• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran accused over Washington terror plot

mac said:
Holder said that there was evidence of a money transfer from Iran. I watched him say it.
Click to expand...

Again, key word, . . . say. Have you never doubted a word he has said?
 
Boo Radley said:
See above. Remember, being told something isn't the same as something being true. Powell presented a lot of **** at the UN, remember? It was nonsense, and rightly questioned by many, but the willing believed all the same.
Click to expand...

So Holder is lieing in your opinion?
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, key word, . . . say. Have you never doubted a word he has said?
Click to expand...

Without a doubt. I'm asking you if you think he lied to the American public about it on national TV.
 
mac said:
Without a doubt. I'm asking you if you think he lied to the American public about it on national TV.
Click to expand...

I have no idea. That's the continued point here. We should not accepted it at face value, and it would not matter who said it. Good people have lied to us. Powell is a prime example.
 
Boo Radley said:
I have no idea. That's the continued point here. We should not accepted it at face value, and it would not matter who said it. Good people have lied to us. Powell is a prime example.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about Powell, I'm talking about Holder. Either he did or didn't lie about the fact that he had evidence of a money transfer from Iran to the assassin. He's on record saying he does, do you doubt his veracity?
 
mac said:
So Holder is lieing in your opinion?
Click to expand...
let's see what the history of the government has been since 9/11:
... post-9/11, entrapment by FBI plants led to prosecutions of over 200 individuals on bogus terrorism related charges. Washington highlights them as proof of foiling plots that, in fact, never existed. ...
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba]
Iran Charged with Fake Terror Plot

here is an excellent take about manufactured plots:
http://www.chrgj.org/projects/docs/targetedandentrapped.pdf


be afraid. be very afraid. your government needs you to be so that you don't focus on its own screwups
 
mac said:
I'm not talking about Powell, I'm talking about Holder. Either he did or didn't lie about the fact that he had evidence of a money transfer from Iran to the assassin. He's on record saying he does, do you doubt his veracity?
Click to expand...

i think the government - if they actually had a smoking gun - would have trotted it out for the public to see for itself that iran is a legitimate threat
that they have not tells me they have nothing


a long way of saying, yes, holder is lying his ass off
and please ignore his involvement in fast and furious, including his misstatements
 
mac said:
I'm not talking about Powell, I'm talking about Holder. Either he did or didn't lie about the fact that he had evidence of a money transfer from Iran to the assassin. He's on record saying he does, do you doubt his veracity?
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. I can't make a positive claim for the same reason I won't accept his claim at face value. I would have to offer support I don't have. We both should be required to show evidence, and none of us should accept mere claims. I can't be any clearer than this.
 
justabubba said:
let's see what the history of the government has been since 9/11:
[emphasis added by bubba]
Iran Charged with Fake Terror Plot

here is an excellent take about manufactured plots:
http://www.chrgj.org/projects/docs/targetedandentrapped.pdf


be afraid. be very afraid. your government needs you to be so that you don't focus on its own screwups
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about what you think was done in the past, I'm talking about right now, and I really don't care what your conspiracy theorist outlets think about what has been done in the past, either. Do you think Holder lied?
 
Boo Radley said:
You're missing the point. I can't make a positive claim for the same reason I won't accept his claim at face value. I would have to offer support I don't have. We both should be required to show evidence, and none of us should accept mere claims. I can't be any clearer than this.
Click to expand...

So basically, it's a fake plot but you won't go on record saying Holder lied about the evidence that he has. That about it?
 
justabubba said:
i think the government - if they actually had a smoking gun - would have trotted it out for the public to see for itself that iran is a legitimate threat
that they have not tells me they have nothing


a long way of saying, yes, holder is lying his ass off
and please ignore his involvement in fast and furious, including his misstatements
Click to expand...

