Iran Military Forum







Author Topic: Psychological warfare against Iran  (Read 1494 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Catsoo

  • Global Moderator
  • سرهنگ دوم
  • *
  • Posts: 5576
  • Respect: +319
Psychological warfare against Iran
« on: November 29, 2011, 05:09:42 PM »
0
With an increasing psychological warfare against Iran, a dedicated thread is long overdue to discuss this phase of tension between Iran
and Zionists/US/NATO countries. It is more clear now why there was fabricated terrorism case against Iran. It was to unleash massive
sanctions w/o any questions from the International community. Banking on this International silence further, assassinations and terrorist acts against
Iran will only be increased as planned!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Saboteurs flying under Iran radar

By Mahan Abedin

As Western nations impose yet more sanctions on Iran in the wake of the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report, the psychological warfare between the two sides continues to escalate.

This psychological warfare has two dimensions; one visible and rhetorical and conducted through official and unofficial media and the other secret and centered on sabotage. In so far as the former is concerned Iran has risen to the challenge by superseding tough American and Israeli rhetoric with even tougher rhetoric.

However, it is on the sabotage front - where Iran appears to be under attack from several directions - that the Islamic Republic is raising eyebrows even amongst its hardcore supporters by

 
displaying remarkable tolerance in the face of intolerable provocations.

More broadly, the Iranians are not paying sufficient attention to the long-term consequences of military confrontation with the United States and her allies.

While Iranian leaders and commentators readily recognize the ultimate aim of the United States as the destruction of the revolutionary Islamic government in Tehran, they haven't given sufficient thought to the probability of this outcome being attained in a longer time frame (by American standards) with a limited military assault on Iran designed to direct all relevant political, economic and strategic variables toward that trajectory.

Tehrani-Moghadam: latest victim of sabotage?
The explosion at the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps' (IRGC) Al-Ghadir base in Bigdaneh (near Tehran) on November 12 which killed the architect of Iran's ballistic missile programme has added fuel to widespread suspicions that Iran is under concerted sabotage attacks by Western and Israeli special forces and intelligence services.

Even though the Iranian government was quick to rule out sabotage and insisted the explosions were an accident, the steady leaking of Brigadier General Hassan Tehrani-Moghaddam's hugely sensitive role in developing Iran's ballistic missile programme, lends credence to the theory that the country's enemies had a hand in the "accident" that killed at least 16 other IRGC personnel.

Reports on Iranian media - directly attributed to members of Tehrani-Moghaddam's family or senior IRGC commanders - have speculated widely on the context and cause of the "accident", with some reports suggesting that the pioneering IRGC commander was supervising the testing of an inter-continental ballistic missile, while others suggest he was testing a new ballistic surface to sea missile, presumably designed to attack American warships in the event of a war.

The explosion at the Al-Ghadir base - believed to be a depot for medium-range Shahab-3 ballistic missiles with a range of up to 2,000 kilometers - comes on the heel of the assassination of key Iranian scientists and a ferocious cyber warfare programme directed at Iran's uranium enrichment facilities and the wider nuclear establishment.

The Israeli government was quick to hint at possible involvement in the explosion with defense minister Ehud Barak cheerfully proclaiming "I don't know the extent of the explosion. But it would be desirable if they multiply".

Iran's enemies have a clear interest in staking a claim to these incidents with a view to sabotaging Iranian morale. For their part Iranian officials were quick to rule out an Israeli or American hand in the explosion in a concerted effort to calm widespread fears that the enemy could have attained such extensive access to the country's most sensitive military programs.

Mischievous Israeli posturing notwithstanding, there is no evidence or credible information at this stage to suggest that the explosion at the Al-Ghadir base was anything but an accident caused by an important experiment involving ballistic missiles and high explosives.

But assuming the explosion was the result of sabotage, senior Iranian officials have two overriding reasons to insist on an accidental cause. In the very short term an admission that sabotage is the cause runs the risk of inflaming Iranian public opinion with the resulting overwhelming demand for immediate retaliation. For various reasons - not least the desire to avoid escalation - Iranian leaders are not overly keen to respond to Israeli and American provocations which they view as a trap.

At a deeper level, this remarkable forbearance in the face of seemingly intolerable provocations is the result of Iranian leaders' strategic calculus. Iran's leaders long ago concluded that enormous pressures - including sabotage operations - would be directed against the country to coerce the leadership to discontinue the nuclear programme. By refusing to retaliate against the country's enemies, Iranian leaders are sending yet another signal that they are committed to staying on the same strategic trajectory regardless of the costs.

Psychological warfare vs real warfare
On the psychological warfare front Iranian leaders and senior IRGC commanders have risen to the challenge and thrown down the gauntlet at the United States.

The leader of the Islamic Revolution dramatically raised the stakes earlier in the month when he warned potential aggressors that any military attack on Iran would be met with "iron fists".

This was followed by harsh warnings by the commander of the Basij paramilitary force, Mohammad-Reza Naghdi, who proclaimed on the eve of "Basij week" that the United States wouldn't be able to "withstand an Iranian attack".

Widely viewed as the most hardline personality at the higher reaches of the Islamic government, Naghdi is making speeches at cultural and commemorative events on practically a daily basis, a clear indication of the Iranian leaders' growing concern about the threat of military conflict with the United States.

In recent days senior IRGC commanders have ratcheted up the rhetoric even further. Commenting on Israeli threats to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, General Amir Ali Haji-Zadeh, commander of the IRGC's aerospace division, claimed that this is "a great wish on our part for them [Israelis] to undertake this action as that would release our unspent energies toward the direction of destroying the enemies of Islam and the Muslims once and for all".

Addressing the death of Tehrani-Moghaddam and the growing threat of American-led military action, the Iranian defense minister (and former IRGC commander) Ahmad Vahidi claimed that new anti-ship missiles would be delivered to Iranian forces in the coming days.

