Friday, January 25, 2008

The BBC is run by the military?


Wing Commander Michael Cairns took part in operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. ('BIGGLES' QUITS Sunday Mirror Find Articles at BNET.com)

Cairns has been responsible for political output from the BBC in Norther Ireland.

Cairns was found out.

"A BBC editor has resigned his post within the British military after Sinn Féin raised conflict of interest concerns. RAF wing commander Mike Cairns resigned as OC 7644 VR Squadron after Sinn Féin complained that his work as a public relations officer for the RAF was incompatible with his job as a high-ranking BBC editor.

"Following Sinn Féin's complaint the BBC confirmed Mike Cairns who worked in news-gathering in the BBC had resigned from the RAF reserve."
- An Phoblacht: BBC editor resigns from RAF post

Nicola Jones, writing in New Scientist, 19 November 2001, (Taliban nuclear documents mirror spoof article - 19 November 2001 ...) pointed out that 'Taliban nuclear documents' found by BBC reporter John Simpson were identical to a spoof article.

In 2001, John Simpson claimed he had found documents strewn on the floor of a Taliban recruitment centre in Kabul. He claimed these documents apparently described how to build a thermonuclear device.

The documents, according to Simpson showed "how dangerous Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network aspired to be".

According to the New Scientist:

The sentences shown in focus by the camera also come from a famous document called "Weekend Scientist: Let's Make a Thermonuclear Device", which was first published in 1979 as a humour piece by The Journal of Irreproducible Results.

The paper was written in response to US court decisions of the time that restricted popular magazines from detailing how to make a bomb. Since all the information is freely available in public libraries anyway, the author said, he decided to provide a humorous "ten easy steps" proving how easy bomb building can be.

While the gist of these instructions may be accurate, for example giving suggested relative proportions of plutonium and TNT, they are written completely in jest.

The first instruction tells readers to obtain weapons grade plutonium at their "local supplier". It continues: "A nuclear power plant is not recommended, as large quantities of missing plutonium tends to make plant engineers unhappy. We suggest you contact your local terrorist organization."

The US Department of Energy generally refuses to comment on the accuracy of such documents. But they do say that about five kilograms of plutonium is theoretically enough to make a nuclear explosive device, while the recipe in The Journal of Irreproducible Results calls for 110 kilograms of plutonium.

The BBC film only allows a few parts of the documents to be read, but these few phrases are exactly as found in the 1979 paper: "Theory of operation ... the device basically works when ... critical mass then produces a nuclear chain reaction ... Plutonium (PU), atomic number ... and is similar in ...".

"From what I've seen, this is certainly a shortened version of the original article," says Marc Abrahams, former editor of The Journal of Irreproducible Results.

Some of the more obviously absurd parts of the original are missing from the document in Kabul, such as a paragraph starting "in next month's column, we will learn how to clone your neighbor's wife in six easy steps." The Kabul document also has paragraph returns in odd places, as if someone had cut and pasted the text.

Even so, says Abrahams, "if you spend half a second scanning any of this you should be able to tell it's a joke." He adds that if the instructions were made more believable by removing the ridiculous parts, there would be practically nothing left.

Reportedly, John Simpson was a university friend of a former head of MI6.

Can you trust the BBC news? How many journalists are working for the security services? The following extracts are from an article at the excellent Medialens

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060303_hacks_and_spooks.php

March 3, 2006

HACKS AND SPOOKS

By Professor Richard Keeble

And so to Nottingham University (on Sunday 26 February) for a well-attended conference...

I focus in my talk on the links between journalists and the intelligence services:

While it might be difficult to identify precisely the impact of the spooks (variously represented in the press as “intelligence”, “security”, “Whitehall” or “Home Office” sources) on mainstream politics and media, from the limited evidence it looks to be enormous.

As Roy Greenslade, media specialist at the Telegraph (formerly the Guardian), commented:

"Most tabloid newspapers - or even newspapers in general - are playthings of MI5."

Bloch and Fitzgerald, in their examination of covert UK warfare, report the editor of “one of Britain’s most distinguished journals” as believing that more than half its foreign correspondents were on the MI6 payroll.

