Iran Should Cancel Televised ‘Confessions’

by Gustav Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:45

Should all theses anti-Islamic/anti-Iranian proganda pieces be put under one heading to save flooding the entire site with them?

Or perhaps they cold be balance with articles or real torture by Israel?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/637293.stm

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen05102004.html

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-atrocities-israelitorture.htm

by pat c Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:54

but this is by Human Rights WAtch. They also criticise Israeli Torture (& I write anti Zionist articles, unlike you).

So you believe HRW when they criticise Israel but not when they criticise Iran.

Israeli Torture Bad!
Iranian Torture Good!

by Watcher Tue Aug 14, 2007 08:25

The continuesd attacks on Iran by Pat.C are now become hysterical and getting very close to racism.

The following in an example of the partiality of comment,

"This is an article from Human Rights Watch in which they condemn the televised confessions forced out of Iranian Dissidents."

Perhaps Pat will tell us how he knows that the confessions were "forced". Maybe he read it on a neo-con "fact sheet" issued from the oval office!

by Onlooker Tue Aug 14, 2007 08:49

No Watcher, he's basing it on the evidence put forward by Human Rights Watch. Thought that would be clear enough, seeing as he refers to Human Rights Watch. Bit of a no-brainer that eh? I suppose that phrase loses its potency when dealing with people who have no... oh no couldn't say that, it would be frightfully rude! I'll just snigger at the madness of someone who thinks it's "racist" to defend the human rights of people who happen to have dark skins.

by Steve Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:49

Pat, you're going to have to stop this. You are the one partial to throwing abuse around judging by your other posts which dont exactly show you in a flattering light.

You constantly rebutt like a child yourself. You claim anybody who disagrees with you is an agent of the Iranian government or an unapologetic supporter of it. Either/or spin that Karl Rove would be proud of.

Now whats your agenda in all this?
Where have these workers asked for your help?

by pat c Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:58

My agenda is to support the Iranian anti-Imperialist opposition, I make no apologies for supporting workers against a dictatorship. Whats your agenda?

Heres an example of Iranian workers looking for support:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83774

Heres Hands Off the People of Iran, HOPI oppose US Imperialism but also oppose the Iranian Dictatorship. Its supported by Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Ken Loach, David Norris, Tony Gregory TD, Diane Abbott MP, WSM, ISN. Perhaps they are Rove style spin doctors as well.

http://www.hopoi.org/

Full list of HOPI supporters:
http://www.hopoi.org/supporters.html

by Steve Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:05

Opponents to War like Scott Ritter have said the real reason for a war with Iran is regime change.
He can be quoted as saying "We are seeing history repeat itself", comparing preparation of Iran war with preparation of Iraq war. Part of that preparation was the vilification of the Iraqi regime, just as you are vilifying the Iranian regime.

The similarities are undeniable.

Heres more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_war_against_Iran

by Steve Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:26

"Threat escalation also serves to pressure others to join U.S. efforts to strangle Iran economically, with predictable success in Europe. Another predictable consequence, presumably intended, is to induce the Iranian leadership to be as harsh and repressive as possible, fomenting disorder and perhaps resistance while undermining efforts of courageous Iranian reformers, who are bitterly protesting Washington’s tactics. It is also necessary to demonize the leadership."

Noem Chomsky July 28 2007

Full article

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13388.

Pat C you are engaging in demonising the Iraninan Leadership.

Noem Chomsky doesnt agree with your unrelenting attacks on the Iranian regime. He doesnt call them a junta or Islamo-facsists. He understands the great complexities involved here and is cautious in his words. You are not.

by Steve Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:33

By the way Pat, that dictatorship was put there by the Iranian people themsleves who overthrew the puppet regime Washington had put in place.

You must remember when discussing things Iranian that inconvenient truths like this are not omitted.

by Watcher Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:19

It seems Pat C is surrounded by those who think that abuse and name calling is debate. No wonder it is proving difficult to get through.

This from Onlooker '
"No Watcher, he's basing it on the evidence put forward by Human Rights Watch."

What evidence have Human Rights Watch or anyone else got that these confessions were "forced"?
If Human Rights Watch have claimed that the confessions were "forced" then they must post the evidence otherwise it is just hearsay.

"Thought that would be clear enough, seeing as he refers to Human Rights Watch. Bit of a no-brainer that eh?"

Yes, but again where is the evidence that these confessions were "forced"?

"I suppose that phrase loses its potency when dealing with people who have no... oh no couldn't say that, it would be frightfully rude! I'll just snigger at the madness of someone who thinks it's "racist" to defend the human rights of people who happen to have dark skins."