The regular Iranian military also weighed in on the defensive capacity-building rhetoric, with the commander of the Khattam-ol-Anbia air defense center, Brigadier-General Farzad Esmaili, vowing to turn Iranian airspace into an "inferno" for invading enemy warplanes.

In keeping with the Islamic Republic's conceptualization of the Arab revolutions as an "Islamic Awakening", the deputy chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces (and former IRGC commander) Major-General Mostafa Izadi, claimed that the regionwide political changes were the product of "Basiji" thinking.

Addressing a commemorative event during "Basij week", Izadi emphasized the growing role of cyber warfare and claimed that the Islamic Republic's "combatants" are fighting the enemy on Israel's borders.

Most recently Hamid Reza Moghadam-Far, the head of the IRGC's socio-cultural programs and the former managing director of the semi-official Fars news agency, told the same media outlet (which is close to the IRGC), that the "enemies" cannot even effectively threaten Iran anymore "because they know that any threat will be met by an even greater threat ... and that any military assault will result in their [the enemies] destruction".

In combination, this type of deadly serious rhetoric is probably effective in complicating American planning, if not deterring an imminent attack altogether. Furthermore, while the scenarios set out by senior IRGC commanders are plausible, little regard is given to potential US responses to ferocious Iranian resistance.

In fact, in their public rhetoric at least, IRGC commanders appear to be unperturbed by the long-term political and strategic consequences of a military clash with the world's sole superpower.

The only serious effort at tacking these difficult issues in the public domain is an extended essay by Amir Mohebian, former political editor at the conservative Resalat newspaper, and arguably the country's most clear-sighted and shrewd political analyst. Unusually the essay is published on the official website of Ayatollah Khamenei, thus giving added weight to its contents. [1]

Mohebian divides the US military threat into three potential scenarios; 1) a full-scale air and ground campaign designed to capture Tehran and overthrow the Islamic Republic; 2) a limited war designed to achieve specific political objectives, namely to force Iran to the negotiating table; 3) a smart war designed to cripple Iran's offensive capability, specifically Iran's ability to strike at Israel.

Mohebian rules out the first two scenarios largely on account of the nature of the Islamic Republic and the scale and quality of its supporters. Indeed, by all credible accounts a full-scale land campaign designed to occupy Iran runs the risk of either humiliating failure or an unprecedented human catastrophe.

In order to occupy Tehran and overthrow the Islamic Republic, the US armed forces would not only have to fight the regular Iranian armed forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (and its Basij paramilitary force), but they would also have to contend with millions of unaffiliated Islamic Republic loyalists, who are expected to mobilize and fight to the death.

In this scenario, the US armed forces are faced with the very real risk of defeat unless they contemplate the use of tactical nuclear weapons, which could potentially result in the deaths of millions of Iranians.

While Mohebian identifies the third scenario (smart warfare) as the most likely in a conflict situation, he downplays the likelihood of military conflict altogether and concludes that US sabre-rattling is ultimately reducible to psychological warfare designed foremost to weaken or remove Iran's trump cards in any future negotiations process.

Despite his trenchant analysis, Mohebian appears to underestimate US time lines, specifically the use of conflict by the US as the starting point of a very long-term strategy of weakening and ultimately altering Iran's strategic profile.

In conclusion, the confidence of Iranian leaders and analysts on the Islamic Republic's ability to withstand and benefit from what they see as an unlikely military conflict with the US is predicated upon their prioritizing of short-term political dividends (in terms of mass mobilization behind the Islamic Republic both nationally and regionally) over long-term strategic costs.

Note:
1. See here

Mahan Abedin is an analyst of Middle East politics.

(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MK30Ak01.html
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 08:14:43 AM by Pasdar »

Offline ichari

  • اش خور
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • 00
  • the deep heart of iran
  • Respect: 0

Offline Catsoo

  • Global Moderator
  • سرهنگ دوم
  • *
  • Posts: 5576
  • Respect: +319
Re: This thread dedicated to Psychological warfare against Iran
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2012, 06:12:50 PM »
0
Pay attention how specially Zionist news outlets are referring to Fordo underground enrichment facility as "Bunker".

Catsoo

Online aryana

  • سرگرد
  • *
  • Posts: 2895
  • ir
  • moores law driving force of innovation
  • Respect: +39
Re: This thread dedicated to Psychological warfare against Iran
« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2012, 06:13:47 PM »
0
Pay attention how specially Zionist news outlets are referring to Fordo underground enrichment facility as "Bunker".

Catsoo
well it is sort of bunker.
Iran Khodro largest auto maker in larger middle east

Offline Catsoo

  • Global Moderator
  • سرهنگ دوم
  • *
  • Posts: 5576
  • Respect: +319
Re: This thread dedicated to Psychological warfare against Iran
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2012, 07:39:13 PM »
0
Quote
well it is sort of bunker.

Ya, just as a any Palestinian or Iranian can be called a terrorist,or just as you can be called a member or a troll?

Take your pick!


catsoo

Offline Iranthebest

  • سرباز عادى
  • *
  • Posts: 212
  • ir
  • Long live Iran
  • Respect: +24
Re: This thread dedicated to Psychological warfare against Iran
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2012, 10:57:02 PM »
0
Pay attention how specially Zionist news outlets are referring to Fordo underground enrichment facility as "Bunker".

Catsoo
These western and jewish media are iran obsessed freaks. every hour there is something from Iran on their site

Offline Catsoo

  • Global Moderator
  • سرهنگ دوم
  • *
  • Posts: 5576
  • Respect: +319
NPR and PBS Anti-Iranian Propaganda
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2012, 02:22:09 AM »
0


NPR and PBS Anti-Iranian Propaganda

They both stoke fear through propaganda.

by Stephen Lendman

Both National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting serve corporate and imperial interests. They're called public to conceal their agenda.

