• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Arafat Assassinated?

Brown said:
Arafat's widow waited eight years before doing the testing of Arafat's possessions. At the time of his death, she resisted an autopsy. I have not seen or heard any report yet that deals with chain of custody or protection or preservation of Yasser's things. Before any fingers get pointed or rocks get thrown or guns get fired or bombs get detonated, it probably would be a really swell idea to establish chain of custody that shows no post-death contamination.

After all, what possible purpose could be served by seeding the dreaded substance on the possessions AFTER Arafat was gone? Or more to the point, what possible purpose could be served by ISRAEL seeding the dreaded substance on the possessions AFTER Arafat was gone?
Click to expand...

Many thoughts of this type passed through when I heard the opening on this (like how did they find trace polonium given, well, the nature of Polonium.........). I suspect a fine farkle of fishiness here.
 
JihadJane said:
In those days, before assassination became official US policy, it was still somewhat frowned upon.
Click to expand...

Where? It has been a tool of diplomacy (and, often it's butt buddy, business) pretty much since humans learned about trade and greed.
 
Sorry, but have any of you checked to see if that was a homeopathic dose of polonium?

In an Occam's Razor moment, his wife knew (IIRC) where the money was hidden. I'd guess she had motive and opportunity, if anyone did. (Absent Arafat's extensive enemies list ... who most likely didn't know where the money was).

The hard part is "where did she get her hands on that polonium" and I confess I don't have a good answer for that.
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
So you'd support the assassination of Barack Obama?
Click to expand...
What does recognizing (and sometimes being perfectly content with)the reality of assasination and being comfortable with the bad guys assasinating Obama. No relation there.

Assasinate Assad, cool!!:D Assasinate Obama (or try to), flay and salt.:mad::mad::mad: Not the same. (Except for someone who enjoys being flayed and salted. I personally do not recommend as the flayee/salted.:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp )
 
Puppycow said:
So, assuming he was poisoned with polonium-210, would we expect to find enough of it to be detectable after 20 half-lives?

Alternatively, how much polonium-210 is found in random places in nature?
Click to expand...
Hard to say. If he was poisoned using a minimal amount there might not even be a million atoms of PO left in his body. 50 nanograms of lead might be all that's left.

However, the article does say that having been buried in a tomb versus being buried in the ground could make a difference. Presumably that means they are referring to his body being shielded from some avenue of natural contamination.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Hard to say. If he was poisoned using a minimal amount there might not even be a million atoms of PO left in his body. 50 nanograms of lead might be all that's left.

However, the article does say that having been buried in a tomb versus being buried in the ground could make a difference. Presumably that means they are referring to his body being shielded from some avenue of natural contamination.
Click to expand...

Of course, so far only personal items were checked, which means that the burial issue is not yet relevant. I already found some claims that there was way too much polonium in the samples checked. This is something that would have to be clarified one way or the other before any conclusions can be drawn.
 
JihadJane said:
theprestige's point was "So what if he was assassinated?" Maybe I'm wrong, but that looks like he was supporting the point he was making. That's how Beerina seems to have interpreted it, too.
Click to expand...

A lot of people get assassinated in that part of the world Jane. That's where the word comes from.
 
JihadJane said:
theprestige's point was "So what if he was assassinated?" Maybe I'm wrong, but that looks like he was supporting the point he was making. That's how Beerina seems to have interpreted it, too.
Click to expand...

Ya, so what if he was assassinated? "Jackass mass-murdering kleptocrat murdered, this, sports, and weather at 11 after the game!"




ETA: Just to avoid confusion, I don't think he was, and don't buy into this CT. But if it happened, A. it isn't surprising, and B. good riddance.

ETAA: And were it to be true, it would far more likely be at the hands of an up-and-coming replacement rather than Israel, the replacement getting a boner that the people he's going to lead* think it's the external enemy he wants them to focus on.



*lead v : steal from
 
Last edited:
fagin said:
Well then you are confused, the "so what" refers to
"I also suspect that you may be confusing "US policy" and "public knowledge"."

Which is incidental to the discussion.

The point that he may have been on an assasination list is a reasonable observation, bearing in mind the general murkiness of middle eastern politics. For many years he was the leader of a terrorist organisation, or a freedom fighter, whichever you want. Is unreasonable that Arafat should have been high on someone's assassination list?
Click to expand...

the prestige didn't say "So what if he's on someone assassination list". He said " so what if he's assassinated" as if assassinating political leaders is the most unproblematic thing in the world!


sarge said:
By whom? Your question seems to assume a "good for the goose, good for the gander" component that does not (or should not) exist in international relations. I can, without contradiction, desire that my goverment engage in assassinations without also wishing that other nations practice assassination.

