US to pressure Iran over 'plot to kill Saudi envoy'

[kai]

The US says it will increase international pressure on Iran, which it alleges is behind a plot to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington.

Two Iranians have been charged with conspiracy over what US officials said was a plan conceived and directed by Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The UK government called the plot "shocking" and said it would support US measures to hold Iran accountable.

BBC News - US to pressure Iran over 'plot to kill Saudi envoy'

This could very easily get out of control.

 

[YmirGF]

This could very easily get out of control.

With Obama in the White House and Ahmadinejad in Iran, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[sandandfoam]

Iranian bad guys and mexican drug barons - sounds like a bit of a stretch - Does this remind anyone else of Iraq and WMD's?

 

[England my lionheart]

Iranian bad guys and mexican drug barons - sounds like a bit of a stretch - Does this remind anyone else of Iraq and WMD's?

No,it reminds me of the movie "Bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia"

 

[Falvlun]

Iranian bad guys and mexican drug barons - sounds like a bit of a stretch - Does this remind anyone else of Iraq and WMD's?

Actually, it sounds like they are going through this quite methodically. They got their ducks in a row, being careful to state clearly who is responsible for what. For example, they have compelling evidence that the Iranian Qud Force is associated with the plot, but they are not claiming that it goes "all the way to the top".

Listened to an interview by Diane Feinstein today, chair of the intelligence committee, and she couldn't stress enough how confident they were in the abundance and accuracy of their sources, coming from multiple intelligence departments.

We've been briefed by Treasury, by State, by CIA, and, of course, by FBI, now on two occasions and run through it and run through all of the intelligence and the evidence.
And I am convinced that it was for real.

Interview

 

[Awoon]

Saudi Arabia should take care of it themselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

My money is on Obama making the whole thing up in order to justify some new thuggish behavior.

 

[Falvlun]

My money is on Obama making the whole thing up in order to justify some new thuggish behavior.

Yeah, and if they actually were able to go through with this thing, then you'd be blaming Obama for not keeping his eyes open. The guy just can't win.

Another link: US Officials say Evidence Links Iran to Foiled plot.

Obama is actually being very restrained so far. I mean, can you imagine Bush's reponse if he wanted to go to war with Iran? Obama is only placing blame where the evidence points-- the Qud force-- and going no further.

 

[YmirGF]

Obama is actually being very restrained so far.

Most likely because his grasp of Geopolitics wouldn't fill the bottom of a box of Cracker-Jacks.

I mean, can you imagine Bush's reponse if he wanted to go to war with Iran?

Some of you folks really like to flog dead horses. Amazing. Pray tell, WWGWBD?

Obama is only placing blame where the evidence points-- the Qud force-- and going no further.

No doubt the Golfer-in-Chief will send a letter laced with strong diplomatic language, ending with an appeal for donation to his re-election campaign.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, and if they actually were able to go through with this thing, then you'd be blaming Obama for not keeping his eyes open. The guy just can't win.

Baseless prediction.
I've heard details about the purported plot & they don't ring true.
Moreover, the government appears to have been itch'n for a skirmish with Iran.

[quote}Obama is actually being very restrained so far.[/quote]
We could be seeing preparations for other potential options.....creating aji as it were.

 

[Falvlun]

Most likely because his grasp of Geopolitics wouldn't fill the bottom of a box of Cracker-Jacks.

Okay, Ymir. How should Obama respond to this, if he had an adequate grasp of geopolitics? And how does showing restraint indicate a lack of foreign policy prowress?

Some of you folks really like to flog dead horses. Amazing. Pray tell, WWGWBD?

And some people like to pretend that disaster never happened.

Regardless, it is perfectly legitimate to compare the political styles of various presidents. Personally, I much prefer one who is thoughtful and restrained, sometimes painfully so, to one who is trigger happy.

Baseless prediction.

No more baseless than your own bet a couple posts up.

I've heard details about the purported plot & they don't ring true.

Which part? The part where the CIA gives evidence? Or the part where the FBI does? Or perhaps the part where the Treasury Department weighs in?

Moreover, the government appears to have been itch'n for a skirmish with Iran.

That might be true. But that doesn't mean that this was made up. And the response so far has been quite diplomatic, as opposed to warmongering, which your prediction would support.

We could be seeing preparations for other potential options.....creating aji as it were.

I don't know what aji is.

 

[Revoltingest]

No more baseless than your own bet a couple posts up.

So you say.

Which part? The part where the CIA gives evidence? Or the part where the FBI does? Or perhaps the part where the Treasury Department weighs in?

Tis interesting that you suggest only US government sources. The purported attempt just sounds too amateurish & feckless.
I've heard several sources on NPR state in their relevant experience, the Iranians don't operate this way.

That might be true. But that doesn't mean that this was made up. And the response so far has been quite diplomatic, as opposed to warmongering, which your prediction would support.

You'll note that I was only betting that the claim was false. I certainly don't make any specific predictions about what groundwork is being laid.[/quote]

I don't know what aji is.

