|
CIA Blames Its Proxy For Its Raid On North Korea’s Embassy In Spain
The CIA is the main suspect in the military style raid on the North Korean embassy in Madrid. It now launched a somewhat hapless effort to deflect from it. The Spanish report in which Spanish government sources accuse the CIA said:
At least two of the 10 assailants who broke into the embassy and interrogated diplomatic staff have been identified and have connections to the US intelligence agency. The CIA has denied any involvement but government sources say their response was “unconvincing.”
That the CIA is the main suspect in the assault was reported on Wednesday in the Spanish mainstream paper El Pais. The paper made the extra effort to publish an abbreviated English language version. It was widely picked up by other international outlets. Some of the assailants were Asian and spoke Korean language. They were probably from the South Korean National Intelligence Service (NIS), a subsidiary of the CIA know for its extremely hawkish politics. It often rigs elections in South Korea in support of hawkish conservatives candidates.
Attacking a foreign embassy in a third country is far out of bounce of international law and diplomatic decency. After the El Pais report something had to be done to direct the attention away from the CIA and to find some other culprit.
A story was thought up and pushed to the favorite CIA outlet, the Washington Post. It wasn't the CIA which did it, writes the Post's national security reporter, it was a CIA controlled 'regime change' organization.
A shadowy group trying to overthrow Kim Jong Un raided a North Korean embassy in broad daylight
In broad daylight, masked assailants infiltrated North Korea’s embassy in Madrid, restrained the staff with rope, stole computers and mobile phones, and fled the scene in two luxury vehicles.
The group behind the late February operation is known as Cheollima Civil Defense, a secretive dissident organization committed to overthrowing the Kim dynasty, people familiar with the planning and execution of the mission told The Washington Post.
…
People familiar with the incident say the group did not act in coordination with any governments. U.S. intelligence agencies would have been especially reluctant to do so given the sensitive timing and brazen nature of the mission. But the raid represents the most ambitious operation to date for an obscure organization that seeks to undermine the North Korean regime and encourage mass defections, they say.
The CIA agents, led by torture queen Gina Haspel, are snowflakes who would never break the law or cause some international outrage. It must have been some independent group:
“This group is the first known resistance movement against North Korea, which makes its activities very newsworthy,” said Sung-Yoon Lee, a North Korea expert at Tufts University.
The identity of the assailants is a particularly sensitive topic given the delicate nature of Trump and Kim’s relationship.
…
Any hint of U.S. involvement in an assault on a diplomatic compound could have derailed the talks, a prospect the CIA would likely be mindful of.
Derailing the talks was (and is) exactly what Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton wanted to do. We know that because the Post reported it on February 20, two days before the raid on the embassy and seven days before the Trump-Kim summit in Hanoi:
Last month, in a lengthy speech at Stanford University, [Trump's special envoy Stephen E.] Biegun set out his vision for North Korea to dismantle its plutonium and uranium enrichment facilities in exchange for “corresponding measures” by the United States.
Hawks such as Bolton have fiercely opposed this “step-by-step” process in favor of maintaining maximum pressure through economic sanctions that would, in theory, force a better deal by eroding North Korea’s resolve.
Tasking the CIA to raid a North Korean embassy to spoil the talks is exactly a thing John Bolton would do. The Post's shameful attempt to make believe otherwise is laughable:
“Infiltrating a North Korean embassy days before the nuclear summit would throw that all into jeopardy,” said Sue Mi Terry, a former Korea analyst at the CIA. “This is not something the CIA would undertake.”
The agency declined to comment.
We can of course fully believe the 'former' CIA analyst's assertion that the CIA would never do such a thing. Aside from Bolton's urge to sabotage the negotiations it would have had no motive. Except, of course, it would have had many:
Experts say the computers and phones seized in the raid amount to a treasure trove of information that foreign intelligence agencies are likely to seek out from the group.
In 2017 Spain asked the North Korean ambassador Kim Hyok Chol to leave. He is now the leader of the negotiations with the United States. To know everything about him is important. He may even be susceptible to blackmail:
The assailants also possess a video recording they took during the raid, which they could release anytime, said one person who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive and illegal operation.
