|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ottopilot
sigh ...
OK, make of it what you will to satisfy your daily evil Bush/Cheney quota. I was looking more for a discussion regarding the timing and intentions of the Chinese by releasing this information after violence against Tibetan protesters and the upcoming Olympics (like post #38). But it's not my thread, so have at it. |
Chinese gubermint spokesfolks have vehemently denied "realeasing" anything, and none of the "diplomats" who "contributed" to the report are willing to release who they are, so.....
Ottopilot, all of the effort I've put into assembling this post, to try to persuade you to consider that you have been "conned" by an "Op", is wasted if I cannot get your attention....
The AP reporter who filed the story that your UK Telegraph "reporter", Damien McElroy later embellished, is George Jahn. Jahn has s history of being fed anti Iranian government information by:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...eh&btnG=Search
George Jahn's Iranian "insider" source, is Alireza Jafarzadeh. Fox New's own articles by Alireza Jafarzadeh, Fox's Foreign Affairs "consultant", confirm that he was MEK's politcal wing spokesperson in Washington for a dozen years, until August 2003. That was the month that the US shut down that office in Washington, just after the US invasion of Iraq.
....and, there is this:
Quote:
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pb...81/1002/NEWS01
Ritter says White House preparing for war in Iran
April 4, 2008
By ED BARNA Herald Correspondent
MIDDLEBURY — Scott Ritter, former head of weapons inspection in Iraq who protested there were no weapons of mass destruction to justify an invasion, believes the same is true for Iran.
But there is an 80 percent chance of war with Iran, he told about 200 people Wednesday at Middlebury College as part of a series of talks facilitated by the Vermont Peace and Justice Center.
The pattern of preparations for such a conflict has been steadily developing and involves Congress as well as the Bush-Cheney administration, he said.
People ask him if he feels vindicated by the absence of WMDs in Iraq, he said, but "there isn't any vindication in being right about this one." A war with Iran would hasten the ongoing decline of American standing in the world, and afterward Russia and China would be ready to take advantage of the resulting power vacuum, he said.
Among the war clouds Ritter cited were:
# Preemptive strikes against the two groups most likely to erupt if the United States invaded Iran, Hezbollah (unsuccessfully attacked by Israel) and Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army (unsuccessfully attacked in Basra by Iraq's central government).
Ritter predicted a similarly disappointing showing if the American forces attacked Iran, a country 2-1/2 times as large and populous as Iraq that is much more unified culturally and did not have its army destroyed in a previous war with the United States.
# Recent visits to Middle Eastern allies by high officials, ostensibly for other purposes, but really to prepare them for the effects of such a war.
# The appearance of the "miracle laptop," as Ritter called it, a thousand pages of technical documents supposedly from a stolen Iranian computer, which dubiously had just the sort of information the administration needed to support a hard-line stand on Iran.
# Congressional supplementary funding for more "bunker-busting" bombs, with a contract completion deadline of April.
# Congressional supplementary funding for the extra bombers to carry those bombs, with a contract completion date of April.
# Cheney's order to send a third aircraft carrier battle group close to the Persian Gulf, a necessary bolstering of forces for a war with Iran.
Admiral William Fallon, the first admiral to be head of Central Command, said that level of naval forces was unnecessary and blocked the move. Ritter said that was "a heroic thing."
The main target of Ritter's criticisms was an American public that couldn't pass a test on the Constitution and understands little of international history and politics, and refuses to believe the life of an Iraqi is worth as much as the life of an American.
He began his talk, not by trumpeting the danger of war, but by talking about spring, and the birds that will soon have babies in their nests. Mother birds will forage, come to the nests, see open mouths begging for food, and puke into each one, he said.
Just so, Ritter said, people sit in front of their televisions every night and wait to be stuffed with mushy phrases like "The surge has been successful" and "Baghdad is 70 percent secure" and "We have apparently won the war."
"The reality of Iraq is that it is a broken nation," Ritter said. Groups like the Kurds and Shia are not unified groups, there is already a civil war, and most of the opposition to our presence comes from our being the invaders, he said.
