Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
This article is such a mishmash of truth and utter bullshit it's unsalvageable.
The April 18, 1983 bombing of the United States embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, which killed 63 people including 17 Americans. He was later blamed for the October 23, 1983 simultaneous truck bombings against French paratroopers and the U.S. Marine barracks, attacks which killed 58 French soldiers and 241 Marines. On September 20, 1984, he is alleged to have attacked the US embassy annex building. The United States indicted him (and his collaborator, Hassan Izz al-Din) for the June 14, 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847, which resulted in the death of U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem.[11] He was also linked to numerous kidnappings of Westerners in Beirut through the 1980s, most notably that of Terry Anderson, and William Francis Buckley, who was the CIA station chief in Beirut. Some of these individuals were later killed, such as Buckley, who was brutally beaten.[12] The remainder were released at various times until the last one, Terry Anderson was released in 1991. Mugniyah has also been tied to the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 Americans and one Saudi citizen[13].
Mughniyah has been formally charged by Argentina with participating in the March 17, 1992 bombings of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, which killed 29 and the AMIA cultural building in July 1994, killing 86 people.[14] He has also been accused of orchestrating the 2000 abductions of three Israeli soldiers in the northen part of Israel and the kidnapping of Israeli businessman Elchanan Tenenbaum, and the more recent 2006 Israel/Lebanon conflict, killing eight soldiers and abducting two.
The difference in the ends (neo-Colonialism vs. anti-Colonialism) does not excuse the means (slaughtering innocents). Whether one is on the side of David or Goliath, murdered kids are murdered kids.
As for the Wiki laundry list, even before checking the actual facts, a couple of things should inspire skepticism:
1) Helloo. These "facts" originate with the same media that's been engaged in a systematic campaign to demonize Arabs and Muslims for decades; the same media that assured everybody that "Saddam" did indeed have WMD's, that 9/11 was masterminded by OBL from a cave in Afghanistan and executed by 19 Arabs with box cutters, that America was invading Iraq to spread freedom and democracy, etc., etc. It's always good to approach Western media coverage of Arabs with a hefty pinch of salt;
2) He "was blamed", "is alleged", "was linked", "tied", "accused", etc. Well, I "blame" you for my booboo, and I "accuse" you of flooding my bathroom, and I "link" you to the mysterious rash I'm getting from all these agenda-driven accusations without evidence!
Is there evidence either way regarding Mughniyeh?
I don't understand the question. Are you asking whether there is evidence implicating Mughniyeh in the Argentina bombing?
...showing that one or two acts is misrepresented does not necessarily illuminate the big picture.
I will reiterate that if some of these charges are true, then the comparisons to Israeli and American atrocities are readily apparent, and nobody gets a free pass, whether they have the sanction of the State, or not...
What you are doing is basing your moral judgment solely on the self-serving lies propagated by war criminals.
Being inundated with a version of reality viewed solely through a zionist lens, I don't blame you for your ignorance, your smug self-righteousness.
The Israelis, and Americans, for that matter, have a long history of treating people like vermin to be exterminated, and maligning their victims, along with those who resist.
You are essentially demanding that the victim of a terrorist bombing be judged and convicted based solely on the obnoxious lies, no matter how outrageous and baseless, propagated by his killers.
The difference in the ends (neo-Colonialism vs. anti-Colonialism) does not excuse the means (slaughtering innocents). Whether one is on the side of David or Goliath, murdered kids are murdered kids.
...though Israel masterminded the assassination, locals with Syrian, Jordanian and Palestinian citizenships executed the operation.
AlicetheKurious » Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:12 pm wrote:...it appears there's far more to this story than meets the eye.
article | posted January 18, 2008 (web only)
Bush's Iran/Argentina Terror Frame-Up
...Team Bush's latest tactic is to play up a thirteen-year-old accusation that Iran was responsible for the notorious Buenos Aires bombing that destroyed the city's Jewish Community Center, known as AMIA, killing eighty-six and injuring 300, in 1994. Unnamed senior Administration officials told the Wall Street Journal January 15 that the bombing in Argentina "serves as a model for how Tehran has used its overseas embassies and relationship with foreign militant groups, in particular Hezbollah, to strike at its enemies."
This propaganda campaign depends heavily on a decision last November by the General Assembly of Interpol, which voted to put five former Iranian officials and a Hezbollah leader on the international police organization's "red list" for allegedly having planned the July 1994 bombing. But the Wall Street Journal reports that it was pressure from the Bush Administration, along with Israeli and Argentine diplomats, that secured the Interpol vote. In fact, the Bush Administration's manipulation of the Argentine bombing case is perfectly in line with its long practice of using distorting and manufactured evidence to build a case against its geopolitical enemies...
The Frame-up
The keystone of the Argentine case was Carlos Alberto Telleldin, a used-car salesman with a record of shady dealings with both criminals and the police--and a Shiite last name. On July 10, 1994, Telleldin sold the white Trafic the police claimed was the suicide car to a man he described as having a Central American accent. Nine days after the bombing Telleldin was arrested on suspicion of being an accomplice to the crime.
