Jewish minister behind 1994 Argentine Synagogue bombing?

[Keith Mothersson]

www.iransolidarity.endofempire.org

The Argentinian judicial authority rules out Islamic lead
Washington wants to rewrite the story of the Buenos Aires terror attacks.

By Thierry Meyssan- Voltairenet.org, translated by Colin Buchanan

The US would like to exploit the memory of the terror attacks in Buenos
Aires of 1992 and 1994 to bolster their dossier against Shia Muslims. Most sources continue to attribute these massacres to Hezbollah or Iran. But these accusations have fizzled out and , meanwhile the Argentinian Justice Department is following up an Israeli connection. Immediately, Washington is pressing to halt an investigation which is becoming embarrassing.( See full-story below)

To bolster its case against the "Shiite crescent" (Iran, Syria and
Hezbollah), Washington has decided to add to the dossier the terror attacks carried out in Buenos Aires in the early nineties. It is generally accepted in the Anglo-American sphere that these attacks were the work of Muslim terrorists.

Meanwhile, this version of events has been dismissed by the Argentinian
supreme court which is now following up an Israeli connection. The
neo-conservatives have, therefore, mounted a damage limitation exercise. Following a meeting in Washington in May 2006 at which two senior judges from Buenos Aires were present, strong pressure was applied against both the Argentinian government and judicial authorities. In response, a group of Argentinian citizens lead by Dr. Oscar Abduri-Bini has issued a legal indictment before the Buenos Aires High Court against the American Jewish Committee and the prosecutors Nissman and Martinez Burgos for obstruction of justice.

To understand what is behind this polemic, let's recall those terrorist
attacks. On the 17th march, 1992 a powerful explosion destroyed the Israeli Embassy in Buenis Aires a seriously damaged an adjacent Catholic church and school. 19 people were killed and 242 were injured.

In the first instance, the enquiry leant towards an Islamic connection.
Apparently, the attack had been carried out by a Palestinian suicide bomber driving a van stuffed with explosives. He allegedly belonged to Islamic Jihad and wished to avenge the assassination by Israel of the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Sheik Abbas Al-Musawi and his family. It is claimed that the operation was prepared by a group of Pakistanis and coordinated by Moshen Rabbani, the cultural attaché at the Iranian Embassy. The latter was subsequently arrested some years later in Germany but released due to lack of evidence.

On July 18th 1994, a second explosion devasted the AIMA ( The
Israeli-Argentinian Mutual Association) building, killing 85 and wounding
300.

This enquiry alos favoured the Islamic hypothesis. It was alleged that it
was carried out by Ibrahim Hussein Berro, 29, a suicide bomber driving a car full of explosives. A few years later, an arrest warrant was issued aginst Imad Mugniyah, a member of Hezbollah in Lebanon ; then the former Iranian embassador to Argentina, Hade Soleimanpour was arrested in the UK and released due to lack of evidence.

All these allegations have been repeated for years in various publications
as being definitive conclusions.. However, none of it has ever been
confirmed. What is worse, the investigation has gradually discredited the
version which Israeli and US sources had encouraged them to adopt, to arrive at radically different hypothesis according to which the two bombings were carried out by Israeli agents to counter the anti-Zionism of the Argentinian Jewish community. The contradictions and hesitations within the enquiry have to be understood within the context of the developing political situation inside Argentina which has seen a succession of revolutions and changes of government. To this day there is no definitive judgement on who was behind the bombings, each party being able to choose the conclusion which most suites them backed by one or other thread within the investigation.

Whatever the case may be, the least that can be said is that the Islamic hypothesis no longer holds water and that the neo-conservatives are doing everything in their power not just to obstruct the investigation, but to bury it definitively. The investigating judge Alfredo Horacio Bisordi has testified under oath, behind closed doors, before a parliamentary commission of enquiry concerning the the first terrorist attack. Voltaire Network has been able to obtain a transcription of this hearing.

According to Bisordi, police commissioner Meni Battaglia lead the enquiry
into the embassy bombing. He was seconded, in an unofficial capacity, by an unidentified Green Beret from the US embassy and by the head of security at the Israeli Embassy, Ronnie Gornie, both of whom supposedly had long experience investigating this type of terrorist attack in the Middle-East. At the advice of these "experts", the commissioner immediately adopted the Islamic hypothesis of a car bombing and claimed to have found the scatterd remains of the engine of a Ford 100.

It was not possible to establish the exact casualty list of the bombings
since it turned out that the list of accredited Israeli diplomats didn't
correspond to that of the actual embassy personnel and this anomaly couldn't be explained. Commissioner Battaglia opposed Judge Bisordi's wish to hold autopsies claiming that this would provide no new evidence. The judge insisting, the Chief Rabbi of Argentina in turn voiced his opposition claiming that, for the Jews, this would be a profanation of the dead. There was no autopsy.

The judge questioned two aspects of the case : why wait until the embassy was empty before attacking when a a hundred Jewish dignitaries were about to be received at the embassy with great ceremony? And why use a suicide bomber when a car bomb would have been sufficient.

Showing more and more skepticism about the version that was being imposed on him, he was visited by the director of the secret services(SIDE), Dr. Gerardo Conte who was under instructions to make him see reason.

Ever more suspicious, the judge burst unexpectedly into the police
commissariat during the interrogation of a key witness : a taxi driver who claimed to have taken a group of Muslims to the airport just before the explosion. They allegedly told him that it was necessary to get out of the area quickly before it turned into an inferno. The judge himself questioned the witness who believed he was dealing with someone as accommadating as the police. The taxi driver refused to give his identity and described himself as a loyal Israeli. He claimed to be a colonel in the Israeli Army and to have fought in the Six Day War.

The second enquiry reveals some equally edifying details such as an "Israeli police officer" who makes himself quite at home in Argentinian police stations and prisons, questions people outwith normal procedures and brings pressure to bear on witnesses. Asked to explain himself before an Argentinian court, he has disappeared. The Isreali government, after denying his existence, finally admitted he was one of their employees but refused to allow him to testify.

The supreme court met in private sessionto examine various espects of the conduct of the case. It formally accepted scientific findings which
established that, contrary to that which had been originally claimed, there were no car bombs driven by suicide bombers, but that, rather, the explosives had been placed in the buildings themselves, both the embassy and the AMIA.

Everything that had been claimed about the vehicles and their drivers was therefore deemed to be false. The day after this session, the spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires deplored these conclusions and accused the Supreme Court of anti-semitism.

A lot more independence and perseverance will be required by the Argentinian judicial authorites to elucidate completely this case.In the meantime, let's focus on certain aspects of the affair.

