full-scale war between the US and Iran (1 Viewer)

steve albino

New Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Threads
157
Messages
857
Location
smocation
Website
Visit site
Targeting Iran


September 4, 2004
Webster Griffin Tarple / Global Free Press

On August 19, a UPI report warned "full-scale war between the US and Iran may be far closer than the American public might imagine." The White House has vowed to 'deal with' Iran and the author fears a 'September Surprise' -- an act of "synthetic terrorism" inside the US staged to derail elections and propel the US into a wider Middle East war that could risk nuclear annihilation.

http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/

WASHINGTON DC (August 30, 2004) -- News of the investigation of Larry Franklin, a middle-level functionary working for the Wolfowitz-Feith-Luti-Shulsky clique in the Pentagon, indicates that we are now approaching a critical choice-point on the road to war with Iran, and towards a synthetic terrorism attack inside the US which would be used as an additional pretext to start such a war.

http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/edit/index.php?op=view&itemid=1809
 

steve albino

New Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Threads
157
Messages
857
Location
smocation
Website
Visit site
August 25, 2004
[font=Verdana,]
On 6 May last, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution which,in effect, authorised a "pre-emptive" attack on Iran. The vote was 376/3. Undeterred by the accelerating disaster in Iraq, Republicans and Democrats,wrote one commentator, "once again joined hands to assert the responsibilities of American power."


http://www.zmag.org/content/showart...=87&ItemID=6095
[/font]
 

steve albino

New Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Threads
157
Messages
857
Location
smocation
Website
Visit site
U.S. Alarmed Over Suspected Iran Nuke Site

[size=-1]By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer[/size] VIENNA, Austria - [size=-1] A U.S. official expressed alarm Thursday about a possible nuclear-weapons-related test site in Iran and accused the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency of keeping silent on its own concerns about the issue.
[/size]


[size=-1] The official — a senior member of the U.S. delegation at the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors — spoke as U.S and European negotiators moved closer to agreement to censure Iran for reneging on a freeze on uranium enrichment and setting a deadline for Tehran to dispel suspicions it is trying to make nuclear arms. [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] The official, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity, said the United States was suspicious that Iran's Parchin complex, southeast of the capital, Tehran, is being used by the Islamic Republic to test high explosives, possibly with applications to nuclear weapons. [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] "This is a serious omission," on the part of IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei, said the official, alluding to the lack of specific mention on Parchin in a report written for the board by ElBaradei on the status of a probe into Iran's nuclear activities.
[/size]


[size=-1]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040916/ap_on_re_as/nuclear_agency&cid=516&ncid=716
[/size]
 

steve albino

New Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Threads
157
Messages
857
Location
smocation
Website
Visit site
IRAN’S NEO-CONSERVATIVES POISED TO TAKE CHARGE OF POLITICAL AGENDA
Kamal Nazer Yasin 7/20/04
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav072004a.shtml
In response to deepening domestic and social challenges, a neo-conservative movement is fast gaining influence in Iran, and now appears poised to take charge of shaping the country’s political agenda. This new force in Iranian politics features a blend of old-style devotion to the principles of the 1979 Islamic revolution with new-found pragmatism on nagging domestic issues.

Many leaders of Iran’s neo-conservative movement, including Tehran mayor Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad, maintain close connections with the Revolutionary Guards, the chief enforcer of the Islamic Revolution. For much of the Islamic republic’s existence, there has been an effective taboo on the Revolutionary Guards’ involvement in politics. This taboo now appears to have been broken.


Monday, July 19th, 2004
[size=+1]Another Campaign of Misinformation? Leaked 9/11 Report Cites New Evidence That Iran Cooperated with al-Qaeda Before Attacks

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/19/1410202
[/size]
The final report of the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11th attacks is due out this Thursday and leaked accounts of the report have already appeared in the press. According to one leaked account in Time Magazine's Online Edition, the Commission has uncovered evidence suggesting that between eight and ten of the 14 so-called "muscle" hijackers passed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to February 2001.
 