The police claimed they were led to Telleldin by the serial number on the van's engine block, which was found in the rubble. But it would have been a remarkable lapse for the organizers of what was otherwise a very professional bombing to have left intact such a visible identification mark, one that any car thief knows how to erase. That should have been a clue that the attack was likely not orchestrated by Hezbollah, whose bomb experts were well-known by US intelligence analysts to have been clever enough, in blowing up the American Embassy in Beirut in 1983, to avoid leaving behind any forensic evidence that would lead back to them. It should also have raised questions about whether that evidence was planted by the police themselves...
A Questionable Informant
Bernazzani admitted to me that until 2003, the case against Iran was merely "circumstantial." But he claimed a breakthrough came that year, with the identification of the alleged suicide bomber as Ibrahim Hussein Berro, a Lebanese Hezbollah militant, who, according to a Lebanese radio broadcast, was killed in a military operation against Israeli forces in southern Lebanon in September 1984, two months after the AMIA bombing. "We are satisfied that we have identified the bomber based on the totality of the data streams," Bernazzani told me, citing "a combination of physical and witness evidence." But the Berro identification, too, was marked by evidence of fabrication and manipulation.
The official story is that Berro's name was passed on to SIDE and the CIA by a Lebanese informant in June 2001. The informant claimed he had befriended a former Hezbollah chauffeur and assistant to top Hezbollah leaders named Abu Mohamad Yassin, who told him that a Hezbollah militant named "Brru" was the suicide bomber. That story is suspicious on several counts, the most obvious being that intelligence agencies almost never reveal the name, or even the former position, of an actual informant.
The September 2003 court testimony of Patricio Pfinnen, the SIDE official in charge of the AMIA bombing investigation until he was fired in January 2002, casts serious doubt on the informant's credibility. Pfinnen testified that when he and his colleagues went back to the informant with more questions, "something went wrong with the information, or they were lying to us." Pfinnen said his team ultimately discarded the Berro theory because the sources in Lebanon had "failed and were not certain." He concluded, "I have my doubts about [Berro] being the person who was immolated."
After Pfinnen was fired in a power struggle within the intelligence agency, SIDE named Berro as the suicide bomber in a secret report. In March 2003, just after that report was completed, Ha'aretz reported that the Mossad had not only identified the bomber as Berro but possessed a transcript of Berro's farewell telephone call to Lebanon before the bombing, during which he told his parents that he was going to "join" his brother, who had been killed in a suicide bombing in Lebanon. When the 2006 indictment was released, however, it became clear that no evidence of such a call existed.
In September 2004, a Buenos Aires court acquitted Telleldin and the police officials who had been jailed years earlier, and in August 2005 Judge Galeano was impeached and removed from office. But Galeano's successors, prosecutors Alberto Nisman and Marcelo Martinez Burgos, pressed on, hoping to convince the world that they could identify Berro as the bomber. They visited Detroit, Michigan, where they interviewed two brothers of Berro and obtained photos of Berro from them. They then turned to the only witness who claimed she had seen the white Trafic at the scene of the crime--Nicolasa Romero.
In November 2005, Nisman and Burgos announced that Romero had identified Berro from the Detroit photos as the same person she had seen just before the bombing. Romero, on the other hand, said she "could not be completely certain" that Berro was the man at the scene. In court testimony, in fact, she had said she had not recognized Berro from the first set of set of four photographs she had been shown or even from a second set. She finally saw some "similarity in the face" in one of the Berro photographs, but only after she was shown a police sketch based on her description after the bombing.
Bernazzani told me that the FBI team in Buenos Aires had discovered DNA evidence that was assumed to have come from the suicide bomber in an evidence locker, and Nisman took a DNA sample from one of Berro's brothers during his visit in September 2005. "I would assume, though I don't know, that once we got the brother's DNA, they compared them," he said. But Nisman claimed to a reporter in 2006 that samples had been contaminated. Significantly, the Argentine indictment of the Iranians makes no mention of the DNA evidence.
Despite a case against Iran that lacked credible forensic or eyewitness evidence and relied heavily on dubious intelligence and a discredited defector's testimony, Nisman and Burgos drafted their indictment against six former Iranian officials in 2006. However, the government of Néstor Kirchner displayed doubts about going forward with a legal case. According to the Forward newspaper, when American Jewish groups pressed Kirchner's wife, Christina, about the indictments at a UN General Assembly in New York in September 2006, she indicated that there was no firm date for any further judicial action against Iran. Yet the indictment was released the following month.
Both the main lawyer representing the AMIA, Miguel Bronfman, and Judge Rodolfo Canicoba Corral, who later issued the arrest warrants for the Iranians, told the BBC last May that pressure from Washington was instrumental in the sudden decision to issue the indictments the following month. Corral indicated that he had no doubt that the Argentine authorities had been urged to "join in international attempts to isolate the regime in Tehran."
A senior White House official just called the AMIA case a "very clear definition of what Iranian state sponsorship of terrorism means." In fact, the US insistence on pinning that crime on Iran in order to isolate the Tehran regime, even though it had no evidence to support that accusation, is a perfect definition of cynical creation of an accusation in the service of power interests.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080204/porter
Washington Post @washingtonpost · Who was Imad Mughniyah, a senior Hezbollah figure killed in joint CIA-Mossad operation? http://wapo.st/1CL6Ahp
Sgt U.R. Problematic @onekade: Why did the CIA decide to talk publicly about its assassination operation? As a warning about US vengeance.
Tim Shorrock @TimothyS · Jeff Stein @spytalker adds crucial details: "How the CIA Took Down Hezbollah's Top Terrorist, Imad Mugniyah." http://bit.ly/16aKLMr
Tim Shorrock @TimothyS: "Mugniyah hit was a CIA op authorized personally by Pres. Bush & carried out by the CIA under direct supervision of director Mike Hayden."
...One of official is quoted as saying that operatives detonated some 25 practice bombs at a CIA facility in North Carolina “to make sure we got it right,” killing Mughniyah while avoiding civilian causalities. The real bomb was triggered remotely in Tel Aviv by Mossad agents, according to the report, but CIA operatives in Damascus acted as spotters and could have called off the attack.
Samar Hajj, a Lebanese analyst who is close to Hezbollah, said the report reinforced the impression — true or not — among officials in the Iranian-backed group that covert Israeli operations are signed off in Washington. She said that disclosures in the report would add urgency to desired Hezbollah attacks against Israel, after both sides exchanged fire Wednesday in a flare-up that triggered fears of war...
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/stat ... 8712129539
Jeff Stein @SpyTalker · #Bush gave final order for #CIA to kill #Hezbollah Terrorist #Mugniyah at Camp David on Xmas Eve 2007 http://www.newsweek.com/imad-mugniyah-cia-mossad-303483 …
Some Questions On Today's Mughniyah Stories
In the Washington Post Adam Goldman and Ellen Nakashima report today on the 2008 death of Hizbullah operator Imad Mughniyah.
On the same day Jeff Stein reports the same story for Newsweek. There are some differences in the details.
Mughniyah died from a tire blowout on a spare tire. The tire was filled with C4 explosives and metal balls and exploded at the back of a Toyota 4wd when Mughniyah walked past.
So far it had been assumed that the assassination had been a Mossad plot but the "news" in the story, based on "former U.S. intelligence officials", is that the CIA was heavily involved and that Bush gave the order to kill Mughniyah.
Two Israeli reporters, sometimes disseminators for Mossad phantasies, add some not so important bits.
The main difference between the two main stories, important in its legal aspect, is in who pressed the button. The Washington Post version:
The device was triggered remotely from Tel Aviv by agents with Mossad, the Israeli foreign intelligence service, who were in communication with the operatives on the ground in Damascus. “The way it was set up, the U.S. could object and call it off, but it could not execute,” said a former U.S. intelligence official.
The Newsweek version:
The kill was made all the harder by the way the bomb would be detonated. There was a two-second delay from the time the CIA and Mossad agents in the lookout post pushed the button to when the bomb exploded. Under the plan, the Mossad agent would ID Mugniyah, and the CIA man would press the remote control.
...
Finally, on the night of February 12, 2008, after two months of round-the-clock surveillance, they caught Mugniyah alone.
“They made a positive ID. Click. One, one thousand; two, one thousand...ka-boom.
So in the Neweek version some CIA guy is guilty of murder while in the Washington Post version somebody in Tel Aviv should be hanged for it.
According to Elijah J. Magnier, who in 2008 reported the story from the Syrian side, the Newsweek version is the more correct one. Magnier also had some additional details in his tweets today.
But aside from the content of the story, which I do not believe to be really relevant, there are questions that could need some answers:
Why is the Washington Post "dumping" the story into the Friday evening/Saturday morning news hole? Usually such a story would be published Saturday evening/Sunday morning thereby and fetch some time on the Sunday shows.
Why is the story coming out now? Has it to do with the spat between Obama and Netanyahoo? Is it a diversion from Israel's recent loss against Hizbullah? Has it to do with the U.S. negotiations with Iran?
The story was obviously ready for some time to be put out by two competing papers. Both were likely waiting for a go from their sources to publish it. Why was the "go" given now? By whom?
Posted by b on January 31, 2015 at 01:54 PM | Permalink
Comments
As I understand it, Newsweek had the story, but CIA convinced them not to publish. WaPo ignored CIA's request, which explains why both showed up at once. It's like the drone base again.
Posted by: emptywheel | Jan 31, 2015 2:16:18 PM |
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/01/so ... ories.html
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests