What does Mossad really get up to? That’s the burning question that concerns the BBC. You can find out here! Funny how the success of Mossad so bothers the BBC. They’re still upset about the Hamas terrorist taken out by someone in Dubai. Can you imagine the howls of indignation from the BBC if our own secret services were half as effective as Mossad in these times?
"BEHIND THE SHADOWS"
Bookmark the permalink.
We should not forget that we in NATO do essentially the same thing in the wilds of the Afghan-Pakistan border with pilotless drones assassinating terrorists. We’ve killed many dozens just this year yet they’re still keeping up a hue and cry over a single terrorist assassinated by Israel.
Exactly right! The US President has been quite open about His orders to kill any terrorist anywhere in the world any time He sees fit. As we all know, He has used those cowardly, unmanned drones to kill three times as many people than Bush ever did, and has even expanded the war into Pakistan to target individual terrorists.
No complaints from the BBC. In fact, their report on it even provides a quote from the Taliban saying that it’s disrupting their efforts. The BBC’s editorial policy is clear for all to see.
Presumably Mossad does for Israel what our secret services do for us. I suspect that some of the methods used by our lot are more robust than would meet with BBC approval. But, there again, anything which defends our country and our way of life doesn’t meet with BBC approval. I look forward to a critical BBC analysis of the Cuban secret service and the FSS (the successor organisation to the KGB for which the BBC still has a particularly soft spot).
Not to mention any Arab secret service or the Iranians.
“Do what our secret service do for us”, I wish! Ours seem to be pulling for the other side except when they are seeking publicity and of course more of our money.
That entire piece centres on the Dubai affair with the implicit assumption that it was indeed Mossad what did it.
There’s plenty of evidence in the public domain suggesting that it could just as easily have been any number of other interested parties.
The deceased terrorist arrived in Dubai on an Iranian passport issued by the Republican Guard.
The fact that high ranking as he was he travelled alone without a security detail could point to him being taken out by Hamas itself, or by Iran.
He was the man responsible for arms procurement and shipment – a dangerous business in which he was dealing with dangerous people.
The BBC’s eagerness to pre-judge was made clear by the lawyer wittering on about how Israel should have asked Dubai to extradite the terrorist for trial, like they did with Eichman.
Yeah right, like Dubai would have done that!
I posted at the time that the thing I found most odd and unlike Mossad’s reputed MO was the inept behaviour of the assassins, and why so many, and why did they apparently speed off towards Iran?
But what I’m wondering now is, if it wasn’t Mossad, why doesn’t Israel deny it? What’s in it for them other than sticking to a ‘policy’ of never denying or confirming anything? I suppose that’s a reasonable policy in some ways, but in this case it seems a bit unhelpful.
What do you think, Bio?
Iran pops up all over the place in this story, but any possibility of its involvement is ignored.
I think it was the Israeli ambassador to the UK who said that “there is no proof of Mossad’s involvement”. In fact there’s not much actual proof of anything, other than circumstantial, that the people in the famous CCTV footage were even involved in the assassination.
The Israeli BBC guest suggested that if it was Mossad the only mistake they made was to think nobody would think of looking at the CCTV footage. I’ve heard other so-called experts saying the exact opposite, ie: Mossad are so cunning they knew they’d be filmed which is why they used disguises.
Whoever they were they knew about the CCTV and it was worked into the plan and even maybe exploited in some way.
As for denying or confirming I think it’s the way to go. It’s possible that Mossad was involved in ways other than the actual execution of the mission and that the “team” in the mug shots and CCTV was not Israeli.
It’s possible that Mossad had the collaboration of someone inside Hamas or even Iran.
If it was Mossad and they own up it could endanger others and open Israel up for even more condemnation and criticism.
If it wasn’t Mossad it does no harm for Israel’s enemies to believe it was, and it wouldn’t stop others, like the BBC, from insisting that they really did do it anyway.
Plausible denyability is the way to go. as my old uncle used to say when making a toast, “Confusion to our enemies!”
“Can you imagine the howls of indignation from the BBC if our own secret services were half as effective as Mossad in these times?”
Unless, of course, they take out someone like David Kelly – then all we get is denial and whitewash after whitewash! >:o
The Mossad over the last few years has taken part in a number of blunders. For example the failed assassination attempt of a Hamas leader in Jordan and the capture of a Mossad team in Switzerland. OTOH we only know this because they failed and have no record of most of the presumably successful missions.
The attack on the Mossad following Dubai was just hypocrisy, even more so following revelations that A.S.I.O also used false passports when necessary, as I expect does every other intelligence service. That being said it is clear that Israel is its own worst enemy. Instead of having a PR campaign ready showing how much better the world is now that Al-Mabhouh is no longer contributing to carbon emissions they came over like smirking gangsters taking the 5th amendment (?) against self-incrimination. This is true whether or not Israel was directly involved. Al-Mabhouh must have been on a watch list and someone eventually would have caught up with him.
The BBC is always happy to smear Israel but in the Dubai case, as usual the Destroy Israel Lobby got in first.