Jump to content

Talk:AMIA bombing/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Terrorism in the Triple Frontera

I just edited the article and deleted a half-sentence saying that there was no evidence for islamic terrorists operating in Latin America.

As one of the previous editors already noted: [The New Yorker article IN THE PARTY OF GOD Hezbollah sets up operations in South America and the United States by JEFFREY GOLDBERG, Issue of 2002-10-28 casts grave doubt on this assertion]

Here is the link:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/021028fa_fact2

Those who don't read Spanish will have to trust me on this one, but this article contradicts the "evidence". A former SIDE head of Anti-Terrorism says:

"The truth is that no terrorist, bomb or training camp of any fundamentalist organization were ever detected in the Triple Frontier. This was always a ghost (sic) stirred by a faction of the U.S. government, and that view was and is rejected, absolutely and in the first place by the Brazilian intelligence, and more timidly by our[s]. And the fact is that neither through formal ways nor informal ways have the U.S. been able to show any proof. Moreover, the State Department put in writing, in the last two meetings held in Washington and Brasilia, that there is no terrorist activitiy in the Triple Frontier. There is, to be sure, an intense Islamic religious activity which translates into collection of money for the Arab cause. And undoubtedly a percentage [of this] goes to Hezbollah, the PLO or Hamas. These are not terrorist organizations for them, and neither are they for U.S. or European banks, because the money is transferred through those banks."

Published in Página/12, 20 August 2006

I may comment also that the feeling in Argentina is that the U.S. is trying to get into the region and that the story of terrorist cells is largely made up to justify this, taking advantage of the well-deserved reputation of the TF as a lawless place and the presence of a large Arab community. The above basically confirms that this is not paranoid Argentine anti-Americanism. I suggest we take official sources and more to-the-point research articles, and that we clarify this issue. Mentioning "terrorist cells in the Triple Frontier" is clearly wrong. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence and Rhetoric

I am quite disappointed that most of the news bits I read on the subject contain only a war of words, I've seen nobody put down any facts about what led the investigation to blame specifically Hezbollah and the Iranian government. They merely say that these conclusions were made with help from american agencies, which does not add much to the credibility of these conclusions given the current diplomatic state between the USA and Iran. What are the facts? Has anybody seen the investigation report? I think that would add to the informational value of this article rather than wild theories about the how evil the Mossad is or Nazi ghost agents. fmeneguzzi 11:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! It hard to believe that you can investigate the debris from a bombing in Argentina and conclude from that that Rafsanjani ordered the bombing in Teheran! You would at least need to have access to Iranian documents, interview Iranian officials under oath etc. to be able to draw such conclusions. Compare e.g. the Hariri investigation. Also as you can read here, the Argentinians did accuse an Iranian before when they didn't have the necessary evidence.
Of course, the Argentinians rely heavily on "evidence" from the Mossad, CIA, FBI etc. They, of course, know exactly what the Iranians and Hezbollah were doing. Israel wasn't at all surprised by the strength of Hezhbollah in the recent Lebanon war because they know so much. And Saddam's WMD was found exactly where Rumsfeld said it was. :) Count Iblis 13:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone censoring the fact that prosecutor Alberto Nisman is Jewish

For some reason, user Isariq, edited out the fact that the lead prosecutor, Alberto Nisman, is Jewish. It is cited to a credible source and so I think it should stay. 75.17.183.177 04:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

what relevance does the alleged Jewishness of the lead prosecutor have to do with the article? Other than to push the POV that it is religiously motivated, that is?Isarig 06:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, how dare you decide that you have the authority to decide what is and isn't relevant on Wikipedia. You are nothing more than someone with enough free time on your hands that you can spend hours a day censoring articles. Second, in case you have been in a cave, there is currently a global dispute between Iranians and Jewish people. The prosecutor's religion could have very likely played a role in his discretionary decision. Even if it didn't play a role, there is no need to censor that information. I don't want to waste my time disputing this with you further. Please call a responsible Wikipedia moderator. --75.17.183.177 07:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. 75.17.183.177 is copying and pasting from his rants from Talk:Hezbollah in which he used the same tactic on the Hezbollah page as he's using here. Two can play at that game:
This may come as a surprise to people familiar with my work on Wikipedia, but I support the publishing of Alberto Nisman's religion. It is cited and I have no reason to challenge the reliability of the source or accuracy of the statement. On the other hand, to ensure NPOV, if we include information about one of the prosecuter's religion, we must include information about all of the prosecuters' religions. The entire statement from "The Jewish Week" that 75.17.183.177 refers to reads: "Nisman, who is Jewish, and [Marcelo Martinez] Burgos, who isn’t, oversee a staff of some 45 people ...."[17] If we do not include the religion of Burgos and the fact that 45 people work for them (and let's be honest, most of those people are probably Roman Catholic), we would be distoring the truth slightly implying that only a Jew would come to the conclusion that Hezbollah is responsible for the AMIA bombing, or, in the words of 75.17.183.177, that "a Jewish person in authority might use his discretionary power to target Muslims and Iranians."
P.S. Mr. 75.17.183.177, am I correct in assuming that you believe in a tangible link between Hezbollah and "Iranians?" :) --GHcool 08:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll keep the talk on the Hezbollah page. --75.17.183.177 09:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I made the following entry in Wikipedia's request for unprotection page [1].

