Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
January 31, 2015, 04:10:35 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
84570 Posts in 2264 Topics by 1068 Members
Latest Member: cdenny
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  DBMA Espanol
| |-+  Espanol Discussion
| | |-+  Argentina
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Argentina  (Read 11399 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« on: October 29, 2008, 03:04:14 PM »

Guau a todos:

Manana en la manana salgo en un viaje de 17 horas por la primera vez a Buenos Aires, Argentina para presentar un seminario para Nicolas.

Cuando yo vivia en Mexico, yo conocia a una Argentina muy graciosa y linda, con un acento lindisimo , , , una buena memoria  smiley

La Aventura continua!
Marc/Crafty Dog

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2008, 12:01:25 AM »

November 1 - 2, 2008
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Contact: Nicolás Wachsmann
Phone: 54 11 4741 1864
Email: dbma.argentina@gmail.com
Website: www.dogbrothers.com.ar
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2008, 03:04:46 PM »

Una tremenda experiencia.  Salgo en 90 minutos por el aeropuerto.  Mas en unos dias.
Logged
Dog Mauricio
Power User
***
Posts: 185


« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2008, 10:39:10 AM »


     Hola Niciolás  cool

     Muchas felicidades por tu seminario con Guro Crafty en Argentina, estoy seguro que fue todo un éxito. Te deseo lo mejor y que DBMA siga creciendo en tu país.  cheesy

Un abrazo

Mauricio
DBMA Mèxico
Logged
Nicolás
Newbie
*
Posts: 30


« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2008, 05:57:47 PM »

Muchas gracias Mauricio!!, realmente fue un verdadero privilegio compartir con Guro Marc Denny estos días, fueron días intensos que no vamos a olvidar facilmente.

El seminario fue realmente muy bueno y los asistentes se fueron muy contentos, conformes y la mayoría de ellos con más ganas de entrenar que antes.

Un fuerte abrazo desde Argentina!!

Nicolás
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2008, 06:51:31 AM »

Disfrute muchisimo mi reciente viaje a Argentina y espero poder repitirlo lo mas pronto posible.

Comparato con Uds ahora un articulo, desafortunadamente en ingles, escrito sobre la situacion actual alli desde un punto de vista de aqui'.  ?Que opinan Uds?

====================

WSJ

"It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder."
-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law," 1850

Our subject today is not Barack Obama's "change" plan to "share the wealth." But readers who want to know what happens to a nation that legalizes plunder -- as the 19th century French economist termed the taking of private property for socialist ends -- will want to pay attention just the same.

 
AP
Argentines protest the nationalization of their pension funds, Oct. 28.
Argentina is a constitutional republic with many historical similarities to the U.S. It has a rich immigrant heritage and an abundance of natural resources. But the U.S. is a rich, advanced country and Argentina is poor.

How did the breadbasket of South America fall so far behind? One explanation goes back some 90 years, when the Argentine Supreme Court began chipping away at property rights as a way of addressing economic inequality. Argentine politicians quickly learned that lawful plunder was their path to power.

This history is still being written, and the latest chapter ought to frighten Americans.


Buenos Aires as an example of "sharing the wealth." (Nov. 3)
After seven straight years of driving up government spending and hammering every capitalist in sight, the Argentine government, which went bust in 2001, is running out of money -- again.

No surprise there. For more than a few years, analysts have warned that inflation, trade protectionism, disregard for contracts and confiscatory tax rates were having a deleterious effect on capital flows.

Suboptimal investment rates, the same analysts warned, would mean economic trouble when global growth began to slow and the commodity boom came to an end. But former President Nestór Kirchner (2003-2007) and his wife, current President Cristina Kirchner, had promised to bring change to Argentina and didn't want to hear it. They thought they saw better returns to their own bottom lines by stoking class warfare while increasing government spending.

That revenues would, at some point, fail to meet the rising expenses of the welfare state was predictable. The only mystery was when the wall would be hit and how the further plunder to make up the difference would be carried out.

On Oct. 21, Mrs. Kirchner ended the suspense by announcing that the nation's private pension system -- with a stock of $30 billion and a flow of $5 billion annually -- would become government property. To put that in words that Americans can more clearly comprehend, it would be as if the assets of all 401(k)s were suddenly swept out of owners' accounts and into a single government account.

The Americas in the News
Get the latest information in Spanish from The Wall Street Journal's Americas page.
Mrs. Kirchner defended her decision to seize the pension assets by asserting that the market is too risky for retirement savings, and that the returns earned by private-sector fund managers are not adequate.

That's quite a claim considering that the average annual return of Argentina's private-sector pension managers over the past 14 years is 13.9%. But it is even more absurd if one compares the private-sector returns to those of the government's pay-as-you-go social security system over four decades.

Last week La Nacion columnist Adrián Ventura reminded his compatriots of this "history of state fraud." In the 1960s, "the law guaranteed retirees 82% of their salaries," Mr. Ventura writes. But, he says, "it became impossible to calculate." How come? Because the government did not publish the true rates of inflation and, more broadly, because politicians had zero interest in protecting the assets. "The government did little to maintain its promise to pay good pensions to workers," Mr. Ventura explains, "and it did a lot to make use, for itself, of their savings."

The columnist was not just teaching a history lesson. He was reminding change advocates that plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Today, the Argentine central bank stands accused of manipulating official inflation data and, because politicians have been spending like mad, between now and the end of 2009 the government will encounter a $10 billion financing gap.

By law half of the privately managed pension assets are already allocated to government debt. But it is not unreasonable to suspect -- as more than 70% of respondents in a Buenos Aires poll said last week -- that Mrs. Kirchner is acting not to achieve better returns, but to get her hands on the rest of the money ahead of midterm elections next year.

Mr. Ventura echoes the fears of many when he writes that her legislation "puts almost no limits on how the money can be used, and if it did, nothing would stop the government from modifying it or ignoring it."

Long-suffering Argentines know well that once converted into "an instrument of plunder" there is no limit to the pain the law can inflict. Americans might note that even when government is already highly interventionist, things can get worse.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2008, 07:37:22 AM »

Foto:
 Ampliar
Un hombre acusado de ser "el "mayor proveedor de efedrina de los carteles mexicanos" desde la Argentina fue apresado hoy en el Aeroparque Metropolitano tras una investigación realizada por agentes de inteligencia, informó el ministro de Justicia y Seguridad, Aníbal Fernández.

El detenido fue identificado como Mario Roberto Segovia, quien en los últimos dos años, según dijo el funcionario, "trasladó" de Buenos Aires a Rosario 8.171 kilogramos de efedrina, lo que equivaldría 30 millones de dólares en el mercado mexicano de la droga.

