Spain: What does the Mossad know?

[necso]

Debka, a supposed mouthpiece for the Mossad/Likud far right, is claiming, relative to the Spanish attacks, that: "Like the attacks in the United States, they were conceived, planned, orchestrated and directed by Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenant, Ayman Zuwahiri, in person, and aimed at a Western Achilles heel."

What is the reason for this claim? Does the Mossad really have this vital piece of information? Or is there a different reason for making this claim?

For those of you who aren't familiar with Debka, they publish a strange mix of good or seemingly good information, patently false claims and outright misinformation. They were among the first to point out and analyze evidence that Saddam was already a prisoner when he was "captured" by US forces. They also displayed pictures of the "Stryker" wearing its "cage" as a post production means of making up for inadequate as-built armor. (It looks silly and this "cage" must hurt combat effectiveness.) Neither is the sort of information that the US administration can be too happy about. At the same time, Debka makes any number of false claims --- claims that have a disturbing way of turning up in the US media or in (US) administration statements.

Is the Mossad/Likud puffing up Osama's involvement? If so, why? Does the Mossad know that Bin Ladin is already in custody or certain to be captured/killed soon? Are they looking to enhance the value of his "capture" as a favor to their neocon allies? Or is the Israeli far right fixated on a model of terrorism that requires it to be centralized in a few "bad actors" --- "bad actors" that when taken out will result in the collapse of the terrorist threat? (Which is not unlike the neocons' equally naive view.)

It would be very useful to know.

[bemildred]

1. Ask yourself how they know this?

Did OBL give them an interview? Are they able to monitor
his most intimate conversations and read his mind? These
are very sweeping claims, completely lacking in any specificity.
What is the "Western Achilles heel"? Why is that a relevant
addition to the sentence, like they should aim at some bastion
of Western strength? Examined closely, it becomes a stupid
statement. It's propaganda.

I can think of several reasons why they might put this out, but
that would be wild speculation, and then I would be guilty of
the same sin as they. I will leave it at that.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

2. pick one...

a) all of the above...
b) none of the above...
c) some of the above...
d) not enough information...
e) what's the question?...

[necso]

3. What the Mossad "knew"...

is what US Intel "knew" (of course)... which is what Pakistani Intel "knew" --- that there was a "high value target" in an area that the Pak military was attacking. Or so the tale will spin out.

I suspect that this represents a Pakistani accommodation with certain tribes in the tribal areas, who are willing to sell out their neighbors... a certain reticence to directly address (now complete) operational matters may be understood by some.

Of course, the Israeli administration, like our own, is fixated on a convenient (largely hierarchical and statist) model of terrorism... then again this is the blueprint for the police states that they run (or are attempting to run), so I suppose that this is understandable.

As total disclosure, at the time I thought that a very high level player had been "sold out". I was also hoping to give rise to a meaningful discussion.

... Wrong on both counts! Just more BS, it appears. Still Debka had the Saddam "capture" right, I believe.

"Reading" the current US (mis)Admin is a lot like "reading" the former Soviets... again, this is what the neocons are familiar with (in some naive sense anyway)... is it any wonder that they build on what they know... or what think they know?

[mobuto]

4. Supposed mouthpiece for Mossad?

Uh Debka is run by an Israeli "journalist," but I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest that there's any connection to Mossad. Quite the contrary, Mossad seems interested in boosting its reputation, and promoting Debka, which gets about 95% of its stories wrong, would probably not be the best way of doing that.

[smartass]

5. Yeah, Debka does pump out a lot of innacurate stuff.

I also see the WH using Israels' supposed "exaggerations of WMD" as a deflection strategy in order to keep the WH oil administration free of "guilty intentions."

[mobuto]

6. Here's a scary thought

The Administration is under the mistaken impression that Debka is run by Mossad - and bases intelligence analyses on it.

Wonder how we ever defeated the Taliban, what with the 100,000 Chinese troops Debka reported were there to fight us.

[teryang]

7. Mossad seems interested in what?

Boosting its reputation for good citizenship? Credibility? What is this inference based on? I could care less about Debka, never read it.

[mobuto]

8. For credibility, effectiveness

Why would they want to associate with a website that gets 95% of their stories wrong?

[teryang]

9. Credibility in an intel agency?

Credibility? Intelligence agencies lie for a living. Effectiveness, yes, they are good at killing people.

[mobuto]

10. For a lie to work, it has to be persuasive

I could tell you that the moon is made of Swiss cheese and, while that's a lie, its totally ineffective. Debka is likewise completely ineffective, because 95% of what they write is wrong. There's no rational reason why Mossad would want to tarnish its reputation like that. You have to be believable for you to be able to lie effectively.

[teryang]

11. When you lie for a living

Nothing you say is persuasive. I think the word you are looking for is plausible. The best you can do is create doubt.