It is a game (go) term for latent potential for attack....not for immediate use. It's meaning Japanese is literally "taste".
I guess it's not a popular game among lemurs, eh.

 

[Rakhel]

No,it reminds me of the movie "Bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia"

That is actually on television tonight.

 

[Falvlun]

Tis interesting that you suggest only US government sources. The purported attempt just sounds too amateurish & feckless.
I've heard several sources on NPR state in their relevant experience, the Iranians don't operate this way.

What other sources would you suggest? And tis interesting that you would disregard all the various US departments agreeing.

It's hard to claim that just because people hadn't acted some way before, means that they couldn't act some other way.

You'll note that I was only betting that the claim was false. I certainly don't make any specific predictions about what groundwork is being laid.

A bet is a prediction.

But if you prefer, Obama's response is not the sort of response you would expect if your bet was on the right horse.

It is a game (go) term for latent potential for attack....not for immediate use. It's meaning Japanese is literally "taste".
I guess it's not a popular game among lemurs, eh.

We lemurs don't get out much. But yes, I see your point, and that can't be discounted.

 

[Revoltingest]

What other sources would you suggest?

I don't suggest any.

And tis interesting that you would disregard all the various US departments agreeing.

Consider this.... If the government fabricated the event, shouldn't we expect that various arms of government would get their story straight?
I see no significance in their agreement with each other.

It's hard to claim that just because people hadn't acted some way before, means that they couldn't act some other way.

I have no argument with this, but I don't see why you're saying it.

A bet is a prediction.

It could be, albeit a far less than certain one. But in this case, I wasn't predicting what mischief
government would perpetrate....I only gave my opinion that government was likely lying.

But if you prefer, Obama's response is not the sort of response you would expect if your bet was on the right horse.

If could be a trial balloon.
But you forget....I'm not claiming "truth", just venturing my opinion about governmental gamesmanship.

Back to your earlier post, I should clarify what struck me as a tad snarky. You said....
"....if they actually were able to go through with this thing, then you'd be blaming Obama for not keeping his eyes open. The guy just can't win."

The problem is that when you insinuate that I'd blame Obama no matter what the result, this suggests that I'm simply anti-Obama without regard to merit.
It would be like my claiming that you'd disagree with me no matter what position I took. We shouldn't dismiss each others' opinions as mere contrarianism.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't suggest any.

Hm. I just assumed that if you criticize my selection of sources, you'd have better ones in mind.

Consider this.... If the government fabricated the event, shouldn't we expect that various arms of government would get their story straight?
I see no significance in their agreement with each other.

Not necessarily. For one, you would only need one department. Why press your luck? The more people you get lying for you, the more likely someone will spill the beans or mess up the story. Neither of which has happened.

I have no argument with this, but I don't see why you're saying it.

Because you quoted someone on NPR saying that the "Iranians don't operate this way". That doesn't preclude a) new methods of acting or b) someone messing up.

It could be, albeit a far less than certain one. But in this case, I wasn't predicting what mischief government would perpetrate....I only gave my opinion that government was likely lying.

This is what you stated: "My money is on Obama making the whole thing up in order to justify some new thuggish behavior."

You didn't just opine that Obama was lying. You also opined why he was lying-- which was to perpetrate thuggish behavior.

It could be a trial balloon.
But you forget....I'm not claiming "truth", just venturing my opinion about governmental gamesmanship.

And I'm arguing that your opinion is not well founded. Isn't that what all debates are about?

Back to your earlier post, I should clarify what struck me as a tad snarky. You said....
"....if they actually were able to go through with this thing, then you'd be blaming Obama for not keeping his eyes open. The guy just can't win."

The problem is that when you insinuate that I'd blame Obama no matter what the result, this suggests that I'm simply anti-Obama without regard to merit.
It would be like my claiming that you'd disagree with me no matter what position I took. We shouldn't dismiss each others' opinions as mere contrarianism.

Oh, I agree. But that was, afterall, just my opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hm. I just assumed that if you criticize my selection of sources, you'd have better ones in mind.

Different (ie, non-governmental) sources.
I trust Obama no more than I trusted Bush.

Not necessarily. For one, you would only need one department. Why press your luck? The more people you get lying for you, the more likely someone will spill the beans or mess up the story. Neither of which has happened.

Certainly, if one disagreed, that would be significant.
But that does not make agreement significant.

Because you quoted someone on NPR saying that the "Iranians don't operate this way". That doesn't preclude a) new methods of acting or b) someone messing up.

Anything is possible. I'll deal with what I think is likely/unlikely.

Oh, I agree. But that was, afterall, just my opinion.

To venture an opinion about the issues differs from dissing the poster.
The latter derails civil discourse, & is usually worth avoiding.

This is what you stated: "My money is on Obama making the whole thing up in order to justify some new thuggish behavior."
You didn't just opine that Obama was lying. You also opined why he was lying-- which was to perpetrate thuggish behavior.

That's still my bet.

And I'm arguing that your opinion is not well founded. Isn't that what all debates are about?

