• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran accuses CIA of killing protestor Neda

F107HyperSabr said:
Are you actually serious that you would even think that the CIA would kill some ininocent young woman !! I am seathing at the thought that anyone would even think that much less write something like.

For God sakes man we are Americans not some Russian, Chiness or North Korean Communist savages !!! The CIA may have knocked over a few dictaors or countries but for God'S SAKE NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER AN INNOCENT young woman.

Give me a break !!!
Click to expand...

Give me a break. You can speak of the CIA "knocking over dictators" to Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mossadeq, Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz, or Chilean president Salvador Allende, all democratically elected leaders removed with CIA backing. And you can speak of the humane methods of the CIA to those who lived under the Shah, Augusto Pinochet, Somoza, Noriega, the Contrast, etc. And speak of the benevolence of American governmental agencies to those familiar with Operation Northwoods, the proposed plan of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct bombings against American targets and subsequently blame these actions on the Cuban government, thus warranting an invasion.
 
Agnapostate said:
Give me a break. You can speak of the CIA "knocking over dictators" to Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mossadeq, Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz, or Chilean president Salvador Allende, all democratically elected leaders removed with CIA backing. And you can speak of the humane methods of the CIA to those who lived under the Shah, Augusto Pinochet, Somoza, Noriega, the Contrast, etc. And speak of the benevolence of American governmental agencies to those familiar with Operation Northwoods, the proposed plan of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct bombings against American targets and subsequently blame these actions on the Cuban government, thus warranting an invasion.
Click to expand...

Yes we did knock over some bad guys I will admit that. Yet we did it for the best reasons. That Cuban thing about hurting Americans I just cannot believe and have not seen even a shred of rumor that it could be CONCIEVABLE.

That's like believing that an American administration could plot and carry out 9/11. Come on !! As much as I think that Cheney has an evil streak a mile long and that he was closely involved with the outing of VAERIE FLAME he is not that much of a miscreant to try and concoct 9/11. Just an example I do not in any way say that you think that Cheney would.

And Shrub, well so much for that!
 
and yes we had the CIA do some silly stuff but we did not do absolute evil. Yes we kicked a few dictators but they were real bad guys and it was best for their people. Putting the Shah in was actually a restoration of an ancient monarchy. I do feel bad that we knocked over a democratically elected guy. Sometimes things are just not clean. You know like making sausage. But when you grill those Brats ok all is good !!!
 
F107HyperSabr said:
Yes we did knock over some bad guys I will admit that.
Click to expand...

"Bad guys"? It was a matter of imperial ambitions within the CIA removing democratically elected heads of state, often for the purpose of replacing them with strong-arm dictators.

F107HyperSabr said:
Yet we did it for the best reasons. hat Cuban thing about hurting Americans I just cannot believe and have not seen even a shred of rumor that it could be true.
Click to expand...

The extent of the information about Operation Northwoods was revealed when numerous documents were declassified (1521 pages) by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. As put in Jim Wolf's Pentagon Planned 1960s Cuban 'Terror Campaign:

The Pentagon drew up plans to mount a bloody "terror campaign'' in the United States 35 years ago and planned to blame it on Fidel Castro to justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba, according to newly declassified documents...chemes included complex deceptions that would give the impression the Cubans had shot down a civilian U.S. airliner or a Cuban MiG had attacked a U.S. ship. "The courses of action which follow are a preliminary submission suitable only for planning purposes,'' Pentagon strategists said in an annex to a March 12, 1962, report about Cuba options to the military Joint Chiefs of Staff. "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other cities and even in Washington,'' they said in the document stamped "top secret.'' "The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida. (real or simulated). "We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely published,'' the strategists added. "Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of (supposed) Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government,'' the planners wrote to the Joint Chiefs.
Click to expand...


Along with the CIA-planned Operation Mongoose (a plan that effectively involved state terrorist efforts in Cuba in which numerous attacks on both civilian and military targets were conducted, as well as numerous assassination attempts against Castro), Operation Northwoods was a component of a general plan by top governmental agencies to destabilize and ultimately violently remove the Castro government.

F107HyperSabr said:
That's like believing that an American administration could plot and carry out 9/11. Come on !! As much as I think that Cheney has an evil streak a mile long and that he was closely involved with the outing of VAERIE FLAME he is not that much of a miscreant to try and concoct 9/11. Just an example I do not in any way say that you think that Cheney would.

And Shrub, well so much for that!
Click to expand...

Actually, I think there are many other more important reasons why it's unlikely that the ruling administration was responsible for 9/11 than their own benevolence or incompetence.
 
:doh
That is all.

Or not.

