Syria is Doomed
Update 2005-10-26
Update 2011-07-03

The title of this page is taken from a comment by Xymphora in his blog entry for March 2, 2005. Let us see how Xymphora reached this conclusion. The starting point is ...

The Assassination of Rafiq Hariri

rafiq haririOn February 14, 2005, Rafiq Hariri was assassinated in Beirut. The next day the International Herald Tribune reported it as follows:

A huge car bomb on Monday killed a former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, 60, a billionaire who led the country's reconstruction after its civil war from 1975 to 1990. The assassination rocked a nation that has been largely at peace for 15 years and sent shock waves through the region and beyond. The United States and other countries suggested that Syria, which has about 14,000 troops in Lebanon, had a role in the assassination.

Hariri and six of his bodyguards were killed as their motorcade made its way along Beirut's waterfront. At least three more people were killed, security officials said, and about 100 were wounded. ... The bomb ... left a crater in the road 4.5 meters, or 15 feet, deep. Windows were shattered over a wide area and the force of the explosion could be felt kilometers away. [Actually the explosion was so powerful that it was heard 20 km north of Beirut.] Black smoke billowed from about 20 cars set afire at the scene of the blast. State-run Télé Liban said that more than 350 kilograms, or 770 pounds, of explosives were used in the bombing, bringing down concrete walls.

Obviously not the work of your typical suicide bomber. This could only have been done by experts, able to draw upon resources not available to your typical terrorist group.

Immediately, as noted above, the US blamed Syria, as did Israel.

Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz on Tuesday blamed Damascus for being behind the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, saying a pro-Syrian terror organization conducted the attack. ... "The organization wanted to strike him because he opposed the Syrian presence in Lebanon. Syria is using terror not only in Lebanon but also in Iraq against coalition forces," he said. Mofaz also took the opportunity to blast Syria as a country that supported terror and strongly backed Hezbullah. — Xinhuanet

But others noted that Syria had nothing to gain by assassinating Rafiq Hariri. On 2005-02-18 Xymphora wrote:

I can't think of another example of a case where the party so generally accused of the crime was more harmed by the results of the crime. Are we supposed to believe that the Syrians are insane and/or stupid? Do they want to invite an American-Israeli attack? Do they want to provide the biggest excuse possible to force them to leave Lebanon?

He was not alone in noting that it was not Syria, but rather the US and Israel, who stood to benefit from the assassination.

Writing in The Guardian (2005-02-23) Patrick Seale said:

Israel's ambition has long been to weaken Syria, sever its strategic alliance with Iran and destroy Hizbullah. Israel has great experience at "targeted assassinations" — not only in the Palestinian territories but across the Middle East. Over the years, it has sent hit teams to kill opponents in Beirut, Tunis, Malta, Amman and Damascus. — Who killed Rafik Hariri?

A contributor to Al Jazeera's website wrote:

If some recent events are put together the finger pointing at Israel and the U.S. for Hariri's assassination will be more justified. The U.S. wants to attack Iran but fears that any attempt to do so will put Israel at risk from Hezbollah and Syrian troops. Being desperate, the U.S. connived with France to pass the most unacceptable and ridiculous resolution ever in UN history while they are in Iraq and Afghanistan, they want Syria out of Lebanon so that Israel has a free hand on Hezbollah in case of any attack on Iran. After the resolution failed to garner support, now the U.S. is using another strategy to cause a civil war in Lebanon. Al Hariri's assassination is clearly the combined efforts of the CIA and the Mossad.

Here are some other articles which ask the question "Who benefits?", and conclude that the answer is the US and Israel:

In June 2005 U.N. investigators concluded that a truck bomb probably was used to kill Rafik Hariri.

Xymphora's Analysis of the Situation

From here on we simply reproduce Xymphora's comments, leading to the conclusion that Syria is doomed. In the light of these comments it will be easy to recognize and interpret the disinformation, lies and war propaganda that now issues from the mainstream media in the US (and its allies Israel, Britain and Australia), and will continue to do so up until, and after, Israel has once again invaded Lebanon, the US is in control of Damascus, and Syria has gone the way of Iraq. This will likely cause another 100,000 civilian deaths, but do the neo-cons in Washington care? Why should they? What matters to them is only the interests of Israel (and their own, of course).