And in 1991, Richard Norton-Taylor revealed in the Guardian that 500 prominent Britons paid by the CIA and the now defunct Bank of Commerce and Credit International, included 90 journalists.

In their analysis of the contemporary secret state, Dorril and Ramsay gave the media a crucial role. The heart of the secret state they identified as the security services, the cabinet office and upper echelons of the Home and Commonwealth Offices, the armed forces and Ministry of Defence, the nuclear power industry and its satellite ministries together a network of senior civil servants.

As “satellites” of the secret state, their list included “agents of influence in the media, ranging from actual agents of the security services, conduits of official leaks, to senior journalists merely lusting after official praise and, perhaps, a knighthood at the end of their career”.

Phillip Knightley, author of a seminal history of the intelligence services, has even claimed that at least one intelligence agent is working on every Fleet Street newspaper.

A brief history

Going as far back as 1945, George Orwell no less became a war correspondent for the Observer - probably as a cover for intelligence work. Significantly most of the men he met in Paris on his assignment, Freddie Ayer, Malcolm Muggeridge, Ernest Hemingway were either working for the intelligence services or had close links to them.

Stephen Dorril, in his seminal history of MI6, reports that Orwell attended a meeting in Paris of resistance fighters on behalf of David Astor, his editor at the Observer and leader of the intelligence service’s unit liasing with the French resistance.

The release of Public Record Office documents in 1995 about some of the operations of the MI6-financed propaganda unit, the Information Research Department of the Foreign Office, threw light on this secret body - which even Orwell aided by sending them a list of “crypto-communists”. Set up by the Labour government in 1948, it “ran” dozens of Fleet Street journalists and a vast array of news agencies across the globe until it was closed down by Foreign Secretary David Owen in 1977.

According to John Pilger in the anti-colonial struggles in Kenya, Malaya and Cyprus, IRD was so successful that the journalism served up as a record of those episodes was a cocktail of the distorted and false in which the real aims and often atrocious behaviour of the British intelligence agencies was hidden.

And spy novelist John le Carré, who worked for MI6 between 1960 and 1964, has made the amazing statement that the British secret service then controlled large parts of the press – just as they may do today.

In 1975, following Senate hearings on the CIA, the reports of the Senate’s Church Committee and the House of Representatives’ Pike Committee highlighted the extent of agency recruitment of both British and US journalists.

And sources revealed that half the foreign staff of a British daily were on the MI6 payroll.

David Leigh, in The Wilson Plot, his seminal study of the way in which the secret service smeared through the mainstream media and destabilised the Government of Harold Wilson before his sudden resignation in 1976, quotes an MI5 officer: “We have somebody in every office in Fleet Street”

Leaker King

And the most famous whistleblower of all, Peter (Spycatcher) Wright, revealed that MI5 had agents in newspapers and publishing companies whose main role was to warn them of any forthcoming “embarrassing publications”.

Wright also disclosed that the Daily Mirror tycoon, Cecil King, “was a longstanding agent of ours” who “made it clear he would publish anything MI5 might care to leak in his direction”.

Selective details about Wilson and his secretary, Marcia Falkender, were leaked by the intelligence services to sympathetic Fleet Street journalists. Wright comments: “No wonder Wilson was later to claim that he was the victim of a plot”. King was also closely involved in a scheme in 1968 to oust Prime Minister Harold Wilson and replace him with a coalition headed by Lord Mountbatten.

Hugh Cudlipp, editorial director of the Mirror from 1952 to 1974, was also closely linked to intelligence, according to Chris Horrie, in his recently published history of the newspaper.

David Walker, the Mirror’s foreign correspondent in the 1950s, was named as an MI6 agent following a security scandal while another Mirror journalist, Stanley Bonnet, admitted working for MI5 in the 1980s investigating the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Maxwell and Mossad

According to Stephen Dorril, intelligence gathering during the miners’ strike of 1984-85 was helped by the fact that during the 1970s MI5’s F Branch had made a special effort to recruit industrial correspondents – with great success.

In 1991, just before his mysterious death, Mirror proprietor Robert Maxwell was accused by the US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh of acting for Mossad, the Israeli secret service, though Dorril suggests his links with MI6 were equally as strong.

