Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

And here we go.
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/RickSantorumSmiling1.jpg
Israelis can't sleep at night because of Iran. You know what to do, America.

We should arrest the Koch Brothers, Iran also supports them.

"Senior Obama administration officials said the U.S. currently does not have any information indicating that either Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad necessarily knew about the assassination plot and said the U.S. will pursue a path of response that would not include the possibility of an armed conflict with Iran."

More rattling, nothing new.

My roommate's friend claimed we should go to war with Iran over this.


...smh.

The thing is he's not even a Fox Newsie, he's a liberal who was against the Iraq War.

Iranian intelligence reaching out to the Zetas is a bit disturbing

Originally posted by inimalist
Iranian intelligence reaching out to the Zetas is a bit disturbing
This reminds me of the Zimmerman Telegraph incident.

What is this thread about?

I do not find anything in the news about an Iranian lead assasination attempt or something like that.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
This reminds me of the Zimmerman Telegraph incident.

or some reverse Oliver North shit

Originally posted by dadudemon
What is this thread about?

I do not find anything in the news about an Iranian lead assasination attempt or something like that.

X5Kez6J4ejQ

Originally posted by inimalist
X5Kez6J4ejQ

Oh shit.



But it's not serious business?


Seems like it could lead to war between SA and Iran...if they can prove that the attempt was a bit higher in the Iranian government food chain.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh shit.



But it's not serious business?

I'd say it is pretty serious

Originally posted by dadudemon
Seems like it could lead to war between SA and Iran...if they can prove that the attempt was a bit higher in the Iranian government food chain.

In fact, Saudi Arabia and Iran are essentially in a cold war at the moment.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd say it is pretty serious



In fact, Saudi Arabia and Iran are essentially in a cold war at the moment.

Well...



I figured it would come to this eventually.



Some dude (probably multiple) that was smart said that we would eventually have wars in the middle east due to energy needs and religion. (Sounds silly due wars already existing, but he was talking about a world war on par with WW I).



Talk about a case of needing to be wrong...

Doesn't it always end with the offending nation just saying "Never seen him before, prosecute away." and everyone forgeting about it in a year?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well...



I figured it would come to this eventually.



Some dude (probably multiple) that was smart said that we would eventually have wars in the middle east due to energy needs and religion. (Sounds silly due wars already existing, but he was talking about a world war on par with WW I).



Talk about a case of needing to be wrong...
Probably Bismark.

Dude predicted everything.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Doesn't it always end with the offending nation just saying "Never seen him before, prosecute away." and everyone forgeting about it in a year?
Yup. I doubt that war will flare up over an attempt but it certainly won't ease tensions.

Iran isn't suicidal enough to risk full military conflict with SA, especially given their standing as an American ally. In terms of international justification for conflict and regime change, attacking SA would pretty much ensure the Ayatollahs would no longer rule in Iran, conversely, SA really can't afford to be seen as the aggressors, given their own already upset Shia population. Its not MAD in the traditional sense, but neither nation would end up very well if they instigated military conflict with the other, imho

Originally posted by inimalist
Iran isn't suicidal enough to risk full military conflict with SA, especially given their standing as an American ally. In terms of international justification for conflict and regime change, attacking SA would pretty much ensure the Ayatollahs would no longer rule in Iran, conversely, SA really can't afford to be seen as the aggressors, given their own already upset Shia population. Its not MAD in the traditional sense, but neither nation would end up very well if they instigated military conflict with the other, imho

I slightly agree.


However, I don't see this as being something they will mutually brush under the rug IF they can bring the attempt to at least mid-level government from Iran.



That fact that it did not succeed may make a world of difference.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I slightly agree.


However, I don't see this as being something they will mutually brush under the rug IF they can bring the attempt to at least mid-level government from Iran.