Ok, why would he lie about it, and why would I ignore his involvement in fast and furious?
 
mac said:
Ok, why would he lie about it, and why would I ignore his involvement in fast and furious?
Click to expand...

he is currently in the spot light
there are some who believe he lied - or at least was evasive - in his sworn testimony before congress
if he is seen as being hardnosed on terrorists, then some might reconsider their opposition to his presence

and he may have lied about the saudi murder plot like lies have been told on those 200 other "terrorists" who turned out not to be actual terrorists [that link has been provided twice; don't think it is needed again]

my biggest reason for doubting holder/government about this is that nothing other than his verbal communication, has been shared with the American people so that we can see for ourselves how deeply iran is connected in this plot
my belief is that government would make a point for us all to see the smoking gun evidence it had ... if it had any

what we know we have is a naturalized citizen from iran who has confessed according to holder, but who will plead not guilty according to his attorney:
... In fact, Arbabsiar's lawyer, Sabrina Shroff, said her client will plead not guilty if indicted. Apparently he denies involvement despite Holder claiming he confessed. ...
Click to expand...
[same cite]
the accused is a failed business owner who recently lost his house to foreclosure and his wife soon after. that is who has been trotted out as the plot mastermind
so, holder, "show me the money"
let me see for myself that there is a direct link to iran. and the evidence better be more credible than that crap Powell took before the UN to insist iraq had WMDs


this is more of the same
the only difference from the days of alberto gonzales is that we no longer have some government official also screaming we are now in code red, orange or yellow
 
justabubba said:
he is currently in the spot light
there are some who believe he lied - or at least was evasive - in his sworn testimony before congress
if he is seen as being hardnosed on terrorists, then some might reconsider their opposition to his presence

and he may have lied about the saudi murder plot like lies have been told on those 200 other "terrorists" who turned out not to be actual terrorists [that link has been provided twice; don't think it is needed again]

my biggest reason for doubting holder/government about this is that nothing other than his verbal communication, has been shared with the American people so that we can see for ourselves how deeply iran is connected in this plot
my belief is that government would make a point for us all to see the smoking gun evidence it had ... if it had any

what we know we have is a naturalized citizen from iran who has confessed according to holder, but who will plead not guilty according to his attorney: [same cite]
the accused is a failed business owner who recently lost his house to foreclosure and his wife soon after. that is who has been trotted out as the plot mastermind
so, holder, "show me the money"
let me see for myself that there is a direct link to iran. and the evidence better be more credible than that crap Powell took before the UN to insist iraq had WMDs


this is more of the same
the only difference from the days of alberto gonzales is that we no longer have some government official also screaming we are now in code red, orange or yellow
Click to expand...

When has the American public ever been shown the actual evidence in a case like this? Other than that, all I got out of your post is that Holder lied because he's part of the Govt and Powell lied (in your opinion) in the past. Right?
 
mac said:
When has the American public ever been shown the actual evidence in a case like this? Other than that, all I got out of your post is that Holder lied because he's part of the Govt and Powell lied (in your opinion) in the past. Right?
Click to expand...

in the case of those 200 alleged 'terrorists'
NONE of them were found to be actual terrorists. because the government did NOT have the proof, after making the allegations
 
justabubba said:
in the case of those 200 alleged 'terrorists'
NONE of them were found to be actual terrorists. because the government did NOT have the proof, after making the allegations
Click to expand...

So? Were you provided the actual evidence in any of those 200 suspected terrorists? Were you provided the evidence that led to their capture in the first place? Were you presented with the evidence/lack of evidence that released them? How many of the 200 were re-apprehended or linked to terrorist activity in Yemen, Iraq, or Afghanistan after being found "not terrorists" the first time?

How is that the release of these suspected then vindicated terrorists, that were captured, held, tried and released by the USG, has anything at all to do with this case?
 
Last edited:
mac said:
So? Were you provided the actual evidence in any of those 200 suspected terrorists? Were you provided the evidence that led to their capture in the first place? Were you presented with the evidence/lack of evidence that released them? How many of the 200 were re-apprehended or linked to terrorist activity in Yemen, Iraq, or Afghanistan after being found "not terrorists" the first time?

How is that the release of these suspected then vindicated terrorists, that were captured, held, tried and released by the USG, has anything at all to do with this case?
Click to expand...

you are just being obtuse now
if there was actual evidence to be seen to prosecute those 200 'terrorists'
then it would have been used to prosecute them for their 'terrorist' acts
logic 101
 
justabubba said:
you are just being obtuse now
if there was actual evidence to be seen to prosecute those 200 'terrorists'
then it would have been used to prosecute them for their 'terrorist' acts
logic 101
Click to expand...

Oh, it's not I.