Saturday, February 26, 2005, 12:42 a.m.

I'm wondering, with all the talk of an American-Israeli attack on Iran, whether we are being misdirected. After all, the Americans are hardly likely to tip their hand, if for no other reason that having insider knowledge of the next American victim gives the possessors of such knowledge a way to make money. I wouldn't be shocked to see the next attack made on a surprising and somewhat easier target, sort of a neocon palate-cleanser between feastings on the blood of innocent civilians. What about Zimbabwe? It's on the list of evildoers, it would be easy to knock over with relatively few civilian casualties, Bob Mugabe seems to have lost his marbles, no one would complain much, and the United States could gain some much-needed credibility by providing some form of 'democracy' and 'freedom'. Not to mention that the whole county is loaded with minerals for the Bush-Cheney crime syndicate to steal. The whole debacle of Mark Thatcher may have slowed them up, but Zimbabwe would be perfect while waiting for the next big target to be lined up.

So what is the next big target? Scott Ritter says Iran, in June. Ritter was right in everything he wrote about Iraq, so he has a great deal of credibility. I wonder. The Americans could certainly bomb Iran — air out some of those new bunker-busting nukes! — but even the neocons must realize that such an attack would only solidify, and enrage, the current Iranian leadership, which would seek revenge by making Iraq even more of a mess than it is today. 'Regime change' would require hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground — Iran will be a much more formidable target than the heavily weakened, and much smaller, Iraq — and the Americans simply don't got 'em. They've been quietly removing troops from Iraq, and have pulled back the tsunami troops, but in the absence of a draft they can't fight a proper war in Iran. If Iran is not the target, who is?

What if Iran is a ruse to provide an excuse for the real target? We've seen some odd things in recent weeks:

  1. Israel agreeing to move parts of the wall closer to where it should have been in the first place, and talking seriously about removing some of the more remote settlements.
  2. Israel taking steps, in clear contravention of the 'roadmap', to establish permanent ownership of the settlement blocks closest to the Green Line, and in particular around Jerusalem.
  3. Both Rice and Bush stating that Israel will have to make some concessions. Bush's European speech called on Israel to "freeze settlement activity, help Palestinians build a thriving economy and ensure that a new Palestinian state is truly viable, with contiguous territory on the West Bank. A state of scattered territories will not work."  (Has hell frozen over?)
  4. Sharon musing that recent Israeli moves will require some corresponding movements of the border in favor of the Palestinians.
  5. The assassination of Hariri (this article by Patrick Seale is amazingly forthright in casting blame).
  6. The American-sponsored 'Orange Revolution' in Lebanon, part of the ongoing American plan to use manipulated calls for democracy to achieve American colonial goals.
  7. Instability in the clearly spooked Syrian leadership, who know that they've been had with the assassination of Hariri, with accompanying promises to begin to move Syrian troops out of Lebanon.
  8. A rare suicide bomber in Tel Aviv, immediately blamed on Hezbollah in Lebanon (although Hezbollah denies having anything to do with it).

Whatever can it all mean?

What if the real goal was to force Syrian troops out of Lebanon, in order to allow Israel to reoccupy southern Lebanon on the excuse that it is acting in self-defense — the usual Israeli excuse — from attacks on it from Iran-sponsored Hezbollah? The argument would be that Iran is using Hezbollah as its proxy to gain revenge on the United States and Israel for all the pressure being put on Iran over its nuclear program. Iran, itself, would be left for a later date when the Americans have more troops. Sharon, whose biggest personal embarrassment remains southern Lebanon, could go out a hero having recaptured the lands Israel had to so ignominiously abandon. Israel covets not only the land, but its water supply. The border adjustments for the Palestinians could be taken care of much more comfortably with Israel in control of all the new land in Lebanon. This land would be the treat offered by Rice to Sharon in return for the temporary concessions required to lure the Palestinians into their concentration camps, and would constitute a fine extension to the Project of building Greater Israel. As an additional bonus, relations with Syria would be so terrible that Israel would no longer have to worry about negotiations to return the Golan Heights. With this massive blow to Syrian prestige, the Syrian government may blow up on its own, and in any event would pose no immediate threat requiring another immediate American attack. That can wait for later.

Saturday, February 26, 2005, 11:45 p.m.

From the Israelinsider (my emphasis in bold):

Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz blamed Syria on Saturday for a suicide bombing that killed four Israelis in Tel Aviv, and also froze plans to hand over security responsibilities in the West Bank to the Palestinians.

[President of the Palestinian National Authority Mahmoud] Abbas angrily accused a 'third party' of orchestrating the suicide bombing to sabotage the Mideast peace process, and his security officials directly said the Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah was involved.

In Beirut, however, Hezbollah denied the accusations, and Islamic Jihad, a Palestinian militant group, claimed responsibility from Lebanon, reversing initial denials by its members in the Palestinian territories.

Confused yet? Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades both emphatically denied involvement on Friday night. Is the newest theory that the Syrians are trying to destroy the state of Israel one disco-er at a time? One of the many other stories, ascribed to a "senior Palestinian security official", was that the suicide bomber was hired by Hezbollah. Hired? I hear there's good money in a career as a suicide bomber. Of course, it really doesn't matter who did it, as the Israeli solution is always the same (back to the Israelinsider; my emphasis in bold):

Israeli security officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the truce no longer applied to Islamic Jihad militants in the Palestinian territories, and said they may resume assassinations of the group's leaders.

A resumption of Israel's targeted killings of wanted militants, which Israel recently agreed to halt, would likely mean the end of the cease-fire.

Further straining the cease-fire, Mofaz ordered a freeze in plans to withdraw troops from five West Bank towns and hand over security responsibilities to the Palestinians. The handover is among the most significant gestures by Israel in the wake of the cease-fire.

The only people who benefited from this bombing are extreme right-wingers in Israel who don't want any concessions made to advance the peace process.

Tuesday, March 01, 2005, 1:29 a.m.

Juan Cole puts the Lebanese 'Orange Revolution' into perspective:

... Al-Jazeerah is reporting that the Lebanese Opposition is now calling for the big demonstrations at Martyrs' Square to continue until all Syrian troops leave Lebanese soil.

You wonder what would happen if the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza tried the same thing re: Ariel Sharon's military occupation that they face. They'd be crushed by the jackboot (with convenient allegations that they were a front for terrorism).

The neocons have got a good thing going with the Ukrainian model of taking over countries by using manipulated calls for 'democracy' and 'freedom'. After all, who is going to argue with the establishment of democracy? Liberals have exactly the same intellectual problem with this form of propaganda as they have with radical religious fruitcakes hiding behind the concept of liberal tolerance in order to preach their anti-liberal hatred. The entire 'Orange' ruse is staged as a massive PR campaign, using both local and international mass media to create the illusion that all the people are united in a bottom-up plea for freedom. Of course, it is all an illusion. The removal of Syrian troops will just leave Lebanon open to occupation by Israeli troops, hardly an improvement for most of the population.

The complexity and sophistication of the campaign requires a considerable amount of planning by international PR experts. We are supposed to believe the call for removal of Syrian troops arose spontaneously on the assassination of Hariri, but the nature of the staged protests and synchronized media campaign proves that the planners knew in advance of the trigger event, the death of Hariri.

Wednesday, March 2, 2005, 1:24 a.m.

Syria is doomed. From Oden Yinon in 1982 (his emphasis):

The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi'ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.

From 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm' by Perle, Feith, the Wurmsers, etc. (their emphasis, but it might just as well have been mine):

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:

  • striking Syria's drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.
  • paralleling Syria's behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.
  • striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.

From 'Ending Syria's Occupation of Lebanon: The U.S. Role', a report of a group chaired by Daniel Pipes and Ziad Abdelnour, in which is buried one of the real reasons for the current events in Lebanon and Syria:

The Middle East faces the looming problem of water shortages because of both the area's hot and arid climate and its huge population growth. Aside from Turkey (which controls the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers) and Iraq (through which those two rivers flow), the only Middle Eastern country blessed with a substantial supply of fresh water is Lebanon. Its high mountain ranges capture and retain impressive amounts of snow and moisture for several months, much of which eventually feeds subterranean aquifers and artesian wells. The landscape is dotted with springs, small streams, rivulets, and several sizable rivers like the Litani. Between 80 and 90 percent of Lebanon's flowing water, though, is lost for that which is not absorbed into underground storage, ends up in the sea. Assuming all of Lebanon's future water needs can be met using half of this wasted amount, harnessing and distributing the remaining half to neighboring countries like Israel, Syria, and Jordan would be a significant step in alleviating the impending regional water shortage.

Needless to say, the only neighboring country they are talking about is Israel. The point of the current kerfuffle is to break Syria and Lebanon into small, non-threatening statelets, keep the Golan Heights and whatever new Syrian land can be captured, wipe out Hezbollah, take some of southern Lebanon, and steal Lebanese water. Given the current state of American politics, they will almost certainly get away with it. As James Wolcott has noticed, the old terrorist model will be rolled out again, with Hezbollah subbing for al Qaeda — watch for increasingly insane reporting from the disgusting American media on the great danger to the U. S. 'homeland' from Hezbollah, a group predominantly concerned with charitable, educational, and political actions in Lebanon — and Syria's support of Hezbollah replacing Saddam's mythical connections to al Qaeda. The fact that the current Syrian government has waged a bitter war against Islamist fundamentalists, and even offered to help the Americans by sharing their excellent intelligence on terrorist groups — an offer, needless to say, rudely rebuffed by the Americans — won't faze the American propagandists one little bit. Syria is doomed.

Saturday, March 5, 2005, 7:37 p.m.

From Ynetnews (my emphasis in bold):

Syria must fully withdraw from Lebanon because a U.N. Security Council resolution demands so, Jordanian Foreign Minister Hani Mulki said Saturday.

Syria cannot ignore resolution 1559's existence because all U.N. decisions must be executed, he said following a meeting with Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, the first meeting in Israel in four years between such senior officials.

In response, Shalom said over a year ago he ordered the Foreign Ministry to begin diplomatic steps towards the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

'At the time it seemed unsubstantial and impossible,' he said. 'However, I'm happy to say it now looks more tangible than ever.'

However, despite this, Shalom said he believes the road ahead is long and it is up to the international community to continue its pressure on Syria, to stop its support of terror and withdraw its troops from Lebanon.

'The international community, parts of the Arab world and Israel, of course, all demand that resolution 1559 be fully implemented,' he said.

This would allow free and democratic elections in Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese people to choose their own representatives to establish an independent country, he said.

'Perhaps in the future we will be able to see the direction the nation has taken, towards a greater understanding and a possible peace with Israel,' he said.

As has been pointed out by many others, it takes real chutzpah for Israel to demand that another country comply with a UN Resolution concerning the withdrawal of occupying troops. The Syrian occupying troops don't engage in massacres of civilians, shoot children and international observers in the face, prevent the inhabitants from having any real life by the imposition of arbitrary and cruel checkpoints, continue to kill people while supposedly under a ceasefire, bulldoze houses over grandmothers, and lob tank shells into groups of schoolchildren. You can also note from Shalom's words that the recent American PR campaign is merely the continuation of an Israeli campaign begun 'over a year ago'.

If that wasn't amusing enough, here's George Bush (my emphasis in bold; Bush continues to speek like a character in a cartoon with comedic problms with the language):

Syria, Syrian troops, Syria's intelligence services, must get out of Lebanon now. The world is beginning to speak with one voice. We want that democracy in Lebanon to succeed, and we know it cannot succeed so long as she is occupied by a foreign power and that power is Syria.

So the elections in Iraq, which we know were completely controlled by the Pentagon, were a brilliant success, but elections cannot succeed in Lebanon because of the presence of Syrian troops. This despite the fact that Syria was invited in and has been constantly reducing troop levels, and that Syrian troops keep an extremely low profile, avoid civilian casualties, confine themselves to rural areas in a part of the country, and have been in place without incident for over ten years.