There has been an endless edit war between pro-Israeli censors and other users regarding disclosure of the fact that an Argentine prosecutor, who filed charges against various Muslims for a 12 year old event, is Jewish. I think this is relevant information because it may indicate that the prosecutor's discretionary decision was motivated by his religion. As anyone knows, the world is currently embroiled in a war between Muslims and Jews. Knowing the religious affiliation of a person can be very important to understanding why he did what he did. Unfortunately, a group of pro-Israel censors (their affiliation is clear from their edit history) refuses to allows the publication of the fact that the prosecutor is Jewish, even though it is well cited [2]. First they claimed it was irrelevant. They gave themselves, and not the readers, the authority to decide what is and isn't relevant. Then they claimed that he wasn't the prosecutor and was only working as part of a team. A quick google search of Alberto Nisman [3] reveals that he is the lead prosecutor. He runs the team and he is the sole prosecutor listed in all of the mainstream articles. Then they claimed that Jewish week isn't a respectable news source. They had the nerve to attack the reporter's (Larry Luxner) journalism! Then one of the pro-Israeli censors accused me of racism and banned my IP, simply for daring to suggest that a Jewish person's religion might have something to do with the discretionary decisions he makes towards Muslims! Their actions have now reached the height of intellectual dishonesty. Rather than disclose the information and let readers decide if it's relevant, they want to hide it, and deny the readers the ability to think for themselves. Please correct the articles under "hezbollah", "AMIA bombing" and "Rafsanjani" to add four simple words disclosing the fact that the lead prosecutor is Jewish. Please keep wikipedia as an objective source of information, and not a tool controlled by a mob of pro-Israel censors.." Although pro-Israeli censors seemingly dominate wikipedia (I seriously wonder if some of them are paid), they do not dominate the world and Wikipedia will be less relevant if it only presents facts they like. Alternatively, please set up an Alberto Nisman article and provide a biography of his life and accomplishments, and like every other biography article, disclose his religion. Your prompt and fair attention to this matter is appreciated. Footnote - The pro-Israeli censors are listed below. Their affiliation is clear from their edit history and user pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Isarig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Humus_sapiens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GHcool http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amoruso http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg

--75.5.1.216 18:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

More copy and paste games ...
It looks like 75.5.1.216's request was declined, but let's get the order of events clear:
  1. 75.17.183.177 accused well-meaning Wikipedias of censorship.
  2. Those Wikipedians challenged the relevance of Nisman's religion to the article on Hezbollah.
  3. 75.17.183.177 argued that Nisman's religion may have swayed him to "target Muslims and Iranians" because "there is currently a global dispute between Iranians and Jewish people."
  4. I, GHcool, offered a fair, NPOV compromise to the problem: we should inform the public on Nisman's religion if and only if we include the religious affiliations of the other prosecuters as well.
  5. 75.17.183.177 argued that Nisman was the lead prosecuter and implied that therefore his religion is more important to the article than all of the other prosecuters' religions.
  6. SlimVirgin, a neutral Wikipedian, agreed with Beit Or other like minds that Nisman's religion is irrelevent to the article on Hezbollah. She suggested that 75.17.183.177 find a "reliable source who discusses it and argues that it's relevant (but even then we'd have to be careful)."
  7. 75.17.183.177 misunderstood (intentionally or unintentionally) SlimVirgin's suggestion to mean that his source that told Nisman's religion, "The Jewish Week," was an unreliable source.
  8. 75.17.183.177 filed a complaint with the folks at the Wikipedia unprotection page.
  9. That complaint was rejected. Long live NPOV.

--GHcool 19:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I made a statement in the arbitration complaint against your mob. I was not surprised that someone had previously filed a complaint against you. I also thank God that my existence is not so devious that I have to spend my days censoring information. Enjoy your misery as your efforts are largely futile. The real world thinks for themselves. Edit: Now the pro-Israel mob is deleting comments? You are a disgrace to free thought. --75.5.2.227 20:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I strongly object to the inclusion of the prosecutor's religion, and I am not connected with any of the editors mentioned. No evidence is offered that the religion of one of the prosecutors played any role in the accusation, which Mr. Nisman did not make alone; including this information is an attempt to insinuate that it did play a role by means of inflammatory innuendo. I note no mention of prosecutors' hair colours or shoe sizes either. They are not included because they are not relevant. Editors decide to exclude irrelevant information all the time. This activity is called editing, not censorship. If someone wrote, "Nisman, who wears a size nine shoe...", I would support removing that as well.
That said, should any editor locate a reliable source for the assertion that the accusation was influenced by the fact the prosecutors' shoes pinch or by their envy of natural blondes or, indeed, by the fact(?) that one of the prosecutors is Jewish, let him or her please feel free to bring it forward for discussion. Until that case is made, there is no basis for including such information.
By the way, the assertion that "the world is currently embroiled in a war between Muslims and Jews" is ugly and repellent -- and defames both groups.
--Rrburke 20:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of prefer to live in an intellectually honest world. Your claim that a person's religion plays no role in the discretionary actions they take, and that the world is not embroiled in a war between Jews and Muslims, indicates that you are simply not in touch with reality. That's your choice, but you shouldn't try to censor information from people who like to be aware. --75.5.2.227 20:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Anon, what you are doing is called poisoning the well. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Intellectual honesty never poisons the well. Let people look at all the facts and come to their own conclusions. You can't force your position on people by censoring information. People have free will. --75.5.2.227 20:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
What an appropriate metaphor, Humus sapiens. Whether or not you realize it, you have created a historical pun. See Well poisoning.  ;) --GHcool 20:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, my arbitration request was deleted. User Jayjg (his edit history is replete with pro-Israel wikipedia censorship) deemed the addition of Nisman's religion racist and banned me. Further, user Thatcher131 deemed that since I had been banned, I would not be given an arbitration request. So now it is impossible to even get a hearing on whether this information should be included. This whole affair is really beyond sad and is an indication that pro-Israeli censors are not interested in truth, but are rather interested in imposing their will. Having now dealt with you first hand, I am no longer confused as to why most of the civilized world holds a negative view of Israel and Israelis. May fate continue to justly bring misery to your oppressive lives, and may you waste your weeks futilely attempting to control people's thoughts. I can think of no better prison for someone as loathsome as you. --75.28.17.156 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You should've calmly discussed a bit more before running to get an arbitration committee. I don't think that Nisman's religion is decisive. In Argentina some Jewish media, persons and groups have criticized Nisman's dictamen, and one of them has stated it's a plain fraud. APEMIA's spokesperson Laura Ginsberg said that Prosecutor Nisman's plea is just another scam and has raised doubts about Hezbollah's or Iran's responsibility. A very critic editorial posted on Nueva Sion (New Zion) remarks that basically the same arrest warrants had been issued on 2003 and that there are no new evidences since then. Journalist Raúl Kollmann (The mysteries of AMIA) has also questioned the credibility of the accusations against Iran. Either Jewish and non Jewish mainstream media have raised similar doubts (see also A question of faith, not evidence, by J. Urien Berri). Unlike Nisman's religion or affiliation, these doubts are relevant and worth mentioning in the article. --Filius Rosadis 21:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well you're clearly and intelligent and well read person and should probably contribute to an article on this topic. I for one, thank God, have better things to do than to waste my life getting into edit wars with Israeli censors. --75.28.17.156 22:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

To 75.28.17.156: Blocks are temporary. When yours expires, you may do as you please. Wikipedia's guidelines for dispute resolution are quite clear and detailed. But until the the block expires, your posting under a different ID is a violation of the Wikipedia sockpuppetry policy, which prohibits a user from evading a block by using a different ID. --Rrburke 22:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Cavallo's report

The report from Argentine party Accion por la Republica, led by ex-Minister Cavallo about the Israeli Embassy and the AMIA bombing should be at least commented here. It offers a plausible theory of who could be responsible for the attacks, how they were made and why. The link for the report is: [2]. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.74.5.111 (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Rm infobox

I removed the box, it is too simplist. The case is far from being clear, and at any cases investigations have not reach any definitive conclusion. Convictions have not been made. In other words, it is too early, and we can't go just on a hunch. Assuming Iran and Hezbollah are responsible for the bombing (something for which no one has proof - unless you think presumption of innocence was a moral, political and juridical principle that we don't need any more), "anti-Zionism" as motive is quite shallow. Iran nuclear program is a more serious motive, but it has also been put in doubt. Let's wait for convictions before making definitive statements. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Tazmaniacs 01:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

How about having the info box with Perps: Unknown (see article)? Hypnosadist 01:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
But then why have it, if it's to say "unknown" for two categories? I know the boxes are supposed to allow a quick look at the matter, but do you really think people should be allowed to be so lazy that they want information without reading? And all the most important info can be resumed in the first three sentences, can't it? By the way, Hypno, I'm sure you would leave a comment on Talk:Collaboration during World War II... Tazmaniacs
I understand what you say about the infobox but they make wikipedia look much more professional, and also provide a continuity between terrorism articles. Hypnosadist 15:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Israelita" = Jewish

The initial gloss in English for AMIA was "Argentine-Israeli..." changed (on April 27, 2006) to "Argentine Israelite..." Either of these is liable to give the erroneous impression that the Spanish word Israelita refers to, or has some connection with, the [State of] Israel. In my current edit, I indicated that the connotation of "Israelite" (literal translation) in this context is "Jewish." The word Israelita is essentially a euphemism popular in the early 20th C., considered a more genteel term for "Jewish" than the literal Judío. My edit preserves the archaic form, giving the more appropriate gloss in square brackets. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view of image

I have some doubts about the image Image:Atentados Argentina 6000107 muertos.jpg being acceptable under the policy of the neutral point of view. The text of the banner adds the numbers 22 (dead people at the attack to the embassy of Israel), 85 (at the AMIA) and 6.000.000 (during the holocaust in WWII).

It does make sense to take the first 2 events as a whole: they took place in the same country, in the same city, with just 2 years between each other, and both being unresolved by justice. But what does the Holocaust have to do in all of this? That's a complete different issue. Another country, another time, another context (of any kind: political, economical, social, etc.), another methods, another reasons, another consequences, another type of event... in short, save for the ethnicity of most victims, there is no relating point at all. Clearly, that banner was used with propagandistic meanings, to influence people into having an opinion as negative about the attack to the AMIA as it is commonly have for the Holocaust. But other than that "guilty by association" relation tried to be established, there is no serious relation between both.

Of course this has nothing to do with deleting the mage, but about it's use in this specific article. Even when we all agree in a personal level to condemn both the Holocaust and those attacks, Wikipedia should not do so at an editorial level, wich makes it unsuitable an image that links unrelated topics just by both being individually condemned.

After all, if such a relation was done with text, it would fail to meet WP:SYN.

It should also be noted that taking out the image would not leave the article without images. Benito Sifaratti (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think whoever put up the banner was trying to say that the two bombings were a continuation of the anti-Semitism that propelled the Holocaust. After all, both blasts specifically targeted Jews and killed large numbers of them. I don't see anything POV about it; it's a banner in a square in Argentina, someone took a picture of it, that is that. The fact that the picture is in the article does not mean Wikipedia is mourning the dead, but that it is simply documenting that a memorial to the attacks exists.PBP (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipidia article launders a vicious blood libel into a reliable source. Sickening.

This article, hiding behind the usual "NPOV" smokescreen airs off-the-cuff claims by Annie Machon, a former MI5 agent who bears all the hallmarks of a disgruntled employee and who, it seems, would attribute eathquakes, tornados, and global warming to Mossad conspiracy theories. She could write articles for 'The Onion' were it not for her penchant for calumny and slander. But why give credence to such drivel by repeating it here?
Are you afraid your readers might get confused with the facts?
Like the fact that the Islamic Jihad had admitted responsibility for the attack.
In 1998, a telephone call intercepted from the Iranian embassy in Argentina demonstrated conclusively that Iran had been involved in the attack on the embassy.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/argentina.html
My honest opinion? Wikipedia has become abysmal, and is getting worse.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Anti-semites are posting things about how jews should die on this page. Can someone put a lock on it or something?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.106.216 (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2006‎ (UTC)

BBC Article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6089788.stm In case anyone feels like integrating it, some good stuff.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.103.11 (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2006‎ (UTC)

POV

Respectfully to all involved in this article, I think the word martyrdom (about the suicide bomber) is POV. For this reason, I've put that word in quotation marks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngcb (talk • contribs) 19:57, 18 July 2007‎ (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