Just like any other case stateside, if someone is arrested on suspicion of XXX and then released due to lack of evidence, do you call the arresting agency liars?
 
mac said:
Oh, it's not I.


Just like any other case stateside, if someone is arrested on suspicion of XXX and then released due to lack of evidence, do you call the arresting agency liars?
Click to expand...

yes
10 char
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
That Iran has assassinated people is not in doubt by myself or most people.

That the Iranian government used an incompetent individual to arrange some assassinations by using a mexican drug cartel to kill a Saudi Ambassador in the US and to bomb other places is.

The guy is incompetent, Iran knows better to wire over $100 000, and has far easier targets outside of the US that would cause far fewer direct repercussions for Iran

This entire event is amatuer(sp) hour and would present Iran with far more negatives then benifits.
Click to expand...

What makes him so incompetant and what evidence do you have that makes you doubt Iran's involvement in such a plan?
 
Boo Radley said:
Certain? I don't know that anyone is certain of anything. But that's the point. Most are just saying we should not take government claims at face value. And we shouldn't.
Click to expand...

I've seen several posters claim that they are convinced that there's no way that Iran had anything to do with this plot.

I'm simply asking for the evidence that has convinced them so. I've yet to see it and I think that stems from there being a little bit of trufer in them.
 
Boo Radley said:
If he has no evidence, how cna he make any claim at all? Really?

And too many have wagged the dog. But we do need to have evidence to support our claims. So does the president or anyone else. Real evidence.
Click to expand...

Antiderivative said:
Many skeptics are claiming that this assassination plot planned and carried by the Iranian government does not add up.

Iran Assassination Plot Just Doesn
Iran
Used-car salesman as Iran proxy? Why assassination plot doesn't add up for experts. - CSMonitor.com
Iran Assassination Plot: Skeptics Question Motive And Method Of An 'Amateur Hour' Scheme
Iran Assassination Plot Raises Questions
Click to expand...

Gill said:
Easy, he heard it from Holder. Holder is the one claiming this is a plot to kill foreign diplomats and American citizens. Don't you keep up with current events ???

Like I said, if they have evidence, we will eventually see it. The whole thing sounds a bit fishy to me though. That's why I'm wondering if the dog's tail will soon be getting a bit sore.
Click to expand...
Objective Voice said:
I thought I was the only one who thought this Iran assassination plot had a "wag the dog" feel to it. But if the 2009 plot is true, who's to say someone within the Iranian gov't wouldn't try it again?
Click to expand...
Gill said:
Yeah, the whole thing has an odd smell. Obama was briefed on the plot last June and the arrest was made last month, yet we only hear about it yesterday. Why the delay??
Click to expand...

Gill,

I've been trying to wrap my mind around the public explanation given concerning this plot and things just don't add up. According to this NYTimes.com article, Manssor Arbabsiar is a naturalized U.S. citizen. But according to this article from MSNBC.com, Manssor Arbabsiar is described as an Iranian-American; gives the connotation that the man has dual-citizenship. Which is correct?

A few things about the MSNBC article doesn't add up. For instance, Arbabsiar allegedly met his contact, a convicted Mexican drug dealer turned DEA informant, in Mexico. Why would a used car salesman from Corpus Cristi, TX with no arrest on drug related charges go to Mexico? The article says Arbabsiar left the country, but doesn't say where he went. What's more bizzare is the fact that although the DEA informant does say that Arbabsiar inquired about acquiring explosives to blow up the Saudi Embassy here in the U.S., he turns around and recommends to Arbabsiar upon his return to the U.S. that HE, not Arbabsiar, could assassinate the Saudi Ambassador for $1.5 million with the help of others (four men was the number of assistance the informant said he would need)? Why wouldn't the informant just get the C-4 explosives Arbabsiar asked for instead of upping the anti?

And then you have this alleged Mexican cartle/Quds Force/Venezuela drug smuggling connection that doesn't make sense because nowhere in either article is there confirmation of Arbabsiar's involvement with drugs, drugs gangs, drug dealers - nothing! So, again, why is a used car salesman from Texas doing down in Mexico? And even if there's more to the relationship between Arbabsiar and this DEA informant, why have the money to carry out the assassination plot wired to a bank in New York? I could understand if both Arbabsiar and the DEA informant met up in NY after the informant received the money or the DEA agent going himself, but having two money transfers of $100,000 each wired to NY when Arbabsiar resided in TX makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. On top of that as stated earlier, it wasn't even Arbabsiar who was to carry out the assassination attempt. It was the DEA informant which makes this plot stranger still.