The Spanish language version of the El Pais report had a side box that might explain the possible content of a video (machine translated):
One of the darkest aspects of the assault on the North Korean Embassy in Madrid is the interrogation to which the head of the command, who called himself The Entrepreneur, subjected the charge of business, leading the diplomatic delegation since the ambassador was expelled. The head of the commando separated the diplomat from the rest of the hostages and locked himself alone with him. It is not known what he intended, but the current head of the Pyongyang delegation in Madrid probably knows a lot about Kim Hyok Chol, head of the North Korean delegation in the nuclear negotiations before the US, with whom he coincided when the latter was ambassador in Madrid, between 2014 and 2017.
Mentioning a video recording taken during the raid is supposed to sow 'fear and doubt' in and about the North Korean negotiator.
The new Washington Post/CIA story goes on to describe the 'regime change' organization that is supposed to divert from the direct CIA involvement in the raid:
The Cheollima group, which also goes by the name Free Joseon, came to prominence in 2017 after it successfully evacuated the nephew of Kim Jong Un from Macau when potential threats to his life surfaced. The nephew was the son of Kim Jong Nam, the North Korean leader’s exiled half brother who was assassinated in a nerve-gas attack in a Malaysian airport in 2017.
…
For safety reasons, the leader of the group does not disclose his name, and his identity is known only to a small group of people.
Cheollima is the name of a mythical horse in Chinese and Korean folklore. The Joseon dynasty ruled Korea from 1392 to 1897. It went down when Japan tried to gain control of the country which it achieved a few years later.
Kim Jong Nam was killed on February 13, 2017. In a redacted video his son Kim Han-sol thanks the people who picked him up. (They might want to use him as a future replacement for Kim Jong-un.) The video was recorded on February 15 2017 ("my father was killed two days ago"). It was published on March 7 2017 on a Cheollima channel on Youtube created on March 4 2017. The Cheollima website domain the group uses was anonymously registered in March 2017. It was updated on November 29 2018 shortly after the South Korean NIS received new orders from its headquarter in Washington DC.
Cheollima/Free Joseon also seeks defectors from North Korea. On February 28 2019 (not "in March" as the Post claims), the very same day the Trump-Kim summit in Hanoi failed, Cheollima published a manifesto that clearly aims at 'regime change' in North Korea:
WE DECLARE ON THIS DAY the establishment of Free Joseon, a provisional government preparing the foundations for a future nation built upon respect for principles of human rights and humanitarianism, holding sacred a manifest dignity for every woman, man, and child.
We declare this entity the sole legitimate representative of the Korean people of the north.
The U.S. driven 'regime change' attempt in Venezuela also has a figure that claims to be the "sole legitimate representative" while having zero power in that country.
The English version of the manifest reads like it was written by someone who is a native English speaker or at least studied English literature:
Joseon must and shall be free. Arise! Arise, ye who refuse to be slaves!
We reject the chains of our historic unrequited grief, declare henceforth a new era in our history, and prepare the way for a New Joseon. We therefore proclaim the birth of our revolution and our intentions towards building a more just and equal society, as truest expressions of the shared affections of our people.
A report on the manifest launch in the British Sun remarks:
The Cheollima Civil Defense (CCD) organisation has declared itself as a shadow government which is working to overthrow the regime.
…
Not a lot is known about the CCD but some people believe it is linked to South Korea’s spy agency.
The White Helmets, the MI-6 organization for 'regime change' in Syria, has the website domain "www.syriacivildefense.org". Cheollima's website domain is "www.cheollimacivildefense.org". The logos of the two organization are also somewhat similar.
 
Is there a corporate design/marketing company specialized in promoting spy service cutouts for 'regime change'?
The 'former' CIA analyst in the Post piece 'predicts' that there will be more 'embassy raid' operations:
“In its messaging, the group said they have formed a provisional government to replace the regime in Pyongyang,” said Terry, who is a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “They have now shown the seriousness of their intent and some capabilities to carry out operations. We will see in the coming months the extent of their capabilities.”
