[Sampanviking]

Potentially this is momentous news.

Iran has captured Abdulmalik Rigi; which is an adventure in its own right.

It pales into significance however if his interrogation reveals a high level of US involvement, which would not only put them in the same bed as Al-Queada, but also label them as State Sponsors of Terror/

It would certainly confirm a lot of things that many of us have long suspected and explain the low key reporting in the Western Media.

Heady Heady Stuff!

Stop Press!! Its already being reported!

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/8537567.stm

Also earlier news from Bhadrakumar

http://www.atimes.co...t/LB26Ak01.html

[IchiNiSan]

Sampanviking, on Feb 26 2010, 04:53 AM, said:

Potentially this is momentous news.

Iran has captured Abdulmalik Rigi; which is an adventure in its own right.

It pales into significance however if his interrogation reveals a high level of US involvement, which would not only put them in the same bed as Al-Queada, but also label them as State Sponsors of Terror/

It would certainly confirm a lot of things that many of us have long suspected and explain the low key reporting in the Western Media.

Heady Heady Stuff!

Stop Press!! Its already being reported!

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/8537567.stm

Also earlier news from Bhadrakumar

http://www.atimes.co...t/LB26Ak01.html

Actually his statements would be only an extra needle on the mountain of sources/evidences etc to confirm ths US involvement in the darker side of espioniage, worldwide terrorist activities, drug smuggling, etc etc etc etc

[Sampanviking]

The differenc eI think, is that this is something tangible, that teeth can be sunk into etc?

I will be looking for International reaction, especially Russian and Chinese. It could easily sink the sanctions programme and change "attitudes and policy" on a range of other War on Terror related issues.

I think like Climategate, this will start slow and snowball into the public consciousness

[Bill]

You know the great thing about been the sole superpower? You can do these type of things and not only can you get away with it, you can claim legitimacy! I think that's at least one thing China will always be having trouble with, even when China get more powerful.

[IchiNiSan]

Sampanviking, on Feb 26 2010, 05:17 PM, said:

The differenc eI think, is that this is something tangible, that teeth can be sunk into etc?

I will be looking for International reaction, especially Russian and Chinese. It could easily sink the sanctions programme and change "attitudes and policy" on a range of other War on Terror related issues.

I think like Climategate, this will start slow and snowball into the public consciousness

This "tangible" evidence, well, like Yongke say, the marketing campaign for the past decades has already affected so many people, that the first question even I will ask is "yeah, who is this guy, is his story true?". credibility perception is extremely low for news stories coming from Iran. For example, they miss-translate what Iran says about Israel, even after debunking, the general public and even "forum goers" will still continue to use the initial created perception. Same tactic they are using on China, which is why i am still surprised why China has not really worked on our image by recruiting some global image marketing agencies. But that is another topic for another day.

Public census all over the world agree for mostly the same thing: USA wants Iran's oil and Iran is not such a threat as they present. I really don't think the world have forgotten how USA invaded Iraq because of so-called MWD, but after years of invasion their US president telling that they had it wrong and that's why could not find one single piece of the threat. But how to translate this public census into political pressure? It will be slow, extremely slow actually, especially when actually these kinds of information leakage, whistle blowers, official news and publications have been uncovering a lot of the dirty side of the American government actions and/or inactions. For example, in Iraq election over 500 Sunni followers were rejected to participate, with the reason of that they have in some way tights with the previous "regime". What is going on in Iraq is that they are regime changing from one dictatorship for another one. But in the Western mainstream media whenever inconvenient for the American policies, practically NO attention will be paid for it. Public knows dirty stuff is going on, you have some screamers for help on the internet and occasional demonstrators, and a black guy promising change has been elected, but what we do not see is that they are changing the way they are acting at all, and continue these warfares.....

[Sampanviking]

Thre is no doubt that this guy is exactly who he is claimed to be and after reading how the Iranians managed to nab him, I wonder if they were not recieving "assistance" from friends in the region.

The point here is that although the speculatio has been rife fro years about US trouble making, here is somebody with a story to tell. If he was being assisted by the US, then he will be able to name people and identify operational centers for "instability operations" Manas Airbase being a place of significant interest at the moment.

If the US was doing this to destabilise one regional country, then it is a far bet that the same operational outfit would have been running groups to do it to others. China should be particularly interested in any Tibetan or Uighur connections here.

This is not a story for immediate public consumption, but one for the intelligence Officers of the region to fit peices together to build a more cohesive story and then to put their complaints formally not only to the US, but more significantly to the UN, through whom the US has its justification for being in the region.

As Bhadrakumar says, this could seriously weaken the US's standing and force the UN to withdraw its support for continued US participation in the Afghan mission as well as sink any attempt to build International sanctions against Iran.

