on the US. As the war wound down, decoded messages revelaed to the US military that Japan would soon surrender. They knew the atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unnecessary. Although nuclear weapons are commonly believed to have ended WWII, they were an opening salvo in the Cold War against the USSR. REAL REASONS The US used WWII to maneuver itself into a position of superiority over former imperial rivals in Europe. In Parenti’s words the US “became the prime purveyor and guardian of global capitalism.”48 As the only nation wielding nuclear weapons, the US also became the world’s sole superpower. 1950: The Korean War CONTEXT There is “extensive evidence of U.S. crimes against peace and crimes against humanity” KWCT committed after they occupied southern Korea in September 1945. The US worked to “create a police state…using many former collaborators with Japanese rule, provoke tension…between southern and northern Korea, opposing and disrupting any plans for peaceful reunification. The U.S. trained, directed and supported ROK [south Korea] in systematic murder, imprisonment, torture, surveillance, harassment and violations of human rights of hundreds of thousands…, especially…nationalists, leftists, peasants seeking land reform, union organizers and/or those sympathetic to the north.”49 University of Hawaii professor, Oliver Lee, notes a “long pattern of South Korean incursions” into the north. In 1949, there were more than 400 border engagements. A US Army document states: “Some of the bloodiest engagements were caused by South Korean units securing and preparing defensive positions that were either astride or north of the 38th parallel. This provoked violent North Korean actions.”50 PRETEXT On June 25, 1950, the North Korean military were said to have moved three miles into South Korea territory. Dr. Channing Liem, the former South Korean ambassador to the UN (1960-1961) wrote: “For Washington, the question, ‘who fired the first shot?’ carried special significance…. Assistant Secretary of State for UN Affairs…[revealed] before the Senate Appropriations Committee, 1950, the US had devised a plan prior to the start of the war to gain approval from the UN to send its troops to Korea under the UN flag in the event that South Korea was attacked. It was imperative, therefore, that the ‘first shot’ be fired by the North, or at least that such an argument could be made.”51 ROK President Syngman Rhee triggered the war “with behind the scene support of John Foster Dulles,” the former-U.S. Secretary of State who met Rhee (June 18, 1950) just days before the pretext incident. Dulles told Rhee that “if he was ready to attack the communist North, the U.S. would lend help, through the UN…. He advised Rhee…to persuade the world that the ROK was attacked first, and to plan his actions accordingly.”52 Albert Einstein told Liem in 1955 that “the US was manipulating the UN…. [it] was being exploited by the great powers at the expense of the small nations…. He went on to say great powers do not act on the basis of facts only but manufacture the facts to serve their purposes and force their will on smaller nations.”53 I.F.Stone was perhaps the first to expose how a US diplomat deceived the UN Secretary General into believing there had been an unprovoked North Korean attack.54 North Korea claimed the attack began two days earlier when ROK divisions launched a six-hour artillery attack and then pushed 1 or 2 kilometers across the border. They responded to “halt the enemy's advance and go over to a decisive counterattack.”55 RESPONSE Secretary of State, Dean Acheson was “quick to seize the opportunity to blame the war on North Korea regardless of the evidence.” North Korea was accused of “brutal, unprovoked aggression.”56 The public was told that this ‘invasion’ was the first step in Soviet plans for world domination. Anyone opposing the war was called a communist. McCarthyism was on. On June 27, 1950, Truman orders US troops to support South Korea, Congress agrees and the UN Security Council approves the plan.57 About three million civilians were killed, two-thirds in North Korea.58 REAL REASONS To maintain power, South Korea required major US military support. One month before the pretext, Rhee suffered a terrible electoral defeat. Opposing North Korea, diverted public attention from Rhee’s repression to the communist north. The war was used to triple the Pentagon budget, boost NATO’s military build-up and create a new military role for the UN that could be manipulated by the US. 1964: The Vietnam War CONTEXT Long before WWII, Vietnamese fought for independence from French Indochina. Resistance continued when Japanese troops occupied the colony during the war. Much of the region reverted to French control after the war. As early as 1950, the US aided French efforts to defeat the Ho Chi Minh’s revolutionary forces. When France lost a decisive battle in 1954, the Geneva Accord recognized the independence of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Vietnam was “temporarily” divided. Ngo Dinh Diem’s repressive regime in South Vietnam was backed by thousands of US military “advisors.” A military coup overthrew Diem in November 1963.59 That same month, President Kennedy -- who had resisted escalating the war -- was assassinated. President Johnson took power and began intensified US involvement in Vietnam. PRETEXT On July 30, 1964, enemy torpedo boats supposedly attacked a US destroyer, the USS Maddox, in North Vietnam’s Gulf of Tonkin. This lie of an “unprovoked attack” against a “routine patrol” threw the U.S. headlong into war. The Maddox was actually involved in “aggressive intelligence gathering in coordination with actual attacks by South Vietnam and the Laotian Air Force against targets in North Vietnam.”60 They wanted to provoke a response “but the North Vietnamese wouldn't bite. So, Johnson invented the attack.”61 The US task force commander for the Gulf of Tonkin “cabled Washington that the report was the result of an ‘over-eager’ sonarman who picked up the sounds of his own ship's screws and panicked.”62 RESPONSE On August 5, 1964, although he knew the attack had not occurred, Johnson couldn’t resist this opportunity for a full-scale war. Johnson went on national TV to lie about the Tonkin incident and to announce a bombing campaign to “retaliate.” The media repeated the lie ad nauseum. The fabricated assault was “used as justification for goading Congress into granting the president the authorization to initiate a protracted and highly lucrative war with North Vietnam.”63 Johnson asked Congress for powers “to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the US and to prevent further aggression.”64 Before the war ended in 1975, about four million in Southeast Asia were killed. REAL REASONS As during the Spanish-American war, the American business elite sought to acquire colonies from failing imperial powers. President Dwight Eisenhower propounded the ‘Domino Theory’ in 1954.65 If South Vietnam ‘fell,’ then other countries would too, ‘like a set of dominos.’ The Vietnam War was a threat to all revolutionaries and their supporters. The war also gave a huge boost to US war industries. Other US corporations wanted access to region’s markets and resources, like tin, tungsten, rubber.66 1983: The Invasion of Grenada CONTEXT For decades, Eric Gairy dominated the tiny British colony of Grenada. Gairy “a vicious dictator…[was] the only Caribbean leader to maintain diplomatic relations with Pinochet’s Chile.” When his “notorious security forces” returned from training in Chile “‘disappearances’ became frequent.”67 ‘Gariyism’ was so bad that when Britain offered independence, Grenadans united to “shut down the country…prior to Independence Day, February 7, 1974."68 The New Jewel Movement (NJM) led a successful uprising on March 13, 1979. The NJM “organized agrarian reform…, expanded trade union rights, advanced women's equality…, established literacy programs and instituted free medical care.”69 The CIA "relentlessly used every trick in its dirty bag” including "an unending campaign of economic, psychological and openly violent destabilization." Reagan met Caribbean leaders, the US urged "regional governments to consider military action" and CIA chief, William Casey, met Senate Intelligence Committee members "to discuss CIA involvement." Gairy began “recruiting mercenaries from…the Cuban exile community in Miami.”70 (ER BS p.3-5) In October1981, a US military exercise simulated an invasion of Grenada ostensibly to rescue Americans and "install a regime favorable to the way of life we espouse."71 In March 1983, Reagan exclaimed on TV that Grenada’s tourist airport threatened US oil supply routes.72 On October 19, 1983, NJM leader Maurice Bishop, and others, were put under house arrest during an coup by NJM’s Deputy PM Bernard Coard. Oddly, they were freed by a "well organized crowd…including counter-revolutionary elements…with anti-communist banners…. [led by] well known businessmen…. Who organized this rally, planned so well, and in advance?" Freed NJM leaders were whisked away and as a “crowd gathered…the soldiers, apparently panicked by explosions, opened fire.