The question that interests me? How are the Americans going to do it? How are they going to start another war on another sovereign country that poses no threat to the United States based on this flimsiest and most hypocritical of excuses? Syria has no links to al Qaeda, no weapons of mass destruction that could possibly harm the United States, no nukes or even a nuclear program. Neither Syria nor Lebanon is of any real importance to the United States. How many more hundred billion dollars and thousands of American deaths — not to mention tens of thousands of Syrian deaths — is catering to the Likudniks worth? The attack on Iraq was for Israel, and the attack on Syria will be entirely for Israel (not to mention the attack on Iran), but at least the Bush Administration was able to make some lies convincing to the majority of the American people. After the bitter experience of Iraq, what kind of whopper will they have to come up with for Syria? The only possibility is another staged terrorist attack, this time with 15 of the 19 terrorists using stolen Syrian identities.

Thursday, April 7, 2005, 11:48 a.m.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi lists a whole bunch of good reasons why an Israeli attack on Iran is highly unlikely. I still think all this talk about Iran is a ruse to disguise what Israel and its American stooges are really up to. Israel has no real interest in attacking Iran, especially if long-term plans are to build some kind of ongoing semi-friendly relationship with non-Arab Iran (which will be Israel's next-door neighbor once Greater Israel is in place). The American stooges won't do anything without Sharon's instructions, so Iran may be the safest place on earth right now. Just think what any kind of attack would do to American gas prices! This factor alone is decisive as gasoline prices were the real reason why Bush, a war President during a war, lost the last election (had the votes been properly counted), and gas prices are really hurting his current popularity, and thus his ability to continue to do his real job, which is to conduct class warfare against the vast majority of the American people. Iran may be one of the only places on earth — along with some parts of Antarctica — which aren't under direct threat from the wingnuts in Washington. All of the threatening talk disguises the real Israeli goals, which are to destabilize both Lebanon and Syria.

Sunday, April 10, 2005, 11:42 p.m.

I'm having trouble figuring out how the Bush Administration is going to lie their way into their next attack on another non-threatening sovereign country. Given the disaster in Iraq, and the fact that the Iraq attack is now generally known by the American people to have been based on outright lies by the Bush Administration and its stooge 'journalists' (Judith Miller) to the extent that the lies are now the subject of Jay Leno jokes, they're going to need one hell of a good reason to attack either Syria/Lebanon or Iran. Although the propaganda effort against Iran has started, the American people and the American Congress just aren't going to buy it. The Bush Administration has a serious case of Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf Syndrome, and nattering on about pie-in-the-sky Iranian nuclear bombs is just going to remind people of aluminum tubes, mobile biotechnology labs and — drum roll please — killer Iraqi drones flying over the Eastern Seaboard. I'm sure the big brains at the think tanks are working on this problem, and Michael Ledeen is a guy who would have the answer. Here he is in a column from 2003 complaining — as usual — about the State Department's (relatively) sane attitude towards Iran, and in particular about the Pentagon — by which he means the neocon civilians who have taken over the Pentagon — being prohibited from stirring up trouble by talking to Iranian dissidents:

I guess some top official will have to die at the hands of (obviously) Iranian-supported terrorists before the Pentagon is permitted to work on the subject.

So there you have it. When the time comes for the next attack — and as I've said before I think it will be Syria and Lebanon rather than Iran — there will be a 'terrorist' attack against a top American official — probably someone without the requisite subservient attitude towards Israel — which will immediately be blamed by the Bush Administration on "(obviously) Iranian-supported terrorists" (substitute 'Syrian-supported' if the neocon plan is to go after Syria). Of course, the attack could also be against Americans generally, following the model of September 11. In any event, it is impossible to conceive that it would be politically possible for Bush to set out on another illegal attack without opening another can of whoop ass on the American people. Sadly, another quick 'terrorist' attack, with an equally quick FBI report that it was the work of (obviously) Iranian-supported terrorists, would work just as well as September 11 worked (September 11 as Pearl, or Perle, Harbor), and anyone who questions the obviousness of it will be labeled a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Wayne Madsen: Hariri reportedly assassinated to make way for large US air base in Lebanon  (Also here.)