ITalkShite

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Threads
50
Messages
1,816
Location
Tergiversation
Website
Visit site
Here, just a quick point...

Iran has credible deterrents to any potential invasion. They have something like a half-a-million strong army. Working on a nuclear bomb (probably). Long-range missiles. All that jazz.

Iraq was invaded because it was weak. There's a load of other countries America would (and probably will) go for before Iran, even though they're in that oh-so-fashionable axis of evil.

Any strategic planning for Iran probably involves a lot of soft pressure - exile groups, social pressure, divide-and-conquer stuff. America doesn't want to go to war with someone who might actually be even more problematic to invade.
 

steve albino

New Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Threads
157
Messages
857
Location
smocation
Website
Visit site
ITalkShite said:
Here, just a quick point...

Iran has credible deterrents to any potential invasion. They have something like a half-a-million strong army. Working on a nuclear bomb (probably). Long-range missiles. All that jazz.

Iraq was invaded because it was weak. There's a load of other countries America would (and probably will) go for before Iran, even though they're in that oh-so-fashionable axis of evil.

Any strategic planning for Iran probably involves a lot of soft pressure - exile groups, social pressure, divide-and-conquer stuff. America doesn't want to go to war with someone who might actually be even more problematic to invade.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, and at the same time , I started finding things like this:
U.S.-Trained Deaths Squads in Iran?

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/fiyouzat07012004

To survive, Israel will have to strike nuclear Iran

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10786640%255E31477,00.html

There's a pretty interesting article (with a link to "Iran: Time for a New Approach,) about tensions in the Washington around how to approach the subject here:

Realists, Neocons in New Iran Argument
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=3064
But if the internal balance of power on Iraq favors the realists, the situation regarding Iran is less clear. While few analysts believe Washington would launch a military strike on Tehran before the November elections, speculation that a second Bush term would make "regime change" in Iran a top priority has been persistent. Meanwhile, pro-Likud forces in Congress are already moving to endorse legislation that would officially endorse such a goal as official U.S. policy.
 

steve albino

New Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Threads
157
Messages
857
Location
smocation
Website
Visit site
ITalkShite said:
Here, just a quick point...

Iran has credible deterrents to any potential invasion. They have something like a half-a-million strong army. Working on a nuclear bomb (probably). Long-range missiles. All that jazz.

Iraq was invaded because it was weak. There's a load of other countries America would (and probably will) go for before Iran, even though they're in that oh-so-fashionable axis of evil.

Any strategic planning for Iran probably involves a lot of soft pressure - exile groups, social pressure, divide-and-conquer stuff. America doesn't want to go to war with someone who might actually be even more problematic to invade.
On the other hand are the US administration and Iraeli govt. going to take the risk that their biggest "potential worry" in the region, with a well worn islamist authority that has a huge influence on what's happening in Iraq, continues it's nuclear programme, becomes more and more conservative, increases it's trade links with Russia, china, europe (especially the UK) etc. etc. and becomes more "respectable" (I'm using all of these terms loosely) while they continue trying to undermine the Iranian govt using "soft" pressure (which they've been doing for quite some time now)?
It seems relatively clear that one of the big reasons for the quagmire that the US have found themselves in with Iraq is the support offered by Iranian religious leaders, both material and organisational, to the various Iraqi resistances. In some areas they're fighting groups which are more Iranian than Iraqi. If Iraq is indeed "sectioned up" into different regions - you can be sure that the local authority of one or more of those regions will be quite close to Teheran. Something the Bush administration mustn't be too happy about. Not the region with the petrol though, that'll more than likely be under control of a Kurdish authority...
I'd be curious to see what people think, if there was a pooling of sources that'd be really interesting (for me anyway).
 

steve albino

New Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Threads
157
Messages
857
Location
smocation
Website
Visit site
Iran Says U.N. Nuclear Ban 'Illegal'
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040919/ap_on_re_as/iran_nuclear&cid=516&ncid=716

TEHRAN, Iran - [size=-1] Iran on Sunday denounced as "illegal" demands from the U.N. atomic watchdog agency that it freeze all work on uranium enrichment — technology that can be used for nuclear weapons.