[IchiNiSan]

Sampanviking, on Feb 27 2010, 06:01 PM, said:

Thre is no doubt that this guy is exactly who he is claimed to be and after reading how the Iranians managed to nab him, I wonder if they were not recieving "assistance" from friends in the region.

The point here is that although the speculatio has been rife fro years about US trouble making, here is somebody with a story to tell. If he was being assisted by the US, then he will be able to name people and identify operational centers for "instability operations" Manas Airbase being a place of significant interest at the moment.

If the US was doing this to destabilise one regional country, then it is a far bet that the same operational outfit would have been running groups to do it to others. China should be particularly interested in any Tibetan or Uighur connections here.

This is not a story for immediate public consumption, but one for the intelligence Officers of the region to fit peices together to build a more cohesive story and then to put their complaints formally not only to the US, but more significantly to the UN, through whom the US has its justification for being in the region.

As Bhadrakumar says, this could seriously weaken the US's standing and force the UN to withdraw its support for continued US participation in the Afghan mission as well as sink any attempt to build International sanctions against Iran.

I didn't really looked at it from this angle, as I was a bit too focused on the general public's reaction to this case. And I agree for most of the parts you are referring though. However, I do believe that most of the wrong-doings of NED, CIA and whatever other Anglo-Saxon agencies, are a bit old news to the people in the known, especially the other world leaders and intelligence agencies.

And I am not sure what this could mean to the International/UN community, if the USA insists on accusing Iran regardless evidence (like before), their allies will still turn a blind eye to these newly gathered intelligence. Nonetheless, intelligence, which I believe would be mainly be useful and very worthwhile for China and others at tactical level and not so much for strategic level policy making, unless it shed lights to some bigger network and involvement than what they already knew.

By the way, today the South China Morning in HK spent a 1/5 sized article about this news story, in the article it was also noted that the Americans claims that it is all bogus. This article felt surprisingly much more neutral and "objective" than I expected.

[Sampanviking]

Something like this needs a focus around which it can coalesce, a public face with which known facts can be associated and broadcast.

The players are being careful at the moment, because while I am sure that they already know most of which Rigi can reveal (and probably considerably more) they realise that one false statement could simply expose their own assets. To both work and to protect existing sources, it must look as though Rigi is the source of the information, but not be able to reveal things which he could not obviously know.

Using Rigi, they can get intelligence out into the public domain and be able to vouch for its veracity. In effect they will turn him into a powerful search light to illuminate the darker corners of the US operations in Central Asia.

China though does have another problem to deal with. Jundullah is an organisation which also has ties with sections of Pakistani Intelligence and so the Chinese will need to tread carefully to ensure it does not hurt its own interests there.

I think Russia will be the most forthcoming in this, especially if they have any links to groups in Chechnya or other restive republics.

I see a giant screw being progressively tightened against the US and a slow lingering death of its mission. I think the recent actions of Karzai to take powers to himself and for the Russians to criticise the US failure to curb Opium production are associated facets of this process. Watch the volume get louder over the next few weeks.

[IchiNiSan]

So Brazil is siding China's stance and headlines are going as far as "clashing" between Brazil and US. Of course Hillary would be less than satisfied Coincidentally this comes after the arrest, hmmmm, maybe Sampan becomes prophetic?

Brazil, US clash over how to deal with Iran

Quote

Lula set a tough tone for his and Amorim's talks with Clinton when he said it is "not prudent to push Iran into a corner. It is prudent to make it so that Iran continues to negotiate."

In a combative press conference with Amorim, a stern-faced Clinton retorted that the US-led drive to impose a fourth set of UN sanctions on the Islamic Republic was the only way to bring it back to the negotiating table.

"Only after we pass sanctions in the Security Council will Iran negotiate in good faith," Clinton said in a foreign ministry briefing room where she was continually pressed by local journalists on Washington's hard stand.

Clinton echoed Amorim when she said both shared the goal of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons country, but said the two differed in how to attain it.

"Once the international community speaks in unison around a resolution, then the Iranians will come and begin to negotiate," she said, raising her voice.

"So we want to get to the negotiation. We just think the best path is through the United Nations Security Council."

She also appeared to suggest Brazil and other countries were falling for what the US consider is Iranian antics.

"We see an Iran that runs to Brazil, an Iran that runs to Turkey, and an Iran that runs to China telling different things to different people to avoid sanctions," she said.

Guess she felt cornered in that briefing room

[Violet Oboe]

IchiNiSan there is one word entirely describing the current Iran-Brazil issue: RESENDE.

Technically the Brazilians conduct the exactly identical procedures at their own enrichment plant at Resende as the Iranians do at Natanz. Both countries are parties of the NPT with the exactly identical rights (meaning that both do not enjoy the privileges of the P-5!) and establishing a precedent that the UNSC is able to strip a NPT treaty state arbitrarily of his rights under the NPT would be a grave danger for Brazil's own integral interests. Of course the West says currently that Brazil is a fine democracy and that what they are doing in Resende is perfectly o.k. but may be in five or ten years a future Brazilian government does not really ?behave? and suddenly Brazil will be the victim of a dangerous precedent set years ago in the Iran case.

Brazil will fight ?tooth and nail? against this development as long as they will not get ?iron cast? guarantees similar to India's nuclear deal with the US but Lula and his guys know that this probably will not happen.

[Roger604]

This is an interesting development. First, it saves China from the risk of being political isolated -- which could be particularly damaging to China considering how weak its voice is on the world stage compared to the media barrage of the West. Now that even the Americas are crying foul at Washington, the "battle lines" have been pushed all the way back from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean. Giving China much needed strategic breathing space.

Russia now would undoubtedly stand with China -- now it is the US that stands isolated! And China comes out smelling like roses for standing up to the US in aid of its ally!

Secondly, a strong Latin America revival would be great for Latin America and China would be the secondary beneficiary. The resilience of the Cuban communists and leftists like Chavez and Morales give Latin Americans more confidence in standing up for themselves. The Falkland conflict gives the Latin Americans something to rally around. If the rightist governments in Mexico and Colombia suffer setbacks, the Latin American revival would be unstoppable.

With enough leftist momentum, it becomes politically feasible for China to sell arms to Argentina. I can't imagine a country on Earth better suited to sell coastal-based anti-access weapons. The upgraded C-803 on truck launchers or the Type 022 FAC, would put the fear in the Royal Navy. Y-8 balance beam could be exported. Yuan submarines would be another big stick. Considering that it is impossible for China and UK to directly enter into conflict, a proxy conflict involving Argentina would be an excellent alternative.

And if Argentina defeats UK and captures the Falkland. Then that would herald an entirely new era where China supplies Latin America with weapons to trade for raw materials. Greater cultural intermingling and even mass settlement could proceed! In time, maybe even PLA and PLAN bases in Mexico.

[IchiNiSan]

Violet Oboe, on Mar 8 2010, 07:56 AM, said:

IchiNiSan there is one word entirely describing the current Iran-Brazil issue: RESENDE.

Technically the Brazilians conduct the exactly identical procedures at their own enrichment plant at Resende as the Iranians do at Natanz. Both countries are parties of the NPT with the exactly identical rights (meaning that both do not enjoy the privileges of the P-5!) and establishing a precedent that the UNSC is able to strip a NPT treaty state arbitrarily of his rights under the NPT would be a grave danger for Brazil's own integral interests. Of course the West says currently that Brazil is a fine democracy and that what they are doing in Resende is perfectly o.k. but may be in five or ten years a future Brazilian goverment does not really ?behave? and suddenly Brazil will be the victim of a dangerous precedent set years ago in the Iran case.

Brazil will fight ?tooth and nail? against this development as long as they will not get ?iron cast? guarantees similar to India's nuclear deal with the US but Lula and his guys know that this probably will not happen.

Quite interesting, and did not look at this from this perspective before. Now, the question is why the other NPT states would not side to Iran as well considered that they would also be affected in the same manner. Or maybe they are not as ambitious as Brazil is who would want to take a regional leading position?



Roger, the US has officially turned their back to the Britons in the Falkland conflicts, this could be because Argentine struck a deal with the US. After all, if the US loose Brazil as an ally, they need the second biggest country in their backyard to be kept in their pocket. Is there more sources on how the relation is between China and Argentina?

[Roger604]

IchiNiSan, on Mar 8 2010, 12:17 AM, said:

Roger, the US has officially turned their back to the Britons in the Falkland conflicts, this could be because Argentine struck a deal with the US. After all, if the US loose Brazil as an ally, they need the second biggest country in their backyard to be kept in their pocket. Is there more sources on how the relation is between China and Argentina?

I'm surprised. US and UK are close allies and I don't see US "butting in" on a sensitive territorial issue. How did US turn its back on UK?

[IchiNiSan]

Roger604, on Mar 9 2010, 12:51 AM, said:

I'm surprised. US and UK are close allies and I don't see US "butting in" on a sensitive territorial issue. How did US turn its back on UK?

The US refused to officially recognize British claim on the Falklands. I will dig up the source for it, maybe I could read it wrong.


EDIT:

Here is the source - surprisingly, huh? Britons are dying in the American wars, but will not get a simple backing and is actually totally on their own in the whole Falkland issue.