It is not necessary to have dark skin to suffer racism. Just thought I'd mention that. But the real issue here is what lies behind the repeated attacks on Iran.
Pat C is not about defending the human rights of anybody.Nobody that uses the abusive words that he/she uses repeatedly when refering to those that disagree with him/her has any interest in human rights. His language betrays him. The fact is he/she is constantly posting attacks on Iran. Check the history, it is full of his repetitious claptrap. And you can snigger all you want, I can spot a racist at a hundred paces.And again for the record, when Bush unleashes his murder machine on Iran he will fill the airwaves with the exact same propaganda that makes up all of Pat C's posts on Iran as justification for his actions.

by Steve Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:31

Amazing similarity in the language used on a Blog by Thomas Barnett and the language used by Pat C.

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2007/08/the_growi....html

Who is this Thomas Barnett?
Well hes none other than a neo-con military strategist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Barnett

Pat claims his arguments will not be used by the neo-cons in their case for war.
His claims are inaccurate.

by pat c Tue Aug 14, 2007 15:21

You are a liar and a fraud. I get my information from Iranian socialists. It looks as if you get your info from the Iranian Embassy.I am defending the Iranian people against the Iranian Dictatorship. You are defending the Mullahs.

Going on your twisted "logic", the Iranian trade unionists are helping the Neo Cons .

by pat c Tue Aug 14, 2007 15:28

"By the way Pat, that dictatorship was put there by the Iranian people themsleves who overthrew the puppet regime Washington had put in place."

It was not put in place by the Iranian people. The mullahs subverted the revolution. There has never been a free election in Iran. All candidates for parliament or president must be approved by the clergy. All socialist parties are banned. Trade unions are banned.

"You must remember when discussing things Iranian that inconvenient truths like this are not omitted."

You are ignoring the truth. Heres a good article on Iran written by an Iranian Socialist:

The Class Nature of the Iranian Regime

The current Iranian regime, in power in the so-called "Islamic Republic of Iran" since the 1979 revolution against the Shah, continues to confuse many observers as to its true nature. The intrinsic confusion lies precisely in the fact that it is considered as a post-revolutionary regime.

You constantly hear the argument that whatever it is, and however bad and vicious it may be, it nevertheless is a regime which came out of a revolution against the Shah's dictatorship. Somehow, this mechanistic logic is then used to bestow a certain air of progressiveness upon a regime which for any observer with a little political sense is nothing but a semi-fascistic theocracy defending capitalism.

Torab Saleth is a member of Workers Left Unity Iran and is also a member of the Advisory Editorial Board of the journal Critique. Here, Torab provides an analysis of the class nature of the Iranian Regime.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83485

by pat c - Hands Off The People of Iran Tue Aug 14, 2007 15:42

Noam Chomsky suuports HOPI. He supports the founding statement of HOPI. Here are some extracts from the HOPI statement:

In Iran, the theocracy is using the international outcry against its nuclear weapons programme to divert attention away from the country's endemic crisis, deflect popular anger onto foreign enemies and thus prolong its reactionary rule.

The pretext of external threats has been cynically used to justify increased internal repression. The regime's security apparatus has been unleashed on its political opponents, workers, women and youth. The rising tide of daily working class anti-capitalist struggles has been met with arrests, the ratification of new anti-labour laws and sweeping privatisations. Under the new Iranian government, military-fascist organisations are gaining political and military strength, posing an ominous threat to the working class and democratic opposition.

Paradoxically, the US/UK invasion of Iraq has actually increased the regional influence of Iran's rulers - it led to the election of the pro-Iranian Shia government currently in power in Baghdad.

This means that any support from the anti-war movement for the reactionaries who currently govern Iran and repress its people is in effect indirect support for the occupation government in Iraq.

We call on all anti-capitalist forces, progressive political groups and social organisations to join activists of the Iranian left to both oppose imperialism's plans and to organise practical solidarity with the growing movement against war and repression in Iran headed by the working class, women, students and youth.

Full statement at: http://www.hopoi.org/main.html

Noam Chomsky signed this statement. He supports the working class, women, students and youth and he opposes military-fascist organisations and the theocracy .

Looks as if theres not much difference between my position and that of Chomsky.

by Steve Tue Aug 14, 2007 16:05

There is no point in presenting an opinion that differs in any way from Pat C because all you get is name calling, spin and accusation.

"I get my information from the Iranian Embassy?"

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? You realise you sound extremely paranoid with this kind of baseless ranting. If that is your wish so be it, but I won’t be a part of this kind of silliness.

You have all the trappings of the oppressor in your smear than that of the oppressed.

Pathetic. I'm sure HOPI are really pleased with your behaviour and your self appointed spokesman position.

It has been pointed out to you time and again that caution has been advised and that your rants are empowering the neo-cons position and maybe toning it down a bit would be well advised.
Links have been posted to neo-con sites which reel off the same anti-Iranian stuff you been posting. Incontrovertible proof that your attacks are being used to build the case for war and all you can do is go berserk with astounding claims about who I am and who I represent.

Its just nonsense and you are incapable of comprehension beyond the little box you live in being particularly blinded by your own self-importance.

by Steve Tue Aug 14, 2007 16:14

"Threat escalation also serves to pressure others to join U.S. efforts to strangle Iran economically, with predictable success in Europe. Another predictable consequence, presumably intended, is to induce the Iranian leadership to be as harsh and repressive as possible, fomenting disorder and perhaps resistance while undermining efforts of courageous Iranian reformers, who are bitterly protesting Washington’s tactics. It is also necessary to demonize the leadership."

Did Noem Chomsky write this or not?

It shows an understanding of how the complex workings of espionage operate prior to any destabilising actions covertly initiated by the US.

That is a different position from yours.

Where is the lie there?

by pat c Tue Aug 14, 2007 16:21

"There is no point in presenting an opinion that differs in any way from Pat C because all you get is name calling, spin and accusation."

Eh? how about your own name calling?

""I get my information from the Iranian Embassy?"
How on earth did you come to that conclusion? You realise you sound extremely paranoid with this kind of baseless ranting. If that is your wish so be it, but I won’t be a part of this kind of silliness."

Because you prattle away as if you were regurgirtating info from the Iranian Embassy. Where do you get your info from? I get mine from Iranian socialists.

"You have all the trappings of the oppressor in your smear than that of the oppressed."

No, I support the oppressed Iranian workers. You support the Iranian Dictatorship which bans trade unions.

"Pathetic. I'm sure HOPI are really pleased with your behaviour and your self appointed spokesman position."

Not self appointed. Seeing as I am publicising statements by Iranian trade unionists and socialists I would imagine HOPI is pleased with my activities. If you have complaints just contact HOPI.

"It has been pointed out to you time and again that caution has been advised and that your rants are empowering the neo-cons position and maybe toning it down a bit would be well advised. "

Who has advised caution? Name those who say we should suppress info about journalists being sentenced to death. Name those who say we should refuse to support Iranian trade unionists.

"Links have been posted to neo-con sites which reel off the same anti-Iranian stuff you been posting."

Thats a lie. Neo Cons do not oppose the invasion of Iran. Neo Cons do not support Iranian socialists.

"Incontrovertible proof that your attacks are being used to build the case for war and all you can do is go berserk with astounding claims about who I am and who I represent."

That is nonsense. You are effectively saying that the Iranian opposition should have no voice. I made no astounding claims about you. I merely pointed out that your arguments support the position of the Iranian Dictatorship. You are the one who is berserk. You refuse to support these Kurds.

"Its just nonsense and you are incapable of comprehension beyond the little box you live in being particularly blinded by your own self-importance. "

I have no sense of self importance. I am merely doing my duty as a socialist: defending workers against a dictatorship. The Iranian workers are having their 1913 and you are on the side of the Iranian William Martin Murphys.

by pat c Tue Aug 14, 2007 16:34

Thats twice you have printed the Chomsky piece. Nowhere in it does he say that we should refuse to support Kurds who have been sentenced to death. Nowhere does Chomsky say that we should refuse to support workers in struggle.

Noam Chomsky is a supporter of HOPI. Chomsky like HOPI opposes any US aggression against Iran. But Chomsky also supports the Iranian opposition. No amount of lies by you is going to change that.

by Watcher Tue Aug 14, 2007 17:19

If nobody posts here will Pat C just keep rambling on talking to him/herself? Ask a pertinent question and you get no answer but a lorry load of abuse. Irag got the "freedom" treatment in bucket fulls. "We're coming to free you from dictators and murderers" Such slogans rolled off the neo-con presses like confetti at a wedding. Ask the next Iragi you meet, was it worth it? Carefull, you might get a smack in the mouth in reply.

by pat c Tue Aug 14, 2007 17:34

"If nobody posts here will Pat C just keep rambling on talking to him/herself?"