[/size]
[size=-1] The IAEA board unanimously approved a toughly worded resolution Saturday saying it "considers it necessary" that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment and related programs.[/size][size=-1]
[/size]
[size=-1] Suggesting that Iran could have to answer to the Security Council if it defies the demands, the resolution said the next board meeting in November "will decide whether or not further steps are appropriate" in ensuring Iran complies. [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] The last board resolution, in June, had been less insistent on the issue of suspension. Still, Saturday's text appeared to fall far short of what the Americans had wanted when the meeting opened Monday. [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] Washington had pushed to drop mention of countries' rights to peaceful nuclear technology and fought for an Oct. 31 deadline, with the understanding that if Iran failed to comply, the board would automatically begin deliberations on Security Council referral. [/size]
 

steve albino

New Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Threads
157
Messages
857
Location
smocation
Website
Visit site
[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Pentagon turns heat up on Iran[/font]
[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] Peter Beaumont and Gaby Hinsliff
Sunday November 21, 2004
The Observer


[/font] [font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Pentagon hawks have begun discussing military action against Iran to neutralise its nuclear weapons threat, including possible strikes on leadership, political and security targets. [/font] [font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]With a deadline of tomorrow for Iran to begin an agreed freeze on enriching uranium, which can be used to produce nuclear weapons, sources have disclosed that the latest Pentagon gaming model for 'neutralising' Iran's nuclear threat involves strikes in support of regime change. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Although the United States has made clear that it would seek sanctions against Iran through the United Nations should it not meet its obligations, rather than undertake military action, the new modelling at the Pentagon, with its shift in emphasis from suspected nuclear to political target lists, is causing deep anxiety among officials in the UK, France and Germany

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1356189,00.html
[/font]
 

steve albino

New Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Threads
157
Messages
857
Location
smocation
Website
Visit site
IRAN PREPARES FOR WHAT COULD BE BRUISING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
Kamal Nazer Yasin 11/11/04

Iran is gearing up for what could be, given the existing tension in the Persian Gulf region, the most important presidential election in the Islamic republic’s history. Ascendant conservative forces will be looking to cement their stranglehold on the country’s political institutions. However, the conservatives are far from united, raising the odds that the election campaign will be bruising.

At present, Mohammad Khatami, a reformist, is concluding his second, four-year presidential term. Political analysts in Tehran give reformists, who have been routed by a determined conservative political offensive, virtually no chance of holding on to the presidency. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Thus, the early phase of the presidential campaign, a period when conservative hopefuls are battling to raise their profiles, is attracting considerable domestic attention.

The conservative movement in Iran is not monolithic, as it encompasses an assortment of interest groups. Conservatives can be broken down into two broad categories – traditionalists, including a significant portion of the clerical establishment, and neo-conservatives, who tend to be younger and newer participants in the political process. In addition, the neo-cons appear willing to embrace radical methods in pursuit of their conservative vision.
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav111104a.shtml
 

steve albino

New Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Threads
157
Messages
857
Location
smocation
Website
Visit site
Hawks Plan 'Peaceful' Regime Change in Iran
by Jim Lobe

A heavyweight group of mostly neoconservative hawks has published a new proposal for Iran policy that relies heavily on "peaceful" strategies to achieve regime change, such as those used by Washington since the 1980s in Central and Eastern Europe, most recently in Serbia and Ukraine.

The group, the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), targets Iran's Supreme Authority, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the theocratic apparatus that supports him in the paper titled, "Iran – A New Approach," and assumes, "Iran's people ... are our allies."