I can, without contradiction, support assassination as a valid means of achieving a desirable end without necessarily supporting the assassination of any particular person. I would support the assassination by agents of the US of any enemy of the best interests of the citizens of the US provided:

1) the enemy represents a real threat to the best interests of the citizens of the US

2) the enemy can not be more effectively neutralized in some other fashion.
Click to expand...

If you accept assassination of one political leader then you have to accept the assassination of all politcal leaders, including your own, as fair game. That's how morality works.

In what way was Arafat an enemy of the US?

theprestige said:
Not particularly. But I can understand that someone else might, and I wouldn't take it amiss if they had a go.

Certainly the US President is enough of a threat to the world that he's understandably a target for all sorts of people, for reasons right and wrong. And the same was true of Arafat.

It's not like rising to the top of a terrorist organization suddenly exempts you from getting shot in the face by the next counter-terrorist troop that happens your way.

ETA: So, again, what? So what if he got assassinated? Was assassination ever actually off the table, for any of the major factions opposed to his plans and projects?
Click to expand...

If he was assassinated by state-sponsored agents then it undermines the effectiveness of the international body politic in favor of thuggery.

Robrob said:
Since Arafat was not my President, your attempted analogy is moot.
Click to expand...

Privincialism gone mad!
 
Curious, the tags I assigned to the thread were changed. (Obviously, this was due to a nefarious Israeli consipiracy, but I will keep an open mind as to what particular kind of nefarious Israeli consipiracy it was.) I am not at all upset about this, and the tags look fine. But I re-added one that I had originally included, but had been removed: "polonium poison."

Clicking this tag brings up a thread that discusses the use of polonium-210 as a poison, whether it is hard to get, and so on. Apparently there are some who are interested in these subjects.
 
JihadJane said:
the prestige didn't say "So what if he's on someone assassination list". He said " so what if he's assassinated" as if assassinating political leaders is the most unproblematic thing in the world!




If you accept assassination of one political leader then you have to accept the assassination of all politcal leaders, including your own, as fair game. That's how morality works.

In what way was Arafat an enemy of the US?



If he was assassinated by state-sponsored agents then it undermines the effectiveness of the international body politic in favor of thuggery.



Privincialism gone mad!
Click to expand...
Odd, I don't recall you being the least bit concerned when Hamas was throwing their political rivals off of rooftops sans parachutes.
 
It was Al Jazeera who got Arafat's belongings from his widow and commissioned the institute in Lausanne with the investigation. The findings seems quite conclusive. The documentary they made about it frequently airs on the station these days. Quite beefy website with all the documents is here.

The documentary itself:


Didn't watch it yet but heard that they found that the polonium in Arafat's belongings was produced at the same time as the polonium that killed Litvinenko two years later, judged by the respective decay. Now that's interesting.
 
Childlike Empress said:
It was Al Jazeera who got Arafat's belongings from his widow and commissioned the institute in Lausanne with the investigation. The findings seems quite conclusive. The documentary they made about it frequently airs on the station these days. Quite beefy website with all the documents is here.

The documentary itself:


Didn't watch it yet but heard that they found that the polonium in Arafat's belongings was produced at the same time as the polonium that killed Litvinenko two years later, judged by the respective decay. Now that's interesting.
Click to expand...
So Putin had Arafat killed?
 
JihadJane said:
So you'd support the assassination of Barack Obama?
Click to expand...

As the "Godfather of Modern Islamist Terrorism", the removal of a terrorist leader like Arafat could conceivably result in less violence and bloodshed.

Whereas is Obama were assassinated (or removed from office by anything other than term limits or losing re-election) Americas streets would run red.
 
Childlike Empress said:
It was Al Jazeera who got Arafat's belongings from his widow and commissioned the institute in Lausanne with the investigation. The findings seems quite conclusive.
Click to expand...

Quite conclusive about what? About what killed Arafat? Nonsense. As has been mentioned already, we have no controlled chain of custody for the items in question.

Didn't watch it yet but heard that they found that the polonium in Arafat's belongings was produced at the same time as the polonium that killed Litvinenko two years later, judged by the respective decay. Now that's interesting.
Click to expand...

I can't see anything about that in the actual lab report. But what I did find in the lab report was that they couldn't actually determine that the Po210 wasn't just a decay product of Pb210. If it is, then Arafat wasn't poisoned with Po210.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom