Plot to kill Saudi Ambassador to US.

studiorat

Following on from the news stories today in which the DEA and FBI are bringing charges of conspiracy to assassinate the former Saudi spin doctor and current envoy to the states.
Here's Foxnews' coverage for the craic > http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/12/alleged-assassination-plot-seen-as-sign-emboldened-iran-shifting-strategy/



I thought it might be useful to introduce a brief background to Hezbollah and Co.'s activities in South America.

http://www.aei.org/docLib/No-3-LatinAmerican-2011g.pdf


enjoyment :-)

Jonny7

Knew this one would crop up here..

Still reading about it, haven't made my mind up on it yet..

The Saudis and the US are really bringing it to the fore

seanmacc

The Fox News coverage of events was utter madness. I was watching it this morning and all they were short of saying is that they should Nuke Iran.

studiorat

fiver someone reckons it's to cover up OWS.

It is however in good time and in a similar area to the business about the customs polices' guns turning up in the hands of Mexican bandits (Gunwalker).

ed2hands

studiorat wrote: »

I thought it might be useful to introduce a brief background to Hezbollah and Co.'s activities in South America.

http://www.aei.org/docLib/No-3-LatinAmerican-2011g.pdf


enjoyment :-)

Nice one Studio. Will give that pdf a read at some stage

jackiebaron

ed2hands wrote: »

Nice one Studio. Will give that pdf a read at some stage

He pukes out an article from the American Enterprise Institute :pac:

ed2hands

:)Well i'll check it out tomorrow. Funny, was just posting about South America on another forum today.

The Outside Agency

Let's see who's part of the AEI ...past or present isn't relevant.

John Bolton - warmonger / chickenhawk
Dick Cheney - warmonger / chickenhawk
Paul Wolfowitz - warmonger and financial terrorist
Richard Perle - gee whizz...another warmonger

So basically the AEI is made up of men who profit from death and mayhem of poor people in foreign countries - nice organization that...

And those are just a handful of the names i recognised, god only knows what other people are associated with AEI.

charlemont

I don't believe any of it.

studiorat

nivekd wrote: »

Let's see who's part of the AEI ...past or present isn't relevant.

John Bolton - warmonger / chickenhawk
Dick Cheney - warmonger / chickenhawk
Paul Wolfowitz - warmonger and financial terrorist
Richard Perle - gee whizz...another warmonger

So basically the AEI is made up of men who profit from death and mayhem of poor people in foreign countries - nice organization that...

And those are just a handful of the names i recognised, god only knows what other people are associated with AEI.

Very predictable so far...

Did you check any of the references in the document nikekd? A good way to start is to read the initial document, check it's references and check the references following that and so on. There's a reports from all over the place including the report on terrorist attacks in Argentina (AIMA) and the trial of 12 Iranians following it. The AEI report is only a starting point.

It certainly presents an argument as to why the US would be slow to attack Iran as has been suggested many times. The fact of having the boys in their back yard if you will.

Do we like the picture lads?

jackiebaron wrote: »

He pukes out an article from the American Enterprise Institute :pac:

I've always wanted to say this : "You should wake up and open your mind!!!!" Educate yourself missus...

jackiebaron

nivekd wrote: »

Let's see who's part of the AEI ...past or present isn't relevant.

John Bolton - warmonger / chickenhawk
Dick Cheney - warmonger / chickenhawk
Paul Wolfowitz - warmonger and financial terrorist
Richard Perle - gee whizz...another warmonger

So basically the AEI is made up of men who profit from death and mayhem of poor people in foreign countries - nice organization that...

And those are just a handful of the names i recognised, god only knows what other people are associated with AEI.

Once you see that lunatic Bolton, you know that it's a complete fabrication to try and get another war started.

Back in 2002 Bolton was also doing the rounds stating that Cuba had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that a genocidal attack on the US was imminent unless Cuba was struck with nuclear missiles.

The guy is nothing but a loudmouthed bitch who probably does Hitler impersonations in front of his bedroom mirror. Should be shot with a ball of his own sh!t. Perfect man for the Bush administration. All these weirdoes started off torturing kittens, blowing up frogs and pulling the wings off flies, etc. as kids.