"They want to free themselves from Khamenei's oppression and they want Iran to join the community of prosperous, peaceful democracies," it says, characterizing its policy recommendations as a "peaceful but forceful strategy to engage with the Iranian people to remove the threat and establish the strong relationship which is in both nations' and the region's interests."

While reserving "the right to take out or cripple [Khamenei's] nuclear capabilities" if Tehran fails to comply with current agreements with Britain, France, Germany, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the paper strongly advocates a policy of people-to-people engagement – particularly for young Iranians who are seen as especially alienated from the regime – as well as greater use of television, radio, and the Internet to "communicate directly with the Iranian people."

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=4200
 

steve albino

New Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Threads
157
Messages
857
Location
smocation
Website
Visit site
[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Iranian hardliners aim to ban west's advertising icons[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] Brian Whitaker
Friday January 14, 2005
The Guardian
[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The Iranian parliament has taken the first steps towards banning advertisements for imported goods as part of a campaign against foreign cultural influence, newspapers in Tehran said yesterday. [/font] [font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]A bill put forward by parliament's cultural commission aims to prohibit the advertising of imported goods on television, in public places and on public transport. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Since the 1979 Islamic revolution conservatives have made repeated attempts to ban such icons of western culture as Barbie dolls and Coca-Cola, but this has tended to make them even more popular - especially with the young. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Just over a year ago ads for Castrol oil showing the face of the soccer star David Beckham, a cult figure in Tehran, with the slogan "Makes your bike go like Beckham" were blacked out on the orders of the authorities and TV commercials showing his bare legs were withdrawn. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Nevertheless, adverts promoting everything from motor oils to luxury watches and perfumes continue to appear in most cities. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The bill is almost certainly linked to the presidential election due on June 17, according to Ali Ansari, a historian at St Andrews University and an expert on Iran. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]"The battle lines are being drawn and the hard right is feeling rather buoyant," he said.
[/font]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1390276,00.html
 

steve albino

New Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Threads
157
Messages
857
Location
smocation
Website
Visit site
[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] Ian Traynor
Monday January 17, 2005
The Guardian
[/font] [font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]"This is a war against terrorism and Iraq is just one campaign," Hersh quotes one former US intelligence official as saying. "The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next we're going to have the Iranian campaign." [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Another unnamed source described as a consultant close to the Pentagon said: "The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible." [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]That appeared to be a reference to noted "neocons" in Washington, such as the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and others. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Arguments about Iran's suspected nuclear programme have raged for 20 months since it was revealed that Tehran had been conducting secret nuclear activities for 18 years in violation of treaty obligations. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna has had inspectors in the country throughout the period. While finding much that is suspect, the inspectors have not found any proof of a clandestine nuclear bomb programme. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The IAEA chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, has infuriated the Bush administration over his even-handed dealings with Iran, while the Europeans have been pursuing a parallel diplomatic track that has won grudging agreement from Tehran to freeze its uranium enrichment activities. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Hersh reported that the US campaign against Iran is being assisted by Pakistan under a deal that sees Islamabad provide information in return for reducing the pressure on Abdul Qadeer Khan, the disgraced metallurgist who is the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb and who was revealed last year to be the head of the biggest international nuclear smuggling racket uncovered. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Since confessing his activities and being placed under house arrest almost a year ago, Mr Khan has been incommunicado. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]After months of failure to get permission, IAEA inspectors last week gained access to the Parchin military facilities outside Tehran, which the Americans contend has been a centre for Iranian attempts to refine missile technology for nuclear purposes, although experts agree that Iran does not yet have a nuclear capability.
[/font]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1392078,00.html
 

steve albino

New Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Threads
157
Messages
857
Location
smocation
Website
Visit site
U.S. Adds Israel to the Iran Equation
[size=-1]By Paul Richter Times Staff Writer[/size] [size=-1] WASHINGTON — In bluntly threatening terms on Inauguration Day, Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) removed any doubt that in its second term the Bush administration intended to directly confront the theocracy in Tehran.
[/size]