No. I just refute your lies.

" Ask a pertinent question and you get no answer but a lorry load of abuse. "

No. I enquire as to where you get your information. Name those who believe that information about these Kurds should be suppressed. Name anyone who believes that Iranian workers should be flogged and imprisoned for going on strike.

"Irag got the "freedom" treatment in bucket fulls. "We're coming to free you from dictators and murderers" Such slogans rolled off the neo-con presses like confetti at a wedding. "

And I oppose any US invasion so what is your point?

"Ask the next Iragi you meet, was it worth it? Carefull, you might get a smack in the mouth in reply."

Well seeing as I oppose the US occupation your point is irrelevant.

Why dont you contact Iranian socialists and trade unionists and tell them that they should keep quiet?

by Watcher Tue Aug 14, 2007 18:09

You reply to "Watcher" but have you read what "Watcher" has said.

You introduced the claim that confessions were"forced". Can you tell us how you know this, or how those that told you know this/ It's a simple question really. Either you can back up the statement or it is mere hearsay and in the context of this debate it makes the post appear as nothing more than propaganda.

by pat c Tue Aug 14, 2007 18:16

Simple. I choose to believe Human Rights Watch.

You apparently choose to believe the press releases of the Iranian Dictatorship.

Please name any progressive person who has stated that they believe HRW are not telling the truth.

While you are at it name any progressive person who believes in the suppression of news about the oppression of workers in Iran.

by Watcher Tue Aug 14, 2007 18:20

"Simple. I choose to believe Human Rights Watch."

Lets be clear, are you saying that HRW have claimed that the confessions were "forced" If yes, did you bother to ask for evidence before repeating the claim here? Can we have the evidence?

by pat c Tue Aug 14, 2007 18:35

When HRW issue a statement condemning Israeli persecution of Palestinians I dont go to Palestine to check on it.

When HRW condemn US military abuses in Iraq I dont go and check on it and neither do you.

I trust HRW and I trust the Iranians in HOPI.

by Watcher Tue Aug 14, 2007 18:40

That is not an answer. Either substantiate the claim or withdraw it.This will restore some credibility to the post.

by Lincoln Tue Aug 14, 2007 18:55

You will note that Steve posted Chomsky's opinion twice but Pat C didn't read it even once.

He just prattles on with his ver batum pretext that is handed to him.

Chomsky does not post here thread after thread after thread viciously attacking Iran.
You do. You cannot comprehend any of the evidence put to you. You just quote in paragraphs an reel off totally irrelevant crap that is completely out of context with the points being made.

You come across like someone completely out of his depth.

I put it to you.

Point exactly to where Steve has lied. Highlight it, prove it to be a lie and perhaps people might actually take you seriously. No waffle and not what you perceive to be a lie because it conveniently allows you dodge actually tackling the point. Just a lie that can be completely refuted beyond all doubt.

by pat c Tue Aug 14, 2007 19:08

"Chomsky does not post here thread after thread after thread viciously attacking Iran.You do."

I defend Iranian workers and socialists. As long as you attack them, I will continue to defend them.

"You cannot comprehend any of the evidence put to you. You just quote in paragraphs an reel off totally irrelevant crap that is completely out of context with the points being made."

No evidence is put me. I quote relevant articles by Iranian socialists. You cannot qoute any progressive to support your position. You are trying to twist a few lines written by Chomsky when the reality is that he supports HOPI.

""You come across like someone completely out of his depth."

No. You are. Point to any progressive person who supports the oppression of Iranian workers. Why dont you?

"Point exactly to where Steve has lied. Highlight it, prove it to be a lie and perhaps people might actually take you seriously. "

Here a few lies by Steve:

"You do not speak for HOPI"

I do.

"By the way Pat, that dictatorship was put there by the Iranian people themsleves"

A lie. People dont put dictatorships in place. THere are no free elections in Iran.

"Amazing similarity in the language used on a Blog by Thomas Barnett and the language used by Pat C."

I dont think Neo-Cons argue against the invasion of Iran.

"No waffle and not what you perceive to be a lie because it conveniently allows you dodge actually tackling the point. Just a lie that can be completely refuted beyond all doubt."

I'll leave the waffle to you. Indy readers will make their minds up about who is telling the truth.

by Feudal castrato Wed Aug 15, 2007 02:54

"The Useful Fools of Empire
Humanitarian Wars and Associated Delusions"

http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij08142007.html

"Human Rights Watch in particular has been a key organization pushing for humanitarian wars, and a proper appreciation of such organizations is necessary to counter their influence."

