Talk:AMIA Bombing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management.
This article is a part of the WikiProject on Terrorism, which aims to provide detailed accounts of the individuals who have engaged in terrorism, shaping the world irrevocably over the past thirty years. If this interests you, you are invited to look over, or join our efforts

Contents

[edit] ''''''Who did this bombing?''''''

As I am 100 per cent sure that it is not Hizballah who was responsible of this bombing, I am 100 per cent sure that it is the Israeli secret service which was behind it. The Israeli secret service was responsable for many bombings that were targetting Jewish of the Diaspora in order to force them to leave their native country and go and live in Palestine or what was known as the occupied territories. What confirms this idea is that the Isareali army was at that time in a war against the lebanes people under the pretext of fighting the palestinian representative who were forced to leave their country and stay in Lebanon prior to that time. And as investigation does not allude to anybody as a suspect number one, so I guess that this allegation of implicating a clean handed party is baseless if not ridiculous. Hizballah party was created to defend its own territory and not to cross thousands of miles and bomb a Holy religious center. This party has many of its members from non-muslims who adhered to its values because they sure that what they are doing is nothing but defending their country from foreign countries that wanted nothing but to play with its security. 137.165.28.120 02:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Anis Al yacine.

  • Nobody discards any theories.. this article IS a stub, the AMIA case is huge, there are many hypothesis. By the way. the Argentine government has reckognized publicly that it covered clues and never helped the investigation. Probably a state secret; there must be a reason why. Feel free to edit; but remain neutral and unbiased, add a theories section, etc. --San Marcos 00:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I am 100% sure that you are insane Drsmoo 21:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. If you can't help the discussion with facts, stay out of it. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Please no Salomonic decisions either. Perhaps Drsmoo didn't expressed himself the best way. but the statement by 137.165.28.120 is a complete bunch of un-encyclopedic crap not worthy of being mentioned here and should be removed to discourage flames and useless arguments. --Pinnecco 08:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what about the nazi involvement in the bombing.

I just watch a show on the history channel that talked about nazi connection to the bombing. The show was dead men's secrets. Because the jewish community was getting close to the secrets of that county connections with the nazi. Why the first thing that happen to the jewish community the USA and those country first say it's the muslim. Check out the show and let me know what's up. August 6, 2006

  • There is no indication at all on the judicial investigation of neo-nazi ties other than the unsubstantiated claims of Carapintada group involvement. Argentina has an international reputation of being close to the Nazis, it is reasonable for it to be tied to the anti semitic bombings, however, I have seen the documentary (I believe, it talks about peron, and only shows the amia bombing once at the beginning), and it provides no evidence. It was more of a "show". --San Marcos 07:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Wait a sec, you can't say that "Argentina has an international reputation of being close to the Nazis", just because some of them fled to Argentina. Argentineans might have many international reputations (<grin>) but being Nazi-friends is not one of them. --Pinnecco 08:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Pinecco, I have traveled in many countries, and the issue always comes up with well educated people. The capture of Eichamn and his final words before execution did not help. Anyways, that is not the issue at discussion here. There is no evidence at all of nazi involvment. I suggest you watch "Oro Nazi en la Argentina", there is a part published online in ifilm.com --San Marcos 03:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Sanmarcos, the scope of your argument is flawed. You don't need t suggest me anything, because when you said above that "there is no evidence at all of nazi involvement", you are in fact, agreeing with my argument that the argument above is a unsubstantiated claim. I did watched several documentaries concerning Nazis in the Riverplace region, as I have a personal interest in the matter since I lived in Montevideo and I personally know counterinteligence official involved in the Graffspee episode (David Silverbaum - AKA Rolf Weinberg). --Pinnecco 11:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Terrorism in the Triple Frontera

I just edited the article and deleted a half-sentence saying that there was no evidence for islamic terrorists operating in Latin America.

As one of the previous editors already noted: [The New Yorker article IN THE PARTY OF GOD Hezbollah sets up operations in South America and the United States by JEFFREY GOLDBERG, Issue of 2002-10-28 casts grave doubt on this assertion]

Here is the link:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/021028fa_fact2


Those who don't read Spanish will have to trust me on this one, but this article contradicts the "evidence". A former SIDE head of Anti-Terrorism says:

"The truth is that no terrorist, bomb or training camp of any fundamentalist organization were ever detected in the Triple Frontier. This was always a ghost (sic) stirred by a faction of the U.S. government, and that view was and is rejected, absolutely and in the first place by the Brazilian intelligence, and more timidly by our[s]. And the fact is that neither through formal ways nor informal ways have the U.S. been able to show any proof. Moreover, the State Department put in writing, in the last two meetings held in Washington and Brasilia, that there is no terrorist activitiy in the Triple Frontier. There is, to be sure, an intense Islamic religious activity which translates into collection of money for the Arab cause. And undoubtedly a percentage [of this] goes to Hezbollah, the PLO or Hamas. These are not terrorist organizations for them, and neither are they for U.S. or European banks, because the money is transferred through those banks."

