U.S. arrests man in connection with plot to kill Saudi ambassador

[koheesti]

Let's keep it civil.

The guy left the CIA. We have no idea of the circumstances. Professional differences, mental problems, better opportunities (he can't really do much talking while employed).

It could be a combination of the above. A lot of people are given the option of leaving rather than being fired--for whatever reason. Certain benefits accrue to those who resign. It also avoids those messy law suits.

It's not really the point of the thread.

Sorry, I just started catching up with the thread on page three and replying before noticing all the warnings, etc on page 5.

Edited October 18, 2011 by koheesti

[Scott]

No problem.

[maidu]

Has there been any discussion of why the Iranians would want to snuff out that Saudi diplomat?

It probably runs deeper than the age-old Sunni / Shiite conflict which has polluted those sand dunes for centuries. I just saw a special on TV which articulated an insider with Al Qaeda (sorry, I can't recall his name and all the details) being frequently waterboarded by US operatives and yielding little info. Then, he was told he was being transferred to Saudi officials (wasn't really, but the ruse worked). As soon as he thought he was with Saudis, he gave out some phone numbers of important Saudis who could get him off the hook. Four of those tel#'s were Saudi princes. Within weeks, 3 of those princes mysteriously died. Maybe the diplomat is the 4th prince?

So much intrigue in that part of the world. What's the age-old Arab saying?: "The enemy of my enemy of my enemy of my enemy is my.......? Duh, I'm not sure, but I'll kill him just to be on the safe side of things."

[Pakboong]

Before this thread dies, I will post one more piece of info on the UN meeting on the matter. Rehashing the same old stuff but show an apparent confession that the story is hard to believe.

Behind closed doors in the council chambers U.S. officials admitted the story was “hard to believe.” This is according to a Western diplomat who was among the council ambassadors shown evidence by U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, who was accompanied by officials of the F.B.I., CIA and the State and Justice Departments.

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/10/17/the-alleged-iranian-plot-turning-the-u-n-into-a-courtroom/

Reuters quoted a U.S. official saying classified wire transfer documents used to pay for the alleged assassination had “some kind of hallmark” showing they were approved by Major General Qasem Soleimani, head of the elite Iranian al-Quds Force. Because the circumstances of the story are so strange, one cannot rule out forgery by Iranian agents working for the U.S.—or for another government that may have even fooled at least some U.S. authorities. Just recall the forged Niger uranium document that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Even a U.S. official admitted to Reuters that “a lot of people basically feel really suspicious about this.” He questioned the White House’s motive for “ratcheting this thing up so quickly” by going to the Security Council.

Gary Sick, a Columbia University Iran analyst, told CNN: “I find this alleged Iranian plot very hard to believe. In fact, this plot, if true, departs from all known Iranian policies and procedures. At a minimum both the public and the Congress should demand more detailed evidence before taking any rash or irreversible action.” Former CIA Middle East operative Bob Baer told the network: “Everybody is looking for evidence that there is going to be a confrontation with Iran. Everybody is jumping on this as a sign of conflict to come. But there are many questions here that need to be answered.”

Sorry to persist on this one but it seems like a slam dunk to me.

[Pakboong]

I again point out that only one of the however many countries we have mentioned, wears "By way of deception, we wage war" on their lapel pin. Armed with that knowledge, is it not logical to look for the deceptions as a first course of action?

Not when it is no secret that every county uses deception to wage wars.

Exactly the point I wanted to make.

Nope, That's somewhat disingenuous when you specifically single out Mossad and by extension Israel in a topic concerning a plot by Iran, an Islamic theocracy against Saudi Arabia, another theocracy.

You are correct and I apologize.

[Ulysses G.]

Before this thread dies, I will post one more piece of info on the UN meeting on the matter. Rehashing the same old stuff but show an apparent confession that the story is hard to believe.

Behind closed doors in the council chambers U.S. officials admitted the story was “hard to believe.” This is according to a Western diplomat who was among the council ambassadors shown evidence by U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, who was accompanied by officials of the F.B.I., CIA and the State and Justice Departments.

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/10/17/the-alleged-iranian-plot-turning-the-u-n-into-a-courtroom/

This link is from another conspiracy theory website using unnamed sources and lots of speculation. It is pretty much an opinion piece. I understand that Pakboong enjoys this sort of conjecture, but it proves next to nothing of consequence.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Pakboong]

Before this thread dies, I will post one more piece of info on the UN meeting on the matter. Rehashing the same old stuff but show an apparent confession that the story is hard to believe.

Behind closed doors in the council chambers U.S. officials admitted the story was “hard to believe.” This is according to a Western diplomat who was among the council ambassadors shown evidence by U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, who was accompanied by officials of the F.B.I., CIA and the State and Justice Departments.

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/10/17/the-alleged-iranian-plot-turning-the-u-n-into-a-courtroom/

This link is from another conspiracy theory website using unnamed sources and lots of speculation. It is pretty much an opinion piece. I understand that Pakboong enjoys this sort of conjecture, but it proves next to nothing of consequence.

Here is a piece from today's Asia Times. They all pretty much say the same thing.

"One advantage of a military campaign against Iran would be domestic in terms of deflecting the public's attention from the mounting economic problems that have caused a new and rising social movement dubbed "Occupy Wall Street". But, if capitalism is theft, as an anarchist saying goes, a self-justified "pre-emptive" or retaliatory strike on Iran is by all indications tantamount to political theft, capitalizing on a highly suspicious and yet-to-be substantiated terror plot to pursue a long-term strategy of defanging the assertive Islamic Republic, which has refused to consent to the American hegemony for the past 33 years."

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MJ18Ak02.html

[Ulysses G.]

They all pretty much say the same thing.

I am aware that much of the liberal press is trying to poke holes in this case, but there are plenty of articles that back Obama's version of what took place. I am not bothering to post them because it is just more opinion and proves nothing. There are plenty of articles that insist that 9/11 was an inside job, but almost no one actually believes it.

[maidu]

Actually, a lot of people believe 9-11 was set up to happen by the US gov't. A poll showed a vast majority of Arabs think so also. The human brain is a strange lump of tissue. It can flip flop its opinion 180 degrees in a second. Lots of people believe the moon landings were faked - the same sorts who believe in crop circles, Nessie, bigfoot and all the myriad other hocus pocus stories swirling around.

[bonobo]

Has there been any discussion of why the Iranians would want to snuff out that Saudi diplomat?

It probably runs deeper than the age-old Sunni / Shiite conflict which has polluted those sand dunes for centuries. I just saw a special on TV which articulated an insider with Al Qaeda (sorry, I can't recall his name and all the details) being frequently waterboarded by US operatives and yielding little info. Then, he was told he was being transferred to Saudi officials (wasn't really, but the ruse worked). As soon as he thought he was with Saudis, he gave out some phone numbers of important Saudis who could get him off the hook. Four of those tel#'s were Saudi princes. Within weeks, 3 of those princes mysteriously died. Maybe the diplomat is the 4th prince?

So much intrigue in that part of the world. What's the age-old Arab saying?: "The enemy of my enemy of my enemy of my enemy is my.......? Duh, I'm not sure, but I'll kill him just to be on the safe side of things."

That was Abu Zubaydah, and I saw the same program, too. I was surprised that I had never heard this before. With the three Saudi prince deaths, i tend to give the story some credence.

[Pakboong]

They all pretty much say the same thing.

I am aware that much of the liberal press is trying to poke holes in this case, but there are plenty of articles that back Obama's version of what took place. I am not bothering to post them because it is just more opinion and proves nothing. There are plenty of articles that insist that 9/11 was an inside job, but almost no one actually believes it.

The common point in all the articles is: it is a story that is hard to believe. The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/world/middleeast/iran-says-saudi-plot-defendant-belongs-to-exile-group.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

American officials have acknowledged the suspected plot sounds hard to believe but asserted they have the evidence to back it up. Saudi Arabia, apparently accepting the accusation as fact, has accused Iran of a "dastardly" scheme, and other American allies say they regard the accusation seriously.

My interest is, if all these sources for and against are saying this plot is hard to believe, why do some here buy it hook, line, and sinker?

[Credo]

I find the plot hard to believe, but in some regards quite brilliant. What is the truth? No way of knowing for sure. I have a healthy amount of skepticism for all sides.

I doubt very much, however, that it was a mainstream Iranian government plot. That's based more on a gut feeling. The government would have put more thought, planning and fewer loopholes in the plan, I would think.

[Ulysses G.]

My interest is, if all these sources for and against are saying this plot is hard to believe, why do some here buy it hook, line, and sinker?

Personally, I do not find it any more difficult to believe than some idiot putting a bomb in his underwear or terrorists strapping bombs to young children and mentally retarded adults, but all of these things have been done in the past. You do not have great intellectuals lining up to commit terrorist acts in the US, so the terror masters work with whatever they can patch together.

[Jingthing]

I agree it really is not very hard to believe. I also feel there is no way we can know all the facts at this time, and caution to avoid overreaction is wise. This in a context of my unabashed opposition to both major factions of the Iranian government. It's good to avoid war if it can be avoided, but it is by no means clear that it can.

[Wallaby]

My interest is, if all these sources for and against are saying this plot is hard to believe, why do some here buy it hook, line, and sinker?

Personally, I do not find it any more difficult to believe than some idiot putting a bomb in his underwear or terrorists strapping bombs to young children and mentally retarded adults, but all of these things have been done in the past. You do not have great intellectuals lining up to commit terrorist acts in the US, so the terror masters work with whatever they can patch together.

There is a real difference.

The ones you talk of are looneys who just want to bomb anything and anyone. In this instance it is a particular govt official that is to be assassinated.

It appears many have doubts about the veracity of the claims it was at the behest of Iranian govt officials. Of course one never knows until more evidence is provided but I prefer to wait for that evidence before proclaiming any govt is telling the truth. They are all as bad as each other when it comes to telling the truth.

[Jingthing]

They are all as bad as each other when it comes to telling the truth.

Perhaps but only one murders their homosexuals, stones their women, and has a national policy to deny the holocaust and destroy Israel.

[Pakboong]

"Arbabsiar may also have boasted to one alleged accomplice in the plot – an associate of Mexico's Zeta drug cartel, who also happened to be an informant of the US Drug Enforcement Administration – that his cousin was a "big general" in the Iranian military."

The above was from several sources, this particular one is from the Christian Science Monitor, Not interested in the organization nor do I have any idea why they would offer an opinion on this matter.

I copied it because to me, it offers the greatest piece of evidence. Iran and pretty much anyone else half awake knows that the DEA has the Mexican Drug Cartel infiltrated. The above mention is just one of many. No way to get this past the US intelligence agencies and Iran would clearly know this.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1012/Used-car-salesman-as-Iran-proxy-Why-assassination-plot-doesn-t-add-up-for-experts

I am giving it up. I am starting to bore myself.

[GentlemanJim]

Wallaby, Pakboong

You have my sympathy. You will not get anywhere, even by presenting reasoned argument, counter argument, or any type of news item from around the world, however informative. There are 3 people lurking this thread/forum whose views are so deeply entrenched it is impossible to hold debate with them. They always win, because like a 3 year old, they just wear you out saying the same old things over and over and over again. If you present them with information that may prove their entrenched views wrong, then they incessantly press the report button in a bid to get your posts removed. The result is that the thread often falls by the wayside, because anyone with a view or information, often stop bothering to contribute. Good luck. Thanks for the news items Pakboong.

[cdnvic]

Please refrain from conspiracy theories. A couple off topic posts were removed.

[GentlemanJim]

Before this thread dies, I will post one more piece of info on the UN meeting on the matter. Rehashing the same old stuff but show an apparent confession that the story is hard to believe.

Behind closed doors in the council chambers U.S. officials admitted the story was "hard to believe." This is according to a Western diplomat who was among the council ambassadors shown evidence by U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, who was accompanied by officials of the F.B.I., CIA and the State and Justice Departments.

http://www.boilingfr...to-a-courtroom/

This link is from another conspiracy theory website using unnamed sources and lots of speculation. It is pretty much an opinion piece. I understand that Pakboong enjoys this sort of conjecture, but it proves next to nothing of consequence.

Actually Ulysees, if you would have taken time to actually read the excellent bit of investigative journalism in Pakboong's link, you would have seen when you got to the end it was written by a world famous and respected investigative journalist.

Joe Lauria is an author, foreign affairs correspondent and investigative reporter. He has covered the United Nations for 19 years for numerous newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe, the London Daily Telegraph, the Montreal Gazette and the Johannesburg Star. Joe is a member of the Sunday Times of London's investigative unit. He is co-author of A Political Odyssey, a look at America's defense industry and the false threats it thrives on.

Also, even the most basic navigation around the site shows that it is not at all as you put it 'a conspiracy theory website'. The source is the investigative journalist and he names in the article where he gets his information from and how he is piecing it together to arrive at his conclusions.

Thanks Pakboong for the link to a very well written piece.

Edited October 19, 2011 by GentlemanJim

[Ulysses G.]

Actually Ulysees, if you would have taken time to actually read Thanks Pakboong for the link to a very well written piece.

I read the whole article and looked around the website. It uses unnamed sources and presents conspiracy theories as being very likely with no real proof. It is not a believable source for anyone who is skeptical of their theories. They are preaching to the conspiracy theory choir.

[Scott]

We can dispense with the personal comments about other posters. There are more than 3 people with entrenched views. The sad part for all is that the good, fair, informative posts get drowned in the toxic in-fighting.

Stay on the topic.

Keep it civil.

[GentlemanJim]

We can dispense with the personal comments about other posters. There are more than 3 people with entrenched views. The sad part for all is that the good, fair, informative posts get drowned in the toxic in-fighting.

Stay on the topic.

Keep it civil.

Your right.