Be careful what you give your support to in these cryptic times.

by Watcher Wed Aug 15, 2007 08:10

"I defend Iranian workers and socialists. As long as you attack them, I will continue to defend them."

Who attacked Iranian workers?

by pat c Wed Aug 15, 2007 09:59

You & co. are refusing to support the Iranian workers, smearing them. Funny, supposed socialists supporting the Iranian JUnta rather than imprisoned trade unionists.

The attempts to smear HRW wont work either. Unless you think that HRW also lies about Israeli crimes against the Palestinians or perhaps HRW are also lieing when they say the US uses torture in Iraq.

by Watcher Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:24

"You & co. are refusing to support the Iranian workers, smearing them."
What are you talking about.? It is an absolute disgrace that you are allowed to continue to post unsubstantiated accusations about all who disagree with what you are doing. With friends like you, the Iranian left certainly do not need enemies.

by Steve Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:27

Hey Pat, take it up with Paul de Roolj, he penned the article questioning HRW intentions. On one of the most respected online left-wing publications in the world. While your at it, take it up with the editors there who vetted the piece.

Heres another one
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp02172007.html

The opening statement has this:
"Appended to the piece is a timeline including key Bush administration statements about Iran, "news" stories and neocon writings abetting efforts to vilify Iran"

Yet another one:
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp02242007.html
"Former CIA counterterrorism specialist Philip Giraldi, comparing the propaganda campaign against Iran to that which preceded the war on Iraq, has recently declared, "It is absolutely parallel. They're using the same dance steps-demonize the bad guys, the pretext of diplomacy, keep out of negotiations, use proxies. It is Iraq redux."

Time and again anything that shows that you can be manipulated and just might be an unwitting puppet to the building attack on Iran is just summarily dismissed. Lies and smear blah blah blah.

Your narrowly focused opinion is blind to the wider implications.
Attacking Iran in the Media at this time is abetting the neo-cons. How many times do you have to be told before it sinks in?

Why cant you cool it? Why cant you contain your articles within broader stories which condemn all oppression. Why all the implicit and direct attacks on Iran (and we are talking about a lot) right now? Have you no quams at all about the timing of this intensificaton of the cyber-propoganda?

Can you not see the similarlities between Iraq and the current build up toward Iran? Are you that self-absorbed?

by Counterpuncher Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:53

Ah, this would be the same Counterpunch that regularly includes articles denying Serb nationalist atrocities in Bosnia and Kosova and telling us that Slobodan Milosevic was an anti-imperialist hero?

by Steve Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:57

Pathetic. Wheres the links? Wheres the proof?

Counterpunch is widely respected. What’s your problem? It contradicts your ridiculous view that everyone agrees that anti-Iranian propaganda should be ratcheted up at this time?

by Counterpuncher Wed Aug 15, 2007 13:05

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03142006.html

There's one link for starters, there's plenty more in the archives. I hate to spoil your party, but HRW are also "widely respected", in fact much more so than Counterpunch. Not that this will make any impression to an intolerant fanatic like you, but best to put it on the record

by Steve Wed Aug 15, 2007 13:06

Heres an article which completely rubbishes your claim

"The current crisis in Kosovo is simply the latest episode in the aggressive drive by extreme Serbian nationalism, orchestrated by Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, to create an ethnically pure Greater Serbian state. This aggression -- first in Slovenia, then in Croatia, and then in Bosnia, -- has now come to Kosovo, largely because the West, notably NATO, refused to stand up to him."

Link
http://www.counterpunch.org/jatras.html

heres another one
http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann.html

Yet another one
http://www.counterpunch.org/phillips09062003.html

by Mario Buda Wed Aug 15, 2007 13:12

Heres some examples.

A Letter from Gregor Gysi to Slobodan Milosevic
http://www.counterpunch.org/gysi.html

"Though it is interesting that the so-called indictment accuses Milosevic of the murder of 314 people. Awful though this was it hardly amounts to 'genocide', a word which has been loosely used by Clinton and his English factotums. "
http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq.html

"In fact Milosevic's death in his cell from a heart attack spared Del Ponte and the Court (itself a drumhead tribunal set up by the United States with no proper foundation under international law or treaty) the ongoing embarrassment of a proceeding where Milosevic had made a very strong showing against the phalanx of prosecutors, hearsay witnesses and prejudiced judges marshaled against him. Until his death, "total defeat" had been the prospect facing Del Ponte, not Milosevic, though she presumably felt justifiably confident --based on their record of prejudiced rulings against Milosevic -- that the judges would never let her down."
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03142006.html

by Steve Wed Aug 15, 2007 13:13

Tell me you're joking?

