Israel and/or America Implicated in Killing of Rafik Harriri:
"This is the work of an intelligence service, not a small group," said Rime Allaf, Middle East analyst at London's Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Sam Hamod, Ph.D.
02/14/05 "Information Clearing House" - - We must do as they do in other criminal cases, look at who had the most to gain from the assassination of Prime Minister Harriri. The Lebanese had a lot to lose, as did the Syrians (he was close to Bashir Al Assad, the leader of Syria), as did the other Arab countries in the region who saw him as a strong leader and a stabilizing force in Lebanese politics. On the other hand, Israel has wanted chaos in Lebanon, as has America, and both countries have been agitating to get Hezbollah outlawed and both America and Israel have wanted the Lebanese to oust Syria. In both cases, the Lebanese government has said, “NO,” that Hezbollah is a respected part of Lebanese life and that Syria is there to protect Lebanon from Israeli aggression.
No matter where else you look, no one else had anything to gain except Israel and the U.S. because this death could cause some possible upset in Lebanese politics and life.
Most Middle East experts in the Arab and Muslim worlds believe Israeli hands were at work in the killing of former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik Harriri.
America quickly pointed the finger at Syria, as did Israel, which was tantamount to convicting themselves because they are the only two countries that would gain by creating unrest in Lebanon. President Lahoud and Hezbollah, who represent two of the important factions of the Lebanese government both condemned the bombing and their own experts said the blast had all the earmarks of the bombing that was carried out by Israel against former Palestinian leaders in Beirut in the past.
America and Israel want Syria out of Lebanon, but the majority of Lebanese realize the Syrian presence is an aid to their country that helps stop the Israelis from once invading Lebanon (as Israel did in the 1980s, then stayed on in the south to occupy part of Lebanon until the Hezbollah ousted them by military force). Also, by killing Harriri, the Israelis and American can both claim that the area is more unstable and needs more American style “democracy” and occupation. Harriri was a giant among progressive Arab and Muslim leaders, and though he made money in Saudi Arabia and was friendly to the government, his attitude in Lebanon was very progressive and he made sure the church and state were kept separate in Lebanese political decisions.
Harriri was a man beloved by all sides, even his former political foes. They saw him as a man who had helped to bring Lebanon back from the chaos that Israel had caused with their falangist allies in the invasion of the 1980s. One must also remember that the man who wanted Lebanon destroyed, and who led the attack that destroyed all of Beirut was none other than the present prime minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon. Sharon has set up a special group of dark ops in Israel who are allowed to kill anyone who may be a threat to Israel in any land in the world—clearly a violation of International Law. Of course, Sharon, like Bush, has decided that International Law does not govern Israel’s or America’s selfish ambitions in the world.
Harriri’s killing, like so many of those in Iraq, is the work of either the Israeli dark ops or American mercenaries who have been hired out to kill people who are progressive in the Arab and Muslim worlds. That is why in Lebanon today, people know that it was not some dissident “Islamist group” (that no one has heard of, nor does anyone believe actually exists) who allegedly took credit for the deed, and in Iraq, where the religious leaders among the Sunni and Shi’a are telling their people not to revenge themselves on one another, because they know the killings are professional jobs being done by people from outside Iraq, namely, Israel and America. The parallels are evident to experts, but these experts will not be allowed on American media. But, Professor Rime Allaf, of the Royal Institute in England is correct, this was the work of an intelligence agency—and we damn well know who the only two would be—because they are the only two to gain by this deed, Israel or America.
Remember, as I stated earlier, in criminal acts, one must always look to who has the most to gain—in this case, it was clearly the Bush team and Israel. And, as Rime Allaf said, this was the work of “an intelligence agency.”
It’s time these killings in Iraq, in Lebanon, and even the assassination of the Prime Minister of Georgia, a foe of American oil pipelines, be stopped, and that the world set up an investigation team to look into these matters because they create more chaos and misery for the world.
Sam Hamod writes on international affairs for a variety of newspapers and online sites; he also edits, www.todaysalternativenews.com
He may be reached at email@example.com
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le8060.htm
A hitherto unknown group claimed responsibility for the car-bomb assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
The claim by the Organization of Nasrat and Jihad in Bilad Sham was made in a videotape broadcast on al-Jazeera. The tape showed a turbaned, bearded man reading from a statement.
He identified the suicide bomber as Ahmed Abu Adas and said he carried out the attack because Hariri "is an agent of the Saudi regime."
"In revenge for the mujahedin killed by the forces of the Saudi regime, we have decided to punish the agent of that regime, Rafik Hariri, in a spectacular suicide operation ... the first of many suicide attacks to come," he said.
snip....http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?S ... 1522-5302r
All this points to Syria as the obvious suspect for Mr Hariri's assassination, but it may not be as simple as that.
The Syrian president, Bashar al-Asad, no doubt sensing the serious diplomatic implication, was among the first to condemn the attack. "To create instability in Lebanon is certainly not in Syria's interests at this time," Mr Shehadi said.
Rime Allaf, a Middle East expert at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, said: "The Syrians could not possibly have wanted this.
"It would be a case of shooting yourself in the foot. It clearly is the pro- and anti-Syrian forces at play, but rationally and logically, whoever did this was trying to get the Syrians into more trouble." http://www.guardian.co.uk/international ... 86,00.html
The most important question to be asked should be who benefits?"
Syria? Not really!
It much more puts Syria on the so called "Axis of Evil", Bush's justification for military interference in the region.
There have been "False Flag Operations" before...