[size=-1] Cheney, who often has delivered the Bush team's toughest warnings to foreign capitals, said Iran was "right at the top" of the administration's list of world trouble spots, and expressed concern that Israel "might well decide to act first" to destroy Iran's nuclear program. The Israelis would let the rest of the world "worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterward," he added in a radio interview with Don Imus that was also broadcast on MSNBC. [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] The tough talk was part of the administration's attempt to halt what Iran contends is a peaceful, civilian nuclear energy program but which Washington believes is a clandestine program to develop nuclear weapons. [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] Facing weak diplomatic and military options, the administration has issued increasingly stern warnings in hopes that threats of sanctions and international isolation will convince Iran to shun nuclear weapons. President Bush (news - web sites) and other top administration officials also have spoken in menacing terms about Iran in recent days. [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] But Cheney's words marked the first time that a senior official has amplified the threat by suggesting that the United States could be unable to prevent military attack by its close allies in Jerusalem, analysts and diplomats said. [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] The startling reference to an Israeli attack was "the kind of strong language that will get their attention in Tehran," said one allied diplomat in Washington, who spoke on condition of anonymity. [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] "There's a rhetorical escalation here: They've ratcheted up the threat level by bringing Israel in," said Henri J. Barkey, a former State Department official during the Clinton administration. "They're using the fact of the inauguration, and the uncertainty people have about where they're going in the next term, to say, 'Look, we're not going to let up on Iran.' "
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=3&u=/latimests/20050121/ts_latimes/usaddsisraeltotheiranequation
[/size]
 

steve albino

New Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Threads
157
Messages
857
Location
smocation
Website
Visit site
Targeting Iran
......... by David Edwards
[font=Verdana,]Ian Traynor reported in the Guardian this week that Western concern over Iran's suspected nuclear programme has been growing since 2003 when it was revealed that Tehran had been conducting secret nuclear activities for 18 years in violation of treaty obligations. Traynor wrote:[/font]

[font=Verdana,]"The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna has had inspectors in the country throughout the period. While finding much that is suspect, the inspectors have not found any proof of a clandestine nuclear bomb programme." ('Special forces "on the ground" in Iran,' Ian Traynor, The Guardian, January 17, 2005)[/font]

[font=Verdana,]Remarkably, in an almost exact repeat of events in 2002 and 2003, the BBC is now reflexively boosting the US claim that Iran presents a threat to the West.[/font]

[font=Verdana,]On yesterday's BBC1 lunchtime news, diplomatic correspondent James Robbins declared that US relations with Iran were "looking very murky because of the nuclear threat". (BBC1, 13:00 News, January 20, 2005)[/font]

[font=Verdana,]Robbins meant, of course, the +alleged+ nuclear threat from Iran.
[/font] [font=Verdana,]On the BBC's 18:00 news, Robbins again spoke of Iran "where the President is confronting the nuclear threat". (BBC1, 18:00 News, January 25, 2005)[/font]

[font=Verdana,] [/font] [font=Verdana,] [/font]

[font=Verdana,] [/font][font=Verdana,]Is this balanced, objective reporting by the BBC?[/font]
[font=Verdana,] http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=7074
[/font]
 

hugh

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Contributor
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Threads
224
Messages
5,513
steve albino said:
I haven't clicked on this link to read it, honest, but I am willing to bet anyone here anything that zmag's answer to the above rhetorical question is "No". If you want to take me up on this bet you have to promise not to click on the link either, okay?
 

steve albino

New Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Threads
157
Messages
857
Location
smocation
Website
Visit site
hugh said:
I haven't clicked on this link to read it, honest, but I am willing to bet anyone here anything that zmag's answer to the above rhetorical question is "No". If you want to take me up on this bet you have to promise not to click on the link either, okay?
Take him up on it. Seriously worth it.
The article is originally from Media Lens - http://www.medialens.org/.
Moral of the story "always click on links before you go betting anyone anything..."


and now back to the thread:
Israel in the Iran fray, too
By Ehsan Ahrari

Reporter Seymour Hersh's allegations that the United States may be penetrating Iranian territory in search of credible evidence of its nuclear activities, or even with a view to bringing about regime change, have somewhat overshadowed Israeli perspectives.

In general, no discussion of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions can be held without reference to what the government of Israel thinks. An important aspect of Tel Aviv's approach is to keep on ringing alarm bells, so that the attention of the international community remains focused on the issue. At the same time, it has made a point of remaining engaged with American officials. The fact that nuclear non-proliferation is one of the top national security issues of the Bush administration makes Israel's job on the latter point considerably easy.

Actually, Israel has nothing to worry about the possibility of this issue fading into oblivion, for two major reasons. First, speculation in and around Washington has never stopped circulating that the Bush administration has some sort of a plan about destabilizing, or even bringing about regime change, in Iran. What hasn't been clear, however, is whether it would follow the Afghan model of a military campaign, or the Iraqi version of it. Considering the fact that the US military is innovative and prolific about coming up with sui generis campaigns for different military operations, chances are that if Washington indeed has plans for regime change in Iran, it might not follow either of the two preceding operations. That is why the recently published essay of Hersh about a potential US military action against Iran is read with considerable interest and attention worldwide.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GA20Ak01.html
 

steve albino

New Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Threads
157
Messages
857
Location
smocation
Website
Visit site
January 26, 2005

RAPID RESPONSE UPDATE: BBC APOLOGY ON IRAN


On January 21, we published a Rapid Response Media Alert, ‘Targeting Iran – The BBC Propaganda Begins,’ in which we noted that the BBC’s diplomatic correspondent, James Robbins, had reported that US relations with Iran were "looking very murky because of the nuclear threat". (BBC1, 13:00 News, January 20, 2005)

Robbins also spoke of Iran as a place "where the President is confronting the nuclear threat". (BBC1, 18:00 News, January 20, 2005)

This Media Alert produced a massive and impassioned response from readers all over the world who sent many complaints to the BBC. Emails in support of our complaints were sent by Richard Keeble of the University of Lincoln, and John Theobald of the Southampton Institute. Former cabinet minister and Labour MP, Tony Benn, wrote to us:

“Dear David
Thanks
The build up of lies about Iran is going on apace to prepare us for war or to explain an Israeli attack if they do.
When I was Energy Secretary and the Shah - imposed by the Americans - was on the throne they kept trying to persuade me to sell nuclear power plants to Iran which I would not do.
Please add my name to letters you send to the BBC.” (Benn to Media Lens, January 22, 2005)

On January 24, we received the following response from Helen Boaden, Director of BBC News:

“Dear David Cromwell and David Edwards,

I am forwarding to you the following from our diplomatic correspondent, James Robbins:-

’I accept that it would have been better to have said "alleged nuclear threat". I am sorry that my wording was not as precise as it could have been.

Yours sincerely,

James Robbins’

I trust this addresses your concern.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Helen Boaden
Director, BBC News" (Email to Media Lens, January 24, 2005)

http://www.medialens.org/
 

hugh

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Contributor
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Threads
224
Messages
5,513
steve albino said:
Take him up on it. Seriously worth it.
The article is originally from Media Lens - http://www.medialens.org/.
Moral of the story "always click on links before you go betting anyone anything..."
Okay so I caved in and clicked on the link in the small hope that it would say something different to what I predicted it would and guess what, it didn't i.e. "No this is not balanced and objective coverage from the BBC etc... etc..." so if anyone had taken me up on it I would have won ..... yes?
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create a thumped.com account. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads... If we had any... Which we don't right now.

Upgrade now

Latest posts

Trending Threads

Latest threads

Top