New info in July 2013

It is reported that the former interior minister of Argentina, a Jewish fellow named Carlos Vladimir Corach, is being investigated for his ties to the bombing. Seems he paid $400,000 to one of the bombers. I'll leave it to the WikiGatekeepers to decide whether or not to report this terribly unfashionable development. There's more info on the Jewish Telegraph's site. http://www.jta.org/2013/06/30/news-opinion/world/jewish-ex-argentina-govt-official-to-be-probed-in-amia-bombing 38.115.185.4 (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)HelenChicago

Just a correction. Corach didn't pay to "one of the bombers". He supposedly paid $400.000 to Telleldín, the car dealer who allegedly sold the car which ended up being used for the attack. --Fernando A. Gimenez (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Question: Would it be relevantly important to make a mention in the main article regarding Carlos Vladimir Corach's Jewish background? Because should the 400K payment be proven, this blows this case wide open to the suggestion that this was a Mossad "false flag" event... Please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.172.43 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.nowpublic.com/world/argentine-judge-links-ex-president-menem-amia-bombing
    Triggered by \bnowpublic\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 01:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 00:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 01:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 03:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 01:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 01:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 01:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 01:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 01:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 01:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AMIA bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AMIA bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AMIA bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculous claims by lobbyists

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Claim that Hezbollah claimed responsibility is absolute nonsense, since they denied any involvement and condemned the attack, and inserting book by Matthew Levitt as a reference is a balant POV itself because he comes from Israeli lobbyist group WINEP. --MehrdadFR (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Suspected Hezbollah involvement, via their proxy at the time Ansar Allah, is well sourced.Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Suspected perpetrator is already inside infobox, although it is not certain was bomber Berro or not. Field "perpetrator" stands for clear responsibility for the criminal attack, not for speculations, accusations and suspicions. Officially, the case is unsolved and ongoing. There are numerous sources which state contrary to your claims, and also about foreign pressures, changes in charges during the presidency of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and so on. --MehrdadFR (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Academic consensus is Hezbollah involvement, as does Nisman's investigation. Kirchner's political manueavering years after the attack, have little relevance - they are relevant to her article or to Argentina's various law and order articles. The status of the case, in a country such as Argentina, has little bearing on anything.Icewhiz (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Do not lie, it is not. As I said Levitt is writer and member of lobbyist group WINEP, not any kind of reputable academic. Nisman's charges based on misinformation by one pity MEK member has been dismissed years ago, today it's relevant only to biographical article about him, legal it's a past. You're manipulating, that's oblivious, sticking to past and some fringe figures of zero importance. Please keep in mind Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not outlet of a Jewish state. --MehrdadFR (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Nisman was assassinated, after performing an in depth investigation and drafting an arrest warrrant for CK on grounds of obstruction. The sourcing here is well beyond just Levitt. Consensus amongst terrorism experts is to state suspected Iraan\Hezbollah involvement, and this is done in just about every serious coverage of this attack.Icewhiz (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Nisman's charges against Cristina Fernández de Kirchner have also been dismissed (March 2015). "Terrorism experts"? Laughable, perhaps only in a Jewish state. As I said, you can blame Iran and Muslims even for the idea for the Holocaust (like PM Netanyahu did), but as I said, keep such pathetic fantasies for yourself. --5.115.149.91 (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Now replying via IP? Please maintain WP:CIVIL, and note 1RR (which you exceeded) on ARBPIA. Iranian officials have been charged, international arrest warrants issued, and a trial did not take plae only since they were fugitives from justice. [3].Icewhiz (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Loging issues. There's no doubt you can find 10 articles about alleged "Iran/Hezbollah involvement", but you can also find 10 articles which refute such claim. Since you're insisting on first part, you're obviously a POV pusher. Article is already deeply one-sided and you further want to make it worse, by excluding American investigate journalists who challenge accusations. --MehrdadFR (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
