The War With Iran, Has Been Planned For A Very Long Time -- Propaganda At It's Finest

Hello ATS,

For weeks now, I've been asking for somebody to debate me on Iran. To take the anti-Iran stance and prove to me that they are an agressive nation, that there is not a consorted effort on the part of NATO, The United States Military Industrial Complex and Israel to paint Iran as a danger in the Middle East and drum up support for all out war.

So far, I've heard nothing but crickets. So today I present more information that shows clearly that a war with Iran has not only been planned for a long time, but that it's also been spun as something it is not.

Gen. McCaffrey privately briefs NBC execs on war with Iran

Apparently, not only does NBC continue to present McCaffrey to its viewers as some sort of objective analyst, but NBC News executives use him as some kind of private consultant and briefer on the news. On January 12, 2012, McCaffrey presented a seminar to roughly 20 NBC executives and producers — including NBC News President Steve Capus — entitled “Iran, Nukes & Oil: The Gulf Confrontation.” We’ve obtained the Power Point document McCaffrey prepared and distributed for his presentation, and in it, he all but predicts war with Iran within the next 90 days: one that is likely to be started by them.

The above article not only discusses how the conflict with Iran was planned, it also discusses how there is a growing society of ex military officials, officiers etc, who are participating in the Pentagon's Propaganda Programs.

Not only for war, but for various military policies that arise from now and then. These officials are playing both sides of the fence and the media uses them almost as special informants and guides to discussing military operations and current events on air.

Some jouralistic integrity eh?

The report provided by General McCaffrey not only discusses war within 90 days, it also states that Iran will be the agressor, prompting military action, which is a completely baseless accusation considering the empirical evidence against an agressive Iran. It's also worth nothing outside of their own borders, Iran hasn't participated in an open conflict since the war with Iraq. ( which they were invaded)

After this article being published by Salon, they've been under attack most notably by the Huffington Post, which you can read at the bottom of the article. Quite funny how they attempt to paid Mr. Greenwald was somehow dishonest in his reporting, without actually providing the information that was "innacurate".

Source

Greenwald has responded to NBC’s statement, saying it’s untrue he didn’t communicate with anyone at NBC. He did quote Kapp in his original post. “… despite its opening flurry of accusations, NBC does not even purport to identify a single inaccuracy in any thing I reported,” Greenwald writes in his updated post. “Replies like this one — that are long on screeching invective and short on any identified inaccuracies — do more to bolster the validity of the original article than anything else could.”

I'd sure say so too.

As the campaign of propaganda intensifies and the MSM stumbles over itself in an effort to hide it's clear bias towards government policies and the military industrial complex, the United States and the rest of the world's citizens must hold their breath and pray that there is not yet another conflict in the Middle East to sully their good names.

What say you ATS? Do you believe the propaganda?

~Tenth

Iran is currently seeking to develop nuclear weapons just so it can launch attacks on the West because it hates our nations for our freedom, opportunity and liberty.

And they like to kill babies.

And they want are babies.







o.0

Just for the fun of it I was going to try to take the other side of the fence but I couldn't do it. Not enough out there to justify war.

So what we will now see is these news networks taking this "news" and letting everyone know that Iran will be launching some sort of attack within 90 days, so people will begin living life expecting and supporting intervention/bombing in Iran so when it happens its just another act of good ol uncle sam doing his deed to keep us all safe

Easy rester will rest easy

This is why Israel must be stopped at all cost

Before they bring the US troops in Iran to fight for them
because they are to cowards to bring their troops themselfs

COWARDS

Let's Cut to the Chase - Israel Must Be Stopped

Israel ready to wipe Iran off the map

The Snake Behind the Arab Spring

S&F to bring that fact to us
i was already suspecting it for a long time .. for many obvious reasons

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

What say you ATS? Do you believe the propaganda?

~Tenth

I believe there is propaganda out there, and I also believe that some of what we read is true as well.

Iran does have a history of being confrontational, but not militarily, only through rhetoric, so its only natural to assume that the western nations would pick up on it and turn it against them.

I have said all along that I do not believe there will be a US-led war with Iran. At least not an overt war. It just doesnt make even the least bit of sense, especially in the year following the redeployment of troops back stateside, the morale boost it brings, during an election year for an incumbent president.

So 90 days? not so much.

Obama wants to be the president that brought out fighting men and women home from war in Iraq, and drew down the number of troops in Afghanistan...not to be the man that ordered them right back into Iran. PErhaps after the election, my tune will change, but until then, there will be no overt, boots on the ground, planes in the air US led war with Iran.

Interesting stuff. I have been watching the middle east a little more closely for the past year or so and you can almost see the pieces to this inevitable war fitting into place. I don't know who or what is making the calls but I don't think there is anything any of us 99% can do to stop them.