I'd say that neither of our opinions are well founded. We may only guess about claims by government about cloak & dagger activities
we have no personal experience with. So lacking real info, I'm not even debating.....just betting, ie, venturing a speculation.

Oh, I agree. But that was, afterall, just my opinion.

Opinions about issues are preferable, since opinions about posters can derail discussion.
You'll note that I was diplomatic enuf to avoid mentioning the distracting garlic & kim chee on your breath.

 

[Falvlun]

Different (ie, non-governmental) sources.
I trust Obama no more than I trusted Bush.

A little underwhelming. Also, why couldn't you have just said that when I asked the first time? It's no fun talking with someone who just makes me chase my own tail.

Certainly, if one disagreed, that would be significant.
But that does not make agreement significant.

I find the agreement of the wide variety of departments involved to be quite significant. When multiple sources agree, plausibility goes up. That's just how it goes.

Anything is possible. I'll deal with what I think is likely/unlikely.

So, why do you think it unlikely that the Iranians tried a new tactic and/or messed up?

To venture an opinion about the issues differs from dissing the poster.
The latter derails civil discourse, & is usually worth avoiding.

Really, I'm surprised you're such a softie underneath that gruff demeanor. I really don't see how my opinion that you would blame Obama for not keeping his eyes open if this attack had actually been carried out was a) a personal attack or b) unfounded. It's actually a pretty tame prediction. Practically everyone would jump down Obama's throat if something like that happened.

I find it troublesome that people don't seem to want to give Obama credit when he does get things right. Hence my comment that the guy just can't win-- no credit when he's good, and heaps of blame when he's bad.

That's still my bet.

Okay, Revoltingest. I've always appreciated your posts and viewpoint, but I am starting to understand why people get so frustrated debating with you.

I re-posted your bet because you claimed that you didn't make any prediction about what mischief the government would perpetrate, and yet you did. And when I call you on it, you pretend like you don't know why I posted that.

Seriously, I am being open and honest with you. I don't think it's fair to give me the run around.

I'd say that neither of our opinions are well founded. We may only guess about claims by government about cloak & dagger activities
we have no personal experience with. So lacking real info, I'm not even debating.....just betting, ie, venturing a speculation.

Your opinion is based upon the assumption that the CIA, FBI, State department, Justice department and Treasury are all lying. That's a pretty bold bet. But hey, I guess it's your money.

 

[Falvlun]

Also, if you are still interested in debating with such a meanie, I am still interested in your response Here.

 

[Revoltingest]

A little underwhelming.

True dat. I never suggested otherwise.

Also, why couldn't you have just said that when I asked the first time? It's no fun talking with someone who just makes me chase my own tail.

Can't say everything at once...must see how a discussion proceeds to see what comes up.

I find the agreement of the wide variety of departments involved to be quite significant. When multiple sources agree, plausibility goes up. That's just how it goes.

Oh, well....I see it differently.

So, why do you think it unlikely that the Iranians tried a new tactic and/or messed up?

Judgement call about likelihood. (Same as you there, Berford.)

Really, I'm surprised you're such a softie underneath that gruff demeanor. I really don't see how my opinion that you would blame Obama for not keeping his eyes open if this attack had actually been carried out was a) a personal attack or b) unfounded.

Because you don't know my motives. To presume that I'd blame Obama no matter what he did is an unfounded & inaccurate ad hominem.
Note: I'm not casting aspersions upon your motives...I just ask for the same courtesy.

It's actually a pretty tame prediction. Practically everyone would jump down Obama's throat if something like that happened.

I wouldn't. We're all individuals, & to lump each of us in with others leads to error.

I find it troublesome that people don't seem to want to give Obama credit when he does get things right. Hence my comment that the guy just can't win-- no credit when he's good, and heaps of blame when he's bad.

I sympathize. There is much shallow & unfair criticism going around on all sides.

Okay, Revoltingest. I've always appreciated your posts and viewpoint, but I am starting to understand why people get so frustrated debating with you.

Should I become "Frustratingest"?
Posters sometimes dwell too much upon trying to fit this square peg into a round hole, or winning an argument which I'm not making.

I re-posted your bet because you claimed that you didn't make any prediction about what mischief the government would perpetrate, and yet you did. And when I call you on it, you pretend like you don't know why I posted that.

You see a prediction where I proffered a motive.
This seems excessive parsing & splitting of interpretive hairs.
Tis better if you question & I clarify where I'm unclear.

Seriously, I am being open and honest with you. I don't think it's fair to give me the run around.

I intend no run-around.
But I think you're doing it to yourself with over-analysis & a little misreading.

Your opinion is based upon the assumption that the CIA, FBI, State department, Justice department and Treasury are all lying. That's a pretty bold bet. But hey, I guess it's your money.

I certainly could be wrong with this bet/guess/speculation about things largely unseen.
I thought my words & tone conveyed that all along.

Also, if you are still interested in debating with such a meanie, I am still interested in your response Here.

Done.
But I don't think you're a "meanie", even if you get a little peevish at times. We're all entitled.