The Lebanese air base is reportedly to be used as a transit and logistics hub for U.S. forces in Iraq and as a rest and relaxation location for U.S. troops in the region. In addition, the Lebanese base will be used to protect U.S. oil pipelines in the region (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and Mosul/Kirkuk-Ceyhan) as well as to destabilize the Assad government in Syria.

Update 2005-10-26

The UN 'report' [the Mehlis Report] on the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese PM, bears all the hallmarks of yet another set-up, no doubt 'inspired' by US pressure as part of the build-up to yet another Middle Eastern 'adventure'. ... [The] Report offers no concrete evidence that any of the people or institutions it claims were involved in Hariri's assassination were indeed the culprits. ... To add insult to injury, at every critical juncture, the report admits that it actually lacks any substantiation for any of its claims, saying that "the investigation is not complete" and that "further investigation is needed". ... [We] find the BBC and other major media outlets acting as mouthpieces for the US and UK governments, with story after story peddling the same Western propaganda line about the need for sanctions against Syria and even the need for 'regime change' in Syria. ... There could be no clearer example of the relationship between propaganda and the press than the Mehlis Report, serving as it does as a backdrop to USUK machinations in the region, partially to draw attention away from the disastrous situation in Iraq and also to 'soften up' the public for any potential moves against Syria. — William Bowles, Syria: Old whine, new bottle

Syria is in grave danger of attack and destruction by the United States, and Iran isn't, simply because the neocons take their marching orders from Israel, and the Likudniks want regime change in Syria, and the ultimate destruction of that country. ... In what has already been compared to Kissinger's illegal war in Cambodia, the Americans are now using the ruse of pursuit of insurgents to begin to fight an actual war on Syrian territory ... The war, the extent of which we will probably not know for years, is intended to destabilize the current Syrian government and lead to the Israeli goal of regime change. While the neocons appear to be on the run in Washington, their plans [for building Greater Israel] continue to develop as if the AIPAC/Niger forgery/Plamegate scandal was just some work of fiction. — Xymphora, The ground war in Syria has begun

See also:

And remember those twelve "Australians" who flew out of Lebanon shortly after Hariri's assassination? No? Oh well, one can't remember everything. But in any case take a look at:

Australian, New Zealand and Canadian passports are much loved by Mossad operatives. But only the New Zealand government of Helen Clark has had the balls to complain about it. To suggest, however, that Israeli terrorists use false passports when travelling to foreign countries to assassinate political leaders would, of course, be "anti-Semitic".

  • Muhammad Idrees Ahmad: Motive and Precedent in the Gemayel Assassination

    Update 2011-07-03

    The leader of Hezbollah has implied that Israel was behind the killing of Rafik al-Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister who was murdered in 2005.

    Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah was speaking for the first time since the indictment on Thursday by the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon of four members of the Lebanese movement over the murder of Hariri.

    Discussing the tribunal's investigations into Hariri's murder, Nasrallah said: "We mentioned the possibility of having Israel involved in the murder and the fact that [Israeli] agents were present at the murder scene one day before the murder.

    "No one in the STL even asked the Israelis anything. This is normal, why? Because the tribunal, since its formation, had a precise goal and no one was allowed to talk to the Israelis ... Instead of investigating the Israelis, [the STL] gathered information from them."

    Speaking on Saturday in a televised speech, Nasrallah said that computers related to the case investigated by the STL were transported through Israel on their way out of Lebanon and asked why they had not been shipped out of a Beirut port?

    He said Hezbollah would produce a document ... proving the computers were transported from South Lebanon to Israel. ...

    Nasrallah said the tribunal aimed to spread sectarian strife in Lebanon but that it would fail to inflame conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

    — Al Jazeera, Nasrallah implies Israel behind Hariri murder

    A copy of the entire Serendipity website is available on CD-ROM.  Details here.

    Israel as a Terrorist State
    The CIA as a Terrorist Organization
    Zionism Serendipity Home Page