Critics ridicule NPR as National Pentagon or Petroleum Radio for good reason. It's true as well for PBS. Calling it Propaganda Public Broadcasting more accurately explains its mandate.

Listeners and viewers lose out. Those supporting both monetarily are cheated. Each receives generous government and corporate funding. In return, they know what's expected and don't disappoint.

Founded in 1970 as an independent, private, non-profit member organization of US public radio stations, NPR promised to be an alternative to commercial broadcasters by "promot(ing) personal growth rather than corporate gain (and) speak with many voices, many dialects."

Those promises long ago were abandoned. NPR's indistinguishable from other corporate media sources. It's corrupted like the rest. Consider its former head, Kevin Klose, its current president emeritus.

He was president from December 1998 - September 2008, then CEO from 1998 - January 2009. Earlier he was US propaganda director as head of Voice of America (VOA), Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Worldnet Television, and the anti-Castro Radio/TV Marti. As a result, he fit seamlessly in his new role.

Corporate executive Gary Knell is current president and CEO. NPR's anti-populist tradition continues, disserving its 34 million listeners daily.

Created by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) calls itself "a private, nonprofit corporation created by Congress...and is the steward of the federal government's investment in public broadcasting."

    "It helps support the operations of more than 1,100 locally-owned and-operated public television and radio stations nationwide, and is the largest single source of funding for research, technology, and program development for public radio, television and related online services."

Like NPR, it's heavily corporate and government funded, and provides similar services in return. Under George Bush, former Voice of America director Kenneth Tomlinson was chairman of CPB's Board of Governors. He lasted until an internal 2005 investigation forced him out for malfeasance.

Bush appointee Patricia Harrison now heads the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. An insider like other PBS and NPR officials, she earlier co-chaired the Republican National Committee. In 2001, she served as Assistant Secretary of State for Education and Cultural Affairs under Colin Powell.

On January 17, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) headlined, "PBS, NPR Try to Defend Iran Distortions," saying:

Just Foreign Policy's Robert Naiman pointed fingers at both organizations for saying one thing, then doing another, as well as suppressing and distorting truth. It's standard media scoundrel policy.

On January 10, FAIR criticized PBS' NewsHour for deceptive Iran reporting. Anchor Margaret Warner began, saying:

She then quoted Panetta, saying:

"We know that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that's what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is, do not develop a nuclear weapon."

Panetta also explained precisely the opposite, saying:

"Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No."

PBS omitted it on air. Even ombudsman Michael Getler admitted:

    "I think FAIR makes a good journalistic catch in calling attention to the fuller quote by Panetta on CBS. It was a very brief and clear statement by the Defense Secretary on an important point about whether Iran is actually developing a nuclear weapon."

Also entirely omitted was the latest March 2011 US intelligence assessment. It clearly said no evidence reveals an Iranian nuclear weapons development program.

That news should have been highlighted. It was ignored. Incendiary rhetoric substituted. Viewers were deceived. PBS betrayed them. The NewsHour does it repeatedly on major issues. So does NPR.

    Panetta's omitted comment broke from the usual anti-Iranian propaganda. "That's precisely what made it newsworthy," said FAIR. "PBS seems to think its viewers should have to read between the lines in order to arrive at the accurate assessment about Iran's nuclear program they left on the cutting room floor."

    NewHour's foreign affairs and defense editor, Mike Mosettig agreed, saying:

    "It would have been better had we not lopped off the first part of Panetta's quote."

    Nonetheless, Getler believes it's "dishonest" to call PBS unfair, saying:

    NewsHour viewers and others following the issue "would draw from the portion of the Panetta quote (used) that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon but they are developing a "nuclear capability"....

In fact, no evidence proves it. Claiming it is deceptively false. At issue is maliciously vilifying Iran, stoking fear, and manipulating viewers to think war, if planned, is justified.

Moreover, ombudsman apologies don't cut it. Neither does Mosettig's. Firing the host and changing program policy's needed. Instead, one deceptive report follows another. The more viewers watch, the less they know. That's precisely the idea. Treat them like mushrooms - well-watered, in the dark, scared, and willing to support imperial crimes.

It's standard NPR policy as well. For example, reporter Tom Gjelten said "the goal for the US and its allies (is) to convince Iran to give up a nuclear weapons program."

Like Gjelten, NPR ombudsman Edward Schumacher-Matos twisted truth, saying:

    "The story didn't say or imply that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. As Bruce Auster, the senior editor for national security, notes, 'The story was about how the sanctions are designed to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapons program, which automatically suggests it may not have one.' "

False and Schumacher knows it.

Moreover, why are sanctions imposed, especially illegal ones targeting a nonbelligerent nation pursuing a commercial nuclear program like dozens of other countries in Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Africa? In addition, Middle East nations Egypt and the United Arab Emirates plan their own.

FAIR said the following:

    "Does NPR really think that the best way to inform its listeners is to assume that when people hear a report about forcing Iran to 'give up a nuclear weapons program,' (they'll automatically) fill in the blanks (and) arrive at an entirely different (conclusion)."

    "That every time you hear something about Iran's 'nuclear weapons program,' (it's) code for 'the-nuclear-weapons-program-that-may not exist-since-there-is-no-evidence" proving it?

    "For good measure," added FAIR, "the ombud throws in another defense (saying) the 'quote carefully refers to 'a' program - using the indefinite article - and not the definite 'its' or 'the' program.' "

In other words, NPR listeners should be astute enough to know the word "a" refers to a possible non-existing program. They should also know NPR obfuscates, deceives, lies, and represents the same government and corporate interests as other major media scoundrels.