… something provoked them, leading to a massacre." NJM leaders surrendered to soldiers and were soon executed.73 Significantly, "Pentagon officials informed Members of Congress that they had known of the impending coup…two weeks in advance."74 The coup plotters were charged with the murders but their lawyer, former US Attorney General Ramsey Clarke believe them innocent of the murders.75 It seems the coup was hijacked by US interests to kill some NJM leaders, jail the rest and set the stage for an invasion. PRETEXT In his Naval Science course, Captain M.T.Carson lists the invasion’s "stated reasons" as "protect Americans, eliminate hostage potential; restore order; requested by OECS [Organization of Eastern Caribbean States]."76 The US helped form the OECS, and then got it and the Grenadan governor to "request" an invasion. Under “potential problem,” Carson notes "Act fast with surprise and present world with fait accompli. If not, world opinion of U.S. invasion of tiny country will be critical. So: · “Get OECS to request action.” · “Get Governor Scoon to request action.” · “Emphasize students-in-danger aspect"77 Carson quotes a "medical school official": "Our safety was never in danger. We were used as an excuse by this government to invade…. They needed a reason…and we were it." MTC Most students "insisted” that they were “not…in any danger before the US invasion; only afterwards."78 RESPONSE On October 22, 1983, "Operation Urgent Fury" was ordered.79 Three days later, the invasion hit like a cyclone. The Organization of American States "deeply deplored" the invasion and the UN Security Council voted 11 to 1 against it.80 REAL REASONS Grenada threatened the US by providing a powerful example of viable alternative ways to organize social, political and economic structures. Carson lists these reasons: · "Chance to eliminate Communist regime and replace with pro-U.S. government” · “Demonstrate U.S. military capabilities” · “President Reagan commented that U.S. military forces were back on their feet and standing tall."81 US military morale was damaged two days before the invasion when 241 Marines were killed in Lebanon.82 The Wall Street Journal said the invasion made Grenada a "haven for offshore banks."83 1989: The Invasion of Panama CONTEXT The Panama Canal has dominated Panama’s history. US military invasions and interventions occurred in 1895, 1901-1903, 1908, 1912, 1918-1920, 1925, 1950, 1958, 1964 and 1989.84 In November 1903, US troops ensured Panama’s secession from Colombia. Within days, a treaty gave the US permanent and exclusive control of the canal.85 Former Panamanian military leader, Manuel Noriega, recruited by US military intelligence in 1959, attended the US Army School of the Americas in 1967 and led Panama’s military intelligence the next year. By 1975, the US Drug Enforcement Agency knew of Noriega’s drug dealing. He met, then-CIA Director, George Bush in 1976.86 In 1977, Presidents Jimmy Carter and Omar Torrijos, signed a treaty to return the canal to Panamanian control in 1999. Other Americans undermined the treaty using “diplomatic…and political pressure, through to economic aggression and military invasion.”87 In the early-1980s, Noriega’s drug smuggling helped fund the contras in Nicaragua. He took control of Panama’s National Guard in 1983 and helped rig elections in 1984. Falling from US favour, the US indicted Noriega for drug crimes in 1988.88 On April 14, 1988, Reagan invoked “war powers” against Panama. In May, the Assistant Defense Secretary told the Senate: “I don’t think anyone has totally discarded the use of force.”89 PRETEXT On December 16, 1989, there was what media called an “unprovoked attack on a US soldier who did not return fire.”90 The soldier was killed when driving “through a military roadblock near a sensitive military area.”91 Panama’s government said “U.S. officers…fired at a military headquarters, wounding a soldier and…a 1-year-old girl. A wounded Panamanian soldier…confirmed this account to U.S. reporters.”92 The wife of a US officer was reportedly arrested and beaten. RESPONSE George Bush called the attack on US soldiers an “enormous outrage”93 and said he “would not stand by while American womanhood is threatened.”94 Noam Chomsky questions why Bush “stood by” when a US nun was kidnapped and sexually abused by Guatemalan police only weeks earlier, when two US nuns were killed by contras in Nicaragua on January 1, 1990, and when a US nun was wounded by gunmen in El Salvador around the same time.95 The US media demonized Noriega and turned the “‘Noriega’ issue into an accepted justification for the invasion…. Colonel Eduardo Herrera, ex-Director of [Panama’s] ‘Public Forces,’…said: “If the real interest of the US was to capture Noriega, they could have done so on numerous occasions. [They] had all of his movements completely controlled.”96 On December 20, 1989, “Operation Just Cause” began. More than 4,000 were killed. US crimes included indiscriminate attacks, extra judicial executions, arbitrary detentions, destruction of property (like leveling the Chorrillo neighborhood), use of prohibited weapons, erasing evidence and mass burials.97 A US-friendly president, Guillermo Endara, was soon sworn in on a US military base. REAL REASONS The Carter-Torrijos Treaty was torn up and the Panama’s military was dismantled. A right-wing, US think tank stated in 1988 that: “once [Panama] is controlled by a democratic regime….discussions should begin with respect to a realistic defense of the Canal after…2000. These discussions should include the maintenance, by the US, of a limited number of military installations in Panama…to maintain adequate projection of force in the western hemisphere.”98 The invasion was a testing ground for new weapons, such as the B-2 bomber (worth US $2.2 billion) that was used for the first time. The invasion also: · rectified “Bush's ‘wimpy’ foreign relations image” · gave a “spectacular show of U.S. military might in the final months before the Nicaraguan elections, hinting…that they might want to vote for the ‘right’ candidate.” · “sent a signal…that the US…[would] intervene militarily where the control of illegal drugs was ostensibly at stake. · “demonstrated the new U.S. willingness to assume active, interventionist leadership of the ‘new world order’ in the post-Cold War period.”99 CONCLUSIONS There are dozens of other examples from US history besides those summarized here. The “Cold War” was characterized by dozens of covert and overt wars throughout the Third World. Although each had its specific pretexts, the eradication of communism was the generally-used backdrop for all rationales.100 Since the Soviet Union’s demise, US war planners have continued to use spectacular pretext incidents to spawn wars. Examples include Iraq (1991), Somalia (1992), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995) and Yugoslavia (1999). Throughout this time, the US “War on Drugs” has been fought on many fronts. Lurking behind the excuse to squash illicit drug trafficking, are the actual reasons for financing, training and arming right-wing, US-backed regimes, whose officials have so often profited from this illegal trade. The CIA has used this trade to finance many of its covert wars.101 The “War on Drugs” has targeted numerous countries to strengthen counter-insurgency operations aimed at destroying opposition groups that oppose US corporate rule. Military plotters know that the majority would never support their wars, if it were generally known why they were really being fought. Over the millennia, a special martial art has been deliberately developed to weave elaborate webs of deceit to create the appearance that wars are fought for “just” or “humanitarian” reasons. If asked to support a war so a small, wealthy elite could shamelessly profit by ruthlessly exploiting and plundering the natural and human resources in far away lands, people would ‘just say no.’ We now face another broad thematic pretext for war, the so-called “War Against Terrorism.” We are told it will be waged in many countries and may continue for generations. It is vitally important to expose this latest attempt to fraudulently conceal the largely economic and geostrategic purposes of war. By asking who benefits from war, we can unmask its pretense and expose the true grounds for instigating it. By throwing light on repeated historical patterns of deception, we can promote skepticism about the government and media yarns that have been spun to encourage this war. The historical knowledge of how war planners have tricked people into supporting past wars, is like a vaccine. We can use this understanding of history to inoculate the public with healthy doses of distrust for official war pretext narratives and other deceptive stratagems. Through such immunization programs we may help to counter our society’s susceptibility to “war fever.” Notes 1. “History of Mexico, Empire and Early Republic, 1821-55,” Area Handbook, US Library of Congress. 2. Shayne M. Cokerdem, “Unit Plan: Manifest Destiny and The Road to the Civil War.” 3. P.B.Kunhardt, Jr., P.B.Kunhardt III, P.W.Kunhardt, “James Polk,” The American President, 2000. 4. “Diplomatic Approaches: U.S. Relations with Mexico: 1844-1846,” LearnCalifornia.org, 2000. 