Following the resignation from the Guardian of Richard Gott, its literary editor in December 1994 in the wake of allegations that he was a paid agent of the KGB, the role of journalists as spies suddenly came under the media spotlight – and many of the leaks were fascinating.

For instance, according to The Times editorial of 16 December 1994: “Many British journalists benefited from CIA or MI6 largesse during the Cold War.”

The intimate links between journalists and the secret services were highlighted in the autobiography of the eminent newscaster Sandy Gall. He reports without any qualms how, after returning from one of his reporting assignments to Afghanistan, he was asked to lunch by the head of MI6. “It was very informal, the cook was off so we had cold meat and salad with plenty of wine. He wanted to hear what I had to say about the war in Afghanistan. I was flattered, of course, and anxious to pass on what I could in terms of first-hand knowledge.”

And in January 2001, the renegade MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson, claimed Dominic Lawson, the editor of the Sunday Telegraph and son of the former Tory chancellor, Nigel Lawson, provided journalistic cover for an MI6 officer on a mission to the Baltic to handle and debrief a young Russian diplomat who was spying for Britain.

Lawson strongly denied the allegations.

Similarly in the reporting of Northern Ireland, there have been longstanding concerns over security service disinformation. Susan McKay, Northern editor of the Dublin-based Sunday Tribune, has criticised the reckless reporting of material from “dodgy security services”. She told a conference in Belfast in January 2003 organised by the National Union of Journalists and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: “We need to be suspicious when people are so ready to provide information and that we are, in fact, not being used.” (
www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=635)

Growing power of secret state

Thus from this evidence alone it is clear there has been a long history of links between hacks and spooks in both the UK and US.

But as the secret state grows in power, through massive resourcing, through a whole raft of legislation – such as the Official Secrets Act, the anti-terrorism legislation, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and so on – and as intelligence moves into the heart of Blair’s ruling clique so these links are even more significant.

Since September 11 all of Fleet Street has been awash in warnings by anonymous intelligence sources of terrorist threats.

According to former Labour minister Michael Meacher, much of this disinformation was spread via sympathetic journalists by the Rockingham cell within the MoD.

A parallel exercise, through the office of Special Plans, was set up by Donald Rumsfeld in the US. Thus there have been constant attempts to scare people – and justify still greater powers for the national security apparatus.

Similarly the disinformation about Iraq’s WMD was spread by dodgy intelligence sources via gullible journalists.

Thus, to take just one example, Michael Evans, The Times defence correspondent, reported on 29 November 2002: “Saddam Hussein has ordered hundred of his officials to conceal weapons of mass destruction components in their homes to evade the prying eyes of the United Nations inspectors.” The source of these “revelations” was said to be “intelligence picked up from within Iraq”. Early in 2004, as the battle for control of Iraq continued with mounting casualties on both sides, it was revealed that many of the lies about Saddam Hussein’s supposed WMD had been fed to sympathetic journalists in the US, Britain and Australia by the exile group, the Iraqi National Congress.

Sexed up – and missed out

During the controversy that erupted following the end of the “war” and the death of the arms inspector Dr David Kelly (and the ensuing Hutton inquiry) the spotlight fell on BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan and the claim by one of his sources that the government (in collusion with the intelligence services) had “sexed up” a dossier justifying an attack on Iraq.

The Hutton inquiry, its every twist and turn massively covered in the mainstream media, was the archetypal media spectacle that drew attention from the real issue: why did the Bush and Blair governments invade Iraq in the face of massive global opposition? But those facts will be forever secret.

Significantly, too, the broader and more significant issue of mainstream journalists’ links with the intelligence services was ignored by the inquiry.

Significantly, on 26 May 2004, the New York Times carried a 1,200-word editorial admitting it had been duped in its coverage of WMD in the lead-up to the invasion by dubious Iraqi defectors, informants and exiles (though it failed to lay any blame on the US President: see Greenslade 2004). Chief among The Times’ dodgy informants was Ahmad Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress and Pentagon favourite before his Baghdad house was raided by US forces on 20 May.