This plot just doesn't add up. Can you say, "Wag the Dog"?
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Gill,

I've been trying to wrap my mind around the public explanation given concerning this plot and things just don't add up. According to this NYTimes.com article, Manssor Arbabsiar is a naturalized U.S. citizen. But according to this article from MSNBC.com, Manssor Arbabsiar is described as an Iranian-American; gives the connotation that the man has dual-citizenship. Which is correct?

A few things about the MSNBC article doesn't add up. For instance, Arbabsiar allegedly met his contact, a convicted Mexican drug dealer turned DEA informant, in Mexico. Why would a used car salesman from Corpus Cristi, TX with no arrest on drug related charges go to Mexico? The article says Arbabsiar left the country, but doesn't say where he went. What's more bizzare is the fact that although the DEA informant does say that Arbabsiar inquired about acquiring explosives to blow up the Saudi Embassy here in the U.S., he turns around and recommends to Arbabsiar upon his return to the U.S. that HE, not Arbabsiar, could assassinate the Saudi Ambassador for $1.5 million with the help of others (four men was the number of assistance the informant said he would need)? Why wouldn't the informant just get the C-4 explosives Arbabsiar asked for instead of up-ing the antie?

And then you have this alleged Mexican cartle/Quds Force/Venezuela drug smuggling connection that doesn't make sense because nowhere in either article is there confirmation of Arbabsiar's involvement with drugs, drugs gangs, drug dealers - nothing! So, again, why is a used car salesman from Texas doing down in Mexico? And even if there's more to the relationship between Arbabsiar and this DEA informant, why have the money to carry out the assassination plot wired to a bank in New York? I could understand if both Arbabsiar and the DEA informant or even a DEA agent met up in NY after the informant received the money, but having two deposits of $100,000 each wired to NY when Arbabsiar resided in TX makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. On top of that, it wasn't even Arbabsiar who was to carry out the plot. It was the DEA informant which makes this plot stranger still.

This plot just doesn't add up. Can you say, "Wag the Dog"?
Click to expand...

Why does any of that, "not add up"? You're taking circumstantial evidence and trying to twist it into something substantial.

To answer your question as to why a used car salesman from Corpus Christi did any of that: it was because he was hatching a plot to assinate the Saudi and Israeli ambassadors, in Washington D.C.
 
apdst said:
Why does any of that, "not add up"? You're taking circumstantial evidence and trying to twist it into something substantial.

To answer your question as to why a used car salesman from Corpus Christi did any of that: it was because he was hatching a plot to assinate the Saudi and Israeli ambassadors, in Washington D.C.
Click to expand...

No...the bomb plot turned into an assassination attempt. Still, the person who was to carry out the plot wasn't the Iranian-American. It was the DEA informant. Does that make any sense to you?

It would make sense IF Arbabsair had been the one who changed plans, but it was the informant who suggested assassinating the Saudi Ambassador, not Arbabsiar himself. That's what puzzles me about this entire story.

Now, if the storyline had expanded on how the original bombing plot was deemed too risky and Arbabsiar and the DEA informant were throwing around ideas and suddenly at some point during the conversation the informant said, "I know, how about assassinating the Saudi Ambassador instead," I could understand that.

BTW, when did the Israeli Ambassador come into the mix?

The Justice Dept still has lots of 'xplaining to do because according to the NYTimes article, other nations are starting to get involved - Britain, France, the Saudis themselves (naturally). I am curious, however, why Venezuela's keeping mum about it. They haven't said a thing yet and their drug cartle's been placed in the middle of this alleged plot.

(Sidenote: The irony here is I'm the one questioning events associated with the Obama Administration and you, normally an anti-Obama pundit, are the one defending the Administration's storyline. How twisted is that? :lol: )
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
No matter who makes the claim, there is no reason to accept the claim without actual evidence. It is as fishy as we had under Bush. We should always question no matter who makes the claim. Evidence should always be the critieria, and we should not be too willing to believe.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about accepting a claim. You merely asked where he got any evidence from, not if it was legitimate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom