(Al Jazeera) Arafat hints Israel planted Tel Aviv bomb

[Liberal Classic]

I don't know if Al Jazeera is considered a legitimate source in this forum or not, but here does anyhow.

Arafat hints Israel planted Tel Aviv bomb

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A4E2C039-A1D6-4148-B3F0-399182BA8A75.htm

"You know who is behind these acts," he told reporters on Sunday at his West Bank offices.

Maybe he means Lord Voldemort? :P

[Gimel]

1. The PA claims

They also said that the car that exploded today was Israel's attack when it was in fact a "work accident" cause by their own bomb, killing three terrorist and one motorcyclist for collateral damage.


The group claimed Israeli forces had planted a bomb in the car and detonated it by remote control from a helicopter in the area.

More..

[madrchsod]

2. alzizzy is a decent source for

middle east news. as for the bomb-who knows the truth -either side could be to blame. remember Israel is facing a hostile extreme right wing factions that want no part of the "peace plan" and will stop at nothing to kill their enemies.they have done it before and they won`t stop now.

[Gimel]

4. If it is to believe

that Israel "planted" a bomb in the terrorists car and then detonated it by remote control from a helicopter, then most anything can be believed. They need to find some way to blame Israel, and as no missile was fired or arrived on the scene they had to think of some other tall-tale.

[frylock]

3. jazeer is a legit source..

you should go check out "Control Room".

[Liberal Classic]

5. Found a couple of other sources on this

Xinhuanet (not that I necessarily believe everything they report, either)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-07/11/content_1591182.htm

After meeting with UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) Commissioner General Peter Hansen, Arafat told reporters that the Israeli government "is fully responsible for the attack."

"We are against such kinds of bombings, and never forget that the Israelis are completely behind it as it happened before," said Arafat.

And

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,10110776%255E912,00.html

The radical Palestinian group Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, linked to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's mainstream Fatah movement, claimed responsibility, saying the attack was in revenge for Israeli army operations in the West Bank city of Nablus in which the group's top city commander was killed.

"This says that we can reach every place, even when there is a fence," an Al-Aqsa spokesman said of the blast.

[drdon326]

6. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize....

couldn't tell the truth if you paid him.

[D-Notice]

7. Idea...

With these "terrorist attacks", in any country not just Israel/Palestine, the best thing to do is to look at who gains & who loses out...

I think it's v unlikely that a "Palestinian" group would attack Isreal after Friday's news, as it would only be used (and in fact Sharon has already used it) as an excuse to keep the wall up. Therefore, we can discount the Palestinians as being responsible.

The only people who seem to have gained are the Israeli govt - so it seems quite likely that Mossad/Shin Bet are to blame for this incident

After all, we know that govt's in other countries (e.g. USA) use "terrorist" incidents to justify their actions, so why wouldn't the Israelis?

[drdon326]

8. Please tell me you're joking .

you think israel planted a bomb to kill its own people
for propaganda purposes.

i'm physically dizzy.

[D-Notice]

9. Well...

You have to admit the timing is suspicious...

After the judgement was announced, I was speaking to a friend & I said "Well there'll be a so-called Palestinian suicide bomb in the next few days, to justify the Israeli actions". She thought I was being paranoid, unfortunately, I was proven right. :-(

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberal Classic]

11. Did you see this bit?

I think it's v unlikely that a "Palestinian" group would attack Isreal after Friday's news, as it would only be used (and in fact Sharon has already used it) as an excuse to keep the wall up. Therefore, we can discount the Palestinians as being responsible.

Do you see this report?

The radical Palestinian group Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, linked to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's mainstream Fatah movement, claimed responsibility, saying the attack was in revenge for Israeli army operations in the West Bank city of Nablus in which the group's top city commander was killed.

"This says that we can reach every place, even when there is a fence," an Al-Aqsa spokesman said of the blast.

Several sources have also reported that this group is claiming responsibility for the bombing.

Can we still discount the Palestinians as being responsible so easily?

The only people who seem to have gained are the Israeli govt - so it seems quite likely that Mossad/Shin Bet are to blame for this incident

At the risk of making understatement, I do not agree with your assessment. Do extremist movements not see any benefit in terms of notoriety and reputation when they successfully carry out bombings such as this? Do the same sort of extremists not see any benefit in killing the objects of their hatred? Of course they do.

After all, we know that govt's in other countries (e.g. USA) use "terrorist" incidents to justify their actions, so why wouldn't the Israelis?

How far does one go in suggesting Israel's government orchestrates terror attacks against its own people? Seems to be a slippery slope here. Are you suggesting that the U.S. government orchestrated the World Trade Center attacks?

[D-Notice]

28. Have you seen this?

Seems quite a detailed breakdown? Xymphora

[Forkboy]

10. Who knows anymore

both sides have sunk so fucking low I wouldn't trust any of them to go to the store to get me peanut butter.

[Aidoneus]

13. the old man, as per his usual, seems a slight bit off here

There are many underground criminal gangs there, that are of a wholly Jewish nature, that seem instead a possible culprit. It does not receive the same press, naturally, but many explosions and assassinations are carried out by a variety of local "mafia" organizations. If memory serves me correctly, there was some concern of this coming out of Lapid's office a few months ago..

There is also the matter of militant organizations among the Jewish colonists in the '67-occupied lands that are none-too-pleased at the recent talk regarding their future status. They have shown themselves quite prone to violence in their rampages against their Palestinian neighbors, and have stated that they consider Jews in favour of their abandonement to be apostates and traitors (which is really just shorthand among the particularly devoted of any institutionalized idea--ranging from Judaism to Scientology--for "people we plan to kill").

These are but two possible ideas, and there are others.

There was an anonymous call from some branch of the Kata`ib al-Aqsa that claims responsibility, with two reasons cited:--a demonstration towards the inability of the apartheid wall to prevent such matters, and as a retaliation to the most recent aggressions carried by the Zionist state's armed forces in the occupied Palestinian lands.

The idea of the forces of the Zionist state itself carrying out this seems unlikely to me, though the timing may seem peculiar enough to have it suggested anyway (though I doubt too much impetus is really needed for somebody somewhere to bring it up).

[Proudlib]

14. What Part....

...of Fatah's Al Asqua Brigades taking responsibility do some people here not understand?

What Israel gets blamed for is comical.

What's next, Israel blamed for Mary Kate Olson's eating disorder?

[Forkboy]

15. Well if it wasn't for that Seperation Bun

she could have eaten that Kosher hot dog!

[Aidoneus]

16. I could've called in to take credit for it

In fact, I might have.. I'll have to check my cell phone records when the bill comes in.

It may seem strange, but the one fatality from this event was an IDF officer of military-age. Any Palestinian with a similar profile is considered by the Zionist state as a combatant at the least, or a "suspected terrorist". If such a coincidence had aligned itself following a helicopter's missile striking a vehicle in Rafah or Nablus, it would be called an "anti-terror operation" with "collateral damage" applied to anybody nearby. The flag of the affected changes the terminology so much!--it is difficult to keep up, sometimes.

MKO's eating disorder was probably due to the cocaine habit. Much as my secret Hitlerian upbringing would lead me to incline towards blaming the Jews for such a matter, I'm not aware of organizations from within the Zionist state that are trafficking in cocaine.. blood diamonds & ecstasy--yes, cocaine--no. Perhaps that Colombian drug boss the Cubans just busted had a hand in it? We must get to the bottom of this!

[Proudlib]

17. Cute, But No Cigar

The bottom line is that al-Asqua took responsibility according the PA security forces. Period. They did it.

But nahhhhhh, blame Israel somehow someway anway. If shirking the responsibility for an attack al-Asqua admits to doing off on Israel makes you feel better, go for it. I won't stand in the way. I like to see people happy. But here on Planet Reality, when the PA says that a Palestinian group is responsible, that means it ain't Israel's fault.

This thread is simply proving the statement that our capacity for self-delusion is unlimited.

[Aidoneus]

18. do you have a source for their call besides Army Radio?

I see the reference, but it keeps coming back to as a source to them. I don't typically rely on what the IDF has to say.

Where does the PA say anything? Arafat immediately condemned the blast (as he always does), and suggests Jabba's crew was behind it..

You might be interested in hearing what Annan (aka Amir Satan of the UN's Elite Army Of Jewhaters) had to say of this, though it may create a fatally cognitive dissonance and might be better off unacknowledged.

As an aside, you should note above the phrase "seems unlikely to me" before going off half-cocked on the "blame Israel" line to me..

As a second aside.. al-Aqsa is not so much the "armed wing" of Fatah, that is rather the Tanzim--units put together originally to fight Hamas & Kataib al-Qassam, back when Arafat looked so eager to please his new masters in exchange for crumbs off their plates. The al-Aqsa brigades (by now many splinters) formed below the old man's realm of control, part in response to his very complacency and collaboration with the enemy, and remain at best outside the sphere of his ever dwindling influence.

[Liberal Classic]

19. Jabba's crew?

Good heavens.

[Proudlib]

20. By Saying...

...it is "unlikely" still means that you think there was still a chance the Israel would willingly murder her own civilians, even if it was a small chance.

How you can think, even for a split second, that Israel would deliberately murder her own people to make a political statement is beyond me. Rather than denounce this murder and the real perpetrators in no uncertain terms, you chose to engage in debate tactics.

It's threads like this that convince me that some people here by their rhetoric have far more sympathy for the Palestinian terrorist organizations and their members than the innocent civilians they routinely murder in the most barbaric fashion they can think of on a given day.

I'm done with you.

[Aidoneus]

21. You should know how my mind works for that to be put in its proper place

I essentially think uniformly quite low of people in the position such as the Zionist state's ruling government, or of Arafat himself, or Mr.Putin (though strangely enough, I like him on some matters almost as much as I despise him on another), those guys in Burma changing the name of their country in a conspiracy against maps made previously, the rulers of Peru (whoever they are), of course the thieving jackals that haunt Washington DC, etc.. just to be safe, I tend not to theorhetically leave anything out of the question for such people. I tend not to be disappointed in the low estimations on such matters and don't see any reason why I may in the future begin to be so.

Even so, for me to write "seems unlikely to me" here means I had not considered it and don't think it as a good suggestion, though I suppose it is still somehow possible if quite doubtfully so.

Of repetitive note, the dead in this case was a member of a militant organization known to engage routinely in violent activities. As for my own thoughts on the act, I tend to disapprove of such acts as this, indeed this as well in particular (no less so despite pointing out twice so far that the dead is in fact a combatant by the very definition of the state & military she is a part of), but I don't dance on command on such or any matters.

I do not stand beside you, so your suspicions are not entirely unfounded. That said, I see no reason for this discussion to end.

[bemildred]

22. Yeah, why should one armed gang of thugs be different from the others,

lacking any evidence to the contrary? And Jabba certainly has
no history at all of trying to calm things down. They don't
call him bulldozer because of his Gandhi-like restraint.

It's sort of interesting right now with the IJC decision. It
threw a monkeywrench into all the old rhetorical bullshit and
you can see the wheels turning looking for a new slant.

I do think the idea that it might be some sort of private hit
needs further examination. If it was, and I did it, the first
thing I would do is place a call taking credit for it in the name
of al Aqsa or the like.
:thumbsup:

[Proudlib]

23. The Person Killed

Was a woman riding a bus. The bus was deliberately targeted so as to kill as many Israelis on board, "combatant" or not, as possible. That one person was killed and only 20 wounded is more a statement on the effectiveness of the tactics of the perpetrators not their sense of justice. Given the choice, the perpetrators would have rather had 20 dead (civilians, non-civilians-what do they care?) and one wounded and never forget that.

The fact that you consistantly refer to the dead woman as a "combatant" is an act of indirectly justifying the attack.

"Even so, for me to write "seems unlikely to me" here means I had not considered it and don't think it as a good suggestion, though I suppose it is still somehow possible if quite doubtfully so."

Fair enough.

But your seeming lack of outrage ("I tend to disapprove"-wow that was strong progressive statement) over an attack designed to murder as many innocent people as possible and haste to resort to nitpick debate tactics skews my perception.

One other thing, simply because I don't post much doesn't mean I don't lurk. I've read enough posts in enough threads and I've seen far more obfuscations, justifications, and outright defenses of the terrorists' actions on your part than condemnation and outrage over the murders they commit or sympathy for the families of their victims. Sorry, that's what I read here.

And with that I'm done.

[drdon326]

24. Proudlib...

how the hell are you??

enjoying i/p,are you??

[Proudlib]

25. I'm Worried Sick

The whole Mary Kate is really getting to me.

I bet she was so upset over the Peace Fence and how brutal, awful, and terrible it is that she couldn't eat.

So it's all Israel's fault.

As usual.

[Aidoneus]

26. I'm glad that you read my writings here

I don't doubt that mass murder was the intent; such is one reason for my disapproval on the matter. If the call of responsibility is to be believed, it was a similar act that was cited as a provocation. Or if they wanted to, the case of a pregnant woman on the street being gunned down by the invaders may be cited in a week or two after the next such as this occurs. I don't see where this mirror game is going (it seems to have exhausted itself already), so I'll move on.

Though I suppose it is not impossible, I find it hard to believe that I would try to justify something I do not approve of. But then, what do I know?--perhaps you know me better than I do.. Though if I may offer a bit of advice from my somewhat unique vantage point, I would instead suggest that I am there sending the frisbee back to where it often flies from. When the argument flies from this other direction, there is in fact then no hesitation or complications when doing so as there is in my case.

The phrase "I tend to disapprove" line refers specifically to the use of human-bombs and other similar techniques inside "Green Line" cities. The tendency there is towards being results I do not approve of, though there have been certain particulars (I would have to research the matter again to speak in more detail) that such was not the case. To speak in exact terms, which is what I try to do to the best of my abilities, I say "tend to disapprove" to suggest the fact that while on the whole I am not waving my pompoms in glee after such an event, 100% is not the case (though the opposite itself may not be true in these other cases). Thus it is as good a phrase as I can manage while still retaining honesty. But as I said, I am not one to dance on cue.

You have probably observed me properly, though there may be some individual points I would contest if this was pursued further.

I would not like to see this end here, though I will be away for a few hours and then away for a time after that (new Huxley CDR to chew on before sleep); perhaps tomorrow? You said it was the end last time, and yet replied again, so I will assume flexibility.

[tinnypriv]

27. Actually, you should probably drop "Fatah"

Or at least say Fatah-offshoot.

To quote Kol Israel:

"The Al-Aksa Brigades do not listen to any authority. They do not accept authority from Fatah. I've met some of them in Balata. They are not ideological. They act for financial reasons." ¹

-----

1. Heb translation, Avi Issaharof, Palestinian correspondent for Kol Israel (Voice of Israel), 8am report on Channel B, July 11 2004.