Saudi Ambassador attack...thwarted

[JihadJane]

The government is apparently showing the evidence to the heads of several different countries,


We will see what those countries, few of which you would call "America's best buddies" have to say about the evidence. It is clear though that Obama wants to be as open as possible about this without compromising our intelligence-gathering operations.

How is this clear?

Also, the response seems to be asking for more sanctions, with no serious talk of invading or attacking Iran.

What happened to Iraq before the invasions? Sanctions are a way of weakening a country's defenses. The US tends not to attack countries that can defend themselves.

We shall see what plays out, but so far, this story has the ring of authenticity.

Please explain how this story has ring "the ring of authenticity".

To me, it rings like Tony Blair's ludicrous claim that Iraq was prepared and likely to attack the UK in 45 minutes. Professional politicians swallowed this claim while members of the public like myself, with no access to insider briefings or intelligence information, laughed at it.


'Some analysts skeptical of alleged Iranian plot' (CNN)

Five reasons why:

1. The alleged plot doesn't fit Iran's style

2. Iran would lose more than it would gain

3. Iran has much easier targets to go after

4. Iran is gaining in stature and isn't desperate for drastic measures

5. The alleged plot is full of holes

 

[JihadJane]

Stick with relevant facts. That's rich. If they did that, they wouldn't even be able to Amerika-bash in every stinking thread. If they couldn't Amerika-bash in every stinking thread, they'd have no reason to live.
Besides, I've never seen that happen. Ever. In any thread. Sticking to relevant facts. It doesn't happen. These are not rational debates. These are biased, politically charged cat fights.

It is to laugh. But you and Virus are doing good jobs. Carry on.

Please spare a thought for the stinking stinking Amerika-basher bashers, Toontown, and their stinking rationality. They need a stinking reason to live, too.

 

[funk de fino]

Naw. A Zionist plot.

Didn't take long did it?

Wrong thread dude.

 

[funk de fino]

How was Kuwait "practically harassing" Iraq?

You could read up on it.

 

[funk de fino]

Do you believe the attack on the Saudi ambassador was a Jewish plot Empress?

There hasn't been an attack. You wouldn't have cared if the Saudi got killed though would you?

 

[Virus]

Five reasons why:

1. The alleged plot doesn't fit Iran's style

2. Iran would lose more than it would gain

3. Iran has much easier targets to go after

4. Iran is gaining in stature and isn't desperate for drastic measures

5. The alleged plot is full of holes

They're mad.

 

[Virus]

There hasn't been an attack. You wouldn't have cared if the Saudi got killed though would you?

Would.

 

[Virus]

You could read up on it.

So you believe Kuwait was asking for it?

 

[Virus]

Please spare a thought for the stinking stinking Amerika-basher bashers, Toontown, and their stinking rationality. They need a stinking reason to live, too.

Tell us who was behind it then, Sherlock.

 

[Tricky]

How is this clear?

Because the Obama administration is not trying to build up a big anti-Iraq hysteria and appears to be trying to deal with the problem diplomatically including discussions with many of the countries which tend to be on Iran's side in these conflicts, like Russia. There is no drumbeat for war. There is instead the process which appears to be trying to get to the heart of "what happened here".

What happened to Iraq before the invasions? Sanctions are a way of weakening a country's defenses. The US tends not to attack countries that can defend themselves.

The sanctions were working. The US was stupid to invade Iraq before the weapons inspections were complete. This isn't the Bush administration, but they share at least one belief: That there are many in the Mid-east that want to harm the US and that we cannot ignore these threats. I feel like the Obama way of dealing with them is much better than the Bush way, but history has demonstrated that "ignore them" is a very bad policy.

Please explain how this story has ring "the ring of authenticity".

It is being kept fairly low-key, rather than using it to start a drumbeat for war. We would have little to gain from manufacturing a "false flag" event, because it would be fairly obvious. And we wouldn't be discussing the evidence with Iran's supporters.

'Some analysts skeptical of alleged Iranian plot' (CNN)

Five reasons why:

1. The alleged plot doesn't fit Iran's style

2. Iran would lose more than it would gain

3. Iran has much easier targets to go after

4. Iran is gaining in stature and isn't desperate for drastic measures

5. The alleged plot is full of holes

It does appear that the plot was ill-conceived and quite possibly hatched/supported by only one or a few
Iranian officials. For this reason, it would be wise to give Iran a chance to admit that they have some rogue officials and to disassociate themselves from them. However, Iran has a fairly solid history of supporting terrorist activities and it is unlikely that they will admit to anything. Still, we need to give them a chance.

Yes, I'm still skeptical about this. I am not buying the CIA's story part and parcel, but it is not outrageous either. I am waiting for the release of more evidence.

But let me ask you this. IF the CIA had credible evidence that this attack was planned, what do you think they should have done? Do you think that they should have waited for the crime to occur?

 

[Oliver]

There is instead the process which appears to be trying to get to the heart of "what happened here".

Huh? Watching it unfold it appeared to be the other way around...

"Iran did it!111!!11!"
"They did what?"
"Well, we'll find out soon!"

 

[tyr_13]

Huh? Watching it unfold it appeared to be the other way around...

"Iran did it!111!!11!"
"They did what?"
"Well, we'll find out soon!"

That's because you're using your confirmation bias to cherry pick from the news media instead of the big-boy thinking the people getting these briefing are hopefully using.

 

[Oliver]

That's because you're using your confirmation bias to cherry pick from the news media instead of the big-boy thinking the people getting these briefing are hopefully using.

Sure, just like all those "big boy thinking Politicians" who claimed that Iran will have a nuke by 2003 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11...

 

[Childlike Empress]

Yes, I'm still skeptical about this. I am not buying the CIA's story part and parcel, but it is not outrageous either. I am waiting for the release of more evidence.

But let me ask you this. IF the CIA had credible evidence that this attack was planned, what do you think they should have done? Do you think that they should have waited for the crime to occur?

CIA? It's an FBI story. Gareth Porter takes a close look at the complaint (PDF as linked earlier in the thread) and concludes on Asia Times:

FBI account of 'terror plot' suggests sting
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - While the Barack Obama administration vows to hold the Iranian government "accountable" for the alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, the legal document describing evidence in the case provides multiple indications that it was mainly the result of a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) sting operation.

Although the document, called an amended criminal complaint, implicates Iranian-American Mansour Arabsiar and his cousin Ali Gholam Shakuri, an officer in the Iranian Qods force, in a plan to assassinate Saudi Arabian ambassador Adel al-Jubeir, it also suggests that the idea "originated with and was strongly pushed by an undercover DEA [Department of Drug Enforcement] informant, at the direction of the FBI". [...]

And even IF there was a real plot, a real danger and an Al Qods officer involved, that STILL doesn't mean that anyone high enough in the iranian leadership to blame Iran as a country was involved. It's completely ridiculous and the fact that we know about this story from the mouth of Mueller and hear Hillary Clinton spout her "retaliation" nonsense with madness in her eyes shows that this is everything else but low-key. "Even" if they don't threaten to immediately nuke Iran back into the stone age.

You should REALLY listen to the MP3 with Ray McGovern I posted earlier. The man personally briefed Presidents and if you give him 20 min, you'll know why and have an excellent understanding of the broader context in which this story appeared (only a few days after this interview).

 

[tyr_13]

Sure, just like all those "big boy thinking Politicians" who claimed that Iran will have a nuke by 2003 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11...

It doesn't matter. Your characterization of the reports is blatantly, demonstrably, wrong and you really have to be trying hard to ignore the parts that show you're so wrong.

The first I heard of it days ago the story was, 'Iranian official may have ordered the assassination of a Saudi Diplomat' on HLN cable news. At no point did I hear people talking about 'Iran did something' without mentioning what they were actually accused of. Later that night on ABC news they did an excellent job of explaining who the general was who was accused of being the driving force, what he is accused of doing, how he doesn't answer to civilian elected government, a short history of his group, and the sting that found this information out.

You have to be trying in order to miss the information laid out there.

 

[Pardalis]

Far right. And francophone.

Far right?

You're the one siding with the Islamic theocracy.

 

[Pardalis]

You should REALLY listen to the MP3 with Ray McGovern I posted earlier. The man personally briefed Presidents and if you give him 20 min, you'll know why and have an excellent understanding of the broader context in which this story appeared (only a few days after this interview).

Ray McGovern has no credibility, he's gone ideologue, he's a 9/11 truther. He wouldn't know evidence if it hit him in the face.

 

[Pardalis]

So let's see what are Childlike's "sources" of information.

Pepe Escobar, an anti-blobalisation writer who frequently writes pieces apologetic to Qhaddafi, and the Russian and Iranian regimes.
Ray Mc Govern, a known 9/11 truther and "anti-war" activist
Gareth Porter, who has been writing against the Vietnam war for decades, and has denied massacres made by the Viet Cong and Pol-Pot.

So people who have vested interest in the story not being true and America being the villain again...

No bias here...

Show me sources that don't have an obvious axe to grind and I'll consider it.

 

[Pardalis]

1. The alleged plot doesn't fit Iran's style

What is Iran's "style"?

4. Iran is gaining in stature

Really? Where? Amongst anti-West states like Belarus maybe, and your socialist circles, but in the real world it is being laughed at and condemned.

I understand that if you only read Globalresearch.ca, Asia Times, Russia Today and PressTV, you might be under the false idea that they have a "stature".

You might want to diversify your reading material.

5. The alleged plot is full of holes

That's because we've only known about it for a few days. But I understand conspiracy theorists like holes.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Ray McGovern has no credibility, he's gone ideologue, he's a 9/11 truther. He wouldn't know evidence if it hit him in the face.

In my experience the smarter propagandists avoid smear attempts at him and instead pretend he doesn't exist. They are afraid that some might listen and find out. So, no surprise that you are the first who tries to do that after one and a half pages.

You're a Hitchens fan, aren't you?