I would imagine that all the other PNAC, slope-shouldered dweebs who masturbate at the thought of bombing countries would be associated with the AEI. Feith, Kagan, Armitage, Fukiyama... all those assholes.

jackiebaron

studiorat wrote: »

I've always wanted to say this : "You should wake up and open your mind!!!!" Educate yourself missus...

My mind is very open. You're the one who is blinkered. The whole cabal of PNAC idiots are part of the AEI, you know, the ones who started the Iraq War and then walked away from it when all their "facts" and "outcomes" and "costs" and "predictions" turned out to be as non-existent as their own military service. The AEI is nothing but a talking shop for warmongers. And don't go giving me crap from that bull**** source Wikipedia. It's farcical and not for the open-minded.

Border-Rat

More lies from the worlds biggest terror state.

ed2hands

studiorat wrote: »

It certainly presents an argument as to why the US would be slow to attack Iran as has been suggested many times. The fact of having the boys in their back yard if you will.

I read through it and let's ignore the AEI angle for a sec and the huge hypocricy of US accusations regarding meddling and criminality in South America.

You think the document forwards an argument for not attacking Iran?
Would have thought myself that if war is in the offing, that it would be put forward as another piece of "evidence" for a Colin Powell-esque "This is why we're going to war" presentation ala "they took the babies out of the incubators" and all that rubbish.

hooradiation

jackiebaron wrote: »

And don't go giving me crap from that bull**** source Wikipedia. It's farcical and not for the open-minded.

You'd think after all the complaining of alternative news sites being dismissed out of hand the irony of doing the exact same thing would be obvious.

studiorat

ed2hands wrote: »

I read through it and let's ignore the AEI angle for a sec and the huge hypocricy of US accusations regarding meddling and criminality in South America.

You think the document forwards an argument for not attacking Iran?
Would have thought myself that if war is in the offing, that it would be put forward as another piece of "evidence" for a Colin Powell-esque "This is why we're going to war" presentation ala "they took the babies out of the incubators" and all that rubbish.

Hypocrisy is a relative currency, one mans hypocrisy etc. Hezbollah in SA is a different thing to the US interference. For one the US' presence there over the decades hasn't ever been in contention, it obviously is here. Furthermore, the AEI 'angle' doesn't negate the actual facts, we haven't seen them challenged yet.

The document in itself doesn't present an argument for not attacking, I think Hezbollah are there because the US for them is a source of cash (it should be noted that there's absolutely no evidence for them attacking the US or wanting to) this is suppose is alarming enough for some, or at least interesting.

You may well be right, maybe it will be an excuse, but the fact is they and their supporters have a foothold in SA, access is relatively easy and they would seem to have some popular support. Their numbers are unclear which is probably even more daunting a prospect for the US. It's certainly putting the sh1ts up quite a few rank and file politicians. (see video)

Powell may have presented his argument for Iraq, but there wasn't the threat of similar invisible Iraqi bogey men digging tunnels under the Mexican border. I dunno, perhaps the only precedent for something like this is something like a bay of pigs scenario.

Now, as we've seen some would try and steer the discussion away using ad hominem. I'd be really interested to hear a rebuttal that wasn't pure speculation without any evidence to back it up. Looks like I'll be waiting a while, so far all we've had is rattles been thrown around a few prams.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMRxKf3F8t4

CyberJuice

Iran have oil,America needs oil.

so it makes up some stories so it can get the people of america to get behind a war in Iran.. we all knew back when the invaded iraq that iran would be next,shouldnt be a suprise to anyone

If you have something America wants they will take it,they wont let things like politics or the truth get in the way.

Only reason they havent invaded china is because there is too many of them but world war 3 will come within the next 150 years,america cant allow china to become the top dogs,pride wont let them live with it

Jaafa

Iran would have gained absolutely nothing from this attack. They have zero motive to attack a Saudi ambassador on US soil, other that the usual American rhetoric of 'they hate each other'.

