Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Plot to kill Saudi Ambassador to US.

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    Jaafa
    Registered Users Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #38
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭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 :)


  • Options
    #39
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭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?;)


  • Options
    #40
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #41
    tfitzgerald
    Registered Users Posts: 2,285 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #44
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭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 ...


  • Options
    #46
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭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 smile.gif
    same country, same problems :)


  • Options
    #48
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


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


  • Options
    #50
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭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/


Advertisement