You mean Gareth Porter, of the self admittedly biased IPS, who attended an anti-Zionist conference in Teharan? [4] The conference last week featured several 9/11 truthers, Holocaust deniers, and anti-Semites, and included panel topics that accused the Mossad of having planned 9/11 and claiming that the Holocaust is a "public myth," according to the schedule, which was posted online.. Giving him a stage would UNDUE, though if we do - we should state hi sbackground on the subject.Icewhiz (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and Porter himself criticized attendees: Gareth Porter says he never would have gone to a conspiracy conference in Tehran if he had known the real views of his fellow attendees (the same article). You suggest that we should censor someone if he has anti-Zionist views? And explain us little bit more about "self admittedly biased IPS", its content doesn't fit in your ideology so its biased? Do not try to change the subject, we can also speak about real false flag operations like Operation Susannah and 1950–51 Baghdad bombings, probably an inspiration for Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to blame Israel for similar 1992 attacks. --MehrdadFR (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
If you find RS tying the Amia bombings to to the Lavon affair or the Baghdad bombings - we could discuss that - otherwise this is SYNTH or OR. Porter is writing for a fringe outlet, which is self-described - [5] as a biased source which mixes activism with news. his attendance at the "New Horizon" conference speaks volumes - we could of course mention he regretted attending post-attendence - if this FRINGE source even merits inclusion per UNDUE - which I believe it does not.Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Porter is referring to US officials and diplomats who expressed serious doubt about alleged Iranian "involvement", and its far from fringe. FYI, there are some activists in Argentina who claim attack is inside job, but scholarly literature obviously doesn't take them serious, and that's why I didn't even list them along with Hezbollah/Iran, Syrians, Iraq and far right. You are the one who is insisting that everything beside official US/Israeli narrative is a kind of conspiracy (WP:Conspiracy theory accusations). There are many more reliable sources which clearly state Hezbollah denied any involvement since beginning of controversy, so claim that it took responsibility is simply false. A lie. The case is officially unsolved, its also an undeniable fact. Article is still missing to mention that court dismissed Nisman's charges against Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and there are tens of Spanish sources in which his conspiracy claims are ridiculed. Someone obviously purposely omitted all of that, but it will be corrected. --MehrdadFR (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
The arrest warrants against Iranian officials still stand (as far as I know. Sourcing does show them standing as of 2015 at least). Imad Mughniyeh was also indicted, but died in 2008. Nisman was killed prior to charging CFK, who has since been removed from office in any event - and her relevance for an event 10-20 years prior - is tangential.Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
For the record - I did not use the term conspiracy. I did say WP:FRINGE - which would definitely describe Debka, and quite possibly describe Porter and IPS. The sourcing you added in your last edit is highly suspect - one of the authors is an assistant professor for Arabic Literature, and the other is even less notable and seems to be a social justice tract (and I'll note also doesn't seem to support what you're citing from it). The text also doesn't seem to support what you are sourcing from it (e.g. Greenberg (the Arabic Literature assistant professor) does seem to cover all the various theories and narratives, but doesn't seem to assign any conclusions between "la historia oficial" (official history) and the "la pista siria" theory - sticking to analyzing the narratives, not drawing conclusions).Icewhiz (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Regarding the third source you added - ""American Raj: Liberation or Domination?" - I'm not sure of the credentials here, but I haven't been able to actually see what you are referring to on page 327, google books snippet search comes up empty on AMIA on the entire book.Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@MehrdadFR and Icewhiz:: Let me remind you both that, as this article can be broadly understood as part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is subject of discretionary sanctions. Take care on the way you edit it, what you say to each other, and the edit summaries that you use. Cambalachero (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#MehrdadFR.Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on AMIA bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Palestinian

please change ((Palestinian)) to ((Palestinians|Palestinian)) 2601:541:4500:1760:89E0:C80C:E792:E4B8 (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done wikilink was to a disambiguation page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Part of South Lebanon conflict (1982–2000)?

The infobox states that this article/event is part of the South Lebanon conflict (1982–2000). I don't think it is appropriated because it assumes that the attack has its origins in the Lebanon conflict; while the reasons behind the attack are -to my humble opinion- far from clear.

I would like to read your opinions before removing it.

Fernando A. Gimenez (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Has this change has been reverted without discussion? The infobox is still stating the incident is related to the lebanon conflict. --1.159.66.219 (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2021

Remove or update this paragraph and its corresponding reference link This has been disputed because the contract was never terminated and Iran and Argentina were negotiating on restoration of full cooperation on all agreements from early 1992 until 1994, when the bombing occurred.[20]

The reference link is not available, the host is unsecured, is not a reliable source. 2A00:23C5:38C:3500:3920:6E47:C0AE:3F58 (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the website is replaced with a spam site. I will try to find an archive to replace it. ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 10:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: The reference has been repaired. Please see if it is acceptable now, thanks. ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 10:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Name Change

I suggest renaming this article to 1994 AMIA bombing. Prairie Astronomer Talk 16:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AMIA_bombing/Archive_1&oldid=1220558098"