5. John Stockwell, “The CIA and the Gulf War,” Speech, Santa Cruz, CA, Feb.20, 1991, aired by John DiNardo, Pacifica Radio. 6. Betsy Powers, “The U.S.-Mexican War of 1846-48,” War, Reconstruction and Recovery in Brazoria County. 7. “The White House and Western Expansion,” Learning Center, White House Historical Association. 8. Powers 9. White House Historical Association 10. Stockwell 11. P.B.Kunhardt, Jr., P.B.Kunhardt III, P.W.Kunhardt 12. Ed Elizondo, “History of the Cuban Liberation Wars,” Oct.2, 2001. 13. Guillermo Jimpnez Soler, "The emergence of the United States as a world power", Granma International, Aug.7, 1998. 14. Bill Sardi, “Remember the Maine! And the Other Ships Sunk to Start a War” Oct.16, 2000. 15. Michael Rivero, “Dictatorship through Deception,” New Republic Forum, Dec.24, 1999. 16. Rivero 17. J. Buschini, “The Spanish-American War,” Small Planet Communications, 2000. 18. Soler 19. Buschini 20. Buschini 21. Soler 22. Howard Zinn, “History as a Political Act,” Revolutionary Worker, December 20, 1998. 23. Woodrow Wilson, Message to Congress, Aug. 19, 1914, Senate Doc.#566, pp.3-4, World War I Document Archive. 24. Greg D.Feldmeth, “The First World War,” U.S. History Resources, Mar.31, 1998. 25. James Perloff, “Pearl Harbor,” The New American, Vol. 2, No. 30, December 8, 1986. 26. James Perloff 27. Winston Churchill, cited by Ralph Raico, “Rethinking Churchill,” The Costs of War: America's Pyrrhic Victories, 1997. 28. Harry V.Jaffa, “The Sinking of the Lusitania: Brutality, Bungling or Betrayal?” The Churchill Center. 29. Patrick Beesly, Room 40: British Naval Intelligence, 1914-18, 1982 cited by RR 30. Peter Young, “World War I,” World Book Encyclopedia, 1967, pp. 374-375. 31. Wendy Mercurio, “WWI Notes, From Neutrality to War,” Jan.2002. 32. Patrick Beesly, cited by Ralph Raico 33. Winston Churchill, cited by Ralph Raico 34. Howard Zinn, “War Is the Health of the State,” A People's History of the United States, 1492-Present, Sept. 2001. 35. Zinn 36. Steve Kangas, “The Business Plot to Overthrow Roosevelt,” Liberalism Resurgent: A Response to the Right, 1996. 37. Gerald MacGuire, cited by Steve Kangas 38. Dale Wharton, Book review of The Plot to Seize the White House (1973) by Jules Archer, Eclectica Book Reviews. 39. Webster G.Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, “The Hitler Project,” George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, 1992. 40. David Nasaw, “Remembering ‘The Chief,’" interview, Newshour, Sept.7, 2000. 41. Joseph Czarnecki, Richard Worth, Matthias C. Noch and Tony DiGiulian, “Attack on Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941,” The Battles Of The Pacific. 42. Steve Fry, “Author: FDR knew attack was coming,” The Capital-Journal, June 12, 2001. 43. Henry Stimson, cited by Robert Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbour, 2000. 44. Percy L.Greaves, Jr., “What We Knew,” Institute for Historical Review, Winter, 1983, p.467. 45. “The MAGIC Documents: Summaries and Transcripts of the Top-Secret Diplomatic Communications of Japan, 1938-1945,” GB 0099 KCLMA MF 388-401. 46. Paul Proteus, “Part One: Pearl Harbour,” America's Phoney Wars. 47. Rivero 48. Michael Parenti, Against Empire, 1995, p.36. 49. “Final Judgement of the Korea International War Crimes Tribunal,” June 23, 2001. 50. Oliver Lee, "South Korea Likely Provoked War with North," Star-Bulletin, June 24, 1994. 51. Channing Liem, The Korean War (6.25, 1950 - 7.27, 1953) - An Unanswered Question, 1993. 52. Liem 53. Albert Einstein cited by Channing Liem. 54. I.F.Stone, Hidden History of the Korean War, 1952, cited by Channing Liem. 55. Liem 56. Lee 57. Jim Caldwell, “Korea - 50 years ago this week, June 25-28, 1950,” ArmyLINK News, June 20, 2000. 58. Jon Halliday and Bruce Cumings, Korea: The Unknown War, 1988, p.200, cited by Robin Miller, “Washington's Own Love Affair with Terror” 59. Sandra M.Wittman, “Chronology of US-Vietnamese Relations,” Vietnam: Yesterday and Today. 60. Rivero 61. John DiNardo, “The CIA and the Gulf War,” aired by Pacifica Radio. 62. Rivero 63. DiNardo 64. Joint Resolution, U.S. Congress, Aug.7, 1964, “The Tonkin Bay Resolution, 1964,” Modern History Sourcebook, July 1998. 65. Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Domino Theory Principle, 1954,” Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954, pp.381-390. (News Conference, April 7, 1954.) 66. Eisenhower 67. Ellen Ray and Bill Schaap, “US Crushes Caribbean Jewel.” Covert Action Information Bulletin (CAIB), winter 1984, p.8 68. Jeff Hackett, “Burying ‘Gairyism.’” Bibliographies 69. Preface to Maurice Bishop speech “In Nobody's Backyard,” April 13, 1979, The Militant, Mar.15 1999. 70. Ray and Schaap, pp.3-5 71. Ray and Schaap, p.6 72. Clarence Lusane, “Grenada, Airport ’83: Reagan’s Big Lie,” CAIB, Spring-Summer 1983, p.29. 73. Ray and Schaap, pp.10-11 74. Ray and Schaap, p.5 75. Alan Scott, "The Last Prisoners of the Cold War Are Black," letter, The Voice (Grenada), April 20, 2001. 76. Capt. M.T.Carson, USMC, (Marine Officer Instructor), “Grenada October 1983,” History of Amphibious Warfare (Naval Science 293), Naval Reserves Officer Training Corps, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. 77. Carson 78. Ray and Schaap, p..8. 79. Carson 80. “Failures of U.S. Foreign Policy,” Alternativeinsight, Sept.1, 2001 81. Carson 82. Alternativeinsight, Sept.1, 2001 83. Anthony Arnove and Alan Maass, “Washington’s war crimes,” Socialist Worker, Nov.16, 2001. 84. Zoltan Grossman, “One Hundred Years of Intervention,” 2001. 85. Commission for the Defence of Human Rights in Latin America (CODEHUCA), This is the Just Cause, 1990, p.115. 86. Richard Sanders, “Manuel Noriega,” Press for Conversion!, Dec. 2000, p.40. 87. CODEHUCA, pp.117, 108 88. Sanders 89. CODEHUCA, p.108 90. Richard K. Moore, “The Police State Conspiracy an Indictment,” New Dawn Magazine, Jan.-Dec. 1998. 91. Noam Chomsky, “Operation Just Cause: the Pretexts,” Deterring Democracy, 1992. 92. Chomsky 93. Alexander Safian, “Is Israel Using ‘Excessive Force’ Against Palestinians?” Fact sheet: Myth of Excessive Force, Nov.9, 2000 94. Chomsky 95. Chomsky 96. CODEHUCA, p.106. 97. CODEHUCA, passim 98. Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), “Panama: A Test for U.S.-Latin American Foreign Relations,” Interhemispheric Resource Center Bulletin, May 1995 99. FOR 100. William Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, 2000. 101. Alfred McCoy, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 1991. Richard Sanders is the coordinator of the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT) and the editor of COAT’s quarterly magazine, Press for Conversion! For a free, sample copy, contact ad207@ncf.ca or visit their website: www.ncf.ca/ Edited February 25, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 PART TWO of TWO POST RESPONSE (part ONE ABOVE) COLBY Let’s not be disingenuous, at least own up to backing the false flag theory.(post 14 this thread) ================================================================ COLBY latter So spell out your theory, is it that at Mossad’s behest a ‘handler’ from Jundallah directed some men from MEK to pull off an operation to frame Iran. And what evidence do have in support of that theory? Does go beyond a) Israel attempted a false flag op. in the 1950s meant to make Egypt appear unstable, supposedly some Mossad agents recently posed as CIA ones to recruit Jundallah c) an Iranian cleric in Thailand claimed, without any supporting evidence, the men were from MEK d) your mistaken belief the bomb maker had a Boluchi name, which would have made him Jundallah, not MEK, e) an Iranian government propaganda outlet claimed that Jundallah once claimed credit for an attack on a MEK TV station? Pretty weak! (post 22 this thread) ================================================================= Here you seem to list all my arguments in summary form. ----oooo--- Yet post 11 (mine GAAL) this thread had a link which stated the stongest evidence for false flag..... geopolitical . If Iran wanted to attack Israeli interests it would not be in countries it wanted/had good relationships with. Iran would attack in other countries,thus these attacks help Israel. Since in post 22 you ignored the strongest evidence I gave..in post 11.....disingenous is the correct term,but not for me but for.................YOU. ================================================================== POST 11 link POST 11 link WHAT COLBY IGNORES , ....on purpose ???????????????? link http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/who-carried-out-the-terrorist-car-bombings-in-india-thailand-and-georgia.html (post 11 link BTW i was my first post on this thread) Why Would Iran Bomb One of Its Most Important Trade Partners … Who Is Helping Iran to Escape from Sanctions By the West? India has become one of Iran’s most important trading partners, and has been increasing its ties to Iran since sanctions have been imposed by the West. Indeed, India has agreed to use creative payment methods for Iranian oil. See this, this, this and this. Why would Iran carry out a terror attack on one of its most important trading partners … one which has agreed to help help Iran escape from sanctions? As Finnian