Perhaps we should all reflect on that point. We can't hold s discussion on a web forum without mud slinging. Now consider the uphill struggle that exists to try and get Israel and Palestine to settle their differences. Ot the struggle that exists between Israel/Saudi and Iran. I can't see how it can be solved. We can't agree on an anonymous web forum and we have nothing to lose. Answers on the back of a postage stamp.

[koheesti]

...a self-justified "pre-emptive" or retaliatory strike on Iran is by all indications tantamount to political theft, capitalizing on a highly suspicious and yet-to-be substantiated terror plot to pursue a long-term strategy of defanging the assertive Islamic Republic, which has refused to consent to the American hegemony for the past 33 years."

http://atimes.com/at...t/MJ18Ak02.html

32 years ago in the USA was tired of war after Vietnam and that's when Iran commited an act of war against the US by storming our embassy in Tehran and taking 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. They have been attacking us and American citizens ever since using Hezbollah, Iraqi insurgents and other terrorists as proxies. As far as I'm concerned, we are at war with Iran already and have been since Nov 4, 1979 and we don't need to make any "excuses" for anything we do against them. That said, I'm sure Obama doesn't feel this way one iota and he is surely happy to wipe bad economic news off the front page.

[koheesti]

Actually, a lot of people believe 9-11 was set up to happen by the US gov't. A poll showed a vast majority of Arabs think so also.

I know some Arabs who don't think the US gov't was behind 9/11...

Al Qaeda to Iran: Stop Spreading 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

Sept. 27, 2011

The terror group al Qaeda has found itself curiously in agreement with the "Great Satan" -- which it calls the U.S. -- in issuing a stern message to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: stop spreading 9/11 conspiracy theories.

In the latest issue of the al Qaeda English-language magazine "Inspire", an author appears to take offense to the "ridiculous" theory repeatedly spread by Ahmadinejad that the 9/11 terror attacks were actually carried out by the U.S. government in order to provide a pretext to invade the Middle East.

"The Iranian government has professed on the tongue of its president Ahmadinejad that it does not believe that al Qaeda was behind 9/11 but rather, the U.S. government," an article reads. "So we may ask the question: why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?"

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-iran-ahmadinejad-stop-spreading-911-conspiracy/story?id=14620643

[cdnvic]

The topic is the alleged plot to kill a Saudi diplomat in the US, not the Vietnam War. Now please get back on topic.

[Jingthing]

Just so you know, the author of the article from Asia Times presented here as some kind of "proof" that Iran is not behind the plot is a supporter Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the antisemite, the holocaust denier, the existence of Iranian homosexuals denier (live ones anyway). Come on now, folks. How can you give any credibility at all to such a partisan propagandist?

A supporter of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,[16] he has spoken out in support of the fairness of the 2009 presidential election results on CNN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaveh_L._Afrasiabi

You got any OBJECTIVE info on this? (I thought not.)

Edited October 19, 2011 by Jingthing

[GentlemanJim]

Just so you know, the author of the article from Asia Times presented here as some kind of "proof" that Iran is not behind the plot is a supporter Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the antisemite, the holocaust denier, the existence of Iranian homosexuals denier (live ones anyway). Come on now, folks. How can you give any credibility at all to such a partisan propagandist?

A supporter of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,[16] he has spoken out in support of the fairness of the 2009 presidential election results on CNN

http://en.wikipedia....eh_L._Afrasiabi

You got any OBJECTIVE info on this? (I thought not.)

Jingthing

I am unsure who is advocating the guy in the Asia times is proof and don't want to wade back through the thread.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that the Human rights record in Iran is a disgrace, particularly the death penalty for Homosexuality. Please do not forget that Saudi still has the Death Penalty for Homosexuality, though for a first offence it is normally jail and a flogging and the death penalty is subscribed on the 2nd or 3rd offence. One of your much earler posts on this thread advocated support for Saudi in this whole affair and to be honest with your views on the Human rights issues , your stance in all this concerning the Saudi Diplomat should have been 'Good, it's a pity they didn't get him'. Saudi is equally as abhorrent as Iran, and why we are all getting our knickers in a twist over a Saudi diplomat is beyond me. To hell with them all I say. To hell with them all I say. If Saudi want Iran out of the way, let them both bash it out, just leave the rest of us out of it.

Edited October 19, 2011 by GentlemanJim

[Scott]

A reply to a deleted post has been deleted.

[Jingthing]

Most importantly, I do not want young American men sent to their death for the sake of whomever "us" is.

Let me get this straight. If it was definitely proven Iran was really an immediate existential threat to Israel, among America's best allies in the world, you would support a complete isolationist policy from America? What about Japan? What about Taiwan? What about Australia? Do you get the concept of ALLIES?