HOW TO IDENTIFY CIA LIMITED HANG OUT OP ?

20130619-075507.jpg

By Webster Griffin TARPLEY, for PressTV

The operations of secret intelligence agencies aiming at the manipulation of public opinion generally involve a combination of cynical deception with the pathetic gullibility of the targeted populations.

There is ample reason to believe that the case of Edward Joseph Snowden fits into this pattern. We are likely dealing here with a limited hangout operation, in which carefully selected and falsified documents and other materials are deliberately revealed by an insider who pretends to be a fugitive rebelling against the excesses of some oppressive or dangerous government agency.

But the revelations turn out to have been prepared with a view to shaping the public consciousness in a way which is advantageous to the intelligence agency involved. At the same time, gullible young people can be duped into supporting a personality cult of the leaker, more commonly referred to as a “whistleblower.” A further variation on the theme can be the attempt of the sponsoring intelligence agency to introduce their chosen conduit, now posing as a defector, into the intelligence apparatus of a targeted foreign government. In this case, the leaker or whistleblower attains the status of a triple agent.

Any attempt to educate public opinion about the dynamics of limited hangout operations inevitably collides with the residue left in the minds of millions by recent successful examples of this technique. It will be hard for many to understand Snowden, precisely because they will insist on seeing him as the latest courageous example in a line of development which includes Daniel Ellsberg and Julian Assange, both still viewed by large swaths of naïve opinion as authentic challengers of oppressive government.

This is because the landmark limited hangout operation at the beginning of the current post-Cold War era was that of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon papers, which laid the groundwork for the CIA’s Watergate attack on the Nixon administration, and more broadly, on the office of the presidency itself. More recently, we have had the case of Assange and Wikileaks. Using these two cases primarily, we can develop a simple typology of the limited hangout operation which can be of significant value to those striving to avoid the role of useful idiots amidst the current cascade of whistleblowers and limited hangout artists.

In this analysis, we should also recall that limited hangouts have been around for a very long time. In 1620 Fra Paolo Sarpi, the dominant figure of the Venetian intelligence establishment of his time, advised the Venetian senate that the best way to defeat anti-Venetian propaganda was indirectly. He recommended the method of saying something good about a person or institution while pretending to say something bad. An example might be criticizing a bloody dictator for beating his dog – the real dimensions of his crimes are thus totally underplayed.

Limited hangout artists are instant media darlings

The most obvious characteristic of the limited hangout operative is that he or she immediately becomes the darling of the controlled corporate media. In the case of Daniel Ellsberg, his doctored set of Pentagon papers were published by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and eventually by a consortium totaling seventeen corporate newspapers. These press organs successfully argued the case for publication all the way to the United States Supreme Court, where they prevailed against the Nixon administration.

Needless to say, surviving critics of the Warren Commission, and more recent veterans of the 9/11 truth movement, and know very well that this is emphatically not the treatment reserved for messengers whose revelations are genuinely unwelcome to the Wall Street centered US ruling class. These latter are more likely to be slandered, vilified and dragged through the mud, or, even more likely, passed over in complete silence and blacked out. In extreme cases, they can be kidnapped, renditioned or liquidated.

Continue reading

Iran foils ‘new sedition’ ploy hatched by BBC-affiliated network

20130314-091727.jpg

PressTV

A massive network of domestic and foreign-based journalists, reporters and unofficial newsmakers working mainly for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has recently been discovered and annihilated by the Iranian Intelligence Ministry.

The massive media network, as identified by the Intelligence Ministry, is “one of the largest media networks affiliated to the global arrogance”, whose main task was to execute a new “sedition” ahead of the upcoming presidential and city councils’ elections on June 14 in Iran.

The BBC-affiliated network was being monitored by the ministry for one year and a half, according to Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi, before a crackdown was launched in January to arrest its domestic agents after acquiring legal permissions from the Judiciary.

The ministry said the main goal of the network was to “exploit what they learned during the sedition period” after the 2009 presidential election, which was incited by the West and its media apparatuses, particularly the BBC.

Britain and the U.S. established Persian services for their media outlets, including the BBC Persian, the Voice of America and Radio Farda – which is a U.S-funded Prague-based Persian radio, to especially incite ethnic rifts among the Iranian nation and prepare the ground for their hostile actions in the Islamic Middle Eastern country.

The British Foreign Office in Iran launched the BBC Persian radio on December 29, 1940 as its main propaganda arm preaching discord and sedition in the country.

BBC Persian radio, known in Iran as Radio London, stayed on waves for 50 years before the BBC launched a Persian TV broadcast in 2008.

Radio London, was one of the first foreign-language services of the British state broadcaster and began its work to counter Germany’s Radio Berlin, which aired Persian broadcasts for Iranians, during the First World War.

Radio London also played a key role in accomplishing a plot hatched by the U.S. spying apparatus, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in the early 1950s to topple the democratically-elected government of late Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in the aftermath of the nationalization of Iranian oil industry, which was formerly dominated by the UK government.

After the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, BBC Persian began distorting news about the Iraqi-imposed war on Iran in a desperate attempt to depict that the newly-formed Islamic Republic was unable to work.

Later on, six months before the 2009 presidential elections in Iran, the British Foreign Office launched BBC Persian TV news channel to effectively replace the so-called Radio London as the UK government’s propaganda apparatus against the Islamic Republic.

Continue reading

America’s Total War

20120605-084935.jpg
Reuters / Gil Cohen Magen

By Adrian Salbuchi for RT

President Obama promised change, but there’s little of it in his war policies, which are harsher than those of George W. Bush.US drone bombings often target not just “terrorists” but all “military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.”

“Unless there is explicit posthumous intelligence proving otherwise”, that is.

As an extensive recent report in The New York Times explains, for all practical purposes Obama is applying what can best be described as a Total War Doctrine, bringing government, military and media propaganda PsyWar under one strategy.

The concept of “Total War” – war involving not just the military but all civilians irrespective of age or sex, together with the entire infrastructure of a country – became a horrible reality during the 20th century, driven for the most part by steering scientific discoveries and technological progress towards unlimited use in warfare.Total War is very much alive today and is being spearheaded by the United States and its Allies.

This is being abetted on all fronts by US, European and global mainstream media that willingly oblige.In the case of Obama’s Total War Doctrine, the media go along with US official policy, and describe the murder of innocent people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when American democracy-building drone bombs fall, as “militant combatants”.

You see, Total War requires intense and constant psychological warfare to convince public opinion – both at home and abroad – that “our boys” fighting “to spread peace and democracy”, always do the “the right thing” by killing “the right people” who threaten America, Europe, Israel and the rest of the West; in other words, by only killing “militant terrorist combatants”.

Continue reading