Cunninham notes: What would Iran gain from such action, only grief and trouble? This is especially true with regard to India and Thailand. Both Asian countries have become major trading partners with Tehran in recent years. India, along with China, is Iran’s biggest customer for its vital oil industry. Thailand is of growing importance as a trading partner with Iran for oil, mining, heavy industry, services, technology and agriculture especially after both countries set up a joint business council five years ago. For Iran to carry out such attacks, as is being claimed, would be like shooting itself in the foot, particularly because both Asian countries have refused to join in the US-led campaign to isolate Iran economically and diplomatically. Put the other way round, it is much more in the interest of Washington and Israel to destabilize relations between Iran and its Asian partners. The repercussions from the blasts in India would appear to be having that desired effect. Take this Reuters reports: Up to now India has not gone along with new financial sanctions imposed by the United States and European Union to punish Iran over its disputed nuclear programme. Instead, New Delhi has come up with elaborate trade and barter arrangements to pay for oil supplies. However, the president of the All India Rice Exporters’ Association said Monday’s attack on the wife of an Israeli diplomat in the Indian capital will damage trade with Iran and may complicate efforts to resolve an impasse over Iranian defaults on payments for rice imports worth around $150 million. “The attack and its political fallout have clearly vitiated the atmosphere. Traders who were already losing money due to payment defaults will be extremely wary of continuing their trade with buyers in Iran,” Vijay Setia told Reuters. So add it up. Bomb teams with proven US/Israeli assassination expertise and methodology; target countries that are major Iranian partners; desired effect of further isolating Iran internationally; and, to cap it all, a long sought-after pretext for Israel to attack Iran with America’s blessing. When logic and facts coincide like this, it’s usually more prudent to engage in reason than to indulge in lurid claims. Simiarly, Arshin Adib-Moghaddam writes in the Guardian: Let’s assume that sections of the military and security apparatus in Iran are responsible for the string of bombings in Georgia, Thailand and India. What would be the motive? The argument that Iran is retaliating for the murder of five civilian nuclear scientists in Iran is not plausible. If Iran wanted to target Israeli interests, it has other means at its disposal. It is hard to imagine that the Iranian government would send Iranian operatives to friendly countries, completely equipped with Iranian money and passports – making the case against them as obvious as possible. If the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are as professional, highly trained and politically savvy as we have been told repeatedly by Israeli politicians themselves, if they have successfully trained and equipped the cadres of Hezbollah and other movements with paramilitary wings in the region, then why would they launch such a clumsy and self-defeating operation? And why India, Georgia and Thailand, three countries that Iran has had cordial relations with during a period when Iran is facing increasing sanctions spearheaded by the United States? A few days ago, India agreed a rupee-based oil and gas deal with Iran and resisted US pressures to join the western boycott of the Iranian energy sector. As a net importer of 12% of Iranian oil, India’s total trade with Iran amounted to $13.67bn in 2010-2011. What would be the motive for damaging relations with one of Iran’s major trading partners and regional heavyweights? For Iran it doesn’t make sense to risk alienating India by launching an assassination attempt in the capital of the country. Similarly, Iran has good economic and political relations with Georgia and Thailand. Why would the leadership in Tehran risk a major crisis with these countries during this sensitive period when IAEA inspectors are moving in and out of Iran to investigate the country’s nuclear programme? And Juan Cole points out: India has suffered from both Hindu and Muslim terrorist groups. So the attack on an automobile outside the Israeli embassy in New Delhi could easily have been carried out by an Indian group. Israel’s government, a master of spin and propaganda, immediately blamed the bombing on Iran and Hizbullah. But there is no evidence for this cynical allegation, which makes no sense. India is Iran’s economic lifeline, and Tehran would not likely risk such an operation at this time. India gets 12% of its oil from Iran and sees an $8 billion annual export opportunity in filling the trade vacuum left by unilateral US and European boycotts of Iran. Contrary to a bad Reuters article, Indian officials denied Tuesday that the bombing would affect trade ties. (Logical because no evidence points to Iran.) Indian investigators are first rate. Based on the modus operandi, their initial thesis is that the attack was the work of the “Indian Mujahidin” group. [Cole is right.] It had used a similar remote controlled sticky bomb, placed by a motorcyclist, in an attack on Taiwanese tourists outside the Jama Masjid cathedral mosque in 2010. IM is a Sunni group, not connected to Iran, and doesn’t like Shiite Muslims (Iranians are Shiites). IM like other Sunni radicals support the Palestinians and they are unhappy with increasingly close ties between India and Israel. American media that just parrot notorious thug, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in this unlikely allegation are allowing themselves to be used for propaganda. Why not interview Indian authorities on this matter? They are on the ground and have excellent forensic (“CSI”) abilities. Stop being so lazy and blinkered; that isn’t journalism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 TWO POST RESPONSE THIS PART ONE --------------------v-------------- ================================== COLBY = Since you included the given name Javad twice and all capped it once I’m guessing you think it’s “a Boluchistan type name” but it’s not, it is typical of Azerbaijan and northwestern-central Iran. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Oh ! Azerbaijan !! Well .............Now it would be MIX and match. The fellow who would go to IRAN not MEK. The others link http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2010/01/mossad-busy-in-malaysia.html PICKED by another country..... ----------====---------------------- From: total_truth_sciences Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:01 PM Subject: Mossad In Malaysia Mossad in Malaysia April 22, 2010 . On April 4, 2010 - Malaysia's internationally known politician, <http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&pagename=Zon [...] My, my Steve you must really be desperate because instead of addressing relevant issues you post the wall of text of irrelevancies. How exactly is/are: - the circumstances that led to the Mexican-American War/invasion of Grenada etc, - who subcontracted work for the Malaysian police’s new communications and phone systems - the supposed Mossad presence in Azerbaijan etc. etc. …relevant to who was behind the failed attempt on the Israeli embassay in Bangkok? First you pushed the theory that Javad Nikkhahfard was a Boluchi but now you’ve reversed tracks and want us to believe he is an Azerbaijani. But his surname seems to be typical of the northwestern quarter of Iran and everyone else implicated was from Iran. In any case Thai police said he is Iranian. ‘"The additional suspect is 52-year-old Iranian man Nikkhahfard Javad who was seen leaving the house hours before the blast," said Bangkok Metropolitan Police deputy commander Anuchai Lekbumrung.’ http://www.france24.com/en/20120217-thai-police-seek-fifth-suspect-failed-bangkok-bomb-attack-israel-iranian Two of the conspirators returned to Iran and a third tried. Rohani’s name has been in press reports since the 16th, the photo page of her passport appears in press accounts [1] and Shayan since the 20th, photos of him have been released as well. The dates and times of their flights were also released, “Mr.Norouzi Shayan Ali Akbar age 57….Arrived in Thailand on February 2 at 21:00 am and the country, destination Tehran. Iran on February 14 at 8:50 pm.”[2] However there are no signs that Iran questioned or was looking for the two, nor has it explained what role they played. This all this points to the Iranian government being responsible, surely if anything suggested they were connected to MEK or a similar group they would have said so. If these people were MEK Iran is the last place they’d want to go after the operation literally blew up in their faces. I imagine if they were MEK they would have left Thailand ASAP and then continued their travels using other identities. 