It is strange that 12 years are needed to establish that the explosives were in the building and that it was not a suicide car bomb. I would observe in passing that in the ongoing enquiry into the assassination of the Lebanese president Rafic Hariri, the hypothesis of car bomb which was taken as given by the UN special envoy Detlev Mehlis, is only a working hypothesis according to his successor.

For 14 years, numerous Western experts have based their work on terrorism on an interpretation of the Buenos Aires attacks which has turned out to be false.

It is lamentable to be able to assert that all the enquiries into the
terrorist attacks imputed to Muslims are inconclusive , whether it is a case of Buenos Aires, New York, Casablanca, Madrid or London. Although that doesn't prevent the neo-conservative governments and their "experts" from drawing sweeping conclusions.

The US has a habit of modifying retrospectively the perpetrators of
terrorist attacks against themselves according to their real or imagined
adversary of the moment. Now they are rewriting the history of other
peoples' terrorist attacks.

Finally, it is advisable to be vigilant with regard to warmongers who want to evoke the Buenos Aires attacks in order to categorize some or other group or government as "terrorist" and call for their eradication.


Final comment by keith:
Ian Crane has just reminded me that John O'Niell (FBI investigator, later killed on 9/11) in was taken off his investigation when he told a US ambassador in Yemen that his investigations were suggesting that the two US embassy bombings in East Africa and the attack on the USS Cole 'bore the hallmarks of Mossad' more than they did those of attacks by 'Islamists'.

Still this Argenitina evidence is noteworthy on two further counts: first it tends to vindicate the belief of David Shayler and Annie Machon that the 1994 bombing of their London bombing was by Israel itself, and not by the two Palestinian solidarity activists who were framed for it, and still languish in jail.

Second it tends to confirm the title of ex-BBC reporter Alan Hart's book: [i]Zionism the Enemy of the Jews[/i], as it is suggested that it could have been because Argentina's Jewish community was insufficiently Zionist that it was punished, and not for being Jewish.

[TRUTH]

Last week, (mid August 2006) a very serious event transpired at the Buenos Aires international airport which the local mainstream press did not however bring to the attention of the public. Today, Red Kalki, relying on reliable sources, brings this matter into the open.

On Wednesday 9th August 2006, Ezeiza airport police arrested an important Israeli diplomat carrying a considerable quantity of explosives. The Zionist representative was en route to Chile and was detained minutes before boarding a plane. Despite his protests, airport police arrested him and informed the Argentine interior ministry of the situation which ordered that the situation be contained.

Firstly, it should be noted that the airport police, all ex aeronautical military police, were previously under the control of the Defence ministry and military command. Since the 'Four winds' (drugs) scandal however, control of this unit has passed to political funcionaries of the Kirchner (Argentine President) government. For various reasons, the unit is experiencing serious problems, among which is the precarious nature of their job security caused by the many failures of their new bosses in the interior ministry of the Krichner government and the many conflicts between the two.

According to various airport sources, including the members of the airport security unit, a verbal argument erupted between members of the unit and and members of the Krichner government who wanted to free the Israeli diplomat because there was no precedent for this type of arrest, which included the implication that if anything were happen as a result of the release of the bomb-laden Israeli diplomat, the blame would fall on the airport security unit.

Towards the invention of a "third attack"

For years, various reporters and indepdendent researchers have been highlighting the false nature of the "attacks" on the Israeli embassy in Argentina and on the headquarters of AMIA (Argentine Israelite Mutual Association which was "truck bombed" in July 1997 and the blame placed on Hizb'allah)

For example, the online magazine "Libertad de opinion" conducted an exclusive investigation into the Israeli embassy truck bombing in Buenos Aires in July 1997 (blamed on Islamic Jihad) in which it revealed reports submitted to the Supreme Court by engineers who had studied the scene of the embassy bombing and who asserted that there was in fact no truck bomb, that the building was destroyed by an implosion from within the building and that a crater was created before hand to provide evidence for the claim by local Zionist organisations that a truck bomb was the cause.

In May of 1999, the print edition of the same magazine (Libertad de opinion) published another shocking article in which it revealed the clues and questions that led many investigators to dismiss the "Islamic terrorist" hypothesis and to conclude that the the previously mentioned AMIA bombing in July 1997 was also the result of an internal implosion, on this occasion caused by the detonation of a box full of explosives that had been sent to the AMIA building by an Israeli community in Cordoba.

Today, Red Kalki is publishing details of both events so that readers can analyse and come to their own conclusions.

We observe that, despite the powerful interests who attempted to silence these issues, the claims of the 'Libertad de opinion' publication have stood the test of time, to the extent that, today, those who were originally accused of the "attack" have been freed due to a lack of evidence, and instead the ex-judge and Zionist Galeano, the ex-president of the DAIA (Delegation of Israeli Associations of Argentina) and the well know Zionist conman and bank robber, Ruben Baraja, are instead being prosecuted, while employee of the Argentine daily paper Pagina/12 and peddler of Zionist lies, Raul Kollman, is also being investigated.

A few weeks after Israel initiated its new aggression against Palestine and Lebanon, the Delegation of Israeli Associations of Argentina (DAIA) and the Wiesenthal Center, again began to proclaim to the press that a "third attack" in Argentina was in preparation. At the same time, the White House and the Pentagon began to announce results of their supposed investigations over the "latent dangers" in the Tripe Frontier area (area where the borders of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay meet) from the presence of the sizable "Arab Islamic community" there, including the suggestion that "al-Qaeda fighters" were ensconsed there.

With the war in the Middle East already begun, and as Red Kalki explained in our analysis of the conflict, a phenomenon, unexpected by Israel, occurred in the form of a unanimous rejection by the European and Latin-American left of organised Zionism. At the same time, South American governments refused to support Israeli terrorist policies, some through conviction and others in order to not appear as allies of colonialism.

In the particular case of Argentina, large-scale demonstrations by the Arab community took place which provoked the anger of local Zionist representatives, to the point that members of the Olmert government sent missives to the DAIA and the AMIA requesting that, in order to show their absolute and unfailing loyalty to Israel, they travel to Israel to personally express their support for the Israeli policy of unbridled genocide.

From all of this, it became clear to the Israelis that their image had passed from that of the victim to the victimiser. They concluded that the peoples of the world no longer looked upon them with pity but with repulsion, and as such, the Israelis are now desperately seeking to find new ways to re-esablish their role as that of the victim, a role which has always served them well to justify the mafia-like patronage of the US and the US military invasions of Israel's neighbors.