Ergo, they should tune out and choose other sources for real news and information. The same goes for PBS. Both function as propaganda services. Their mandate is suppressing truth and full disclosure. In the process, they disgrace themselves.

Analysis of PBS NewsHour Guests

In October 2010, FAIR published a report titled, "Taking the Public Out of Public TV," saying:

    PBS' NewsHour "fail(s) to live up to its mission to provide an alternative to commercial television, to give voice to those 'who would otherwise go unheard,' and help viewers to 'see America whole, in all its diversity..."

In fact, NewsHour's guests are 80% male and 82% white. Moreover, government, military, corporate, and other elites are regularly featured. Since 2006, women of color decreased by a third to 4% of sources used.

In fact, women and people of color most often appear through "people on the street" soundbites, not authoritative analysts or spokespeople interviewed live.

"Viewers were five times as likely to see guests representing corporations (than) public interest groups," including labor, consumers and environmental organizations.

Democrats outnumbered Republicans, but latter ones dominated longer format segments. Of course, both parties represent America's duopoly, depriving voters of alternatives.

During the 2010 Mexico Gulf oil spill disaster, industry representatives outnumbered environmental ones over four to one.

On Afghan war segments, anti-war and human rights activists were excluded.

FAIR explained that Liberty Media Corporation owns "a controlling stake in the NewsHour since 1994. CEO John Malone said "nobody wants to go out and invent something and invest hundreds of millions of dollars of risk capital for the public interest."

Yet viewers donate "public dollars." Moreover, former PBS president Ervin Duggan declared NewsHour "ours and ours alone."

So-called "Public Broadcasting" very much is commercial. It also sold its Nightly Business Report to a private company and has various corporate sponsors. So does NPR.

Analysis of NPR Guests

In mid-2004, FAIR published a report titled, "How Public Is Public Radio?" saying:

Four news programs were studied - All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Weekend Edition Saturday, and its counterpart Sunday program.

In June 2003, "every on-air source quoted" was recorded. "Each source was classified by occupation, gender, nationality and partisan affiliation. In total, 2,334 sources were reviewed in 804 stories.

FAIR also examined NPR's most frequently used think tanks and commentators. Those appearing on the same programs from May through August 2003 were included.

Elites "dominated NPR's guest-list." Those from government, business, and similar professional categories accounted for nearly two-thirds on air.

Current and former government officials comprised the largest group, including current and former military ones. MSM journalists were also featured from The New York Times, Washington Post and similar sources.

Populist voices were heard but marginalized. Like PBS, most often they appeared in soundbite "people on the street" appearances.

Moreover, public interest group spokespeople appeared only 7% of the time. They ranged from conservative to liberal. Most often, they appeared in "domestic policy stories." Workers and organized labor were almost entirely shut out. Corporate representatives appeared "23 times more often."

In addition, women were "dramatically underrepresented," especially as experts.

Accusations about NPR's alleged liberal bias are baseless. FAIR's study proved it.

    "For a public radio service intended to provide an independent alternative to corporate-owned and commercially driven mainstream media," NPR struck out. So did PBS. They still do.

Tune them out and go elsewhere for real news, information, and analysis.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Email address removed .

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/ .

 
I was born in 1934, am a retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/NPR-and-PBS-Anti-Iranian-P-by-Stephen-Lendman-120123-962.html?show=votes

Offline Rakhsh786

  • استوار دوم
  • *
  • Posts: 1682
  • ir
  • Respect: +124
-1
How can US analysts have the nerve to rehash this tired old propagandistic mantra, when Rodham-Clinton publicly confessed Washington's long-time support for Al-Qaida / Taliban? How can such theories even be taken seriously by the US public, when the "Saddam-had-ties-to-al-Qaida" scam is still fresh in everyone's memories?

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137061/seth-g-jones/al-qaeda-in-iran

Offline Catsoo

  • Global Moderator
  • سرهنگ دوم
  • *
  • Posts: 5576
  • Respect: +319
This thread dedicated to Psychological warfare against Iran
« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2012, 06:44:30 PM »
0
Iran poses threat to Israel

By William Kazyak


Published: Monday, January 30, 2012

Updated: Monday, January 30, 2012 13:01

Last Thursday, I attended a meeting of a recently formed campus chapter of Christians United For Israel (CUFI), a group of individuals from across the U.S. who have pledged to do their best to make politicians in Washington stand behind Israel, one of our greatest allies.

The evening was an eye-opener, in many respects. 

The guest speaker was retired Colonel John Somerville, a 30-year Marine veteran who made over 60 trips to the Middle East during his career.

He made a very strong case for the need to support Israel.

Somerville spoke at length about the threats to Israel, using historic precedent and current events to validate his claims.

One of the most striking pieces of evidence was the fact that Iran was not called Iran until the year 1935. This was the period of time when Adolf Hitler was making his meteoric rise to power in Germany, as well as laying his plans of Aryan supremacy and Jewish extermination. 

The real surprise lay in the name "Iran," which means "land of the Aryans."

Understanding this history is important for those watching the news recently, for it is becoming clear that Iran seeks uranium enrichment.

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has also made incendiary vows to exterminate the Israelis.

These aspects of Iran bear a frightening resemblance to the saber-rattling and inflammatory rhetoric coming out of Germany during the 1930s. 

So, with all this historical precedent seemingly being repeated, one would think that our leaders in Washington, who are supposed to be some of the smartest men and women in America, would be trying to stop this, right? Wrong.

President Obama has refused to state in any conclusive manner how he is going to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and obliterating Israel, even though he has said he will not allow Iran to go nuclear. 

The strongest statement against Iran came from Obama's defense secretary, Leon Panetta, who said, "I think they need to know that — that if they take that step — that they're going to get stopped."

It took two years for anyone in the Obama administration to say anything that decisive about the Iranian nuclear threat. 

So what can we as college students do about major world events like this if our leaders can't even seem to handle it?