Then, in the Observer of 30 May 2004, David Rose admitted he had been the victim of a “calculated set-up” devised to foster the propaganda case for war. “In the 18 months before the invasion of March 2003, I dealt regularly with Chalabi and the INC and published stories based on interviews with men they said were defectors from Saddam’s regime.” And he concluded: “The information fog is thicker than in any previous war, as I know now from bitter personal experience. To any journalist being offered apparently sensational disclosures, especially from an anonymous intelligence source, I offer two words of advice: caveat emptor.”

Let’s not forget no British newspaper has followed the example of the NYT and apologised for being so easily duped by the intelligence services in the run up to the illegal invasion of Iraq.

~

Richard Keeble’s publications include Secret State, Silent Press: New Militarism, the Gulf and the Modern Image of Warfare (John Libbey 1997) and The Newspapers Handbook (Routledge, fourth edition, 2005). He is also the editor of Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics. Richard is also a member of the War and Media Network.

~~~

The BBC is mostly scripted by Mossad or MI6?


Photo of Gaza City http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Gaza-City.jpg Al Ameer son

Israel controls Gaza's airspace, seacoast, main borders, and trade. In this sense, Gaza remains occupied by Israel. The Palestinians do not have an independent state.
.
0 Israeli homes have been demolished by Palestinians and 4,170 Palestinian homes have been demolished by Israel since September 29, 2000. (View Source)
.
Israel currently has 223 Jewish-only settlements and ‘outposts’ built on confiscated Palestinian land. Palestinians do not have any settlements on Israeli land.
.
Recent rocket attacks on Israel have killed no Israelis. Recent Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed 32 Palestinians. (Israel jets target Hamas after rocket attacks - Times Online)
.
971 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000.
.
The BBC appears to side with the Israeli Zionists.

The BBC lists 17 comments on the Gaza situation on its website here: Gaza blockade: Your reaction

These comments may be genuine and a representative sample.

But, how many of the comments look like pro-Israel propaganda, possibly scripted by Mossad or its friends?

Comment

1 Assad uses the term 'extremists' to describe certain Palestinians.

2 Sara defends Israel

3. Abdal criticises the Arab world

4. Said hopes to go to the USA

5. Ami defends Israel

6. Amy defends Israel

7. Benjamin is a supporter of Israel

8. Adorna supports the Palestinians but writes in poor English

9. G is pro-Israel and attacks Hamas

10. Amir attacks extremist Moslems

11. Mustafa attacks Palestinian 'terrorists'

12. Lev suggests Israel is forced to take firm measures

13. Hardy suggests the Palestinians must be prepared to accept the consequences of the actions of their leaders.

14. Rachel defends Israel

15. Ahmed does not make clear whose side he is on; makes no attempt to explain any of the history of the conflict.

16. JP defends Israel

17. Marc defends Israel

~~~

The UK Media and a 'Kosher Conspiracy'.


Osama Saeed of Rolled-up Trousers (Cached) pointed out in 2006 that the Guardian comment pages had, over twelve months, included pieces by:

Charles Krauthammer (leading US neo-conservative),
Max Hastings (conservative),
Peregrine Worsthorne (conservative),
Paddy Ashdown (reportedly of MI6),
Tony Blair (friend of Israel)
and Sir Malcolm Rifkind (conservative).

Does this mean that The Guardian has become a conservative newspaper?

When you look at the British media, you may find that a sursprisingly large number of journalists could be described as 'friends of Israel'.

There is the BBC's John Ware, the New Statesman's Martin Bright who has been attacking Ken Livingstone (Salaam Blogs - Martin Bright's mythical dragons), the Daily Mail's Melanie Phillips ....

Is there a Kosher conspiracy?

Peter Wilby is no longer editor of the UK New Statesman. Why? Is it because he criticised Israel?

This is the New Statesman Editorial, 18th March, 2002: (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/579/in1.htm)

"As for the Jewish claim to biblical lands, it makes no more sense to the Arab mind than an Italian claim to establish a Roman state along the length of the A5 would to the British. Indeed, it never made much sense to European minds either, given that they would happily have settled for a Jewish homeland in Uganda or Siberia, if they had thought it practicable."

One New Statesman cover showed the star of David at the heart of the Union Jack, and had the title, 'Kosher Conspiracy.'

The Spectator magazine had an article suggesting that 9 11 was an inside-job.