As for Iran I just have one question. Would you be comfortable knowing that Iran has the ability to strike the U.S. with a nuclear weapon?

reply to post by youdidntseeme


I can't agree that we call Iran "agressive" by today's standards when they've only made veiled threats, which mostly are mistranslations of speeches. Funny think about Arabic, it doesn't translate to English very well...

There is no military justification for operations against Iran, nuclear weapon or not. Israel's argument is weak on it's very best days and extremely hypocritical considering the current nuclear landscape in the Middle East.

I keep saying I hope that Pakistan or Russia quietly slips them a nuke and they announce it to the world, so they can be left alone.

The people of Iran will take care of their own government and if we wanted to help, we should be sewing the seeds of dissedence and helping the people overthrow their government, in a legitimate way, and then stay out of their election process.

I have no issues with a nation helping another nation's people remove a Tyranically government; unless it's for their own benefit with their own outcomes.

~Tenth

If I had a nuke to spare I'd hand it right to Iran. They would go the route of North Korea. Everyone thought they would go crazy with a nuke too, but they didn't. People just don't like too many personalities with their hands on the trigger. Especially those in volatile states of development.

Doomsday scenario, They use it, but hey I'm all for WW3 humanity needs a reset. Time to shake the global tree of liberty, and the blood of patriots will be spilled.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Its funny, as a person who is against Military action with Iran, I get called a Iranian Apoligist. A Lot.
Truth is, I don't want to see any more US Servicemen coffins, along with Iranian Civilians.
The US needs to stop Exporting War and return to exporting Manufactured Goods.

Originally posted by stewiegriffin
As for Iran I just have one question. Would you be comfortable knowing that Iran has the ability to strike the U.S. with a nuclear weapon?

What's the difference between Iran being able to do so, or Russia?

or China?

or Pakistan?

or India?

So, no I'm not worried, and yes I am certainly comfortable, or should I say uncomfortable with any nation owning nukes and the delivery systems to use them. It just makes no difference who has one as long as there is a single one in existance.

~Tenth

They should have added logic to the plan. At least add logic to the spin. So many Americans claim Iran will destroy America. They have no idea of America's power compared to Iran. The entire population of Iran could hyjack every airliner in the world and attack the US, hitting all the buildings and that would not destroy America. Why would Iran want to do that anyway? Revenge? Who in there right mind thinks that Iran wants to create a radioactive wastland of the middle East? These are the fears of children, the monster in the closet.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


My problem with Iran having a nuclear weapon is their pure seething hatred toward Israel and the west. I believe they would use it and if we need to go to war to stop them then I say we attack.

I am so tired of all of these piss ant countries trying to push us around. You don't see countries threaten China or Russia and why do you think that is?

reply to post by stewiegriffin


Because China and Russia stay out of other nation's affairs. They're too busy dealing with real problems being put forth and affecting their own citizens.

By the logic you provided I'd be more worried about the US or Israel using nuclear weapons before any other nation did.

If the United States and Israel stopped trying to get these "piss ant" countries to do their bidding, we probably would not have this problem.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I agree with your statements, 99%.

I don't agree with this part:

The people of Iran will take care of their own government and if we wanted to help, we should be sewing the seeds of dissedence and helping the people overthrow their government, in a legitimate way, and then stay out of their election process.

I have no issues with a nation helping another nation's people remove a Tyranically government; unless it's for their own benefit with their own outcomes.

The U.S. has already overthrown leaders in Iran. That's actually why there is so much hatred towards the west in there. They actually see the U.S. as some sort of political invaders that deprive them of developing their own democratic systems.

They are the first ones to say they aren't perfect and they have a very long road in front of them. But western governments need to respect that and leave them alone. Societies on them-selfs will evolve and when people look at the outside world and see better things, they will fight for them.

And there is the cultural aspect. Americans especially need to put in their heads once and for all that there are different cultures around the world, and some don't follow the same path's as western cultures do. And they might be "retarded" or "primitive" in some aspects, but they have to learn for them-selfs.

Leave them alone. Putting fingers in their wounds only generates more hate and disrespect for the West, which only opens doors to extremist people to feed on that sentiment and start manipulating the masses.

Even with that, the iranians are changing and adopting better policies. And like you stated, there are a bunch of information pieces out there that show how Iran is looking into the future, and not against other nations.

Propaganda? Of coarse propaganda is a very real tool. And you are right, this has been planned for a VERY long time indeed. Though the war with Iran is a terrible thing, lets not lose sight of the overall picture, Iran is just another "axis of evil" to be toppled in the preparation (paving the way if you will) of the New World Order.
Any country, ANY country not a part of the "program" must be dismantled and restructured accordingly. The goal is a united world, under one rule, (up to their eyeballs in debt preferably) and this simply cannot be whilst we have self sufficient "rouge nations" in the world. (U.N sanctions anyone?)
Iran could be the most peaceful nation in existence, wouldn't make one iota of difference. Unfortunately for any country in the world that wants its own sovereignty, it is a target. Plain and simple. Mark my words, this is only the beginning of the suffering throughout the world.
Its got nothing to do with the Iranian people. Its their leadership. Iranians want what we all want, to live in peace. Don't believe a word of propaganda the media spews forth. The world has absolutely nothing to fear from the Iranian people - period! But their leadership? Oh boy oh boy ...
How dare they even dream about sovereignty! Perish the thought. What is needed is the illusion of sovereignty. As long as the "leadership" is a part of the bigger picture. Unfortunately for Iran, their leadership is not. It truly is not a matter of if, but when Iran will be dealt with. And it saddens me greatly to know ordinary people are going to be slaughtered for larger goals.

I know this thread is about Iran and the propaganda machine hard at work preparing the minds of the masses for whats coming next. But please remember people, Iran is one of many countries in the world that are on the "hit list" to be dismantled and restructured accordingly, paving the way for the New World order.

reply to post by Tifozi


Oh I see where you are coming from. By no means did I mean support in the classical sense, send boots on the ground etc..

I meant provide them with open internet via Proxy Services so protests can take place; allow the flow of easy information; allow access to technology by providing them with Technology ( cell phones, labtops etc..)

There is a different way to help countries, and this "We are with you" stance that I laid out above ( of course there's mroe to it than that) would not only help the Iranian people but it would increase the confidence it has for the United States wanting to help them in good faith, as opposed to in bad faith with nefarious back room deals.

The access to information is the most important thing in an modern revolution and that's the only way we should provide help.

I agree that we meddle in ways we should not, but assisting a revolution, by providing the most vital requirements for that revolution to grow is not meddling; it is help.

~Tenth

I agree with you that Iran issue should not be dealt with military tools. War will cause lots of deaths and destruction and will not solve a thing, in my opinion.
But from what can be felt and heard, US is actually against the military option. Or am i missing something? Because military surely has all kinds of plans for all kinds of scenarios so presenting one of the least possible ones to non-military personal (especially media guys) in order to fill in wanted details and not mention not wanted ones sounds pretty harmless.
Nobody in their right mind will release real plans to media 90 days before the thing itself.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I have to be honest, I do agree with the idea.

But I think as for the sake of taking the lower-risk path, the U.S. shouldn't concern itself with that.

Most people assume that I'm pro-Iran and anti-US, and that couldn't be further away from the truth.

The matter of fact, I think the U.S. should concern itself in getting back on its two feet, and gaining balance. I think the world needs a super-power right now, with it's own industrial power, with it's own development sectors and the sorts. I think the world would gain a lot if we had a stronger America than the one we have today.

If the U.S. would concern more about getting back to the standards it had pre-WW2, the world would be a better place. It would mean that there is a super-power generating economic growth (from within, and purchasing more from other countries, spreading wealth) and is balanced enough to have a military force capable of STOPPING problems instead of creating them.

I think that's also why so many europeans support people like Ron Paul. Personally, I think he is the only one capable of providing the U.S. that everyone wants right now.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Dear tothetenthpower,

Any help you want to give me on this one will be appreciated greatly. It's all loose ends from my chair.

The general has spent his life working with the military and military based companies. Now he's retired and military (and other) companies want his advice and opinions.

NBC (and the world) knew about CIA involvement in the news back in 2009. McCaffrey has been known to offer NBC his opinions since then. I'm not sure whether NBC listened to or used his opinions on the air.

The claim is made that

The report provided by General McCaffrey not only discusses war within 90 days, it also states that Iran will be the agressor,

But, actually, McCaffrey's report says "there is a significant probability of Iranian escalation in the coming 90 days." We don't know what the word "significant" means and "Iranian escalation" could mean a prime time speech threatening the United States over the Koran incident, or increased border patrols, or more ships in Hormuz. It's true that he discusses a "major miltary action" in the coming 90 days, but says there's only a 15% chance of it. This all sounds overblown.

So is McCaffrey a bad guy here? I don't see what he's doing wrong. there's nothing hidden about him. So then, NBC must be the bad guy. NBC who was not fond of Bush, but likes Obama? Is NBC doing Obama's bidding then? Is Obama the evil mastermind behind this?

Like I say, I don't have a good grasp on this thread at all.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by stewiegriffin
As for Iran I just have one question. Would you be comfortable knowing that Iran has the ability to strike the U.S. with a nuclear weapon?

Do your research... Meir Dagan, who retired from his post as Mossad chief on Thursday after eight years, does not believe Iran will have nuclear capability before 2015.

The US has the ability and they have been in nothing but war for decades so who are we to say they can't have it? The US also is willing to go and take what they want if they want it...

I'm more scared of that...

Why would a Poodle pick on a Great Dane anyways? It just doesn't happen.