Should we even worry at all, as if we didn't have enough to worry about already?

The answer to this question is yes; we absolutely need to be concerned about it. 

College is only temporary. Eventually we will be living in the "outside" world, and we need to do our part to influence it for the better. 

While individually, we may be hardly noticeable, banding together into organizations like CUFI will make us much more noticeable.

This will send a message to our leaders to stand with our allies, which will in turn tell Iran (and other enemies) to avoid making serious threats.

George Santayana once said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

It is time to look back at WWII and recall the lessons of that war, or we may soon find ourselves in another deadly conflict with a far more merciless enemy.


Kazyak is a freshman music major of Manila.

http://www.asuherald.com/opinion/iran-poses-threat-to-israel-1.2692029

Online aryana

  • سرگرد
  • *
  • Posts: 2895
  • ir
  • moores law driving force of innovation
  • Respect: +39
Re: This thread dedicated to Psychological warfare against Iran
« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2012, 06:56:48 PM »
0
Ya, just as a any Palestinian or Iranian can be called a terrorist,or just as you can be called a member or a troll?

Take your pick!


catsoo
is it time of the month.?

Offline Catsoo

  • Global Moderator
  • سرهنگ دوم
  • *
  • Posts: 5576
  • Respect: +319
This thread dedicated to Psychological warfare against Iran
« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2012, 10:06:26 PM »
0
Quote
is it time of the month.?

Well, you are about 21 days behind in your response! As for the time of the month, do you mean you have your PMS now?

Frankly I don't care to know!


Catsoo

Online aryana

  • سرگرد
  • *
  • Posts: 2895
  • ir
  • moores law driving force of innovation
  • Respect: +39
Re: This thread dedicated to Psychological warfare against Iran
« Reply #11 on: January 31, 2012, 01:46:04 AM »
+1
so sorry for your pms use always.
my girlfriend says they are good.

Online rouz

  • گروهبان سوم
  • *
  • Posts: 1036
  • zw
  • Respect: +477
Re: This thread dedicated to Psychological warfare against Iran
« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2012, 09:25:02 AM »
0
so sorry for your pms use always.
my girlfriend says they are good.

I don't think it means what you think it means...

Also, lol, your girl friend. Right.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 09:27:25 AM by rouz »

Offline Apollyon

  • گروهبان سوم
  • *
  • Posts: 966
  • al
  • animu mango
  • Respect: +53
Re: This thread dedicated to Psychological warfare against Iran
« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2012, 10:51:37 AM »
0
so sorry for your pms use always.
my girlfriend says they are good.

this made me lol so hard i almost woke up my room mate.
"The sword is victorious over money, the master-will subdues again the plunderer-will. . . A power can be overthrown only by another power, not by a principle, and only one power that can confront money is left. Money is overthrown and abolished by blood. Life is alpha and omega . . . It is the fact of facts within the world-as-history."

- Oswald Spengler

Offline Catsoo

  • Global Moderator
  • سرهنگ دوم
  • *
  • Posts: 5576
  • Respect: +319
Psychological warfare against Iran
« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2012, 05:18:13 PM »
0
U.S. Intel: Iran Willing to Attack on American Soil

National Intelligence director points to an alleged assassination plot as proof.

By Abby Ohlheiser | Posted Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2012, at 12:08 PM ET

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testifies before the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday

Photo by Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images.

American intelligence officials believe that Iran might be willing to conduct attacks inside the U.S. That was the big takeaway from the prepared testimony Director of National Intelligence James Clapper delivered to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday.

The Washington Post explains that the concerns arose after the alleged plot by the Islamic Republic to assassinate the Saudi ambassador while he was in Washington came to light last year. According to Clapper, that incident "shows that some Iranian officials — probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime."

Clapper added: "We are also concerned about Iranian plotting against U.S. or allied interests overseas."

As the Post explains, up until now, the U.S. had been cautious about publicly stating exactly how high up they thought the alleged plot went in the Iranian government. Clapper's testimony was the first time that Khamenei has been mentioned by name in connection to the alleged plot.

Iran was of chief concern at the annual assessment of threats to U.S. security. Tensions have risen between the two countries in recent months, as Iran faces oil sanctions from the West, and the West contends with the possibility of Iran possessing technology to build a nuclear weapon.

Also discussed as a major threat were increased spying capabilities -- including of the cyber variety -- of China, Russia, and Iran, Reuters notes.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/31/national_intelligence_director_james_clapper_iran_might_attack_in_u_s_.html

Offline Catsoo

  • Global Moderator
  • سرهنگ دوم
  • *
  • Posts: 5576
  • Respect: +319
Psychological warfare against Iran
« Reply #15 on: February 01, 2012, 02:34:15 PM »
0
New York Times Hypes Israeli Attack On Iran

Posted: 01/29/2012 8:08 pm


It's an impressive piece of art: the cover of this week's New York Times Magazine. "ISRAEL VS. IRAN," spelled out in charred black lettering, with flame and smoke still rising from "IRAN," as if the great war were already over. Below those large lurid letters is the little subtitle: "When Will It Erupt?" -- not "if," but "when," as if it were inevitable. Though the article itself is titled "Will Israel Attack Iran?", author Ronen Bergman, military analyst for Israel's largest newspaper, leaves no doubt of his answer: "Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012."

Bergman does cite some compelling arguments against an Israeli strike from former heads of Mossad (Israel's CIA). And he makes it clear that no attack can prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons if it wants them. Everyone agrees on that. The argument is only about whether an attack would delay the Iranian program by a few years or just a few months.

Nevertheless, his article stacks the deck in favor of supposedly persuasive reasons for Israel to act. It's almost a hymn of praise to what one Jewish Israeli scholar has called Iranophobia, an irrational fear promoted by the Jewish state because "Israel needs an existential threat." Why? To sustain the myth that shapes its national identity: the myth of Israel's insecurity.

