[eDebate] how gerbil almost 100% whitewashed the CIA

Old Strega oldstrega
Sun Jul 5 05:44:12 CDT 2009

i consider this debate finished until further evidence comes to light either advancing or denying the allegations of a CIA plot. i believe at this point there is sufficient cause to question the official position of the US government that the CIA's hands are completely clean.    when further evidence comes to light, i will post and prove to what lengths (including psychological operations) gerbil has gone to 100% whitewash the CIA.     i believe that placing stricter standards for burden of proof on evil ahmadinejad than the CIA by people like reese erlich is based in trickery.    these con artists are worried that no definitive evidence has yet surfaced linking the CIA to perpetrating claims of a stolen election but not worried that a stolen election was advertised with no definitive evidence of theft.    the CIA can quickly stage an election hoax but its opponents in the past have had to wait for their SNAFUs to come to light through research and questioning.   at the outset of most CIA interventions, illusion prevails through this shell game.  through its media manipulation the CIA almost always has a leg up in creating skepticism about its possible involvement deploying theories of plausible deniability particularly amenable to the misinformed mainstream.   gerbil's only advantage in this debate so far has been derived from institutionalized cheating which creates a time-lag between CIA plots and the gradual documentation of those plots.   leveraging that time-lag has always been a key component of CIA psychological operations to ridicule allegations in the meantime.   gerbil probably would have (based on his use of reese erlich) defended the CIA in 1953 in the weeks following the coup from similar allegations leveraging the lack of definitive evidence.   he probably would have done the same with the installment of pinochet in chile.   mousavi's history of murder puts in company with the shah and pinochet.
the official goal of US foreign policy is to destabilize iran and apparently gerbil is in some sort of alignment with that goal and the intelligence agents currently in operation to achieve that goal.    any form of cheating including misinformation on a debate list serves that end.    the foreign policy of regime change in iran through psychological operations and armed resistance initiated by the neocons and continued by obama has backfired and weakened US influence in the region.   as further evidence of CIA involvement comes to light, US influence could be setback below the level of dubya for the remainder of the obama administration closing the historical window of opportunity.     the failed soft coup which required a massive assault of misinformation in the mainstream media at home is a key moment in the development of obama's foreign policy which may be falling apart.   should the CIA with authorization from the president be allowed to perpetrate such a large-scale hoax which undermines legitimate debate at home hampering democracy in the name of democracy?
gerbil sounds like mccain, kissinger, wolfowitz, and all those demonizing ahmadinejad to proceed with hard coup plans in the wake of the soft coup failure.   their statements on the protesters are interchangeable except gerbil's greater degree of histrionic sentimentality.  honestly, i prefer mccain, kissinger and wolfowitz for not disguising their true motives.   the foreign policy elite has an erection the size of babel over the co-option of many progressive, leftist and other gerbils by the version of the story told on the corporate, mainstream media which has been reduced to a mouthpiece for the war state.   as many of gerbil's links show, we have groups formerly opposed to the role of the mainstream media in positively framing US foreign policy, now, being influenced to defend the corporate media from criticism of its iran coverage.
the allegations of a CIA plot do not deny agency to those who rose against ahmadinejad prior to the election.  rather, the allegations of a CIA plot simply demonstrate the similarities between mousavi's declaration of victory the day before the election and the CIA inspired colored revolutions of Georgia and Ukraine.    mousavi attempted to gain the majority he did not have but needed to oust ahmadinejad.    completely denying any possibility of a US liaison with the opposition candidate on enemy territory is ridiculous especially a candidate like mousavi with iran-contra links to the US policy establishment (apparently reese erlich is weak on the reagan years).    was the forged letter passed out to the protesters which triggered the massive rallies crafted by the CIA or the mossad who clearly have that capability?   robert fisk refused to chastise that scenario.   

gerbil, your goal is not to debate but to confuse.   to confuse you utilize elements of debate making half-arguments and misdirections in an attempt to redefine the terms of the argument ground already staked out.   you care more about the audience's perception of the CIA than about debating.    after listening to you on iran, you don't even get the sense that you are defending the CIA because you have completely twisted the question into "ahmadinejad bad" and "sympathy for the protesters good".     this attempt to skew the debate in a different direction away from the CIA's involvement introduces question as to your motives.   you have defended the CIA without mentioning the CIA which is very CIA-esque.   it is not that you are defending the CIA but how you are defending the CIA that raises suspicion about your motives.   i don't think you liked the direction of the discussion with hester in which hester didn't try to whitewash the CIA as you're doing.   unlike gerbil, hester was rather conciliatory and open to the likelihood of CIA involvement.    the outcome of that discussion was not good for those with vested interests in misinformation.    you entered late with a link to zizek, no arguments of your own and went piecemeal from there.   despite only presenting piecemeal defenses of the CIA which were mostly posted links with no analysis of your own, you claimed victory for your CIA whitewash anyway.   

if you had your way, we wouldn't even be debating the CIA soft coup anymore.   we'd reframe the debate exclusively around the iran protesters.    stroube's not attacking the CIA because he's defending ahmadinejad and dismissing the protesters.    gerbil's not defending the CIA because he's attacking ahmadinejad and acknowledging the protesters.    clever but uncompelling.  you underestimate the power of debate rationality to expose your deliberate confusion.     
let's look at your mission accomplished statement and then your "strategy".


"call me 'pissboy' as much as you like, but have a reason, is all i'm asking. proclaim that i enjoy sticking gerbils in my anus for sexual enjoyment - fine; but be winning the  debate when you do so. on iran and structuralism, it was not even a wash."

there were key areas of the likely CIA's involvement which you had left unanswered when you claimed victory in that statement.   i seized the opportunity and outlined the trap.    if you indeed you were winning, you shouldn't have to answer dropped arguments.   if you, suddenly, started to answer those arguments, then your boast of winning iran must have been erroneous.    
suddenly,  you agreed that ahmadinejad won but still did not answer the similarities between mousavi's declaration of victory the night before the election and CIA inspired declarations of a stolen election in georgia and the ukarine.    and did not answer the likelihood of a letter passed out to protesters from the interior ministry claiming that mousavi won being a forgery -- robert fisk.    if mousavi clearly lost by your own admission, i don't see why a random recount of 10% which is the same kind of recount conducted in the US and other western democracies would not be sufficient.   seems imperialist to impose a revolutionary standard of a third party recount on iran.   at least a double standard.  

you posted a link on twitter with no analysis of your own about the counter-claims that twitter was likely manipulated by foreign intelligence along the lines of israeli SMS manipulations in gaza and lebanon.   and no analysis of the speculation linking the email accounts that spawned the tweets to israel.   plus the link contradicts your own previous defense of the US state dep't requesting twitter not shut down for maintenance because they are key to the protests.    the state dep't intervention at this juncture was fishy like gerbil.  in your own words:

"You've been critical of the obama administration's interferences; do you similarly disappove of the state department's request to twitter that it not shut down monday for routine maintaince so that people in iran could continue to use the service to organize protests and spread information?"

don't confuse those recaps for continuing the debate.     you need to address the overarching question :
why did you need to respond to key dropped arguments when you were so clearly winning? 
expect from gerbil a retreat to psychological tactics akin to the "lost cause" formulation that aim to isolate and denigrate anyone who questions the mainstream media's version of the protests as 100% unmanipulated by foreign intelligence.   expect from gerbil a lack of seriousness and cynicism.   possibly some of his weirdest confusion yet could rear its head in his next post.

why is gerbil so adamantly committed to whitewashing even the possibility of the CIA's involvement in the soft coup?    hmmm...
Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090705/0bede4f2/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list