While the CIA makes a hapless attempt to cover its traces in Madrid, North Korea continues to follow its game plan for the next round of negotiations. It prepares the public for a U.S. failure:
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un will soon decide whether to continue diplomatic talks and maintain his moratorium on missile launches and nuclear tests, a senior North Korean official said Friday, adding that the U.S. threw away a golden opportunity at the recent summit between their leaders.
…
She said Pyongyang now has no intention of compromising or continuing talks unless the United States takes measures that are commensurate to the changes it has taken — such as the 15-month moratorium on launches and tests — and changes its “political calculation.”
The North Korean statement blames Bolton and Secretary of State Pompeo for the failure of the negotiations while it empathizes a special relation between Kim and Trump.
The signaled satellite launch by North Korea will proceed. It will push the Trump administration back to the starting point of its efforts to 'denuclearize' North Korea.
The difference now is that North Korea has earned good will in China and Russia. It showed its willingness to negotiate and stuck to its commitments made in the Joint Declaration in Singapore while the U.S. obviously refused to fulfill its parts. China and Russia already gave North Korea some unofficial 'sanction relief'. They are unlike to again support the failed 'maximum pressure' approach the Trump administrations once set out with.
The hapless CIA nonsense will not change those facts.
…liberals are generally weak (physically and mentally) and not of the type of personalities or experience to be of any actual use in open warfare.
Posted by: Old Microbiologist | Mar 16, 2019 3:40:01 AM | 32
Let’s call them “neo-liberals”, ¿shall we?, because: since the early 19th Century, Liberalism in Mexico was part of a broader nineteenth-century political trend affecting Western Europe and the Americas, including the United States, that challenged entrenched power.
Most Mexican liberals looked to European thinkers in their formulation of their ideology, which has led to a debate about whether those ideas were merely “Mexicanized” versions.
In Mexico, the most salient aspects of nineteenth-century liberalism were to create a secular state separated from the Roman Catholic Church, establish equality before the law by abolishing corporate privileges (fueros) of the Roman Catholic church.
The Liberals’ aim was to transform Mexico into a modern secular state with a dynamic economy. Feudal corporate privilege and its conservative elite defenders were considered obstacles to the nation’s political, social, and economic progress.
Secular, public education was a key element in opening paths to achievement for all Mexican citizens. Schooling historically had been the domain of the Roman Catholic Church and limited to elite men, so that broadening educational access and having a secular curriculum was seen as the single most important means to transform Mexican society.
The breakup of land owned by corporations, specifically the Roman Catholic Church and indigenous communities, was a crucial policy element in diminishing the power of the church and integrating Mexico’s indigenous communities into the republic as citizens.
The term “liberal” became the name of a political faction, which previously had called itself “the Party of Progress” in contrast to the Conservative Party, which they called “the Party of Regression.” Conservatives characterized themselves as defending Mexican tradition.
Following Mexican independence from Spain in 1821, the first Mexican liberals arose on the national scene. Liberalism considered the role of utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number) in Mexico; examined the so-called “Indian Question,” of how to modernize Mexico, when the majority of the population was indigenous folk living in rural communities; and considered the scientific nature of economic development.
Following Mexico’s defeat in the Mexican–American War (1846–48), a new generation of so-called “romantic liberals” emerged. They were rooted in literature, and read and translated European writers such as Lamartine, Michelet, Byron, Victor Hugo and Alexandre Dumas.
Outstanding among these Mexican liberals were Ignacio Ramírez (1818–1879); Guillermo Prieto (1818–1897); and Ignacio Manuel Altamirano (1834–1893), who was born in Tixtla, Guerrero, where the famous Ayotzinapa Teacher’s College is located. Altamirano was a Nahuatl-spealer as a child, who, in his maturity, emerged as a major literary figure,
Indeed he became known as “The Great Man of Mexican Letters” – he was a nahuatl child!
These intellectuals lived through and tried to shape political thought
in the War of the Reform between conservatives and liberals,
and the French invasion, a foreign intervention supported by Mexican conservatives.
However, pragmatic politicians, preeminently Benito Juárez, born in a Zapotec village in Oaxaca, as well as Miguel Lerdo de Tejada, Sebastián Lerdo de Tejada, and Melchor Ocampo implemented liberal reforms and defended them during civil war and foreign invasion.
None of these men were great thinkers, but they were all guided by liberal principles.
