The official story of the Jordan bombings has begun to come apart. Unfortunately, few in the mainstream media, or even in the progressive sector, have paid much attention.
The Jordanian authorites insist that suicide bombers from Iraq cased the locations, got inside, and set off explosives hidden beneath their outer garments. The authorities also have the videotaped confession of a woman, Sajida Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi, who says that she did not succeed in killing herself, although her husband did.
Here are some pieces of counter-evidence:
1. On-the-scene photos indicate the presence of explosives planted in the ceiling.
2. The Associated Press quotes an eyewitness named Fadi al-Kessi, who insists that the electrcity failed just before one of the blasts, and that the explosion came from the ceiling. We have other reports of the lights going out just before the event.
3. Jordanian police initially told Reuters that bombs were planted in the ceiling.
4. Sajida Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi read her statement before television cameras in a tone of voice that sounded (to my ears, at least) mysteriously untroubled, calm and rehearsed.
5. Published reports held that the police discovered her still wearing her explosives belt, even though they found her holed up at a safe house days later. Does that make sense to you?
6. The television cameras rolled while she showed off her TNT-laden accessories. What policeman would allow a suspect in custody to wear explosives to a press conference? This gesture seems theatrical and inherently unbelievable.
7. Although Al Qaeda has not been quick to take credit for previous atrocities (including 9/11), an alleged Al Qaeda website came online with mysterious rapidity to crow about the Jordan attacks. The site claimed that the attacks occurred to protest "the conspiracy against the Sunnis." Since Jordanians are almost all Sunni, this statement makes no sense.
Try this thought experiment: Imagine that a nuclear bomb takes out Dublin. Now imagine that, within hours, a never-before-seen web site appears on the net -- a site allegedly produced by the IRA. Imagine that a writer for this site makes this announcement: "We destroyed Dublin to protest the treatment of Catholics in Northern Ireland." Would you believe what you were reading, or would you suspect deceit?
The questions surrounding the Jordan bombing go beyond the knee-jerk conspiracy theories that pop up after every major event. We have a right to demand answers.
7 comments:
Also, Bernard Kerik (former nypd commish) is some sort of consultant to the government of Jordan, I just read. I think it was in the NY Times. Got the story off Buzzflash. I don't know what to make of it, but it sure is an odd coincidence. Maybe terrorists just hate Bernie Kerik, and go where he goes.
A few problems with this conspiracy Joseph.
1. The photos look just like they would if someone was standing underneath the ceiling at that point and blew themselves up. The explosion would also reverberate back down
2. So? It would be smart for you or an accomplice to cut the power shortly before blowing yourself up so nobody could see you do it and try and stop you.
3. Yup, at first glance it could look like a ceiling explosion, as per point 1. Doesn't mean it was.
4. Ummm ... we are talking about someone who was comfortable blowing themselves up. By definition their behaviour is weird!
5. The published reports DO NOT say what you claim. They say the explosives were found "WITH" not "ON".
6. Theatrical, yes. Unbelieveable, no. TNT is not dangerous without a detonator, very easy to disarm. Ever been to the middle east? It's all about theatrics. I don't find this part at all unbelievable, in fact the complete opposite.
7. You may have missed it, but there's a war in Iraq where it is felt the Sunni's are being oppressed. The Jordanian government is supporting that war. That's why Jordan is a target. Here's a nice article - truthout.org.
Doesn't mean there wasn't bombs in the ceiling, but nothing you have pointed out appears at all odd.
Responses to the responses made by anon:
1. The more I look at those photos, the stranger they seem. I'd like to hear from an expert in explosives. To this layman, it sure seems that the walls and items closest to the explosives were damaged far less than the ceiling.
2. "It would be smart for you or an accomplice to cut the power shortly before blowing yourself up..." Sorry. But here you're straining.
3. As the guy on the old radio program used to put it: "Vas YOU dere, Sharlie?"
4. I've met plenty of weird people. I've also heard people giving a recitation. SHe sounded like she was in the latter category. I encourage others to take a listen and judge for themselves.
5. I am sure I saw one report that used "on," but I confess I did not cite it. I'll be back with either a citation or an apology.
6. We're agreeing that the woman's appearance before the cameras was a theatrical event. That position does not strengthen your argument. Quite the opposite.
7. There's a shortage of targets in Iraq...? The Sunnis of Iraq felt obligated to blow up Palestinians and Chinese who were "making nice" with Palestinians...?
More sophistry from the anonymous Busheveck!
Haaretz reported that Israelis were warned to leave the towers, although the report was later retracted. Why are there always reports of Israelis being warned and other suspicious Israeli activity before these big terrorist attacks (9/11, London bombing, etc.)?
Can anyone here say "Lavon Affair" or "USS Liberty"? How about "fake al-Qaeda"?
Am I supposed to believe that Israel never succeeds when they try to pull shit like this? I bet they get away with it 95% of the time.
Anon: all but your first point have some merit. I'm no expert on explosives, but I've set off a few minor ones. We should expect MOST of the ceiling to be pushed in, and only a few pieces dangling down.
On the question of "theatrics," though, when can you recall a confession wherein the confessor is holding/wearing the weapon? In every case I can recall, the police show off the weapon apart from the confessor. They don't take a gun, empty all the bullets out of it, and then hand it back to the suspect unloaded.
The truthout article, while indicating that King Abdullah is cooperating with the US and there are a lot of former Ba'athists in Jordan, makes me think that Iraqis and Palestinians in Jordan have more to gain by NOT engaging in terrorism because they are going to have more political power if they don't piss off King Abdullah. Israel and the US have more to gain by disrupting this reform effort by pointing the terrorist finger at Iraqis in Jordan. But, of course, people don't always do things in their long-term interest. Point is, we are fed highly-crafted stories of very little in substance and expected to swallow it whole.
I'm an "anonymous Busheveck"?? hahahahaha that's funny. I'd never vote for these idiots in my life - even if I was American! Sooner you get rid of them the better for all of us. In any case, my point was just the evidence as cited wouldn't be enough to get a hearing let alone a conviction. Mike, I in no way believe the woman had a live weapon on her in the interview. That is blatantly ridiculous. The whole thing could easily have been a setup, but the evidence as given is pretty weak. It could just as easily if not more easily have been Iraqi bombers as claimed too. Occam's razor.
Post a Comment