March 27, 2009
Who struck the mighty convoy?
Sudan is alleging that another country struck a convoy. According to the Washington Post, "foreign" planes, suspected to be American or Israeli killed hundreds of people.
Mubarak Mabrook Saleem, Sudan's transportation minister, told the Associated Press he believed American planes were behind the bombings, which took place about a week apart in early February, and said hundreds were killed. A Foreign Ministry spokesman confirmed Saleem's account but said there were discrepancies on casualties.The U.S. military denied any recent airstrikes in or around Sudan.
A more recent report in the New York Times gets information from American officials claiming that it was an Israeli air strike and explains why Israel would have struck the convoy.
American officials said the airstrike took place as Israel sought to stop the flow of weapons to Gaza during the weeks it was fighting a war with Hamas there.Two American officials who are privy to classified intelligence assessments said that Iran had been involved in the effort to smuggle weapons to Gaza. They also noted that there had been intelligence reports that an operative with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps had gone to Sudan to coordinate the effort.
(Press TV hasn't updated its account from Wednesday and still blames the U.S.)
The Lede (at the NYT) covers the genesis of the story.
There still seems to be a measure of uncertainty. The Washington Post reports that the attacks occurred in February, the New York Times refers to January. There is also uncertainty as to the death toll.
Israel Matzav (via memeorandum) has a report from Israel Radio that may clear up the contradictions about the timing of the attacks.
Israel Radio reported this morning that there was an attack on a weapons ship off the Sudanese coast in recent months and that there were three or four strikes during January and February. The strike that was reported yesterday and confirmed by the New York Times today took place in January during Operation Cast Lead.
According to Israelly Cool, Hamas denies that the convoy was carrying arms. (Elder of Ziyon finds an implicit acknowledgment of Iranina aid for Hamas.)
The Weekly Standard has more.
Crossposted on Yourish.
Posted by SoccerDad at March 27, 2009 6:13 AM
Why Does The Goldstone Commission Report Rely On Contradicting Testimony?
On a foundation of sand
Kemp vs. goldstone
The Goldstone Commission: A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To Gaza
Garlasco hits the fan
Israel deploys WorldNetDaily against Iran!
Have you forgotten?
Slapping the outstretched hand
Turki stuffing
Fadlallah clarifies that Israel's existence is the issue
1000000-1 it was israeli planes which bombed that convoy. only israel attacks in that way as with the case in iraq in 1980s and recently syria.
its the old cheney doctorine-if its 1% chance of happening we must reponsed as if its 100% chance of happening.
Cheney is correct. Whether it was the U.S. or Israel which struck the convoy doesn't matter, as long as it was done. Sass would prefer that we or Israel wait until there is a massive attack against us with hundreds or thousands of our people killed before we can act and not even then. In today's world, with a global islamic jihad being waged, with islamic terrorists possibly able to get their hands on WMD's, we cannot afford to sit around and wait to get attacked, preemption is not only our legitimate right, but a neccessity.
Posted by: Laura at March 28, 2009 12:54 PMcheney was a fool,as was bush rumsfield,pearle,fieth,wolfowitz and that whole bunch of zionist war mongers who put israels interest before that of the US.
osama bin laden must be estastic by the way he played these fools. bin ladens aim was to draw the US to afghanistan and cause conflict which would bankrupt the US, just as he did a decade before to the USSR, which caused it to break up thus ending communism. iraq was a bonus for bin laden making him more popular than ever in the arab world. bush was the best recruiting sargent din laden ever had.
now the taliban is on the offensive,irans influence is stronger than ever and pakistan is under threat, and the US is broke having to heavily borrow from china and the arabs .
i wouldn't be suprize if bin laden is claiming some sort of victory in this war on terror, which can not be won by military means.
No, bin laden is ecstatic when he hears leftist cretins and useful idiots like yourself undermining the will of America and the free world. The war on muslim terror in Iraq has already been won by military means, you nitwit. Al qaeda in Iraq has been defeated.
Unfortunately this amateur hour president will listen to left wing and islamist hatemongers who will put muslim interests ahead of the United States. I'm really sick of you sass and wish David would take out the trash.
Posted by: Laura at March 28, 2009 8:51 PMfirst the iraq war is not won.
it was a change in policy which improved the situation. . irans broked deal with the mardi army helped. the US deal with the sunnis and the removal of rummsfield are all contributing factors. it was a change in policy which turned it around, but still its as fagile as ever.
al queda was never in iraq until the US wrongly invaded and gave them cause to be their. what happened in iraq was in one word-'blowback'.
its the purblind orthodoxy which you are part of which only see the situation with a tunnel vision mentality which 'the high priests of war' such as bush ,rummsfield,sharon,etc. count on. you know the old saying ,'ignorance is bliss', and you must be a happy camper.