1] http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Female-suspect-in-bombing-case-already-back-in-Ira-30176034.html 2] http://tiny.cc/1rzhi You still haven’t told us the basis for your false, and now (apparently) abandoned claim that “Nikkhahfard a Boluchistan type name” when said “it seems you just made up that claim" you acted all offended and said “conclusion: Colby poor internet researcher” but it seems I guessed correctly. Let me guess, your source for that was the same person who told you the press accused Noguchi of necrophilia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) PART TWO of TWO POST RESPONSE (part ONE ABOVE) COLBY Let’s not be disingenuous, at least own up to backing the false flag theory.(post 14 this thread) ================================================================ COLBY latter So spell out your theory, is it that at Mossad’s behest a ‘handler’ from Jundallah directed some men from MEK to pull off an operation to frame Iran. And what evidence do have in support of that theory? Does go beyond a) Israel attempted a false flag op. in the 1950s meant to make Egypt appear unstable, supposedly some Mossad agents recently posed as CIA ones to recruit Jundallah c) an Iranian cleric in Thailand claimed, without any supporting evidence, the men were from MEK d) your mistaken belief the bomb maker had a Boluchi name, which would have made him Jundallah, not MEK, e) an Iranian government propaganda outlet claimed that Jundallah once claimed credit for an attack on a MEK TV station? Pretty weak! (post 22 this thread) ================================================================= Here you seem to list all my arguments in summary form Lack of a straight answer noted .----oooo--- Yet post 11 (mine GAAL) this thread had a link which stated the stongest evidence for false flag..... geopolitical . If Iran wanted to attack Israeli interests it would not be in countries it wanted/had good relationships with. Iran would attack in other countries,thus these attacks help Israel. Since in post 22 you ignored the strongest evidence I gave..in post 11.....disingenous is the correct term,but not for me but for................ YOU. There could be a number of reasons for this: 1] it provides plausible deniability 2] presumably it would be easier for Iranians to go about their business relatively unobserved in such countries. Whatever the reasons the fact that the bombers were Iranians who returned to Iran (or tried to) and the government there has not explain this indicates the Iranian government was responsible. The Lavon Affair invalidates the notion one country wouldn’t try to pull off such an operation against an ally. If the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are as professional, highly trained and politically savvy as we have been told repeatedly by Israeli politicians themselves, if they have successfully trained and equipped the cadres of Hezbollah and other movements with paramilitary wings in the region, then why would they launch such a clumsy and self-defeating operation? The Mossad is also known for being "professional, highly trained and politically savvy" this hasn't stopped them from making major phuk ups Edited February 25, 2012 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 An interesting tidbit from a recent press account: “Mr. Moradi is in police custody at a Bangkok hospital. Mr. Kharzei was arrested at the international airport that night, trying to board a flight to Iran. Mr. Sedaghatzadeh was detained the next day in Malaysia and may eventually be extradited to Thailand.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/23/botched-thai-terror-plot-tied-to-iran/?page=2 This would be interesting if true because we would have four of the plotters returning to or trying to return to Iran. According to most accounts Kharzei was trying to fly to Malaysia. This analysis from an actual expert is quite fascinating: With the Iranian government now seen as the most likely suspect behind the bombings - and in many quarters already declared guilty - it is worth fitting these events into the context of what is known about Iranian external intelligence operations. Viewed through this lens, the recent incidents are puzzling in several regards. Iran is certainly no stranger to foreign assassinations. Indeed, since shortly after the Islamic revolution of 1979, Tehran has been deeply implicated in directing and conducting both assassinations and larger mass-casualty terrorist attacks in Europe, the Middle East and Latin America. Its primary targets have been Iranian dissidents based in Europe perceived as threats to the revolutionary regime. During the wave of nearly 200 assassinations of dissident exiles, Iranian "diplomats" were expelled from several countries including Germany, Norway and Turkey. In 1997, Iranian Intelligence and Security Minister Ali Fallahian was himself the subject of an arrest warrant issued by German prosecutors after protracted investigations into the gunning down of three Iranian Kurdish exiles in Berlin in September 1992. Those arrested and found guilty of the killings were VEVAK operatives whose orders were traced back to Fallahian's desk. […] Others have been individual assassinations such as the March 1992 killing of Ehud Sadan, a Israeli security officer at Israel's embassy in Ankara, Turkey, who died when a bomb detonated under his car. The assassination came days after the Israeli killing of Sheikh Abbas Moussavi, secretary general of Lebanese Hezbollah and was later traced to Iranian-trained Farhan Osman, an operative of Turkish Hezbollah, a notably lethal branch of Iran's external network. Osman was arrested by Turkish authorities in 2000 and admitted at his trial to carrying out attacks on orders from Tehran. Against this backdrop, it is puzzling that a state with decades of experience in conducting overseas operations and with access to an extensive network of proxy operatives would find itself abruptly reduced to deploying a team of its own nationals with little evident training or field support given to adorning Bangkok's busy streets with bumper stickers in advance of an attack. Another puzzling aspect of the Iranian state responsibility alleged by Israel centers on the decision to conduct a coordinated operation more or less simultaneously in three foreign countries. Details of both Iranian and Israeli assassination operations which have emerged in recent years indicate clearly that achieving a successful outcome in a single operation is complex enough and requires careful planning, reconnaissance and execution by skilled operatives with plans for unforeseen contingencies. Not least would be the need for back-up travel documents and possibly an alternative safe-house. Even then success is anything but guaranteed. The bungled attempt by operatives of Israel's external intelligence agency, the Mossad, to kill Khaled Mashal, a senior figure in Palestinian Hamas, in Amman, Jordan in September 1997 illustrates the risks of even meticulously planned operations. After administering a poisoned spray to their intended victim, the two Israeli assassins - posing as Canadian tourists - abandoned a get-away car in traffic and were pursued and arrested. Humiliatingly, Israel was obliged to provide Jordanian authorities with an antidote to the poison that saved Mashal's life. By the same token, a near-simultaneous assassination operation by a single intelligence service against three hard targets in three different countries is almost certainly unprecedented in recent decades. Even assuming a political need for multiple strikes, such a scatter-gun approach is bound to stretch resources in terms of planning and execution and sharply raises the chances of failure (as in Tbilisi) and disastrous blow-back (as in Bangkok). In short, if the Iranian government was indeed responsible for the recent attacks, it would have been almost setting itself up for a fall in two countries (India and Thailand) with which it shares valuable diplomatic and trade relations and at a time when it has a vital interest in not providing Israel with a pretext for war. There is arguably only one explanation that might bridge the yawning disconnect between events as they unfolded and Tehran's known capabilities and operational record, and its wider strategic interests. That is that the Islamic Republic's senior most leadership perceived an overriding political need to display resolve in retaliating swiftly for the killing of its nuclear scientists - and ordered action in willful disregard of the operational risks involved. Explosive motivations Beyond Iran, however, other possible perpetrators of the attacks have been suggested. The favorite of Internet conspiracy-theorists and Iranian officials is - predictably enough - Israel itself. According to this interpretation of events, Israel organized a "false flag" operation using Iranian nationals to further isolate Iran and increase international support for an attack against Tehran should a decision be made in favor of a military option to check its nuclear program. While colorful, this theory does not stand up to rational analysis. It implies that Israel, a state which goes to extraordinary lengths to protect and defend its citizens, would be willing to target its own diplomats in the pursuit of its wider campaign against Iran. A second theory centers on the possibility of elements within Iran's security and intelligence establishment acting without sanction - and thus without