Where in that article does it deny Serb nationalist atrocities in Bosnia and Kosova or tell us that Slobodan Milosevic was an anti-imperialist hero?

Sorry pal, you're full of shit and this latest bout of hysterics proves it conclusively.

by Mario Buda Wed Aug 15, 2007 13:14

A collection of pieces where counterpunch cheer on Sebia.

http://www.counterpunch.org/serbia.html

by Mario Buda Wed Aug 15, 2007 14:06

More denial of Serb War-crimes.

"Whatever horrors they may have been planning, the Serbs were not engaged in genocidal activities in Kosovo before the bombing began. "

"There's still immense uncertainty, but at this point it's plain there are not enough bodies to warrant the claim that the Serbs had a program of extermination. "

"There was and is no hard evidence of a genocidal program. "

http://www.counterpunch.org/biglie.html

by Steve Wed Aug 15, 2007 14:21

You where ambivalent in your statement that Counterpunch brandished Milosevic as a war hero.

In any case the article is regarding the legitimacy of the NATO bombing campaign.

Noam Chomsky (Your unadulterated Hero) also wrote around that time expressing concerns.

"Despite the intensive efforts, the results of “the mass-grave obsession,” as the WSJ analysts call it, were disappointingly thin. Instead of “the huge killing fields some investigators were led to expect,..the pattern is of scattered killings,” a form of “ethnic cleansing light.” “Most killings and burnings [were] in areas where the separatist Kosovo Liberation Army [KLA-UCK] had been active” or could infiltrate, some human-rights researchers reported, an attempt “to clear out areas of KLA support, using selective terror, robberies and sporadic killings.” These conclusions gain some support from the detailed OSCE review released in December, which “suggests a kind of military rationale for the expulsions, which were concentrated in areas controlled by the insurgents and along likely invasion routes.”

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200005--.htm

You do not do the complexities of this or any other conflict justice by appealing to base emotions and using hysterics as argument.

If intelligent rational articulation is beyond you then that your problem.

Counterpunch prints opinion pieces as much as it provides news. The fact that there are many many more articles condemning Milosevic is casually overlooked by you.

In fact you have yet to show me exactly where he was lauded as a War Hero.

by Steve Wed Aug 15, 2007 14:41

Also Mario/Pat you still haven’t shown an article from counterpunch that denies Serbian atrocities?

341 people killed is an atrocity. Where does it say anywhere on Counterpunch that Milosevic was a nice guy and not guilty of atrocities?

You said Counterpunch claims that Milosevic was innocent of War-Crimes?
You also laughably posted a link to a collection of stories that you said cheer leaded Serbia when even a cursory glance over the articles proves that to be false.

I’ll stick with Counterpunch as a reputable and credible source.

You continue your propaganda, you’re good at that.

by The Prophet Thu Aug 16, 2007 17:47

AI also say this. I guess you will now claim that AI are also propagandists for the US. but that means you will have to also dicredit AIs other reports. Stop and think about what you are doing.

Iran: The broadcast of self-incriminating interviews made by detainees facing charges violate fair trial standards
Amnesty International condemns the broadcast by Iranian television of "interviews" with two dual, US-Iran nationals, Haleh Esfandiyari, 67 (f) and Kian Tajbakhsh, 45 (m), who have been detained in Tehran's Evin prison since 8 and 11 May, respectively.

Amnesty International is concerned that the "interviews" could prejudice their defence in any trial proceedings that may be brought against them. Both reportedly face charges of "acting against state security" and engaging in "propaganda and espionage for foreigners" but, to date, more than two months after they were arrested, they are still being denied access to lawyers and no court date has been set for their trial.

The interviews, broadcast on 18 July, have been described as "confessions" by Iran's press. They reportedly made no reference to the two detainees' imprisonment or the charges they face and there are fears that they were made under coercion or duress.

by Steve Thu Aug 16, 2007 18:01

Right now the US are engaged in a propaganda war. Its agencies are using every trick in the book and every means at their disposal, however trivial, to demonise the Iran regime.

I mean look at this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm

I am deeply suspicious of the current spate of anti-Iranian propaganda flooding the Internet at a time when the US is building its case for war. I have every right to be suspicious, we have seen this before with Iraq. The precedent has been set.