That fact that it did not succeed may make a world of difference.

unfortunately, if it had succeeded, it almost certainly wouldn't be traceable to the Iranians. An actual Zeta killer would have not only escaped, but even if caught, would not have spilled the beans on the operation (let me throw this out there, however: the Zeta leaders would probably not have agreed to something like this, they have a lot on their plate atm). There may have been accusations or suspicions that Iran was involved given the target, but damn, if they hadn't almost lucked out into the plan, it would have been a cluster**** trying to figure it out (actually, one of the things that strikes me as odd is that it was such a lucky shot that the guys approached an informant... I'd really like to know more about that, like how many people he approached before the informant, or if he tried going to other cartels first)

my thoughts are they were trying to strain US-SA relations, as given SA's "not-to-be-spoken-of" ties to terrorism and the like, a little stress there might begin to push the two apart, or at least weaken the position of the Saudi royals, who rule SA only due to continuing military support from the Americans. If the royals fall, Iran is essentially free to dominate Bahrain and some of the Shia oil rich parts of Eastern SA, not to mention the GCC would probably fall, breaking up a bloc that exists almost primarily as ananti-Iranian entity (ok, exaggeration... but not much).

The way intelligence operations work, however, I don't think mid level government agents even need have been involved. It would be like suggesting that mid level government officials in America would have known the day to day activities of Ollie North. Even the highest levels of government only knew bits and pieces of what was going on. You might see it linked to like, the head of the Quds brigade or something, which is a pretty major part of government, but nobody on the planet thinks military/intelligence leaders in Iran are doves; they have made attempts at Iranian dissidents on American soil in the past. It would be like America finding out a leader of the KGB had planned an operation against them during the Cold War.

Originally posted by inimalist
unfortunately, if it had succeeded, it almost certainly wouldn't be traceable to the Iranians. An actual Zeta killer would have not only escaped, but even if caught, would not have spilled the beans on the operation (let me throw this out there, however: the Zeta leaders would probably not have agreed to something like this, they have a lot on their plate atm). There may have been accusations or suspicions that Iran was involved given the target, but damn, if they hadn't almost lucked out into the plan, it would have been a cluster**** trying to figure it out (actually, one of the things that strikes me as odd is that it was such a lucky shot that the guys approached an informant... I'd really like to know more about that, like how many people he approached before the informant, or if he tried going to other cartels first)

my thoughts are they were trying to strain US-SA relations, as given SA's "not-to-be-spoken-of" ties to terrorism and the like, a little stress there might begin to push the two apart, or at least weaken the position of the Saudi royals, who rule SA only due to continuing military support from the Americans. If the royals fall, Iran is essentially free to dominate Bahrain and some of the Shia oil rich parts of Eastern SA, not to mention the GCC would probably fall, breaking up a bloc that exists almost primarily as ananti-Iranian entity (ok, exaggeration... but not much).

The way intelligence operations work, however, I don't think mid-level government agents even need have been involved. It would be like suggesting that mid-level government officials in America would have known the day to day activities of Ollie North. Even the highest levels of government only knew bits and pieces of what was going on. You might see it linked to like, the head of the Quds brigade or something, which is a pretty major part of government, but nobody on the planet thinks military/intelligence leaders in Iran are doves; they have made attempts at Iranian dissidents on American soil in the past. It would be like America finding out a leader of the KGB had planned an operation against them during the Cold War.

I assumed, in my "it would be worse if the assassination attempt succeeded" that the assassins were caught OR the intelligence community DID gather intelligence on what they were doing but did not know enough to know when they would strike (happens both ways in places other than the US).



And, I thought Iran's (at least the lower level military personnel tied to this) goal was to strain the US-SA's relations, as well. Except have SA alienate the US for an assassination having been successful upon one of their diplomats. It would be highly embarrassing to the US if such an attempt succeeded considering how "hard" we are supposed to be cracking down on global terrorism. It would cause SA to lose a bit of trust, no matter how many ways the US explained or justified it, in the US's position as "supporting partner" with SA.


And, I cannot comment on how far up orders, like "assassinate the Ambassador of SA while he is in the US", come in Iran.

However, an order like that is definitely not going to come from ONLY low-level players. In fact, I think it would be naive to assume something that big would come from low-level government/military personnel in Iran. This is mostly why this assassination attempt is considered a big deal: it's a bit much to try and brush aside as just the "rogue activities of dissenting military personnel".