According to sources, a dramatic "attack" is being planned for South America, in order to neutralise the growing rejection of Zionist barbarity among South American governments. During the recent conflict, no South American government desired to come out in favor of Israel, and likewise, none wanted to openly criticise Hizb'allah. Given the existing conditions in the country and the militant awakening of the Argentine Islamic community, to the rest of the world a "third Islamic terror attack" in Argentina might appear quite credible. There also exists the possibility of such a 'false flag' attack in Chile where another large Palestinian community resides. Either of these two countries appear as likely targets, keeping in mind the recent news of the arrest of the bomb-laden Israeli diplomat en route to Chile.

The arrest of the diplomat set off alarm bells in the Casa Rosada (Argentina's 'White House'). Instead of making the arrest public and demanding explanations from Tel Aviv, The Kirchner government chose to maintain a disconcerting silence and allowed the days to pass. Rafael Eldad, Israeli ambassador to Argentina and self-declared Zionist fanatic who has had and has sons in the Israeli military, following instructions from the Israeli government, must surely have intervened in a shameless way in the matter of the arrest of the bomb-laden Israeli diplomat.

What will happen in upcoming months?

This is the important question that Argentine security forces are asking. After the Israeli diplomat debacle; will Tel Aviv call off or push forward with a similar "third attack"?

In the Zionist leadership, we notice something of a tendency towards an absolute loss of control caused by the fact that reality is not conforming to its nefarious plans. In an act of rage and impotence at not having achieved its military aims in Lebanon, in the last few days of the conflict, Israeli war planes dropped tons of bombs on Lebanese houses, hospitals, schools and religious temples, reaffirming in this way the genocidal policies of the Israeli invaders.

At the same time, the Zionist leadership in Argentina shares this irrational hatred and is totally subordinate to the directives of the Israeli government. Given this situation, intelligence analysts from various countries agree that it is very difficult to predict the exact nature of the Zionist plans for Argentina and its neighbors.

We hope that the Argentine government will finally do what must be done - reveal what happened at the airport; provide the complete details of the Israeli diplomat's identity; begin the necessary judicial investigation and demand immediate explanations from the Zionist regime in Israel. The Argentine government must also understand that to continue to cover up such matters, involves clearly forseeable risks to the security of the Argentine people and their country.

We at Red Kalki feel that we have done our duty in informing the citizenry.

Translated from the original by Joe Quinn for Signs of the Times.

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs20060914_IsraeliDi plomatCarryingLargeQuantityOfExplosivesArrestedInArgentina.php

[cem]

.

http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2010/10/iran-and-amia-bombing- in-argentina.html


Iran and AMIA bombing in Argentina

Iran Affairs, 15 October 2010


While you still occasionally read "news" reports claiming conclusively that Iran was behind the bombing of the Jewish centers in Argentina, no one bothers asking if there was sufficient evidence of that, then why did the UK courts release the former Iranian ambassador who was allegedly involved in it? More here:


More on the Iran Argentina bombing story

http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2009/08/more-on-the-iran-argen tina-bombing-story.html#tp


Iran's defense minister on Interpol list

http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2009/08/as-you-know-the-nomine e-for-irans-defense-minister-is-on-the-interpol-list-wanted-by-argenti na-for-questioning-regarding-th.html#tp


I got the text of the court decision below, which was a precursor to the eventual release of Iran's former ambassador to Argentina which occurred after Argentina was unable to provide sufficient evidence to support an extradition warrant against him:


Mr Hadi Soleimanpour: Order to Proceed

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/2003/nov/18/mr-hadi -soleimanpour-order-to-proceed


Britain denies extradition

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-11-13/news/0311130120_1_juan-j ose-galeano-jewish-center-bombing-hadi-soleimanpour


It makes for interesting reading.

[TonyGosling]

Jewish ex-Argentina minister faces probe in bombing
http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/jewish-ex-argentina-minis ter-faces-probe-in-bombing/

Carlos Vladimir Corach allegedly paid $400,000 to an auto mechanic who provided the car bomb that blew up AMIA Jewish center

ed note–So, an Argentine Jew is said to have paid off someone to bomb the AMIA Jewish Center in Buenos Aires in 1994 for which Iran was blamed. Argentina and Iran then sign a memorandum of understanding to open the case and investigate it and Jewish groups the world over are pissing their pants in the process?

We now know why.
JTA

The Jewish ex-interior minister of Argentina will be investigated for his ties to the AMIA Jewish center bombing.

The Buenos Aires Federal Appeals Court last week ordered the probe of Carlos Vladimir Corach in connection with an illegal payment of $400,000 to Carlos Telleldin, an auto mechanic who was among those charged in the 1994 attack that left 85 dead and hundreds wounded.

Telleldin, who allegedly provided the car bomb that blew up the Jewish center, has not been indicted.

The three Appeals Court justices called on Federal Judge Ariel Lijo to investigate “the existence of concrete allegations involving Carlos Vladimir Corach, which have not been investigated until now” regarding the illegal payment to Telleldin.

Corach was interior minister during the Carlos Menem government in the 1990s. He was responsible for obtaining the building for the Holocaust Museum of Buenos Aires and was the main speaker at its inauguration.

[TonyGosling]

Jewish ex-Argentina minister faces probe in bombing
Carlos Vladimir Corach allegedly paid $400,000 to an auto mechanic who provided the car bomb that blew up AMIA Jewish center
July 1, 2013, 2:16 am 3


The aftermath of the 1994 AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires (photo credit: Newspaper La Nación (Argentina)/Wikipedia Commons)
http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-ex-argentina-minister-faces-probe- in-bombing/

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (JTA) — The Jewish ex-interior minister of Argentina will be investigated for his ties to the AMIA Jewish center bombing.

The Buenos Aires Federal Appeals Court last week ordered the probe of Carlos Vladimir Corach in connection with an illegal payment of $400,000 to Carlos Telleldin, an auto mechanic who was among those charged in the 1994 attack that left 85 dead and hundreds wounded.

The three Appeals Court justices called on Federal Judge Ariel Lijo to investigate “the existence of concrete allegations involving Carlos Vladimir Corach, which have not been investigated until now” regarding the illegal payment to Telleldin.

Corach was interior minister during the Carlos Menem government in the 1990s. He was responsible for obtaining the building for the Holocaust Museum of Buenos Aires and was the main speaker at its inauguration.

[TonyGosling]

Pinning Argentine Bombing on Iran
By Gareth Porter August 8, 2013

“Defectors” are among the most unreliable intelligence sources since they have an obvious motive for discrediting their former governments, but still have been allowed outsized roles in whipping up hysteria against Iraq in 2003 and now against Iran, as Gareth Porter reports for Inter Press Service.
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/08/08/pinning-argentine-bombing-on-iran  /

Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman based his 2006 warrant for the arrest of top Iranian officials in the bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994 on the claims of representatives of the armed Iranian opposition Mujahedin E Khalq (MEK), the full text of the document reveals.

The central piece of evidence cited in Nisman’s original 900-page arrest warrant against seven senior Iranian leaders is an alleged Aug. 14, 1993 meeting of top Iranian leaders, including both Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and then president Hashemi Rafsanjani, at which Nisman claims the official decision was made to go ahead with the planning of the bombing of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA).


Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, former president of Iran. (Photo credit: Sajedi2013)


But the document, recently available in English for the first time, shows that his only sources for the claim were representatives of the MEK or People’s Mujahideen of Iran. The MEK has an unsavory history of terrorist bombings against civilian targets in Iran, as well as of serving as an Iraq-based mercenary army for Saddam Hussein’s forces during the Iran-Iraq War.

The organization was removed from the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist groups last year after a campaign by prominent former U.S. officials who had gotten large payments from pro-MEK groups and individuals to call for its “delisting”.

Nisman’s rambling and repetitious report cites statements by four members of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), which is the political arm of the MEK, as the sources for the charge that Iran decided on the AMIA bombing in August 1993.

The primary source is Reza Zakeri Kouchaksaraee, president of the Security and Intelligence Committee of the NCRI. The report quotes Kouchaksaraee as testifying to an Argentine Oral Court in 2003, “The decision was made by the Supreme National Security Council at a meeting that was held on 14 August, 1993. This meeting lasted only two hours from 4:30 to 6:30 pm.”

Nisman also quotes Hadi Roshanravani, a member of the International Affairs Committee of the NCRI, who claimed to know the same exact starting time of the meeting – 4:30 p.m. – but gave the date as Aug. 12, 1993 rather than Aug. 14.

Roshanravani also claimed to know the precise agenda of the meeting. The NCRI official said that three subjects were discussed: “The progress and assessment of the Palestinian Council; the strategy of exporting fundamentalism throughout the world; and the future of Iraq.” Roshanravani said “the idea for an attack in Argentina” had been discussed “during the dialogue on the second point”.

The NCRI/MEK was claiming that the Rafsanjani government had decided on a terrorist bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina as part of a policy of “exporting fundamentalism throughout the world”.

But that MEK propaganda line about the Iranian regime was contradicted by the U.S. intelligence assessment at the time. In its National Intelligence Estimate 34-91 on Iranian foreign policy, completed on Oct. 17, 1991, U.S. intelligence concluded that Rafsanjani had been “gradually turning away from the revolutionary excesses of the past decade … toward more conventional behavior” since taking over as president in 1989.

Ali Reza Ahmadi and Hamid Reza Eshagi, identified as “defectors” who were affiliated with NCRI, offered further corroboration of the testimony by the leading NCRI officials. Ahmadi was said by Nisman to have worked as an Iranian foreign service officer from 1981 to 1985. Eshagi is not otherwise identified.

Nisman quotes Ahmadi and Eshagi, who made only joint statements, as saying, “It was during a meeting held at 4:30 pm in August 1993 that the Supreme National Security Council decided to carry out activities in Argentina.”

Nisman does not cite any non-MEK source as claiming such a meeting took place. He cites court testimony by Abolghassem Mesbahi, a “defector” who had not worked for the Iranian intelligence agency since 1985, according to his own account, but only to the effect that the Iranian government made the decision on AMIA sometime in 1993. Mesbahi offered no evidence to support the claim.

Nisman repeatedly cites the same four NCRI members to document the alleged participation of each of the seven senior Iranians for whom he requested arrest warrants. A review of the entire document shows that Kouchaksaraee is cited by Nisman 29 times, Roshanravani 16 times and Ahmadi and Eshagi 16 times, always together making the same statement for a total of 61 references to their testimony.

Nisman cited no evidence or reason to believe that any of the MEK members were in a position to have known about such a high-level Iranian meeting. Although MEK propaganda has long claimed access to secrets, their information has been at best from low-level functionaries in the regime.

In using the testimony of the most violent opponents of the Iranian regime to accuse the most senior Iranian officials of having decided on the AMIA terrorist bombing, Nisman sought to deny the obvious political aim of all MEK information output of building support in the United States and Europe for the overthrow of the Iranian regime.

“The fact that the individuals are opponents of the Iranian regime does not detract in the least from the significance of their statements,” Nisman declared.

In an effort to lend the group’s testimony credibility, Nisman described their statements as being made “with honesty and rigor in a manner that respects nuances and details while still maintaining a sense of the larger picture.” The MEK witnesses, Nisman wrote, could be trusted as “completely truthful.”

The record of MEK officials over the years, however, has been one of putting out one communiqué after another that contained information about alleged covert Iranian work on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, nearly all of which turned out to be false when they were investigated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The only significant exception to the MEK’s overall record of false information on the Iranian nuclear program was its discovery of Iran’s Natanz enrichment facility and its Arak heavy water facility in August 2002.

But even in that case, the MEK official who announced the Natanz discovery, U.S. representative Alireza Jafarzadeh, incorrectly identified it as a “fuel fabrication facility” rather than as an enrichment facility. He also said it was near completion, although it was actually several months from having the equipment necessary to begin enrichment.

Contrary to the MEK claims that it got the information on Natanz from sources in the Iranian government, moreover, the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh reported, a “senior IAEA official” told him in 2004 that Israeli intelligence had passed their satellite intelligence on Natanz to the MEK.

An adviser to Reza Pahlavi, the heir to the Shah, later told journalist Connie Bruck that the information about Natanz had come from “a friendly government,” which had provided it to both the Pahlavi organization and the MEK.

Nisman has long been treated in pro-Israel, anti-Iran political circles as the authoritative source on the AMIA bombing case and the broader subject of Iran and terrorism. Last May, Nisman issued a new 500-page report accusing Iran of creating terrorist networks in the Western hemisphere that builds on his indictment of Iran for the 1994 bombing.

But Nisman’s readiness to base the crucial accusation against Iran in the AMIA case solely on MEK sources and his denial of their obvious unreliability highlights the fact that he has been playing a political role on behalf of certain powerful interests rather than uncovering the facts.

Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in U.S. national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. [This article was originally published by Inter Press Service.]

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/08/08/pinning-argentine-bombing-on-iran  /

[cem]

.


http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/08/23/320066/document-proves-role-o f-mko-in-amia-case-accusations-against-iran/


Document proves role of MKO in AMIA case accusations against Iran ‎

Press TV, 23 August 2013


January 27, 2013 will probably be remembered decades from now as a new starting point in relations between Argentina and Iran.

That date the governments of both countries decided to turn the page of a history besmirched by accusations that have not served to find the truth about the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in the Argentine capital city.

The Memorandum of Understanding signed between Buenos Aires and Tehran earlier this year has been praised by many here, from ruling party MPs and experts to social, political and religious leaders who have long-battled foreign interests’ interference in the investigation.

But the MoU has also found strong resistance that has hindered efforts to know the one thing that matters: Who is truly responsible for the killing of 85 Argentineans?

AMIA special prosecutor Alberto Nisman blamed Tehran and issued arrest warrants for top Iranian officials in 2006. But what did he base his certainty on?
According to the recently released arrest warrant document, Nisman solely listened to the testimonies of members of Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization, which is an anti-Iran terrorist group.

The MKO-with a history of bombings in Iran and which has been paradoxically removed from the US State Department’s list of terrorist groups- seems to have convinced Nisman regarding AMIA center killing.

Did they convince him? Or are there other players in this case?

The MoU sets the creation of a Truth Commission and will allow Argentine judicial officials to question the alleged suspects targeted by prosecutor Nisman. The MoU has been approved by both the Congress of Argentina and the government of Iran.

Despite the information revealed by the intelligence document, a 500-page report released by Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman claims that Iran is increasing its influence in Latin America. This has provided pro-Israel lobbies with a new pretext to continue their condemnation of the AMIA Memorandum.


.

[cem]

Argentinean Muslim acquitted in AMIA bombing case

Press TV, 13 November 2013

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/11/13/334554/argentinean-acquitted-i n-amia-case/

A high-ranking member of Argentina’s Islamic community has been acquitted in a perjury case connected to the 1994 AMIA Jewish center bombing in the capital, Buenos Aires, Press TV reports.

Sheij Abdala Madani, a pro-Iranian authority of the Muslim community, has been cleared in the case, which was filed by AMIA special prosecutor Alberto Nisman.

“This is excellent news, it is the beginning of the end of the lies of the prosecutor and the end of the persecution against Muslims in Argentina,” said Madani.

The court’s decision is a setback for the Israeli lobby, which continues to accuse Iran of being involved in the bombing.

Iran has strongly and consistently denied any involvement in the attack.

Members of Argentina's Islamic Community have been long questioning the role played by Nisman, accusing him of conducting a "biased" investigation against Iran.

“I believe the prosecutor gives explanations to the United States and Israel. It has been a long time that he should have excused himself from the case because of ethical reasons,” said Madani.

Earlier this year, the prosecutor was invited by the US Congress to expose a 500-page report in which Madani accused Iran of infiltrating Latin America.

Argentina’s National General Prosecution Office refused to finance Nisman’s trip to Washington as it does not have any connection to the AMIA case.

In January, Argentina and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding to probe the 1994 bombing, which left 85 people dead and hundreds wounded.

President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner considered the memorandum a "historic" step towards the search of truth.

In a fact-finding mission, Iran and Argentina plan to examine all documentation submitted by their judicial authorities.

The two countries say they are determined to find the truth in this case through judicial cooperation, and with the help of other independent lawyers.


.

[TonyGosling]

What Happened to Alberto Nisman?
BY JONATHAN BLITZER
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/happened-alberto-nisman

Activists attend the departure of the funeral cortege carrying the remains of the Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman.
Activists attend the departure of the funeral cortege carrying the remains of the Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman.
CREDIT PHOTOGRAPH BY ALEJANDRO PAGNI/AFP/GETTY
On January 18th, just before midnight, an Argentine state prosecutor named Alberto Nisman turned up dead in his apartment. The cause of death was a shot to the head, fired from a .22-calibre pistol that the prosecutor had borrowed from his assistant the day before. Nisman told his assistant that an Argentine spy had warned him that his life was in danger. The two main doors to the apartment were locked, and several bodyguards had been standing watch outside. Analysis of a third passageway, a small nook used to gain access to the apartment’s air-conditioning unit, revealed a footprint and a smudge, but nothing more. The door to the bathroom, where Nisman was found, was locked from the inside. It looked like he had killed himself, but could someone else have made him do it?


Four days before Nisman died, he had accused President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and her Foreign Minister, Héctor Timerman, of a spectacular crime. The two were the “authors and accomplices of an aggravated cover-up and obstruction of justice,” Nisman told a Buenos Aires court. They had allegedly protected the perpetrators of the bombing, in 1994, of a Jewish community center, the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA). The attack, which left eighty-five people dead and hundreds injured, was the worst in the country’s recent history. Nisman had spent more than ten years investigating the case, and he had long believed that the Iranian government and agents of Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group, were behind it. In recent years, he had also become concerned that Kirchner’s government had conspired to shield them from justice. (The case is still unresolved and the attack’s perpetrators remain unpunished.)

Nisman had produced a two-hundred-and-eighty-nine-page report that, drawing on wiretapped conversations between a union leader aligned with Kirchner and an Iranian official, claimed that Kirchner and Timerman had secretly met in 2013 with the Iranians to broker a deal. According to Nisman, the Argentines had agreed to give up their hunt for the terrorists in exchange for Iranian oil. The government immediately dismissed the accusations as baseless, but opposition legislators seized on Nisman’s pronouncement and called on him to testify before Congress. He died the night before he was supposed to deliver that testimony. In his final hours, he tried and failed to insure that the congressional hearings were closed to the public. “I might get out of this dead,” he said.

Hours after news of Nisman’s death broke, protesters took to the streets with signs that read, “Yo soy Nisman,” to express their anger over his death; many accused the government of orchestrating it. The government, meanwhile, did little to dispel the suspicion. The next day, Kirchner posted a rambling message on Facebook, which read, in part, “Suicide provokes … first: stupefaction, and then questions. What is it that brought a person to the terrible decision to end his life?” Four days later, she was less philosophical, and more portentous. Nisman’s death “was not a suicide,” Kirchner wrote on her Web site. “They used [Nisman] while he was alive, then they needed him dead.” The “they” in this case could have included government critics who wanted to frame the President; a rogue faction of the Argentine intelligence apparatus; the Central Intelligence Agency; or the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. The President’s public pronouncements are often soaked in paranoia. But in this case, the government’s line—that Nisman was manipulated, then discarded, by elements of the intelligence community intent on discrediting Kirchner—traded on widely held doubts about Nisman’s independence as an investigator.

Nisman never had the institutional means to determine, on his own, whether the Iranian government had a role in the AMIA bombing. Instead, his information came largely from the former Argentine director of counterintelligence Antonio (Jaime) Stiusso. Stiusso’s information, which steadily implicated the President in some nefarious détente with Iran, is widely thought to have come from U.S. and Israeli intelligence services. One theory that has gained ground since Nisman’s killing turns on Stiusso and his agenda in feeding Nisman damning evidence against the government. “Stiusso had two faces,” the Argentine journalist Santiago O’Donnell told me. “The good Stiusso had the face of the prosecutor Nisman. The bad Stiusso did not have a face and was a shady and powerful person who instilled great fear.” Back in 2004, the Justice Minister held up a photograph of Stiusso on television and accused him of presiding over a “kind of Gestapo” that intimidated and blackmailed politicians. The President ousted Stiusso last year, and his departure posed problems for Nisman and the investigation. At the moment, Stiusso’s whereabouts are unknown.

This theory that Stiusso was somehow directing Nisman’s investigation is riddled with conjecture. But the notion that Nisman was a kind of cipher for Argentine and foreign-intelligence operatives has its roots in certain demonstrable facts. Diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks reveal that Nisman obsessively consulted with the American Embassy. He went to the Embassy with advance tips on his investigation, he shared knowledge about judges’ leanings, and he showed Embassy officials drafts of his arrest orders and made revisions based on their comments. In October, 2006, Nisman formally accused Iranian officials and a Hezbollah operative of orchestrating the AMIA attack. U.S. Embassy representatives told Nisman that they were “convinced” his case was solid, and “congratulated” the Argentine prosecutors for their “dedication.” Some of the same cables refer to U.S. efforts to impose international sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program, a campaign that the Argentine government joined at the United Nations.

This enthusiasm for the case against Iran is particularly noteworthy because Iran and Hezbollah were never the only suspected culprits in the bombing. Since the start of the investigation, there’s also been the so-called Syrian track, which suggests that Syrian agents may have underwritten the attack. The Argentine President at the time, Carlos Menem, was born in Argentina to Syrian immigrants, and had personal and political ties to the country. In 2008, in federal court, Nisman requested an arrest warrant for Menem and his brother because they’d allegedly impeded the investigation into a Syrian man thought to have been involved in the bombing. One federal investigator went so far as to testify under oath that the case against the Syrian suspect was never pursued because Menem’s brother called the judge and quashed the inquiry. (Menem denied any malfeasance, saying that the charges amounted to “political persecution.”) Nisman eventually dropped this line of investigation and apologized to American authorities for introducing it without warning. The Syrian theory may never have been entirely solid, but its swift abandonment was suggestive. “Today, the Syrian track is more of a political debate than a legal one,” the Argentine political scientist Juan Gabriel Tokatlian told me earlier this week.

The AMIA investigation has lasted twenty years and spanned more than three Presidential administrations. During that time, the original investigating judge, the former head of the Argentine intelligence services, some of the prosecutors, police officers, and the former head of an AMIA-affiliated organization have all been charged with wrongdoing. Four Buenos Aires police officers were arrested for overseeing a stolen-car ring that included the vehicle thought to have been used in the AMIA bombing, but they were acquitted in 2004, when it emerged that the investigating judge had paid a four-hundred-thousand-peso bribe to a key witness for the prosecution. The money for the bribe came from the state secretary of intelligence.

The AMIA case confirmed the public’s worst fears about the courts. Since the years of the military dictatorship, they have been under the thumb of the intelligence service, which has routinely made use of its telephone-surveillance arm to coddle and control judges. Because of the welter of procedural irregularities, Interpol, at one point, lifted its red notices, or international arrest warrants, for the twelve Iranian nationals initially alleged to have been responsible for the bombing. Nisman was part of the original investigation team, but was never directly implicated in the impropriety. In 2004, President Néstor Kirchner, who called the botched investigation a “national disgrace,” appointed Nisman to head up a new investigation. His findings, released two years later, renewed the claims of the earlier investigation against Iran and Hezbollah.

In 2012, President Cristina Kirchner began charting a new foreign-policy course that set her and Nisman at odds. “There was a broader shift in foreign policy away from the U.S. and Europe,” Daniel Kerner, the head of the Latin American division at Eurasia Group, told me. Some of this was owing to the U.S. recession and the European debt crisis, some of it to Argentina’s continued trouble with U.S. courts over debt owed to American hedge funds. The Argentine government felt less beholden to Western powers, and softened its position on Iran. “There were always doubts about the accusations against Iran,” Kerner said. “At some point, the Kirchner government may have just recognized that these accusations were a function of our closeness to the U.S.” In 2013, Cristina Kirchner’s government signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran, in which the two countries sought to create a truth commission to investigate the bombing. Critics lambasted her for aligning the government with the primary suspect.

In his report, Nisman alleged that the memorandum of understanding grew out of a trade deal for Iranian oil. As part of that deal, Argentina would request that Interpol withdraw its red notices on Iranian suspects. The former head of Interpol, Roland Noble, said that he was shocked to hear about this aspect of the alleged deal, and categorically denied any knowledge of it. (He even went so far as to produce earlier correspondence with Timerman, in which the two clearly agreed that the red notices had to remain in place.) State news agencies batted away the accusation that Argentina would barter for Iranian oil; the country needed refined, not crude, oil, which Iran couldn’t provide. There were other questions about the legitimacy of Nisman’s charges. He did not have the support of the local Jewish community, and he had circumvented the judge who had long presided over the AMIA case. Horacio Verbitsky, the president of the country’s leading human-rights group, the Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales, pointed out to me that only two pages of Nisman’s nearly three-hundred-page report concern the legal basis of the criminal charges against the President, which is striking considering the magnitude of the accusations.

The government’s erratic response to Nisman’s death created further confusion. The journalist who first reported the death, Damian Pachter, left Argentina for Israel last Saturday, claiming that his life was in danger. Inscrutably, the government posted Pachter’s flight information to its Twitter account, and said that it was trying to protect the journalist. At this point, it’s an open question whether this behavior is a sign of guilt or mere haplessness. Cristina Kirchner has since accused Nisman’s assistant of being an opponent of the government, with seemingly little basis; part of her evidence is that his brother works for a law firm with connections to a media conglomerate that has been critical of her administration.

More substantially, the Kirchner government announced the dissolution of the country’s notoriously corrupt intelligence secretariat. It’s unclear how, exactly, Kirchner intends to reform the intelligence apparatus, when, over the past couple of years, she has staffed its agencies with younger and more loyal officials. Eurasia Group’s Kerner, among others, described this as a common practice for presidents nearing the end of their terms; it’s possible that a raft of corruption cases awaits Kirchner when she leaves office, in December. Kirchner’s move has at least temporarily assuaged the longstanding concerns of Argentine human-rights activists about the intelligence secretariat’s interference in the justice system. But for now, it seems fitting that Kirchner, who’s been nursing a fractured foot, has been making her announcements from a wheelchair.

[TonyGosling]

Argentines demand independent judiciary in huge street march
Reuters By Hugh Bronstein and Richard Lough
53 minutes ago
http://news.yahoo.com/argentina-government-softens-tone-ahead-silent-m arch-170828979.html

Protesters hold up signs that read "Truth" during a silent march to honour late state investigator Alberto Nisman in Buenos Aires .
View gallery
Protesters hold up signs that read "Truth" during a silent march to honour late state investigator …
By Hugh Bronstein and Richard Lough

BUENOS AIRES (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of protesters marched peacefully through the Argentine capital on Wednesday demanding an independent judiciary, as the country reels from the death of a state prosecutor who had been investigating the president.

The protest, one of the biggest during President Cristina Fernandez's seven years in power, took place a month after a state prosecutor who had accused Fernandez of plotting to cover up his investigation into a 1994 bombing was found dead.

Alberto Nisman's death in mysterious circumstances sent shock waves through Argentina ahead of October's presidential elections and has plunged Fernandez's final year in office into turmoil.

"Our democratic values are broken," lamented protester Eduardo Gonzalez, 46, as torrential rain poured down. "We want an end to corruption."

Nearby, Estela Girbal, a mother of nine, said she was fed up with the perceived impunity of top officials. "This shows people are tired," she said.

View galleryProtesters holding umbrellas to shield themselves from …
Protesters holding umbrellas to shield themselves from the rain take part in a silent march to honou …
Wednesday's march was organized by a group of prosecutors who said the rally was to honor Nisman and was not politically motivated. The group has frequently locked horns with Fernandez's leftist government and complained of a culture of intimidation and meddling in Argentina's courts.

Top government officials have accused them of trying to conduct a "judicial putsch" and conspiring with right-wing political opponents to unseat Fernandez.

The White House said on Wednesday it was monitoring the situation in Argentina. A spokesman said Washington was "concerned" about issues surrounding the rule of law and justice that have been laid bare since Nisman's death.

Argentines have long questioned the independence of the judiciary.

It turned a blind eye to the murder of thousands of suspected leftists during the 1976-83 military dictatorship. In the three decades since democracy was restored, Argentines have grown weary of graft scandals and the apparent impunity of senior officials and influential business tycoons.

View galleryProtesters hold a banner during a silent march to honor …
Protesters hold a banner during a silent march to honor late state investigator Alberto Nisman in Bu …
Protesters waved placards reading "Truth" and "Justice" while others held posters saying "I am Nisman."

"We want a democracy in which the justice system is blind, independent and not inclined toward any one group," said Hector Fiore, a retired metal worker who clutched a small Argentine national flag.

Nisman had accused Iran of being behind a 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires and alleged Fernandez had conspired with the Tehran government to whitewash his investigations in return for economic favors.

Fernandez called the accusation "absurd" and said rogue state security agents who held a grudge against her had misled Nisman's investigation and then killed him. Top officials placed former spy master Antonio Stiusso at the center of the scandal.

Iran has repeatedly denied the accusation.

On Wednesday, the investigator assigned to Nisman's death revealed Stiusso had testified after the government lifted gag orders. Stiusso was one of the Intelligence Secretariat's most powerful yet enigmatic operatives until he was sacked by Fernandez in December.

(Editing by Christian Plumb and Matthew Lewis)

[ian neal]

I'm not buying the line that Nisman was murdered to protect Iran and prevent its involvement in the bombing from being exposed. My guess is he was murdered (by Mossad) in order to point the finger of suspicion at Iran. Smoke and mirrors.

Another example of a false flag 'alleged car-bombing' that wasn't a car bombing at all is the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. It was blamed on Hezbollah/Iran but in all likelihood was the work of Mossad

http://www.scribd.com/doc/221834769/The-Truth-About-Rafiq-Hariri-Assas sination#scribd

Title: False Flag embassy attacks
Description: Argentina, East Africa, London


keith mothersson - July 31, 2006 11:22 PM (GMT)

www.iransolidarity.endofempire.org

The Argentinian judicial authority rules out Islamic lead
Washington wants to rewrite the story of the Buenos Aires terror attacks.

By Thierry Meyssan- Voltairenet.org, translated by Colin Buchanan

The US would like to exploit the memory of the terror attacks in Buenos
Aires of 1992 and 1994 to bolster their dossier against Shia Muslims. Most sources continue to attribute these massacres to Hezbollah or Iran. But these accusations have fizzled out and , meanwhile the Argentinian Justice Department is following up an Israeli connection. Immediately, Washington is pressing to halt an investigation which is becoming embarrassing.( See full-story below)

To bolster its case against the "Shiite crescent" (Iran, Syria and
Hezbollah), Washington has decided to add to the dossier the terror attacks carried out in Buenos Aires in the early nineties. It is generally accepted in the Anglo-American sphere that these attacks were the work of Muslim terrorists.

Meanwhile, this version of events has been dismissed by the Argentinian
supreme court which is now following up an Israeli connection. The
neo-conservatives have, therefore, mounted a damage limitation exercise. Following a meeting in Washington in May 2006 at which two senior judges from Buenos Aires were present, strong pressure was applied against both the Argentinian government and judicial authorities. In response, a group of Argentinian citizens lead by Dr. Oscar Abduri-Bini has issued a legal indictment before the Buenos Aires High Court against the American Jewish Committee and the prosecutors Nissman and Martinez Burgos for obstruction of justice.

To understand what is behind this polemic, let's recall those terrorist
attacks. On the 17th march, 1992 a powerful explosion destroyed the Israeli Embassy in Buenis Aires a seriously damaged an adjacent Catholic church and school. 19 people were killed and 242 were injured.

In the first instance, the enquiry leant towards an Islamic connection.
Apparently, the attack had been carried out by a Palestinian suicide bomber driving a van stuffed with explosives. He allegedly belonged to Islamic Jihad and wished to avenge the assassination by Israel of the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Sheik Abbas Al-Musawi and his family. It is claimed that the operation was prepared by a group of Pakistanis and coordinated by Moshen Rabbani, the cultural attaché at the Iranian Embassy. The latter was subsequently arrested some years later in Germany but released due to lack of evidence.