US refuses to endorse British sovereignty in Falklands oil dispute

Quote

From The Times
February 25, 2010
US refuses to endorse British sovereignty in Falklands oil dispute
Falklands war veterans, one holding up a sign that reads in Spanish "The islands are Argentine," referring to the Falklands islands, demonstrate in front of the National Congress in Buenos Aires, Wednesday Feb. 24, 2010.
Giles Whittell, Washington and James Bone, New York

Washington refused to endorse British claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands yesterday as the diplomatic row over oil drilling in the South Atlantic intensified in London, Buenos Aires and at the UN.

Despite Britain’s close alliance with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the issue. It has also declined to back Britain’s claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue.

Argentina appealed to the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon, last night to intervene in the dispute, a move Britain adamantly opposes.

“The Secretary-General knows about the issue. He is not happy to learn that the situation is worsening,” Jorge Taiana, the Argentine Foreign Minister, said after meeting Mr Ban in New York.

“We have asked the Secretary-General, within the framework of his good offices, to stress to Britain the need to abstain from further unilateral acts.”

A top UN aide acknowledged, however, that Mr Ban would not be able to mediate because of Britain’s opposition.

Sir Mark Lyall Grant, Britain’s Ambassador to the UN, said: “As British ministers have made clear, the UK has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands . . . We are also clear that the Falkland Islands Government is entitled to develop a hydrocarbons industry within its waters, and we support this legitimate business in Falklands’ territory.”

Senior US officials insisted that Washington’s position on the Falklands was one of longstanding neutrality. This is in stark contrast to the public backing and vital intelligence offered by President Reagan to Margaret Thatcher once she had made the decision to recover the islands by force in 1982.

“We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality,” a State Department spokesman told The Times. “The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.”

Kevin Casas-Zamora, a Brookings Institution analyst and former vice-president of Costa Rica, said that President Reagan’s support for Britain in 1982 “irked a lot of people in Latin America”.

The Obama Administration “is trying to split the difference as much as it can because it knows that coming round to the British position would again create a lot of ill will in the region”, he said.

British officials in Washington said that they were comfortable with the US response to the dispute, but indicated that any American support for mediated negotiations would not be well received. It was “up to the islanders whether they want mediation or not”, one official said.

Britain has boosted the islands’ defences since the conflict, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, said last night. “We have built a massive runway. We have emplaced forces on the ground, we have sophisticated early warning systems. It is a different package. To compare the way we dealt with the issues in 1982 with today is nonsense,” he said.

[IchiNiSan]

US is in a hurry, and Obama is being hit from all sides in his backyard.

First in the Time

How Obama Is Making the Same Mistakes as Bush

Then also in the Economist

Containing Iran Interesting how they would only raise China as the only obstacle.

[IchiNiSan]

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/03...t=Google+Reader

Iran arrests 30 accused of U.S.-backed cyber war
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

* Iran's judiciary said those arrested were funded by U.S. beginning in 2006
* Judiciary said Bush administration supplied $400 million for project, Iranian media reported
* Media report: Iran's data banks and Web sites could have been penetrated

(CNN) -- Iran has arrested 30 people for waging what it called an organized, U.S.-backed cyber war against the nation, Iran's semi-official Fars news agency reported Saturday.

Iran's judiciary said those arrested were funded by the United States beginning in 2006 and that they planned to destabilize the country, according to Fars.

A State Department spokesman declined to comment on the report Saturday night.

The Iranian judiciary said that former President George W. Bush supplied $400 million for the cyber war project, Fars reported.

One branch of the project, dubbed the "Iran Proxy," was capable of infiltrating Iran's data banks, sabotaging its Web sites, and facilitating contacts between Iranian opposition figures and U.S.-funded media like Voice of America radio and Radio Farda, according to Fars.

The judiciary also said the United States used anti-filtering software during recent demonstrations against the Iranian government to wage psychological war against the nation, Fars reported.

Iranian media reported last month that individuals alleged to have ties with Radio Farda -- which means Radio Tomorrow in Iran's Farsi language -- were among seven arrested by the Iranian government.

[Sampanviking]

I understand that Rigi has been most co-operative since his capture and I understand a lot of information is being gleaned and distributed. It appears more and more that there has been intergovernmental co-operation on capturing him between Iran, Turkey Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Still early days, but what is coming out makes very interesting reading.

[IchiNiSan]

Sampanviking, on Mar 15 2010, 05:44 PM, said:

I understand that Rigi has been most co-operative since his capture and I understand a lot of information is being gleaned and distributed. It appears more and more that there has been intergovernmental co-operation on capturing him between Iran, Turkey Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Still early days, but what is coming out makes very interesting reading.

Exactly as my initial thoughts when I was made aware of this news.