access to trained personnel and operational support - in outsourcing an operation to non-official or semi-official contractors. In a February 15 commentary for CNN, Thailand-based security consultant Paul Quaglia, himself a former intelligence official, posited "outsourcing" as a possible explanation for the amateur nature of the events in Bangkok. The possibility of impatient "hawks" circumventing reluctance at higher levels of the state to retaliate for the assassinations of Iranian scientists cannot be simply dismissed. Iran's intelligence establishment is far from monolithic and almost certainly factionalized. Indeed, in a celebrated case in the late 1990s, a rogue group in VEVAK was held responsible by Iranian prosecutors for the murders inside Iran of three dissident writers, a political leader and his wife. Nevertheless, the sheer level of organization and number of personnel required for simultaneous attacks in three foreign countries are hardly consistent with a rogue operation. Furthermore, such an operation would carry a high risk of being traced back to those responsible with potentially severe consequences. A third alternative that merits close attention centers on the Iranian domestic opposition, grouped loosely around the People's Mujahideen Organization of Iran or Mujahideen e Khalq (MeK). An Islamic-socialist group founded in 1965 in opposition to the then US-backed shah regime, MeK began an urban guerrilla campaign in the early 1970s and later took part in the Islamic revolution of 1979. Subsequently, however, MeK broke violently with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's clerical regime and for years operated out of Saddam Hussein's Iraq as an Iraqi-backed conventional military force on the border as well as an underground terrorist network within Iran. MeK has been declared a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the US government. Following the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, MeK's military units were disbanded by the Americans but the organization has continued to operate clandestinely inside Iran while conducting a public relations campaign from Europe. Its network in Iran is generally believed to have provided the US and Israel with intelligence - notably on Iran's nuclear program - as well as with assets for the covert destabilization of the Islamic regime. At various levels, there are grounds which might support the theory of an independent MeK operation in Bangkok, New Delhi and Tbilisi. Strategically, the organization has ample motive. The successful assassination of Israeli diplomats would at the least serve to further isolate the Iranian government at a critical juncture. At most, it might provide the impetus to push Israel into an attack on Iran that would destabilize or even topple the regime - a result MeK has no chance of achieving itself. The attempted assassination of Israel's ambassador to London, Argov Shlomo, by Palestinian terrorists on June 3, 1982, provides solid historical precedent for such a calculation. The attack, which critically wounded Shlomo (without killing him), provided a convenient justification for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon three days later and the routing of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) forces based there. Operationally, the hand of MeK or allied opposition elements also provides an explanation for the otherwise puzzling blunders displayed in mid-February. It can be safely assumed that a small number of Iranian opposition elements has been recruited, trained and deployed by Israeli and/or US intelligence services in the covert war against Iran's nuclear program. However, MeK remains a larger - and largely uncharted - group without access to specialized training. It is also worth noting that for an opposition group to commit poorly-trained and supported personnel openly using Iranian travel documents would pose no real risk of blow-back: In the event of failure or fiasco, the simple fact that the operatives were Iranian would serve well enough to implicate the Tehran regime in the eyes of an already skeptical world. The extent to which the truth behind recent events emerges will depend importantly on investigations currently conducted by the Thai police, who already hold two members of the Iranian team and may soon have access to a third detained in Malaysia. The willingness of the Islamic Republic to provide proactive assistance in the investigation will also serve as an important reflection of its interest in rebutting Israel's accusations. Two suspected members of the Bangkok-based bomb-making team, Leila Rohani and Ali Akbar Norouzi, are both back in Iran with their photos and return flight details already made public by the Thai police. It remains to be seen, however, how aggressively the Thai authorities - perennially reluctant to be dragged into the maelstrom of Middle Eastern conflict - will choose to pursue the investigations or request assistance from Tehran. In the final analysis, Thailand has little to gain and possibly much to lose from establishing publicly and with certainty either the innocence or guilt of the Iranian government. Indeed, the best pointer to the affair's likely outcome is the fate of Atris Hussein, the Lebanese-Swedish businessman with suspected links to Iran-allied Lebanese Hezbollah, whose January arrest was followed by the seizure of four tons of explosives he and his associates had amassed in a warehouse on the edge of Bangkok. Hussein is to be charged with possession of restricted substances and may serve a few years in a Thai jail in a case that will soon be quietly forgotten. Anthony Davis is a Bangkok-based security analyst for IHS-Jane's. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/NB24Ae01.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Iran says it’s ready to cooperate on Thailand bombing http://nmen.org/iran-says-its-ready-to-cooperate-on-thailand-bombing/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ DEEP POLITICS TIES TO THAILAND http://www.irishtimez.com/2012/02/the-strange-case-of-the-thai-bombing-blamed-on-iran/ ================================================================================================================== ANTHONY DAVIS I believe has the key. Indeed, the best pointer to the affair's likely outcome is the fate of Atris Hussein, the Lebanese-Swedish businessman with suspected links to Iran-allied Lebanese Hezbollah, whose January arrest was followed by the seizure of four tons of explosives he and his associates had amassed in a warehouse on the edge of Bangkok. Hussein is to be charged with possession of restricted substances and may serve a few years in a Thai jail in a case that will soon be quietly forgotten. ++++++++++ Yes arrested man in CUSTODY may hold key. Arrest in January,so what kind of pressure could be put on him to aid the false flag op ?? Plenty !!! Davis is a good source,however, we need to also use are thinking caps. see below ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ASIA TIMES Convoluted fuse to Bangkok bombs By Anthony Davis BANGKOK - Since the mid-February bomb blasts which struck Bangkok and New Delhi, and a failed attack in the Georgian capital Tbilisi, confusion over events on the ground has been compounded by a predictable war of words between Iran, widely viewed as behind the attacks, and its arch-enemy Israel, the apparent target. Amid the din of accusation and denial, amplified by camp-followers of both parties, puzzled independent observers have managed to concur on only two aspects of the still unexplained events. First, the incidents in India and Georgia on February 13, and in Thailand the following day, were almost certainly linked in a coordinated plot intended to assassinate Israeli diplomats using "sticky bombs" attached to vehicles by magnets. The fact that the same method was used successfully against Iranian nuclear scientists assassinated in Iran in attacks believed carried by Israeli agents clearly implied an operation intended to be seen as tit-for-tat retaliation. Second, the operations in all three cities were marked by a startling lack of professionalism. In Bangkok, incompetence veered into a bloody comedy of errors that in any work of spy fiction would have been dismissed as ludicrous. Now celebrated highlights include a premature explosion in a rented house; panicked flight by the apparent bomb makers; bungled bomb attacks on a taxi and a police car that cost one Iranian both of his own legs; and arrests of two accomplices at Bangkok’s international Suvannabhumi airport and in Malaysia. The Valentine's Day fiasco was followed by the discovery of stickers bearing the Koranic term "SEJEAL" plastered along a 1.5 kilometer stretch of road in central Bangkok as well as in a house rented by one of the apparent Iranian bomb making team. Another was discovered on a motorcycle believed to be intended for use in one or more attacks. While Thai police initially speculated the stickers marked out a getaway route, security analysts who spoke to Asia Times Online are skeptical they had any operational relevance, suggesting instead some religiously auspicious significance. While less farcical, the operations in