The Spectator's editor Boris Johnson found his private life exposed. He was sacked as the Conservative party's vice chairman and arts spokesman.

The Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan criticised the war in Iraq. He was sacked.

The BBC sacked journalist Andrew Gilligan after he suggested that a government document on Iraq had been 'sexed up'.

On 29th January 1987, Alasdair Milne, the BBC Director General was removed. He had allowed the BBC to critcise the government. (http://www.bilderberg.org/milne.htm)

A study by Cardiff University media analysts (http://www.bilderberg.org/milne.htm#real) found that the BBC "displayed the most pro-war agenda of any [British] broadcaster."

The BBC's Andrew Marr proclaimed Tony Blair had 'been proved conclusively right' as Baghdad fell to the 'coalition' forces.

'It would be entirely ungracious', said Marr, 'not to acknowledge that tonight he stands as a larger man and a stronger prime minister as a result' (BBC 1, News At Ten, April 9, 2003)."

~~~~

Sunday, January 13, 2008

The Shah of Iran was toppled by the CIA and MI6?


The mainstream media would like us to believe that the Shah was overthrown by People Power and that the CIA and MI6 were taken by surprise.

However, there is evidence that the CIA and MI6 toppled the Shah because he had become too much of a nationalist, like Nasser, and was not following instructions on oil or even opium.

Allegedly, the CIA did not want left-wing democrats taking over from the Shah as they might not be easy to control. So, reportedly, the CIA allowed the Ayatollahs to take over.

Radio Free Iran claimed that while at Qom, the Ayatollah Khomeini received a "monthly stipend from the British, and he is in constant contact with his masters, the British."
The British, Muslim Terrorism and September 11

On 19 January 1980, the International Herald Tribune reported that the Shah had said, two years before he was overthrown, that he had heard from two different sources connected with oil companies that the regime in Iran would change.

‘We believe that there was a plan to ensure less oil was offered to the world markets in order to bring about a price,’ said the Shah. ‘One country was to be chosen for the sacrifice... It seems that the country chosen to drop its oil production was mine.’
webgardian: Shah:Oil Companies Helped to Oust Him

The Shah's nationalist policies were making him more popular in Iran and making his country more independent and more powerful. This worried the CIA and MI6.

1. The Shah bought land from the upper classes and, along with the crown's own land, sold it back cheaply to tenant farmers. Over one a half million people to became land owners, thus ending the old feudal system.

2.The Shah allowed women the right to vote. He brought an end to the wearing of the veil.

3. He developed plans for a $90 billion nuclear power program.

4. The Shah signed petroleum agreements with ENI, the Italian oil company.

5. He began to close down the opium industry. This had been created during the days of British influence.

'Former intelligence officer' Dr John Coleman considers opium to be of prime importance in the toppling of the Shah (Conspirators’ Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300 - 6). Dr Coleman is sometimes described as being a conspiracy theorist.

Coleman believes that the US government toppled the Shah of Iran.

He writes:

Why was the Shah deposed...? In a word, because of DRUGS. The Shah had clamped down and virtually put an end to the immensely lucrative opium trade being conducted out of Iran by the British. At the time that the Shah took over in Iran, there were already one million opium/heroin addicts.

This the British would not tolerate, so they sent the United States to do their dirty work for them in terms of the “special relationship” between the two countries.

When Khomeini took over the U.S. Embassy in Teheran, arms sales by the United States, which had begun with the Shah, were not discontinued...

After 1984, Khomeini’s liberal attitude toward opium had increased the number of addicts to 2 million, according to United Nations and World Health Organization statistics.

Both President Carter and his successor, Ronald Reagan, willingly and with full knowledge of what was at stake, went on supplying arms to Iran even while American hostages languished in captivity...

The arms trade with Iran was sealed at a meeting between Cyrus Vance... and Dr. Hashemi, which resulted in the U.S. Air Force beginning an immediate airlift of arms to Iran, carried on even at the height of the hostage crisis the arms came from U.S. Army stockpiles in Germany and some were even flown directly from the United States with refueling stops at the Azores.

With the advent of Khomeini... opium production skyrocketed. By 1984 Iran’s opium production exceeded 650 metric tons of opium per annum.... Iran presently rivals the Golden Triangle in the volume of opium produced.