But you may be right (actually, you will be) that it would be impossible to trace to something beyond mid-level involvement and for good reason. Unless, of course, the US Cyber Security military teams can break into and retrieve information such as orders.

But, I see this as something that PROBABLY came directly from General Ataollah Salehi. It's just waaaaaaay too big to not have come from someone like that.

If not Salehi, then Gen. Abdolrahim Mousavi.




But, that begs the question: would not this strategic direction have from the government rather than independently from the military? Most likely. Iran is not a "militocracy": government and military running closely together and it seems to be "top-down" from Government to Military (meaning, the military is ultimately subordinate to the government).

I don't see how Iran killing SA's ambassador to the US could end up hurting relations between SA and the US.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't see how Iran killing SA's ambassador to the US could end up hurting relations between SA and the US.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...have SA alienate the US for an assassination having been successful upon one of their diplomats. It would be highly embarrassing to the US if such an attempt succeeded considering how "hard" we are supposed to be cracking down on global terrorism. It would cause SA to lose a bit of trust, no matter how many ways the US explained or justified it, in the US's position as "supporting partner" with SA.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't see how Iran killing SA's ambassador to the US could end up hurting relations between SA and the US.
VIOLENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
DESTABILIZATION A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY
ISRAEL THE ONLY DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST
ISRAEL OUR ALLY
ISRAEL PART OF THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM
REAL AMERICANS STAND WITH ISRAEL
WE MUST PROTECT ISRAEL
IRAN MUST BE STOPPED TO SAFEGUARD FREEDOM

And the rest is 2001 to the present day.

Please, Zeal...don't get banned. We NEED you around here like a drug addict needs a detox program.

Don't see how pointing out the control of our foreign policy by deleterious influences is going to get me banned.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CzCBruoNlVw/Sm-AgRBbGQI/AAAAAAAAAC4/IwYlVWUaJRI/s400/Aipac+pledge+FUNNY.jpg

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't see how Iran killing SA's ambassador to the US could end up hurting relations between SA and the US.

I think Iran's goal was not to be caught as the perpetrator

in that case, it looks like either a random attack (maybe even ultra-nationalist right wing groups) or a Mexican cartel hit

I sort of agree with you, but what do you think their motive was then? and why use the Zetas when Iran has been pretty brazen about this stuff in the past?

RvpJCM1Bveg

very interesting, especially given:



http://politics.salon.com/2011/09/29/fbi_terror/singleton/

4359bHWJhY0

this will be the last of my spam....

it seems like a logical argument could be made for this being a group of "rogue" agents, especially if the drug trafficking angle plays out

I'll say it a third time, man, reminds me sooooo much of Oliver North fighting against the Sandanistras

Ok, let's ignore Zeal's moronic antisemitism for a second and examine this premise.
1. Conservatives spread the US military thin through global bases and police actions.
2. Conservatives and libertarians completely dismantle manufacturing, and therefore strategic defense industries in the United States, making a ground war on US territory virtually impossible to win.
3. Conservatives and libertarians weaken the military through outsourcing labor, allowing for war profiteering, and employing mercenaries with no loyalty to the US.
4. Conservatives overstrech the military in two massive unfunded wars.
5. Libertarians destroy the US economy and let infrastructure and transportation systems.
6. Based on a foiled terrorist plot, conservatives want to start 2 additional wars, one of which may involve a ground war across the US border.

Yeah, that's smart, let's take an overstretched military dependent on criminals and foreign nations for its supplies into 4 simultaneous wars across multiple fronts, including one across the US border.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Ok, let's ignore Zeal's moronic antisemitism for a second and examine this premise.

I honestly don't think he's being antisematic. He's more being "antimoronic" because of how moronic he thinks American politics are concerning Israel.

He's pretty much right, by the way. We need an overhaul that isn't so zionistic.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
1. Conservatives spread the US military thin through global bases and police actions.
2. Conservatives and libertarians completely dismantle manufacturing, and therefore strategic defense industries in the United States, making a ground war on US territory virtually impossible to win.
3. Conservatives and libertarians weaken the military through outsourcing labor, allowing for war profiteering, and employing mercenaries with no loyalty to the US.
4. Conservatives overstrech the military in two massive unfunded wars.
5. Libertarians destroy the US economy and let infrastructure and transportation systems.
6. Based on a foiled terrorist plot, conservatives want to start 2 additional wars, one of which may involve a ground war across the US border.

Yeah, that's smart, let's take an overstretched military dependent on criminals and foreign nations for its supplies into 4 simultaneous wars across multiple fronts, including one across the US border.


1. I want to bring most of them back. What about you?
2. This is not a correct comment.
3. Conservatives? Sometimes. Libertarians? Not a chance. War profiteering? Yup. Happens. Disloyal mercanaries? Not a chance: they are among the most patriotic Americans you can find. TOO patriotic, even.
4. Agreed.
5. Incorrect: no libetarians exist in any sensible fashion in the government. It's a fringe political group with little to no pull in D.C. Liberals and conservatives are both resopnsible for what you name here, but not so much "transportation". That's almost irrelevant.
6. They do? Which two additional wars?


Do your conclusion, I agree: stupid idea. We should stop this war mongering. But I think you're really far off on your supporting ideas for why that idea is stupid.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Ok, let's ignore Zeal's moronic antisemitism for a second and examine this premise.
Be critical of Israel controlling American foreign policy; get called an anti-Semite. You're Jewish, aren't you? Yes, I think I recall you mentioning it before. Did you know that early Jews were allowed as bankers because Christians considered usury a sin?


http://www.glamour.com/sex-love-life/blogs/smitten/laughing%20girls.jpg
He's blaming conservatives for systematic bipartisan failures over the past 60 years!

Remember: conservatives wanted to keep America out of WWII. Keep playing the fiddle for your masters, though.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Ok, let's ignore Zeal's moronic antisemitism

that's a rather heavy cudgel to swing so liberally, no?

Assassinations in foreign countries by foreign governments is not a new concept. We and the Soviet Union during the Cold War are guilty of that crime. It was highly prevalant in Africa and the Middle East. I'm a conservative/republican and I don't believe we need to use the military option on Iran. The attack was foiled so no act of war was comitted.

I have to admit using a Drug Cartel hit squad is a novel concept. Draw attention away from the real culprits - real Assassins Creed type.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Be critical of Israel controlling American foreign policy; get called an anti-Semite. You're Jewish, aren't you? Yes, I think I recall you mentioning it before. Did you know that early Jews were allowed as bankers because Christians considered usury a sin?
Yep, that was the only factor. It had nothing to do with the fact that Jews were banned from all "honorable" trades, nor allowed to join guilds. So the only work they were legally allowed to do, was the stuff no Christian wanted. If gentiles are upset Jews have made so much money, they should know they brought it upon themselves.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If gentiles are upset Jews have made so much money, they should know they brought it upon themselves.

lol

Pwned. 313



Wait, this is serious threads, but I couldn't resist.

Originally posted by inimalist
that's a rather heavy cudgel to swing so liberally, no?

I present to you some tasty Nihilo quotes from pages 3 through 5 of the 2012 Republican Debate thread as evidence that he's rabid, Jew hater-






-On Jewish values.

That and the fact that he refers to me as having "masters". Don't get get me wrong, I agree that war with Iran and a front in Mexico is stupid, I just think being an antisemite or any other kind of religious, ethnic, race, gender, or sex orientation based bigot hinders your ability to think rationally and completely devalues your life as a human being. That's all.

Zeal is also a notorious troll...

EDIT: tbh though, I am not arguing that he is in favour of the Jewish people

That as maybe, DJ, but Zeal wasn't going over the line in this thread as of yet, so no need to make more trouble of it.

Zeal knows he has to watch his comments, and talking of which- I don't think there is any relevance to whether DJ is Jewish or not, so that sort of comment should be avoided in future.

I'm not a "rabid Jew hater" by any stretch; quite the contrary, I'm coldly rational about my distrust and suspicion of Jews. If you would care to discuss my stances, then make a thread about it instead of whining.