Published in Página/12, 20 August 2006

I may comment also that the feeling in Argentina is that the U.S. is trying to get into the region and that the story of terrorist cells is largely made up to justify this, taking advantage of the well-deserved reputation of the TF as a lawless place and the presence of a large Arab community. The above basically confirms that this is not paranoid Argentine anti-Americanism. I suggest we take official sources and more to-the-point research articles, and that we clarify this issue. Mentioning "terrorist cells in the Triple Frontier" is clearly wrong. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism

Anti-semites are posting things about how jews should die on this page. Can someone put a lock on it or something?


[edit] BBC Article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6089788.stm In case anyone feels like integrating it, some good stuff.

[edit] Evidence and Rhetoric

I am quite disappointed that most of the news bits I read on the subject contain only a war of words, I've seen nobody put down any facts about what led the investigation to blame specifically Hezbollah and the Iranian government. They merely say that these conclusions were made with help from american agencies, which does not add much to the credibility of these conclusions given the current diplomatic state between the USA and Iran. What are the facts? Has anybody seen the investigation report? I think that would add to the informational value of this article rather than wild theories about the how evil the Mossad is or Nazi ghost agents. fmeneguzzi 11:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! It hard to believe that you can investigate the debris from a bombing in Argentina and conclude from that that Rafsanjani ordered the bombing in Teheran! You would at least need to have access to Iranian documents, interview Iranian officials under oath etc. to be able to draw such conclusions. Compare e.g. the Hariri investigation. Also as you can read here, the Argentinians did accuse an Iranian before when they didn't have the necessary evidence.
Of course, the Argentinians rely heavily on "evidence" from the Mossad, CIA, FBI etc. They, of course, know exactly what the Iranians and Hezbollah were doing. Israel wasn't at all surprised by the strength of Hezhbollah in the recent Lebanon war because they know so much. And Saddam's WMD was found exactly where Rumsfeld said it was. :) Count Iblis 13:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone censoring the fact that prosecutor Alberto Nisman is Jewish

For some reason, user Isariq, edited out the fact that the lead prosecutor, Alberto Nisman, is Jewish. It is cited to a credible source and so I think it should stay. 75.17.183.177 04:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

what relevance does the alleged Jewishness of the lead prosecutor have to do with the article? Other than to push the POV that it is religiously motivated, that is?Isarig 06:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, how dare you decide that you have the authority to decide what is and isn't relevant on Wikipedia. You are nothing more than someone with enough free time on your hands that you can spend hours a day censoring articles. Second, in case you have been in a cave, there is currently a global dispute between Iranians and Jewish people. The prosecutor's religion could have very likely played a role in his discretionary decision. Even if it didn't play a role, there is no need to censor that information. I don't want to waste my time disputing this with you further. Please call a responsible Wikipedia moderator. --75.17.183.177 07:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. 75.17.183.177 is copying and pasting from his rants from Talk:Hezbollah in which he used the same tactic on the Hezbollah page as he's using here. Two can play at that game:
This may come as a surprise to people familiar with my work on Wikipedia, but I support the publishing of Alberto Nisman's religion. It is cited and I have no reason to challenge the reliability of the source or accuracy of the statement. On the other hand, to ensure NPOV, if we include information about one of the prosecuter's religion, we must include information about all of the prosecuters' religions. The entire statement from "The Jewish Week" that 75.17.183.177 refers to reads: "Nisman, who is Jewish, and [Marcelo Martinez] Burgos, who isn’t, oversee a staff of some 45 people ...."[17] If we do not include the religion of Burgos and the fact that 45 people work for them (and let's be honest, most of those people are probably Roman Catholic), we would be distoring the truth slightly implying that only a Jew would come to the conclusion that Hezbollah is responsible for the AMIA bombing, or, in the words of 75.17.183.177, that "a Jewish person in authority might use his discretionary power to target Muslims and Iranians."
P.S. Mr. 75.17.183.177, am I correct in assuming that you believe in a tangible link between Hezbollah and "Iranians?" :) --GHcool 08:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll keep the talk on the Hezbollah page. --75.17.183.177 09:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I made the following entry in Wikipedia's request for unprotection page [1].

There has been an endless edit war between pro-Israeli censors and other users regarding disclosure of the fact that an Argentine prosecutor, who filed charges against various Muslims for a 12 year old event, is Jewish. I think this is relevant information because it may indicate that the prosecutor's discretionary decision was motivated by his religion. As anyone knows, the world is currently embroiled in a war between Muslims and Jews. Knowing the religious affiliation of a person can be very important to understanding why he did what he did. Unfortunately, a group of pro-Israel censors (their affiliation is clear from their edit history) refuses to allows the publication of the fact that the prosecutor is Jewish, even though it is well cited [2]. First they claimed it was irrelevant. They gave themselves, and not the readers, the authority to decide what is and isn't relevant. Then they claimed that he wasn't the prosecutor and was only working as part of a team. A quick google search of Alberto Nisman [3] reveals that he is the lead prosecutor. He runs the team and he is the sole prosecutor listed in all of the mainstream articles. Then they claimed that Jewish week isn't a respectable news source. They had the nerve to attack the reporter's (Larry Luxner) journalism! Then one of the pro-Israeli censors accused me of racism and banned my IP, simply for daring to suggest that a Jewish person's religion might have something to do with the discretionary decisions he makes towards Muslims! Their actions have now reached the height of intellectual dishonesty. Rather than disclose the information and let readers decide if it's relevant, they want to hide it, and deny the readers the ability to think for themselves. Please correct the articles under "hezbollah", "AMIA bombing" and "Rafsanjani" to add four simple words disclosing the fact that the lead prosecutor is Jewish. Please keep wikipedia as an objective source of information, and not a tool controlled by a mob of pro-Israel censors.." Although pro-Israeli censors seemingly dominate wikipedia (I seriously wonder if some of them are paid), they do not dominate the world and Wikipedia will be less relevant if it only presents facts they like. Alternatively, please set up an Alberto Nisman article and provide a biography of his life and accomplishments, and like every other biography article, disclose his religion. Your prompt and fair attention to this matter is appreciated. Footnote - The pro-Israeli censors are listed below. Their affiliation is clear from their edit history and user pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Isarig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Humus_sapiens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GHcool http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amoruso http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg

--75.5.1.216 18:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

More copy and paste games ...
It looks like 75.5.1.216's request was declined, but let's get the order of events clear:
  1. 75.17.183.177 accused well-meaning Wikipedias of censorship.
  2. Those Wikipedians challenged the relevance of Nisman's religion to the article on Hezbollah.
  3. 75.17.183.177 argued that Nisman's religion may have swayed him to "target Muslims and Iranians" because "there is currently a global dispute between Iranians and Jewish people."
  4. I, GHcool, offered a fair, NPOV compromise to the problem: we should inform the public on Nisman's religion if and only if we include the religious affiliations of the other prosecuters as well.
  5. 75.17.183.177 argued that Nisman was the lead prosecuter and implied that therefore his religion is more important to the article than all of the other prosecuters' religions.
  6. SlimVirgin, a neutral Wikipedian, agreed with Beit Or other like minds that Nisman's religion is irrelevent to the article on Hezbollah. She suggested that 75.17.183.177 find a "reliable source who discusses it and argues that it's relevant (but even then we'd have to be careful)."
  7. 75.17.183.177 misunderstood (intentionally or unintentionally) SlimVirgin's suggestion to mean that his source that told Nisman's religion, "The Jewish Week," was an unreliable source.
  8. 75.17.183.177 filed a complaint with the folks at the Wikipedia unprotection page.
  9. That complaint was rejected. Long live NPOV.