Georgia and India were also marked by remarkable mistakes. In Tbilisi, the would-be assassin attached an explosive device - later found and disarmed - not to a diplomatic vehicle but to the car of the Israeli ambassador's Georgian driver. The choice appeared to indicate either a failure of reconnaissance or a last-minute need to settle for a secondary, related target rather than a primary one. In New Delhi, an Israeli diplomat's wife was actually wounded by a magnetic bomb and the would-be assassin was able to escape. However, he reportedly attached the device to the rear of the vehicle near a tail light rather to its side, significantly lessening the chance of killing his target. With the Iranian government now seen as the most likely suspect behind the bombings - and in many quarters already declared guilty - it is worth fitting these events into the context of what is known about Iranian external intelligence operations. Viewed through this lens, the recent incidents are puzzling in several regards. Iran is certainly no stranger to foreign assassinations. Indeed, since shortly after the Islamic revolution of 1979, Tehran has been deeply implicated in directing and conducting both assassinations and larger mass-casualty terrorist attacks in Europe, the Middle East and Latin America. Its primary targets have been Iranian dissidents based in Europe perceived as threats to the revolutionary regime. Both in terms of intelligence gathering and "direct action", external operations are the responsibility of two organizations understood to work either independently or, occasionally, in conjunction. The primary body is the Ministry of Intelligence and National Security (Vezarat e Etela'at va Amnita e Keshvar, or VEVAK); the other, the elite Qods Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), the branch of the armed forces that answers directly to Iran's senior most clerical leadership. Established in 1984, VEVAK is responsible for both internal and external security matters. According to Israeli sources, notably investigative journalist Ronen Bergman, the ministry's external operations are undertaken by its Department 15 which fields operatives working under diplomatic cover in Iranian embassies abroad. But VEVAK has also been known to use other state organizations to provide cover, including Iran Air, Iranian Shipping Lines and the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). By contrast, the Qods force fulfills an essentially military and para-military mission and has been responsible for providing instruction and support to pro-Iranian guerilla and terrorist groups in countries such as Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories and Sudan. Such training is conducted both in facilities inside Iran and abroad: Qods Force personnel have had a long and well-documented presence in Lebanon as well as in Iraq during the US occupation. Official assassinations European police and judicial investigations dating from the 1980s and 1990s - the heyday of the Islamic Republic's overseas assassination campaign - indicate that Tehran's direct action operations abroad have often been undertaken by Iranian nationals usually working for VEVAK out of embassies or other organizations providing cover, including private businesses During the wave of nearly 200 assassinations of dissident exiles, Iranian "diplomats" were expelled from several countries including Germany, Norway and Turkey. In 1997, Iranian Intelligence and Security Minister Ali Fallahian was himself the subject of an arrest warrant issued by German prosecutors after protracted investigations into the gunning down of three Iranian Kurdish exiles in Berlin in September 1992. Those arrested and found guilty of the killings were VEVAK operatives whose orders were traced back to Fallahian's desk. Iran's extensive network of Middle Eastern allies has also permitted the use of proxies for deniable "direct action". Some such operations involved mass-casualty attacks such as the bombing of the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires in July 1994 which killed 85, wounded several hundred and which was formally linked by Argentinean prosecutors to Latin American-based elements of Lebanese Hezbollah directed from Tehran. Others have been individual assassinations such as the March 1992 killing of Ehud Sadan, a Israeli security officer at Israel's embassy in Ankara, Turkey, who died when a bomb detonated under his car. The assassination came days after the Israeli killing of Sheikh Abbas Moussavi, secretary general of Lebanese Hezbollah and was later traced to Iranian-trained Farhan Osman, an operative of Turkish Hezbollah, a notably lethal branch of Iran's external network. Osman was arrested by Turkish authorities in 2000 and admitted at his trial to carrying out attacks on orders from Tehran. Against this backdrop, it is puzzling that a state with decades of experience in conducting overseas operations and with access to an extensive network of proxy operatives would find itself abruptly reduced to deploying a team of its own nationals with little evident training or field support given to adorning Bangkok's busy streets with bumper stickers in advance of an attack. Another puzzling aspect of the Iranian state responsibility alleged by Israel centers on the decision to conduct a coordinated operation more or less simultaneously in three foreign countries. Details of both Iranian and Israeli assassination operations which have emerged in recent years indicate clearly that achieving a successful outcome in a single operation is complex enough and requires careful planning, reconnaissance and execution by skilled operatives with plans for unforeseen contingencies. Not least would be the need for back-up travel documents and possibly an alternative safe-house. Even then success is anything but guaranteed. The bungled attempt by operatives of Israel's external intelligence agency, the Mossad, to kill Khaled Mashal, a senior figure in Palestinian Hamas, in Amman, Jordan in September 1997 illustrates the risks of even meticulously planned operations. After administering a poisoned spray to their intended victim, the two Israeli assassins - posing as Canadian tourists - abandoned a get-away car in traffic and were pursued and arrested. Humiliatingly, Israel was obliged to provide Jordanian authorities with an antidote to the poison that saved Mashal's life. By the same token, a near-simultaneous assassination operation by a single intelligence service against three hard targets in three different countries is almost certainly unprecedented in recent decades. Even assuming a political need for multiple strikes, such a scatter-gun approach is bound to stretch resources in terms of planning and execution and sharply raises the chances of failure (as in Tbilisi) and disastrous blow-back (as in Bangkok). In short, if the Iranian government was indeed responsible for the recent attacks, it would have been almost setting itself up for a fall in two countries (India and Thailand) with which it shares valuable diplomatic and trade relations and at a time when it has a vital interest in not providing Israel with a pretext for war. There is arguably only one explanation that might bridge the yawning disconnect between events as they unfolded and Tehran's known capabilities and operational record, and its wider strategic interests. That is that the Islamic Republic's senior most leadership perceived an overriding political need to display resolve in retaliating swiftly for the killing of its nuclear scientists - and ordered action in willful disregard of the operational risks involved. Explosive motivations Beyond Iran, however, other possible perpetrators of the attacks have been suggested. The favorite of Internet conspiracy-theorists and Iranian officials is - predictably enough - Israel itself. According to this interpretation of events, Israel organized a "false flag" operation using Iranian nationals to further isolate Iran and increase international support for an attack against Tehran should a decision be made in favor of a military option to check its nuclear program. While colorful, this theory does not stand up to rational analysis. It implies that Israel, a state which goes to extraordinary lengths to protect and defend its citizens, would be willing to target its own diplomats in the pursuit of its wider campaign against Iran. A second theory centers on the possibility of elements within Iran's security and intelligence establishment acting without sanction - and thus without access to trained personnel and operational support - in outsourcing an operation to non-official or semi-official contractors. In a February 15 commentary for CNN, Thailand-based security consultant Paul Quaglia, himself a former intelligence official, posited "outsourcing" as a possible explanation for the amateur nature of the events in Bangkok. The possibility of impatient "hawks" circumventing reluctance at higher levels of the state to retaliate for the assassinations of Iranian scientists cannot be simply dismissed. Iran's intelligence establishment is far from monolithic and almost certainly factionalized. Indeed, in a celebrated case in the late 1990s, a rogue