En declaraciones al canal de cable Todo Noticias, Fernández expresó que agentes de la Secretaría de Inteligencia del Estado (SIDE) y de la Policía Federal detuvieron a Segovia cuando iba a abordar un vuelo hacia Iguazú, junto a su primo Sebastián.
El ministro evitó dar "el dato" acerca de que si el hombre apresado tiene vinculación con el triple homicidio de General Rodríguez, aunque destacó que la operación estaba siendo completada "en Rosario y sus alrededores" con otros "14 allanamientos".

Fernández afirmó que "sin dudas" las toneladas de efedrina que Segovia llevó hacia Rosario desde la Capital Federal "eran para colocarlas en el mercado mexicano", donde el valor de la sustancia se triplica o cuadriplica en comparación con la Argentina.

La investigación, señaló el funcionario, se inició en septiembre de 2006 cuando en una encomienda aérea se detectaron 500 gramos de "una sustancia tóxica por ingestión" que, inclusive, es utilizada "como agente de guerra biológica". El paquete estaba destinado para "Héctor Germán Benítez, con domicilio virtual en una oficina de Rosario", agregó.

Fernández comentó que, tras un seguimiento, se determinó que la persona a la que iba dirigida la encomienda estaba detenida desde 2003 en el penal de Sierra Chica, por lo que se trataba de un nombre falso.
El ministro destacó que al poco tiempo fueron hallados "entre tres y ocho miligramos" de otro compuesto químico "que produce la muerte en adultos" y está prohibido en el país para su utilización en medicamentos.

Una investigación "de orfebre", expresó Fernández, permitió dar con Segovia, quien habita "una mansión" del barrio rosarino de Fisherton, "es dueño de vehículos de gran valor" y lleva un estilo de vida de "opulencia". En la actualidad, agregó el funcionario, el detenido "estaba trabajando en la fabricación de CD y DVD truchos".
 
Logged
captainccs
Power User
***
Posts: 696


« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2009, 09:23:10 AM »

Los K: otra derrota de Chávez

por Eduardo CASANOVA

Con todas las miradas fijas en la crisis de Honduras, una gran noticia casi ha pasado inadvertida: la derrota de los Kirchner en Argentina, que es también un fracaso del teniente coronel Chávez Frías. En efecto, el teniente coronel golpista venezolano ha invertido una buena fortuna en ayudar a los Kirchner como parte de su esquema de convertirse en el amo de la América española. Buena parte de los recursos que tanta falta han hecho en Venezuela fueron desviados, mediante los famosos maletines o valijas, hacia los pagos de la pareja del Pingüino y su señora, que así se constituyeron en los representantes del chavismo en el Cono Sur. Muy a lo Chávez la emprendieron contra los productores del campo, seguros de que así ganaban puntos con el teniente coronel y ¿por qué no? con los descamisados y los cabecitas negras, Pero algo no les funcionó. Frente a estas elecciones legislativas basaron su estrategia en dos elementos: adelantarlas para evitar un mayor deterioro de sus bases y poner todo el peso del ex-presidente, hoy Primer Damo, para buscar votos en la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Pero, sí, algo les salió mal. Muy mal. El rival de K., De Narváez, le ganó en buena lid y lo dejó solo, fané y descangallado, y en el resto del país no les fue mejor. Como explica “La Nación” de Buenos Aires en su noticia principal de hoy, lunes 29 de junio de 2009: “el oficialismo quedó relegado en la Capital, Córdoba, Mendoza, Santa Fe, Entre Ríos y hasta en Santa Cruz”. Y lo más importante de todo: quedó en clara minoría en las dos cámaras del Congreso. Es decir, una derrota con todas las de la ley. También apunta “La Nación” que “Estas elecciones también marcaron la irrupción en el Congreso de la dirigencia ruralista, que saltó a la escena política a partir del conflicto con el Gobierno del año pasado. En Entre Ríos, la lista del Acuerdo Cívico y Social, liderada por dos dirigentes agrarios, venció al peronismo unido de Jorge Busti y el gobernador Sergio Urribarri. En total, cosecharon 11 legisladores nacionales.” Una triste y ojalá aleccionadora derrota de los que, alentados por un teniente coronel golpista venezolano, quisieron abusar del poder. Que con su pan se lo coman.


http://literanova.eduardocasanova.com/index.php/2009/06/29/los-k-otra-derrota-de-chavez
Logged

--
Denny Schlesinger
Nicolás
Newbie
*
Posts: 30


« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2012, 11:24:31 PM »


Comparto con ustedes algunas de las sesiones de sparring de nuestro grupo de DBMA en Argentina.

 Saludos!

 Nicolás Wachsmann














Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #9 on: November 26, 2012, 06:30:43 AM »

http://www.dogbrothers.gr/es/articles004.html
Logged
Nicolás
Newbie
*
Posts: 30


« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2012, 10:46:01 AM »

Muchas gracias Guro por postear el link!

Quisiera agradecer especialmente a Kostas por su esfuerzo y trabajo en apoyar y difundir nuestros grupos de entrenamiento a través de estos artículos.

Nicolás
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2013, 08:29:23 AM »

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.381734021946664.1073741859.100003302088830&type=1
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #12 on: June 20, 2013, 05:29:07 AM »

Let the Howl go forth:

New DBMA Training Group Leaders

Dog Brothers Martial Arts DLO / KALI TUDO Studio – Buenos Aires – Argentina
Guillermo Walter Tabares – DBMA Training Group Leader
E mail : dogbrothersdlostudio@outlook.es
Tel: 54 (011) 15-3-899-5769

Guillermo is what Argentina calls a "Special Forces" LEO.  His group will be focusing on DLO and Kali Tudo.

Hernan Sevaine
Kombat Eskrima; buenos Aires, Argentina
eskrimakombat@gmail.com

Hernan's group will be focusing on Real Contact Stickfighting and Kali Tudo.

Nicolas Wachsman's group, in place for some six years now, continues in action as well.

Buenos Aires is a big city and having three groups, each in a different area of the city, will allow for good synergy and make it possible for me to go to BA every year.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #13 on: July 02, 2013, 10:17:03 AM »

http://www.accionmarcial.com/revista-14-junio-2013/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #14 on: July 22, 2013, 12:52:32 PM »

A New Twist in Argentina's Bid to Dodge Its Debts
Now the International Monetary Fund may aid an effort to stiff creditors.
By JAMES K. GLASSMAN

The long-running drama of Argentina's attempts to dodge its creditors has taken a weird turn. On Wednesday, it was widely reported that the International Monetary Fund may file a legal brief with the U.S. Supreme Court—backing the South American country against its lenders.

This is the same IMF that, after years of warnings, issued a "declaration of censure" against Argentina in February for reporting phony economic data, such as an inflation rate 15 points lower than reality. Unless it cleans up its statistical act, Argentina risks becoming the only nation since 1954 to be expelled from the organization.

The IMF's chief, Christine Lagarde, has not explained why the fund may intervene on behalf of Argentina. But several months ago an IMF report raised the issue that if Argentina is forced to pay up, minority creditors in the future will have too much power to determine how sovereign debts in default are restructured.

But Argentina's $100 billion default is far from typical. For one thing, the country has the money to pay. For another, when it borrowed in the 1990s, Argentina gave special protections to its lenders that other debtor nations usually do not.

The really important principle in the Argentine case that needs defending is not about minority creditors and a deadbeat government. At stake is New York's status as the top destination for sovereigns to issue bonds.

Some $420 billion in sovereign debt subject to New York law is outstanding, and this market cannot operate smoothly unless creditors are able to enforce contracts. If Argentina gets away with stiffing creditors, one consequence will be that lenders in the future will demand higher rates for their higher risk; another is that they won't make loans.

Argentina's sordid tale began in 2001 with the largest default in history. Many exasperated creditors have since settled, but others—including countries such as Germany and private lenders from Italian pensioners to American hedge funds—have held out, demanding that the nation live up to its promises. But Argentina's president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, has ignored more than 100 court orders to pay up and snubbed the World Bank's arbitration panel. Once the world's 10th-richest country per capita, Argentina has gone rogue, flouting international law and tradition.

Recently the legal noose began to tighten. A federal district court in New York ruled in favor of creditors last year, ordering Argentina to settle with all the parties, not just some of them. Argentina appealed, telling judges it wouldn't abide by a decision it didn't like. After an appeals court upheld the district court ruling, Argentina asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, claiming that the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, prevents the U.S. from ordering a transfer of Argentine property.

This is the defendant that the IMF—charged with keeping the global monetary, trade and credit system stable—may choose to support. The U.S. government has decided otherwise. After a meeting on July 12 with lawyers from both sides, the Justice Department informed parties that it would not file an unsolicited friend-of-the-court brief to back Argentina's new appeal.

The U.S. has sent mixed signals in the past. In 2011, the Treasury Department announced that, because Argentina had ignored rulings to pay creditors, the U.S. would no longer vote in international organizations to approve new loans to the country. (The U.K. followed suit earlier this year.) But the Justice Department did file an amicus brief before the federal appeals court on Argentina's side in the most recent legal go-round. One U.S. concern: By upholding the district court decision, the appeals court could "undermine long-standing U.S. efforts to promote orderly resolutions of sovereign debt crises." Another was that a ruling favorable to Argentina's creditors may contravene FSIA.

By insisting that Argentina abide by the rule of law, however, the U.S. will encourage the resolution of debt crises by putting sovereign debtors on notice that they cannot act with impunity. As for FSIA, it is irrelevant in this case.

With its long history of previous defaults, Argentina had to give lenders significant incentives to put their money at risk. This included a waiver of sovereign immunity, an agreement to have disputes settled in New York courts, and a so-called pari passu clause that required all creditors to be treated equally.

The IMF, meanwhile, deserves an Academy Award for cynicism. After the default in 2001, the fund pressed Argentina hard to resolve its debts, including the billions it owed the IMF itself. Its pressure suddenly eased at the end of 2005 when Argentina paid the IMF in full.

If the executive board of the IMF joins Argentina in the Supreme Court, ignoring its long-standing policy of neutrality in debt disputes, it will be sending exactly the wrong message to other countries that might be encouraged to welch on their debts.

Mr. Glassman served as U.S. undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2008-09.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #15 on: July 24, 2013, 10:06:00 AM »

A High-Stakes Legal Battle for the IMF
Geopolitical Diary
Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 00:47 Text Size Print

The board of the International Monetary Fund on Tuesday rejected a plan to file a petition urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case of Argentina against holdout bondholders. The possibility that the IMF would even consider taking part in the decade-long fight between Argentina and investment firms holding outstanding debt from the country's 2001-2002 economic crisis poses many ironies. This is because the IMF helped tip Argentina into the crisis and continues to have hostile relations with the country. The motivations of IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde in pushing for the case had little to do with Argentina, however, and everything to do with the future management of the European Union's ongoing political and financial crisis.

Argentina's debt default of December 2001 was the largest in history at the time. The country managed to restructure 93 percent of the total debt in two tranches, first in 2005 and then in 2010. The remainder is under litigation by bondholders who are suing to receive the full sum of the debt owed, plus interest. The case has been ongoing for years, and through a variety of legal means Argentina has made clear that it has no intention of paying off the bonds at face value. To do so would almost certainly make it harder for Argentina to restructure debt in the future by demonstrating to lenders that Argentina could be pressured into accepting a settlement. The case took a new turn in February 2012 when New York District Judge Thomas Griesa issued an injunction ordering Argentina to treat all bondholders equally, essentially preventing Argentina from paying creditors holding current debt unless they at the same time paid creditors holding outstanding debt.


Griesa's order would, in sum, force Argentina into technical default if the country persisted in its refusal to pay the holdouts. The District Court's decision was upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and after a year and a half of legal wrangling the court is expected at some point in the next few weeks to issue a final decision on exactly how it will require Argentina to pay holdout creditors. The only way Argentina could still challenge or delay the decision is to persuade the Supreme Court to intervene. Argentina has filed its petition, and the court has given bondholders until August 26 to submit their side of the story. If the court refuses the case or if it rules against Argentina, nothing in the country's temperament and history points to a willingness to settle up with the holdouts. Absent that option, the country may be forced to restructure current debt outside of the United States, perhaps by pulling its current bonds back to Buenos Aires. Such a process would not be without serious challenges, as Argentine assets in the United States and other countries would be vulnerable to seizure.

But Argentina has long been an international financial pariah, and this story rises to geopolitical importance only because, if the district court's decision is upheld, it threatens to limit Europe's crisis management options. Many large European countries face intractable financial situations that may eventually require a partial debt default. Meanwhile, in the short term, the debate over a possible second restructuring of Greek debt continues to rage. If U.S. courts uphold Griesa's decision, it will lend credibility to creditor holdouts, making it more difficult for sovereign countries to restructure current debt. It will also raise big questions about whether sovereign countries will continue to issue bonds in the United States or in other countries that pose similar legal risks.

Because of this threat to Europe, Lagarde stated publicly that she would urge the IMF to issue a brief to the Supreme Court in support of Argentina's case. Though the IMF has made it clear it will not interfere in what amounts to a U.S. domestic issue, the fact that leading members within the organization considered the possibility is notable for its rarity. It comes on the heels of a major mea culpa issued by the IMF just last month stating that the austerity measures promoted by the IMF have done considerable damage to the Greek economy. The admission reflects the position of France and of southern peripheral countries in Europe, which calls attention to the harmful effects of austerity. These countries have instead urged a shift toward measures designed to stimulate growth for heavily indebted countries. Germany, as the EU's biggest creditor nation, has nervously acceded to softer deficit targets and a relaxation of austerity measures in the interest of maintaining its alliances in the union and in preserving the eurozone market.

Pulling these threads together, we see a struggle within a major institution that has an enormous impact on global economic policies. The IMF is facing a continent-wide crisis that may very well result in defaults. Sovereign countries must have the ability to default on their debts -- they have in fact been doing so for centuries. For the IMF and for international markets, the best possible outcome is that sovereign countries are able to default in an orderly and controlled manner. In this case, the IMF has decided to back down. However, in the long run, even if the court decision is upheld, sovereign countries will find ways to access capital markets, even at higher prices or in different markets that help to accommodate a range of risks to creditors and borrowers. But that is cold comfort to the leaders of Greece, whose debt may have to be restructured, and the other leaders in Europe whose goal is to postpone a true political and social crisis as long as possible. They need every financial tool at their disposal to prevent the threat of chaotic default from once again panicking international markets.

Read more: A High-Stakes Legal Battle for the IMF | Stratfor

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #16 on: August 30, 2013, 07:32:07 AM »

She Fought the Law

Argentina's president offers still another plan to break contracts.

It seems like the government of Argentina is trying to ruin sovereign debt for everybody. Last weekend we told you that Argentine President Cristina Kirchner had lost again in U.S. federal court in her effort to violate her country's bond contracts. This week she is floating a new idea to undermine the rule of law.

After Argentina defaulted on its debt in 2001, the government offered restructuring deals at about 30 cents on the dollar. Most investors accepted, having lost hope of collecting the face value of their bonds from the deadbeats down south. But holdouts owning about $4 billion of debt didn't accept and the Argentine government has refused to pay them a nickel of the more than $1.3 billion owed so far. Last week the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld earlier rulings that, under Argentina's bond contracts, the Kirchner government can't discriminate among creditors and so must also pay the holdouts.

Instead of accepting the court's judgment, Ms. Kirchner is now promoting a new evasion. On Monday she suggested swapping the old bonds for new debt issued in Argentina. Her government originally borrowed the money under New York law. And a big reason investors lent Argentina the money is because they had confidence that bonds issued in New York would allow them to uphold their rights in U.S. courts. So she's now essentially saying to those who accepted the restructuring that if they participate in a scheme to get around a U.S. court order, she'll pay them and continue to stiff the holdouts.

There's little detail on the swap offer beyond Ms. Kirchner's Monday remarks. We suppose it's possible that lawyers could somehow craft a debt swap that doesn't violate the Second Circuit ruling. But most of the bondholders are large institutions that aren't interested in aiding or abetting an Argentine plan to mock U.S. law and undermine the integrity of New York as a world financial center. They might also wonder how likely they are to collect even a fraction of the money lent once they're relying on the kindness of the Argentine judicial system.

As for investors who never lent to Argentina, they don't have to wonder. Now they know that only a fool would do business with Ms. Kirchner.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2013, 04:21:01 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MeHmo5FIKe4#t=2138

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #18 on: September 18, 2013, 10:16:13 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ5GBqrWEnw
Logged
eskrimakombat
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


« Reply #19 on: September 18, 2013, 12:03:57 PM »

Hola,

Este es el video de la categoría Medianos Full Contact Stick Fighting, el torneo tuvo a lugar el Domingo 15 de Septimebre de 2013 en el Luna Park.



Para mayor información de entrenamiento en Argentina.

DBMA Group
http://www.eskrimakombat.com
Logged
eskrimakombat
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


« Reply #20 on: September 18, 2013, 02:21:10 PM »

Marc,

El chico que gano, Emmanuel, entreno Kali Tudo contigo en Buenos Aires.

Logged
For_Crafty_Dog
Newbie
*
Posts: 26


« Reply #21 on: September 24, 2013, 01:20:22 PM »














Logged

Posted on behalf of Crafty Dog
by Spartan Dog
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #22 on: October 16, 2013, 12:27:15 PM »



http://esgrimacriolla.blogspot.com.ar/2013/10/grip-variedades-y-diferentes-tipos-de.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #23 on: December 16, 2013, 11:55:04 AM »

 Argentina, Territorial Power and the Meaning of Lootings
Geopolitical Diary
Thursday, December 12, 2013 - 19:02 Text Size Print

The power of mass public discontent has always played a critical role in Argentine politics, as we were reminded Thursday when the Argentine government announced that it would deploy additional security in the province of Buenos Aires to confront expected riots and lootings Dec. 19 and 20. The announcement came along with reports that shop owners are buying weapons in anticipation of having to defend their stores.

Power in Argentina has a strong territorial element. From presidents and governors to union leaders and protest groups, power is measured in the number of people political actors can take to the streets. To a large extent, this phenomenon is the natural heir of Peronism, one of the most significant populist movements in the modern era. Peronism has its roots in the process of mass migration from the countryside to the city, the product of industrialization in the first half of the 20th century. Peronism presented itself as a movement of inclusion in the political life for the masses of people who had traditionally been neglected by the political system.

What is a Geopolitical Diary? George Friedman explains.

It is no coincidence that the founding myth of Peronism focuses on the events of Oct. 17, 1945, when several thousand people rallied in Buenos Aires to demand the release of then-Labor Minister Juan Peron, who was put in prison by the military regime in Argentina. This event established a direct connection between territorial power and political power that marked Argentina's politics for the next six decades. Indeed, the current government of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has built its foundation of the legacy of Peron.

In modern Argentina, territorial power is still a key feature of political power. The most powerful political leaders are those who can organize the largest rallies -- which in turn means that they can lead the largest number of people to polling stations when necessary. For this reason, the heart of political power in Argentina is located in the province of Buenos Aires, the wealthiest and most populous province of Argentina. Particularly important are the areas of the province that surround the city of Buenos Aires. These are vastly populated and relatively poor areas, which means that their populations are particularly susceptible to the patronage-based system that defines Argentine politics.

In this context of territorial power, lootings have political significance. Together with rallies, lootings are an effective way to undermine political groups in power. Lootings have a psychological impact because they instill an image of anomie and lack of control by the government. Lootings particularly frighten the middle and upper classes because they create an impression that private property and street safety are at risk.

Looting is not uncommon, but sustained periods of looting riots are. And in two cases in the past 25 years, looting preceded the fall of presidents. In 1989, the first president since the return of democracy in Argentina, Raul Alfonsin from the Radical Civic Union party, resigned amid hyperinflation and lootings. In 2001, another president from the Radical Civic Union, Fernando de la Rua, resigned after a week of lootings and protests in several cities across the country.

Both resignations had a lasting political impact in Argentina and generated a very strong connection in the public mind between lootings and political crises. In 1989 and 2001, the Radical Civic Union accused the Peronists of orchestrating the lootings. Certainly, lootings do not happen without social unrest. In 1989 and 2001, Argentina was going through severe economic crises, and people were extremely upset with the government. But while the accusations against the Peronists were never confirmed, countrywide lootings need some degree of political incentives or organization.

The current wave of lootings finds its immediate origin in a police strike, but it has deeper roots, as it occurs in a context of a growing economic and political crisis. Inflation is very high, which particularly affects the income of the lower class. The middle class, hurt by growing fiscal pressure, has to a large extent withdrawn its support for Fernandez's government. For its part, the upper class is affected by the increasing distortions in exchange rates and is concerned about rising crime.

December is a special month for Argentines, because it is when Christmas and vacation bonuses are paid. It's also the month when people want to purchase holiday gifts and their economic situation becomes more palpable. The economic crisis of 2001 reached its highest point in December, when some 20 people were killed during lootings and protests against the government. After December, the summer begins and the political and economic tensions often unwind. For this reason, the next two weeks are crucial for the stability of the Argentine government.

But even if the current wave of lootings subsides, it is only the beginning of two very intense years for Argentina. Fernandez lost congressional support in the midterm elections, cannot be re-elected and lacks a clear successor. She still has two years in office, but Peronists within and outside her close factional allies have begun to look for her successor. Much of that search will take place in meetings among mayors, governors, lawmakers and union leaders. But as with many times in the past, the bid for power will also take place in the streets.

Read more: Argentina, Territorial Power and the Meaning of Lootings | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook
Logged
Nicolás
Newbie
*
Posts: 30


« Reply #24 on: April 03, 2014, 07:40:22 PM »

 
 Vuelvo a compartir algo de nuestro entrenamiento en Buenos Aires, en este caso con doble bastón:

 Sparring con doble bastón:




 
 Ejercicio de Doble bastón vs dos oponentes:


 


 Saludos!

 Nicolás Wachsmann
 DBMA Argentina
 www.dogbrothers.com.ar
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #25 on: April 10, 2014, 09:35:52 PM »

A ver si haya alguien aqui , , ,
Logged
captainccs
Power User
***
Posts: 696


« Reply #26 on: April 10, 2014, 09:42:59 PM »

Che Crafty, aquí estoy.
Logged

--
Denny Schlesinger
Nicolás
Newbie
*
Posts: 30


« Reply #27 on: April 13, 2014, 07:59:18 PM »

 
 En nuestra ultima sesión de entrenamiento tuvimos el privilegio de contar con la visita de Chris “Lazy Dog” Goard, ya que estuvo de paseo por Argentina.

Chris es un auténtico Dog Brother, con siete Gatherings en su haber y además instructor avanzado de Pekiti Tirsia de la academia de Loki "Tricky Dog" Jörgenson en Canadá.

Fue una sesión de sparring sumamente enriquecedora por la enorme experiencia que posee Chris, quien compartió con nosotros algunas de sus tácticas preferidas, es un excelente luchador y una muy humilde persona.

En cuanto tenga un rato voy a publicar algunas fotos del entrenamiento.

Saludos!

Nicolás Wachsmann
DBMA Argentina

www.dogbrothers.com.ar
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #28 on: April 21, 2014, 07:49:16 AM »

Nicolas:

Por favor disculpe la tardanza en mi respuesta, pero yo estaba en Brazil y luego con fuerzas especiales de nuestro ejercito.

Quiero felicitarte el buen trabajo que tu gente y tu estan mostrando aqui'.

Mi comentario mas detallado se encuentrara' en el foro de la DBMA Association.

Guro Crafty

PD:  Me alegra muchisimo que Uds tuvieran la experiencia de entrenar con Lazy Dog.

==================================================

How Argentina's Default Could Be New York's Loss
The commercial capital depends on U.S. courts to hold governments to their promises.
By Jonathan Macey
April 20, 2014 5:25 p.m. ET

The Supreme Court on Monday hears arguments in Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital. It is a simple case. But the decision will have far-reaching implications for international finance, sovereign debt and even the position of New York City as the financial capital of the world.

The controversy began in 2001 when, amid a severe domestic economic crisis, Argentina defaulted on $80 billion in debt. The government tried to make a deal with its bondholders twice, in 2005 and again in 2010, offering them new debt worth 25 cents to 29 cents for each dollar of the bonds in default.

Many bondholders took the deal but others declined. Argentina tried to coerce the holdouts by enacting its so-called Lock Law, which prohibits the Argentine government from making any better offer to the non-tendering bondholders or complying with any U.S. court ruling requiring holdouts to be repaid.

The original debt was sold to investors with an explicit term that disputes would be resolved in New York under New York law. And in the continuing litigation, the holdouts are relying on U.S. courts to enforce a clause in the bond covenant that requires Argentina to treat all bondholders equally. This clause, known to lawyers as a pari passu clause, means Argentina cannot pick and choose among its creditors with laws like the Lock Law.

In early 2012, federal Judge Thomas P. Griesa of the Southern District of New York barred Argentina from making payments on the subsequently issued debt without paying what it owes to the holdouts. If Argentina pays the owners of the new debt 5% of what it owes them, it must also pay 5% of what is owed to the holdouts. When the new bonds are paid in full, the holdouts would be paid in full as well.


To enforce the court's judgment, Judge Griesa also allowed investors in Argentina's defaulted bonds to subpoena information from banks, including Bank of America Corp. BAC +0.12% and Banco de la Nacion Argentina, about where Argentina is stashing its assets around the world. Judge Griesa rightfully said that his decision rested upon "the public interest of enforcing contracts and upholding the rule of law," and he was upheld on appeal.

Argentina has appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Obama administration has taken its side. The U.S. Justice Department has argued that enforcing the terms of the agreement will make future debt restructurings more difficult and undermine the U.S.'s interest "in promoting reciprocal international principles of central bank immunity." Academics have also argued that enforcing Argentina's own contracts against it might undercut debt restructurings.

These arguments are bogus. Any country that wants to restructure in the way that Argentina is trying to do simply can decline to put equal-treatment clauses in their contracts.

The way to help sovereigns is by upholding the contracts they sign. By siding with Argentina's holdout creditors, U.S. courts are helping all borrowers achieve access to credit markets on competitive terms. If courts won't enforce the promises made by borrowers, investors won't lend to them or will insist on higher rates of interest as compensation for their increased risk in case of default.

History is littered with examples of governments that renege on their promises to investors. Holding them to their promises should be regarded as a victory for international law and norms.

In support of Judge Griesa, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "in New York, a bond is a contract" and the parties' dispute "presents a simple question of contract interpretation." In the world of business, actually enforcing the terms of contracts is the way to nurture markets and generate economic growth. The claim that sovereigns are not subject to the rule of law fails to recognize that if U.S. courts decline to enforce contracts, sovereign nations and corporate borrowers will be motivated to enter into contracts in places that will enforce them.

New York City remains the commercial capital of the world. Sophisticated parties around the world routinely specify that New York law as construed by New York judges should govern disputes in international agreements, even when no U.S. party is involved in the deal. It is the willingness of courts to hold people—and governments—to their promises that enables the city to retain its dominance. Indeed, that enables a free economy to operate. We can only hope the Supreme Court keeps that in mind.

Mr. Macey is a professor at the Yale Law School.

« Last Edit: April 21, 2014, 07:58:40 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
eskrimakombat
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


« Reply #29 on: April 21, 2014, 08:10:27 AM »

Décimo Open Sparring en Rosario - Eskrima Kombat

Logged
Nicolás
Newbie
*
Posts: 30


« Reply #30 on: April 21, 2014, 10:13:40 PM »

Quote
Nicolas:

Por favor disculpe la tardanza en mi respuesta, pero yo estaba en Brazil y luego con fuerzas especiales de nuestro ejercito.

Quiero felicitarte el buen trabajo que tu gente y tu estan mostrando aqui'.

Mi comentario mas detallado se encuentrara' en el foro de la DBMA Association.

Guro Crafty

PD:  Me alegra muchisimo que Uds tuvieran la experiencia de entrenar con Lazy Dog.


Muchas gracias por sus palabras Guro!!

Nicolás
DBMA Argentina
www.dogbrothers.com.ar
« Last Edit: April 21, 2014, 10:21:06 PM by Nicolás » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #31 on: May 05, 2014, 11:31:36 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFT8lxf1PlQ
Logged
Nicolás
Newbie
*
Posts: 30


« Reply #32 on: May 24, 2014, 09:09:21 PM »

 ¡¡Muchas gracias Guro por colocar el link a nuestro ultimo video!!

 Les dejo a continuación dos videos más de sparring de nuestro grupo, el primero de Doble bastón, en donde intentamos seguir experimentando con Dos Triques. El segundo video es de Bastón y cuchillo/Espada y daga:



Doble bastón:




Bastón y cuchillo/ Espada y daga:




Nicolás Wachsmann
DBMA Argentina
www.dogbrothers.com.ar
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #33 on: June 16, 2014, 06:06:20 PM »


Analysis

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a petition from the Argentine government June 16, effectively ending years of legal battles in U.S. courts. The decision not to hear Argentina's case means that a 2012 ruling by lower courts, which forced Argentina to pay holdout creditors, remains intact.

The decision by New York District Judge Thomas Griesa said that if Argentina intended to make payments to creditors holding bonds issued in 2005 and 2010, when it restructured its debt, it would have to pay the full value of bonds held by creditors who refused to renegotiate their bonds after the default, known as the holdouts.
Argentina's Declining Central Bank Reserves
Click to Enlarge

Of the original $95 billion default from Argentina's 2001-2002 economic crisis, a total of 93 percent of creditors participated in the previous debt restructures. Roughly $15 billion, a sum that includes estimated interest, remains in default. At stake in this court case is $1.3 billion worth of debt held by a group of holdouts led by NML Capital. Argentina might be able to settle the $1.3 billion in one payment, but with only $28 billion in foreign exchange stored at the Central Bank, it cannot afford to pay the $15 billion owed to all holdout creditors at once.

Nevertheless, Argentina has recently showed a renewed interest in regaining access to international credit markets, and a May deal with the Paris Club paved the way to renewed lending from sovereign institutions. A settlement with the holdouts would go a long way to restoring Argentina's reputation, and a deal of some kind seems increasingly likely.

Argentina has three options. The first option is to refuse to pay, which would trigger an automatic default on debt payments owed to bondholders who participated in the 2005 and 2010 restructuring. The second option is to comply fully with the district court ruling and pay NML and its partners $1.3 billion immediately. This option would open Argentina up to being sued by the bondholders who previously restructured because they are entitled to claim any better terms voluntarily offered by Argentina to other holdout creditors up until the end of 2014. The third option would have Argentina reach an agreement with NML Capital to settle its debts, but not until 2015, when Argentina would not have to pay out the terms of the new agreement to bondholders who had settled earlier. We consider the third option the most likely one.

Read more: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Argentine Petition | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook
Logged
captainccs
Power User
***
Posts: 696


« Reply #34 on: June 16, 2014, 08:20:41 PM »

Argentina President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has just finished speaking. She made it clear that Argentina wants to pay their debts - pointing out their settlements with Repsol and the Paris Club -- but that they will not give in to the "extortion" of the holdouts (She used the word "extortion" many times, which may set it up for a good drinking game going forward).

Fernandez de Kirchner says Argentina will make the $900 million debt payment on June 30, which leaves those funds open for NML, Elliot and Singer and the holdouts to enforce Federal District Judge Thomas Griesa's pari passu payment orders and sieze the money causing a default once the stay is lifted (which is imminent).  Fernandez de Kirchner did not say what Argentina would do if those funds are frozen or siezed.

She repeated Argentina's stance that the holdouts should accept the exchange and accused them of "extortion", trying to make 1,608% returns on the bonds they bought in 2008, that holdout claims would reach $15 billion if Argentina complied, representing more than 50% of Argentina's reserves.

In short, Argentina's plan seems to be to let a default occur blaming it on the holdouts enforcing their order and then deal with the fallout afterwards.   Possibly by setting up the domestic payment program as elicited in the Cleary Gottleib recommendations I sent you earlier.


Received via email
Logged

--
Denny Schlesinger
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2014, 06:59:34 PM »

 U.S. Court Ruling Creates Dilemma For Argentine Government
Analysis
June 27, 2014 | 1505 Print Text Size
U.S. Court Ruling Creates Dilemma For Argentine Government
Attorney for Argentina Carmine Bocuzzi (C) arrives at court for a hearing June 27 in New York. (DON EMMERT/AFP/Getty Images)
Summary

The Argentine government found itself in New York District Court on June 27. At stake is whether U.S. courts can force Argentina to default on debt payments owed to the various bondholders who accepted 2005 and 2010 reductions on their Argentine sovereign debt holdings. The ruling could lead to economic hardship in Argentina, creating opportunities for international actors to lend their support, therefore extending their influence in the region.
Analysis

The government in Argentina is currently not willing to make payment on the full $1.3 billion face value of bonds that it defaulted on during the 2001-2002 economic crisis, an amount that would also include interest. This is the amount at issue in the current court case, which follows a June 12 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to allow rulings by New York District Court Judge Thomas Griesa to stand. Griesa's decision was based on language in the original bonds that requires equal treatment of bondholders, necessitating Argentina to make payments to the holdouts if the government makes any payments to debt holders. It also permits the holdout bondholders to use court resources to identify Argentine financial assets and freeze them if Argentina does not comply.

Argentina was scheduled to make a June 30 payment set at $900 million, an amount the Argentine government is prepared to pay. Buenos Aires is eager to make payments to the group of exchange bondholders who agreed to the 2005 and 2010 restructuring, but is unwilling to issue immediate, full payment to all of the holdouts. The government has already apparently made an effort to avoid the court ruling and proceed with the June 30 payments by transferring hundreds of millions of dollars into trusteeships with international banks, including $539 million to the Bank of New York Mellon.

Through these deposits, Argentina seeks to demonstrate its willingness to pay exchange bondholders. Judge Griesa, however, ordered Bank of New York Mellon to reject the funds, mandating that they remain in Argentina and asserting that the country must continue negotiations with holdouts. It is likely that Argentina will enter technical default June 30, although this is cushioned by a 30-day grace period.

The impact of this default will be different for Argentina this time. Buenos Aires is not actively issuing debts and the U.S. Supreme Court decision is already impacting the Argentine stock market and secondary market trades of Argentine debt. Argentina's economic situation is fragile, and a further loss of confidence could spur additional capital flight, with negative implications for the value of the Argentine peso. Indeed, the black market rate for the peso is already falling and additional drops in demand could push the government to devalue the currency more steeply.

The dangers of paying the holdouts, however, are more troubling to Argentina than the risk of a default. The debt in the hands of the holdouts involved in the New York court case represent only a fraction of what the government owes in principal and interest -- $1.5 billion out of a $15 billion total. And these holdouts are spread across the globe and include creditors in Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom among others. Argentina currently holds around $29 billion in foreign currency reserves, meaning payment in full would be theoretically possible, although it would leave foreign exchange dangerously low given ongoing balance of payment challenges. On top of this, there is a risk that the bondholders who agreed to the 2005 and 2010 bond exchange will then sue Argentina for the full amount of the original bonds based on a clause in the exchange bonds that allows them to do so through 2014. This means that Argentina must delay any kind of settlement with holdouts until at least 2015.

Nevertheless, Argentina will have to pay the holdouts eventually. Declining exports mean that the country is facing a real danger of a financial crisis as foreign reserves decline. In order to manage this risk, Argentina is working to resuscitate its energy sector to mitigate the financial impact of imports, hoping to return to net-exporter status. This, however, will take years if not decades. In the meantime, Argentina will need access to international credit markets, although not at the cost of liquidating half of its foreign reserves to pay off the holdouts. The most likely way that Argentina will navigate this dilemma is to delay making a final settlement of its debts.

The U.S. court rulings are unlikely to have significant political impact within Argentina. Although the dispute may cause further economic tension, no party has an interest in using this issue as leverage to unseat the current government. Elections are approaching in 2015 and President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has reached her term limit. Opposition politicians are currently in the early stages of building alliances and strategizing for these pivotal elections -- they do not want the chaos that would accompany the fall of Fernandez' government. General opinion in Argentine political circles is that U.S. courts have acted unusually harshly in dealing with Argentina's default, and that the United States has overstepped its bounds, making it unlikely that the Fernandez government will be blamed for any economic repercussions.

The court case will likely increase tensions in U.S.-Argentine relations. The ruling has already led a number of international players, including Brazil, Russia and the United Nations, to voice concern about the ultimate effects of default on Argentina. As the case progresses, more opportunities could arise for foreign players to express support both rhetorically and concretely. Russian President Vladimir Putin has already announced that he will meet with Fernandez in Buenos Aires in July while he is in the region for the sixth annual BRICS Summit in Brazil, where further support for Argentina's position could be forthcoming.

Read more: U.S. Court Ruling Creates Dilemma For Argentine Government | Stratfor
Logged
Nicolás
Newbie
*
Posts: 30


« Reply #36 on: September 21, 2014, 09:52:44 AM »

 Durante los últimos meses estuvimos "experimentando" con Dos Triques, comparto con ustedes dos videos de sparring de nuestro grupo en Buenos Aires, con algo de este trabajo.

El primero es Doble Bastón vs Doble Bastón. El segundo video es sobre un round que comenzó siendo Bastón y Tonfa vs Bastón y Tonfa, pero por un "incidente" con uno de los tonfas, el round se convirtió en Doble Bastón vs Bastón y tonfa:


Doble bastón vs Doble Bastón:





Bastón y Tonfa vs Doble Bastón:




Saludos!

Nicolás Wachsmann
DBMA Argentina
www.dogbrothers.com.ar
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #37 on: October 31, 2014, 10:51:19 AM »

  Ya hemos comentado sobre estos clips en el foro de la DBMA Asociacion. 

Aqui' escribo para decir no mas que "Buen trabajo, bien hecho."

 cool
Logged
Nicolás
Newbie
*
Posts: 30


« Reply #38 on: November 02, 2014, 07:34:12 PM »

 
 ¡¡Muchas gracias Guro!!

 Nicolás Wachsmann
 DBMA Argentina
 www.dogbrothers.com.ar
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #39 on: January 19, 2015, 01:26:35 PM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/19/prosecutor-who-was-set-to-testify-on-alleged-government-coverup-and-warned-his-investigation-might-kill-him-found-dead-in-his-apartment/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #40 on: January 21, 2015, 12:12:13 PM »

Argentine Judge Releases Criminal Complaint Against President
Alberto Nisman’s Complaint Accuses Government of Conspiring to Sabotage Inquiry Into a Terrorist Bombing
By Taos Turner And Ryan Dube
Jan. 21, 2015 12:49 p.m. ET
WSJ

BUENOS AIRES—A federal judge released the entire 289-page criminal complaint against Argentina’s president that was compiled by Alberto Nisman, the prosecutor whose body was found a day before he was scheduled to present the report at a congressional hearing.

The complaint provides passages from intercepted phone calls and other evidence to bolster Mr. Nisman’s main accusation—that President Cristina Kirchner , Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman and others conspired with Iran to sabotage an investigation into a 1994 terrorist bombing that killed 85 people at a Jewish center here. The complaint was made public late Tuesday by Judge Ariel Lijo.

Mrs. Kirchner, the complaint says, ordered intermediaries to secretly negotiate a deal with Tehran to offer impunity for Iranian suspects in exchange for Iranian oil. Mr. Nisman, 51 years old, who had spent a decade investigating the bombing of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association center, or AMIA as it was known, had in a previouse report he had compiled accused Iran of masterminding the suicide bombing.

“To understand Cristina [Kirchner’s] role in this impunity plan it must be made clear that the crime reported here could not have been committed without her decision and subsequent actions,” the complaint says. “In effect, Argentina’s president issued an express directive to design and execute a coverup plan to dissociate the Iranians accused in the AMIA attack to guarantee them definitive impunity.”

The government on Wednesday declined to comment on Nisman’s complaint. But cabinet Chief Jorge Capitanich told reporters the government is working to clear up Mr. Nisman’s death and the AMIA case. “The judicial investigation is essential, and it is ongoing,” he said. “It will continue with support to determine the cause of this death.”

Iran’s embassy in Buenos Aires declined to comment.

Last week, Mr. Capitanich had called Mr. Nisman’s criminal complaint against the administration “outrageous, illogical and irrational.” On Monday, on her Facebook page, Mrs. Kirchner issued a letter implying that Mr. Nisman himself was part of a conspiracy to cover up the investigation into the bombing, the worst terror attack on Jews since World War II.

Her letter came a day after Mr. Nisman’s body was found in the bathroom of his apartment in an upscale neighborhood here. He had suffered a gunshot to the head, and a .22-caliber handgun was found next to his body, according to an autopsy and the prosecutor investigating Mr. Nisman’s death. The autopsy determined he fired the gun at himself at point-blank range.

The timing of Mr. Nisman’s death, a day before he was to present a decade’s worth of work on the case, has sparked protests and anger against Mrs. Kirchner’s government. Mr. Nisman’s apartment showed no signs of forced entry. But the presence of a high government official in his home as his body was being recovered has fed theories that the prosecutor didn’t commit suicide.

In the complaint, Mr. Nisman charged that while Mrs. Kirchner was publicly claiming to support the investigation, she was using clandestine channels to forge a deal with Tehran. The report says that Mrs. Kirchner was aware that developing relations with Iran could create a public backlash in Argentina because of that country’s alleged role in the AMIA bombing.

Mr. Nisman wrote in the complaint that Mrs. Kirchner nonetheless moved forward with a plan that would open up trade with Iran—one that called for Argentine grain and arms to be exchanged for Iranian oil.

Mr. Nisman wrote in the complaint about the Argentine government’s 2013 deal with Iran to create what they called a truth commission to resolve the AMIA bombing, an accord that prompted Jewish groups here and abroad, as well as Israeli officials, to publicly question whether a whitewash was being orchestrated.

The prosecutor said that the truth commission and its members would hatch a new hypothesis about who was behind the bombing. He said in the complaint that government officials had been recorded talking about the need to “create a new enemy of AMIA, a new culprit of AMIA” as early as November 2012, three months before the truth commission was approved by Argentina’s congress. A federal appeals court later struck down the truth commission as unconstitutional.

The complaint says that Mohsen Rabbani, Iran’s former cultural attaché at its embassy in Buenos Aires and a suspect in the bombing, was constantly informed and helped to facilitate the trade talks. Iran has in the past denied involvement in the bombing.

“The evidence shows the existence of a clear interest from the leadership of the Argentina government to re-establish commercial relations with Iran—given the severe national energy crisis—as well as the urgent necessity to erase with a stroke the accusations from the AMIA case in order to advance the plan,” the complaint says.

Iran’s embassy in Buenos Aires has declined to comment.

— Alberto Messer and Juan Forero contributed to this article.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4295


« Reply #41 on: January 21, 2015, 06:13:25 PM »

Political murder apparently continues down under.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #42 on: January 21, 2015, 07:51:29 PM »

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/10-Israeli-tourists-hurt-in-anti-Semitic-attack-in-Argentina-388518
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #43 on: January 26, 2015, 12:54:49 PM »


By
Mary Anastasia O’Grady
Jan. 25, 2015 7:37 p.m. ET
71 COMMENTS

It’s hard to know who had most to gain—and the least to lose—from the death of Argentine federal prosecutor Alberto Nisman. I’d say it’s Iran.

Nisman was scheduled to testify last week to the Argentine Congress about his investigation into the 1994 bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish community center that killed 85. In 2006 he indicted seven Iranians and one Lebanese-born member of Hezbollah for the crime. None have been captured, though the Lebanese suspect was killed in 2008 in Syria.

Earlier this month Nisman filed a criminal complaint in an Argentine court, alleging that President Cristina Kirchner and Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman had crafted a secret agreement with Iran to let the terrorists off the hook in exchange for Iranian oil largess and Iranian purchases of Argentine grain.

Nisman claimed he had a solid case against la presidenta and her alleged co-conspirators, and he released a summary of a 300-page report on his investigation. He promised to reveal more at the hearing.

But his objective was never to bring down the president. He sought justice for the bombing victims, and on Jan. 14 he spoke of a new plan to secure it on the Argentine television program “A Dos Voces.” “It’s close to coming out,” Nisman said, “and I say close because I’ve already made the decision, and we are making final revisions. There is a way for the Iranians to be extradited . . . [so] that [they] face trial in the Republic of Argentina.”

Less than a week later the prosecutor turned up dead. His body was found the night before the Jan. 19 hearing in the bathroom of his Buenos Aires apartment with a single .22-caliber bullet through the head.

It took almost no time for President Kirchner’s secretary of security, Sergio Berni, to arrive at the apartment and declare the cause of death an apparent suicide.

There has since been only confusion. First came word that the service door to the apartment was locked from the inside; then a locksmith called to the scene contradicted that. First there were only two ways into the apartment. Then investigators announced there is a third, and that recent footprints were found in that narrow corridor. First it was suggested that the test for gunpowder on Nisman’s hands was important. When the test for gunpowder was negative, it was dismissed as unimportant because, well, that can happen with small bullets. Countless questions remain, including why his bodyguards reportedly were not on watch in front of his door and why the journalist who broke the news that he was found in a pool of blood fled the country over the weekend.

The lead investigator in the case has not issued a final ruling, and those who knew Nisman say the suicide theory stretches credulity. He had spent 14 years on the bombing case and was about to march into Congress with two years of judicially approved wiretaps that he believed would expose a game of footsie between Mrs. Kirchner and Tehran.

Nisman was in good spirits about the matter, as indicated in his TV appearance. He was divorced, but by all accounts close to his teenage daughters. It seems unlikely that he would have pulled the trigger without leaving them so much as a farewell note. His ex-wife, who is an Argentine judge, says she does not believe he committed suicide.

Argentines smell a rat, not the least because the kirchneristas have earned a reputation for corruption and coercion, and this looks like a mob hit. Late last week even Mrs. Kirchner seemed to realize that the suicide narrative wouldn’t fly. After remaining silent for days, she announced her own theory: Nisman was murdered by rogue members of the Argentine intelligence service who are trying to bring her down.

These enemies, she said, concocted the story that she and Mr. Timerman had made a deal to receive oil and sell grain in exchange for providing impunity to the terrorists. The secretary of the presidency backed her up. Nisman “could not have written this nonsense,” he said. “It is totally clear he had nothing to do with it, but there were people around him who had a different agenda.”

Of course the way to learn whether Nisman was driven to kill himself, or whether he was killed by disloyal spies who used him, would be to air every detail of his report. If she really wants to get to the bottom of things Mrs. Kirchner will name and support a new, independent prosecutor. But that might get her into trouble with Iran.

If Nisman was murdered, it involved a level of sophistication not normally associated with Argentina but not uncommon for Iran. Tehran has more than 40 years of experience knocking off meddlesome individuals abroad and is now trying to allay global distrust as it bamboozles Barack Obama about its nuclear-weapons program. Nisman’s search for truth may have put a target on his back.

Write to O’Grady@wsj.com
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!