"It is far too easy to look for people to blame," he said. For instance, "we blame the media, but the media simply give us what we're asking for."
Everyone needs to start understanding and caring about their Constitutional rights, and everyone needs to start finding the facts for themselves and taking strong individual stands, Ritter said. If you do nothing but take in what the TV and newspapers tell you, "all you're going to get in return is puke."
|
<h3>Ritter was an expert on Iraqi WMD.....HE WAS RIGHT.....HE SPOKE PUBLICLY LAST NIGHT......HE GETS NO COVERAGE from AP.....none !</h3>
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um...nG=Search+News
Now, let us examine the press coverage "enjoyed" by the other side:
Isn't this exactly the same as the use of "intelligence" from Chalabi to make the case for war in Iraq?
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7902719/...playmode/1098/
Terror Watch: A Strange Source of Intelligence on Iran
The State Department says MEK is a terror group. Human Rights Watch says it’s a cult. For the White House, MEK is a source of intelligence on Iran.
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
updated 6:51 p.m. ET, Fri., May. 20, 2005
May 18 - A controversial exile movement cited by President George W. Bush as a source of information on Iran's nuclear ambitions is condemned for psychologically and physically abusing its own members in a new report by Human Rights Watch.
.....n 1997, the Clinton administration put MEK on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist groups. MEK's U.S. supporters, among whom at one point numbered dozens of members of Congress, charged that the Clinton administration only labeled MEK as a terrorist group as part of an ill-conceived attempt to improve relations with the ayatollahs who currently run Iran. However, the Bush administration added two alleged MEK front organizations to the State Department's terrorist list in 2003.
Despite the group's notoriety, Bush himself cited purported intelligence gathered by MEK as evidence of the Iranian regime's rapidly accelerating nuclear ambitions. <h3>At a March 16 press conference, Bush said Iran's hidden nuclear program had been discovered not because of international inspections but "because a dissident group pointed it out to the world." White House aides acknowledged later that the dissident group cited by the president is the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), one of the MEK front groups added to the State Department list two years ago.</h3>
In an appearance before a House International Relations Subcommittee a year ago, John Bolton, the controversial State Department undersecretary who Bush has nominated to become US ambassador to the United Nations, was questioned by a Congressman sympathetic to MEK about whether it was appropriate for the U.S. government to pay attention to allegations about Iran supplied by the group. Bolton said he believed that MEK "qualifies as a terrorist organization according to our criteria." But he added that he did not think the official label had "prohibited us from getting information from them. And I certainly don't have any inhibition about getting information about what's going on in Iran from whatever source we can find that we deem reliable."
However, current and former senior U.S. national-security officials, who asked not to be named because they are not supposed to talk about intelligence-gathering activities, say that all the major revelations MEK publicly claims to have made regarding nuclear advances in Iran were reported in classified form—and from other sources—to U.S. policymakers before MEK made them public. A Western diplomat familiar with the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations component that has been monitoring Iran's nuclear program, said that while the MEK has occasionally come up with accurate information about Iran's nukes, the group has come up with a similar number of other tips that have not checked out......
|
Quote:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9158/
Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (Iranian rebels)
Updated: October 2005
* What is Mujahadeen-e-Khalq?
* What are MEK’s origins?
* Who are MEK’s leaders?
* Where does MEK operate?
* How big is MEK?
* What major attacks has MEK been responsible for?
What is Mujahadeen-e-Khalq?
Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) is the largest and most militant group opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Also known as the People’s Mujahadeen Organization of Iran, MEK is led by husband and wife Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. MEK was added to the U.S. State Department’s list of foreign terrorist groups in 1997 and to the European Union’s terrorist list in 2002 because its attacks have often killed civilians. Despite MEK’s violent tactics, the group’s strong stand against Iran —part of President Bush’s “axis of evil”—and pro-democratic image have won it support among some U.S. and European lawmakers.
What are MEK’s origins?
MEK was founded in the 1960s by a group of college-educated Iranian leftists opposed to the country’s pro-Western ruler, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The group participated in the 1979 Islamic revolution that replaced the shah with a Shiite Islamist regime led by the Ayatollah Khomeini. But MEK’s ideology, a blend of Marxism and Islamism, put it at odds with the postrevolutionary government, and its original leadership was soon executed by the Khomeini regime. In 1981, the group was driven from its bases on the Iran-Iraq border and resettled in Paris , where it began supporting Iraq in its eight-year war against Khomeini’s Iran. In 1986, MEK moved its headquarters to Iraq, which used MEK to harass neighboring Iran. During the 2003 Iraq war, U.S. forces cracked down on MEK’s bases in Iraq, and in June 2003 French authorities raided a MEK compound outside Paris and arrested 160 people, including Maryam Rajavi.
Who are MEK’s leaders?
Maryam Rajavi, who hopes to become president of Iran , is MEK’s principal leader; her husband, Massoud Rajavi, heads up the group’s military forces. Maryam Rajavi, born in 1953 to an upper-middle class Iranian family, joined MEK as a student in Tehran in the early 1970s. After relocating with the group to Paris in 1981, she was elected its joint leader and later became deputy commander-in-chief of its armed wing. Experts say that MEK has increasingly come to resemble a cult that is devoted to Massoud Rajavi’s secular interpretation of the Koran and is prone to sudden, dramatic ideological shifts. After being released from police custody on bail, Maryam Rajavi was confined to the MEK compound in France , and the investigation continues. Massoud Rajavi was last known to be living in Iraq , but authorities aren’t certain of his whereabouts or whether he is alive.
Where does MEK operate?
The group’s armed unit operated from camps in Iraq near the Iran border since 1986. During the Iraq war, U.S. troops disarmed MEK and posted guards at its bases. In addition to its Paris-based members, MEK has a network of sympathizers in Europe, the United States, and Canada. <h3>The group’s political arm, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, maintains offices in several capitals, and used to have a branch in Washington, D.C. before U.S. officials closed it down in August 2003.</h3>
How big is MEK?
MEK is believed to have some 10,000 members, one-third to one-half of whom are fighters. Experts say its activities have dropped off in recent years as its membership has dwindled. MEK has had little success luring new recruits and is composed mostly of its founding members.
What major attacks has MEK been responsible for?
The group has targeted Iranian government officials and government facilities in Iran and abroad; during the 1970s, it attacked Americans in Iran. While the group says it does not intentionally target civilians, it has often risked civilian casualties. It routinely aims its attacks at government buildings in crowded cities. MEK terrorism has declined since late 2001. Incidents linked to the group include:
* the series of mortar attacks and hit-and-run raids during 2000 and 2001 against Iranian government buildings; one of these killed Iran’s chief of staff;
* the 2000 mortar attack on President Mohammad Khatami’s palace in Tehran;
* the February 2000 “Operation Great Bahman,” during which MEK launched twelve attacks against Iran;
* the 1999 assassination of the deputy chief of Iran’s armed forces general staff, Ali Sayyad Shirazi;
* the 1998 assassination of the director of Iran’s prison system, Asadollah Lajevardi;
* the 1992 near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and institutions in 13 countries;
* assistance to Saddam Hussein’s suppression of the 1991 Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish uprisings;
* the 1981 bombing of the offices of the Islamic Republic Party and of Premier Mohammad-Javad Bahonar, which killed some seventy high-ranking Iranian officials, including President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei and Bahonar;
* support for the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by Iranian revolutionaries;
* the 1970s killings ofU.S. military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran.
It’s unclear how many attacks MEK has carried out; according to experts, the group’s claims of responsibility for attacks inIran are often exaggerated, and sometimes MEK is blamed by the Iranian government for attacks it didn’t stage.
|
Fox New's Former MEK Political Wing Spokesman and "representative in Washington for a dozen years", files one <a href="http://search2.foxnews.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&client=my_frontend&proxystylesheet=my_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&site=story&getfields=*&filter=0&sort=date%3AD%3AS%3Ad1&q=Alireza+Jafarzadeh">Anti Iran "story" per week</a> at FOX:
Quote:
FOXNews.com - A Blow to Nuclear Bomb Making of Ayatollahs in Iran ...
Feb 27, 2008 ... FNC Foreign Affairs Analyst Alireza Jafarzadeh. FNC Foreign Affairs Analyst Alireza Jafarzadeh. • E-mail Alireza ...
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333291,00.html
|
Quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339295,00.html
Five Years After: Tehran Remains Enemy No. 1 in Iraq
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
By Alireza Jafarzadeh
<img src="http://www.foxnews.com/images/301018/0_61_0_61_AJ_320.jpg">
........Alireza Jafarzadeh is the author of The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis (Palgrave: February 2008).
Jafarzadeh has revealed Iran's terrorist network in Iraq and its terror training camps since 2003. He first disclosed the existence of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility and the Arak heavy water facility in August 2002.
Until August 2003, Jafarzadeh acted for a dozen years as the chief congressional liaison and media spokesman for the U.S. representative office of Iran's parliament in exile, <h3>the National Council of Resistance of Iran.</h3>
|
Quote:
http://www.observer.com/2007/iranian...iraq-s-chalabi
In Iranian Friend of the Neocons, Shades of Iraq’s Chalabi
by Niall Stanage | June 5, 2007
Consider the scenario: A Middle Eastern nation is in the Bush administration’s sights; an expatriate opposition figure of dubious provenance emerges and becomes prominent in Washington and across conservative media; this opposition figurehead claims to be in possession of sensational intelligence which indicates that the leadership of his native land is hell-bent on destruction and that immediate action is needed.
Stop me, as the Smiths once sang, if you think you’ve heard this one before.
The nation in this instance is not Iraq but Iran. And Alireza Jafarzadeh, a man who is intimately linked with the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (M.E.K.), is—at least in the minds of skeptics—playing a role akin to that performed by Ahmed Chalabi in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
Mr. Jafarzadeh, unsurprisingly, does not welcome the comparison. His role, he claims, “is exactly the opposite of what Chalabi was.” But the similarities are uncanny.
Mr. Jafarzadeh’s prominence—<h3>his claims have been cited publicly by President Bush—is peculiar</h3>, to say the least, given that the group with which he is so closely linked has long been listed as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department.
He ceased to represent the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) in the U.S. when its Washington office was forced to close in 2003. The closure took place because, in the eyes of the State Department, the NCRI was—and is— merely a front for the M.E.K......
|
Quote:
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/2003/20072.htm
On-the-Record Briefing
Ambassador Cofer Black, Coordinator for Counterterrorism
Remarks at On-the-Record Briefing on the Release of the Annual Patterns of Global Terrorism 2002 report
Washington, DC
April 30, 2003
.....QUESTION: What does the State Department think about the ceasefire that was signed between the MEK and the U.S., U.S. CENTCOM, in Iraq?
Since this group is still on the terrorist list, as I understand it, Americans are not supposed to deal with them at all. <h3>And that's always been kind of a -- there is a problem in Washington, D.C., because they keep an office open here.</h3>
So can you tell me how this squares with the MEK's terrorist status?
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Sure, I'll be happy to, happy to try. The Secretary has recommended that the President determine that the laws that apply to countries that support terrorism no longer apply to Iraq. The President's determination to provide greater flexibility in permitting certain types of trade with and assistance to Iraq; thus, we can treat Iraq like any other country not on the terrorist list.
I think it's important to underscore some facts here. MEK is designated by the U.S. Government as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. This organization mixes Islam and Marxism in their battle to establish what they claim would be a secular state in Iran.
Until the recent war in Iraq, they were allied with the government of Saddam Hussein and received most of their support from this regime. They have assisted the Hussein regime in suppressing opposition within Iraq, and performed internal security for the Iraqi regime. MEK, or as some recently referred to as the People's Mujahedin, has also attacked and killed Americans.
<h3>The MEK and its many aliases, including the political NCRI, are designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations.</h3> The United States Government does not negotiate with terrorists. MEK's opposition to the Iranian Government does not change the fact that they are a terrorist organization. We understand the agreement on the ground in the field is a prelude to the group's surrender. Commanders make tactical decisions to end conflict with enemy combatants successfully.
There's a lot of activity in various areas underway in Iraq -- of which this is one -- I would refer you to CENTCOM and their briefers to get better insight to the decision-making and the actions of our commanders, coalition commanders on the ground.
<h3>This is a pretty special group. They are a Foreign Terrorist Organization.</h3> They are not well liked in Iraq; they could not be put with the general prisoner population. They are following the orders of the coalition commanders, and their situation will be addressed in the coming days and weeks.
Yes, sir. .......
|
Quote:
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle15562.htm
<div align="center">
<center>
<table border="0" width="90%">
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<p align="center"><b><font size="5">Gunning for Iran</font></b><p align="center">
<b><font size="4">Exposed : Where The U.S. gets its
"intelligence" about Iran's nuclear program</font></b><br>
<br>
You must've heard the howls of protest from the International
Atomic Energy Agency after the release of a US House of
Representatives report on Iran's nuclear program. The IAEA
branded the American report "outrageous and dishonest" for
asserting that Tehran's nuclear plans were geared towards
weapons. This, of course, was just the latest flare-up in the
running debate over Iran's supposed nuclear ambitions. So where
is Washington getting its information? <br>
<br>
Try an Iranian opposition group known as the Mujahedin-e-Khalq -
MeK for short. Given the debacle over Saddam's non-existent WMDs
in Iraq, you'd reckon there'd have to be a touch of caution
where Iranian exiles peddling nuclear secrets are concerned. But
as Bronwyn Adcock tells it, when the MeK speaks, Washington
hardliners listen. <br>
<table cellSpacing="0" cellPadding="3" width="100%" border="0" id="table2">
<tr>
<td class="content"><b>TRANSCRIPT<p>Three weeks ago in
New York, journalists were summoned to this hotel for a
press conference. It has been organised by this man -
Alireza Jafarzadeh, an Iranian exile who regularly
reveals what he claims is inside information on Iran's
nuclear program. </b></p>
<p><i>ALIREZA JAFARZADEH, MUJAHEDIN-E-KHALQ LOBBYIST: I
would like to share with you today the information I've
gotten from the very same sources that have proven
accurate in the past. </i></p>
<p><b>Today, Jafarzadeh announces he's discovered an
apparently sinister new development. </b></p>
<p><i>ALIREZA JAFARZADEH: A very important aspect of the
Iran regime's nuclear weapons program is actually laser
enrichment, and the information I've gotten from my
sources today suggests that Iran is heavily involved in
laser enrichment program. </i></p>
<p><b>As always, the information is incredibly detailed,
with maps, names and addresses. Since 2002, Jafarzadeh
and the Iranian opposition group he's connected to, the
Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MeK, have made nearly 20
intelligence revelations, in press conferences from
Paris to New York, Washington and London. </b></p>
<p><i>ALIREZA JAFARZADEH: And they are scheduled to be
able to get the bomb by 2005. </i></p>
<p><b>The MeK revelations have had an extraordinary
impact, sparking inspections in Iran by the nuclear
watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.
According to the MeK, Iran is building a nuclear bomb,
and the world should be very afraid. </b></p>
<p><i>ALIREZA JAFARZADEH: I think the world has to take
the Iranian regime's threat very, very seriously. These
ayatollahs believe in what they say, believe that they
can eliminate Israel off the map, they can eliminate the
superpowers. </i></p>
<p><b>According to this Iranian opposition group, there
is only one solution. </b></p>
<p><i>ALIREZA JAFARZADEH: You need to slay the dragon.
This is the solution. You need to slay the dragon, which
means regime change. </i></p>
<p><b>The MeK is playing a key role in what's shaping up
as one of the critical contests of our time - the
stand-off between the US and Iran, played out here at
the United Nations General Assembly two weeks ago. </b>
</p>
<p><i>PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH AT UN: Iran must abandon its
nuclear weapons ambitions. </p>
<p>AHMADINEJAD, IRAN PRESIDENT AT UN, (Translation): All
our nuclear activities are transparent and peaceful and
fully overseen by the IAEA </p>
<p>CROWD: Down with terrorist! Ahmadinejad terrorist!
Down with terrorist! </i></p>
<p><b>Outside the United Nations that day Alireza
Jafarzadeh and the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, are again trying
to get their opinion heard. </b></p>
<p><i>ALIREZA JAFARZADEH: Obtaining the bomb, the
nuclear bomb would unquestionably give Tehran the upper
hand in the region. </i></p>
<p><b>And some powerful forces in the West are
listening. The MeK's main backer in Washington is a
newly formed think tank called the Iran Policy
Committee, headed by a former Reagan White House
official, Professor Raymond Tanter. </b></p>
<p><i>PROFESSOR RAYMOND TANTER, IRAN POLICY COMMITTEE:
The regime change clock has to start. Right now, the
regime change clock is not even ticking. </i></p>
<p><b>In the Iran Policy Committee, Professor Tanter has
created a powerful grouping of former CIA, Pentagon and
White House officials. At forums like this briefing on
Capitol Hill, the group is trying to convince the
American Government that the MeK can help them achieve
the goal of regime change. </b></p>
<p><i>PROFESSOR RAYMOND TANTER: We didn't choose the
Mujahedin-e-Khalq. The data hit us between the eyes. The
analysis passes what I call 'the interocular test' - it
hits you right between the eyes. I invented that phrase.
</p>
<p>CROWD (Translation): Ahmadinejad terrorist!
Ahmadinejad terrorist! Down with the terrorist! </i></p>
<p><b>But for some, the sight of exile groups bearing
gifts of intelligence for the West just brings back bad
memories. </b></p>
<p><i>PROFESSOR GARY SICK, COLOMBIA UNIVERSITY: In the
past, on Iraq, we were fed a lot of false information to
try to get our attention and to get us to do what we
did. We bought it, and I have a very hard time
understanding how anybody can maintain a straight face
and say, "Again," we should do the same thing all over
again. </i></p>
<p><b>Professor Gary Sick has served on the National
Security Council under three presidents. He was the
principle White House aide for Iran during the Iranian
revolution and hostage crisis, and has followed the
country closely ever since. He's extremely sceptical
about the MeK. </b></p>......
</td>
</tr>
</table>
|
************************************************
Lemme ask you, Ottopilot, why you think that the Bush administration, committed to a "war on terror", is so enthusiatically influenced by the former spokesperson of a dozen years, and Washington lobbyist for a terrorist organization, instead of by the opinion of an WMD expert who was right about Iraq, Scott Ritter, and by the US intelligence community's NIE on Iranian nuclear weapons development?
Why does the press ignore Ritter, but prints and broadcast everything that a former MEK propagandist tells them? Isn't the press "too liberal"? Didn't the press learn a lesson when it simply printed without challenging the pre-Iraq invasion statements of US administation officials?
Isn't it true that anyone who believed the exact opposite of what Bush and Cheney said about the WMD threat from Iraq, had a much better grasp on the reality on the ground in Iraq, on the actual "imminent threat" posed by Saddam's regime? Isn't "imminent" threat, the only grounds for preemptive attack, and even then, isn't it insufficient grounds for military action, based on US <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression">treaty obligations</a> via being a signatory to the UN charter?
How does Fox News openly and unabashedly give a former terrorist organization member, basically the "keys" to it's website and boradcast space to make any accusations against the Iranian regime that he wants to make?
Why do you allow yourself to be "taken in"?
Last edited by host; 04-05-2008 at 10:02 AM..
|
04-03-2008, 05:20 PM