After a series of battles, carried out masterfully by Mexican forces, “The Emperor” Maximilian was captured and shot on the Hill of the Bells beside his generals, Mejia and Miramon.
The constitutional and reformist government of Juárez suppressed many venerable Catholic feasts, but preserved that of the 12 of December (The Day of the Virgen of Guadalupe)
by its decree of 11 of August of 1859, which is signed by Juárez as president
of the Mexican republic and by Melchor Ocampo as minister of government.
With the triumph of Juarez and the Republicans, came the nationalization of ecclesiastical goods. Many jewels from the temples were denounced and siezed by the government, but the sanctuary of Guadalupe was excepted.
Juarez, faithful to the traditions of Mexicans, was respectful of the Virgin of Guadalupe, although without making official pilgrimages to the Villa or other devout manifestations like the previous governments.
The cult of the Virgin of Guadalupe, without official support, remains fervent and universal as before. But no one has raised this insignia in the ensuing civil strife,
not even in the national wars of 1846-47 against the Northamericans.
Some have speculated that, if, during the war with the United States, the image of the Mexican virgin had been put on our flags, as in 1810, the Yankees would not have entered Mexico.
This is dubious, since experience suggests that enthusiasm for the national image has only been effective against the Spanish.
Whereas, liberals in the United States might be pussies, as suggested by the poster,
liberalism in Mexico has a different connotation as its exponents were principled heroes.
Posted by: Guerrero | Mar 16 2019 18:50 utc | 53
@ Old Microbiologist #56
In my opinion Orlov is on sound footing when he sticks to economics. He makes a lot of mistakes when he edges into military issues.
These include, among others, long-range supersonic cruise missiles (Kalibr), and suborbital intercontinental missiles carrying multiple nuclear payloads capable of evasive maneuvers as they approach their targets (Sarmat). All of these new weapons are impossible to intercept using any conceivable defensive technology. At the same time, Russia has also developed its own defensive capabilities, and its latest S-500 system will effectively seal off Russia’s airspace, being able to intercept targets both close to the ground and in low Earth orbit.
The Kalibr is a subsonic cruise missile which may or may not do a supersonic “sprint” as it nears the target. The more time spent past the speed of sound, the lower the range. So far as I know, all ICBMs are “suborbital”. The Sarmat is remarkable on account of it being very large and modern. That “impossible” and “inconceivable” stuff is pure BS. Difficult and Expensive would be much better choices.
The S-500 is doubtless a fabulous defensive weapon system, but the thing is not a mechanical Superman. If all the standard methods failed to defeat it, the S-500 could be overwhelmed.
Orlov and I don’t have the same understanding of the Aegis Ashore systems being installed on Russia’s borders. Obviously the “Iran” cover story is nonsense, but I doubt if there was ever any intention of them being defensive systems. I believe the Russians back home share my viewpoint about them being ‘stealth’ offensive systems.
On the other hand, Soviet military casualties were on par with those of the Germans.
I don’t know what Orlov was smoking when he wrote this, but it must have been mighty good stuff. Personally I’d say the ratio was at least 3:1, and if you count the millions of captured Soviet troops the Germans starved to death, it’s even worse.
Once again, I see Orlov’s essay as at least 80% fine, but silly stuff like this next quote causes me to think a good part of his head is stuck in gaga land.
It wouldn’t be anyone else’s fault if people in the US suffer because they refuse to do as their own FEMA asks them to do: stockpile a month’s worth of food and water and put together an emergency evacuation plan. In addition, given the direction in which the US is heading, getting a second passport, expatriating your savings, and getting some firearms training just in case you end up sticking around are all good ideas.
Few US citizens have the money to get a month of food ahead. And where would they store the bulky food and heavy water? Anyhow, a month isn’t enough. Not even close. Evacuate to where? About everywhere in this country I know of with buildings has people inside those buildings. Passport to where? This strategy works for the wealthy. How many people besides the super rich have either money to send overseas or the know-how to safely do it? As for the firearms, no way in hell are you going to outgun the NRA crowd. And militarized US police have families who like to keep eating. How would Orlov handle a SWAT team showing up to liberate his food stocks “for the Old Folks Home”? (Yes, “hoarders” would be vilified) Orlov doesn’t plan to participate in any of that – he has a Survival Boat.