--GHcool 19:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I made a statement in the arbitration complaint against your mob. I was not surprised that someone had previously filed a complaint against you. I also thank God that my existence is not so devious that I have to spend my days censoring information. Enjoy your misery as your efforts are largely futile. The real world thinks for themselves. Edit: Now the pro-Israel mob is deleting comments? You are a disgrace to free thought. --75.5.2.227 20:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I strongly object to the inclusion of the prosecutor's religion, and I am not connected with any of the editors mentioned. No evidence is offered that the religion of one of the prosecutors played any role in the accusation, which Mr. Nisman did not make alone; including this information is an attempt to insinuate that it did play a role by means of inflammatory innuendo. I note no mention of prosecutors' hair colours or shoe sizes either. They are not included because they are not relevant. Editors decide to exclude irrelevant information all the time. This activity is called editing, not censorship. If someone wrote, "Nisman, who wears a size nine shoe...", I would support removing that as well.
That said, should any editor locate a reliable source for the assertion that the accusation was influenced by the fact the prosecutors' shoes pinch or by their envy of natural blondes or, indeed, by the fact(?) that one of the prosecutors is Jewish, let him or her please feel free to bring it forward for discussion. Until that case is made, there is no basis for including such information.
By the way, the assertion that "the world is currently embroiled in a war between Muslims and Jews" is ugly and repellent -- and defames both groups.
--Rrburke 20:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of prefer to live in an intellectually honest world. Your claim that a person's religion plays no role in the discretionary actions they take, and that the world is not embroiled in a war between Jews and Muslims, indicates that you are simply not in touch with reality. That's your choice, but you shouldn't try to censor information from people who like to be aware. --75.5.2.227 20:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Anon, what you are doing is called poisoning the well. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Intellectual honesty never poisons the well. Let people look at all the facts and come to their own conclusions. You can't force your position on people by censoring information. People have free will. --75.5.2.227 20:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
What an appropriate metaphor, Humus sapiens. Whether or not you realize it, you have created a historical pun. See Well poisoning.  ;) --GHcool 20:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, my arbitration request was deleted. User Jayjg (his edit history is replete with pro-Israel wikipedia censorship) deemed the addition of Nisman's religion racist and banned me. Further, user Thatcher131 deemed that since I had been banned, I would not be given an arbitration request. So now it is impossible to even get a hearing on whether this information should be included. This whole affair is really beyond sad and is an indication that pro-Israeli censors are not interested in truth, but are rather interested in imposing their will. Having now dealt with you first hand, I am no longer confused as to why most of the civilized world holds a negative view of Israel and Israelis. May fate continue to justly bring misery to your oppressive lives, and may you waste your weeks futilely attempting to control people's thoughts. I can think of no better prison for someone as loathsome as you. --75.28.17.156 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You should've calmly discussed a bit more before running to get an arbitration committee. I don't think that Nisman's religion is decisive. In Argentina some Jewish media, persons and groups have criticized Nisman's dictamen, and one of them has stated it's a plain fraud. APEMIA's spokesperson Laura Ginsberg said that Prosecutor Nisman's plea is just another scam and has raised doubts about Hezbollah's or Iran's responsibility. A very critic editorial posted on Nueva Sion (New Zion) remarks that basically the same arrest warrants had been issued on 2003 and that there are no new evidences since then. Journalist Raúl Kollmann (The mysteries of AMIA) has also questioned the credibility of the accusations against Iran. Either Jewish and non Jewish mainstream media have raised similar doubts (see also A question of faith, not evidence, by J. Urien Berri). Unlike Nisman's religion or affiliation, these doubts are relevant and worth mentioning in the article. --Filius Rosadis 21:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well you're clearly and intelligent and well read person and should probably contribute to an article on this topic. I for one, thank God, have better things to do than to waste my life getting into edit wars with Israeli censors. --75.28.17.156 22:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

To 75.28.17.156: Blocks are temporary. When yours expires, you may do as you please. Wikipedia's guidelines for dispute resolution are quite clear and detailed. But until the the block expires, your posting under a different ID is a violation of the Wikipedia sockpuppetry policy, which prohibits a user from evading a block by using a different ID. --Rrburke 22:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cavallo's report

The report from Argentine party Accion por la Republica, led by ex-Minister Cavallo about the Israeli Embassy and the AMIA bombing should be at least commented here. It offers a plausible theory of who could be responsible for the attacks, how they were made and why. The link for the report is: [2]. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.74.5.111 (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Rm infobox

I removed the box, it is too simplist. The case is far from being clear, and at any cases investigations have not reach any definitive conclusion. Convictions have not been made. In other words, it is too early, and we can't go just on a hunch. Assuming Iran and Hezbollah are responsible for the bombing (something for which no one has proof - unless you think presumption of innocence was a moral, political and juridical principle that we don't need any more), "anti-Zionism" as motive is quite shallow. Iran nuclear program is a more serious motive, but it has also been put in doubt. Let's wait for convictions before making definitive statements. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Tazmaniacs 01:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

How about having the info box with Perps: Unknown (see article)? Hypnosadist 01:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
But then why have it, if it's to say "unknown" for two categories? I know the boxes are supposed to allow a quick look at the matter, but do you really think people should be allowed to be so lazy that they want information without reading? And all the most important info can be resumed in the first three sentences, can't it? By the way, Hypno, I'm sure you would leave a comment on Talk:Collaboration during World War II... Tazmaniacs
I understand what you say about the infobox but they make wikipedia look much more professional, and also provide a continuity between terrorism articles. Hypnosadist 15:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/m/i/Talk%7EAMIA_Bombing_2e26.html"