That myth comes out clearly in Bergman's conclusion: Israel will attack Iran because of a "peculiar Israeli mixture of fear -- rooted in the sense that Israel is dependent on the tacit support of other nations to survive -- and tenacity, the fierce conviction, right or wrong, that only the Israelis can ultimately defend themselves."

Fear of what? Defend against whom? It doesn't really matter. Israeli political life has always been built on the premise that Israel's very existence is threatened by some new Hitler bent on destroying the Jewish people. How can Israel prove that Jews can defend themselves if there's no anti-semitic "evil-doer" to fight against?

So here is Israel's defense minister, Ehud Barak, talking to Bergman about Iran's "desire to destroy Israel." Proof? Who needs it? It's taken for granted.

In fact, in accurate translations of anti-Israel diatribes from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, there's no mention of destroying or even harming Jews, nor any threat of war. There's only a clear call for a one-state solution: replacing a distinctly Jewish state, which privileges its Jewish citizens and imposes military occupation on Palestinians, with a single political entity from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

Guess who else called for exactly the same resolution to the conflict: the most renowned Jewish thinker of the 20th century, Martin Buber. Plenty of Jews keep Buber's vision alive today, offering cogent (though debatable) arguments that a one-state solution would be in the best interests of Jews as well as Palestinians.

Yet Ronen Bergman and the editors of the New York Times Magazine see no need for their readers to encounter these facts.

Nor do they see any need to mention the most important fact of all, the one most flagrantly missing from Bergman's long article: No matter what Iran's leaders might desire, it's beyond belief that they would ever launch a single nuke against Israel. They know full well that it would be national suicide. Israel has at least 100 nukes, and 200 or more by many estimates, all ready to be used in a counterattack.

Which makes it hard not to laugh when Bergman reports Ehud Barak's other arguments for attacking Iran. Even if Iran doesn't intend to kill all the Jews, "the moment Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the region will feel compelled to do the same." That's the foolish "stop a Middle East nuclear arms race" argument we hear so often coming out of Washington, too -- as if Israel had not already started the Middle East nuclear arms race decades ago.

And how can a supposedly serious journalist like Bergman solemnly repeat the latest popular argument of the Iranophobes: A nuclear-armed Iran (in Barak's words) "offers an entirely different kind of protection to its proxies," Hezbollah and Hamas. That "would definitely restrict our range of operations" in any war against those so-called "proxies."

As if Iran would even consider committing national suicide to serve the interests of any Lebanese or Palestinian factions.

Yet the myth of "poor little Israel, surrounded by fanatic enemies bent on destroying it" is so pervasive here in the U.S., most readers might easily take this Iranophobic article at face value, forgetting the absurd premises underlying all arguments that Israel "must" attack Iran.

What American readers think is key here. Most Israelis do believe that (as Bergman puts it) Israel needs "the support of other nations to survive." It's a crucial piece of their myth of insecurity. And the only nation that really supports them any more is the U.S. So Israel won't attack Iran without a green light from Washington.

Bergman glibly asserts that there's some "unspoken understanding that America should agree, at least tacitly, to Israeli military actions." For years, though, a torrent of reports from Washington have all agreed that both the White House and the Pentagon, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, would refuse to support an Israeli attack on Iran. The consequences for the U.S. are too drastic to even consider it. Why should that change now?

Bergman's article ignores the obvious answer, the most crucial missing piece in his picture: Barack Obama wants to get re-elected nine months from now. Despite what the headlines tell us, he doesn't really have to worry about pleasing hawkish Jewish opinion. Most American Jews want him to work harder for peaceful settlements in the Middle East.

What Obama does have to worry about is Republicans using words like these (which Bergman tucks into his article as if he were paid by the GOP): "The Obama administration has abandoned any aggressive strategy that would ensure the prevention of a nuclear Iran and is merely playing a game of words to appease them." Only a dyed-in-the-wool Iranophobe would believe the charge that Obama is an "appeaser." But we are already hearing it from his would-be opponents.

Obama also has to worry about fantasies like the one Bergman offers (apparently in all seriousness) of Iranian operatives smuggling nukes into Texas. Republicans will happily spread that story, too.

All of this could be laughed off as absurdity if the American conversation about Israel were based on reality. Israel, the Middle East's only nuclear power now and for the foreseeable future, is perfectly safe from Iranian attack. Indeed, Israel is safe from any attack, as the strength of its (largely U.S.-funded) military and the history of its war success proves.

But as long as the myth of Israel's insecurity pervades American political life, an incumbent desperate to get re-elected just might feel forced to let the Israelis attack Iran. The only thing that would stand in the way is a better informed American electorate. Apparently that's not what the New York Times Magazine sees as its mission.

Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Read more of his writing on Israel, Palestine, and the U.S. on his blog.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-chernus/israel-iran-attack_b_1240510.html?ref=media

Offline Firoz Ali

  • گروهبان
  • *
  • Posts: 1460
  • Respect: +53
0
http://www.infowars.com/massive-u-s-military-buildup-reported-around-iran-up-to-100000-troops-ready-by-march/

Massive U.S. Military Buildup Reported Around Iran; Up to 100,000 Troops Ready By March

Mac Slavo
SHTFPlan
January 31, 2012

While President Obama’s supporters hailed his withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as the end of the war in the middle east, behind the scenes the Pentagon has been quietly massing troops and armaments on two islands located just south of the Strait of Hormuz, and within easy striking distance of Iran.


In addition to some 50,000 U.S. troops currently in the region waiting for orders (apparently they won’t be home by this past Christmas as was originally promised), Nobel Peace Prize winner President Barack Obama is deploying an additional 50,000 soldiers to be ready for ‘any contingency’ by March:

President Barack Obama is reported exclusively by DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military and Washington sources to have secretly ordered US air, naval and marine forces to build up heavy concentrations on two strategic islands –Socotra, which is part of a Yemeni archipelago in the Indian Ocean, and the Omani island of Masirah at the southern exit of the Strait of Hormuz.

Since 2010, the US has been quietly building giant air force and naval bases on Socotra with facilities for submarines, intelligence command centers and take-off pads for flying stealth drones, as part of a linked chain of strategic US military facilities in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf.

The Socotra facilities are so secret that they are never mentioned in any catalogue listing US military facilities in this part of the world, which include Jebel Ali and Al Dahfra in the United Arab Emirates; Arifjan in Kuwait; and Al Udeid in Qatar – all within short flying distances from Iran.

Additional US forces are also being poured into Camp Justice on the barren, 70-kilometer long Omani island of Masirah, just south of the Hormuz entry point to the Gulf of Oman from the Arabian Sea.



Western military sources familiar with the American buildup on the two strategic islands tell DEBKA-Net-Weekly that, although they cannot cite precise figures, they are witnessing the heaviest American concentration of might in the region since the US invaded Iraq in 2003.

Then, 100,000 American troops were massed in Kuwait ahead of the invasion. Today, those sources estimate from the current pace of arrivals on the two island bases, that 50,000 US troops will have accumulated on Socotra and Masirah by mid-February. They will top up the 50,000 military already present in the Persian Gulf region, so that in less than a month, Washington will have some 100,000 military personnel on the spot and available for any contingency.

US air transports are described as making almost daily landings on Socotra and Masirah. They fly in from the US naval base of Diego Garcia, one of America’s biggest military facilities, just over 3,000 kilometers away. The US military presence in the region will further expand in the first week of March when three US aircraft carriers and their strike groups plus a French carrier arrive in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea: They are theUSS Abraham Lincoln, USS Carl Vinson, USS Enterprise and the Charles de Gaulle nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

A fourth US carrier will be standing by in the Pacific Ocean, a few days’ sailing time from the water off Iran’s coast.

Source: Debka

Still holding out hope that we won’t go to war with Iran?

There’s already reason enough for the powers-to-be to invade Iran based on the accusations that they are in the process of manufacturing nuclear weapons. Whether true or not makes no difference, as we saw with weapons of mass destruction that have yet to be found in Iraq.

Similarly, like Saddam Hussein before them, Iran’s leadership is attempting to trade their oil without going through the proper channels – in essence attempting to bypass the United States and Europe by striking deals with China, India, and Russia that will not require the exchange of oil for US dollars, but rather, Yuan, Rupees and Gold.

It may very well be that nuclear weapons, like WMD in Iraq, are simply the pretext, rather than the real reason, that will be used to crush those who oppose the financiers, politicians and influencers behind the new world order paradigm.

Make no mistake: this is serious business. They will kill as many as is needed (on our side and theirs) in order to push the agenda forward.

This is what happens when you mess with the men behind the curtains:

*Warning Graphic Video*
The complete execution of Saddam Hussein اعادم صدام حسين Small | Large

Offline farbod

  • سرجوخه
  • *
  • Posts: 706
  • en
  • Respect: +117
100,000? lol try 12 million baji forces waiting for them.

Offline Pasdar

  • Administrator
  • سرهنگ
  • *
  • Posts: 7381
  • ir
  • Defender of Justice
  • Respect: +108
What kind of bogus debka nonsense is this? Ths US would have to be very retarded to station troops on some island in the Persian Gulf. There will be no place to escape for them once the missiles come in.

That site is very amateur.

Offline Aspahbod

  • سرباز یكم
  • *
  • Posts: 584
  • ir
  • Respect: +38
What kind of bogus debka nonsense is this? Ths US would have to be very retarded to station troops on some island in the Persian Gulf. There will be no place to escape for them once the missiles come in.

That site is very amateur.

I correct your statement: This site is a very big liar.

Offline Bolbol

  • گروهبان دوم
  • *
  • Posts: 1251
  • ir
  • فقط ولایت فقیه
  • Respect: +86
Infowars is beyond silly. It publishes a lot of documentaries which on the one hand seem reasonable, yet have a paranoid "illuminati" edge to them.


Offline Catsoo

  • Global Moderator
  • سرهنگ دوم
  • *
  • Posts: 5576
  • Respect: +319
0
Propaganda, Miss-information, Dis-information! This sort of pressure tactic is to get much worse.

Be careful as to what you read, hear and watch these days about Iran!


Catsoo

Offline Catsoo

  • Global Moderator
  • سرهنگ دوم
  • *
  • Posts: 5576
  • Respect: +319
Psychological warfare against Iran
« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2012, 09:00:39 PM »
0
ABC's Iran Propaganda: Alarmist Reporting on 'Terrorist' Threat

Thursday, 02 February 2012 15:35


WASHINGTON--(ENEWSPF)--February 2 - The January 31 ABC World News broadcast featured a blatantly propagandistic report on the supposed threat from Iran.

The newscast focused on that day's Senate testimony by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who told lawmakers that the U.S. intelligence community believes that Iran may be "now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime."

"America's top spy warns that Iran is willing to launch a terrorist strike inside the U.S." announced anchor Diane Sawyer at the top of the program. "We'll tell you his evidence." The ABC report was actually very light on evidence. It did, however, pass along numerous incendiary allegations from government officials--without the skeptical scrutiny that is real journalism's primary function.

Echoing the government, Sawyer set up the report with an assertion that Iran is "more determined than ever to launch an attack on U.S. soil." Correspondent Martha Raddatz, claiming that the "the saber-rattling coming from Iran has been constant," told viewers that Clapper delivered "a new bracing warning.... Iran may be more ready than ever to launch terror attacks inside the United States."