The US and it's dealings with the rest of the world is not perfect, and it is unreasonable to expect such.

Overall, IMO, it has in many cases turned out for the best, however.
 
Last edited:
Agnapostate said:
I did hear that she was shot by a plainclothesman, which led some to immediately conclude that he was a member of the Basij militia, along with the fact that there were allegations that he was briefly captured. However, I'd also been under the impression that it had been relatively conclusively determined that she was shot in the chest. I wouldn't be very surprised if the CIA was responsible,
Click to expand...

Of course one such as yourself wouldn't need any evidence what so ever to back this assertion. As to Northwoods the plan was not carried through and the man who came up with it was fired for (survey says) coming up with Operation Northwoods. :roll: Just go on spouting the lines which have been prepared for you by the Iranian Mullahs.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
I would think it would be unwise to rule out false flaggers. Why would your own plains clothes operative shoot an innocent woman just to fuel fire against them? But then again maybe it was some pissed off radical who was just mad that she was even there.

But, we know CIA and Mossad are already there so to rule out the possibility of predetermined assassination for the sake of creating choas would be foolish. But it sorta requires a bit of proof.


Keith Thomson: The Mossad's Plan to Stop Iran
Click to expand...

Oh gee an anonymous high ranking source who according to this article would have to have the highest possible security clearance to give the answers that he did to a reporter forced to write for a ****ing open source blog. :roll:
 
Agent Ferris said:
Of course one such as yourself wouldn't need any evidence what so ever to back this assertion. As to Northwoods the plan was not carried through and the man who came up with it was fired for (survey says) coming up with Operation Northwoods. :roll: Just go on spouting the lines which have been prepared for you by the Iranian Mullahs.
Click to expand...

What the hell? I'm quite aware that Lemitzer was removed (though he was later Supreme Allied Commander of NATO), but if you were to abandon your selective reading techniques, you might note my opinion that the CIA was not responsible. :2wave:
 
Agent Ferris said:
Would that be the Jews or the Illuminati? Just what neo-nazi Islamo-fascist crap are you people peddling today?
Click to expand...


Uhh.. I assume some powerful Americans would be in control of the CIA.... Are you being retardedly mean on purpose?
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Uhh.. I assume some powerful Americans would be in control of the CIA.... Are you being retardedly mean on purpose?
Click to expand...

Is it the reptiles, the Jews, or the Masons? Or all three? The POTUS chooses the head of the CIA, the POTUS is elected by the citizenry, this is what we call a representative system of governance.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Is it the reptiles, the Jews, or the Masons? Or all three?
Click to expand...

I was trying to mend a bridge... You are worthy of ignoring. Slightly funny though now that I am reflecting on it. I have no idea who it was. For all I know your mom is the culprit... And with that I won't even be mean to you anymore. Peace out.
 
Agnapostate said:
"Bad guys"? It was a matter of imperial ambitions within the CIA removing democratically elected heads of state, often for the purpose of replacing them with strong-arm dictators.



The extent of the information about Operation Northwoods was revealed when numerous documents were declassified (1521 pages) by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. As put in Jim Wolf's Pentagon Planned 1960s Cuban 'Terror Campaign:



Along with the CIA-planned Operation Mongoose (a plan that effectively involved state terrorist efforts in Cuba in which numerous attacks on both civilian and military targets were conducted, as well as numerous assassination attempts against Castro), Operation Northwoods was a component of a general plan by top governmental agencies to destabilize and ultimately violently remove the Castro government.



Actually, I think there are many other more important reasons why it's unlikely that the ruling administration was responsible for 9/11 than their own benevolence or incompetence.
Click to expand...

The problem with Jim Wolf's book he doesn't go into the fact that it was JFK who ask the Penatgon to draw up Operation Northwood and that Operation Mongoose was a left over operation from Ike that JFK reviewed.

I suggest you might want to go and read "The Secret History of the CIA' By Joseph J. Trento you ight find that allot of the items that Wolf talks about aren't exactly on the level.

Also one other item to point out of those 1521 pages that the JFK assassination records review board released over 1/3 of them where black out and most of them were not even close to be in order most of them came from various parts of the records.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Lets just say I do and leave at that alright.
Click to expand...
Let's say that you don't and leave it that.

Because if you did, talking about CIA wet ops on a discussion board strikes me as something of a career-limiting move. Possibly even a life-limiting move (not that the CIA would ever think to tamper with an aircraft about to be flown by a newly minted navy test pilot instructor).
 