group in VEVAK was held responsible by Iranian prosecutors for the murders inside Iran of three dissident writers, a political leader and his wife. Nevertheless, the sheer level of organization and number of personnel required for simultaneous attacks in three foreign countries are hardly consistent with a rogue operation. Furthermore, such an operation would carry a high risk of being traced back to those responsible with potentially severe consequences. A third alternative that merits close attention centers on the Iranian domestic opposition, grouped loosely around the People's Mujahideen Organization of Iran or Mujahideen e Khalq (MeK). An Islamic-socialist group founded in 1965 in opposition to the then US-backed shah regime, MeK began an urban guerrilla campaign in the early 1970s and later took part in the Islamic revolution of 1979. Subsequently, however, MeK broke violently with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's clerical regime and for years operated out of Saddam Hussein's Iraq as an Iraqi-backed conventional military force on the border as well as an underground terrorist network within Iran. MeK has been declared a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the US government. Following the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, MeK's military units were disbanded by the Americans but the organization has continued to operate clandestinely inside Iran while conducting a public relations campaign from Europe. Its network in Iran is generally believed to have provided the US and Israel with intelligence - notably on Iran's nuclear program - as well as with assets for the covert destabilization of the Islamic regime. At various levels, there are grounds which might support the theory of an independent MeK operation in Bangkok, New Delhi and Tbilisi. Strategically, the organization has ample motive. The successful assassination of Israeli diplomats would at the least serve to further isolate the Iranian government at a critical juncture. At most, it might provide the impetus to push Israel into an attack on Iran that would destabilize or even topple the regime - a result MeK has no chance of achieving itself. The attempted assassination of Israel's ambassador to London, Argov Shlomo, by Palestinian terrorists on June 3, 1982, provides solid historical precedent for such a calculation. The attack, which critically wounded Shlomo (without killing him), provided a convenient justification for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon three days later and the routing of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) forces based there. Operationally, the hand of MeK or allied opposition elements also provides an explanation for the otherwise puzzling blunders displayed in mid-February. It can be safely assumed that a small number of Iranian opposition elements has been recruited, trained and deployed by Israeli and/or US intelligence services in the covert war against Iran's nuclear program. However, MeK remains a larger - and largely uncharted - group without access to specialized training. It is also worth noting that for an opposition group to commit poorly-trained and supported personnel openly using Iranian travel documents would pose no real risk of blow-back: In the event of failure or fiasco, the simple fact that the operatives were Iranian would serve well enough to implicate the Tehran regime in the eyes of an already skeptical world. The extent to which the truth behind recent events emerges will depend importantly on investigations currently conducted by the Thai police, who already hold two members of the Iranian team and may soon have access to a third detained in Malaysia. The willingness of the Islamic Republic to provide proactive assistance in the investigation will also serve as an important reflection of its interest in rebutting Israel's accusations. Two suspected members of the Bangkok-based bomb-making team, Leila Rohani and Ali Akbar Norouzi, are both back in Iran with their photos and return flight details already made public by the Thai police. It remains to be seen, however, how aggressively the Thai authorities - perennially reluctant to be dragged into the maelstrom of Middle Eastern conflict - will choose to pursue the investigations or request assistance from Tehran. In the final analysis, Thailand has little to gain and possibly much to lose from establishing publicly and with certainty either the innocence or guilt of the Iranian government. Indeed, the best pointer to the affair's likely outcome is the fate of Atris Hussein, the Lebanese-Swedish businessman with suspected links to Iran-allied Lebanese Hezbollah, whose January arrest was followed by the seizure of four tons of explosives he and his associates had amassed in a warehouse on the edge of Bangkok. Hussein is to be charged with possession of restricted substances and may serve a few years in a Thai jail in a case that will soon be quietly forgotten. Anthony Davis is a Bangkok-based security analyst for IHS-Jane's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) Iran says it’s ready to cooperate on Thailand bombing http://nmen.org/iran-says-its-ready-to-cooperate-on-thailand-bombing/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ DEEP POLITICS TIES TO THAILAND http://www.irishtimez.com/2012/02/the-strange-case-of-the-thai-bombing-blamed-on-iran/ ================================================================================================================== ANTHONY DAVIS I believe has the key. [...] You’re getting pretty desperate Steve you reposted the same Asia Times piece that I included in my previous post. As for the Cartalucci piece why didn’t you provide the link to the original on Infowars? Did you think the IrishtimeZ (as opposed to the IrishtimeS) URL would lend it a bit more respectability? The Alex Jones protégé offered little more that rampant speculation. He implied that the Thai government was in cahoots with the Israelis but provided no evidence. He also wrote: However, what appears to have taken place in Bangkok, and what appears to be the case unfolding in India and Georgia as well, was a false-flag operation carried out by Mossad and Farsi-speaking MEK agents posing as Iranian Quds operatives who approached potential patsies. These patsies were trained and provided with faulty equipment to carry out these attacks. After making their respective failed attempts, the patsies would incriminate themselves and Tehran by attempting to return to Iran, or confess upon capture and interrogation that they were working for who they believed to be Quds operatives. Far from a theory, Foreign Policy magazine has recently reported that indeed Israel’s Mossad regularly pose as American spies to recruit MEK agents who then carry out their campaign of terror with connections leading back to the US, not Israel. While the information in FP’s report was most likely published in an attempt to bifurcate US-Israeli interests for plausible deniability ahead of a “unilateral” Israeli attack (as described in Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?“), it does illustrate that false flag operations are not only real, but common place within Western intelligence operations. Like you this self-declared ‘expert’ conflates MEK and Jundallah the FP article said Mossad was trying to recruit operatives from the latter not the former group. In any case Mossad agents in Europe pretending to be CIA to get Jundallah to attack targets in Iran is a very different scenario from Mossad operating with MEK in Iran and pretending to be Quds. I agree that the arrest of Atris Hussein could be tied to the catastrophic farce in Bangkok. If he was involved in the original plot the Iranians presumably would have pulled out anyone tied to him. They might have chosen to rush in some inexperience substitutes rather than abort the mission. Unless and until the Iranian government produces the two people involved in the attack who returned to Tehran or shows signs they are trying to find them, the attack being a bungled Iranian intel. op. will remain the most likely explanation. Just saying they will cooperate is not the same as doing so. Several have claimed that it is not possible that Iranian intel could have so bungled an operation but there aren several examples of US, Israeli and European intel services/special ops screwing up operations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillehammer_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Massacre#Failed_rescue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Damocles#Public_exposure_of_the_operation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahmoud_Al-Mabhouh#Arrests Cartalucci described the attacks as “pointless” but the Iranian regime has a history of revenge attacks and Israel has targeted people for the same reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_murders_of_Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God Edited February 26, 2012 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Steve, Why do you continue to refuse to tell us the source for your false claim "Nikkhahfard a Boluchistan type name"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now