” In 2007 he and his wife sold their apartment in Boston and bought a sailboat, fitted with solar panels and six months supply of propane, and capable of storing a large quantity of food stuffs. He calls it a “survival capsule.” He uses a bicycle for transportation.
Posted by: Zachary Smith | Mar 17 2019 4:24 utc | 73
RE John Doe | Mar 17, 2019 5:01:24 AM | 75 The American Conservative: The problem is Our <===is not you, unless we, our, us out of it. <<=look at its seven articles PLEASE?
ARTICLE I about what occupants in either of two taxpayer subsidized homes can do ( not much what they c/n do)
(except what some call the balance of power what Article I residents c\n do Article II can, and vice-a-versa)
(can you believe that to be balance of power that benefits governed Americans?)
ARTICLE II about what the CEOs of the USA, Inc. can do (not much they c/n do)
ARTICLE III about their judiciary the salaried, elected not YOUOwnership of the millions of acres by land grant <= all happened before 1776,
the historical stretch from 1789.. and as you point out continues unabated to this day. but it started long before..
Article VI about the debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this constitution, (which)
shall be as valid against the USA under this 1789 USA constitution, as under the confederation. <=constitution
cut, stopped, or terminated the on-going effort by the AOC to tax and reclaim the land grants because the land grant
real estate all now rightfully should belong to the Americans who defeat the British army.
The COUS prevented further AoC effort, to take “the billions of British owned land grants as spoils of the war
Americans won”? ex British Aristocrats, now wealthy Americans, still held possession of the land grant real
estate. Aristocrats said, you Americans can have what’s left (mostly un cleared western Indian land). Article VI was
the underlying reason for the constitution, the underlying reason for the American revolution, was to exchange British
corporate control over “the spoils of the American Colonies” from British Corporations to American Corporations.
” history is a stretch and distortion of truth wound into real Lies—it’s that we let them do it.”
Please prove the “WE” in the constitution includes not_elected persons, America is not the same as the USA. Americans are governed not by elected, salaried USAeers, but instead by those who nominate the candidates permitted to serve <=the elected "drive the deplorable" to "drive the economy" so the Aristocrat-Oligarch can expand their wealth. PLEASE READ THE CONSTITUTION! FIND IN IT IF YOU CAN the place where it says:
YOU means the unelected you ARE PART OF WE THE PEOPLE. < I think you will find the only 527 people and those are appointed the Oligarch few into a carefully controlled, media regulated funnel that allows Americans to each select from a choice of 1 or 2, pick on, by vote. (Americans allowed to select by vote just 3 persons to fill 525 Article I positions in the USA: 2 senators, 1 member of the house; but Americans may express their will in a popular vote as to their choice of persons to fill President and Vice President (which popular vote does not count, since the electoral college members do the voting and the electoral college members are free to vote for whomever they choose)
"question: if lying isn’t something our nation thinks is presidential material, why do WE keep electing people who lie?” <==my answer is the Salaried Elected middle men are not allowed to allow Americans the freedom to choose who or how the USA, an ARMGBS (Armed rule-making governmental bureaucratic structure), should be operated.
ARTICLE VII Art VII is an interesting discovery in regime change science. Article VII allows that Ratification of the conventions of nine states shall be sufficient for the Establishment of the Constitution.. < what does that mean? Who were the conventions? Weren't the conventions, the groups Oligarchs sent to Philadelphia?.. so the conventioneers, came home, sobered up, and looked around, and determined they could safely ratify the constitution without the states chopping their heads off<=so they ratified? Did I hear that right the Conventioneers lobbied the state to ratify their own constitution? I need help.. how actually was ratification done? The deeper into this I look the more obscure it becomes,
usually its passed off as federalist vs non federalist, but ..... well you said it right I think
"The problem isn't so much that politicians stretch and distort the truth—it's that we let them do it."
Response to Posted by: John Doe | Mar 17, 2019 5:01:24 AM | 75 < see my comments and insertions and changes above
Posted by: snake | Mar 17 2019 12:37 utc | 79
|