It surprises me that it took them this long to blame the U.S. for this specific act. NDNdancer is right. The shooter's I.D. was confiscated by some of the protesters and the truth has already been reported to the world. Iran's leaders are fooling themselves if they think their explanation is credible. The word FAIL comes to mind.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Would that be the Jews or the Illuminati? Just what neo-nazi Islamo-fascist crap are you people peddling today?
Click to expand...

Ferris why couldn't you just wait until he brought up the 'Jews or the Illuminati " ? Oh it's done we are on that slippery slope of a conspiracy tobagan ride.
 
Tashah said:
btw: A haunting new movie - The Stoning of Soraya M. - is being released this weekend in cities across the United States. It tells the story of an Iranian woman who was brutalized by her husband, accused of adultry, and stoned to death. If you see this film... be prepared to be disturbed. In the approximately 20 minutes during which the graphic execution unfolds, the camera repeatedly returns to study the battered face and body of Soraya as she is stoned to death. Buried up to her waist in a hole dug for the occasion, she is pelted with rocks and profanity by the male villagers including her father, husband, and two sons, until she dies. In one of the disturbing scenes, Ali examines his wife’s crumpled blood-drenched body to make sure she is dead and discovers signs of life in a rolled-up eye. The stoning is promptly resumed. The film is a cinematic adaption of the 1994 best seller "The Stoning of Soraya M. - A True Story" by Paris based Iranian journalist Freidoune Sahebjam. I warn you in advance, this film is brutally extreme and powerful. Rated R.
Click to expand...

What a horrific way to die, physically speaking, and her story a tragedy in every sense of the word. Unfortunately, an all too common story in some parts of the world. It breaks my heart every time I hear of another life snuffed out in this way and under these circumstances. :(
 
celticlord said:
Let's say that you don't and leave it that.

Because if you did, talking about CIA wet ops on a discussion board strikes me as something of a career-limiting move. Possibly even a life-limiting move (not that the CIA would ever think to tamper with an aircraft about to be flown by a newly minted navy test pilot instructor).
Click to expand...

No they wouldn't the truth is this we don't have any Wet Operation be run by the CIA in the Middle East we leave that to OUR FRIENDS, the last time we did a Wet Operation in the Middle East it cost quite allot of folks their jobs.
 
Scorpion89 said:
No they wouldn't the truth is this we don't have any Wet Operation be run by the CIA in the Middle East we leave that to OUR FRIENDS, the last time we did a Wet Operation in the Middle East it cost quite allot of folks their jobs.
Click to expand...
Correction:

The last time a wet op was revealed in the Middle East people got fired.

The nature of the successful wet op is that it is not public knowledge until long after the fact.
 
Agnapostate said:
Yeah...not so much. Your baseless assertions are useless without supporting arguments.
Click to expand...
Again you are wrong in calling this an 'assertion'.
This isn't my opinion or anything, but rather, a pure and simple fact about Democracy.
The fact that the concealed activities of intelligence agencies are not subject to popular control or democratic management is a reality, and the reason that previous government agencies thought it necessary to plan false-flag operations to deceive the American public.
Click to expand...
This intelligence agency is ruled by the government.
During the elections in America, the people elect their representing candidate.
Through the value of the "Majority rule", the American people are represented by that elected candidate and his administration.
If we add the fact that the CIA is government controlled, we get to the simple fact that every 16 years old had learned about Democracy in high-school, that a Democratic government represents the people, and that the CIA is ruled by that democratic government, hence, represented by the people.

You took this argument into irrelevant places with your "But only some individuals are aware of the agency's actions".
That doesn't matter, it's government controlled.
The people who make the actions are the people who represent the American people.
 
Last edited:
Scorpion89 said:
The problem with Jim Wolf's book he doesn't go into the fact that it was JFK who ask the Penatgon to draw up Operation Northwood and that Operation Mongoose was a left over operation from Ike that JFK reviewed.
Click to expand...

I'm aware that Eisenhower had already initiated the planning of the campaign against Cuba to the extent that the Bay of Pigs invasion was already planned to a large extent. However, though Kennedy encouraged some of this planning to some degree, I believe he was responsible for the personal rejection of Operation Northwoods.

Scorpion89 said:
I suggest you might want to go and read "The Secret History of the CIA' By Joseph J. Trento you ight find that allot of the items that Wolf talks about aren't exactly on the level.
Click to expand...

I haven't read Wolf's work except for that article. I just linked to that summary because it was a readily available source.

Scorpion89 said:
Also one other item to point out of those 1521 pages that the JFK assassination records review board released over 1/3 of them where black out and most of them were not even close to be in order most of them came from various parts of the records.
Click to expand...

Is any of that actually relevant to Operation Northwoods? Was any of the information about Operation Northwoods compromised or expunged from the record that was received?

Apocalypse said:
Again you are wrong in calling this an 'assertion'.
This isn't my opinion or anything, but rather, a pure and simple fact about Democracy.
This intelligence agency is ruled by the government.
During the elections in America, the people elect their representing candidate.
Through the value of the "Majority rule", the American people are represented by that elected candidate and his administration.
If we add the fact that the CIA is government controlled, we get to the simple fact that every 16 years old had learned about Democracy in high-school, that a Democratic government represents the people, and that the CIA is ruled by that democratic government, hence, represented by the people.

You took this argument into irrelevant places with your "But only some individuals are aware of the agency's actions".
That doesn't matter, it's government controlled.
The people who make the actions are the people who represent the American people.
Click to expand...

This is a very primitive and simplistic assessment. It's a more accurate reality to note that top intelligence and military agencies are not subject to popular control, and the issue of specific operational strategies and tactics of heads of state are typically not issues considered during the campaign process, thus creating further detachment from public control. That's aside from the detachment from direct democratic control that centralized state government and republicanism generates anyway. Until you can address these issues, merely repeating that the CIA or any other similar agency is controlled by the government, which is in turn "controlled by the people," is irrelevant.
 
Agnapostate said:
I'm aware that Eisenhower had already initiated the planning of the campaign against Cuba to the extent that the Bay of Pigs invasion was already planned to a large extent. However, though Kennedy encouraged some of this planning to some degree, I believe he was responsible for the personal rejection of Operation Northwoods.



I haven't read Wolf's work except for that article. I just linked to that summary because it was a readily available source.



Is any of that actually relevant to Operation Northwoods? Was any of the information about Operation Northwoods compromised or expunged from the record that was received?



This is a very primitive and simplistic assessment. It's a more accurate reality to note that top intelligence and military agencies are not subject to popular control, and the issue of specific operational strategies and tactics of heads of state are typically not issues considered during the campaign process, thus creating further detachment from public control. That's aside from the detachment from direct democratic control that centralized state government and republicanism generates anyway. Until you can address these issues, merely repeating that the CIA or any other similar agency is controlled by the government, which is in turn "controlled by the people," is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Um CIA Agents are citizens of the U.S. as well and thus have a vested interest in the continuance of liberty.
 
Agnapostate said:
This is a very primitive and simplistic assessment. It's a more accurate reality to note that top intelligence and military agencies are not subject to popular control, and the issue of specific operational strategies and tactics of heads of state are typically not issues considered during the campaign process, thus creating further detachment from public control. That's aside from the detachment from direct democratic control that centralized state government and republicanism generates anyway. Until you can address these issues, merely repeating that the CIA or any other similar agency is controlled by the government, which is in turn "controlled by the people," is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Again you resort to terms such as popular control and direct democracy.

Popular control has not much to do with it, because I'm not speaking about the people's backing of the CIA, and rather on the CIA representing the People whether they agree with this agency's actions or not.

Direct Democracy has not much to do with modern-age America, and with most of the Western world.
Direct democracy is the term used to refer to the direct rule of the state by the people.
For example, in ancient Greece the citizens were gathered in the Colosseum and were asked by the authorities how should the nation act.
The Citizens would then stamp their foots on the ground if their answer is Yes, and that's how the citizens directly ruled the state.
The only form of direct democracy that exists today is referendum, which is used mostly in Switzerland.

Now back to the topic, the CIA is currently ruled by the government, that we can both agree on I assume, and if it is directly controlled by the government of America, that is indirectly controlled by the People of America through the forms of elections and the majority rule, then it is not a sin to assume that the CIA is indeed indirectly controlled by the People of America.

I do not see why do you feel obligated to argue on a subject you show no knowledge of, but at least you're learning new things. ;)
 
Last edited:
Agent Ferris said:
Um CIA Agents are citizens of the U.S. as well and thus have a vested interest in the continuance of liberty.
Click to expand...

Would the anti-democratic actions in which elements of the CIA have participated in be examples of that? :rofl

Apocalypse said:
Now back to the topic, the CIA is currently ruled by the government, that we can both agree on I assume, and if it is directly controlled by the government of America, that is indirectly controlled by the People of America through the forms of elections and the majority rule, then it is not a sin to assume that the CIA is indeed indirectly controlled by the People of America.
Click to expand...

Again, you engage in mere repetition. I see I'm going to have to educate you as to argument format, unfortunately. You state Point A. I rebut Point A. At that point, you don't merely repeat Point A; you issue a response to my rebuttal of Point A. That's unfortunately not been the format you've chosen to follow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom