I really dislike the editing. Having static between the clips which is louder than the clips' volume is annoying when wearing headphones and made this clip unpleasant to watch. With that said,

I've read a few articles about the possibility of the CIA involved. It was reported that Bush did sign for 400 million dollars to destabilize Iran. I don't know the level of involvement, but I am sure that the CIA was involved at some level.

Well, with all due respect to the authors of this video and the submitter, Iran has a history of popular uprisings causing the downfall of unpopular governments. And while I suppose China has that history as well, the tibetan riots, while larger were much smaller relatively than the Iran protests, and they weren't calling for a toppling of the government.

In Iran, not only are the protesters claiming the entire country is being ruled illegitmately, they are clamoring for reform in the total government. And while I sympathize with the tibetan protesters, the Iranian protests have a much higher chance for effecting true change in their country than the tibetans chances to change the Chinese government.

The news cycle is called for, and while I do wear as much tin foil as the next guy (usually) I don't see the media coverage of the rebellion in Iran by the US media really having that much destabilizing effect in Iran. Especially since the President of the US is doing SO MUCH to stay out of the conflict.

A very smart move I might add.

Take anything and everything you see in the media with a grain of salt. While it may hold truth, it is truth through a filtered lens.

During the Bush era there were mass protests from thousands to tens of thousands across the country regarding everything from election fraud for the first election run, to anti-torture and anti-war rallies later in the administration.

Few were covered in the new media to any substantive degree. A short image here or there, but never anything in depth regarding a pro/con discussion over their protester grievances. Nothing. In the 1960's these protests were reported on. They were broadcast. The anti-war/Vietnam movement was highly vocal and highly publicized in comparison.

The media, through the puppet-strings of the powers-that-be show you what they want you to see. Unbiased reporting does not exist in 'for profit' media driven by 'image' over 'substance'.

Remember the events surrounding the so-called Russian invasion of Georgia? In the immediate aftermath, Russia was made into the aggressive power. The media ate up the story and broadcast it far and wide. Later it was proven that Russia was not in this alone. The US (Bush Administration) through oil deals was making an agressive resource/power grab through a major supply route. Russia did not like this. Georgia shot first. Russia then trampled Georgia with overbearing and far too much force. The US supplied Georgia with knowledge, logistics, and military hardware. Did you happen to notice the Georgian soldiers in the media broadcasts were wearing US variant fatigues and wielding M16's? Well. there you have it. The truth later came out and was exposed to a degree, and the 'power chess-game' effectively hit a stalemate. Stories of an embedded dead US soldier and another captured were quickly buried. The media quickly focused on other subjects and it disappeared from the lime light.

Regarding Iran.. these protest are real and are not sponsored by the CIA (though they certainly may have their fingers in the pie). However, the coverage of the events to direct public opinion in the west, is most assuredly tainted and smells bad.

We so quickly forget all the dead Burmese, Tibetans, and all those 'we' willfully ignored in Darfur. The US is a nation that takes action when it's financial/economic/resource interests are at stake and will spare no expense to exert it's force in such circumstances. However if it involves a backwater nation with negligible resources, or lacking of strategic value. Then they get but a word or two, a mention at the UN, and a piddly budget allotment that wouldn't be enough to keep a single small town public US school functioning for a year.

Regarding Iran.. these protest are real and are not sponsored by the CIA (though they certainly may have their fingers in the pie).

To me this is the key. It comes down to this very simple fact:
a) the CIA isn't at all involved in this, in which case the CIA is failing to do its job.
b) the CIA is involved in this to some degree, and there you go there is western influence.

I have the exact same ideas as honkeytonk (and this whole month I've been thinking of the Georgian case, which honkeytonk brought up).

a)I think the level of news coverage in Iran is suspiciously too much.
b)There is no doubt that large chunks of the population are rioting, but to think the CIA doesn't have a hand in inciting/promoting it to the levels it has reached would be naive.
c)This reminds me of so much of the media/government war drums before the Iraq invasion. The main objective gets left behind (WMD) and it becomes a show of it's own.

I think time reveals all, and we need to step back. Just like WMD there isn't really definite proof that there was vote rigging. Even if there was, is getting the votes counted for a presidential election where the president doesn't have any real powers (military, policy etc) that important to people that they would give their lives? I think it's just like the WMD case, it isn't about the votes, the flames are being fanned by the CIA and the media to get a regime change, regardless of whether the iranians really want it or not.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Iran, election, protesters, police, tehran, neda, election, cia' to 'Iran, election, protesters, police, tehran, neda, election, cia, media' - edited by notarobot

some fact some *lies

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by MrFisk.

i think this was edited to promote *fear

Adding video to channels (Fear) - requested by peggedbea.