On July 18th 1994, a second explosion devasted the AIMA ( The
Israeli-Argentinian Mutual Association) building, killing 85 and wounding
300.

This enquiry alos favoured the Islamic hypothesis. It was alleged that it
was carried out by Ibrahim Hussein Berro, 29, a suicide bomber driving a car full of explosives. A few years later, an arrest warrant was issued aginst Imad Mugniyah, a member of Hezbollah in Lebanon ; then the former Iranian embassador to Argentina, Hade Soleimanpour was arrested in the UK and released due to lack of evidence.

All these allegations have been repeated for years in various publications
as being definitive conclusions.. However, none of it has ever been
confirmed. What is worse, the investigation has gradually discredited the
version which Israeli and US sources had encouraged them to adopt, to arrive at radically different hypothesis according to which the two bombings were carried out by Israeli agents to counter the anti-Zionism of the Argentinian Jewish community. The contradictions and hesitations within the enquiry have to be understood within the context of the developing political situation inside Argentina which has seen a succession of revolutions and changes of government. To this day there is no definitive judgement on who was behind the bombings, each party being able to choose the conclusion which most suites them backed by one or other thread within the investigation.

Whatever the case may be, the least that can be said is that the Islamic hypothesis no longer holds water and that the neo-conservatives are doing everything in their power not just to obstruct the investigation, but to bury it definitively. The investigating judge Alfredo Horacio Bisordi has testified under oath, behind closed doors, before a parliamentary commission of enquiry concerning the the first terrorist attack. Voltaire Network has been able to obtain a transcription of this hearing.

According to Bisordi, police commissioner Meni Battaglia lead the enquiry
into the embassy bombing. He was seconded, in an unofficial capacity, by an unidentified Green Beret from the US embassy and by the head of security at the Israeli Embassy, Ronnie Gornie, both of whom supposedly had long experience investigating this type of terrorist attack in the Middle-East. At the advice of these "experts", the commissioner immediately adopted the Islamic hypothesis of a car bombing and claimed to have found the scatterd remains of the engine of a Ford 100.

It was not possible to establish the exact casualty list of the bombings
since it turned out that the list of accredited Israeli diplomats didn't
correspond to that of the actual embassy personnel and this anomaly couldn't be explained. Commissioner Battaglia opposed Judge Bisordi's wish to hold autopsies claiming that this would provide no new evidence. The judge insisting, the Chief Rabbi of Argentina in turn voiced his opposition claiming that, for the Jews, this would be a profanation of the dead. There was no autopsy.

The judge questioned two aspects of the case : why wait until the embassy was empty before attacking when a a hundred Jewish dignitaries were about to be received at the embassy with great ceremony? And why use a suicide bomber when a car bomb would have been sufficient.

Showing more and more skepticism about the version that was being imposed on him, he was visited by the director of the secret services(SIDE), Dr. Gerardo Conte who was under instructions to make him see reason.

Ever more suspicious, the judge burst unexpectedly into the police
commissariat during the interrogation of a key witness : a taxi driver who claimed to have taken a group of Muslims to the airport just before the explosion. They allegedly told him that it was necessary to get out of the area quickly before it turned into an inferno. The judge himself questioned the witness who believed he was dealing with someone as accommadating as the police. The taxi driver refused to give his identity and described himself as a loyal Israeli. He claimed to be a colonel in the Israeli Army and to have fought in the Six Day War.

The second enquiry reveals some equally edifying details such as an "Israeli police officer" who makes himself quite at home in Argentinian police stations and prisons, questions people outwith normal procedures and brings pressure to bear on witnesses. Asked to explain himself before an Argentinian court, he has disappeared. The Isreali government, after denying his existence, finally admitted he was one of their employees but refused to allow him to testify.

The supreme court met in private sessionto examine various espects of the conduct of the case. It formally accepted scientific findings which
established that, contrary to that which had been originally claimed, there were no car bombs driven by suicide bombers, but that, rather, the explosives had been placed in the buildings themselves, both the embassy and the AMIA.

Everything that had been claimed about the vehicles and their drivers was therefore deemed to be false. The day after this session, the spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires deplored these conclusions and accused the Supreme Court of anti-semitism.

A lot more independence and perseverance will be required by the Argentinian judicial authorites to elucidate completely this case.In the meantime, let's focus on certain aspects of the affair.

It is strange that 12 years are needed to establish that the explosives were in the building and that it was not a suicide car bomb. I would observe in passing that in the ongoing enquiry into the assassination of the Lebanese president Rafic Hariri, the hypothesis of car bomb which was taken as given by the UN special envoy Detlev Mehlis, is only a working hypothesis according to his successor.

For 14 years, numerous Western experts have based their work on terrorism on an interpretation of the Buenos Aires attacks which has turned out to be false.

It is lamentable to be able to assert that all the enquiries into the
terrorist attacks imputed to Muslims are inconclusive , whether it is a case of Buenos Aires, New York, Casablanca, Madrid or London. Although that doesn't prevent the neo-conservative governments and their "experts" from drawing sweeping conclusions.

The US has a habit of modifying retrospectively the perpetrators of
terrorist attacks against themselves according to their real or imagined
adversary of the moment. Now they are rewriting the history of other
peoples' terrorist attacks.

Finally, it is advisable to be vigilant with regard to warmongers who want to evoke the Buenos Aires attacks in order to categorize some or other group or government as "terrorist" and call for their eradication.


Final comment by keith:
Ian Crane has just reminded me that John O'Niell (FBI investigator, later killed on 9/11) in was taken off his investigation when he told a US ambassador in Yemen that his investigations were suggesting that the two US embassy bombings in East Africa and the attack on the USS Cole 'bore the hallmarks of Mossad' more than they did those of attacks by 'Islamists'.

Still this Argenitina evidence is noteworthy on two further counts: first it tends to vindicate the belief of David Shayler and Annie Machon that the 1994 bombing of their London bombing was by Israel itself, and not by the two Palestinian solidarity activists who were framed for it, and still languish in jail.

Second it tends to confirm the title of ex-BBC reporter Alan Hart's book: Zionism the Enemy of the Jews, as it is suggested that it could have been because Argentina's Jewish community was insufficiently Zionist that it was punished, and not for being Jewish.


None of the above proves that J7 or any other event was false flag, let alone False flag carried out by Mossad. But is does mean that there may be precedents which would suggest that it is perfectly rational to consider if there is any specific evidence in any particular case which points that way (see also lots of other candidate instances from 9/11 to the Paris metro of 1996 to Madrid - on another thread. )

THIS DOES SEEM TO BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF 'MODERN' STATECRAFT, alas.

http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/ar/t474.htm