Seriously I am amazed that the FBI couldn't come up with a better story. At least say the target was some military adviser for Saudi Arabia or something.

ed2hands

Just watched Joe Biden (US vice president) saying all options, including military action, remained on the table.

This is f*cking insane! Warmongering is being taken to new levels here.

hooradiation

ed2hands wrote: »

Just watched Joe Biden (US vice president) saying all options, including military action, remained on the table.

This is f*cking insane! Warmongering is being taken to new levels here.

I'm curious, if all options are on the table, then how is this insane or warmongering?

Surely, if Mr Biden had said that only military action is on the table then we could call it warmongering and insanity?

studiorat

Jaafa wrote: »

Iran would have gained absolutely nothing from this attack. They have zero motive to attack a Saudi ambassador on US soil, other that the usual American rhetoric of 'they hate each other'.

Seriously I am amazing that the CIA couldn't come up with a better story. At least say the target was some military adviser for Saudi Arabia or something.

The FBI actually...

There's a couple of motives. The man is pretty much responsible for turning US opinion for Saudi after Sept 11th. No mean feat after the Saudi's blaming "the Jews" and Bin Laden being a relation and all the rest of it. In addition he's a key foreign policy advisor to the Saudi kingdom, and a hell of a pro-americian to boot.


@ ed I didn't see Biden's reaction, you got the link handy?

Jaafa

studiorat wrote: »

The FBI actually...

There's a couple of motives. The man is pretty much responsible for turning US opinion for Saudi after Sept 11th. No mean feat after the Saudi's blaming "the Jews" and Bin Laden being a relation and all the rest of it. In addition he's a key foreign policy advisor to the Saudi kingdom, and a hell of a pro-americian to boot.


@ ed I didn't see Biden's reaction, you got the link handy?

I really doubt he needed to turn anyone. The US knew exactly where it wanted to go and who's help it needed to do it.

What you've said basically makes this a 1.5million dollar revenge plot which if it was true was going to seriously mess up Iran's already poor relations with Saudi Arabia.Even If if they manage to kill the man they were always going be the first to be blamed.

What they stood to lose far outweighs any gains.

ed2hands

studiorat wrote: »

@ ed I didn't see Biden's reaction, you got the link handy?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/joe-biden-iran-backed-terror-plot-targeting-washington-14719201

studiorat

Jaafa wrote: »

I really doubt he needed to turn anyone. The US knew exactly where it wanted to go and who's help it needed to do it.

Your doubt appears to be pretty baseless. The stories blaming Saudi for financing Al Queda were rife. Remember the yarns about the Bin Laden family flying home that day, the Saudi defense minister flying out that day and all the rest of it.

Saudi ran billboard ads all over the country trying defending itself, why would they do that?

I'm saying the motive would be to remove him because he is seen to be pro -US, not revenge. Don't forget that's a motive not just for Iran either.

The Outside Agency

studiorat wrote:

Very predictable so far...

Did you check any of the references in the document nikekd? A good way to start is to read the initial document, check it's references and check the references following that and so on. There's a reports from all over the place including the report on terrorist attacks in Argentina (AIMA) and the trial of 12 Iranians following it. The AEI report is only a starting point.

It certainly presents an argument as to why the US would be slow to attack Iran as has been suggested many times. The fact of having the boys in their back yard if you will.

Do we like the picture lads?

studiorat, why do you always want to prove a negative?
Most of the references cited are from the US government so how can I know if what they say is true or not?

I only have to look at the people involved with AEI to know it's a platform for sick asshοles like Dick Cheney and John The Fυckhead Bolton to spread propaganda and promote war against a bunch of poor people in a desert.

Most of the politicians affiliated with AEI are some of the biggest death dealing whores on the planet.

studiorat

nivekd wrote: »

I only have to look at the people involved with AEI to know it's a platform for sick asshοles like Dick Cheney and John The Fυckhead Bolton to spread propaganda and promote war against a bunch of poor people in a desert.

Most of the politicians affiliated with AEI are some of the biggest death dealing whores on the planet.

Yawn...

Hezbollah in South America yes or no?

Iranian plot ? Saudi Black Flag? US Black flag? Iranian freelancers?

Spare us the soapboxing we've heard it all before.

studiorat

jackiebaron wrote: »

My mind is very open.

Careful your brain doesn't fall out. ba-dum-tish!

Mahatma coat

studiorat wrote: »

Your doubt appears to be pretty baseless. The stories blaming Saudi for financing Al Queda were rife. Remember the yarns about the Bin Laden family flying home that day, the Saudi defense minister flying out that day and all the rest of it.

Saudi ran billboard ads all over the country trying defending itself, why would they do that?

I'm saying the motive would be to remove him because he is seen to be pro -US, not revenge. Don't forget that's a motive not just for Iran either.

There may be more thana Grainof truth to the Saudi Financing of the sept 11 attacks, remember that most of the hijackers were Saudi Citizens, allegedley Masterminded by a Saudi, Has it ben debunked that the Binladen Family were one of the only flights allowedout of the country before the total flight ban was lifted???

Treora

If this was a real conspiracy it would go something like this.

The US knew where all the Iranian agents were, just like with Russia. It didn't like that the Arab spring saw Egypt and the likes turn against Isreal and worried that Turkey wants become the local power house (firing all its western facing generals etc) and even Iran might get on board with Turkey if it means power moves away from the old USA alliances!

So the USA sends in a CIA asset to see if the Iranian agent will take the bait. Hey presto they get something on the recorder.

So now they can fragment the middle east, get congress to increase the military spending (Obama is trying to fillet it), invade Iran, turn international sentiment up to red and get the oil. It seems like a lather, rinse, repeat with Iraq.

It also seems like sand in the face to China. Something like 'you might be able to buy the world with all the US T-bills we sold you, but we'll take your money and just invade the next resource rich country' and build our Army and help Cheney et al. to make another €100bn at the same time.


Nah that could never happen, it sounds too plausible.

The Outside Agency

studiorat wrote: »

Yawn...

Hezbollah in South America yes or no?

Iranian plot ? Saudi Black Flag? US Black flag? Iranian freelancers?

Spare us the soapboxing we've heard it all before.

Well, clearly it's Iran trying to start a war with the US because they hate your freedoms.

ed2hands

hooradiation wrote: »

I'm curious, if all options are on the table, then how is this insane or warmongering?

Surely, if Mr Biden had said that only military action is on the table then we could call it warmongering and insanity?

For me in this case, warmongering is threatening military action and saying it's firmly on the table over a still opaque, as yet unproven and frankly very dodgy looking plot to kill a foreign ambassador.
We can call a spade a spade i think. This sane gentleman i think explains well what many are thinking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFQO60H6fSU

studiorat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Has it ben debunked that the Binladen Family were one of the only flights allowed out of the country before the total flight ban was lifted???

Flew out on the 14th or the 20th I think.

Treora wrote: »

If this was a real conspiracy it would go something like this.

The US knew where all the Iranian agents were, just like with Russia. It didn't like that the Arab spring saw Egypt and the likes turn against Isreal and worried that Turkey wants become the local power house (firing all its western facing generals etc) and even Iran might get on board with Turkey if it means power moves away from the old USA alliances!

So the USA sends in a CIA asset to see if the Iranian agent will take the bait. Hey presto they get something on the recorder.

Sounds like a likely scenario to me. I wouldn't be too sure of seeing any big shift in Egypt's stance regarding Israel and Turkeys little spat with Israel is as much to gain support for the government on the street than it is to enter any meaningful change in the status quo. Turkey and Iran are already well "on board" despite Turkey housing so many american missiles.

Treora wrote: »

So now they can fragment the middle east, get congress to increase the military spending (Obama is trying to fillet it), invade Iran, turn international sentiment up to red and get the oil. It seems like a lather, rinse, repeat with Iraq.

Thing is Iran has a huge influence in Iraq and Afganistan. Many of the current government in Iraq were in exile in Iran when Saddam was in power and substantial parts of Iraq rely on Iranish trade. Iran is well able to turn up the gas for the US in both Iraq and Afganistan when it suits them. This is where Khamenei's power comes into it's own leaving Ahmadinejad as only a passager.

Perhaps this ability to bypass Ahmadinejad is important when looking at the OP.

nivekd wrote: »

Well, clearly it's Iran trying to start a war with the US because they hate your freedoms.

Good effort, at least you're trying, fair play.

studiorat

I have trouble with the Escobar interview. He says the blame is on the General of the IRGC. I haven't seen anyone saying that outright. There's no way it's him, he's way to sophisticated for that carry on. If he was involved I doubt we'd be reading about it anywhere!! Still he might have fancied a punt!!

Secondly Escobar asks why not pick an easier target, any ambassador. Well apart from being the ambassador to the US this one is seriously connected to the Saudi royal family.

Jaafa

studiorat wrote: »

Your doubt appears to be pretty baseless. The stories blaming Saudi for financing Al Queda were rife. Remember the yarns about the Bin Laden family flying home that day, the Saudi defense minister flying out that day and all the rest of it.

Saudi ran billboard ads all over the country trying defending itself, why would they do that?

I'm saying the motive would be to remove him because he is seen to be pro -US, not revenge. Don't forget that's a motive not just for Iran either.

I'm well aware of Saudi Arabia support for Bin laden, just as the US supported him (albeit indirectly) beforehand. At the end of the day they were never going to refuse billions of dollars in military equipment.

And even taking in account all of this it still doesn't tip the gains in Iran's favor. Would would Iran try to kill this man 10 years after the fact? Wouldn't it have been much easier when Saudi had less American support? Would it not have been easier to do in any other country? And don't say they wanted to send a message because they would have never admitted to this.

studiorat

Jaafa wrote: »

And even taking in account all of this it still doesn't tip the gains in Iran's favor. Would would Iran try to kill this man 10 years after the fact? Wouldn't it have been much easier when Saudi had less American support? Would it not have been easier to do in any other country? And don't say they wanted to send a message because they would have never admitted to this.

studiorat wrote: »

Secondly Escobar asks why not pick an easier target, any ambassador. Well apart from being the ambassador to the US this one is seriously connected to the Saudi royal family.

Have a read of the previous posts I thing this been covered already.

hooradiation

ed2hands wrote: »

For me in this case, warmongering is threatening military action and saying it's firmly on the table over a still opaque, as yet unproven and frankly very dodgy looking plot to kill a foreign ambassador.
We can call a spade a spade i think.

I disagree.
Saying all options are on the table means just that - ALL options are on the table.
So, why the fixation on the so called 'warmongering' part?

Aside from it fitting into a certain narrative of global events - I see no reason to start calling people insane warmongers simply because the USA have not taken their greatest negotiation advantage off the table.

It would be bad diplomacy and PR to do so, certainly not insanity.

Di0genes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

There may be more thana Grainof truth to the Saudi Financing of the sept 11 attacks, remember that most of the hijackers were Saudi Citizens, allegedley Masterminded by a Saudi, Has it ben debunked that the Binladen Family were one of the only flights allowedout of the country before the total flight ban was lifted???

Ahem

For 10 years now, a major question about 9/11 has remained unresolved. It was, as 9/11-commission chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton recalled, “Had the hijackers received any support from foreign governments?” There was information that pointed to the answer, but the commissioners apparently deemed it too disquieting to share in full with the public.

The idea that al-Qaeda had not acted alone was there from the start. “The terrorists do not function in a vacuum,” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters the week after 9/11. “I know a lot, and what I have said, as clearly as I know how, is that states are supporting these people.” Pressed to elaborate, Rumsfeld was silent for a long moment. Then, saying it was a sensitive matter, he changed the subject.

Three years later, the commission would consider whether any of three foreign countries in particular might have had a role in the attacks. Two were avowed foes of the United States: Iraq and Iran. The third had long been billed as a close friend: Saudi Arabia.

In its report, the commission stated that it had seen no “evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al-Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...11-2011-201108

Jonny7

ed2hands wrote: »

For me in this case, warmongering is threatening military action and saying it's firmly on the table over a still opaque, as yet unproven and frankly very dodgy looking plot to kill a foreign ambassador.
We can call a spade a spade i think. This sane gentleman i think explains well what many are thinking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFQO60H6fSU

Alex Jones likes him too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P_y8c78G5s

He sure is on RT a lot.. I wonder why

ed2hands

Yea Jonny harhar.
So what. He's was interviewed by Alex Jones so that makes him bat**** insane. Is that your point? Well thanks for another marvellous piece of detective work there Sherlock.
Do i need to wait until Escobar gets a slot on your precious BBC before you'll be happy?;)

studiorat

^^^

Every time I see his name I have to double take 'cause I keep thinking it says Pablo!

Anyway, whadda-ya-no. Here's our man on Press TV. He's wearing shades but we know its him...

So why is an Irani "news" outlet interviewing a Brazilian "journalist" in Sao Paulo about US reaction to Egypt?

tfitzgerald

I think we should just give the Saudi ambassador a women driver . She would keep him safe.:) . I don't think the Saudis supported bin laden I think they paid him to leave Saudi so he could cause trouble somewhere else

ed2hands

hooradiation wrote: »

So, why the fixation on the so called 'warmongering' part?

Excuse me but i am not fixated or do i have a fixation on the warmongering part.

hooradiation wrote: »

Aside from it fitting into a certain narrative of global events - I see no reason to start calling people insane warmongers simply because the USA have not taken their greatest negotiation advantage off the table.

Good for you.

ed2hands

Here's Pepe Escobars Wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepe_Escobar

Tell ya what guys. Let's rename the thread "The life and works of Pepe Escobar":p

Jonny7

ed2hands wrote: »

Yea Jonny harhar.
So what. He's was interviewed by Alex Jones so that makes him bat**** insane. Is that your point? Well thanks for another marvellous piece of detective work there Sherlock.
Do i need to wait until Escobar gets a slot on your precious BBC before you'll be happy?;)

Russia Today..

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=russia+today+pepe+escobar&aq=f

Voltaire Network..

http://www.voltairenet.org/_Pepe-Escobar_?lang=en

The Real News..

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+real+news+pepe+escobar&aq=f

This "sane gentleman" can be relied on to 100% implicate and bash the US in every situation. Call my cynical but I'd trust him as much as I trust Bill O'Reilly.

davoxx

if this is an act of war, what was killing bin laden in Pakistan?
what about Mossad killing al-Mabhouh in Dubai?

is this an attempt to draw away from occupywallstreet as another poster pointed out? the timing is too good.

there was a film called "wag the dog" ... this seems to close to real life now.

all i know it that there will be war again soon ...

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

if this is an act of war

Who said that this is an act of war?

is this an attempt to draw away from occupywallstreet as another poster pointed out? the timing is too good.

Another thread dude, and don't be so silly

there was a film called "wag the dog" ... this seems to close to real life now.
all i know it that there will be war again soon ...

"To 'wag the dog' means to purposely divert attention from what would otherwise be of greater importance, to something else of lesser significance. By doing so, the lesser-significant event is catapulted into the limelight, drowning proper attention to what was originally the more important issue."

Much like Bush was, Ahmadinejad is unpopular at home and uses this technique a lot. Blame foreign boogeyman for all problems.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Who said that this is an act of war?

joe biden

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/joe-biden-iran-backed-terror-plot-targeting-washington-14719201

Jonny7 wrote: »

Another thread dude, and don't be so silly

same country, same problems

hooradiation

ed2hands wrote: »

Excuse me but i am not fixated or do i have a fixation on the warmongering part.

I can only go by what you post - when it's stated that no options have been removed, you, kinda, went to straight to warmongers. And insanity.

You might not be fixated, per se, but I am puzzled by your train of thought.

ed2hands wrote: »

Good for you.

Please ed, don't be that guy.
We already have too many people being that guy already.
Don't do it.

My name is URL

Good article in the Guardian yesterday - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/12/unanswered-questions-iranian-assassination-plot

ed2hands

Worth a read from Blum the other week:

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/10/05/the-crime-of-making-americans-aware-of-their-own-history/