In its effort to substantiate Clapper's strong claim, ABC could only provide the most dubious evidence. As Raddatz announced:

Story continues below:

Like what we're doing here? SUBSCRIBE!

eNews Park Forest is an independently owned and operated electronic publication and has no affiliation whatsoever with the governing bodies of the Village of Park Forest.
He pointed specifically to last year's plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States and to reports that Iran has been supporting Hezbollah cells in Latin America.

From the beginning, there have been serious questions about the Saudi ambassador assassination plot (IPS, 10/17/11, FAIR Blog, 10/12/11). As University of Michigan Iran expert Juan Cole (Informed Comment, 10/12/11) pointed out, the claim that the Iranian government tried to hire a Mexican drug gang to kill a diplomat "makes no sense." The Wall Street Journal (2/1/12) quoted Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace saying, "If that's the only data point, I think it's a stretch to conclude that the regime is now looking to commit acts of terror on U.S. soil." But in ABC's report, it's unquestioned fact.

The idea that Hezbollah has active cells in Latin America has been challenged as well--as PolitiFact noted (11/22/11), the State Department determined there are no such groups in our hemisphere.

How any of that might be connected to Iran is unclear, but ABC did its part by running footage of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visiting politicians the United States does not support: "Ahmadinejad recently traveled there, meeting leaders like Cesar Chavez of Venezuela and Fidel Castro who have little love from the U.S."

ABC also illustrated the supposed Iranian threat with stock footage of weaponry and soldiers from an Iranian military parade--suggesting without spelling it out that viewers ought to feel threatened by a military force roughly 1/40th the size of the United States' armed forces.

It's important to remember that U.S. officials have regularly threatened that "no options" are "off the table" in dealing with Iran. That is code for using nuclear weapons--and Barack Obama's repetition of that apocalyptic threat got a standing ovation during his January 24 State of the Union address (The Hill, 1/24/12).

It is hard to argue honestly that the real escalation is coming from the Iranian side. But that's why they invented propaganda.

ACTION: Tell ABC that its January 31 report on Iran failed to challenge official claims about the supposed threat from Iran. At a time of heightened tension, journalists should act to question official rhetoric--not generate propaganda.

CONTACT:
ABC World News with Diane Sawyer
Phone: (212) 456-4040

Email: abc.worldnews@abc.com" title="" rel="nofollow">abc.worldnews@abc.com


http://www.enewspf.com/opinion/30600-abcs-iran-propaganda-alarmist-reporting-on-terrorist-threat.html

Offline Catsoo

  • Global Moderator
  • سرهنگ دوم
  • *
  • Posts: 5576
  • Respect: +319
Psychological warfare against Iran
« Reply #23 on: February 06, 2012, 08:48:21 PM »
0

Offline Catsoo

  • Global Moderator
  • سرهنگ دوم
  • *
  • Posts: 5576
  • Respect: +319
If Israel strikes Iran, Pakistan will retaliate, says European diplomat
« Reply #24 on: February 07, 2012, 05:05:18 AM »
0

If Israel strikes Iran, Pakistan will retaliate, says European diplomat

Warning: Source is Zionist

A senior European official has described a nightmare scenario should Israel launch a preemptive strike against Iran • Obama: I don’t think Israel has decided what to do, its concerns are justified.
Lior Yakobi and Eli Leon

President Barack Obama: I don’t think Israel has decided what it needs to do concerning Iran.


Tensions are growing in the Middle East, and beyond. In a conversation with The Associated Press, a senior European diplomat based in Pakistan’s capital Islamabad laid out a nightmare scenario for the Middle East.

There is a concrete possibility, he said under condition of anonymity, that if Israel decides to attack Iran, Pakistan, a Muslim country that possesses nuclear weapons of its own, will have no choice but to retaliate against Israel.

The assessment comes in the wake of recent reports that Pakistan is actually seeking rapprochement with the Jewish state. Last month former Pakistani military ruler Pervez Musharraf  told Ha'aretz that Pakistan should establish diplomatic ties with Israel in order to counter the latter's “pro-India” policy.

Such apocalyptic remarks are remarkable because up to this point all of the predictions, at least those made publicly, suggested that if Israel carries out such an attack, there would be retaliation in the form of rocket attacks by Iran’s proxies, including Hezbollah, Hamas and other radical Muslim organizations, a possibility that Israel is aware of and planning for.

The report cited additional repercussions of an Israeli military operation against Iran, including the prediction that such an attack could deal a catastrophic economic blow to the EU, even leading to its collapse.

The article also cites economic forecasters, experts in oil markets, saying they do not believe an Israeli attack will in fact occur.

Meanwhile, Lieutenant Commander of the Iranian Army Brig. Gen. Abdul-Rahim Mousavi said on Sunday that Iran’s air force is prepared for an enemy attack and is fully capable of defending the country’s air space against foreign invasion.

“I don’t think Israel has decided what it needs to do concerning Iran,” U.S. president Barack Obama said in a Sunday night interview on NBC. The president said that Israel and the U.S. are working together on the issue. Obama added that he believes that Israel’s concerns are justified and said that “Iran is feeling the pressure against her.”

“I don’t think that Israel has made a decision” to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, U.S. President Barack Obama said in a pre-Super Bowl interview with NBC on Sunday.

“I think they, like us, believe that Iran has to stand down on its nuclear weapons program,” he said in the interview, broadcast from the White House. “Until they do, I think Israel rightly is going to be very concerned, and we are as well.”

“We have mobilized the international community, in a way that is unprecedented. They are feeling the pinch. They are feeling the pressure,” he said.

Obama also said that Israel and the U.S. would “work in lockstep” to coordinate their positions on Iran.

 
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=3004
 

 

 

SMF 2.0.2 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
Page created in 2.792 seconds with 23 queries.