The role of the Moslem Brotherhood and the Ayatollahs

The following is taken from http://www.redmoonrising.com/Ikhwan/BritIslam.htm

(Sources used in the article: The Biography of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, jebhemelli.org
Killing Hope - U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, William Blum, 1995
MI6 - Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service, Stephen Dorril, 2000)


Prior to World War II, British Intelligence cultivated ties with the Brotherhood through agent Freya Stark, the British adventurer and writer... The Muslim Brotherhood spread throughout the Muslim world and has evolved into something like a Muslim equivalent of the West's Masonic brotherhood...

"According to CIA agent Miles Copeland, the Americans began looking for a Muslim Billy Graham around 1955... When finding or creating a Muslim Billy Graham proved elusive, the CIA began to cooperate with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim mass organization founded in Egypt but with followers throughout the Arab Middle East... This signalled the beginning of an alliance between the traditional regimes and mass Islamic movements against Nasser and other secular forces." (Blum)

The most noteworthy success of the Islamic movement during this time was of course the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the installation of the Ayatollah Khomeini as the Islamic dictator. British Intelligence had used their contacts with Iran's mullahs and ayatollahs to help overthrow Mossadegh and install the Shah back in 1953, and these contacts were maintained and used again to overthrow the Shah when his regime fell out of favor.

The Establishment history of Iran's Islamic Revolution is that Khomeini's revolt was spontaneous and populist, and that it overthrew a repressive dictatorship that was hated by the people but supported wholeheartedly by the United States. It is true that the Shah's government was not a democracy and that his secret service, trained by the CIA, was one of the most effective intelligence organizations in the world.

But what is not reported is that prior to the British-sponsored massive public relations campaign on behalf of the Ayatollah the government of the Shah was loved by the vast majority of the population.

After taking over from Mossadegh the Shah began to push forward a number of nationalist policies that increased his popularity at home but, in some cases, worried the Anglo-American Establishment.

First, he signed petroleum agreements with ENI, the Italian oil company.

Then in 1963 he pushed forward on a series of popular reforms that became known as the White Revolution.

The Shah evolved into a nationalist whose path paralleled that of Nasser far too much for the Establishment's liking:

- He bought land from the upper classes and, along with the crown's own land, sold it back cheaply to tenant farmers, allowing over one a half million people to become land owners and ending the old feudal system.

- He allowed women the right to vote, and brought an end to the wearing of the veil, which were "Westernizing" moves unwelcomed by the religious sector.

- He pushed forward on a $90 billion nuclear power program.

- He moved to shut down the lucrative opium industry that had been created during the days of British Empire control that had been running for a hundred years....

The attack on the Shah's government came through the Muslim Brotherhood and through the mullahs and ayatollahs of Iran, supported and manipulated by British Intelligence...

Dr. John Coleman, a former British Intelligence agent... states in his report on Iran's Islamic Revolution (11) that the Muslim Brotherhood was created by "the great names of British Middle East intelligence" ...and that their mission was to "keep the Middle East backward so that its natural resource, oil, could continue to be looted..."

Dr. Coleman writes that in 1980 the broadcasts of Radio Free Iran divided the enemies of the Shah into four categories: 1. Iranian politicians bought by the Israeli Shin Bet, 2. The CIA's network of agents, 3. The feudal landowners, 4. The Freemasons and the Muslim Brotherhood (viewed as the same enemy).

In his report Dr. Coleman writes that in Iran, "At one time there was even a joke about the mullahs being stamped 'made in Britain.'" When the Shah introduced his plan for modernization in 1963 the Ayatollah Khomeini emerged as the leader of the religious opposition. Up until his exile from Iran in 1964, Khomeini was based at the religious city of Qom. Dr. Coleman relates that Radio Free Iran claimed that while at Qom Khomeini received a "monthly stipend from the British, and he is in constant contact with his masters, the British."

Source http://www.redmoonrising.com/Ikhwan/BritIslam.htm

On February 1st, 1979, two weeks after the Shah's departure, Khomeini made a triumphant return to Iran. The BBC's John Simpson was on the plane that carried him back from Paris. aangirfan: BBC links to MI6?

~~